Which of the following traits is not one of the three traits identified by eysenck?

The Scalability of Eysenck’s Psychoticism Scale

Psychoticism is the third personality trait in the Eysenck personality model. The psychoticism scale was incorporated in the EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), but the greatest justification for including this personality trait was provided by Eysenck and Eysenck in their 1976 paper (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). In the EPQ, the psychoticism scale contained 25 items, while the revised version (EPQ-R) included 32 items (Eysenck et al., 1985). Fig. 2.2 shows the four psychoticism items included in the short-form EPQ-R but with the original EPQ item number. The content validity of these four items refers to antisocial behavior or risk-taking behavior.

The psychoticism items listed at the bottom in Fig. 2.2 are the EPQ items identified by Kendler, Heath, and Martin (1987) as measuring suspiciousness components of psychoticism. These items identified by Kendler et al. (1987) are related to psychoticism in a higher degree than those of the other four items (Fig. 2.2), which cover risk-taking behavior, a behavior also included in hypomania screening questionnaires (Bech, Christensen, Vinberg, BechAndersen, & Kessing, 2011).

8.3.2 Pathological Personality Traits

The particular problems of self- and interpersonal functioning that a person might show will depend on his or her levels of various personality traits. The proposed new system recognizes 25 specific personality traits (called “trait facets”) as being potentially pathological or maladaptive, when an individual shows a high level of the trait. There is nothing special about the number 25—the researchers could have identified more traits (by dividing some of the listed traits) or fewer traits (by combining some of those that were similar). But the set of 25 was meant to be reasonably convenient for the purpose of describing patients in terms of traits that might be pathological (Krueger et al., 2011; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012).

The 25 maladaptive traits, listed in Table 8.3, are classified into five broad dimensions, also called “domains.” This arrangement is very similar to those that are used for personality traits in general, based on the results of factor analyses. To see this similarity, compare the list of traits in Table 8.3 with those for the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (Table 3.4) and for the HEXACO Personality Inventory (Table 3.6). As explained later, several of these domains are similar to factors of the Big Five or the HEXACO framework (Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, & Born, 2012).

Table 8.3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Volume 5 proposed personality trait domains (dimensions) and their defining traits

Negative Affectivity

Emotional lability (frequent mood changes, intense emotional reactions)

Anxiousness

Separation insecurity (fears of separation from close others)

Perseveration (continuing a behavior that is no longer effective)

Submissiveness

Hostility

aRestricted affectivity (emotional coldness)

Detachment

Withdrawal

Anhedonia (lack of enjoyment or pleasure)

Intimacy avoidance (avoidance of close or romantic relationships)

Depressivity

Suspiciousness

Antagonism

Manipulativeness

Deceitfulness

Grandiosity (feelings of entitlement and superiority)

Attention seeking

Callousness

Disinhibition (vs. Compulsivity)

Irresponsibility

Impulsivity

aRigid perfectionism

Distractibility

Risk taking

Psychoticism

Unusual beliefs and experiences (bizarre thoughts, “hearing things,” “seeing things”)

Eccentricity (perceived as odd or unusual)

Cognitive and perceptual dysregulation (feeling disconnected from own thoughts and body)

The Negative Affectivity domain involves intense and frequent experience of negative emotions. This domain is very similar to Neuroticism in the Big Five or Five-Factor Model system. It also has some similarity with several of the HEXACO factors, including Emotionality, low Extraversion, and low Agreeableness. (Notice that one of the traits within this domain—restricted affectivity—is intended to represent a pathologically low level of this dimension.)

The Detachment domain involves withdrawal from social interactions and from other people. This domain is similar to the low pole of Extraversion (i.e., to the introverted end of the dimension) in both the Big Five and the HEXACO model.

The Antagonism domain involves acting in ways that create difficulties for other people. This domain is fairly similar to the low pole of the Big Five Agreeableness dimension. However, because Antagonism emphasizes traits such as manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and grandiosity, it is also quite similar to the low pole of HEXACO Honesty–Humility. (The proposed system does not have a separate domain that corresponds to low Agreeableness of the HEXACO model.)

The Disinhibition domain involves behaving on impulse, without thinking of consequences. This domain is reasonably similar to the low pole of Conscientiousness in both the Big Five and the HEXACO model. (Notice that one of the traits within this domain—rigid perfectionism—is intended to represent a pathologically low level of the Disinhibition dimension. The opposite pole of DSM-5 Disinhibition is called Compulsivity.)

The Psychoticism domain involves unusual, bizarre thoughts and perceptions. This domain has only limited similarities to the factors of the Big Five or the HEXACO model. The perceptual distortions associated with this factor (e.g., feeling disconnected from one's body, feeling that one's thoughts are controlled by others, etc.) do not have any direct counterpart in models of normal personality variation. However, the traits of eccentricity or oddness are somewhat related to Openness to Experience (and to low Conscientiousness) in the Big Five and the HEXACO model.4

To measure the set of 25 maladaptive personality traits, researchers have developed a self-report questionnaire (Krueger et al., 2012). In several research studies, the scales on that questionnaire have shown strong convergent validity correlations with other self-report personality scales assessing normal or pathological traits. In addition, self-reports on the new questionnaire scale have shown moderately high convergent validity correlations with observer reports provided by persons closely acquainted with the target person (Markon, Quilty, Bagby, & Krueger, 2013). One limitation of the questionnaire assessing these maladaptive traits is that the scales contain items that are very undesirable statements, with very few reverse-keyed items. As a result, the scales are influenced strongly by self-report response styles such as desirability (see Section 2.6.4 and Box 2.3Section 2.6.4Box 2.3) and acquiescence (see Section 2.4), and there are fairly high correlations between scales that measure theoretically unrelated traits (Ashton, de Vries, & Lee, 2016); that is, discriminant validity is somewhat limited.

8.3.2 Pathological personality traits

The particular problems of self and interpersonal functioning that a person might show will depend on his or her levels of various personality traits. The proposed new system recognizes 25 specific personality traits (called “trait facets”) as being potentially pathological, when an individual shows a high level of the trait. There is nothing special about the number 25—the researchers could have identified more traits (by dividing some of the listed traits) or fewer traits (by combining some of those that were similar). But the set of 25 was meant to be reasonably convenient for the purpose of describing patients in terms of traits that might be pathological (Krueger, Eaton, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2011; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012).

The 25 traits, listed in Table 8-3, are classified into five broad “domains.” This arrangement is very similar to those that are used for personality traits in general, based on the results of factor analyses. To see this similarity, compare the list of traits in Table 8-3 with those for the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (Table 3-4) and for the HEXACO Personality Inventory (Table 3-6). Notice that some of the traits of Table 8-3 are associated with two of the domains, in cases where the developers of the new system believed that a trait was related to both domains. As explained below, several of these domains are similar to factors of the Five-Factor Model or the HEXACO framework (Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, & Born, 2012).

Table 8-3. DSM-5 proposed personality trait domains (dimensions) and their defining traits

Negative Affectivity

Emotional Lability (frequent mood changes, intense emotional reactions)

Anxiousness

Separation Insecurity (fears of separation from close others)

Perseveration (continuing a behavior that is no longer effective)

Submissiveness

Hostility

∗Restricted Affectivity (emotional coldness)

Depressivity

Suspiciousness

Detachment

Withdrawal

Anhedonia (lack of enjoyment or pleasure)

Intimacy Avoidance (avoidance of close or romantic relationships)

Restricted Affectivity (emotional coldness)

Depressivity

Suspiciousness

Antagonism

Manipulativeness

Deceitfulness

Grandiosity (feelings of entitlement and superiority)

Attention Seeking

Callousness

Hostility

Disinhibition (versus Compulsivity)

Irresponsibility

Impulsivity

∗Rigid Perfectionism

Distractibility

Risk Taking

Psychoticism

Unusual Beliefs and Experiences (bizarre thoughts, “hearing things”, “seeing things”)

Eccentricity (perceived as odd or unusual)

Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregulation (feeling disconnected from own thoughts and body)

The Negative Affectivity domain involves intense and frequent experience of negative emotions. This domain is very similar to Neuroticism in the Big Five or Five-Factor Model system. It also has some similarity with several of the HEXACO factors, including Emotionality, low Extraversion, and low Agreeableness.

The Detachment domain involves withdrawal from social interactions and from other people. This domain is similar to the low pole of Extraversion (i.e., to the introverted end of the dimension) in both the Big Five/Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model.

The Antagonism domain involves acting in ways that create difficulties for other people. This domain is fairly similar to the low pole of the Big Five/Five-Factor Model Agreeableness dimension. However, because Antagonism emphasizes traits such as manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and grandiosity, it is also quite similar to the low pole of HEXACO Honesty–Humility. (The proposed system does not have a separate domain that corresponds to low Agreeableness of the HEXACO model.)

The Disinhibition domain involves behaving on impulse, without thinking of consequences. This domain is reasonably similar to the low pole of Conscientiousness in both the Big Five/Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model. Notice that one of the traits within this domain—rigid perfectionism—is intended to represent a pathologically low level of Disinhibition. The opposite pole of DSM-5 Disinhibition is called Compulsivity.

The Psychoticism domain involves unusual, bizarre thoughts and perceptions. This domain has only limited similarities to the factors of the Big Five/Five-Factor Model or the HEXACO model. The perceptual distortions associated with this factor (e.g., feeling disconnected from one’s body, feeling that one’s thoughts are controlled by others, etc.) do not have any direct counterpart in models of normal personality variation. However, the traits of eccentricity or oddness are somewhat related to Openness to Experience (and to low Conscientiousness) in the Big Five/Five Factor Model and the HEXACO model.4

2.2.3 Sensation Seeking

Results relating the noradrenergic system to Psychoticism and/or Sensation Seeking are somewhat contradictory. Studies relating the metabolite MHPG to these personality dimensions report both positive (Zuckerman 1993) and negative (Ballenger 1983) results. The inconsistency may depend on whether MHPG is measured in plasma or in CSF. Considering that CSF-MHPG is probably more relevant for central nervous noradrenergic activity, one has to accept that high Sensation Seeking is associated with low levels of the metabolite (Zuckerman 1990). Gerra et al. (1999), however, come to a different conclusion. They found that noradrenaline concentrations were positively correlated with Novelty Seeking. But it must be remembered that the peripheral noradrenaline level is most probably an unreliable indicator of the locus coerulus-associated noradrenaline activity in the brain. They speculate that hypersecretion of peripheral noradrenaline is not the cause but the consequence of the chronic stress reaction induced by problems encountered due to Sensation Seeking.

Abstract

Positive links are outlined between the personality factors of openness, conscientiousness, psychoticism, schizotypy, and creativity. Explanations of these links in terms of attentional deficits are discussed.

Possible associations of creativity with the dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) are discussed.

Psychopathology and creativity links are addressed and connections with genetic risks of schizophrenia and creative activity are outlined. An over-representation of mood disorders such as depression, bipolar and mania, particularly in milder forms, among creative groups, have been noted.

High-functioning autism or a genetic risk of autism is linked to creative performance particularly in rule-based domains.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in mild forms is also linked to creative performance.

Alcoholism and alcohol abuse have shown excess rates in creative workers compared to the general population.

Much of the data on psychopathology and creativity shows an inverted U pattern, such that mild psychopathology or a predisposition to psychopathology, leads to raised performance but full psychopathology is impairing. This fits the shared neurocognitive vulnerability model.

Overall, the strongest and best established effect of mood is that of the positive effect of happiness on creative performance.

5.3.2.3 Psychoticism

Finally, Eysenck also suggested a third major dimension of personality, which he called Psychoticism. According to Eysenck, this dimension included traits such as aggressiveness, manipulation, tough mindedness, risk taking, irresponsibility, and impulsivity versus their opposites.2 He suggested that high levels of Psychoticism were associated with criminal behavior, but also with various mental illnesses (including manic depressiveness and schizophrenia) and even with creativity. As far as the biological basis of the Psychoticism dimension is concerned, Eysenck suggested that persons high in Psychoticism tended to have high levels of the hormone called testosterone (see later in this chapter for a discussion of hormones) and low levels of a substance called monoamine oxidase, which influences the levels of neurotransmitters.

5.3.2.3 Psychoticism

Finally, Eysenck also suggested a third major dimension of personality, which he called Psychoticism. According to Eysenck, this dimension included traits such as aggressiveness, manipulation, tough-mindedness, risk taking, irresponsibility, and impulsivity versus their opposites.2 He suggested that high levels of Psychoticism were associated with criminal behavior, but also with various mental illnesses (including manic-depressiveness and schizophrenia) and even with creativity. As far as the biological basis of the Psychoticism dimension is concerned, Eysenck suggested that persons high in Psychoticism tended to have high levels of the hormone called testosterone (see later in this chapter for a discussion of hormones) and low levels of a substance called monoamine oxidase (MAO), which influences the levels of neurotransmitters.

Personality, psychopathology and mood

Positive links have been found between the personality factors of openness, conscientiousness, psychoticism or schizotypy and creativity. Explanations involving attentional deficits related to openness and schizotypy are plausible and have some research support. Associations between creativity and the dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) have been reported. An over-representation of mood disorders such as depression, bipolar and mania, particularly in milder forms, among creative groups, has been noted.

Personality traits relevant to creativity have been found to be remarkably stable over long periods in longitudinal studies, implying that any marked changes in creativity with age cannot readily be attributed to personality changes in old age. However, there were small declining average trends, particularly in openness, and some variability over time, linked to life events such as retirement and illness. From recent research that separates and assesses mean-level, rank-order, and individual difference changes, it appears that individual differences in personality characteristics increase with age. Thus, we can hypothesize that greater individual differences in creative output and style would occur with age.

High-functioning autism or a genetic risk of autism is linked to creative performance particularly in rule-based domains. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in mild forms is also linked to creative performance. Nevertheless, some people on the autistic spectrum have shown great creative talents, for example, Stephen Wiltshire. Mr Wiltshire was diagnosed with autism at age three (he is known as a savant), and is now famous for producing highly detailed architectural scenes after just a brief glance. Today, Stephen Wiltshire is one of Britain's best-known artists (www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk).

Much of the data on psychopathology and creativity shows an inverted-U pattern, such that mild psychopathology or a predisposition to psychopathology, leads to raised performance but full psychopathology is impairing. This fits the “shared neurocognitive vulnerability model”.

Overall, the strongest and best established effect of mood is that of the positive effect of happiness on creative performance. In other words, consistently unhappy people are likely to have impaired creative productivity. Therefore, we might hypothesize that those with personality disorders, or even mild mental illness, can be very creative provided that their symptoms do not make them consistently unhappy.

Personality and Psychosocial Factors Associated with IAD

Personality factors such as lack of perseverance (Mottram & Fleming, 2009), psychoticism (Tosun & Lajunen, 2009), and neuroticism, sensation seeking, and aggressiveness (Mehroof & Griffiths, 2010) have been found to be associated with Internet addiction. Sensation seeking among Chinese Internet users was reported by Shi, Chen, and Tian (2011). High harm avoidance (HA), novelty seeking (NS), reward dependence (RD), low self-directedness, and low cooperativeness were reported in South Korean studies by Ha et al. (2007) and June, Sohn, So, Yi, and Park (2007). In Taiwan, high NS, high HA, and low RD predicted a higher proportion of adolescents with IAD (Ko et al., 2006). However, one study, by Cho, Kim, Kim, Lee, and Kim (2008), found that low NS was associated with IAD.

Internet addiction has also been positively associated with interpersonal factors such as perceived discontentment with peer interactions (Liu & Kuo, 2007), and problems with parenting attitudes, family communication, family cohesion, and family violence (Park et al., 2008).

Additional psychosocial factors are also noted in the literature. IAD has been associated with low self-esteem (Fioravanti, Dèttore, & Casale, 2012; Stieger & Burger, 2010), family dissatisfaction and recent stressful events (Lam et al., 2009), and few social friends, poor relations with teachers and students, and conflicting family relationships (Wang et al., 2011). Internet addiction has also been correlated with poor connectedness to school, high family conflict, low family function, substance and alcohol use, and living in rural areas by Yen, Ko, Yen, Wu, and Yang (2007) and Yen, Ko, Yen, Chang, and Cheng (2009) and associated with depressive symptoms, higher impulsivity, lower satisfaction with academic performance, being male, and insecure attachment style by Lin, Ko, and Wu (2011). Shin, Kim, and Jang (2011) also found that anxious and avoidant attachment styles and depression and phobias were associated with IAD.

3.3 The Biopsychological Theory Components

In line with Eysenck (1963, 1967), sensation seeking theory draws on the concept of the optimum level of arousal to explain the behavior characteristic of sensation seekers. High sensation seekers tend to be underaroused, i.e. below the optimum level of arousal of the Ascending Reticular Activation System (ARAS). They seek to attain this optimum arousal level by exposure to novel, intense, and complex stimuli or sensations. It was originally assumed that high sensation seekers have habitually lower baseline levels of tonic arousal, but this assumption was not confirmed by EEG indicators of activity (Golding & Richards 1985; Passini et al. 1977; Watson et al. 1979) or by peripheral indicators, although findings were not entirely consistent (Feij et al. 1985; Neary & Zuckerman 1976; Ridgeway & Hare 1981; Smith et al. 1989; Stern et al. 1981; Zuckerman et al. 1988). The assumption that high and low sensation seekers have different habitual baseline levels of arousal was thus substituted by the notion that the two groups have different degrees of arousability (Zuckerman 1997).

Behavioral particularities of sensation seekers that have been associated with individual differences in arousability are described and explained, above all, in the context of the orienting and the defensive reflex. Whereas high sensation seekers still show an orienting response (heart rate deceleration) to novel stimuli of moderate intensity, low sensation seekers already display a defensive reflex. Moreover, high sensation seekers show a stronger electrodermal orienting response to stimuli that are of personal interest to them. This relationship is attributed to the specific arousability of high sensation seekers. However, it only applies to novel stimuli of moderate intensity.

In terms of electrocortical activity, the assumed specific arousability of high sensation seekers is reflected in contexts such as the augmenting/reducing paradigm. This concept was originally introduced by Petrie (1967) to measure the degree to which subjects overestimate or underestimate the intensity of a stimulus following prolonged stimulus bombardement. The concept was assumed to reflect differences in the central nervous system. Buchsbaum and Silverman (1968) developed the now prevailing version of the augmenting/reducing paradigm using evoked potentials (EP). When the intensity of a stimulus increases, high sensation seekers respond with a significantly more pronounced increase in early negative (N1) and positive peaks (P1, P2) than low sensation seekers. Beginning with a study by Zuckerman et al. (1974) this finding has been replicated in numerous empirical studies. A review of early augmenting/reducing studies including animal experiments (Lukas & Siegel 1977) is given in Zuckerman (1990). However, the findings of these studies are not entirely consistent, especially across the visual and auditory modality (cf. Carrillo-de-la-Peña 1992).

Later studies of the 1990s primarily showing improved methods in utilising the augmenting/reducing paradigm yielded further evidence supporting the augmenting disposition of high sensation seekers (Brocke et al. 1999, 2000; Hegerl et al. 1995; Zuckerman 1994a). However, some inconsistencies still require clarification (Carrillo-de-la-Peña 2001), and various suggestions for improving methods of specifying augmenting/reducing dispositions have recently been made (Beauducel et al. 2000).

Of particular significance for understanding the augmenting disposition of sensation seekers is the assumption that individual differences in augmenting/reducing are modulated primarily by serotonergenic activity, and that augmenting can be taken as an indicator of low central serotonergenic neurotransmission, particularly in the primary auditory cortex. Using dipole source analysis represents an important methodological advance in this context (Hegerl et al. 2001; Hegerl & Juckel 1993). Clinical studies (Gallinat et al. 2000; Tuchtenhagen et al. 2000) and animal experiments (Juckel et al. 1997, 1999) provide evidence to support the assumption of serotonergic modulation of augmenting/reducing.

On the neurochemical level of the model (Zuckerman 1994a, 1995), sensation seeking is seen in the context of the broader dimension Psychoticism-Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking (P-ImpUSS) and contrasted with the traits Extraversion-Sociability and Neuroticism-Anxiety (Zuckerman 1993, 1996). Individuals with high scores on the P-ImpUSS dimension show:

Pronounced approach as an expression of increased dopaminergic activity and of the directly or indirectly modulating effects of the activity of sex hormones, particularly testosterone, and type B monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Low inhibition as a result of low serotonergic activity.

Low cortical and autonomic arousal in consequence of low noradrenergic activity, which is in turn affected by the activity of dopamine β-hydroxylase (DBH), endorphins, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA).

Many of the assumptions postulated in this model as regards the approach, inhibition, and arousal systems, as well as the relative significance of monoaminergic neurotransmission for the functioning of these systems, are also advocated in other approaches, particularly by Gray (1991a, b), Cloninger (1987), and Depue (Depue & Collins 1999). The concept of activity of a neurotransmitter system shows some vagueness, however. Does high neurotransmitter activity imply a high rate of synthesis, low reuptake and storage of neurotransmitters, sensitivity or density of pre- or post-synaptic receptors? Zuckerman (1995) himself draws attention to these difficulties, without being able at present to make his model more specific in this respect.

On the genetic level, numerous findings support Zuckerman’s assumption of a genetic basis of sensation seeking. An early population genetic study (Fulker et al. 1980) computed a heritability estimate (in the strict sense) of h2 = 58% for the sensation seeking total score (SSS IV). More recent studies have not been able to confirm the assumption that all subscales share a common genetic factor. However, the heritability scores for the subscales were of approximately the same magnitude as in the first study (Hur & Bouchard 1997; Koopmans et al. 1995). Pogue-Geile et al. (1998) report much lower heritabilities.

In view of the substantive similarities between sensation seeking and novelty seeking, and the assumed dopaminergic modulation of sensation seeking, it seems primarily worth referring to findings on the relationship between novelty seeking and functional polymorphisms for dopaminergic activity. While many studies have found a relationship with the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4), many other studies have failed to replicate this finding (Kluger et al. 2002). Furthermore, the neurochemical model indicates that functional polymorphisms for serotonergic and noradrenergic activity are of particular relevance. Meanwhile first attempts to identify moderator variables and interactions with such potentially relevant polymorphisms have been undertaken (see Benjamin et al. 2000; Strobel et al. 2003a).

Numerous studies have now also investigated the direct associations between sensation seeking and polymorphisms with dopaminergic relevance, with the Bal I polymorphism of the DRD3 gene, the TaqI A1 allele of the D2 receptor gene, the serotonin transporter polymorphism (5-HTTPR), and the DRD4 exon III polymorphism. However, only three studies have found evidence for a significant relationship between sensation seeking and polymorphisms (Duaux et al. 1998; Ratsma et al. 2001; Strobel et al. 1999). Various methodological reasons for these inconsistent results have been proposed and discussed (e.g. Brocke et al. 2003).