Clinical and basic personality psychologists interact less than they should, given their similar interests. In clinical personality psychology, available evidence supports a transition from the current categorical system to a hierarchical trait scheme for diagnosing the stable features of personality disorder. However, trait models do not capture the dynamic aspects of personality disorders as they have been described in the clinical literature, and thus miss a clinically critical feature of personality pathology. In contrast, basic personality psychologists have coalesced around a consensual structure of individual differences and become increasingly interested in the dynamic processes that underlie and contextualize traits. But trait psychology models are not sufficiently specific to characterize dynamic personality processes. In this paper, I filter clinical descriptions of personality disorders through the lens of interpersonal theory to specify a recursive within‐situation interpersonal pattern of motives, affects, behaviours, and perceptions that could contribute to the stable between‐situation patterns of maladaptive behaviour of historical interest to both basic and clinical personality psychologists. I suggest that this interpersonal model adds specificity to recent proposals regarding processes in the basic personality literature and has significant potential to advance research on personality dynamics. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

The importance of personality for predicting life outcomes in the domains of love, work, and health is well established, as is evidence that personality traits, while relatively stable, can change. However, little is known about the sources and processes that drive changes in personality traits and how such changes might impact important life outcomes. In this paper, we make the case that the research paradigms and methodological approaches commonly used in personality psychology need to be revised to advance our understanding of the sources and processes of personality change. We propose Longitudinal Experience‐Wide Association Studies as a framework for studying personality change that can address the limitations of current methods, and we discuss strategies for overcoming some of the challenges associated with Longitudinal Experience‐Wide Association Studies. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

We present a model of personality psychopathology based on the assumptions; descriptive metastructure; and developmental, motivational, and regulatory processes of the contemporary integrative interpersonal theory of personality. The interpersonal model of personality psychopathology distinguishes between the definition of personality pathology and individual differences in the expression of personality disorder. This approach facilitates interdisciplinary conceptualizations of functioning and treatment by emphasizing the interpersonal situation as a prominent unit of analysis, organized by the metaconstructs of agency and communion and the interpersonal circumplex model. Linking personality psychopathology to agentic and communal constructs, pathoplastic relationships with those constructs, patterns of intraindividual variability, and interpersonal signatures allows personality dysfunction to be tied directly to psychological theory with clear propositions for research and treatment planning. The model’s relevance for DSM-5 is highlighted throughout the chapter. We conclude by bringing the interpersonal model from bench to bedside with an articulation of its clinical implications.

No abstract

Advances in methods for longitudinal data collection and analysis have prompted a surge of research on psychological processes. However, decisions about how to time assessments are often not explicitly tethered to theories about psychological processes but are instead justified on methodological (e.g., power) or practical (e.g., feasibility) grounds. In many cases, methodological decisions are not explicitly justified at all. The disconnect between theories about processes and the timing of assessments in longitudinal research has contributed to misspecified models, interpretive errors, mixed findings, and nonspecific conclusions. In this article, we argue that higher demands should be placed on researchers to connect theories to methods in longitudinal research. We review instances of this disconnect and offer potential solutions as they pertain to four general questions for longitudinal researchers: how time should be scaled, how many assessments are needed, how frequently assessments should occur, and when assessments should happen.