Understanding Broader Community Perspectives on the Scientific Accuracy and Stigma of Personality Trait Labels

Abstract

Many labels are used within and across subfields to describe personality disorder (PD) and related interpersonally-oriented and externalizing dimensions. For example, “interpersonal disorders” is a suggested alternative label to “personality disorders” in clinical research, and “dark triad” labels commonly are used across literatures to describe traits associated with interpersonal difficulties. Terminology changes have been proposed both due to concerns about different descriptors’ validity and their usage potentially being stigmatizing. Importantly, greater terminology consensus can also unify research efforts. Toward these aims, we present data from over 900 participants who provided their opinions of terms used in PD research. This included data from 362 undergraduates, 408 adults recruited online, and 161 adults recruited from the community, and we used targeted recruitment strategies to ensure representation of individuals with significant mental health histories. All participants completed self-report questionnaires assessing their personalities and symptoms, and community participants also completed structured clinical interviews. Results indicated that participants generally viewed traditional “personality disorders” terminology favorably compared to other terms in regard to both scientific accuracy and stigma. “Interpersonal disorders” terminology was also viewed more favorably overall than many other terms, whereas “dark triad” terminology was viewed negatively overall. Participants’ own characteristics (e.g., personality, age) were mostly unrelated to their views of terminology. These results provide insight into how various descriptors may be viewed by the broader community and provide a foundation for future research investigating how different terms are perceived across contexts.