Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7 (2014), 85–97.Copyright © 2014 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/14

FOCAL ARTICLE

Maladaptive Personality at Work:Exploring the Darkness

NIGEL GUENOLEGoldsmiths, University of LondonKenexa, an IBM company

AbstractImportant changes in how personality is conceptualized and measured are occurring in clinical psychology.We focus on 1 aspect of this work that industrial psychologists have been slow to embrace, namely, a newtrait model that can be viewed as a maladaptive counterpart to the Big 5. There is a conspicuous absence ofwork psychology research emerging on this trait model despite important implications for how we understandpersonality at work. We discuss objections to the trait model in a work context and offer rejoinders that mightmake researchers and practitioners consider applying this model in their work. We hope to stimulate discussionof this topic to avoid an unnecessary bifurcation in the conceptualization of maladaptive personality betweenindustrial and clinical settings.

Personality researchers agree on a num-ber of points. There are between threeand seven broad primary dimensions ofnormal personality, the Big Five plusor minus one or two (Ashton & Lee,2008; Eysenck, 1991; Goldberg, 1990;Hogan, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1999).These dimensions can be represented bya higher-order structure of fewer dimen-sions. Digman (1997) showed covariationbetween the Big Five factors of Neuroticism,Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness isaccounted for by a factor called alpha,whereas covariation among the remainingfactors of Extraversion and Openness of theBig Five is accounted for by a factor calledbeta. DeYoung (2010) reviewed psycho-metric and neuropsychological evidencefor a similar higher-order factor structureand labeled the factors stability and plastic-ity. Beneath the primary factors reside two

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Nigel Guenole.E-mail: n.guenole@gold.ac.uk

Address: Institute of Management Studies, NewAcademic Building, Goldsmiths, University of London,New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK

aspects per dimension, and under these sita yet-to-be-determined number of narrowerfacets (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007;Perugini & Gallucci, 1997). The phenotypicexpression of the genetic basis of personal-ity is moderated by environmental factors(Roberts & Jackson, 2008).

Industrial psychologists have focusedtheir research on the implications of per-sonality for the workplace. Meta-analysishas established that personality is a moder-ately effective predictor of how workers goabout their jobs, known as contextual per-formance (Hough, 1992; Salgado, 2003).Meta-analysis has also demonstrated thatcertain personality dimensions, if wellchosen, are moderate predictors of whatworkers will do in their jobs, or taskperformance (Barrick & Mount, 1991;Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Motivationalmechanisms mediate the relationshipbetween personality traits and job per-formance (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski,2002). Some dimensions are importantto all jobs and the importance of othersvaries by job, (Barrick, Mount, & Judge,2001). For greatest predictive efficacy, the

85

86 N. Guenole

breadth of trait measures should match thebreadth of outcome models (Paunonen,1998). Despite a seemingly sophisticatedconception of personality, since the 1990sour understanding of personality at workhas only been marginally refined, andincrementally at that. It seems reasonableto say that no major developments haveredirected the course of work relatedpersonality research as significantly as theintegration of the Big Five taxonomy andthe meta-analytic method in the 1990s (e.g.,Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997).

In the interim, dramatic changes haveoccurred in the field of abnormal per-sonality. The essence of the drama iswhether personality disorders are categor-ical ‘‘types’’ or continuous ‘‘dimensions.’’The preponderance of evidence supports adimensional view (Krueger & Eaton, 2010).Now attention is on what the dimensionsunderlying personality disorder are andhow they relate to models of normal person-ality (Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields,2012; Krueger et al., 2011). The Ameri-can Psychiatric Association (APA) recentlyrefrained from adopting a proposed revisionto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders (DSM) IV’s categoricalapproach to disorders that would haveseen personality disorders represented, inpart, as distinct profiles on a pathologicaldimensional model (Skodol et al., 2011).The maladaptive trait model will insteadbe included in a separate section on thediagnosis of personality disorder.

We believe that the profiling approachconsidered during the DSM revision hasimportant implications for understandingpersonality at work. However, the newtrait model, a maladaptive equivalent ofthe Big Five, has not yet been embracedby industrial psychologists. Very fewpublications are emerging on this modelin work contexts. In this article we suggestthat the field of personality at work is nowat a point reminiscent of the 1990s, wheresubstantive developments in the field ofpersonality are ready to be integrated toadvance understanding of personality atwork. We wish to stimulate discussion of

maladaptive personality traits at work toquicken the introduction of these new ideasinto work-related personality research, aswe believe industrial psychologists need topay more attention to this important topic.

Nomenclature

Various labels are used in the psychologicalliterature to describe abnormal personality.These include pathological (e.g., Wrightet al., 2012), abnormal (e.g., Tromp & Koot,2010), deviant (e.g., Howard & McMurran,2012), and aberrant (e.g., Edmundson,Lynam, Miller, Gore, & Widiger 2011).However, rather than assessing personalitydisorder, we are interested in studying traitsthat predispose individuals to personalitydisorder among normal working popula-tions. Here, we will avoid these terms inlieu of the term ‘‘maladaptive.’’ Althoughsome authors have preferred other of theseterms to maladaptive (e.g., Wille, De Fruyt,& De Clercq, 2013), we suggest that our useof this term is appropriate given its use todescribe the trait model in clinical settingswhere the model originated. Although theproposed trait model emerged in the con-text of pathology research, all individualscan be profiled on the underlying model(e.g., O’Connor, 2002; Saulsman & Page,2004; Trull & Durrett, 2005). The termmaladaptive is consistent with the notionthat a profile on the trait model by itselfdoes not equate to a disorder.

Our use of the term maladaptive furtherserves to differentiate the new trait modelfrom ‘‘dark side’’ personality research. Inthe academic literature the term ‘‘darkside’’ is sometimes used to refer to modelsof maladaptive personality based ondimensionalized DSM IV Axis II categories(e.g., Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Later weexplicitly advocate reconceptualizingmaladaptive personality under the recentlyproposed DSM-5 trait framework.

Finally, research on the Dark Triad (seeFurnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013 for areview) refers to a cluster of maladaptivetraits including narcissism, Machiavellian-ism, and psychoticism. All three traits fall

Exploring the darkness 87

under one factor of the new maladaptivetrait model, that is Antagonism. We discussthe Dark Triad research and position itrelative to maladaptive personality as oper-ationalized under the DSM-5 trait structurein a later section. Here, we note that theDark Triad represents a subset of facetsof the Antagonism factor of maladaptivepersonality.

Previous Calls for Research IntoMaladaptive Personality at Work

De Fruyt and Salgado (2003) said thatthe fields of individual differences andindustrial psychology too often evolveseparately, and we agree. They then madea call for more research into maladaptivepersonality in the workplace. Our promptdiffers from theirs in two important ways.First, their article suggested that profiles ofdisorders on normal personality inventoriesbe used to screen for symptomology forcertain functions in specific jobs (e.g.,police, firefighter). Their rationale wasthe low population base rate of disorders,which they reported the APA estimated at3%. We are explicitly suggesting industrialpsychologists consider the relevance ofmaladaptive personality at work across alljobs that job analysis suggests warrantsits consideration. Our rationale is that weare not screening for disorder, we aremeasuring maladaptive personality traitswith implications for job performance.Second, De Fruyt and Salgado (2003) didnot advocate an overarching framework forthe study of maladaptive personality. In thisarticle, we suggest aligning all maladaptivepersonality research in industrial psychol-ogy under the trait framework consideredin the recent DSM revision.

Paper Structure

The remainder of this article is structured asfollows. First, we offer a discussion of themain elements of the revision to the person-ality disorder diagnosis considered duringthe DSM-5 revision. Next, we presentthe maladaptive trait model itself in more

detail, followed by potential objections tousing inventories assessing this model atwork. Following each potential objection,we discuss points that we believe mightalleviate these concerns.

Changes Considered Duringthe DSM Revision With Relevanceto the Workplace

Certain diagnostic criteria for personalitydisorders under DSM IV, such as the ageat which they begin and level of stability,do not adequately differentiate personalitydisorders from other mental illnesses(Krueger, Markon, Patrick, Benning, &Kramer, 2007). Dimensional measures ofdisorder can predict impairment better thantheir categorical equivalents (Skodol et al.,2005). There is also little evidence suggest-ing personality disorders are composed oflatent classes that are categorical (Krueger& Eaton, 2010). Factors such as these pro-moted the APA’s consideration of the newprofiling approach discussed in this article.

Practical reasons for considering changealso exist. Diagnosing personality disordersby the presence or absence of subsetsof the 79 indicators in DSM IV mightbe more complex than required (Krueger& Eaton, 2010). Instead, the picture thathas emerged of disordered personality isone where the symptomology is explainablein part by extreme standing on a core setof maladaptive personality traits (Widiger& Simonsen, 2005). In response, the APAconsidered profiling against a pathologicaltrait model that predisposes individuals topersonality problems. The trait model theAPA considered is the focus of this article.

Evidence for the Relevanceof Maladaptive Personality Traitsat Work

Syntheses of Broad-Spectrum Work-RelatedMaladaptive Personality Research

For some time researchers have argued thatpersonality measurement has considerablymore to offer than the prediction of positivework-related outcomes. Judge and LePine

88 N. Guenole

(2007) summarized research showing thathigh standing on measures of aberrantpersonality could lead to problems at work.Narcissists, for example, overestimate theireffectiveness as leaders, task performance,and contextual performance, while under-estimating counterproductivity (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Impulsivity at workwas understudied according to Judge et al.,but they speculated impulsive individualssuffered impaired work-related reasoning.Trait hostility is linked with coronary heartdisease (Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, &Hallet, 1996), conflict (Newton & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1995), and interpersonal aggression(Archer & Webb, 2006). Finally, Judgeet al. considered type-A personality, notingresearch that suggested it was linked withcoronary heart disease (Booth-Kewley &Friedman, 1987; Matthews & Haynes,1986), job dissatisfaction (Jiang, Yan, & Li,2004), burnout (Alotaibi, 2003), and poorhealth (Kirkcaldy, Shephard, & Furnham,2002).

Although indicative of the work rele-vance of the DSM trait model, the taxo-nomic framework Judge and LePine (2007)used to guide their review was rationallyderived and diverges from the DSM-5model. Given that research has shown thatBig Five validities are generally higher whenanalyzed using a conceptual frameworkthat is primary (Salgado, 2003), it is likelythat syntheses of maladaptive personalityresearch would benefit from being analyzedunder the DSM maladaptive trait umbrella.In summary, this line of research suggeststhat the DSM maladaptive trait model islikely to have important work-related impli-cations. We believe that conceptual clar-ity will come more quickly regarding therole of maladaptive personality at workif researchers nest their research questionsunder this organizing framework.

Dimensionalized Interpretations of DSM IVAxis II Categories

Much of what industrial psychologists knowtoday about maladaptive personality inoccupational settings stems from the work

of Robert Hogan and his colleagues (e.g.,Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). In an earlyand highly cited paper on maladaptive per-sonality at work, Hogan and Hogan (2001)described the rationale for developing theHogan Development Survey (HDS: Hogan& Hogan, 1997/2006). The HDS emergedfrom Hogan’s desire to predict managerialincompetence. They offered three reasonsfor studying incompetence rather than themore common approach of studying effec-tiveness. First, although there is often dis-agreement on who is competent, they sug-gested that there was rarely disagreement onwho in an organization was incompetent.Second, Hogan and Hogan argued that thebase rate of incompetence is high. Finally,they suggested there was a moral imperativeto mitigate managerial incompetence.

Hogan and Hogan (2001) reviewed earlywork by Bentz (1985, August); McCall,Lombardo, and Morrison (1988); and Leslieand Van Velsor (1996). Their review sug-gested an 11-dimension taxonomy of ‘‘dys-functional dispositions’’ (p. 40). This taxon-omy showed a very strong resemblance tothe DSM IV Axis II personality disorders.They then presented psychometric proper-ties based on analyses of a dataset of over10,000 responses. These analyses suggestedthe 11 HDS dimensions can be groupedinto three themes first identified by Hor-ney (1950): moving toward people, movingaway from people, and moving against peo-ple. Along with follower and situationalcharacteristics, later work would positionthese 11 HDS dimensions as part of a ‘‘toxictriangle’’ that leads to destructive leadership(Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007).

In summary, Hogan’s pioneering workon maladaptive personality at work hasled to a stream of research on dimen-sionalized DSM IV Axis II traits that pre-dispose managers to incompetence. Thiswork has established that some maladaptiveconstructs have negative implications formanagerial derailment (Hogan, Raskin, &Fazzini, 1990), leadership (Hogan & Hogan,2001), and productivity (Moscoso & Sal-gado, 2004). Some research in this vein hasalso supported positive outcomes for these

Exploring the darkness 89

constructs (Furnham, Hyde, & Trickey,2013). But perhaps, the most commonindustrial psychology application of theHDS traits is in managerial coaching. Forexample, a recent paper by De Fruyt, Wille,and Furnham (2013) discussed the devel-opment of cut-off scores that would flagrisks for various work contexts that mightbe addressed by coaching. They estimatedthat up to one quarter of all managers‘‘qualified’’ as at risk for one problematicbehavioral tendency.

Dimensional representations of DSM IVcharacteristics can be considered emergingor compound trait measures because theyare underpinned by two or more personalitytraits that are more fundamental in nature.A consequence of assessing a compoundtrait is that we do not know whether a givenindividual’s composition on the trait is dueto equal standing on the contributing traitsor different standing on the contributingtraits. This is not a trivial issue becausethere may be situations where one of thetraits is important and another is not. Inother words, measuring the compound traitdoes not allow us to reduce a profile to itsconstituent elements. The research energytoday is toward unpacking these tendenciesto disorder into their primary attributesto better understand the phenomena(Widiger, Lynam, Miller, & Oltmanns,2013). To summarize, the dimensionalizedDSM IV research tradition suggests abroad taxonomic model of disorderedpersonality traits could have application inoccupational settings, but a model focusingon the primary traits seems preferable toone focusing on blends of primary traits.

Research Into Aberrant Profiles on NormalInventories

Some researchers have investigated profilesindicative of aberrance based on normalpersonality inventories (e.g., De Fruytet al., 2009). In one recent instance of thisapproach Wille et al. (2013) used the five-factor model (FFM) compound techniqueto derive disordered profiles from normalpersonality questionnaires. The five-factor

compound technique essentially involvesthe computation of linear composites offive-factor facets that are related to specificpersonality disorders. Wille et al. notedthat this approach performs as well asmore complex prototype matching, that is,examining the similarity between assesseeprofiles and subject matter expert’s viewsof disorders in terms of FFM scales.

The profiles Wille et al. (2013) con-sidered corresponded to those expectedto be represented in the DSM-5 (i.e.,antisocial, narcissistic, borderline, schizoty-pal, obsessive–compulsive, and avoidant).Results suggested that these aberrant pro-files predicted career success and that theaberrant compounds explained incrementalvariance over FFM scales. This line of workcomes closest to our suggestion to adoptthe maladaptive trait model. However, itsbasis in the Big Five skirts the issue of adopt-ing the maladaptive trait model and all thebenefits that a primary framework affords.Because the content of Big Five and mal-adaptive trait inventories are not the same,Big Five-based profiles will not be the sameas maladaptive trait profiles.

Research Into Narrow Aspectsof Maladaptive Personality

Another stream of research into maladaptivepersonality at work focuses on narrowaspects of the spectrum of problematicpersonality traits, for example, measuresof the Dark Triad, that is psychoticism,narcissism, and Machiavellianism (Paulhus& Williams, 2002). Wu and LeBreton (2011)conducted a conceptual review of DarkTriad. They stated that despite an earlierhint from Rolland and De Fruyt (2003)that the Dark Triad traits might predictcounterproductive behavior, considerablymore was known about Big Five linkswith counterproductive behavior. Wu andLeBreton reviewed the literature beforesetting a series of research questions forfurther investigation.

Empirical studies of narrow aspects ofthe maladaptive model have shown thatthere is good reason for expecting the new

90 N. Guenole

trait model to be relevant in occupationalsettings. A meta-analysis by O’Boyle,Forsyth, Banks, and McDaniel (2011) foundthat all three Dark Triad components wererelated to counterproductivity and thatMachiavellianism and Psychoticism wererelated to job performance. A case might bemade that one or other of the Dark Triadtraits are more relevant to the work place,and indeed some researchers have focusedon the impact of a single element of the DarkTriad, for example psychoticism (Babiak& Hare, 2006) or narcissism (Campbell,Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchiso, 2011;Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller,2009). However, all aspects of the DarkTriad fall under the Antagonism factor of thenew trait model. Studying narrow aspects ofmaladaptive personality does not offer thepromise of a complete understanding ofmaladaptive personality at work. For this,broader taxonomic frameworks need to beadopted to frame our research endeavors.

In summary, we contend that researchersneed to move beyond using DSM IV-basedmeasures and studying narrow aspects ofmaladaptive personality. The problem withthese approaches is that the former is impre-cise and the latter is incomplete. Futurequantitative and qualitative summariesshould also be organized according to themaladaptive trait framework because itaffords greater conceptual clarity regardingwhat is measured and the likelihood ofstronger relations with important perfor-mance criteria. We suggest that a solution isto research maladaptive personality underthe trait framework considered during theDSM-5 revision.

The Proposed DSM-5 MaladaptiveTrait Model

The initial DSM-5 trait model proposedwas rationally derived and comprised ofsix domain level traits (Skodol et al., 2011,p. 37): negative emotionality: ‘‘Experiencesa wide range of negative emotions (anxiety,depression, guilt/shame, worry etc.), andthe behavioral and interpersonal manifes-tations of those experiences.’’ Detachment:

‘‘Withdrawal from other people, rangingfrom intimate relationships to the worldat large; restricted affective experienceand expression; limited hedonic capac-ity.’’ Antagonism: Exhibits diverse manifes-tations of antipathy toward others, and acorrespondingly exaggerated sense of self-importance. Disinhibition: Diverse mani-festations of being present (vs. future- orpast-) oriented so that behavior is driven bycurrent internal and external stimuli ratherthan by past learning and consideration offuture consequences. Compulsivity: ‘‘Thetendency to think and act according toa narrowly defined and unchanging ideal,and the expectation that this ideal shouldbe adhered to by everyone.’’ Psychoti-cism: ‘‘Exhibits a range of odd or unusualbehaviors and cognitions, including bothprocess (e.g., perception) and content (e.g.,beliefs).’’ Subsequent research supporteda five-trait domain structure where com-pulsivity is seen as the opposite pole ofdisinhibition (e.g., Krueger et al., 2011).

Provenance of the DSM Trait Model

The domain trait model bears similaritiesto measures of well-established traits pre-disposing individuals to disordered person-ality. These research programs reviewedin detail by Krueger, Derringer, Markon,Watson, and Skodol (2012) models includethe Dimensional Assessment of Personal-ity Pathology (DAPP: Livesley, 2001), theSchedule for Non-Adaptive and AdaptivePersonality (SNAP: Clark, 1993), the Person-ality Psychopathology-Five (PSY-5: Hark-ness, 1992), the Dimensional PersonalitySymptom Item Pool (DIPSI: De Clercq, DeFruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006),the Millon Clinical Multiaxial InventoryIII (MCMI-III: Millon & Davis, 1996), andthe Shedler-Western Assessment Procedure(SWAP: Shedler & Westen, 2004).

Four of the trait domains in the newtrait model, negative emotionality, detach-ment, antagonism, and disinhibition arewidely regarded to be maladaptive varia-tions of the Big Five in normal populations.The adaptive variants of these, respectively,

Exploring the darkness 91

are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeable-ness, and Conscientiousness (Widiger& Simonsen, 2005). Clark and Krueger(2012) noted that the Openness in normalpopulations appears to have limited rele-vance for personality disorder. They alsosaid compulsivity is included as it underliesobsessive–compulsive disorder and is notwell captured by the maladaptive variantsof the Big Five; and psychoticism becauseas it underpins schizotypal personality dis-order, which is also not well captured bythe maladaptive variants of the Big Five.

Less is known about the trait facet struc-ture of pathological personality (Kruegeret al., 2011), partly because factor analy-sis extracts factors accounting for the mostshared variance among variables, and theseare generally domains (Krueger et al., 2007).At the facet level, the rationally derivedmodel comprised of 37 trait facets, whereasempirical analyses supported a 25 facetstructure (Krueger et al., 2011; Wright et al.,2012).

Important Considerationsin the Assessment of MaladaptivePersonality at Work

Industrial psychologists have been slow toexamine the taxonomic model consideredduring the DSM revision. They have evenbeen slow to study the models on whichthe proposed maladaptive traits are based,despite a robust stream of evidence ontheir origins (Krueger, Derringer, et al.,2012; Widiger and Simonsen, 2005). Thereare likely to be a number of reasonsfor this state of affairs. Here we discusswhat some of the barriers might be andpresent counterarguments that we believemight stimulate further consideration of themaladaptive trait model among academicsand practitioners.

The barriers that we discuss here include(i) concerns that use of maladaptive inven-tories might infringe rights protected by law,(ii) social responsibility concerns regardinginadvertent and unnecessary exclusion ofcandidates with mental health problemsfrom the work place, (iii) a belief that

the new taxonomic model of personalitypathology is redundant if measures of theBig Five are already used in assessmentand would therefore have no incrementalvalidity, (iv) concerns that personality testsshow low validities generally and are notpredictive of performance, and (v) concernthat faking is too much of a concern withmaladaptive inventories.

Legal Concerns

One reason for industrial psychologists’slow adoption of the trait model mightbe concern about whether assessing thesetraits infringes workers’ rights covered bylegislation, for example, the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 in the UnitedStates or the Disability Discrimination Actof 1995 in the United Kingdom. Mentalill health is one form of disability typicallycovered by such legislation. For example,the ADA states that qualified individualswith disabilities cannot be discriminatedagainst on the basis of their disability if theycan perform the essential functions of thejob either with or without accommodation.

Klimoski and Palmer (1993) stated thatADA has two major requirements in relationto testing, and these are relevant to thepresent discussion: ‘‘first, a test that screensout or tends to screen out an individualwith a disability must be job related andconsistent with business necessity’’ (p. 18),and second, ‘‘tests must reflect the skills andaptitudes of an individual with a disabilityrather than impaired sensory, manual, orspeaking skills, unless those are job-relatedskills the test is designed to measure’’ (p.18). The essence of their case is that purposematters: Personality tests designed to be jobrelated and predictive of performance areokay, diagnostic tests designed to indicatedisorder and form the basis of treatmentplans are not.

More recently, Colella and Bruyere(2010) noted that the Seventh Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled in Karraker v. Rent-a-Center, Inc. (2005) that the Minnesota Mul-tiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) couldnot be used in personnel selection unless

92 N. Guenole

the ‘‘job relatedness or business necessity’’of the instrument could be demonstrated.This is because the MMPI can be consid-ered a preemployment medical exam, andsuch exams are prohibited under ADA.

Disorder is more than a trait profile.A personality disorder diagnosis underDSM-5 trait model approach has morecomponents than simply elevated standingon any subset of the contributing traits.The significance of this point is madevery clearly by Wright (2011) who stated:‘‘Rarely if ever are individuals with a certaintrait or profile of traits found, and thensubsequently diagnosed. What this leavesus with is the knowledge of what traitsmight be elevated if a person possesses adiagnosis, but not the reverse. It is not thecase that in the population each individualwith a given trait profile possesses the samePD diagnosis, or any diagnosis at all for thatmatter’’ (p. 374). We posit here that becausea profile on the maladaptive trait modelin and of itself is not typically sufficientto be disordered under the APA proposal,measures of maladaptive variants of the BigFive should not be considered medical testsin preemployment settings.

Maladaptive items differ from diagnostictest items. Items measuring the maladap-tive trait model have high relevance tothe workplace and can be contrasted withtests used in the diagnosis of disorder. Asample item for the irresponsibility facetof the Disinhibition factor, for example,might be ‘‘I break agreements.’’ Clearly itsendorsement should give rise to concernin the mind of employers. This item andothers like it might be contrasted with itemsin clinical tests that are not appropriatefor the work place. Take, for example,the much-maligned Rorschach, whichmeta-analytic evidence from Mihura,Meyer, Dumitascu, and Bombel (2013),showed has validity for certain clinicalapplications. Mihura et al. noted that apossible response to a Rorschach inkblotindicative of psychosis might be ‘‘It’s aJesus head with smoke coming out of the

eyes. The smoke is a sign that he’s judgingme. It’s scary’’ (p. 6). We suggest thatthe content of the items in any inventoryand the content of respondents be closelyexamined in making judgments of the workrelatedness of maladaptive measures.

Essential functions. This could still leaveindustrial psychologists needing a way todetermine whether maladaptive tests arejob related. Industrial psychologists havein fact for many decades been operatingin an environment where job relatednessmust be shown before using cognitiveability tests, a selection technique knownto result in impact against groups coveredby the Civil Rights Act (1964). As withcognitive ability, job analysis is the primaryway organizations can show whethertests are job related (Mitchell, Alliger,& Morfopolous, 1997). A key concernwith the notion of job relatedness is thedegree to which the definition of essentialfunctions includes contextual performance,as contextual performance is arguablywhat maladaptive traits are most likely topredict. In their review of a sample of caselaw, Haimann, Gilmore, and Emmer (2013)considered over 200 cases and concludedthat although the notion of essential func-tions certainly included task performancecriteria, there was also evidence of essentialfunctions that clearly resemble contextualperformance. For example, a ruling fromEEOC vs. Walmart (2007) indicated that theessential functions for a cashier includedfollowing company rules and procedures.

Finally, we note that our views are similarto Wu and LeBreton (2011), who said thattheir research agenda into the links betweenthe Dark Triad and counterproductivity wasvery unlikely to violate the ADA because (i)assessments are designed explicitly for thework environment, (ii) clinical individualsare unlikely to be encountered because thebase rate is just 1% in the population, anda large proportion of these individuals areinstitutionalized. We believe therefore thatthere is a good case to believe maladaptiveinventories are work related and legallydefensible.

Exploring the darkness 93

Social Responsibility Concerns

Although some industrial psychologists’reluctance to use maladaptive personalitytraits is likely to be legally based, hesi-tance on the part of others may be dueto concern of the social impact of theuse of maladaptive personality as a prehirescreen. At the same time that ADA legis-lation protects those with disability fromdiscrimination on the basis of that disabil-ity if they are capable of performing thejob, this legislation also affords provisionfor individuals with mental health concernsto request assistance from their employerfor their disability. Support for workers withmental health issues is critical. Klimoski andDonahue (1997) have argued that perhapsthe biggest threat to the spirit of ADA isnot the access to employment opportunitiesbut fair treatment once employed. UnderADA, this support is called accommodation.Employers must grant accommodation solong as the requests are reasonable. Similarprovisions exist under the Disability Dis-crimination Act (1995), where the supportis referred to as adjustments.

Perusal of the accommodations Colellaand Bruyere (2010) describe indicated thatthey are primarily to assist with physicaldisabilities, but the personal assistance cat-egory, covering a job coach, might be a rele-vant accommodation that a employer mightbe asked to provide. Requiring additionaltime than typical employees receive from amanager is another form of accommodationthat could be requested. We believe thateffective accommodation and adjustmentfrom employers are key to ameliorating con-cerns about social impact. In making thispoint, we acknowledge that requesting anaccommodation is no guarantee that it willbe granted, and sometimes even the pro-cess of requesting an accommodation willbe extremely strenuous. Conceptual mod-els of the likelihood of requesting and beinggranted accommodations under ADA existand we refer readers to these sources forfurther discussion (e.g., Baldridge & Veiga,2001, 2006, Florey & Harrison, 2000).

Small Validities

One of the criticisms of general personalityas a selection methodology is that thevalidity coefficients that personality dimen-sions show for job performance criteria aregenerally small to moderate. We expecta possible reason practitioners are notexamining maladaptive personality at workmight be that they believe the validity gainswill be small. Morgeson et al.’s (2007a)interpretation of the literature indicated thatpersonality had low correlations with jobperformance, albeit slightly higher relationswith contextual performance than with taskperformance. Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran,and Judge (2007) retorted, presentingvalidates for a variety of performancecriteria, ranging from .11 to .49, and saythe corrections they apply are conservative.Tett and Christiansen (2007) also presenteda contrary view, arguing that the meta-analytic estimates are actually impressiveand dependable. It seems reasonable to saythat opinion is divided but also that validi-ties likely to emerge for the maladaptivepersonality model would be considereduseful by a substantial proportion of aca-demic and practitioner readers. Based onthe work reviewed in earlier sections of thisarticle, we see good reason to investigatethe efficacy of maladaptive personality topredict organizational relevant outcomes.

Construct Redundancy and Lackof Incremental Validity

Another reason that researchers and prac-titioners have been somewhat slow inresearching the new maladaptive traitmodel might be concerns that such mea-sures have low incremental validities. Infact, meta-analytic evidence supports theincremental validity of the Big Five (e.g.,Salgado, 1998). Morgeson et al. (2007b)claimed, however, that the incrementalvalidities are overestimates due to underes-timating the intercorrelations of personalityin meta-analyses. It could well be the casethat researchers and practitioners feel thatif the case for the incremental validity of

94 N. Guenole

the Big Five is marginal, adding anothermaladaptive Big Five is unlikely to be veryhelpful. Readers might be further pushedtoward this conclusion because there is amove in clinical psychology to integratethe maladaptive trait model under the BigFive as an overarching framework (Thomaset al., 2013). Preliminary research, how-ever, indicates that in fact dark side traits(i.e., dimensionalized scales measuring theDSM IV categorical outcomes) do showincremental validity for the prediction ofimportant work outcomes (Furnham, Hyde,et al., 2013; Rolland & Du Fruyt, 2003).There is more to be said on this topic, butresults so far appear promising.

Maladaptive Personality Inventories AreToo Easily Faked

Research has suggested that individuals dohave the ability to fake, although the extentto which they do in practice is debated,as is the degree to which this erodes thepsychometric properties of personality testsand incremental validity. We concur witha view expressed by one of the panelistsfrom the Morgeson et al. (2007a) article:Faking should not be our biggest concern,rather we should be concerned by thosewho don’t see the need to fake and a bettermeasurement method than standard self-report is probably required. This is likely tobe doubly so with maldadaptive personalityinventories that ask people to rate theiragreement with statements such as ‘‘I seehow far I can push people,’’ a possibleindicator of the callousness subfacet of theAntagonism factor. Few adroit test takerswould rate this item highly when a jobis at stake. Overall, we agree with theseconcerns over faking.

Short of using a more dependable sourceto report on applicant personalities there islittle that can be done to deal with fakingother than using social desirability scales,spotting the faking post hoc with statisticalanalyses or using forced choice responseoptions in the measurement instrument.Each approach faces problems, but thenews is best on the forced-choice front.

Arguably among industrial psychologistsgreatest breakthroughs in personalityresearch since the 1990s can be said tohave been psychometric in nature, relatingto improvements in measurement efficiencythrough advanced item response theory(e.g., Stark, Chernyshenko, Drasgow, &White, 2012) and structural equationmodeling techniques (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2012). This research has shownthat normative scores can be recoveredfrom forced choice designs, overcomingthe biggest obstacle to their widespreadadoption. Whether or not normativerecovery of scores is possible, a recentmeta-analysis by Salgado and Tauriz (2012)offers encouragement. This article showedthat forced choice measures have greatervalidity than rating scale measures. Itseems then that a solution to concern overfaking on maladaptive inventories is aforced-choice design.

Conclusion

We contend that industrial psychologistsneed to be faster in their response to recentdevelopments in clinical psychology todevelop a full picture of personality at work.In particular, inadequate focus has beendevoted to the maladaptive personality tax-onomy considered during the recent DSM-5revision. We suggested that this develop-ment is among the most exciting occur-rences in personality research since meta-analysis and the Big Five. Up until now,however, industrial psychologists havebeen largely pursuing research into mal-adaptive personality without regard for thewider environment in which their researchis taking place. Industrial psychologistsneed to carefully consider the developmentsoccurring in the clinical field if an unnec-essary separation between how clinicaland industrial psychologists understand andassess maladaptive traits is to be avoided.

ReferencesAlotaibi, A. G. (2003). Job burnout among employees

in the Kuwaiti civil service and its relationship withType A personality and intention to leave. Journalof the Social Sciences, 31, 347–385.

Exploring the darkness 95

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Retrievedfrom http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm

Archer, J., & Webb, I. A. (2006). The relationbetween scores on the Buss–Perry AggressionQuestionnaire and aggressive acts, impulsiveness,competitiveness, dominance, and sexual jealousy.Aggressive Behavior, 32, 464–473.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction ofhonesty-humility-related criteria by the HEXACOand five-factor models of personality. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 42, 1216–1228.

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits:When psychopaths go to work. New York, NY:HarperCollins.

Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greaterunderstanding of the willingness to request andaccommodation: Can requesters’ beliefs disablethe American’s with Disabilities Act? Academy ofManagement Review, 26, 85–99.

Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). The impactof anticipated social consequences on recurringdisability accommodation requests. Journal ofManagement, 32, 158–179.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big fivepersonality dimensions and job performance: Ameta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A.(2001). The FFM personality dimensions andjob performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses.International Journal of Selection and Assessment,9, 9–30.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M.(2002). Personality and job performance: Test ofthe mediating effects of motivation among salesrepresentatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,43.

Bentz, V. J. (1985, August). A view from the top:A thirty year perspective of research devotedto the discovery, description, and prediction ofexecutive behavior. Paper presented at the 93rdAnnual Convention of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Los Angeles.

Booth-Kewley, S., & Friedman, H. S. (1987). Psycho-logical predictors of heart disease: A quantitativereview. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 343–362.

Brown, A. A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2012). HowIRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18,36–52.

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S.,& Marchiso, G. (2011). Narcissism in organiza-tions. Human Resource Management Review, 21,268–284.

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved fromhttp://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/

Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the schedule for non-adaptive and adaptive personality. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Clark, L. A., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). Rationale fora six-domain trait dimensional diagnostic systemfor personality disorder. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevisions/pages/rationaleforasix-domaintraitdimensionaldiagnosticsystemforpersonalitydisorder.asp

Colella, A. J., & Bruyere, S. M. (2010). Disabilityand employment: New directions for industrialand organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),

APA handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology, Volume 1: Building and developingthe organization (pp. 473–503). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K.,& Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure ofmaladaptive personality traits in childhood: A steptoward an integrative developmental perspectivefor DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115,639–657.

De Fruyt, F., & Salgado, J. F. (2003). Appliedpersonality psychology: Lessons learned from theIWO field. European Journal of Personality, 17,123–131.

De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B. J., Miller, J., Rolland, J.P., Jung, S. C., Taris, R., ... Van Hiel, A. (2009).Assessing personality at risk in personnel selectionand development. European Journal of Personality,23, 51–69.

De Fruyt, F., Wille, B., & Furnham, A. (2013). Assess-ing aberrant personality in managerial coaching:Measurement issues and prevalence rates acrossemployment sectors. European Journal of Per-sonality. doi: 10.1002/per.1911[Epub ahead ofprint].

DeYoung, C. (2010). Personality neuroscience and thebiology of traits. Social and Personality PsychologyCompass, 4, 1165–1180.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007).Between facets and domains: Ten aspects of the bigfive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(5), 880–896.

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the bigfive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73, 1246–1256.

Disability Discrimination Act of 1995.Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents

Edmundson, M., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Gore, W.L., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). A five-factor measureof schizotypal personality traits. Assessment, 18,321–334.

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. 477 F.3d 561 (8th Cir.2007).

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16,5, or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790.

Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses toinformal accommodation requests from employeeswith disabilities. Multilevel evidence on willing-ness to comply. Academy of Management Journal,43, 224–233.

Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2013). Do yourdark side traits fit? Dysfunctional personalities indifferent work sectors. Applied Psychology. doi:10.1111/apps.12002 [Epub ahead of print].

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013).The dark triad of personality: A 10-year review.Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7,199–216.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘descriptionof personality’’: The big-five factor structure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,1216–1229.

Haimann, C. R., Gilmore, P. L., & Emmer, M. S.(2013). What is an essential function? A review ofevidence used to define essential functions. ThePsychologist-Manager Journal, 16, 33–52.

96 N. Guenole

Harkness, A. R. (1992). Fundamental topics inpersonality disorders: Candidate trait dimensionsfrom lower regions of the hierarchy. PsychologicalAssessment, 4, 251–259.

Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S.M. (2012). The personality psychopathology—five(PSY–5): Recent constructive replication andassessment literature review. Psychological Assess-ment, 24, 432–443. doi: 10.1037/a0025830

Hogan, R. (1986). Manual for the Hogan personalityinventory. Minneapolis, MN: National ComputerSystems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997/2006). Hogan Devel-opment Survey Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assess-ment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership:A view from the dark side. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Manage-ment derailment. American Psychological Associ-ation Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, 3, 555–575.

Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The darkside of leadership. Measures of leadership. WestOrange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. NewYork, NY: Norton.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The ’Big Five’ personalityvariables—Construct confusion: Description ver-sus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.

Howard, R., & McMurran, M. (2012). Editorial:Whither research on ‘high-harm’ offenders withpersonality disorders? Criminal Behaviour andMental Health, 22, 157–164.

Jiang, J., Yan, X., & Li, Z. (2004). The influence ofType A personality and locus of control uponjob satisfaction and mental health among medicalstaff. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12,359–361.

Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Chapter 20: Thebright and dark sides of personality: Implicationsfor personnel selection in individual and teamcontexts. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to thedysfunctional workplace: Management challengesand symptoms (pp. 332–355). Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.

Judge, T. A., Le Pine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006).The narcissistic personality: Relationship withinflated self-ratings of leadership and with taskand contextual performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91, 762–776.

Karraker v. Rent-A-Center. 411 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir.2005).

Kirkcaldy, B. D., Shephard, R. J., & Furnham, A. F.(2002). The influence of Type A behavior and locusof control upon job satisfaction and occupationalhealth. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,1361–1371.

Klimoski, R., & Donahue, L. (1997). HR strategiesfor integrating individuals with disabilities intothe work place. Human Resource ManagementReview, 7(1), 109–138.

Klimoski, R., & Palmer, S. (1993). The ADA and thehiring process in organizations. Consulting Psy-chology Journal: Practice and Research, 45, 10–36.

Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. (2010). Personality traitsand the classification of mental disorders: Toward

a more complete integration in DSM 5 and anempirical model of psychopathology. PersonalityDisorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1,97–118.

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson,D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial constructionof a maladaptive personality trait model andinventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42,1879–1890.

Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson,D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., ... Livesley,J. W. (2011). Deriving an empirical structureof personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal ofPersonality Disorders, 25, 170–191.

Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Benning,S. D., & Kramer, M. (2007). Linking antisocialbehavior, substance use, and personality: An inte-grative quantitative model of the adult externalizingspectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116,645–666.

Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look atderailment today: North America and Europe.Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Livesley, W. J. (2001). Commentary on reconceptu-alizing personality disorder categories using traitdimensions. Journal of Personality, 69, 277–286.

Matthews, K., & Haynes, S. (1986). Type-A behaviorpattern and coronary disease risk: Update and criti-cal evaluation. American Journal of Epidemiology,123, 923–959.

McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A.M. (1988). Lessons of experience. Lexington, MA:Lexington.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factortheory of personality. Handbook of personality:Theory and research, 2, 139–153.

Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N.,& Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of indi-vidual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviewsand meta-analyses of the Comprehensive Sys-tem. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 548–605. doi:10.1037/a0029406

Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., Guijarro,M. L., & Hallet, A. J. (1996). A meta-analyticreview of research on hostility and physical health.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 322–348.

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). The Millon ClinicalMultiaxial Inventory-III. Minnetonka, MN: NationalComputer Systems.

Mitchell, K. E., Alliger, G. M., & Morfopoulos, R.(1997). Toward an ADA-appropriate job analysis.Human Resource Management Review, 7, 5–26.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L.,Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N.(2007a). Are we getting fooled again? Coming toterms with limitations in the use of personality testsfor personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 60,1029–1049.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L.,Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N.(2007b). Reconsidering the use of personalitytests in personnel selection contexts. PersonnelPsychology, 60, 683–729.

Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). ‘‘Dark side’’personality styles as predictors of task, contextual,and job performance. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 12, 356–362.

Exploring the darkness 97

Newton, T. L., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1995).Hostility and erosion of marital quality duringearly marriage. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,18, 601–619.

O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C.,& McDaniel, M. A. (2011). A meta-analysis of theDark Triad and work behavior: A social exchangeperspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,557–579. doi: 10.1037/a0025679

O’Connor, B. (2002). A quantitative review ofthe comprehensiveness of the five-factor modelin relation to popular personality inventories.Assessment, 9, 188–203.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T.A. (2007). In support of personality assessment inorganizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60,995–1027.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxictriangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers,and conducive environments. The LeadershipQuarterly, 18, 176–194.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triadof personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, andpsychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality,36, 556–563.

Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization ofpersonality and prediction of behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74, 538.

Perugini, M., & Gallucci, M. (1997). A hierarchicalfaceted model of the big five. European Journal ofPersonality, 11, 279–301.

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S.M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side andthe dark-side of CEO personality: Examiningcore self-evaluations, narcissism, transformationalleadership, and strategic influence. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 1365.

Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2008). Sociogenomicpersonality psychology. Journal of Personality,76(6), 1523–1544.

Rolland, J. P., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). The validity ofFFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traitsto predict negative affects at work: A six-monthprospective study in a military sample. EuropeanJournal of Personality, 17, 101–121.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model ofpersonality and job performance in the EuropeanCommunity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30.

Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five personality dimensionsand job performance in army and civil occupations:A European perspective. Human Performance, 11,271–288.

Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance usingFFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 76,323–346.

Salgado, J. F., & Tauriz, G. (2012). The Five-FactorModel, forced-choice personality inventories andperformance: A comprehensive meta-analysis ofacademic and occupational validity studies. Euro-pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 1–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198

Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factormodel and personality disorder empirical litera-ture: A meta-analytic review. Clinical PsychologyReview., 23, 1055–1085.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validityand utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implicationsof 85 years of research findings. PsychologicalBulletin, 124(2), 262–274.

Shedler, J., & Westen, D. (2004). Refining person-ality disorder diagnosis: Integrating science andpractice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161,1350–1365.

Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., Clark, L. A.,Oldham, J. M., Alarcon, R. D., ... Siever, L. J. (2011).Personality disorder types proposed for DSM-5.Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 136–169.

Skodol, A. E., Oldham, J. M., Bender, D. S., Dyck,I. R., Stout, R. L., Morey, L. C., ... Gunderson, J.G. (2005). Dimensional representations of DSM-IVpersonality disorders: Relationships to functionalimpairment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162,1919–1925.

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & White,L. A. (2012). Adaptive testing with multidimen-sional pairwise preference items improving theefficiency of personality and other noncognitiveassessments. Organizational Research Methods,15, 463–487.

Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personalitytests at the crossroads: A response to Morge-son, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy,and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 60,967–993.

Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright,A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013).The convergent structure of DSM-5 personalitytrait facets and five-factor model trait domains.Assessment, 20, 308–311.

Tromp, N. B., & Koot, H. M. (2010). Dimensionsof normal and abnormal personality: ElucidatingDSM-IV personality disorder symptoms in adoles-cents. Journal of Personality, 78, 839–864.

Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. (2005). Categorical and dimen-sional models of personality disorders. AnnualReview of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380.

Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternativedimensional models of personality disorder: Find-ing a common ground. Journal of PersonalityDisorders, 19, 110–130.

Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Oltmanns,T. F. (2013). Measures to assess maladaptivevariants of the five-factor model. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 94, 450–455.

Wille, B., De Fruyt, F., & De Clercq, B. (2013).Expanding and reconceptualizing aberrant per-sonality at work: Validity of Five-Factor Modelaberrant personality tendencies to predict careeroutcomes. Personnel Psychology, 66, 173–223.doi: 10.1111/peps.12016

Wright, A. G. (2011). Qualitative and quantitativedistinctions in personality disorder. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 93, 370–379.

Wright, A. G., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon,K. E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012).The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathologicalpersonality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,121, 951–957.

Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dis-positional basis of counterproductive work behav-ior: The role of aberrant personality. PersonnelPsychology, 64, 593–626.