برداشت از افراد مبتلا به اختلالات شخصیت بر اساس برش نازک از رفتار

Abstract Strangers made reliable judgments about personality traits after viewing one 30-s excerpt from interviews with anonymous target persons. Ratings were generated for 229 military recruits participating in a study of personality disorders. Approximately 28% of the recruits met DSM-IV criteria for a definite or probable personality disorder (PD). Several untrained undergraduate students rated each video clip with regard to the Big Five personality traits, physical attractiveness, and likeability. The students accurately rated people who exhibited features of paranoid, schizotypal, dependent, and avoidant PDs as being lower in extraversion. The raters also considered these people less likeable. Students accurately rated people who exhibited features of histrionic PD as being higher in extraversion and found them to be more likeable. Laypersons can make accurate judgments regarding some personality characteristics associated with personality disorders, even on the basis of minimal information. These perceptions may influence ways in which people respond to others with PDs.

. Results We calculated the interrater reliability of the thin slice ratings as intraclass correlations. The reliabilities of composite ratings for 14 raters were: Neuroticism (emotionality), .58; extraversion, 93; openness (curiosity), .88; agreeableness, .88; and conscientiousness, .82.1 The reliability for ratings of physical attractiveness was .90, and the reliability for ratings of likeability was .89. Intercorrelations among the seven thin slice ratings were also calculated. These are presented in Table 2. Overall, neuroticism was negatively correlated with all of the other traits measured. Ratings of extraversion, agreeableness, and openness were highly correlated with each other, and they were positively related to likeability. Table 2. Inter-correlations of the thin slice ratings Five factors Likeable Attractive E A C N O Extraverted 1.0 — — — — — — Agreeable 0.87 1.0 — — — — — Conscientious 0.61 0.87 1.0 — — — — Neurotic −0.58 −0.52 −0.49 1.0 — — — Open 0.90 0.81 0.59 −0.45 1.0 — — Likeable 0.88 0.87 0.64 −0.53 0.85 1.0 — Attractive 0.41 0.42 0.33 −0.27 0.37 0.63 1.0 Table options Our primary interest was in the relation between thin slice ratings and evidence regarding the presence of personality disorders. Pearson’s correlations were calculated between the mean of each of the thin slice ratings and diagnostic scales from two sources: the SIDP and peer nomination scores. Results from the SIDP were chosen to represent self-reported personality disorder traits rather than SNAP results because structured interviews are generally considered to be the gold standard in assessing personality disorders (Loranger, 1992). These results are presented in Table 3. Although the correlations are not large, many are significant at a p level of .05, and many are in expected directions. For individuals identified by peers as having traits of Schizoid, Schizotypal, Avoidant, and Dependent personality disorders, thin slice raters observed low levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. The raters also found these people to be less attractive and less likeable. Targets identified by peers as having Borderline personality disorder traits were also given lower ratings on likeability by the thin slice raters, and they were rated as being low on extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Targets who identified themselves as having characteristics of Histrionic personality disorder were perceived by thin slice raters as being high on extraversion, agreeableness, openness, attractiveness, and they were considered to be more likeable. Table 3. Correlations between thin slice ratings and personality disorder measures Five factors Likeable Attractive E A C N O Paranoid SIDP −0.08 −0.06 −0.04 0.06 −0.03 −0.11 −0.10 Peer −0.09 −0.12 −0.13 0.10 −0.13 −0.08 0.02 Schizoid SIDP −0.34 −0.31 −0.19 0.16 −0.35 −0.35 −0.17 Peer −0.31 −0.28 −0.19 0.26 −0.29 −0.30 −0.20 Schizotypal SIDP −0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 −0.01 −0.35 −0.17 Peer −0.24 −0.25 −0.18 0.26 −0.23 −0.26 −0.23 Antisocial SIDP 0.14 0.07 −0.06 −0.15 0.11 0.10 0.05 Peer 0.01 −0.04 −0.11 0.04 −0.04 0.01 0.03 Borderline SIDP 0.05 0.04 −0.02 −0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 Peer −0.14 −0.17 −0.17 0.18 −0.17 −0.14 −0.04 Histrionic SIDP 0.25 0.23 0.09 −0.11 0.25 0.23 0.18 Peer 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.18 0.18 Narcissistic SIDP 0.09 0.08 0.03 −0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 Peer 0.15 0.10 0.01 −0.09 0.12 0.19 0.27 Avoidant SIDP −0.16 −0.07 −0.02 0.15 −0.10 −0.09 −0.04 Peer −0.27 −0.25 −0.16 0.27 −0.26 −0.28 −0.24 Dependent SIDP −0.08 −0.08 −0.11 0.05 −0.05 −0.06 −0.01 Peer −0.20 −0.21 −0.17 0.26 −0.20 −0.21 −0.17 OCPD SIDP −0.01 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.01 −0.01 0.01 Peer 0.02 −0.01 0.08 −0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 Note.N=229 for peer nomination scores, N=231 for SIDP; r>.13 is significant at p level of .05 (significant correlations are in bold-faced type). Table options Sequential multiple regression was utilized to determine if the five thin slice personality factors improved prediction of personality disorders beyond the attractiveness and likeability factors. These regressions were done separately for peer-nominated personality disorders and for the SIDP results. For each disorder, the peer or SIDP results were first predicted from thin slice ratings of physical attractiveness. Next, self and peer results were predicted by attractiveness and likeability. Finally, the results were predicted from all seven thin slice ratings. Due to the large number of regressions calculated, only those that reached statistical significance (p<.05) are presented in Table 4 (SIDP results) and Table 5 (peer-nomination results). For each, statistics are presented for the overall equation (1) with only attractiveness, (2) with attractiveness and likeability, and (3) for the equation after the five factors were added. For each step, the change in R2 associated with the addition of the relevant variables is provided with related tests of significance. In the interest of brevity, standardized regression coefficients are only included for models that accounted for a significantly higher proportion of variance explained than lower models. Table 4. Significant regression analysis results by personality disorder: SIDP results Model β R2 ΔR2 F for ΔR2 Schizoid (1) Attractive −0.17** 0.03** (2) Attractive 0.07 0.12** 0.09 23.32** Likeable −0.39** (3) All 7 variables 0.14** 0.02 1.04 Schizotypal (1) Attractive −0.18** 0.03** (2) Attractive −0.21* 0.03* None Likeable 0.05 Antisocial (3) Attractive 0.04 0.07* 0.06 3.36** Likeable −0.07 Extraverted 0.20 Agreeable 0.04 Conscientious −0.29** Neurotic −0.16 Open 0.04 Histrionic (1) Attractive 0.18** 0.03** (2) Attractive 0.05 0.06** 0.03 7.28** Likeable 0.20* (3) All 7 variables 0.09** 0.03 1.47 Note.N=231. * p<.05. ** p<.01. Table options Table 5. Significant regression analysis results by personality disorder: Peer results Model β R2 ΔR2 F for ΔR2 Schizoid (1) Attractive −0.20** 0.04** (2) Attractive −0.02 0.09** 0.05 12.42** Likeable −0.28** (3) All 7 variables 0.12** 0.03 1.51 Schizotypal (1) Attractive −0.23** 0.05** (2) Attractive −0.11 0.07** 0.02 4.86* Likeable −0.19* (3) All 7 variables 0.11** 0.04 1.99 Borderline (3) All 7 variables 0.06* 0.04 1.88 Histrionic (1) Attractive 0.18** 0.03** (2) Attractive 0.11 0.04* 0.01 2.35 Likeable 0.10 (3) All 7 variables 0.07* 0.03 1.43 Narcissistic (1) Attractive 0.27** 0.07** (2) Attractive 0.25** 0.07** None Likeable 0.03 (3) All 7 variables 0.09** 0.02 0.97 Avoidant (1) Attractive −0.24** 0.06** (2) Attractive −0.10 0.08** 0.02 4.91* Likeable −0.22** (3) All variables 0.12** 0.04 2.01 Dependent (1) Attractive −0.17* 0.03* (2) Attractive −0.05 0.05** 0.02 4.76* Likeable −0.18* (3) All variables 0.09** 0.04 1.94 Note.N=229. * p<.05. ** p<.01. Table options For several disorders, including the variable of likeability in the regression equation accounted for a significantly greater proportion of variance than physical attractiveness alone. This pattern holds for Schizoid personality traits (both SIDP and peer), peer-rated Schizotypal personality traits, Histrionic personality traits (SIDP), and peer-rated Avoidant and Dependent personality traits. While adding in the five-factor thin slice ratings improved overall variance explained for many disorders, the change in variance explained was significant only for Antisocial personality traits measured by the SIDP. For antisocial traits, thin slice ratings of conscientiousness were the strongest predictive variable.