The Darker Aspects of Motivation: Pathological Personality Traits and ...

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2017, pp. 87-107

DARKER ASPECTS OF MOTIVATION ZEIGLER-HILL AND HOBBS

THE DARKER ASPECTS OF MOTIVATION: PATHOLOGICAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL MOTIVES VIRGIL ZEIGLER-HILL AND KELSEY A. HOBBS Oakland University Basic personality traits (e.g., agreeableness) have been found to be associated with various social motives. In the present studies, we were interested in determining whether the pathological personality traits captured by the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) were associated with certain fundamental social motives (e.g., self-protection, disease avoidance, status seeking). In Study 1, we examined the associations between the pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives in a sample of 311 community members. Negative affectivity had positive associations with a range of fundamental social motives (e.g., self-protection, disease avoidance). Detachment had positive associations with social motives that involved separation from others (i.e., disease avoidance and independence) and negative associations with various social motives that involved closeness with others (e.g., mate retention, kin care). Antagonism had positive associations with social motives that involved direct social benefits for the self (e.g., status seeking) and negative associations with social motives that involved a focus on others (e.g., kin care). Disinhibition and psychoticism shared a negative association with mate retention. In Study 2, we examined whether the interaction of pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motive concerning status seeking would predict how individuals pursued status (e.g., dominance-based strategies) in a sample of 213 community members. Our results revealed that detachment interacted with status seeking motivation to predict the extent to which individuals employed the dominance-based strategy for pursuing status. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings and how they can expand our understanding of the connections between the pathological aspects of personality and social motives. Keywords: Pathological, PID-5, Personality, Fundamental, Social, Motives, Motivation Address correspondence to Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Department of Psychology, Oakland University, 212A Pryale Hall, Rochester, MI 48309; E-mail: [email protected]

© 2017 Guilford Publications, Inc.

87

88

ZEIGLER-HILL AND HOBBS

Fundamental social motives refer to psychological systems that have been shaped over the course of human evolution to energize, organize, and select behaviors that are intended to manage the sorts of recurrent social opportunities and threats that have been experienced by humans (e.g., Neel, Kenrick, White, & Neuberg, 2016). For example, humans appear to have a fundamental motivation to form and maintain at least some minimum number of interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). It is important to note that social motives may vary in terms of their breadth or level of abstraction with some social motives— such as the desire for interpersonal relationships—being of a higher-order than more specific motives such as the desire to find a mate. The relatively specific motives—such as the desire to find a mate—may be quite helpful in understanding human behavior because these motives may emerge in situations that involve different adaptive problems (e.g., Neel et al., 2016). For example, maintaining connections to a social group may involve a very different set of adaptive problems than attracting and keeping a mating partner. Similarly, concerns regarding self-protection likely involve motivations that are quite different from those linked with providing care to family members. The specific fundamental social motives identified by Neel et al. (2016), are self-protection, disease avoidance, affiliation (i.e., group affiliation, exclusion concerns, and independence), status seeking, mate seeking, mate retention (i.e., general mate retention and breakup concerns), and kin care (i.e., directed toward family and children). Fundamental social motives are most often conceptualized as individual differences that are distinct from personality traits (e.g., Neel et al., 2016). For example, Neel and colleagues (2016) found the fundamental social motives to have a wide range of associations with the Big Five personality dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and openness (e.g., status concerns were positively associated with extraversion but negatively associated with agreeableness). These associations are not surprising given that personality traits are intimately connected with how individuals process information about their social environments and often have implications for the values and goals that are adopted by individuals. It is important to note that Neel and colleagues (2016), found the fun-

DARKER ASPECTS OF MOTIVATION 89

damental social motives to be associated with various recent life experiences (e.g., volunteering, smoking cigarettes, using social networking websites, spending time with friends, leading others in the workplace, having sex, being unfaithful to one’s romantic partner) even when statistically controlling for the variance in these outcomes that was accounted for by the Big Five personality dimensions. The present studies sought to extend what is known about the connections between the fundamental social motives and personality by examining the broad array of pathological personality traits that were described in Section III (Emerging Measures and Models in need of further study) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This alternative model of personality pathology was developed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Workgroup and focuses on the following pathological personality traits: negative affectivity (i.e., the tendency to experience an array of negative emotions), detachment (i.e., characterized by introversion, social isolation, and anhedonia), antagonism (i.e., aggressive tendencies accompanied by assertions of dominance and grandiosity), disinhibition (i.e., impulsivity and sensation seeking), and psychoticism (i.e., a disconnection from reality and a tendency to experience illogical thought patterns). The pathological personality traits captured by this model are maladaptive variants of the Big Five personality dimensions of emotional stability (negative affectivity), low extraversion (detachment), low agreeableness (antagonism), low conscientiousness (disinhibition), and openness (psychoticism; Thomas et al., 2013). Research concerning the DSM-5 pathological personality traits is still in its earliest stages but this model has already demonstrated its utility due to its focus on extreme or atypical levels of personality traits that are not adequately captured by other models. For example, these pathological personality traits have been shown to be associated with a wide range of phenomena including interpersonal functioning (e.g., Southard, Noser, Pollock, Mercer, & Zeigler-Hill, 2015), moral judgments (Noser et al., 2015), mate retention behaviors (Holden, Roof, McCabe, & Zeigler-Hill, 2015), emotion regulation difficulties (Pollock, Mc-

90


Cabe, Southard, & Zeigler-Hill, 2016), narcissism (Wright et al., 2013), and aggression (Hopwood et al., 2013). OVERVIEW AND PREDICTIONS The purpose of the present studies was to examine the connections that the DSM-5 pathological personality traits had with the fundamental social motives identified by Neel and colleagues (2016) as well as the possibility that these fundamental social motives may moderate the associations that the pathological personality traits have with certain types of social behavior. Study 1 examined the associations that the DSM-5 pathological personality traits had with the fundamental social motives. Study 2 examined whether the interaction of pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives would predict certain behaviors (e.g., use of dominance-based strategies for pursuing social status). STUDY 1 Our goal for Study 1 was to use the alternative model of personality pathology presented in the DSM-5 as an organizing framework to gain a clearer understanding of these fundamental social motives. Various studies have suggested that individuals with high levels of pathological personality traits may have problematic interpersonal relationships characterized by aggression, manipulation, and exploitation (e.g., Holden et al., 2015; Strickland, Drislane, Lucy, Krueger, & Patrick, 2013). For example, individuals with high levels of antagonism may lash out against others who have personal desires that conflict with their own goals and desires (Harkness, Reynolds, & Lilienfeld, 2014). This is important because pathological personality traits are often accompanied by interpersonal difficulties and the present study may shed light on the role that the fundamental social motives play in these difficulties (e.g., individuals with high levels of antagonism may be highly motivated by the desire for status rather than concerns about gaining acceptance or maintaining warm interpersonal relationships). Therefore, we sought to ex-


tend previous research concerning both pathological personality traits and motivation by assessing the relationship between the DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. We believed that the DSM-5 pathological personality traits would be associated with the fundamental social motives because it has been argued that these pathological personality traits represent major adaptive systems that have evolved because of their survival value (Harkness et al., 2014). More specifically, negative affectivity corresponds to short-term danger detection (i.e., attention to imminent danger and injury), detachment corresponds to resource acquisition (i.e., arousal that is evoked by obtaining and consuming resources), antagonism corresponds to agenda protection (i.e., focusing energy and concentration on overcoming obstacles to goals), disinhibition corresponds to long-term cost-benefit analysis (i.e., consideration of the longterm costs and benefits of one’s behavior), and psychoticism corresponds to reality modeling for action (i.e., construction and storage of mental representations of the social environment that are used in planning behaviors). Each of the psychological systems represented by these pathological personality traits would seem to have likely connections with the fundamental social motives. Our predictions for negative affectivity (short-term danger detection) were that it would be positively associated with fundamental social motives reflecting concerns about potential threats to one’s own physical safety (i.e., self-protection and disease avoidance) and social relationships (i.e., exclusion concerns, mate retention, and breakup concerns). We expected detachment (resource acquisition) to be positively associated with fundamental social motives concerning separation from others (i.e., independence and disease avoidance) and negatively associated with those motives concerning connections with others (i.e., group affiliation, exclusion concerns, mate seeking, mate retention, breakup concerns, kin care for children, and kin care for family) or the evaluations provided by others (i.e., status seeking). Our predictions for antagonism (agenda protection) were that it would be positively associated with fundamental social motives concerning status and access to

92


mates but negatively associated with motives involving safety (i.e., self-protection and disease avoidance), the maintenance of relationships (i.e., group affiliation, exclusion concerns, and mate retention), or the welfare of others (i.e., kin care for children and kin care for family). Our predictions for disinhibition (a lack of long-term cost-benefit analysis) were similar to our predictions for antagonism such that we expected disinhibition to be negatively associated with fundamental social motives concerning safety (i.e., self-protection and disease avoidance), the maintenance of relationships (i.e., group affiliation, exclusion concerns, mate retention, breakup concerns), or the welfare of others (i.e., kin care for children and kin care for family). However, unlike our predictions for antagonism, we did not expect disinhibition to be positively associated with status seeking. Finally, we did not have clear predictions for the connections that psychoticism (relatively poor mental representations of the social environment) would have with the fundamental social motives but we included this pathological personality trait for exploratory purposes and reportorial completeness. METHOD PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

Participants were 318 community adults from the United States who were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants were asked to complete measures concerning pathological personality features and the fundamental social motives—along with other measures that are not relevant to the present study (e.g., aggression)—via a secure website. Data were excluded for seven participants who failed to successfully complete two or more of the directed response items that were included in the instruments to identify inattentive responding (e.g., Answer this item with Strongly Disagree). The final sample consisted of 311 participants (153 men, 158 women). The mean age of the participants was 33.19 years (SD = 10.45) and their racial/ethnic composition was 77% White, 10% Black, 6% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 2% other.


MEASURES Pathological Personality Traits. Pathological personality traits were assessed with the brief form of the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5-BF; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). The PID-5-BF is a 25-item instrument designed to assess the following five broad pathological personality trait dimensions: negative affectivity (5 items; e.g., I worry about almost everything; a = .78), detachment (5 items; e.g., I don’t like to get too close to people; a = .79), antagonism (5 items; e.g., I use people to get what I want; a = .83), disinhibition (5 items; e.g., People would describe me as reckless; a = .83), and psychoticism (5 items; e.g., My thoughts often don’t make sense to others; a = .82). Participants were asked to rate how accurately each of the items of the PID-5-BF described them using scales ranging from 0 (very false or often very false) to 3 (very true or often true). Fundamental Social Motives. Fundamental social motives were assessed with the Fundamental Social Motives Inventory (Neel et al., 2016). The Fundamental Social Motives Inventory is a 66item instrument designed to assess the following motives: selfprotection (6 items; e.g., I think a lot about how to stay away from dangerous people; a = .85), disease avoidance (6 items; e.g., I avoid places and people that might carry diseases; a = .84), group affiliation (6 items; e.g., Being part of a group is important to me; a = .80), exclusion concerns (6 items; e.g., I worry about being rejected; a = .89), independence (6 items; e.g., Having time alone is extremely important to me; a = .81), status seeking (6 items; e.g., It’s important to me that others respect my rank or position; a = .80), mate seeking (6 items; e.g., I spend a lot of time thinking about ways to meet possible dating partners; a = .87), mate retention (6 items; e.g., It is important to me that my partner is sexually loyal to me; a = .77), breakup concerns (6 items; e.g., I often think about whether my partner will leave me; a = .92), kin care for family (6 items; e.g., Caring for family members is important to me; a = .88), and kin care for children (6 items; e.g., Providing for my children is important to me; a = .88). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each

FIGURE 1. Study 1: Path model indicating the associations that pathological personality traits had with fundamental social motives. Note. Rectangles indicate measured variables and circles indicate disturbance terms. The significant positive associations are indicated by solid black arrows. The significant negative associations are indicated by dashed black arrows. The correlations are included for the relationships between the predictors (i.e., pathological personality traits) as well as among the outcome variables (i.e., fundamental social motives) and are indicated by curved bidirectional arrows. The grey lines represent nonsignificant associations.

94 ZEIGLER-HILL AND HOBBS


statement using scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). RESULTS Path analysis was used to examine the unique associations that the PID-5 pathological personality traits had with the fundamental social motives. The advantages of using path analysis over multiple regression analyses include the ability to account for shared variance among outcome variables entered simultaneously and the use of fewer inferential tests which reduces the likelihood of committing a Type 1 error. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 1 and the coefficients are reported in the following sections. SELF-PROTECTION

The results for self-protection revealed a positive association for negative affectivity (b = .32, t = 4.59, SE = 0.07, p < .001) and a negative association for antagonism (b = −.27, t = −3.64, SE = 0.08, p < .001) such that the individuals who reported the highest levels of self-protection motives were those with relatively high levels of negative affectivity and low levels of antagonism. DISEASE AVOIDANCE

The results for disease avoidance revealed positive associations for negative affectivity (b = .19, t = 2.65, SE = 0.07, p = .01) and detachment (b = .19, t = 2.42, SE = 0.08, p = .02) as well as a negative association for antagonism (b = −.14, t = −2.52, SE = 0.08, p = .01). These results show that the individuals who reported the highest levels of disease avoidance motives were those with relatively high levels of negative affectivity and detachment along with low levels of antagonism.

96


GROUP AFFILIATION

The results for group affiliation revealed a negative association for detachment (b = −.56, t = −7.74, SE = 0.07, p < .001) such that the individuals who reported the lowest levels of group affiliation motives were those with relatively high levels of detachment. EXCLUSION CONCERNS

The results for exclusion concerns revealed positive associations for negative affectivity (b = .50, t = 7.52, SE = 0.07, p < .001) and antagonism (b = .15, t = 2.10, SE = 0.07, p = .04) as well as a negative association for detachment (b = −.24, t = −3.40, SE = 0.07, p < .001). These results show that the individuals who reported the highest levels of exclusion concerns were those with relatively high levels of negative affectivity and antagonism as well as low levels of detachment. INDEPENDENCE

The results for independence revealed a positive association for detachment (b = .40, t = 5.22, SE = 0.08, p < .001) and a negative association for antagonism (b = −.31, t = −4.19, SE = 0.08, p < .001) such that the highest levels of independence motives were reported by those individuals with relatively high levels of detachment and low levels of antagonism. STATUS SEEKING

The results for status seeking revealed a positive association for antagonism (b = .52, t = 7.20, SE = 0.07, p < .001) and a negative association for detachment (b = −.34, t = −4.69, SE = 0.07, p < .001) such that the individuals who reported the highest levels of status seeking motives were those with relatively high levels of antagonism and low levels of detachment.


MATE SEEKING

The results for mate seeking revealed a positive association for antagonism (b = .40, t = 5.56, SE = 0.07, p < .001) such that the individuals who reported the highest levels of mate seeking motives were those with relatively high levels of antagonism. MATE RETENTION

The results for mate retention revealed a positive association for negative affectivity (b = .25, t = 4.17, SE = 0.06, p < .001) as well as negative associations for detachment (b = −.24, t = −3.80, SE = 0.06, p < .001), antagonism (b = −.22, t = −3.59, SE = 0.06, p < .001), disinhibition (b = −.16, t = −2.32, SE = 0.07, p = .02), and psychoticism (b = −.25, t = −3.32, SE = 0.08, p < .001). These results show that the individuals who reported the highest levels of mate retention motives were those with relatively high levels of negative affectivity and low levels of detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism. BREAKUP CONCERNS The results for breakup concerns revealed positive associations for negative affectivity (b = .40, t = 6.23, SE = 0.07, p < .001) and antagonism (b = .17, t = 2.43, SE = 0.07, p = .02) such that the individuals who reported the highest levels of breakup concerns were those with relatively high levels of negative affectivity and antagonism. KIN CARE FOR FAMILY

The results for kin care for family revealed negative associations for detachment (b = −.29, t = −4.23, SE = 0.07, p < .001) and antagonism (b = −.38, t = −5.61, SE = 0.07, p < .001) such that the individuals who reported the highest levels of kin care for family motives were those with relatively low levels of detachment and antagonism.

98


KIN CARE FOR CHILDREN

The results for kin care for children revealed a positive association for negative affectivity (b = .19, t = 2.60, SE = 0.07, p = .01) and negative associations for detachment (b = −.20, t = −2.67, SE = 0.08, p = .01) and antagonism (b = −.27, t = −3.53, SE = 0.08, p < .001). These results suggest that the individuals who reported the highest levels of kin care for children motives were those with relatively high levels of negative affectivity along with low levels of detachment and antagonism. DISCUSSION The results of Study 1 were largely consistent with our predictions such that the pathological personality traits had unique associations with the fundamental social motives. As expected, negative affectivity had unique positive associations with the fundamental social motives reflecting concerns about potential threats to one’s own physical safety (i.e., self-protection and disease avoidance) and social relationships (i.e., exclusion concerns, mate retention, and breakup concerns). These results are consistent with the argument that negative affectivity is linked with psychological systems concerning short-term danger detection (Harkness et al., 2014). The connections that negative affectivity has with fundamental social motives that involve concerns regarding personal safety and uncertainty about social relationships suggest vigilance for cues to potential threats. That is, it appears that individuals with high levels of negative affectivity may be motivated to protect themselves from both physical threats and social threats. Our predictions for detachment were largely supported. As expected, detachment was positively associated with fundamental social motives concerning separation from others (i.e., independence and disease avoidance) and negatively associated with some of the motives concerning connections with others (i.e., group affiliation, exclusion concerns, mate retention, kin care for children, and kin care for family) and the evaluations of others (i.e., status seeking). These findings are consistent with previous research showing that individuals with high levels of detach-


ment are interpersonally cold and avoidant (e.g., Southard et al., 2015). Antagonism is linked with the adaptive system of agenda protection, which is characterized by a focus on balancing one’s own desires with the desires of others in the social environment (Harkness et al., 2014). If there are conflicts between the desires of the self and others, agenda protection systems motivate the individual to behave in such a way that his or her desires take precedence over the desires of others. This helps to ensure that the individual remains focused on efforts that are relevant to his or her survival and reproduction. Our predictions for antagonism were somewhat supported by the results of Study 1. As expected, antagonism was positively associated with the status seeking and mate seeking motives as well as negatively associated with motives involving one’s own safety (i.e., self-protection and disease avoidance) or the welfare of others (i.e., kin care for children and kin care for family). These results are consistent with the characterization of antagonistic individuals as being cold, callous, and manipulative in their dealings with others (Hopwood et al., 2013; Southard et al., 2015; Strickland et al., 2013). For example, individuals with high levels of antagonism have been found to be relatively unconcerned about how their choices may harm others when making moral decisions (Noser et al., 2015). Our predictions that antagonism would be negatively associated with motivations concerning the maintenance of relationships received mixed support. As expected, antagonism was negatively associated with mate retention. However, the expected negative association between antagonism and group affiliation did not emerge. Further, antagonism was found to have positive associations with exclusion concerns despite our prediction that this association would be negative. Our predictions for disinhibition received mixed support. As expected, disinhibition was negatively associated with fundamental social motivations concerning mate retention. This is consistent with the view that disinhibition reflects impairments in psychological systems concerning long-term cost-benefit analysis (i.e., the ability to assess future rewards and consequences by mentally projecting into the future; Harkness et al., 2014). The negative association between disinhibition and mate retention

100


may highlight another area of life where disinhibition may lead to behaviors that may be harmful to individuals over time (e.g., taking one’s romantic partner for granted). However, our predictions that disinhibition would be negatively associated with fundamental social motives concerning safety (i.e., self-protection and disease avoidance), the maintenance of relationships other than mate retention (i.e., group affiliation, exclusion concerns, and breakup concerns), or the welfare of others (i.e., kin care for children and kin care for family) were not supported by the results of the present study. Psychoticism is thought to reflect evolved psychological systems concerning reality modeling (Harkness et al., 2014). This adaptive system is believed to create mental representations of the external environment that can be used by individuals to plan their behaviors. High levels of psychoticism correspond to deficits in this reality modeling system. We did not have clear predictions for the connections that psychoticism would have with the fundamental social motives but it was found to have a unique negative association with mate retention. This result may be explained, at least in part, by the difficulty that individuals with high levels of psychoticism have with understanding the behavior of others. This difficulty in understanding other individuals may prevent them from engaging in behaviors that would help them maintain their romantic relationships. This would also explain the positive relationships that psychoticism had with exclusion concerns and breakup concerns. If individuals with high levels of psychoticism cannot accurately understand the behavior of others, then they may become concerned with these social motives, due to the fact that both involve some degree of worry or uncertainty about interpersonal relationships. STUDY 2 The results of Study 1 revealed a variety of associations between pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. The purpose of Study 2 was to examine whether pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives interact with each other in order to predict certain behaviors. The possibility that personality traits may impact the strategies that


individuals adopt to satisfy their fundamental social motives was suggested by Neel et al., (2016). To explore this possibility, we decided to focus on the fundamental social motive of status seeking. More specifically, we were interested in the possibility that pathological personality traits and the status seeking motive would interact to predict how individuals pursued status. Henrich and colleagues (e.g., Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010) have argued that individuals can pursue status using strategies focused on either social dominance (based on intimidation) or prestige (based on the possession of skills or expertise). We hypothesized that individuals who are motivated to acquire status may pursue the dominance-based strategy (i.e., attempt to intimidate others) if they have high levels of antagonism or detachment. The rationale for these predictions was that individuals with high levels of antagonism (agenda protection) and detachment (resource acquisition) may be more willing to use aversive strategies (e.g., intimidation) to accomplish their interpersonal goals (e.g., Holden et al., 2015). We did not have clear predictions for the prestigebased strategy nor did we have predictions for the other pathological personality traits but they were included for exploratory purposes and reportorial completeness. METHOD PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

Participants were 217 community adults from the United States who were recruited using MTurk. Participants were asked to complete measures concerning pathological personality features, status seeking motivation, dominance, and prestige—along with other measures that are not relevant to the present study (e.g., aggression)—via a secure website. Data were excluded for four participants who failed to successfully complete two or more of the directed response items that were included in the instruments to identify inattentive responding (e.g., Answer this item with Strongly Disagree). The final sample consisted of 213 participants (109 men, 104 women). The mean age of the participants was 32.60 years (SD = 9.53) and their racial/ethnic composition was 73% White, 11% Black, 7% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 4% other.

102


MEASURES Pathological Personality Traits. Pathological personality traits were assessed with the PID-5-BF as in Study 1. Status Seeking Motive. Fundamental social motives were assessed with the status seeking subscale of the Fundamental Social Motives Inventory that was employed in Study 1. Dominance and Prestige. The Dominance-Prestige Scales (Cheng et al., 2010) were used to capture the extent to which individuals employ dominance (8 items; e.g., I am willing to use aggressive tactics to get my way; a = .70) and prestige (9 items; e.g., I am considered an expert on some matters by others; a = .77) in order to pursue status. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

RESULTS To examine whether pathological personality traits interacted with status seeking motivation to predict dominance-based and prestige-based status seeking strategies, we conducted two moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses in which dominance and prestige were regressed onto pathological personality traits and status seeking motivation. The main effects for the pathological personality traits and status seeking motivation were entered on Step 1 and the interaction of each pathological personality trait with status seeking motivation was entered on Step 2. The predictors were centered for the purpose of testing interactions. The regression analysis was followed by simple slopes tests to describe the interaction of continuous variables. These simple slopes tests were conducted using values that were one standard deviation above and below their respective means (e.g., a high level of detachment was represented by a value that was one standard deviation above its mean, whereas a low level of detachment was represented by a value that was one standard deviation below its mean).


FIGURE 2. Study 2: Predicted values for dominance illustrating the interaction of detachment and status seeking at values that are one standard deviation above and below their respective means.

DOMINANCE

The analysis concerning dominance revealed main effects for antagonism (b = .41, t = 5.75, p < .001) and status seeking motivation (b = .31, t = 5.28, p < .001). These main effects showed that individuals who reported higher levels of antagonism and status seeking motivation tended to report greater use of dominancebased strategies for seeking social status. However, the main effect of status seeking motivation was qualified by its interactions with detachment (b = .26, t = 3.12, p = .002). The predicted values for this interaction are presented in Figure 2. Simple slopes tests for this interaction revealed that the slope of the line representing the association between detachment and dominance was significant for individuals who reported higher levels of status seeking motivation (b = .40, t = 3.50, p = .001) but not for those who reported lower levels of status seeking motivation (b = −.10, t = −0.96, p = .34). These results suggest that among individuals who are motivated to seek status, higher levels of detachment predicted greater reliance on dominance-based strategies as a way to gain status. In contrast, detachment was not associated with the use of dominance-based strategies for those individuals who were not particularly motivated to seek status.

104


PRESTIGE

The analysis concerning prestige revealed main effects for detachment (b = −.26, t = −2.91, p = .004), antagonism (b = .28, t = 3.29, p < .001), disinhibition (b = −.20, t = −2.39, p = .02), and status seeking motivation (b = .31, t = 4.80, p < .001). These main effects showed that individuals who reported higher levels of antagonism and status seeking motivation tended to report greater use of prestige-based strategies to pursue status, whereas individuals who reported higher levels of detachment and disinhibition tended to report less use of these prestige-based strategies. No other main effects or interactions emerged from this analysis. DISCUSSION The results of Study 2 showed that status seeking motivation was positively associated with both dominance-based and prestigebased strategies for gaining status. In addition, antagonism was positively associated with both dominance and prestige, whereas detachment and disinhibition had negative associations with prestige. As hypothesized, detachment and status seeking motivation interacted to predict dominance. This interaction revealed that the highest levels of the dominance-based strategy were reported by individuals with high levels of detachment who were also motivated to seek status. This is consistent with the possibility that personality traits may impact the strategies that individuals employ to satisfy their fundamental social motives. However, antagonism did not interact with status seeking motivation to predict dominance. This interaction may have failed to emerge because individuals with high levels of antagonism used the dominance-based strategy to pursue status regardless of their status seeking motivation. GENERAL DISCUSSION The purpose of the present studies was to examine the connections that the DSM-5 pathological personality traits had with the fundamental social motives identified by Neel et al. (2016) as well as the possibility that these fundamental social motives may


moderate the associations that the pathological personality traits have with certain types of social behavior. The results of Study 1 were largely consistent with our predictions such that the pathological personality traits had unique associations with the fundamental social motives. The results of Study 2 were partially supportive of our hypotheses. That is, detachment interacted with status seeking motivation to predict the use of dominance-based strategies for gaining status. However, our prediction concerning the interaction of antagonism and status seeking motivation was not supported by the results of Study 2. The results of these studies extend our knowledge concerning the connections between the DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. For example, individuals with high levels of antagonism tend to be motivated by the desire to attain status. However, the motivation to attain status does not appear to moderate the strategies that individuals with high levels of antagonism employ in their pursuit of status (e.g., dominance-based strategies). Although the present studies had a number of strengths (e.g., large community samples, captured a wide array of pathological personality traits), it is important to acknowledge some of their potential limitations. The first limitation is that the direction of causality between pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives cannot be determined due to the correlational nature of these studies. The underlying process model for both studies was that certain pathological personality traits would lead individuals to adopt different fundamental social motives (e.g., antagonistic individuals would develop motivations concerning the acquisition of status). However, this causal sequence cannot be established from the present studies. For example, it is quite possible that the emergence of certain fundamental social motives may have influenced the development of pathological personality traits (e.g., people who are motivated to acquire status may develop more antagonistic personality traits) or that a third variable may have impacted the development of both pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives (e.g., early experiences in a harsh social environment may contribute to the development of both antagonistic personality traits and the motivation to acquire status). Future research should attempt to gain a better un-

106


derstanding of the causal links between pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives by using experimental designs or longitudinal studies. The second limitation is that the present studies relied exclusively on self-report measures of pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives which make it possible that these results may have been distorted by socially desirable responding. For example, it is possible that some individuals may have been reluctant to admit their true social motivations or may have simply lacked adequate insight into their own motivations. Future research would benefit from utilizing strategies that are designed to capture pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives that are not completely reliant on self-report (e.g., observer ratings, clinical interviews). The third limitation is that the pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives employed in the present studies are not exhaustive. For example, the PID-5 pathological personality traits only capture a limited range of personality pathology (e.g., antagonism captures extremely low levels of agreeableness but the PID-5 fails to capture forms of personality pathology reflecting extremely high levels of agreeableness such as gullibility). Despite these limitations, the results of the present studies expand the current understanding of the connections between the darker aspects of personality and motivation by capturing the associations between pathological personality traits and fundamental social motives. REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347. Harkness, A. R., Reynolds, S. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014). A review of systems for psychology and psychiatry: Adaptive systems, personality psychopathology five (PSY-5), and the DSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 121–139.

DARKER ASPECTS OF MOTIVATION 107 Holden, C. J., Roof, C. H., McCabe, G., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). Detached and antagonistic: Pathological personality features and mate retention behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 77–84. Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A.G.C., Krueger, R. F., Schade, N., Markon, K. E., & Morey, L. C. (2013). DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 20, 269–285. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 887–907. Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 3–35. Pollock, N. C., McCabe, G. A., Southard, A. C., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Pathological personality traits and emotion regulation difficulties. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 168–177. Southard, A. C., Noser, A. E., Pollock, N. C., Mercer, S. H., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). The interpersonal nature of dark personality features. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34, 555–586. Strickland, C. M., Drislane, L. E., Lucy, M., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2013). Characterizing psychopathy using DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment, 20, 327–338. 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 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308–311. Wright, A.G.C., Pincus, A. L., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). Conceptions of narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Assessment, 20, 339–352.