 6. Temperament  167
standardizing them to the same metric, 
and correlated them with the temperament 
scales.
The results of these temperament– 
symptom analyses are shown in the middle 
section of Table 6.6. Both the IDAS-II in -
ternalizing and oddity factors correlated 
with N/NE, with the former having a no -
tably stronger correlation ( r’s = .62 and .32, 
respectively), consistent with N/NE often 
being considered the core of the internaliz -
ing dimension. Internalizing also correlated 
negatively ( r = –.31) with E/PE, which re -
flects the negative relation of this factor to 
depressive symptomatology and also symp -
toms of social anxiety (Clark, Watson, & 
Mineka, 1994; Watson, Gamez, & Simms, 
2005). The DvC dimension and its sub -
scales correlated positively but modestly ( r’s 
ranged from .22 to .28) with internalizing 
and weakly to nonsignificantly with oddity. 
Similarly, the M.I.N.I. internalizing com -
posite correlated strongly with N/NE ( r = 
.53), modestly negatively ( r = –.20) with E/
PE, and weakly with DvC and its subscales. 
In contrast, the substance use composite cor -
related moderately with DvC and both of its 
subscales ( r = .28 to .31), reflecting the es -
tablished relation between DvC and exter -
nalizing symptoms. Finally, eating pathol -
ogy correlated significantly, though weakly, 
only with N/NE.
Dysfunction
Functioning represents a final area of rel -
evance to psychopathology that relates to 
temperament. In essence, dysfunction or 
disability is a consequence of pathology and 
takes many forms—from dissatisfaction 
with one’s quality of life to difficulties with 
basic functioning (e.g., self-care, activities 
of daily living) and with more complex ac -
tivities, such as occupational, social and in -
terpersonal functioning. IMPP participants 
completed a number of measures of life (dis)
satisfaction/quality of life, which we aggre -
gated into an overall composite. They also 
completed the World Health Organization’s 
Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHO-
DAS 2.0; World Health Organization, 
2010), which assesses functioning across the 
basic to more complex spectrum; it provides 
a total score, as well as a number of more specific domain scores. Finally, they were in -
terviewed with the Range of Impaired Func -
tioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT; Leon et al., 1999), 
which is used to rate level of (dys)function -
ing in work (including school and household 
tasks), multiple types of interpersonal rela -
tionships, and leisure functioning, which 
then can be aggregated into an overall (dys)
functioning score. The interviewee also pro -
vides an overall life (dis)satisfaction rating, 
and the two scores are combined to form a 
total dysfunction score.
The bottom section of Table 6.6 shows 
correlations of the Big Three plus DvC sub -
scale scores with each of these indices of 
(dys)function. Interestingly, the self-  reported 
quality-  of-life composite was moderately to 
strongly correlated with all temperament 
dimensions—  strongly negatively and posi -
tively, respectively, with N/NE and E/PE ( r = 
–.58 and .53, respectively), but also moder -
ately negatively with DvC and both its sub -
scales ( r’s = –.29 to –.36); that is, all aspects 
of temperament are related to how satisfied 
we generally are with our lives. Likewise, 
the WHO-DAS 2.0 composite score corre -
lated significantly, though less strongly, with 
every temperament scale score, from moder -
ately with N/NE to moderately with (low) E/
PE (r’s = .35 and –.27, respectively), to more 
weakly with DvC, slightly more strongly 
with Carefree Orientation than with Anti -
social Behavior.
The overall rating of life dissatisfaction on 
the LIFE-RIFT correlated most strongly— 
moderately negatively ( r = –.38)—with E/
PE, more modestly with N/NE ( r = .25), and 
weakly but significantly with DvC, again 
more with Carefree Orientation than with 
Antisocial Behavior. Interviewer ratings of 
dysfunction had a highly similar correla -
tional pattern, as did the combination of all 
ratings. Interestingly, the latter’s negative 
correlation with E/PE was slightly stronger 
than that of each of the two separate ratings, 
indicating that self-  reported dissatisfaction 
and objectively scored dysfunction are relat -
ed additively to one’s positive temperament.
Thus, the three basic temperaments re -
late systematically to all three domains of 
psychopathology—  maladaptive traits, psy -
chological symptoms, and life dissatisfac -
tion and dysfunction—  more strongly when 
both temperament and psychopathology are 