166 II. BIOLOGICAL  FOuNDATIONS
Personality  Pathology
Participants were assessed for personality 
pathology using both a self-  report question -
naire, the Personality Disorder Inventory 
for DSM-5 (Krueger, Derringer, Markon, 
Watson, & Skodol, 2012), and an interview, 
the Structured Interview for DSM-IV/5 Per -
sonality (SIDP-IV/5; Pfohl, Blum, & Zim -
merman, 1997). After completing the SIDP-
IV/5, trained interviewers used the responses 
to rate the 25 facets of the alternative model 
of personality disorder (AMPD) in Section 
III of DSM-5 (DSM-5-III). Scores for the 
five AMPD domains were calculated using 
three facets that best characterize the core 
characteristics of each, as recommended on 
the website of the American Psychiatric As -
sociation (see www.psychiatry.org/library/
psychiatrists/practice/dsm/apa_dsm5_the-  
personality-  inventory-  for-dsm-5-full-  
version-  adult.pdf ). Specifically, the three 
facet scores were each standardized, then 
averaged to yield the five domain scores, 
so they contributed equally to the domain 
scores.
As can be seen in the top portion of Table 
6.6, each of the “Big Three” domains has 
a clear AMPD counterpart: N/NE relates 
most strongly to negative affectivity, E/PE 
to low detachment, and DvC to disinhibi -
tion and, to a lesser extent, antagonism. 
To be sure, there are some substantial “off- 
diagonal” correlations, especially with the 
PID-5, which are largely due to strong in -
tercorrelations among the PID-5 domain 
scales (mean correlation [ Mr] = .45). Also, 
correlations with the PID-5 are stronger 
than those with the interview ratings due to 
shared method variance. When the two sub -
scales of DvC are correlated with the AMPD 
domains, PID-5 Disinhibition and Antago -
nism show a clear convergent/discriminant 
pattern with Carefree Orientation and An -
tisocial Behavior, respectively, whereas in 
the interview ratings, Antisocial Behavior 
correlates more strongly with both of these 
AMPD domains than does Carefree Orien -
tation. The reasons for this are not clear, but 
given that the interview questions “pull” for 
personality pathology, the raters may have 
interpreted all indications of externalizing 
behavior as reflecting the more pathological 
behavior that is represented in the Antisocial Behavior subscale items. Nevertheless, the 
data indicate that, except for psychoticism, 
the primary dimensions of personality pa -
thology can be mapped systematically onto 
the Big Three temperament domains and its 
components.
Psychological  Symptoms
IMPP participants also completed (1) the 
Expanded Version of the Inventory of De -
pression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS-II; 
Watson et al., 2012), which assesses a wide 
range of symptoms in the domains of mood 
and anxiety disorders (e.g., major depressive 
and bipolar disorders, panic disorder, social 
anxiety disorder), OCD, and PTSD and (2) 
the Mini-  International Neuropsychiatric 
Interview (M.I.N.I.; Sheehan et al., 1998; 
adapted for DSM-5 with the permission of 
the author), which assesses symptoms of 15 
common psychological disorders, including 
those assessed by the IDAS-II and also al -
cohol and substance use disorders, and psy -
chotic symptoms.
For ease of presentation, we factor- 
analyzed the IDAS-II scales and extracted 
two factors that represented the broad di -
mensions of (1) internalizing, characterized 
primarily by symptoms of depressive and 
anxiety disorders (e.g., depressed mood, 
panic symptoms, insomnia), as well as in -
trusive cognitions regarding traumatic ex -
perience, and (2) “oddity,” characterized by 
various types of obsessions and compulsions 
(e.g., cleaning, checking), euphoric mood 
and behaviors associated with bipolar dis -
order, claustrophobia, and avoidance of re -
minders of traumatic experience.
Factor analysis of the M.I.N.I. yielded 
two factors and two doublets. The first fac -
tor was a very broad dimension that com -
prised mostly internalizing symptoms (e.g., 
symptoms of all mood and anxiety disorders 
assessed plus PTSD), as well as symptoms of 
psychosis. The second factor resembled the 
IDAS-II “oddity” factor, except that is also 
included fear-  related symptoms (e.g., symp -
toms of panic, agoraphobia). The doublets 
were bulimia and binge-  eating disorder, and 
alcohol and substance use disorders, respec -
tively. Therefore, rather than creating factor 
scores, we simply created four composites, 
aggregating the four sets of symptoms after 