Normative and Maladaptive Personality Traits and Self-Reported Executive Functioning

Abstract

Research on self-reported executive functioning (EF) and personality has largely focused on normative personality traits. While previous research has demonstrated that maladaptive personality traits are associated with performance-based EF, the literature examining the relationship between these traits and self-reported EF is limited. The current study examined the relationship between multiple domains of self-reported EF (Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale) and both normative (The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item [IPIP-120]) and maladaptive (Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Short Form [PID-5-SF]) personality traits in an undergraduate student sample (n = 354). Similar to past research, relationships were largest across EF domains for both measures related to neuroticism (i.e., IPIP-120 neuroticism and PID-5-SF negative affectivity) and conscientiousness (i.e., IPIP-120 conscientiousness and PID-5-SF disinhibition). Normative personality traits generally accounted for greater variance in EF when examined alone and were also generally associated with greater incremental validity when compared with maladaptive personality traits. However, multiple regression analyses indicated that maladaptive personality traits added unique predictive variance above and beyond normative personality traits in their association with multiple domains of EF. These results highlight the utility of assessing both normative and maladaptive personality traits as well as multiple domains of EF to more fully understand the relationship between personality and EF.

Keywords

executive functioning personality Big Five BDEFS PID-5-SF

Executive functioning (EF) is a collection of higher order processes designed to facilitate goal-oriented performance (Smolker et al., 2015). EF can be assessed using performance-based measures or self-report measures of EF problems in daily life. These self-report measures assess multiple domains of EF in daily life (e.g., organization, time management) and have demonstrated good ecological validity in predicting functional impairment as assessed by self-report, informant-rated, and clinician-rated measures (Barkley & Fischer, 2011; Castagna et al., 2019; Chaytor et al., 2006). Although performance-based and self-report measures are only modestly correlated (Dehili et al., 2017; Toplak et al., 2013), both are used as measures of EF in neuropsychological assessment (Rabin et al., 2016). Both assessments of EF also contribute incremental variance in predicting functional outcomes with stronger relationships generally seen for self-report measures (e.g., Barkley & Murphy, 2010). Of note, self-report EF measures add incremental variance over performance measures even when predicting non-self-report outcomes (e.g., supervisor ratings of job performance; Barkley & Fischer, 2011). Clinically, understanding an individual’s self-reported executive dysfunction can be important when individualizing treatment or assessing treatment outcomes, as it provides useful information regarding the effectiveness of commonly used behavioral strategies, such as monitoring and goal setting (Barkley, 2014; Mohlman & Gorman, 2005). Additionally, measuring self-reported executive dysfunction amongst nonclinical samples can highlight challenges during times of adjustment, including academic difficulties for students transitioning into college (Baars et al., 2015; Kamradt et al., 2019).

Better self-reported EF is most strongly associated with greater conscientiousness and less neuroticism (e.g., Buchanan, 2016; Meltzer et al., 2017). Relationships with other Big Five personality traits and specific domains of self-reported EF have also been reported. For example, extraversion has a weak relationship with global EF (Buchanan, 2016) and a moderate positive correlation with planning (Kumar et al., 2016). It should be noted that one concern in comparing measures of personality and EF stems from an overlap in content. For example, items related to keeping schedules and completing tasks appear on both Big Five conscientious and EF time-management scales (e.g., Barkley 2011; Watson et al., 2019). However, personality and EF measures differ both in terms of their overall content validity and their associations with other variables. More specifically, studies directly comparing personality and EF demonstrate unique associations with constructs such as academic procrastination (Rabin et al., 2011) and depression (Feldman et al., 2013).

Barkley’s model of EF (Barkley, 2010) identified metacognition and inhibition as the highest order factors of EF. Although models of self-reported EF vary in their content and factor structure, these measures typically include scales assessing metacognition (e.g., planning/organization, problem-solving, organization) and inhibition (i.e., impulsivity, self-restraint). For example, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult version includes both a Behavioral Regulation index and a Metacognition index (Roth et al., 2005). Similarly, the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS; Barkley 2011) captures EF using a five-factor model (i.e., self-management to time, self-organization/problem solving, self-restraint, self-motivation, and self-regulation of emotion). Independent support for the BDEFS factor structure has been obtained in a large study of over 1,300 college students (Kamradt et al., 2019).

Although previous studies have compared performance-based EF with maladaptive personality traits (Lenzenweger et al., 2004; Haaland et al., 2009; Murdock et al., 2013), no studies have examined how these traits relate to self-reported EF. Maladaptive traits, such as those assessed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition (DSM-5) alternative model for personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), are related to the Big Five model and provide unique variance not captured by normative measures (Maples et al., 2014). In general, normative traits, as measured by the International Personality Item Pool–NEO PI-R (IPIP-NEO; Goldberg et al., 2006), and maladaptive traits, as measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012), can be thought of as unidimensional (e.g., conscientiousness vs. disinhibition). However, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form [PID-5-SF] is better at assessing higher maladaptive trait levels (Suzuki et al., 2015).

Prior studies have largely focused on Big Five measures of personality. To our knowledge, no study has examined the relationship between personality and self-reported EF using measures of normative and maladaptive personality and a comprehensive, multidimensional EF measure. Therefore, we aimed to address this gap within the literature. It was hypothesized that maladaptive traits would provide incremental variance beyond normative traits in predicting EF. Additionally, we hypothesized that measures related to neuroticism (i.e., The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item [IPIP-120] neuroticism and PID-5-SF negative affectivity) and conscientiousness (i.e., IPIP-120 conscientious and PID-5-SF disinhibition) would demonstrate the most robust relationships with EF. Although analyses for other personality traits were more exploratory, based on previous findings examining relationships between personality and specific EF domains (e.g., extraversion and planning), it was anticipated that other traits would uniquely relate to domains of EF.

Method

The present study originally included 389 undergraduate students from two southeastern universities. The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board. Questionnaires were administered on Qualtrics and contained two embedded validity questions to ensure accurate responding (e.g., “I am reading questions on this survey before I submit my response”). Individuals were excluded from the study if they did not respond accurately to both of these items (n = 14). Based on the combination of incomplete and invalid responses, 35 students were removed from this data set, resulting in a final sample of 354 students. Participants were approximately 19.85 years old (SD = 3.19; range = 17-52 years) and 68% female. Students were recruited from introductory psychology classes and compensated with course credit. Further description of the sample can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Alpha Values and Subscale Item Means.

Measures/subscales	α	M (SD)
IPIP-120
Neuroticism	.88	2.82 (0.57)
Extraversion	.90	3.48 (0.57)
Openness	.76	3.32 (0.43)
Agreeableness	.82	3.58 (0.45)
Conscientiousness	.88	3.62 (0.51)
PID-5-SF
Negative affect	.88	2.23 (0.46)
Detachment	.90	1.77 (0.51)
Psychoticism	.87	1.92 (0.59)
Antagonistic	.91	1.69 (0.50)
Disinhibition	.78	1.67 (0.32)
BDEFS
Self-management to time	.96	2.00 (0.67)
Self-organization	.96	1.80 (0.60)
Self-restraint	.92	1.67 (0.49)
Self-motivation	.91	1.54 (0.52)
Self-regulation	.93	1.74 (0.59)
Total executive functioning	.98	1.78 (0.49)

Note. DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition; IPIP-120 = The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item; PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form; BDEFS = Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale.

Measures

Participants completed questionnaires assessing personality, EF, and other constructs not examined in this article and thus not reported here (e.g., mindfulness, healthy behaviors). The measures examined in this study each had two unrelated questionnaires presented before them in the following order: BDEFS, IPIP-120, and PID-5-SF.

Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (Barkley, 2011)

The BDEFS is an 89-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess EF across five domains: self-management to time, self-organization/problem solving, self-restraint, self-motivation, and self-regulation of emotion. Ratings are based on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = very often) where higher scores are indicative of greater executive dysfunction. Specifically, self-management to time measures aspects of procrastination, attention, planning, and time management. Self-organization/problem solving examines problems related to order and sequencing, processing speed and accuracy, learning, and problem solving. Self-restraint measures impulsivity, foresight and hindsight, frustration tolerance, and inhibition. Self-motivation assesses persistence toward long-term goals or rewards, determination, and ability to exercise willpower. Self-regulation of emotion relates to one’s ability to control their emotions, self-soothe, and inhibit emotions from clouding perception.

Participants are asked to rate their behaviors over the past 6 months. The BDEFS demonstrates concurrent validity with measures of daily functioning impairment within major life areas, including family functioning, peer relations, educational functioning, community activities, and risk for accidental injuries (Barkley, 2014). The BDEFS manual reports high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .91 to .96) for all subscales and an identical range of values was obtained in the current study. The BDEFS also reports that test–retest reliability assessed within 2 to 3 weeks ranged from r = .62 to r = .9. For all subscales other than self-motivation, values equaled or exceeded r = .78. The value for self-motivation is lower than would be expected for a trait measure (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009; Watson, 2004).

The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item (Maples et al., 2014)

The item response theory (IRT)-based IPIP-120 is an abbreviated measure of the original IPIP-NEO (Goldberg, 1999). This measure was created using an IRT method with the original IPIP-NEO and examining its convergent validity with the original and by Johnson’s (2011) 120-item IPIP-NEO (Maples et al., 2014). This measure is designed to assess the Big Five personality traits and has items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). This measure demonstrates good internal consistency at the trait level (ranging from Cronbach’s α = .76 to .87; Maples et al., 2014). Similarly, in this study, internal consistency of traits ranged from .76 to .9.

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Short Form (Maples et al., 2015)

The PID-5-SF is a measure designed to assess maladaptive personality traits. Based on the original PID-F (Krueger et al., 2012), the short form includes 100 items on a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = very false or often false; 1 = sometimes or somewhat false; 2 = sometimes or somewhat true; 3 = very true or often true) to identify 25 facets and five traits: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism. Trait scores demonstrated good internal consistency (ranging from Cronbach’s α = .87 to .91) and convergent validity at the domain level with the original PID-5 (r = .96 to .98; Maples et al., 2015). Internal consistency within this study ranged from .80 to .91.

Analyses

Correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between personality and EF. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Bagby, et al., 2008; Sharpe & Desai, 2001), two orders of entry (i.e., normative then maladaptive; maladaptive then normative) were examined in hierarchical regressions, in order to assess the incremental validity of maladaptive and normative traits relative to one another.

Results

Sample Statistics

As expected for a nonclinical sample, mean scores for all BDEFS subscales fell within 51st to 75th percentile, which is qualitatively interpreted via the BDEFS manual as “Normal.” Item means for each subscale in the analyses can be found in Table 1.

Bivariate and Partial Correlations

Correlations between personality and EF measures are presented in Table 2. For normative traits, neuroticism and conscientiousness were moderately correlated with all EF domains, with neuroticism being related to greater executive dysfunction and conscientiousness being related to less executive dysfunction. Extraversion was related to less executive dysfunction across all domains except for self-restraint. Openness was significantly related only to worse self-management to time. Agreeableness was significantly related to fewer problems with self-restraint and self-motivation. All maladaptive traits were associated with greater executive dysfunction across domains, although the magnitude of these associations varied greatly. Parallel to findings for normative traits, negative affectivity and disinhibition generally had the strongest associations with different domains.

Table 2.

Bivariate and Partial Correlations Between EF and Personality Facets.

	Self-management to time		Self-organization		Self-restraint		Self-motivation		Self-regulation		Total EF
	Bivariate	Partial	Bivariate	Partial	Bivariate	Partial	Bivariate	Partial	Bivariate	Partial	Bivariate	Partial
IPIP-120
Neuroticism	.41**		.45**		.39**		.35**		.58**		.51**
Extraversion	−.15**	.04	−.17**	.06	.02	.23**	−.16**	.03	−.02	.33**	−.11	.15
Openness	.12*	.17*	.00	.06	.01	.05	.05	.09	.09	.19**	.10	.13*
Agreeableness	−.03	−.02	.02	.06	−.25**	−.22**	−.18**	−.13*	.01	.03	−.08	−.05
Conscientiousness	−.63**	−.55**	−.54**	−.42**	−.55**	−.45**	−.64**	−.56**	−.30**	−.04	−.64**	−.52**
PID-5-SF
Negative Affectivity	.35**		.40**		.44**		.34**		.65**		.49**
Detachment	.26**	.12*	.34**	.19**	.27**	.07	.33**	.18**	.24**	−.09	.34**	.14*
Psychoticism	.27**	.15**	.35**	.23**	.35**	.18**	.35**	.22**	.26**	−.04	.40**	.20**
Antagonism	.15**	.04	.15**	.01	.31**	.17**	.30**	.19**	.12*	−.12*	.23**	.06
Disinhibition	.52**	.46**	.53**	.43**	.58**	.49**	.58**	.50**	.31**	.10	.61**	.50**

Note. Partial correlations for IPIP-120 facets controlled for neuroticism and partial correlations for PID-5-SF facets controlled for negative affectivity. EF = executive functioning; DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition; IPIP-120 = The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item; PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form.

p < .05. ^**p < .01.

Given that all maladaptive traits predicted executive dysfunction, supplemental analyses examining partial correlations between personality traits and EF were conducted, while controlling for neuroticism or negative affectivity. Conscientious and disinhibition maintained robust correlations with all EF domains except for self-regulation of emotion. Agreeableness and openness maintained similar associations across both types of analyses. Extraversion was less strongly associated with better EF across domains and, in some cases, became associated with worse functioning. In general, correlations of psychoticism, antagonism, and detachment with EF decreased, and some relationships were no longer significant when controlling for negative affectivity (see Table 2).

Hierarchical Linear Regression Models

Prior to running hierarchical linear regressions, data were assessed for multicollinearity. All variance inflation factors were less than 4 indicating acceptable levels of multicollinearity (O’Brien, 2007). Table 3 contains beta weights for all normative and maladaptive traits for models containing one set and both sets of predictors. Conscientiousness and disinhibition were related to all aspects of EF, except self-regulation of emotion when both sets of traits were included in the model. Neuroticism and negative affectivity were associated with total EF and all EF domains other than self-motivation when the remaining normative or maladaptive traits, respectively, were added to the model. When all traits were included in the model, neither neuroticism nor negative affectivity were associated with self-motivation or self-management to time and the only subscale both were related to was self-regulation of emotion. Other traits were less consistently related to EF across domains and, in several cases, multivariate relationships differed from univariate relationships in the direction of the relationship.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Comparing EF and Personality Traits.

	Self-management to time				Self-organization
	Step 1		Step 2		Step 1		Step 2
	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]
IPIP-120
Neuroticism	.15 **	[0.05, 0.25]	.10	[−0.04, 0.24]	.25 **	[0.15, 0.36]	.19 **	[0.06, 0.35]
Extraversion	.10*	[0.01, 0.19]	.11	[−0.00, 0.22]	.10	[−0.00, 0.20]	.09	[−0.02, 0.21]
Openness	.15 **	[0.10, 0.32]	.15 **	[0.08, 0.32]	.02	[−0.10, 0.15]	−.01	[−0.13, 0.11]
Agreeableness	.14 **	[0.08, 0.30]	.12*	[0.02, 0.3]	.20 **	[0.14, 0.39]	.22 **	[0.14, 0.44]
Conscientiousness	−.66**	[−0.88, −0.65]	−.57**	[−0.82, −0.51]	−.53**	[−0.74, −0.50]	−.35**	[−0.56, −0.25]
PID-5-SF
Negative Affectivity	.16 **	[0.06, 0.29]	.02	[−0.12, 0.17]	.17 **	[0.08, 0.31]	−.03	[−0.19, 0.12]
Detachment	.06	[−0.08, 0.23]	.07	[−0.08, 0.27]	.12*	[0.02, 0.33]	.10	[−0.04, 0.33]
Psychoticism	.04	[−0.16, 0.33]	.05	[−0.13, 0.32]	.13*	[0.02, 0.50]	.18 **	[0.13, 0.61]
Antagonism	−.19**	[−0.43, −0.11]	−.11	[−0.33, 0.02]	−.25**	[−0.51, −0.20]	−.11	[−0.35, 0.02]
Disinhibition	.51 **	[0.88, 1.34]	.13*	[0.10, 0.55]	.47 **	[0.82, 1.28]	.23 **	[0.22, 0.79]
	Self-restraint				Self-motivation
	Step 1		Step 2		Step 1		Step 2
	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]
IPIP-120
Neuroticism	.27 **	[0.12, 0.25]	.12	[−0.01, 0.17]	.08	[−0.01, 0.08]	.02	[−0.05, 0.07]
Extraversion	.32 **	[0.15, 0.28]	.26 **	[0.11, 0.25]	.08	[−0.00, 0.08]	.06	[−0.02, 0.078]
Openness	.06	[−0.02, 1 0.14]	.05	[−0.04, 0.12]	.12 **	[0.02, 0.12]	.11*	[0.02, 0.12]
Agreeableness	−.11*	[−0.18, −0.02]	−.15**	[−0.22, −0.04]	.00	[−0.05, 0.05]	.05	[−0.03, 0.09]
Conscientiousness	−.50**	[−0.46, −0.31]	−.33**	[−0.35, −0.15]	−.65**	[−0.38, −0.28]	−.50**	[−0.32, −0.19]
PID-5-SF
Negative Affectivity	.24 **	[0.10, 0.25]	.17*	[0.02, 0.22]	.08	[−0.01, 0.09]	.02	[−0.06, 0.08]
Detachment	−.05	[−0.15, 0.05]	.02	[−0.09, 0.14]	.08	[−0.02, 0.12]	.07	[−0.03, 0.12]
Psychoticism	.05	[−0.09, 0.22]	.06	[−0.08, 0.23]	.05	[−0.06, 0.15]	.06	[−0.05, 0.16]
Antagonism	−.01	[−0.11, 0.09]	−.14*	[−0.25, −0.01]	−.02	[−0.08, 0.05]	.00	[−0.08, 0.08]
Disinhibition	.48 **	[0.54, 0.84]	.25 **	[0.17, 0.54]	.50 **	[0.38, 0.58]	.18 **	[0.05, 0.29]
	Self-Regulation				Total EF
	Step 1		Step 2		Step 1		Step 2
	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]	Beta	Beta [CI]
IPIP-120
Neuroticism	.66 **	[0.31, 0.43]	.32 **	[0.10, 0.25]	.31 **	[0.70, 1.29]	.18 **	[0.16, 0.98]
Extraversion	.29 **	[0.11, 0.22]	.21 **	[0.06, 0.18]	.21 **	[0.40, 0.96]	.19 **	[0.27, 0.91]
Openness	.08	[−0.01, 0.13]	.07	[−0.01, 0.11]	.12 **	[0.17, 0.86]	.10*	[0.08, 0.76]
Agreeableness	.03	[−0.04, 0.09]	−.04	[−0.11, 0.04]	.08	[−0.01, 0.69]	.07	[−0.13, 0.69]
Conscientiousness	−.11*	[−0.13, −0.01]	−.09	[−0.14, 0.03]	−.61**	[−2.54, −1.86]	−.47**	[−2.16, −1.26]
PID-5-SF
Negative Affectivity	.68 **	[0.35, 0.47]	.46 **	[0.20, 0.36]	.28 **	[0.61, 1.30]	.11	[−0.07, 0.81]
Detachment	−.05	[−0.12, 0.04]	−.01	[−0.10, 0.09]	.03	[−0.33, 0.59]	.06	[−0.23, 0.78]
Psychoticism	−.02	[−0.14, 0.1]	−.02	[−0.14, 0.10]	.09	[−0.15, 1.28]	.11*	[0.03, 1.38]
Antagonism	−.15**	[−0.20, −0.04]	−.15*	[−0.21, −0.02]	−.17**	[−1.24, −0.32]	−.13*	[−1.09, −0.05]
Disinhibition	.13 **	[0.04, 0.27]	.04	[−0.10, 0.20]	.52 **	[2.87, 4.26]	.18 **	[0.44, 2.09]

Note. Step 1 includes one set of personality facets within the model. Step 2 includes both sets of personality facets. EF = executive functioning; DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition; IPIP-120 = The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item; PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form; Beta = standardized betas; Beta [CI] = 95% confidence intervals for unstandardized betas.

p < .05. ^**p < .01.

Table 4 contains R² and F values for hierarchical regression models. Initial blocks containing only normative or maladaptive traits were both strongly related to EF (e.g., 53% and 45% of variance accounted for, respectively, in models for total EF). The addition of maladaptive traits above normative traits was significant for total EF and all EF domains except for self-management to time. The addition of normative traits above maladaptive traits was significant for total EF and all EF domains. For total EF and all EF domains except self-regulation of emotion, normative traits added more unique variance above maladaptive traits compared with the reverse order of entry (i.e., ΔR² values of .06 to .17 vs. .02 to .08).

Table 4.

Contributions of IPIP-120 and PID-5-SF Personality Traits Predicting EF Within Hierarchical Regression Model.

Executive functioning domains	Step 1: IPIP-120; Step 2: PID-5-SF				Step 1: PID-5-SF; Step 2: IPIP-120
Executive functioning domains	R ²	F	ΔR²	ΔF	R ²	F	ΔR²	ΔF
Self-management to time	.47	59.11	.02	2.12	.32	31.38	.17	21.34
Self-organization	.38	41.43	.07	8.47	.37	38.9	.09	1.26
Self-restraint	.42	48.23	.05	6.63	.38	41.71	.09	1.99
Self-motivation	.43	51.73	.03	4.30	.35	37.07	.11	14.24
Self-regulation	.42	48.19	.08	1.95	.43	53.41	.06	7.60
Total executive functioning	.53	7.52	.05	6.96	.45	52.23	.12	17.90

Note. ΔR²and ΔF values are the values when given predictor is added to the model. EF = executive functioning; IPIP-120 = The International Personality Item Pool–NEO–120 Item; PID-5-SF = Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form.

Bolded ΔF values indicate significant contributions at p < .01.

Discussion

Individual differences in personality have been linked to individual differences in EF. However, this literature has largely focused on normative Big Five measures. The current study expanded on this literature by examining the incremental validity of a measure of maladaptive personality traits and using a multidimensional measure of EF. Consistent with our hypothesis, maladaptive traits assessed by the PID-5 provided incremental validity in predicting EF. This was true for total EF and all domains except self-management to time. The largest gain was in predicting self-regulation, or emotional control, which may reflect the increased ability of the PID-5 negative affectivity items to assess the higher end of the Big Five neuroticism dimension (Suzuki et al., 2015), as well as the inclusion of items assessing emotional lability. A comparable gain was found in predicting self-organization/problem solving in which PID-5 psychoticism emerged as a predictor. This aspect of EF assesses, in part, one’s ability to process, select, and organize information. Similar cognitive complaints have been reported in past studies that found elevations in schizotypal traits (e.g., Cohen et al., 2017) and PID-5 psychoticism, and demonstrated moderate to strong relationships with the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (Longenecker et al., 2020).

The gains observed for the PID-5 should be interpreted in the context of the incremental validity of the IPIP-120. The IPIP-120 generally accounted for greater variance in EF when examined alone and was also generally associated with greater incremental validity when compared to the PID-5. Therefore, although support was found for the inclusion of the PID-5 when examining the relationship between personality and EF, clearly the use of Big Five measures, as has been done previously, is likely warranted, at least in nonclinical, student samples.

Consistent with past research (e.g., Buchanan, 2016), neuroticism and conscientiousness were robust predictors of EF. Conscientiousness generally had stronger associations with all EF domains outside of self-regulation of emotion. This parallels past research in which conscientiousness was more strongly related to several subscales on another self-report measure of EF (i.e., the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult version), except emotional control, which demonstrated a stronger relationship with neuroticism (Meltzer et al., 2017). As further evidence of the utility of the PID-5 in examining relationships between personality and EF, the related PID-5 domains of negative affectivity and disinhibition generally maintained significant associations with EF domains even when IPIP-120 neuroticism and conscientiousness were also included in the model.

Other personality domains also demonstrated relationships with EF, but these were generally smaller in magnitude compared with neuroticism/negative affectivity and conscientiousness/disinhibition. Some of these relationships were driven, in part, by variance related to neuroticism/negative affectivity. Although every PID-5 domain was correlated with every EF domain, when controlling for negative affectivity, these correlations often became smaller in magnitude. Further complicating the interpretation of these additional findings was a suppression effect within the multivariate analyses. For example, although antagonism was related to worse EF in bivariate analyses, it was related to better EF in multivariate analyses. Of note, suppression effects were also found in a prior multiple regression analysis of all Big Five traits as predictors of global EF (Buchanan, 2016). In one sample from that study, extraversion and agreeableness had small, negative bivariate correlations with EF problems but small, positive beta weights in the multiple regression with all traits. Although statistically significant, given this was a sample of nearly 50,000 participants, the size of these associations was dismissed as not being of practical significance and not discussed further. In a smaller sample (n = 345) in the same study, a similar pattern was observed but the regression coefficients were no longer significant. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between these other personality traits and EF.

Limitations of the study include the use of a college sample and the examination of the associations among maladaptive personality traits and EF in a nonclinical sample. Questionnaires were administered in a fixed order and possible order effects on findings are unknown. Overall, when examining normative and maladaptive traits separately, future studies could jointly model parallel traits (e.g., Suzuki et al., 2015) and examine those latent traits as predictors of EF. Future research should aim to better understand the relationship between personality traits (both maladaptive and Big Five) and EF with an emphasis on EF domains and how they are measured (e.g., performance- vs. self-report, see Dehili et al., 2017; Kamradt et al., 2014; Mohan & Mulla, 2013; Toplak et al., 2013).

In summary, our study provides novel evidence regarding the relationship between the Big Five model of personality, clinical maladaptive personality traits, and self-reported EF. Neuroticism/negative affect and conscientiousness/disinhibition were robustly correlated with several EF domains. Other Big Five and maladaptive personality traits also demonstrated associations with aspects of executive dysfunction. This pattern of results emphasizes the utility of examining both normative and maladaptive personality traits as well as multiple domains of EF to more fully understand the relationship between EF and personality.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Scott Roye

Matthew Calamia

Peter J. Castagna

Stephen L. Aita

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

Baars

M. A.

Nije Bijvank

Tonnaer

G. H.

Jolles

(2015). Self-report measures of executive functioning are a determinant of academic performance in first-year students at a university of applied sciences. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01131

Bagby

R. M.

Sellbom

Costa

P. T.

Jr Widiger

T. A.

(2008). Predicting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality and the personality psychopathology five. Personality and Mental Health, 2(2), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.33

Barkley

R. A.

(2010). Differential diagnosis of adults with ADHD: The role of executive function and self-regulation. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 71(7), Article e17. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.9066tx1c

Barkley

R. A.

(2011). Barkley Deficits in Executive Functional Scale (BDEFS). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/t37378-000

Barkley

R. A.

(2014). The assessment of executive functioning using the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scales. In Goldstein

Naglieri

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of executive functioning (pp. 245-263). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_15

Barkley

R. A.

Fischer

(2011). Predicting impairment in major life activities and occupational functioning in hyperactive children as adults: Self-reported executive function (EF) deficits versus EF tests. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(2), 137-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2010.549877

Barkley

R. A.

Murphy

K. R.

(2010). Impairment in occupational functioning and adult ADHD: the predictive utility of executive function (EF) ratings versus EF tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25(3), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acq014

Buchanan

(2016). Self-report measures of executive function problems correlate with personality, not performance-based executive function measures, in nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 372-385. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000192

10.

Castagna

P. J.

Roye

Calamia

(2019). The Compensatory ADHD Behaviors Scale (CABS): Development and initial validation. Assessment, 26(5), 783-798. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118774841

11.

Chaytor

Schmitter-Edgecombe

Burr

(2006). Improving the ecological validity of executive functioning assessment. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(3), 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.12.002

12.

Chmielewski

Watson

(2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015618

13.

Cohen

A. S.

Mitchell

K. R.

Beck

M. R.

Hicks

J. L.

(2017). The subjective-objective disjunction in psychometrically-defined schizotypy: What it is and why it is important? Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 8(4), 347-363. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.056316

14.

Dehili

V. M.

Prevatt

Coffman

T. P.

(2017). An analysis of the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale in a college population: Does it predict symptoms of ADHD better than a visual-search task? Journal of Attention Disorders, 21(7), 567-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054713498932

15.

Feldman

Knouse

L. E.

Robinson

(2013). Executive functioning difficulties and depression symptoms: Multidimensional assessment, incremental validity, and prospective associations. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13(2), 259-274.

16.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7-28. https://ipip.ori.org/A%20broad-bandwidth%20inventory.pdf

17.

Goldberg

L. R.

Johnson

J. A.

Eber

H. W.

Hogan

Ashton

M. C.

Cloninger

C. R.

Gough

H. G.

(2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

18.

Haaland

V. Ø.

Esperaas

Landrø

N. I.

(2009). Selective deficit in executive functioning among patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychological Medicine, 39(10), 1733-1743. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709005285

19.

Johnson

J. A.

(2011, June). Development of a short form of the IPIP-NEO Personality Inventory [Poster presentation]. Association for Research in Personality, Riverside, CA. http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/papers/ConferencePapers/2011ARP.pdf

20.

Kamradt

J. M.

Nikolas

M. A.

Burns

G. L.

Garner

A. A.

Jarrett

M. A.

Luebbe

A. M.

Becker

S. P.

(2019). Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS): Validation in a large multisite college sample. Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119869823

21.

Kamradt

J. M.

Ullsperger

J. M.

Nikolas

M. A.

(2014). Executive function assessment and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Tasks versus ratings on the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1095-1105. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000006

22.

Krueger

R. F.

Derringer

Markon

K. E.

Watson

Skodol

A. E.

(2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 1879-189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674

23.

Kumar

Yadava

Sharma

N. R.

(2016). Exploring the relations between executive functions and personality. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.25215/0302.129

24.

Lenzenweger

M. F.

Clarkin

J. F.

Fertuck

E. A.

Kernberg

O. F.

(2004). Executive neurocognitive functioning and neurobehavioral systems indicators in borderline personality disorder: A preliminary study. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(5), 421-438. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.18.5.421.51323

25.

Longenecker

J. M.

Krueger

R. F.

Sponheim

S. R.

(2020). Personality traits across the psychosis spectrum: A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology conceptualization of clinical symptomatology. Personality and mental health, 14(1), 88-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1448

26.

Maples

J. L.

Carter

N. T.

Few

L. R.

Crego

Gore

W. L.

Samuel

D. B.

Williamson

R. L.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

Markon

K. E.

Krueger

R. F.

Miller

J. D.

(2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195-1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000120

27.

Maples

J. L.

Guan

Carter

N. T.

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1070-1084. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000004

28.

Meltzer

E. P.

Kapoor

Fogel

Elbulok-Charcape

M. M.

Roth

R. M.

Katz

M. J.

Lipton

R. B.

Rabin

L. A.

(2017). Association of psychological, cognitive, and functional variables with self-reported executive functioning in a sample of nondemented community-dwelling older adults. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 24(4), 364-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2016.1185428

29.

Mohan

Mulla

Z. R.

(2013). Openness to experience and work outcomes: Exploring the moderating effects of conscientiousness and job complexity. Great Lakes Herald, 7(2), 18-36. https://www.greatlakes.edu.in/pdf/OPENNESS%20TO%20EXPERIENCE.pdf

30.

Mohlman

Gorman

J. M.

(2005). The role of executive functioning in CBT: A pilot study with anxious older adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(4), 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.007

31.

Murdock

K. W.

Oddi

K. B.

Bridgett

D. J.

(2013). Cognitive correlates of personality. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(2), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000104

32.

O’Brien

R. M.

(2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

33.

Rabin

L. A.

Fogel

Nutter-Upham

K. E.

(2011). Academic procrastination in college students: The role of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 344-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.518597

34.

Rabin

L. A.

Paolillo

Barr

W. B.

(2016). Stability in test-usage practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada over a 10-year period: A follow-up survey of INS and NAN members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(3), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw007

35.

Roth

R. M.

Isquith

P. K.

Gioia

G. A.

(2005). BRIEF-A: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult version: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

36.

Sharpe

J. P.

Desai

(2001). The revised Neo Personality Inventory and the MMPI-2 Psychopathology Five in the prediction of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(4), 505-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00155-0

37.

Smolker

H. R.

Depue

B. E.

Reineberg

A. E.

Orr

J. M.

Banich

M. T.

(2015). Individual differences in regional prefrontal gray matter morphometry and fractional anisotropy are associated with different constructs of executive function. Brain Structure and Function, 220(3), 1291-1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0723-y

38.

Suzuki

Samuel

D. B.

Pahlen

Krueger

R. F.

(2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 343-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000035

39.

Toplak

M. E.

West

R. F.

Stanovich

K. E.

(2013). Practitioner review: Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12001

40.

Watson

(2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(4), 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.03.001

41.

Watson

Nus

K. D.

(2019). Development and validation of the Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM). Assessment, 26(1), 17-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117711022