Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Feb 24;176:110778. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110778

Transdiagnostic Approach to the Dominance Behavioral System

Jordan A Tharp a, Sheri L Johnson a,*, Amelia Dev a
PMCID: PMC7978407  NIHMSID: NIHMS1676221  PMID: 33746322

1. Introduction

Evidence for the importance of the dominance behavioral system (DBS) across psychopathologies has accrued from social, psychological, and biological paradigms using self-report, observational, naturalistic and experimental methods (Johnson, Leedom, & Muhtadie, 2012). The DBS is a biologically-based system influencing dominance motivation, dominant and subordinate behavior, self-perceptions of power, and power-related social experience responsivity (Johnson, et al., 2012). Ability to express and respond to social dominance cues appropriately is evolutionarily adaptive: human and animal research indicates that dominance structures can promote effective group management of resources, while successful signaling of dominant-subordinate rank cues can reduce conflict (Gilbert, 2000; Kelly, Zuroff, Leybman, & Martin, 2011). Conspecific groups benefit from the guidance of a highly ranked organism, in which dominant individuals possess resources, including those that promote reproductive success (Fournier, Moskowitz, & Zuroff, 2002; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008).

The DBS encompasses multiple facets. Power reflects the ability to control resources in group settings (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). People vary in their motivations and preference for trait-like power tendencies. Strategies toward attaining power also vary: some use cooperation, others engage in ruthless behaviors, prioritizing power-pursuit over connectedness (Fournier, et al., 2002). Power and dominance motivation are situation-specific; higher level organisms have evolved to be highly sensitive to cues regarding rank and power. Subordination refers to environmental experiences indicating lower rank or power. Submissive behaviors signal awareness of lower power and are effective in reducing conflict (Gilbert & Allan, 1994). Emotions are often triggered by power cues: pride reflects having attained accomplishments garnering interpersonal recognition and higher rank, while shame is triggered by acknowledgement that one’s behavior lead to diminished status and interpersonal recognition (Gilbert, 1998). Authentic pride (adaptive achievement-oriented pride) has been tied to more prosocial behavior, whereas hubristic pride (maladaptive grandiose self-pride) is related to prioritizing getting ahead particularly at the cost of others (Dorfman, Eyal, & Bereby-Meyer, 2014; Wubben, De Cremer, & van Dijk, 2012). Although the DBS dimensions are integrally related, pathologies could reflect disturbances in more specific processes.

Multiple facets of the DBS correlate differentially with specific psychopathologies. Extensive theory has linked internalizing conditions (anxiety and depression) with prolonged responses to subordination and submissive behavior (Gilbert, 2000; Sloman et al., 2003). For instance, subordination experiences, shame, and behavioral submissiveness are more related to depressive symptoms than guilt or sadness (Gilbert, McEwan, et al., 2009; Harder & Zalma, 1990), while they also consistently correlate with social anxiety (Sturman, 2011; Walters & Inderbitzen, 1998). Theory further suggests that social anxiety reflects an oversensitivity to dominance cues and social comparison (Trower & Gilbert, 1989). On the other hand, manic symptoms may reflect a biological sensitivity to self-perceptions of attained power, particularly given that cardinal symptoms (i.e., grandiosity, rapid speech) correlate to heightened dominance motivation (Gardener, 1982; Taylor & Mansell, 2008). Animal research indicates dominant behaviors are quelled by one of the more commonly used pharmacological treatments for mania—lithium (Malatynska & Knapp, 2005).

Psychopathy, as well as antisocial behavior—differentiated by the focus on rule-breaking, impulsive and aggressive behaviors—theoretically relate to a focus on pursuit of dominance (Glenn, Kurzban, & Raine, 2011). Psychopathy, particularly the facet fearless dominance, is positively correlated with dominance motivation, and to a lesser degree, dominance behaviors (Lobbestael, Arntz, et al., 2018; Patrick, Edens, et al., 2006). Antisocial behavior and psychopathy both relate to greater reactivity (i.e., heightened anger or aggression) in response to rank or power threats (e.g., disrespect and commands; Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006; Costello & Dunaway, 2003). Although less empirical work is available on antisocial behavior, the childhood precursor, conduct disorder, correlates with dominance behaviors (Krueger, Caspi, Moffitt, Silva, & McGee, 1996).

Despite evidence that dominance may be involved in multiple psychopathologies, there are gaps. Methods to assess dominance have varied systematically across psychopathologies, and few studies have used measures differentiating dominance motivation, behaviors, self-perceptions, and emotional outcomes. Work by Tang-Smith et al. (2014) attempted to bridge this gap by assessing six factor-analytically supported dominance-related dimensions. Consistent with theory, structural equation modeling indicated mania was uniquely related to higher self-perceived power, pride, and motivation to attain power; in contrast, depression and generalized anxiety were both tied to lower subjective power and pride. Here, we test the theory that specific facets of DBS will be linked to specific psychopathologies, even when conjointly controlling for overlap and comorbidity among the various psychopathologies.

1.1. Present Research

The goal of the current study was to examine how a broad range of psychopathology tendencies relate to multiple dimensions of DBS. Following Tang-Smith et al. (2014), we focused on mood syndromes but we extend this work by (1) focusing on social anxiety rather than general anxiety and (2) assessing antisocial behavior and psychopathic tendencies. We hypothesized that mood syndromes would show unique dominance profiles, paralleling Tang-Smith study findings. Specifically, we predicted that social anxiety and depression would be associated with lower perceived power and authentic pride, whereas mania would be associated with higher power, authentic pride, hubris, and dominance motivation. We further hypothesized that antisocial behavior and psychopathic tendencies would relate to more hubris and ruthlessness and less authentic pride and cooperation.

2. Method

Procedures were approved by the university ethics board before data collection began.

2. 1. Participants

Participants (N = 752) were undergraduate students age 18 and older at a large public North American university. Data was gathered in two waves. After consent procedures, participants completed online questionnaires and received partial course credit for their undergraduate psychology courses. Thirty-eight participants were excluded for failure to respond correctly to more than 50% of attention catch items (e.g., ‘Please answer “Strongly agree.”‘), and two participants did not complete most questionnaires. Participants in the final sample (N = 712; 65.7% female; Mage = 20.7, SDage = 3.04; MSES(out of 9) = 6, SDSES = 1.74) described their ethnicities: African American (1.8%), Asian (45.2%), Caucasian (20.8%), Hispanic (13.9%), Middle Eastern (2.8%), and Other (2.1%).

2.2. Measures

Unless noted, all total and subscale scores reflect the sum of item scores.

2.2.1. Dominance.

Dominance-related dimensions were measured using the factor-analytically derived Dominance Behavioral System scale (Tang-Smith et al., 2014). The six DBS subscales includes items from multiple well-validated dominance scales: Influence/Power (4-items; Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012), Comfort with Leadership (4 reverse-keyed items; Jackson, 1984), Authentic and Hubristic Pride (6- and 7-items; Tracy & Robins, 2007), and Cooperation and Ruthless Ambition (4- and 3-items; Zuroff, et al., 2010). Response formats were consistent with original scales, 1= false to 4= true for Authentic and Hubristic Pride, and Comfort with Leadership, 1= disagree to 4= agree for Influence/Power, and 1= unlike me to 4= like me for Cooperation and Ruthless Ambition.

2.2.2. Antisocial Behavior.

Antisocial behavior was measured using the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (STAB; Burt & Donnellan, 2009), which includes three factor-analytically derived subscales: Physical Aggression (9-items), Social Aggression (11-items), and Rule-breaking (11-items). STAB subscales differentiate normative populations from people engaging in criminal behaviors or substance misuse, as well as general acting-out behaviors (Burt & Donnellan, 2009). Responses were rated on a scale from 1= never to 5= nearly all the time.

2.2.3. Social Anxiety.

Social anxiety tendencies were measured using the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS). The 30-item FNE (Watson & Friend, 1969) true/false scale is designed to measure fear of receiving negative evaluation from others, and has been validated against self-rated discomfort in tasks involving evaluation, and against social approval-seeking and interaction-anxiety scales (Leary, 1983).

The LSAS (Liebowitz, 1987) is designed to assess fear and avoidance in 24 situations that often trigger social anxiety: social interactions (11-items) and public performance (13-items). The LSAS has good psychometric properties (Baker, Heinrichs, Kim, & Hofmann, 2002). For each situation, participants first rated anxiety or fear from 0= none to 3= severe, then their frequency of avoidance from 0= never to 3= usually. For situations participants did not ordinarily experience, they rated their response in an imagined or hypothetical situation.

The 20-item SIAS (Mattick & Clarke, 1998) is designed to assess fear of social interaction. It shows adequate internal consistency and expected relationships with measures of associated constructs (Brown, Turovsky, Heimberg, et al., 1997). Scores distinguish those with social anxiety from other anxiety disorders (Le Blanc, et al, 2014). Items were rated on a scale from 0= not at all characteristic or true of me to 4= extremely characteristic or true of me.

2.2.4. Depression.

Depressive tendencies were measured using the Inventory to Diagnose Depression-Lifetime (IDD-L) and 7-Up 7-Down-Depression subscale (7U7D). The IDD-L (Zimmerman & Coryell, 1987) is assesses lifetime depressive severity. The 22-items cover the nine key symptoms of major depressive disorder included in DSM-5 criteria (e.g., guilt, hopelessness, decreased energy, and suicidality). The IDD-L correlates robustly with self-report and interview-based measures of depressive symptom severity (Hodgins, Dufour, & Armstrong, 2000). Each item is rated from not present (e.g., 0= ‘My appetite was not greater than normal’) to severe (e.g., 4= ‘I felt hungry all the time’). For each item endorsed at 2 or higher, participants indicated if the symptom was present for at least two weeks. The total IDD-L score is a sum of the number of symptoms endorsed with sufficient severity for at least 2 weeks (range 0–9).

The 7U7D (Youngstrom, Murray, Johnson, & Findling, 2013) is designed to measure lifetime tendencies to experience manic and depressive symptoms (7-items each). The scale has construct and discriminative validity (Youngstrom, et al., 2013). Items were extracted from the well-validated General Behavior Inventory (Depue, Krauss, & Spoont, 1987) based on factor analysis and robust correlations with key indicators of bipolar disorder. Responses were rated on a scale from 1= never or hardly ever to 4= very often or almost constantly.

2.2.5. Mania.

Manic tendencies were assessed using the Hypomanic Personality Scale (HPS) and the 7-Up 7-Down-Mania subscale. The HPS (Eckblad & Chapman, 1986) is designed to identify people at risk for bipolar disorders. Forty-eight items assess tendencies toward high-energy, and changes in energy, emotions, and behaviors. Initial validation found that 78% of people scoring higher than two standard deviations above the mean met diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder; 75% developed hypomanic or manic episodes 13-years later (Kwapil et al., 2000). Responses were rated from 0= strongly disagree to 3= strongly agree.

The 7U7D-Mania subscale assesses lifetime manic tendencies (e.g., ‘Have you had periods of extreme happiness and intense energy. Responses were rated from 1= never or hardly ever to 4= very often or almost constantly.

2.2.6. Psychopathy.

Psychopathy was measured using the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form (PPI-SF; Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001). The PPI-SF assesses the core features of psychopathy in non-institutionalized settings. Half of items are reverse keyed. As noted, we focused on factor-analytically derived Fearless Dominance subscale (7-items), because of its strong relation to dominance motivation. Responses were rated from 1= false to 4= true (range 7 to 28).

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 25 and AMOS for structural equation modelling (SEM; e.g., Kline, 2005), with two-tailed analyses, alpha = .05. Collection wave was included as a covariate in modelling. Factor analysis and latent factors were assessed for Antisocial Behavior, Social Anxiety, Depression, Mania, and Psychopathy before constructing the full SEM model. Missing data patterns appeared to be random, and accordingly, to address missingness across key model variables, the data was imputed for variables included in SEM modelling. SEM was used to test the simultaneous unique relationships between DBS scales and latent psychopathology factors using full maximum likelihood. As indicators of moderate to good model fit, we inspected the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) using a cut-off value of >.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) using cut-off range of <.05–.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). We focus on these fit indices because of stability or improvement with more variables, following recommendations for SEM reporting (Bentler, 2007). Given the number of model parameters, other fit indices (i.e., NFI, TLI) either were not appropriate for model comparison, or added penalty for each parameter (Hu and Bentler 1999; Kenny & McCoach, 2003).

3. Results

Table 1 shows descriptive and internal consistency statistics. To account for gender differences on several scales, final structural modeling used multi-group analyses. Due to technical error during data collection, gender was missing for 65 participants. Distributions were in normal range (skewness< 3, kurtosis< 10; Kline, 2005), except STAB Rule-breaking (eleven values were identified to be greater than 3 SD above the mean but exclusion did alter results, thus no transformations were included in final analyses).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics by gender and internal consistencies for key variables (N = 712)

Men (n = 175) Women (n = 468)
Measures α M (SD) M (SD) t
Dominance Behavior System
 Influence/Power .77 14.40 (2.86) 14.51 (2.93) −0.42
 Comfort with Leadership .86 22.80 (4.53) 21.61 (4.89) 2.80**
 Authentic Pride .91 20.61 (4.64) 20.88 (4.42) −0.67
 Hubristic Pride .90 11.28 (4.09) 10.27 (3.72) 2.85**
 Cooperation .84 20.66 (2.95) 21.19 (2.82) −2.10*
 Ruthless Ambition .75 6.68 (2.25) 5.96 (2.07) 3.81**
Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior
 Physical Aggression .85 17.14 (5.71) 14.80 (4.64) 4.76**
 Rule-breaking .85 14.82 (6.01) 12.88 (3.71) 3.93**
 Social Aggression .88 21.52 (6.46) 20.94 (6.02) 1.05
FNE .92 46.06 (8.41) 48.75 (7.50) −3.68**
LSAS .88 39.54 (21.83) 47.01 (22.02) −3.83**
SIAS .93 29.54 (14.39) 30.78 (15.00) −0.93
IDD-L .86 2.59 (2.58) 2.77 (2.93) −0.78
7U7D-Depression .93 13.36 (5.14) 13.59 (5.21) −0.50
HPS .91 62.46 (16.85) 59.23 (17.22) 2.09*
7U7D-Mania .87 12.57 (4.48) 11.44 (4.08) 2.87**
PPI-SF-Fearless Dominance .77 17.11 (4.07) 15.41 (4.53) 4.51**
Open in a new tab

Note. FNE = Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; HPS = Hypomanic Personality Scale; IDD = Inventory to Diagnose Depression; LSAS = Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; PPI-SF = Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; 7U7D = 7-Up 7-Down.

Descriptive data from unimputed dataset.

Participants missing data: 2 for Comfort with Leadership, 1 for Authentic/Hubristic Pride, 45 for STAB, 28 for FNE, 16 for LSAS, 26 for SIAS, 19 for IDD-L, 52 for 7U7D-Depression, 44 for HPS, 52 for 7U7D-Mania, 65 for gender, and 87 for PPI-SF.

*

p≤.05

**

p≤.01.

3.1. Structural equation modeling

Preliminary analyses showed DBS scales were significantly correlated with psychopathology scales (Table S2). After confirming latent psychopathology factors (see Supplementary Materials), we constructed a full multi-group model to test unique relationships of DBS with psychopathology, controlling for sample. When comparing models (structural-weights--unconstrained), gender was not comparable on two paths: covariances of Sample with Cooperation and Ruthless Ambition. When these two paths were set to equal, the full models were comparable, demonstrating moderate fit (CFIunconstrained = .870, RMSEAunconstrained = .05; Structural-weights: χ2(df = 454)=1291.10, p<.001, CFI = .846, RMSEA = .051; Covariances-equal: χ2(df = 392)=1094.9, p<.001, CFI = .870, RMSEA = .05). Across genders, several significant unique associations between DBS scales and psychopathology factors were observed (Figure 1). Antisocial Behavior, Social Anxiety, and Depression each had negative associations with Influence/Power and Authentic Pride. Social Anxiety negatively associated with Comfort with Leadership. Antisocial Behavior and Mania positively associated with Hubristic Pride. Antisocial Behavior, Mania, and Psychopathy positively associated to Comfort with Leadership and Ruthless Ambition. Antisocial Behavior uniquely negatively related to Cooperation. Sample significantly predicted each psychopathology.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Multi-group structural equation modelling of DBS with psychopathology latent factors. Sample set to equal for paths to Cooperation and Ruthless Ambition to make models comparable. Standardized regression coefficients (B) shown. Only significant associations from structural-weights model (ps ≤ .05) pictured, thicker lines B >.25 and dashed lines for covariances and sample. FNE = Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; HPS = Hypomanic Personality Scale; IDD = Inventory to Diagnose Depression; LSAS = Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; PPI-SF = Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; STAB = Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire; 7U7D = 7-Up 7-Down. *p≤.05**p≤.01.

4. Discussion

The goal of this study was to consider how specific dominance factors relate to various psychopathologies. We aimed to replicate findings of unique mood syndrome-DBS profiles (Tang-Smith, et al, 2014). We extended findings by assessing social anxiety rather than general anxiety and antisocial behavior and psychopathy as they relate to DBS.

We found strong evidence of the importance of a multi-dimensional approach to understanding DBS in psychopathology. Significant bivariate effects of dominance-related dimensions were observed with psychopathology, with some large effect sizes (r’s >.40). In structural modelling, distinct psychopathology-dominance profiles emerged, with small-medium effect sizes. Socially anxious and depressive tendencies and antisocial behavior associated with lower Influence/Power and Authentic Pride. Antisocial behavior, manic and psychopathic tendencies were each tied to greater Comfort with Leadership and Ruthless Ambition. Antisocial behavior and manic tendencies related to greater Hubristic Pride. Beyond that, unique profiles discriminated some of the syndromes. Specifically, social anxiety uniquely related to lower Comfort with Leadership and antisocial behavior uniquely related to lower Cooperation. The effects of DBS in relation to psychopathology were confirmed across genders.

Findings extend previous work, suggesting that social anxiety and depression are tied to a diminished sense of power, less pride in one’s accomplishments, and for social anxiety, lower desire to be in roles of power. Together with longitudinal and biological research (see Johnson et al., 2012), this work extends a growing body of evidence of DBS as an important risk for internalizing disorders, and it bolsters previous findings by showing these effects are sustained when controlling for a broad range of other conditions. The social anxiety profile is novel and distinct from findings pertaining to general anxiety (Tang-Smith et al., 2014), highlighting the importance of specificity with broad categories like anxiety.

At the same time, this work provides novel evidence about the overlapping and unique effects of DBS profiles in externalizing disorders (antisocial behavior, manic and psychopathic tendencies). Consistent with previous research, we found that mania and psychopathy related to greater desire for dominance (Taylor & Mansell, 2008; Tellegen & Waller, 2008), via Comfort with Leadership scale, and this effect extended to antisocial behavior. Previous findings showed manic tendencies were related to greater hubris and ruthless power attainment; current findings support and extend this by showing ruthlessness also relates to antisocial and psychopathic tendencies.

Some psychopathology–dominance profiles did not replicate. Unlike Tang-Smith et al. (2014), we did not find depression related to lower hubris in either bivariate correlations or SEM model. We did not observe significant effects of Authentic Pride with mania in the SEM model, despite a small significant bivariate correlation, suggesting some shared variance with antisocial behavior and psychopathy accounted for these effects.

We note several limitations within this research. First, we relied on self-report indices in a student sample. It will be important to replicate these findings across diverse age groups, with diagnostic measures, and patient samples. However, recent work suggests that prevalence of psychopathology in undergraduate samples is similar to rates observed in the general population (Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010; Ibrahim, Kelly, Adams, & Glazebrook, 2013), and the psychopathologies assessed here operate as continua. Second, our design was cross-sectional. Third, our measures did not capture functional impairment and well-being, which may predict and result from dominance-related dimensions (e.g., effects of symptoms may diminish accomplishment, explaining lowered authentic pride in those with anxiety; Weidman, Tracy, & Elliot, 2016). Finally, future studies would benefit from inclusion of hormone measures.

4.1. Conclusions.

Most previous studies limited focus on only one or two facets of the DBS, and failed to consider the unique effects compared to other syndromes. By replicating and expanding the first multivariate approach to understanding DBS in relation to multiple psychopathologies, this research provides further evidence that the DBS has separable facets, each with unique profiles corresponding to internalizing and externalizing psychopathologies. The current study is unique in considering how these effects persist against a broad range of other psychopathologies, and with attention to a set of dimensions. This provides a much more specific set of findings about which facets of the DBS most clearly link with social anxiety and antisocial behaviors in particular.

Many psychopathologies appear to be tied to a sense of powerlessness and lack of authentic pride, highlighting the importance of restoring key domains of life that provide a sense of power and accomplishment. Social anxiety appears tied to a discomfort in leadership and power, which may interfere with success and specific social and occupational roles. In contrast, externalizing syndromes (antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and mania) were tied to a desire for dominance without regard to interpersonal consequences; greater insight and awareness regarding this priority and its implications could help reduce interpersonal conflicts. Promoting prosocial strategies could perhaps help transform antisocial and psychopathic drives for power into more successful, adaptive pursuit of leadership (Costello et al., 2018; Hawley, 2015).

Clinically, these findings may further help build therapeutic rapport and understanding of how specific psychopathologies tie to motivations and concerns in interpersonal relationships. This is critical for the core therapeutic goal of building more meaningful and grounded interpersonal functioning. Practitioners may find it helpful to consider that the pursuit of power and sensitivity to hierarchy are evolved strategies associated with genuine rewards (Hawley, 2015). If the DBS field is to inform treatment research, we need to understand what the most potent forms of DBS are, and how those are tied to more specific symptom dimensions. The current study provides that grounding.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights.

  • Replicates existing findings of unique profiles of mood syndromes with DBS.

  • Extends by assessing social anxiety, antisocial behavior, and psychopathy with DBS.

  • Novel findings about unique effects of externalizing disorder DBS profiles.

  • Strong evidence of multi-dimensional approach to understand DBS in psychopathology.

Funding

This manuscript was prepared with financial support awarded to Jordan Tharp from NIMH T32-MH020006-20.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Conflicts of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Anderson C, John OP, & Keltner D (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker SL, Heinrichs N, Kim HJ, & Hofmann SG (2002). The Liebowitz Social Snxiety Scale as a self-report instrument: a preliminary psychometric analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(6), 701–715. Doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00060-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentler PM (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown EJ, Turovsky J, Heimberg RG, Juster HR, Brown TA, & Barlow DH (1997). Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 21. [Google Scholar]
  5. Browne MW, & Cudeck R (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. Doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burt SA, & Donnellan MB (2009). Development and validation of the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 376–398. doi: 10.1002/ab.20314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cale EM & Lilienfeld SO (2006). Psychopathy Factors and Risk for Aggressive Behavior: A Test of the “Threatened Egotism” Hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 30(1), 51–74. Doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9004-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Costello BJ & Dunaway RG (2003). Egotism and Delinquent Behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,18(5), 572–590. Doi: 10.1177/0886260503251128 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Costello TH, Unterberger A, Watts AL, & Lilienfeld SO (2018). Psychopathy and pride: Testing Lykken’s hypothesis regarding the implications of fearlessness for prosocial and antisocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 13. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Depue RA, Krauss S, & Spoont MR (1987). A two-dimensional threshold model of seasonal bipolar affective disorder. In Magnusson D & Ohman A (Eds.), Psychopathology: An interactional perspective (pp. 95–123). New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dorfman A, Eyal T, & Bereby-Meyer Y (2014). Proud to cooperate: The consideration of pride promotes cooperation in a social dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 105–109. [Google Scholar]
  12. Eckblad M & Chapman LJ (1986). Development and validation of a scale for hypomanic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 214–222. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fournier MA, Moskowitz DS, & Zuroff DC (2002). Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 425–433. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilbert P (1998). What is shame? Some core issues and controversies. In Gilbert P, & Andrews B (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal Behaviour, Psychopathology and Culture (pp. 3–38). New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilbert P (2000). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: The role of the evaluation of social rank. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 174–189. doi: 10.1002/1099-0879/cpp.236 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilbert P & Allan S (1994). Assertiveness, submissive behaviour and social comparison. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 295–306. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1994.tb01125.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilbert P, McEwan K, Bellew R, Mills A, & Gale C (2009). The dark side of competition: How competitive behaviour and striving to avoid inferiority are linked to depression, anxiety, stress and self-harm. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 82(Pt 2), 123–136. Doi: 10.1348/147608308X379806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Glenn AL, Kurzban R, & Raine A (2011). Evolutionary theory and psychopathy. Aggression and Violent Behavior,16(5), 371–380. Doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harder DW & Zalma A (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct validity comparison. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3–4), 729–745. Doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hodgins DC, Dufour M, & Armstrong S (2000). The reliability and validity of the Inventory to Diagnose Depression in alcohol-dependent men and women. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11(4), 369–378. Doi: 10.1016/S0899-3289(00)00033-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu LT & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hunt J & Eisenberg D (2010). Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ibrahim AK, Kelly SJ, Adams CE, & Glazebrook C (2013). A systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in university students. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 391–400. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackson DN (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson SL, Leedom LJ, & Muhtadie L (2012). The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 692–743. Doi: 10.1037/a0027503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kelly AC, Zuroff DC, Leybman MJ, & Martin A (2011). Leaders’ and followers’ social rank styles interact to predict group performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(7), 963–977. Doi: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.7.963 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, & Anderson C (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kline RB (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Krueger RF, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Silva PA, & McGee R (1996). Personality traits are differentially linked to mental disorders: A multitrait-multidiagnosis study of an adolescent birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 299–312. Doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kwapil TR, Miller MB, Zinser MC, Chapman LJ, Chapman J, & Eckblad M (2000). A longitudinal study of high scorers on the Hypomanic Personality Scale. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 222–226. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.109.2.222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Leary MR (1983). A Brief Version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(3), 371–375. Doi: 10.1177/0146167283093007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Le Blanc AL, Bruce LC, Heimberg RG, Hope DA, Blanco C, Schneier FR, & Liebowitz MR (2014). Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of Two Short Forms of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Assessment, 21(3), 312–323. Doi: 10.1177/1073191114521279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Liebowitz MR (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lilienfeld SO & Andrews BP (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488–524. Doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lobbestael J, Arntz A, Voncken M, & Potegal M (2018). Responses to dominance challenge are a function of psychopathy level: A multimethod study. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(4), 305–314. Doi: 10.1037/per0000252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Malatynska E & Knapp RJ (2005). Dominant-submissive behavior as models of mania and depression. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(4–5), 715–737. Doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mattick RP & Clarke JC (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10031-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Patrick CJ, Edens JF, Poythress NG, Lilienfeld SO, & Benning SD (2006). Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory two-factor model with offenders. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 204–208. Doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sloman L, Gilbert P, & Hasey G (2003). Evolved mechanisms in depression: The role and interaction of attachment and social rank in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74(2),107–121. Doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00116-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sturman ED (2011). Involuntary subordination and its relation to personality, mood, and submissive behavior. Personality Assessment, 23, 262–276. doi: 10.1037/a0021499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tang-Smith E, Johnson SL, & Chen S (2015). The dominance behavioural system: A multidimensional transdiagnostic approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 88(4), 394–411. Doi: 10.1111/papt.12050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Taylor P & Mansell W (2008). “I get so energetic and dominating!” A study of hypomanic personality and conflicting self-perception during activated states in a cooperative task. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 483–487. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tellegen A & Waller NG (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In Boyle GJ, Matthews G, & Saklofske DH (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (p. 261–292). Sage Publications, Inc. Doi: 10.4135/9781849200479.n13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tracy JL & Robins RW (2007). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 147–150. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00493.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Trower P & Gilbert P (1989). New theoretical conceptions of social anxiety and social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9(1), 19–35. Doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(89)90044-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Vugt M, Hogan R, & Kaiser RB (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196. Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Walters KS & Inderbitzen HM (1998). Social anxiety and peer relations among adolescents: Testing a psychobiological model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12(3), 183–198. Doi: 10.1016/S0887-6185(98)00008-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Watson D & Friend R (1969). Measurement of social–evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457. Doi: 10.1037/h0027806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Weidman AC, Tracy JL, & Elliot AJ (2016). The benefits of following your pride: Authentic pride promotes achievement. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 607–622. Doi:/ 10.1111/jopy.12184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wubben MJJ, De Cremer D, & van Dijk E (2012). Is pride a prosocial emotion? Interpersonal effects of authentic and hubristic pride. Cognition and Emotion, 26(6), 1084–1097. Doi: 10.1080/02699931.2011.646956 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Youngstrom EA, Murray G, Johnson SL, & Findling RL (2013). The 7-up 7-down inventory: A 14-item measure of manic and depressive tendencies carved from the General Behavior Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1377–1383. Doi: 10.1037/a0033975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zimmerman M & Coryell W (1987). The Inventory to Diagnose Depression, lifetime version. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 75, 495–499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zuroff DC, Fournier MA, Patall EA, & Leybman MJ (2010). Steps toward an evolutionary personality psychology: Individual differences in the social rank domain. Canadian Psychology, 51(1), 58–66. Doi: 10.1037/a0018472 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1676221-supplement-1.docx (984.1KB, docx)

RESOURCES