Psychology Essay

AllRoundBest Tutor

attachment_2.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Psychology Essay

Running head: PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 1

The Effect of Different Personality Traits on an Assessment of Trust and Fear for Trauma-

Exposed Population with PTSD, without PTSD, and a Non-Trauma Exposed Population

Fai Tsoi

The City College of New York

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 2

The Effect of Different Personality Traits on an Assessment of Trust and Fear for Trauma-

Exposed Population with PTSD, without PTSD, and a Non-Trauma Exposed Population

Introduction

Trauma effects people’s everyday lives in many different ways. Depending on the

trauma, it might cause different type of physiological responses such as an increased heart rate or

sweaty palms. For some, the occurring event might be so traumatic that they experience constant

feelings of fear and helplessness for an extended period of time. For others, the event might not

influence their lives at all. The purpose of this study is to assess how exposure to traumatic

events will influence a person’s perspective of themselves and those around them. It is important

to determine this because it can help understand more about post traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD) and the influence of trauma in our daily lives.

PTSD

PTSD is an anxiety disorder found amongst those who experience events in which a

person experiences stress and feels his/her life is in danger. These events include but are not

limited to transportation accidents, sexual abuse, natural disasters, physical assault, exposure to a

war zone, captivity, and assault with a weapon. Sexual and physical abuse were found to have

the highest risk of a person developing PTSD; the trauma with the lowest risk to developing

PTSD is transportation accidents (Frans, Rimmö, Åberg, and Fredrikson, 2005).

Although people generally experience traumatic events during their lifetime, the

prevalence of developing PTSD is low. Frans et al. (2005) found that about 80% of their sample

experienced at least one traumatic event, but only about 6% had PTSD. In fact, less than 10% of

those who experience traumatic events actually develop PTSD worldwide. Resilience traits are

often associated with trauma exposure and the prevention of developing PTSD symptoms. The

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 3

higher the resilience level, the less likely PTSD will develop and the higher the chance of post-

traumatic growth (PTG; Bensimon, 2012). Those with higher trait resilience tend to have higher

self-esteem, view of the world, hope for a better future, and are also found to have a higher level

of life satisfaction and lower level of depression (Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011). Mindfulness was

also found to be negatively associated with PTSD symptoms, depression, and alcohol

dependency (Smith et al., 2011). Additionally, the higher level of rigidity a person has, the less

likely they will be distressed and have better interpersonal functioning (McCarthy, Connolly-

Gibbons, & Barber, 2008).

According to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-

TR; American Psychological Association, APA), symptoms for PTSD are experiencing a

traumatic event that causes feelings of horror and fear, re-experiencing the event, avoiding

reminders of the event, numbing, and hyper-vigilance. In order for a person to be diagnosed with

PTSD, these symptoms have to occur one month after the traumatic event and must persist for a

month.

Studies have also shown that women are more likely to develop PTSD (Breslau, Kessler,

Chilcoat, Schultz, Davis, & Andreski, 1998; Frans et al., 2005). Compared to women who were

only traumatized once and a control population, women who were traumatized as a child and re-

traumatized again as an adult have a higher rate of self and interpersonal dysfunction; difficulties

lie in sociability and understanding relationship dynamics (Cloitre, Scarvalone, & Difede, 1997).

This shows how trauma, especially re-experiencing a particular trauma, creates devastating

effects on a person’s life. It was also found that women who experienced abuse as a child are

more likely to develop psychosocial issues (Cloitre, Miranda, Stovall-McClough, & Han, 2005).

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 4

Once a person experiences a traumatic event, there is a higher chance of them

experiencing a subsequent events. “Subsequent trauma exposure following trauma exposure is

not limited to the domain of sexual trauma, nor to women” (Orcutt, Erikson, & Wolfe, 2002, p.

264). In fact, an exposure to combat increased a veteran’s risk of experiencing additional

traumatic events in the two years after their return from a war (Orcutt et al., 2002). It was also

found that having PTSD symptoms increased the risk of experiencing additional traumatic events

(Orcutt et al., 2002). It was also suggested that re-experiencing cluster symptoms create a higher

risk of re-traumatization than the other symptom clusters (Orcutt et al., 2002).

Interpersonal Relationships

Attachment and Interpersonal Relationships. Whether or not a person develops PTSD

can be related to their upbringing. The initial relationship with the primary caretaker may

influence a child’s development, and quite possibly, their prevalence of developing the anxiety

disorder. The mother’s responsiveness to their child was found to be related to the child’s

temperament (Milliones, 1978). More securely attached children tend to have more supportive

mothers compared to anxiously attached children (Pastor, 1981). It was found that mothers of

securely attached infants were more responsive; these infants were able to form expectations of

their mothers during their times of distress (Ainsworth, 1979). In contrast, anxiously attached

infants tend to have mothers who ignore their signs of distress or did not respond in the

appropriate fashion; this caused the infant to not know what to expect (Ainsworth, 1979).

However, the mother was not the only parent found to influence the child’s development. When

fathers develop drinking problems, it may create marital tension, resulting in the child to have

more developmental issues (Keller, Cummings, Davies, & Mitchell, 2008).

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 5

Since the relationships with the parents determine how the child later views the world,

the connections with the parents are vital in their psychological wellbeing. Depending on the

child’s level of attachment (i.e. secure, ambivalent, and avoidant), they may experience different

types of interpersonal relationships. Compared to anxiously attached children, securely attached

children were more likely to be sociable and interactive with their peers and mothers; a secure

attachment created more positive relations with peers for the child (Pastor, 1981). Children who

were more securely attached with their mothers also received more teacher sensitivity and

involvement compared to children who were rated as avoidant (Howes & Hamilton, 1992).

Different attachment patterns were associated with different interpersonal problems.

Those who were more fearful of intimacy and more socially avoidant tend to have overly passive

interpersonal problems; those who were more dismissing of intimacy were found to lack warmth

during social interactions (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Surprisingly, people who were

more preoccupied with relationships tend to be more controlling despite their negative self image

(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

Trauma Exposure. Interpersonal problems are strong predictors of the severity of PTSD

symptoms (Cloitre et al., 2005). When someone experiences trauma, their behavior and their

view of self are disrupted which caused them to be more distant or violent towards their loved

ones (McFarlane & Bookless, 2001). Veterans diagnosed with PTSD have more reported

violence, parental, marital, and family adjustment problems compared with veterans without

PTSD (Cook, Riggs, Thompson, Coyne, & Sheikh, 2004; Jordan et al., 1992; Riggs, Byrne,

Weathers, & Litz, 1998). Re-traumatized women with a PTSD diagnosis have a severe self and

interpersonal dysfunction (Cloitre et al., 1997). Additionally, children of veterans with PTSD are

also more likely to have behavioral problems (Jordan et al., 1992).

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 6

“If an individual is deprived of the basic human needs for attachment because of the

effects of the traumatic stress, it is predictable that his or her symptoms will tend to be prolonged

and particularly disruptive in this domain of his or her emotional life” (McFarlane & Bookless,

2001, p. 265). Treating patients with PTSD with interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) creates an

improvement in their symptoms and a higher report of social functioning (Krupnick, Green,

Stockton, Miranda, Krause, & Mete, 2008; Markowitz, Milrod, Bleiberg, & Marshall, 2009). For

those who experienced trauma, Hyman, Gold, and Cott (2003) also found that certain types of

support from family and peers actually help prevent childhood sexual abuse survivors from

developing PTSD symptoms. Social support is highly related to a higher self-esteem and lessen

self-blame for those individuals (Hyman et al., 2003) which further relates to Mak et al. (2011)

findings on resilience. Additionally, those diagnosed with PTSD are more likely to expose

themselves to reminders of the event after their interpersonal functioning improved from

undergoing IPT (Bleiberg & Markowitz, 2005).

Personality Disorders

When interpersonal relationships are impaired and personality traits are the cause of this

impairment, then there is a chance that the person has a personality disorder (PD). The DSM-IV-

TR requires that in order for the person to be diagnosed with a PD, they must have an impaired

interpersonal relationship or subjective distress because of certain personality traits they have.

Those diagnosed with antisocial PD (ASPD) or paranoid PD (PPD) were described as cold and

domineering towards others; those with dependent PD (DPD) were considered as warm and not

assertive towards others (Matano & Locke, 1995). Additionally, those diagnosed with histrionic

PD (HPD) were described as being warm and assertive towards others while those with

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 7

narcissistic PD (NPD) diagnoses tend to be more as domineering towards others (Matano &

Locke, 1995).

PDs also have a connection with behavioral problems. Those with PDs were found to

have a low behavioral control and attentional processes compared to those without a PD

diagnosis (Claes, Vertommen, Smits, & Bijttebier, 2009). Additionally, a diagnosis of a PD in

cluster B (i.e. ASPD, borderline (BPD), HPD, and NPD) were highly associated with

promotional traits; people with these PDs used positive outcomes to reach their goals with

success (Claes et al., 2009). Those with cluster C (i.e. avoidant (AvPD), DPD, obsessive-

compulsive (OCPD)) diagnoses tend to be highly associated with avoiding mistakes (Claes et al.,

2009).

Trauma Exposure. An early exposure to trauma was found to be highly related to a later

development of PDs. Children who were abused or neglected were four times more likely to

develop a PD as an adult (Johnson, Cohen, Brown Smailes, & Bernstein, 1999). Johnson et al.

(1999) found that children who were physically abused were more likely to develop symptoms of

ASPD or depressive PD (DpPD) as an adult while children who were sexually abused were more

likely to develop symptoms of BPD as an adult. Neglected children were likely to develop

symptoms of ASPD, avoidant PD (AvPD), BPD, NPD, or passive-aggressive PD (PAPD) as an

adult (Johnson et al., 1999).

It was also found that those with PDs had a higher rate of experiencing a traumatic event

before the age of 18 (Golier et al., 2003). A diagnosis of BPD or PPD showed a higher rate of

childhood physical abuse, but not sexual abuse or any other forms of childhood trauma (Golier et

al., 2003). ASPD was also related to bereavement during childhood (Golier et al., 2003).

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 8

It was found that a co-morbidity of BPD and PTSD was highly related to suicide

proneness, impulsivity, worse general functioning, and a higher rate of hospitalization (Zlotnick

et al., 2003). Surprisingly, “subjects with BPD were not more likely to be physically or sexually

assaulted or experience accidents, crimes, disasters, or other traumas during adulthood,

compared with subjects with other PDs,” but they were more likely to develop PTSD than those

without a BPD diagnosis (Golier et al., 2003, p. 2022).

Those with PPD were not only associated with childhood traumas, they were also related

to a higher rate of adult traumas and PTSD (Golier et al., 2003). In fact, “the association of PPD

with PTSD through the direct path approached statistical significance, which would suggest

some intrinsic link between the two disorders or could reflect overlapping diagnostic criteria,

such as excessive vigilance” (Golier et al., 2003, p. 2023).

Face Evaluation

As described above, an exposure to trauma has been linked to maladaptive behavior and

problems with interpersonal relationships. Additionally, it has been found in many studies that

personality traits are related to the prevalence of PTSD, suggesting that a PTSD diagnosis tobe

related to the person’s personality and the way they cope with trauma. To further examine the

effects of being exposed to trauma, this paper will now discuss the current findings on how a

person would perceive certain facial expressions.

Expressions. Faces are evaluated based on an overgeneralization of avoidance/approach

and physical strength/weakness (Oosterhof & Toderov, 2008).Compared with non-abused

children, abused children labeled faces “angry” more often when faces were paired with fear and

sadness (Pollak & Kistler, 2002). Compared to a trauma-exposed population, those diagnosed

with PTSD had a greater attentional bias towards threat related faces (Fani et al., 2012). A PTSD

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 9

diagnosis was related to a decreased sensitivity and lower accuracy towards expression of fear

and sadness. A more intense facial expression of fear and sadness was needed for higher

accuracy (Poljac, Montagne, & de Hann, 2011). In fact, the higher the level of PTSD symptoms

showed a higher rate of alexithymia (Cloitre et al., 1997; Frewen, Dozois, Neufeld, & Lanius,

2008).

When presented with a trustworthy or untrustworthy face, more time was needed for

awareness of those faces as opposed to neutral faces (Stewart, Ajina, Getov, Bahrami, Todorov,

& Rees, 2012).When an untrustworthy face is paired with a neutral face, it was likely that the

untrustworthy face will influence the rating of the neutral face (Todorov, Pakrashi, & Oosterhof,

2009). In fact, when presented for a longer period of time, an untrustworthy face is rated as even

more untrustworthy; the same pattern follows for dominant faces, but not for neutral or

trustworthy faces (Stewart et al., 2012). Likewise, a PTSD diagnosis influenced a person’s rating

of a positive image; if the image precedes a negative image, then the person is less responsive to

the positive image (Litz, Orsillo, Kaloupek, & Weathers, 2000).

Self Evaluation. When a person rates themselves as more trusting towards others, they

tend to have less aversion towards an untrustworthy face; those who reported themselves to be

more submissive tend to have a stronger aversion towards dominant faces as opposed to neutral

faces (Stewart et al., 2012). In fact, it was found that “self-reported PD [personality disorder]

traits…were highly related to maladaptive interpersonal behavior” (Clifton, Turkheimer, &

Oltmanns, 2005, p. 129). This continues to show how personality traits further influence people’s

interpersonal relationships.

Hypotheses

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 10

Hypothesis 1. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that a PTSD population

to have the highest level of interpersonal problems compared to trauma-exposed and control

populations. Those with PTSD would have a higher rate of hostility and anger towards others

than those in the trauma exposed and the control groups (McFarlane & Bookless, 2001). They

were more likely to feel a sense of distance due to the numbness in their symptoms and would

have difficulty initiating social interactions with others (McFarlane & Bookless, 2001).

However, trauma-exposed individuals would exhibit higher self confidence due to their resilient

characteristics, which would allow them to have better interpersonal relationships with those

around them (McCarthy et al., 2008).

Hypothesis 2. It was expected that there would be certain PD traits that were more

common for a PTSD population than a trauma-exposed or a control population. Those with

PTSD were expected to have more traits endorsed for BPD compared to a trauma-exposed and

control population because of the impulsive and suicidal behaviors that categorizes BPD and

were highly related to co-morbidity with PTSD (Golier et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 1999).

Additionally, it was expected that people with PTSD would endorse more traits for PPD

compared to a trauma-exposed and control population because of the mistrust and suspiciousness

that were characteristic of those with PPD (Golier et al., 2003). A PTSD population was also

expected to show traits of ASPD, AvPD, NPD, and SzPD because the nature of PTSD reflected

traits from those PDs (Golier et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 1999).

2b. A trauma-exposed population was also expected to have less narcissistic traits

endorsed than a PTSD and control population because of the resilient traits like high self esteem,

which was something that someone diagnosed with NPD does not have (Mak et al., 2011).

Likewise, it was not expected for a trauma-exposed population to exhibit more traits for different

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 11

PDs than a PTSD population because of their high level of rigidity and higher level of life

satisfaction (Mak et al., 2011; McCarthy et al., 2008).

2d. Further comparison between interpersonal styles and PDs was expected to show a

relationship between ASPD and NPDs to the PA and BC subscales, AvPD and SzPD to the FG

subscale, DPD to the HI, JK, and LM subscales, and HPD to the NO subscale. These

relationships were expected because of the general personality traits that were related to these

subscales (Horowitz et al., 2003).

Hypothesis 3a. Based on previous research it was also expected that a PTSD population

would view others to be more untrustworthy than trustworthy due to severe interpersonal issues

(Cloitre et al., 2005; Cook et al., 2004; Jordan et al., 1992; McFarlane & Bookless, 2001; Riggs

et al., 1998). 3b. It was expected that the higher level of interpersonal problems and the more

symptoms endorsed for the PDs, the less untrustworthy a person with PTSD would rate someone,

the higher the ratings would be on trust (Clifton et al., 2005).

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through online advertisements and City College of New York

(CCNY)’s subject pool looking for people who experienced a traumatic event. Posters were also

distributed in CCNY campus and in the greater New York area.

There were 51 subjects in the study. Four participants (3 trauma-exposed and 1 controls)

were excluded from the study because of incomplete data, bringing the total number of subjects

to 47; 30 were women. The mean age of the participants was 34.98 ±10.570. 25.5% were White

(non-Hispanic), 34.0% Black (non-Hispanic), 19.1% Hispanic, 10.6% Asian- Pacific Islander,

10.6% were of other ethnicities. All participation was voluntary; participants provided written

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 12

consents and were quizzed before signing to ensure they were aware of what the study entails.

For this study, there were 13 people in the PTSD group, 18 people in the trauma exposed group,

and 16 people in the control group. For complete detail of this study’s demographics, see Table 1

below.

Table 1. Demographics of participant population

PSTD

(n=13)

Trauma

Exposed

(n=18)

Control

(n=16)

Total

(n=47)

f % f % F % f %

Male 7 53.8 6 33.3 3 18.8 16 34.0

Female 6 46.2 11 61.1 13 81.3 30 63.8

Age 33.54 10.509 36.78 12.336 34.13 8.679 34.98 10.570

Years of Education 14.4231 2.34384 13.9444 2.41252 15.0313 2.42534 14.4468 2.39164

F % F % F % F %

White (non Hispanic) 2 15.4 7 38.9 3 18.8 12 25.5

Black (non Hispanic) 4 30.8 5 27.8 7 43.8 16 34.0

Hispanic Origin 4 30.8 1 5.6 4 25.0 9 19.1

Asian-Pacific Islander 1 7.7 3 16.7 1 6.3 5 10.6

Other 2 15.4 2 11.1 1 6.3 5 10.6

Full time 3 23.1 8 44.4 8 50.0 19 40.4

Part time (regular hours) 3 23.1 2 11.1 3 18.8 5 10.6

Part time (irregular hours) 4 30.8 7 38.9 2 12.5 12 25.5

Student 3 23.1 1 5.6 3 18.8 8 17.0

Unemployed 3 23.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 6.4

Materials

LEC. Participants were first interviewed using the Life Events Checklist (LEC) about

whether or not they experienced, witnessed or learned about the nineteen possible events during

their lifetime. If the person actually experienced, witnessed, or learned about a particular event,

they would be asked how many times it happened and their age when it happened.

The LEC was found to be reliable measure when assessing direct trauma exposure with

only one item not reaching the kappa coefficient necessary; when assessing trauma that people

might have witnessed or learned about, the kappa coefficients were lower (Gray, Litz, Hsu, &

Lombardo, 2004). “Nevertheless, the LEC does exhibit stability as a screening measure designed

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 13

to assess varying levels of PTE [potentially traumatic events] exposure” (Gray et al., 2004, p.

336).

CAPS. The participants’ traumatic events were assessed through the Clinician-

Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-IV Current Diagnostic Version (CAPS) which is a

structured interview in which interviewers ask the participants if they experienced the PTSD

symptom as described in the DSM-IV-TR. The CAPS assesses the level of intensity and

frequency of the 17 PTSD symptoms using a five point Likert scale (Blake et al., 1995). “Inter-

rater reliability for continuous CAPS scores was consistently at the .90 level and above, with

diagnostic agreement at times reaching 100%. Test-retest reliability…was nearly as strong”

(Weathers, Keane, & Davidson, 2001, p. 143). The CAPS consists of a high internal consistency

and high validity (Blake et al., 1995).

IIP-C-IRT. Using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex-Item Response

Theory (IIP-C-IRT), we were able to assess an individual’s personality in regards to their

relationships with those around them. The IIP-C-IRT is a 32 question self-report measure where

the participants rate each statement as “not at all,” “a little bit,” “moderately,” “quite a bit,” or

“extremely.” The first 17 statements were based on things that are hard for the participant to do

and the remaining statements are based on things the participants may do too much.

The IIP was initially a 127 self-report measure developed by Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer,

Ureño, and Villaseñor (1988) based on interpersonal problems that were evaluated from

interviewing patients. It contains six subscales with four of them being “hard to do” (H) and two

being “too much” (T) subscales. These subscales are H. Assertive, H. Sociable, H. Intimate, H.

Submissive, T. Responsible, and T. Controlling (Horowitz et al., 1988). “The values of alpha

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 14

ranged from .82 to .94, and the test-retest correlation coefficients across the 10-week waiting

period ranged from .80 to .90” (Horowitz et al., 1988, p. 887).

The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (IIP-C; Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus,

1990) was a 64 item version of the original IIP and is based on the different dimension in the

Interpersonal Circle (IPC; Wiggins, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989). From this, eight scales that

reflect common interpersonal themes were developed using the IPC octant abbreviations:

Domineering (PA), Vindictive (BC), Cold (DE), Socially Avoidant (FG), Nonassertive (HI),

Exploitable (JK), Overly Nurturant (LM), and Intrusive (NO; Alden et al., 1990). Cronbach’s

alpha for each scale ranged from .72 to .85, indicating reliability in each scale (Alden et al.,

1990). The scales developed by Horowitz et al. (1988) were discarded because “significant

measurement gaps were evident and these scales lack the eight-octant precision of the

circumplex scales” (Alden et al., 1990, p. 526- 527).

The IIP-C-IRT was a short version of the IIP-C which consisted of 32 statements that

participants rated on the same scale described above. This version was developed using item

response theory (IRT), which helped provide a more precise and brief measure (Sodano &

Tracey, 2011). The scales followed the concept of the IIP-C in regards to the IPC and were

labeled following Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, and Pincus’s (2003) IIP-64 and IIP-32:

Domineering-Controlling (PA), Vindictive-Self Centered (BC), Cold-Distant (DE), Socially

Inhibited (FG), Nonassertive (HI), Overly Accommodating (JK), Self Sacrificing (LM), and

Intrusive-Needy (NO; Sodano & Tracey, 2011). Cronbach’s alpha for each scale ranged from .62

to .80 (Sodano & Tracey, 2011).

SCID-II PQ. In order to assess whether or not the participants have symptoms of PD, the

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV II Personality Questionnaire (SCID-II PQ) was given.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 15

The SCID-II PQ is a self report measure with 119 items in which the participants answers each

statement with “Yes” or “No.” Each statement corresponds to a different symptom to a PD and

to the SCID-II Interview (First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997). It is important to

note that the SCID-II PQ does not accurately assess whether or not the person has a PD; it just

shows that they endorse symptoms for the PD. In order to fully assess whether or not the person

has a PD, they would have to be interviewed with the SCID-II interview (Farmer & Chapman,

2002). “The SCID-II PQ generally produces a high rate of false-positive PD diagnoses relative to

SCID-II findings (67%)” (Farmer & Chapman, 2002, p. 295)

Trust Fear Task. Using the Trust Fear Task Appraisal, the subjects’ assessment of who

they would trust or fear would be determined. From these measurements, an analysis of the

trauma exposed participants would be done to see any significant results based on the way they

perceive others. There are three conditions that are done in this study: Conditions 5, 6, and 9.

“The task was programmed using Matlab (www.mathworks.com) and Psychtoolbox

(www.psychtoolbox.org), and stimuli were presented and responses (rating and response time

[RT] were collected” (Fertuck, Grinband, & Stanley, in press, p. 7). There were a total of eight

identities in these conditions: one trustworthy man and woman, one untrustworthy man and

woman, one fearful man and woman, and one neutral man and woman. Faces were presented in

gray-scaled to the participant and they stayed on the screen until the participant gave their

ratings. For this study, data was collected on a laptop computer.

Trust. Condition 5 in the Trust Fear Task was based on rating faces on a Likert scale

from 1 to 5 on the faces level of trustworthiness. Faces that were presented to the participants

would fall under two dimensions: trustworthy to untrustworthy (Fertuck et al., in press). The

eight identities mentioned earlier were morphed between the identities of high and low levels of

http://www.mathworks.com/

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 16

trust with both becoming neutral expressions (Fertuck et al., in press). There were a total of 11

facial morphs per identity. Condition 5 had 133 trials meaning participants had to rate faces 133

times; some faces were repeated during the condition.

Condition 9 in the Trust Fear Task was also based on rating faces on a Likert scale from 1

to 5 on the basis of trust. The faces were also based under the dimensions of trustworthy to

untrustworthy as described in Condition 5. Unlike Condition 5, Condition 9 had 177 trials

therefore it ran longer and required more ratings.

Fear. Condition 6 in the Trust Fear Task was based on rating faces on a Likert scale from

1 to 5 on how fearful the participants perceive the faces to be. Faces that were presented to the

participants would fall under two dimensions: neutral to fearful (Fertuck et al., in press). The

eight identities mentioned earlier were morphed within an identity to show different ranges of

fear expression (Fertuck et al., in press). There were a total of eleven facial morphs per identity.

Procedure

Participants were first screen via telephone interview with a series of questions to

determine eligibility to the study. Exclusion from the study for control were a history of seizures,

substance or alcohol abuse, violence; diagnosis of bipolar or any psychosis; and if the

participants were below the age of 18 or over the age of 65.

If eligible, participants were scheduled for a baseline interview in CCNY. Baseline

interviews typically go for about 3 hours. Participants were allowed to take breaks and to stop

the interview if they felt uncomfortable. Participants were first asked by interviewer if they have

experienced any traumatic events using the LEC. If participants responded “Yes” to any of the

listed traumatic events, the baseliner would continue the interview with the CAPS structured

interview, asking the participant to focus on the three most traumatic events, to further assess the

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 17

severity of PTSD symptoms, if any were present. From this, participants were classified as

control, trauma exposed, or PTSD.

After the CAPS interview, the participants were asked to complete the Trust Fear Task in

which they rate a series of faces on a laptop computer on how much they trust the face, or the

level of fear on the faces. They were asked to use their gut instinct, to respond as quickly as

possible, and to try to use a range of numbers. Participants completed three conditions in the

Trust Fear Task: two trust conditions (5 and 9), and one fear condition (6). For this study, only

the ratings from Condition 9 of the Trust Fear Task will be used.

After these interviews and conditions, the participants were asked to complete the IIP-C-

IRT and the SCID-II PQ self report measures. They were given as much time as they needed to

complete them.

Data Analysis

In order to determine any between groups differences for the IIP-C-IRT total and

subscale means, the number of symptoms endorsed on the SCID-II PQ, and the Trust Fear Task

mean ratings, three separate between groups t-tests were done for each measurement.

Additionally, Pearson r correlations were done to determine any relationship between the

three different measurements. Different correlations were done for the IIP-C-IRT subscales and

the number of symptoms endorsed for each PD on the SCID-II PQ, the Trust Fear Task

Condition 9 face morphs and the IIP-C-IRT subscales, and the Trust Fear Task Condition 9 face

morphs and the number of symptoms endorsed on the SCID-II PQ.

Results

Table 2 below showed the reliability analysis for each subscale and the total items for the

IIP-C-IRT. The top row is the different subscales and the bottom row showed the alphas found

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 18

by Sodano and Tracey (2011). Compared to Sodano and Tracey (2011), who tested the

measurement on a university population but not a trauma related population, the alphas found in

this study generally ranged from 0.55 to 0.88. The PA and NO subscales were outliers in this

range, however. When using the entire sample, the alpha found for PA was 0.39, which is not

comparable to the Sodano & Tracey (2011) alpha of 0.67. The alpha of 0.157 for the NO

subscale was extremely low which is also not comparable to the Sodano & Tracey (2011) alpha

of 0.62. Due to the low alphas found for these two subscales, their data were not included in the

analyses.

Table 2. Cronbach's alpha for each subscale and total score for the IIP-C-IRT

PA BC DE FG HI JK LM NO Total

All 0.390 0.546 0.877 0.826 0.831 0.689 0.809 0.157 0.929

Sodano & Tracey (2011) 0.67 0.64 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.71 0.62 N/A** * = not available for comparison.

Between group analyses were done for the IIP-C-IRT to assess possible between group

differences. Figure 1 below showed the mean scores of each subscale and total by group. Table 3

compared the means between the PTSD group and the control group. Significant values were

found for all the subscales except for the NO subscale and the total score (t(27)= 5.10, p<.001;

see Table 3 for other t values and level of significance). A comparison between the means

between the PTSD group and the trauma-exposed group yielded significant values for the BC,

DE, and LM subscales (t(29)= 2.35, p<.05; t(29)= 3.14, p<.01; t(29)= 2.60, p<.05 respectively),

and the total score (t(29)= 2.90, p<.01). The FG and HI subscales were found to be approaching

significance (t(29)= 1.89, p=.07; t(29)= 1.82, p=.08 respectively). Further comparison for the

subscales and the total score between the trauma-exposed and the control group were found to be

not significant throughout. The closest subscale to reach significance was the BC subscale

(t(32)= 1.80, p=.08).

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 19

Figure 1. Mean scores for each subscale and total in the IIP-C-IRT by group

Table 3. Between group analysis of the IIP-C-IRT subscales

and total score for the PTSD and control groups

t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

BC 4.578 27 ***.000 .9290865 .2029558

DE 3.619 27 ***.001 1.1923077 .3294533

FG 2.984 27 **.006 .9062500 .3036817

HI 4.122 27 ***.000 .9675481 .2347204

JK 4.041 27 ***.000 .7716346 .1909535

LM 2.217 27 *.035 .7536058 .3398462

Total 5.102 27 ***.000 .7669772 .1503346

* = p<.05; ** = p<.01; *** = p<.001

Between group analyses were done for the SCID-II PQ to determine between group

differences. Figure 2 below showed the mean number of symptoms endorsed per group for each

.00

.20

.40

.60

.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

BC DE FG HI JK LM Total

M e a

n S

c o

r e

IIP-C-IRT Subscales

Mean Score for each Subscale in the IIP-C-IRT by

Group

PTSD

Trauma-Exposed

Control

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 20

PD. A comparison between the PTSD group and the control group showed significant values for

all PDs (see Table 4 for t values and level of significance) except for AvPD, HPD, and NPD. For

HPD, values were approaching significance (t(28)= 1.90, p=.068). When comparing the PTSD

group to the trauma-exposed group, significant values were found for PPD (t(28)= 3.55, p<.001),

SzPD (t(28)= 2.05, p<.05), NPD (t(29)= 2.16, p<.05), and BPD (t(29)= 3.45, p<.01).

Additionally, group differences between the trauma-exposed group and the control group were

found for DpPD (t(30)= 2.98, p<.01).

Figure 2. The mean distribution of the number of symptoms endorsed by group in the SCID-II PQ.

Table 4. Between group analysis for the SCID-II PQ for the PTSD and control

groups

t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Avoidant PD 1.504 27 .144 1.226 .815

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

M e

a n

N u

m b

e r

o f

S y

m p

to m

s E

n d

o rs

e d

Personality Disorders

Mean Distribution of Symptoms Endorsed for each PD by Group

PTSD Trauma Exposed Control

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 21

Dependent PD 2.251 27 *.033 1.144 .508

Obsessive-Compulsive PD 3.390 27 **.002 2.048 .604

Passive-Aggressive PD 2.357 27 *.026 1.404 .596

Depressive PD 4.019 26 ***.000 2.251 .560

Paranoid PD 4.619 26 ***.000 2.990 .647

Schizotypal PD 2.777 26 **.010 1.651 .595

Schizoid PD 2.792 26 **.010 1.328 .476

Histrionic PD 1.902 27 .068 .572 .301

Narcissistic PD 1.628 27 .115 2.274 1.396

BPD 4.498 27 ***.000 4.760 1.058

* = p<.05; ** =p<.01; *** = p<.0001

Between groups analyses were done to determine any differences between ratings for

each morph in Condition 9 in the Trust Fear Task. Figure 3 below illustrates the means across the

different face morphs per group. As seen in Figure 3, the PTSD group generally rated the faces

less than someone in the trauma-exposed and control groups across all eleven morphs. This

illustrated a trend in how someone with PTSD was more likely to rate an untrustworthy face as

trustworthy. When comparing the PTSD group with the control, a significant difference between

the means were found for the ninth morph only (t(15)= -2.57, p<.05). Mean ratings for the tenth

morph was found to be approaching significance (t(15)= -1.82, p=.09). When comparing the

PTSD group with the trauma-exposed group, there were differences found for the eighth (t(15)=

-2.16, p<.05) and ninth face morph (t(15)= -2.58, p<.05). Mean ratings for the tenth and eleventh

morph was also found to be approaching significance (t(15)= -1.98, p=.07; t(15)= -2.00, p=.06).

A comparison between the trauma-exposed and control group yielded no differences between the

means.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 22

Figure 3. Mean ratings across the different morphs by group in Condition 9 of the Trust Fear Task

A Pearson correlation test using was done to determine any relationship between the IIP-

C-IRT subscales and the PDs. Table 5 below shows the values found for each correlation using

all subjects. Most of the expectations explained by Horowitz et al. (2003) were found to be

significant in this correlation. There were relationships found between NPD and the BC subscale

(r= .470, p<.01), SzPD and the FG subscale (r= .593, p<.01), AvPD and the FG subscale

(r= .440, p<.01), and DPD and the HI and JK subscales (r= .604, p<.01 and r= .426, p<.01

respectively). Upon further investigation, these expected relationships were all found for the

trauma-exposed population as opposed to the PTSD or control population (see Appendix A for

more Pearson values per group and level of significance).

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

M e a n

R a ti

n g s

Trust Face Morphs

Mean Ratings Across Trust Face Morphs per

Group

All Participants PTSD Trauma-Exposed Control

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 23

Table 5. Pearson correlation between the IIP-C-IRT subscales and different PDs from the SCID-II PQ

BC DE FG HI JK LM AvPD DPD OCPD PAPD DpPD PPD StPD SzPD HPD NPD BPD

BC 1 .726** .795** .612** .540** .332* .373** .402** .691** .536** .671** .680** .561** .561** .039 .470** .596**

DE .726** 1 .678** .708** .600** .566** .431** .519** .557** .406** .525** .613** .417** .446** .013 .255 .569**

FG .795** .678** 1 .598** .452** .301* .440** .513** .540** .540** .641** .591** .442** .593** -.078 .435** .600**

HI .612** .708** .598** 1 .679** .440** .592** .604** .647** .465** .682** .552** .358* .287 .020 .413** .542**

JK .540** .600** .452** .679** 1 .493** .321* .426** .547** .376* .411** .323* .196 .246 .115 .272 .418**

LM .332* .566** .301* .440** .493** 1 .087 .111 .289* .146 .221 .287 .266 .247 .105 .102 .291*

AvPD .373** .431** .440** .592** .321* .087 1 .619** .463** .594** .581** .503** .527** .352* -.162 .617** .559**

DPD .402** .519** .513** .604** .426** .111 .619** 1 .510** .603** .578** .528** .315* .370* .092 .457** .668**

OCPD .691** .557** .540** .647** .547** .289* .463** .510** 1 .604** .632** .627** .551** .475** .222 .594** .511**

PAPD .536** .406** .540** .465** .376* .146 .594** .603** .604** 1 .648** .709** .563** .514** .039 .707** .609**

DpPD .671** .525** .641** .682** .411** .221 .581** .578** .632** .648** 1 .611** .548** .497** -.159 .534** .762**

PPD .680** .613** .591** .552** .323* .287 .503** .528** .627** .709** .611** 1 .654** .603** .046 .480** .735**

StPD .561** .417** .442** .358* .196 .266 .527** .315* .551** .563** .548** .654** 1 .621** -.019 .612** .568**

SzPD .561** .446** .593** .287 .246 .247 .352* .370* .475** .514** .497** .603** .621** 1 -.128 .486** .504**

HPD .039 .013 -.078 .020 .115 .105 -.162 .092 .222 .039 -.159 .046 -.019 -.128 1 .097 -.004

NPD .470** .255 .435** .413** .272 .102 .617** .457** .594** .707** .534** .480** .612** .486** .097 1 .447**

BPD .596** .569** .600** .542** .418** .291* .559** .668** .511** .609** .762** .735** .568** .504** -.004 .447** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PA= Domineering/Controlling; BC=Vindictive/Self-Centered; DE= Cold/Distant; FG= Socially Inhibited; HI= Nonassertive; JK= Overly Accommodating; LM= Self Sacrificing;

NO= Intrusive/Needy; AvPD= Avoidant Personality Disorder; DPD= Dependent Personality Disorder; OCPD= Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder; PAPD= Passive-

Aggressive Personality Disorder; DpPD= Depressive Personality Disorder; PPD= Paranoid Personality Disorder; StPD= Schizotypal Personality Disorder; SzPD= Schizoid

Personality Disorder; HPD= Hisrionic Personality Disorder; NPD= Narcissistic Personality Disorder; BPD= Borderline Personality Disorder

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 24

Another Pearson correlation was done to determine any relationship between the different

trust face morphs and the IIP-C-IRT. Table 6 below showed the values found for each

correlation. Significant negative correlations were found when looking at the DE subscale with

the tenth and eleventh morph (r= -.374, p<.05; r= -.374, p<.05 respectively).Significant negative

correlations were found when looking at the HI subscale to Morph 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 (r=

-.400, p<.05; r= -.515, p<.01; r= -.402, p<.05; r= -.467, p<.05; r= -.470, p<.05; r= -.462, p<.05

and r= -.421, p<.05 respectively). There were also significant negative correlations found

between the LM subscale and the different morphs (see Table 6). As expected, there were very

high correlations between the different face morphs. With an exception of Morph 1 to Morph 11

and Morph 2 to Morph 11, all correlations between the morphs were found to be p<.05 or higher.

For the correlations between the subscales and the different trust face morphs for each separate

group, see Appendix B.

Table 6. Correlations between the different trust face morphs and the subscales in the IIP-C-IRT measurement.

Morph

BC -.122 -.135 -.134 -.005 -.043 -.145 -.105 .005 -.162 -.127 -.187

DE -.159 -.218 -.241 -.165 -.252 -.221 -.312 -.189 -.303 -.374* -.374*

FG -.197 -.204 -.169 -.105 -.074 -.054 -.166 -.082 -.176 -.221 -.273

HI -.354 -.400* -.515** -.343 -.402* -.467* -.470* -.216 -.462* -.421* -.319

JK -.272 -.325 -.428* -.252 -.391* -.401* -.412* -.291 -.461* -.425* -.455*

LM -.105 -.242 -.256 -.176 -.212 -.195 -.275 -.207 -.210 -.251 -.223

Morph1 1 .938** .888** .741** .769** .674** .672** .459* .520** .427* .270

Morph2 .938** 1 .925** .857** .853** .759** .743** .546** .667** .509** .340

Morph3 .888** .925** 1 .831** .857** .824** .816** .559** .703** .580** .401*

Morph4 .741** .857** .831** 1 .919** .779** .769** .741** .785** .650** .502**

Morph5 .769** .853** .857** .919** 1 .892** .879** .825** .862** .796** .651**

Morph6 .674** .759** .824** .779** .892** 1 .907** .765** .873** .792** .650**

Morph7 .672** .743** .816** .769** .879** .907** 1 .802** .905** .866** .760**

Morph8 .459* .546** .559** .741** .825** .765** .802** 1 .825** .861** .817**

Morph9 .520** .667** .703** .785** .862** .873** .905** .825** 1 .881** .821**

Morph10 .427* .509** .580** .650** .796** .792** .866** .861** .881** 1 .909**

Morph11 .270 .340 .401* .502** .651** .650** .760** .817** .821** .909** 1

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 25

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

An additional Pearson correlation test was done to determine any relationship between

the trust face morphs and the different PD traits endorsed according to the SCID-II PQ. Table 7

below showed the values found for each correlation. Significant negative correlation were found

between PAPD and Morph 10 and 11 (r= -.437, p<.05 and r= -.455, p<.05 respectively).

Additional significant negative correlations were also found between multiple face morphs to

AvPD, DPD, DpPD, and BPD (see Table 7). For further r values for each group, see Appendix

Table 7. Values found for the correlation test done between the different trust face morphs and the symptoms endorsed for each PD on the

SCID-II PQ

AvPD DPD OCPD PAPD DpPD PPD StPD SzPD HPD NPD BPD

Morph1 -.238 -.130 -.085 -.147 -.282 .009 -.166 -.030 .314 -.043 -.095

Morph2 -.219 -.150 -.111 -.103 -.294 -.036 -.081 -.037 .286 -.049 -.145

Morph3 -.359 -.360 -.216 -.242 -.414* -.134 -.114 -.077 .172 -.133 -.315

Morph4 -.296 -.259 -.023 -.135 -.335 .006 -.036 -.068 .361 -.095 -.223

Morph5 -.382* -.301 -.036 -.244 -.421* -.119 -.065 -.077 .347 -.114 -.367

Morph6 -.421* -.372* -.181 -.244 -.437* -.150 -.161 -.036 .187 -.248 -.464*

Morph7 -.475** -.488** -.094 -.298 -.478* -.158 -.119 -.086 .233 -.292 -.479**

Morph8 -.408* -.345 .103 -.274 -.357 -.034 -.102 -.090 .291 -.259 -.466*

Morph9 -.498** -.447* -.125 -.367 -.484* -.232 -.111 -.137 .179 -.319 -.496**

Morph10 -.550** -.579** -.057 -.437* -.471* -.271 -.183 -.216 .268 -.295 -.638**

Morph11 -.547** -.455* -.010 -.455* -.422* -.219 -.215 -.214 .291 -.298 -.534**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Discussion

Trauma exposure can significantly affect the lives of those who have been exposed to it.

In the present study, our findings overall demonstrate areas of potential impact of trauma

including interpersonal functioning and personality styles. More specifically, those who

developed PTSD had a higher level of interpersonal dysfunction and a greater number of

symptoms endorsed for personality disorders in contrast to those who were exposed to trauma

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 26

but did not develop PTSD or those with no trauma exposure in their lifetimes. This finding is in

keeping with an existing body of research suggesting that the PTSD population has more

interpersonal instability (Cook et al., 2004; McFarlane & Bookless, 2001) than a non-PTSD

population. In the present study, some of the interpersonal traits that were found to significantly

differentiate the PTSD and the control group included traits such as hostility, anger, distrust,

holding grudges, low self confidence and self esteem, and avoiding situations which indicate

how there are types of personalities that tend of having a higher chance of developing PTSD with

presented with a traumatic event.

Differences in interpersonal styles were also found between the trauma-exposed and

PTSD groups which further illustrate a personality and interpersonal style difference between the

two groups. Those with PTSD were found to have more traits related to hostility, anger, and

disconnection than someone who experienced trauma but did not develop the disorder. These

trait differences between these groups can be caused by the latter group having resilient traits

(Bensimon, 2012) which are related to higher self-esteem and close relationships with family and

peers (Mak et al., 2011). The higher self-esteem and close relationships with others might have

helped prevent them from developing PTSD. This suggests that these individuals did not develop

PTSD because of they had the social support necessary to help prevent them from developing

PTSD symptoms (Hyman et al., 2003). Interestingly, a person with PTSD was also found to be

more ready to help others than someone who experienced trauma but did not develop PTSD.

The PTSD group also endorsed more symptoms for different personality disorders which

relates to previous research because it shows that there is a higher chance of someone developing

a personality disorder when they experience traumatic events (Johnson et al., 1999) and

subsequent traumas (Cloitre et al., 1997). Although the participants were not diagnosed with a

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 27

personality disorder, the high endorsement for all personality disorders among those with PTSD

indicates differences in personality related diagnostic features compared to without PTSD. When

compared to a non-trauma exposed population, those with PTSD were found to have more traits

relating to dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, passive-

aggressive personality disorder and much more. When compared to a trauma exposed population

that did not develop PTSD, the PTSD population endorsed more symptoms for paranoid

personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and

borderline personality disorder, which further indicates differences between the two groups.

This continues to provide evidence of areas of functioning in which those with PTSD differ from

the general population in personality and interpersonal styles.

When assessing trust between the groups, it was found that the PTSD group provided

more ratings related to trusting the face as opposed to not trusting it even when the face was

morphed into an untrustworthy face. In contrast, those who experienced trauma but did not

develop PTSD and those in the non-trauma exposed group rated faces as more untrustworthy as

the faces morphed into a more untrustworthy look. The tendency for the PTSD group to rate

faces as more trustworthy throughout showed a trend in how individuals with PTSD tend to be

more trusting towards others as opposed to the other two groups.

The findings in this study illustrate the need to focus more research on the personality

type and interpersonal relationships especially for those with PTSD. This suggests more research

should be dedicated to studying the interpersonal relationships of someone with PTSD. A study

done by Krupnick et al. (2008) and Markowitz et al. (2009) emphasized using interpersonal

psychotherapy to treat PTSD because it helped improve patients’ social functioning and lessen

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 28

the number of symptoms. After treatment with interpersonal psychotherapy, patients are more

likely to expose themselves to reminders of the trauma (Bleiberg & Markowitz, 2005).

Limitations and Future Research

Although there were many differences found between the PTSD, trauma-exposed, and

control groups, it is unclear whether or not the interpersonal styles and personality disorder traits

proceeds the trauma or whether it causes a person to develop PTSD. It can be that a person who

has a high means for the different interpersonal styles might just have a higher chance of

developing PTSD because of these traits. However, it can also suggest an exposure to trauma is

what caused these traits to come about. Likewise, it was found that the PTSD group generally

had lower mean ratings for each face than the trauma-exposed and control group, which means

that the PTSD group tend to be more trusting towards others. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether

or not this trust was caused by the fact that these people developed PTSD, or they were originally

very trusting people, which made them more likely to develop PTSD.

Future research on the relationship between personality disorders and interpersonal

relationships should include the use of the entire SCID-II interview to further diagnose the

participants with PD to in order to further see any difference in personality between those with

PTSD and those without PTSD. By doing this, there can be a better understanding of a trauma

exposed population, especially when the person develops PTSD from this particular trauma.

This can also help develop future treatments for those with PTSD. These different aspects about

PTSD and how it influences the person’s personality and interpersonal relations should be taken

under consideration when developing new treatment plans for those with PTSD.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 29

Works Cited

Ainsworth, M.D. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychological Association,

34(10), 932-937.

Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of Circumplex Scales for the

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3&4), 521-

536.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

4th ed- text revision.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991) Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a

four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

Bensimon, M. (2012) Elaboration on the association between trauma, PTSD, and posttraumatic

growth: The role of trait resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 782-787.

Blake, D. D. et al. (1995) The development of a clinician-administered PTSD scale. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 8(1), 75-90.

Bleiberg, K.L. & Markowitz, J. C. (2005) A pilot study of interpersonal psychotherapy for

posttraumatic stress disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(1), 181-183.

Breslau, N., Kessler, R. C., Chilcoat, H. D., Schultz, L.R., Davis, G. C., & Andreski, P. (1998)

Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community. Archive of General

Psychiatry, 55, 626-632.

Claes, L., Vertommen, S., Smits, D., & Bijttebier, P. (2009) Emotional reactivity and self-

regulation in relation to personality disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,

948-953.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 30

Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2005) Self- and peer perspectives on

pathological personality traits and interpersonal problems. Psychological Assessment, 17

(2), 123-131.

Cloitre, M., Miranda, R., Stovall-McClough, C., & Han, H. (2005) Beyond PTSD: Emotion

regulation and interpersonal problems as predictors of functional impairment in survivors

of childhood abuse. Behavior Therapy, 36, 119-124.

Cloitre, M., Scarvalone, P., & Difede, J. (1997) Posttraumatic stress disorder, self- and

interpersonal dysfunction among sexually retraumatized women. Journal of Traumatic

Stress, 10(3), 437-452.

Cook, J. M., Riggs, D. S., Thompson, R., & Coyne, J.C., Sheikh, J.I. (2004) Posttraumatic stress

disorder and current relationship functioning among world war II ex-prisoners of war.

Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 36-46.

Fani, N. et al. (2012) Attention bias toward threat is associated with exaggerated fear expression

and impaired extinction in PTSD. Psychological Medicine, 42, 533-543.

Farmer, R. F. & Chapman, A. L. (2002) Evaluation of DSM-IV personality disorder criteria as

assessed by the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV personality disorders.

Comprehensive Psychiatry, 43(4), 285-300.

Fertuck, E. A., Grinband, J., & Stanley, B. (in press) Facial trust appraisal negatively biased in

borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research.

First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997) User’s

guide for the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disorders:

SCID II. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 31

Frans, Ö., Rimmö, P-A., Åberg, L., and Fredrikson, M. (2005) Trauma exposure and post-

traumatic stress disorder in the general population. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 111,

291-299.

Frewen, P. A., Dozois, D. J. A., Neufeld, R. W. J., & Lanius, R. A. (2008) Meta-analysis of

alexithymia in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(2), 243-246.

Golier, J. A. et al. (2003) The relationship of borderline personality disorder to posttraumatic

stress disorder and traumatic events. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(11), 2018-

2024.

Gray, M. J., Litz, B. T., Hsu, J. L., & Lombardo, T.W. (2004) Psychometric properties of the life

events checklist. Sage Publications, 11, 330-341.

Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2003) Inventory of interpersonal

problems: Manual and sampler set. Mind Garden Inc.

Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988) Inventory

of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885-892.

Howes, C. & Hamilton, C. E. (1992) Children’s relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child

care teachers. Child Development, 63(4), 859-866.

Hyman, S. M., Gold, S. N., & Cott, M. A. (2003) Forms of social support that moderate PTSD in

childhood sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Family Violence, 18(5), 205-300.

Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E. M., & Bernstein, D. P. (1999) Childhood

maltreatment increases risk for personality disorders during early adulthood. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 56, 600-606.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 32

Jordan, K. B. et al. (1992) Problems in families of male Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic

stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 916-926.

Keller, P. S., Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Mitchell, P.M. (2008) Longitudinal relations

between parental drinking problems, family functioning, and child adjustment.

Development and Psychopathology, 20, 195-212.

Krupnick, J. L., Green, B. L., Stockton, P., Miranda, J., Krause, E., & Mete, M. (2008) Group

interpersonal psychotherapy for low-income women with posttraumatic stress disorder.

Psychotherapy Research, 18(5), 497-507.

Litz, B. T., Orsillo, S. M., Kaloupek, D., & Weathers, F. (2000) Emotional processing in

posttraumtic stress disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109 (1), 26-39.

Mak, W. W., Ng, I. S., and Wong, C. C. Y. (2011) Resilience: Enhancing well-being through the

positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 610-617.

Matano, R. A. & Locke, K. D. (1995) Personality disorder scales as predictors of interpersonal

problems of alcoholics. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(1), 62-67.

Markowitz, J. C., Milrod, B., Bleiberg, K., and Marshall, R. D. (2009) Interpersonal factors in

understanding and treating posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Practice,

15(2), 133-140.

McCarthy, K. S., Connolly-Gibbons, M. B., & Barber, J. P. (2008) The relation of rigidity across

relationships with symptoms and functioning: An investigation with the revised central

relationship questionnaire. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 346-358.

McFarlane, A. C. & Bookless, C. (2001) The effect of PTSD on interpersonal relationships:

Issues for emergency service workers. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 16(3), 261-267.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 33

Milliones, J. (1978) Relationships between perceived child temperament and maternal behaviors.

Child Development, 49, 1255-1257.

Oosterhof, N. N. & Toderov, A. (2008) The functional basis of face evaluation. PNAS, 105(32),

11087-11092.

Orcutt, H. K., Erikson, D. J., & Wolfe, J. (2002) A prospective analysis of trauma exposure: The

mediating role of PTSD symptomatology. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(3), 259-266.

Pastor, D.L. (1981) The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relationship to toddlers’

initial sociability with peers. Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 326-335.

Pollak, S. D. & Kistler, D. J. (2002) Early experience is associated with the development of

categorical representations for facial expressions of emotion. PNAS, 99(13), 9072-9076.

Poljac, E., Montagne, B., & de Hann, E. H. F. (2011) Reduced recognition of fear and sadness in

post-traumatic stress disorder. Cortex, 47, 974-980.

Riggs, D. S., Byrne, C.A., Weathers, F. W., & Litz, B.T. (1998) Journal of Traumatic Stress,

11(1), 87-101.

Smith, B. W. et al. (2011) Mindfulness is associated with fewer PTSD symptoms, depressive

symptoms, physical symptoms, and alcohol problems in urban firefighters. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(5), 613-617.

Sodano, S. M., Tracey, T. J. G. (2011) A brief inventory of interpersonal problems-circumplex

using nonparametric item response theory: Introducing the IIP-C-IRT. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 93(1), 62-75.

Stewart, L. H., Ajina, S., Getov, S., Bahrami, B., Todorov, A., & Rees, G., (2012) Unconscious

evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

1-13.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 34

Todorov, A., Pakrashi, M., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2009) Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after

minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813-833.

Weathers, F. W., Keane, T. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2001) Clinician-administered PTSD scale:

A review of the first ten years of research. Depression and Anxiety, 13, 132-156.

Wiggins, J. S., Phillips, N., & Trapnell, P. (1989). Circular reasoning about interpersonal

behavior: Evidence concerning some untested assumptions underlying diagnostic

classification. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 56, 296-305.

Zlotnick, C. et al. (2003) Clinical features and impairment in women with borderline personality

disorder (BPD) with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), BPD without PTSD, and other

personality disorders with PTSD. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191(11),

706-713.

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 35

Appendix A

Pearson correlations for PTSD, trauma-exposed, control, and all participants for the IIP-C-IRT subscales and the different PDs from the SCID-II PQ.

PA BC DE FG HI JK LM NO AvPD DPD OCPD PAPD DpPD PPD StPD SzPD HPD NPD BPD

PTSD .100 -.138 -.247 -.237 -.417 -.073 -.392 -.041 -.314 .142 -.225 -.224 .078 .126 -.431 .222 -.199 -.149

trauma-

exposed .278 .177 .036 .224 .452 .526* .826** .025 .248 .271 .356 -.098 .511* -.027 .087 .573* .102 .336

control .653** .992** .853** .479 .424 .888** .660** .013 .313 .093 .057 .065 .078 .022 .299 .082 -.015 .048

All .445** .437** .256 .281 .320* .522** .442** .101 .179 .336* .214 .119 .421** .196 .113 .421** .085 .283

PTSD .100 .446 .685** .443 .090 -.280 .011 .191 .225 .698** .476 .601* .352 .169 .143 -.272 .225 .470

trauma-

exposed .278 .838** .784** .608** .645** .475* .324 .597** .357 .775** .611** .595* .862** .801** .742** .053 .806** .439

control .653** .672** .811** .286 .212 .396 .342 .052 .271 -.151 .109 .256 .167 .247 .310 -.262 .130 .265

All .445** .726** .795** .612** .540** .332* .310* .373** .402** .691** .536** .671** .680** .561** .561** .039 .470** .596**

PTSD -.138 .446 .459 .741** .241 -.244 .103 .687** .490 .417 .250 .365 .434 .344 .249 -.294 -.024 .516

trauma-

exposed .177 .838** .592** .790** .860** .684** .288 .578* .562* .764** .675** .621** .739** .474 .418 -.092 .589* .404

control .992** .672** .869** .433 .408 .904** .674** -.054 .241 .072 -.014 -.008 .075 -.056 .277 .082 -.080 -.017

All .437** .726** .678** .708** .600** .566** .387** .431** .519** .557** .406** .525** .613** .417** .446** .013 .255 .569**

PTSD -.247 .685** .459 .331 .247 -.458 .247 .336 .623* .317 .606* .639* .454 .083 .294 -.363 .103 .731**

trauma-

exposed .036 .784** .592** .654** .386 .317 .296 .701** .281 .644** .490* .632** .607** .671** .792** -.212 .748** .299

control .853** .811** .869** .473 .534* .714** .541* .093 .414 .222 .245 .160 .222 .208 .278 .178 .229 .222

All .256 .795** .678** .598** .452** .301* .387** .440** .513** .540** .540** .641** .591** .442** .593** -.078 .435** .600**

PTSD -.237 .443 .741** .331 .031 -.120 .066 .632* .441 .536 .398 .629* .556* .350 .056 -.139 .411 .500

trauma-

exposed .224 .608** .790** .654** .819** .742** .491* .726** .689** .621** .481 .723** .460 .176 .242 -.134 .415 .483*

control .479 .286 .433 .473 .737** .385 .483 .384 .536* .578* .190 .528* -.080 .315 -.086 .343 .298 .223

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 36

All .281 .612** .708** .598** .679** .440** .413** .592** .604** .647** .465** .682** .552** .358* .287 .020 .413** .542**

PTSD -.417 .090 .241 .247 .031 .034 .500 -.151 -.029 .022 -.137 -.076 -.471 -.246 -.016 -.046 -.101 .005

trauma-

exposed .452 .645** .860** .386 .819** .891** .421 .623** .605** .681** .594* .565* .642** .222 .218 -.031 .399 .584*

control .424 .212 .408 .534* .737** .395 .588* .143 .478 .496 .203 .337 -.223 .215 .004 .433 .258 .187

All .320* .540** .600** .452** .679** .493** .505** .321* .426** .547** .376* .411** .323* .196 .246 .115 .272 .418**

PTSD -.073 -.280 -.244 -.458 -.120 .034 .329 -.159 -.493 -.203 -.032 -.140 -.083 .553* .097 -.132 .133 -.035

trauma-

exposed .526* .475* .684** .317 .742** .891** .481* .499* .649** .569* .405 .464 .496* .097 .191 -.061 .196 .625**

control .888** .396 .904** .714** .385 .395 .702** -.172 -.027 .192 -.184 -.162 -.088 -.244 .101 .317 -.186 -.218

All .522** .332* .566** .301* .440** .493** .517** .087 .111 .289* .146 .221 .287 .266 .247 .105 .102 .291*

PTSD -.392 .011 .103 .247 .066 .500 .329 -.281 -.200 -.340 -.149 -.011 -.254 -.060 -.135 -.195 -.183 .213

trauma-

exposed .826** .324 .288 .296 .491* .421 .481* .105 .351 .349 .375 -.021 .458 -.110 .082 .532* .144 .191

control .660** .342 .674** .541* .483 .588* .702** -.245 -.046 .064 -.232 .243 -.253 -.328 .143 .289 -.275 -.305

All .442** .310* .387** .387** .413** .505** .517** -.061 .129 .161 .112 .138 .159 -.017 .106 .325* -.029 .235

A v

P D

PTSD -.041 .191 .687** .336 .632* -.151 -.159 -.281 .706** .304 .635* .533 .751** .525 .395 -.218 .356 .633*

trauma-

exposed .025 .597** .578* .701** .726** .623** .499* .105 .431 .675** .538* .929** .514* .510* .498* -.462 .651** .539*

control .013 .052 -.054 .093 .384 .143 -.172 -.245 .684** .246 .536* .454 .116 .524* -.056 .076 .697** .655**

All .101 .373** .431** .440** .592** .321* .087 -.061 .619** .463** .594** .581** .503** .527** .352* -.162 .617** .559**

D P

PTSD -.314 .225 .490 .623* .441 -.029 -.493 -.200 .706** .401 .652* .579* .606* .150 .536 .009 .369 .735**

trauma-

exposed .248 .357 .562* .281 .689** .605** .649** .351 .431 .535* .293 .478 .295 .079 .057 .000 .294 .505*

control .313 .271 .241 .414 .536* .478 -.027 -.046 .684** .298 .747** .517* .333 .705** .253 .076 .655** .689**

All .179 .402** .519** .513** .604** .426** .111 .129 .619** .510** .603** .578** .528** .315* .370* .092 .457** .668**

O C

P D

PTSD .142 .698** .417 .317 .536 .022 -.203 -.340 .304 .401 .437 .574* .333 .288 .254 .204 .515 .435

trauma-

exposed .271 .775** .764** .644** .621** .681** .569* .349 .675** .535* .707** .626** .817** .661** .614** -.015 .789** .415

control .093 -.151 .072 .222 .578* .496 .192 .064 .246 .298 .424 .000 .345 .388 -.067 .591* .460 .253

All .336* .691** .557** .540** .647** .547** .289* .161 .463** .510** .604** .632** .627** .551** .475** .222 .594** .511**

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 37

P A

P D

PTSD -.225 .476 .250 .606* .398 -.137 -.032 -.149 .635* .652* .437 .883** .651* .517 .595* -.204 .694** .772**

trauma-

exposed .356 .611** .675** .490* .481 .594* .405 .375 .538* .293 .707** .396 .778** .322 .342 -.082 .627** .179

control .057 .109 -.014 .245 .190 .203 -.184 -.232 .536* .747** .424 .468 .659** .854** .460 .201 .780** .751**

All .214 .536** .406** .540** .465** .376* .146 .112 .594** .603** .604** .648** .709** .563** .514** .039 .707** .609**

D p

P D

PTSD -.224 .601* .365 .639* .629* -.076 -.140 -.011 .533 .579* .574* .883** .578* .425 .431 -.175 .749** .734**

trauma-

exposed -.098 .595* .621** .632** .723** .565* .464 -.021 .929** .478 .626** .396 .406 .489* .452 -.596* .562* .612**

control .065 .256 -.008 .160 .528* .337 -.162 .243 .454 .517* .000 .468 .023 .498 .150 .073 .404 .439

All .119 .671** .525** .641** .682** .411** .221 .138 .581** .578** .632** .648** .611** .548** .497** -.159 .534** .762**

P P

PTSD .078 .352 .434 .454 .556* -.471 -.083 -.254 .751** .606* .333 .651* .578* .632* .291 -.379 .287 .706**

trauma-

exposed .511* .862** .739** .607** .460 .642** .496* .458 .514* .295 .817** .778** .406 .591* .701** .072 .710** .463

control .078 .167 .075 .222 -.080 -.223 -.088 -.253 .116 .333 .345 .659** .023 .460 .504 .072 .269 .381

All .421** .680** .613** .591** .552** .323* .287 .159 .503** .528** .627** .709** .611** .654** .603** .046 .480** .735**

S tP

PTSD .126 .169 .344 .083 .350 -.246 .553* -.060 .525 .150 .288 .517 .425 .632* .375 -.281 .275 .553

trauma-

exposed -.027 .801** .474 .671** .176 .222 .097 -.110 .510* .079 .661** .322 .489* .591* .781** -.059 .846** .252

control .022 .247 -.056 .208 .315 .215 -.244 -.328 .524* .705** .388 .854** .498 .460 .456 .043 .815** .766**

All .196 .561** .417** .442** .358* .196 .266 -.017 .527** .315* .551** .563** .548** .654** .621** -.019 .612** .568**

S z P

PTSD -.431 .143 .249 .294 .056 -.016 .097 -.135 .395 .536 .254 .595* .431 .291 .375 -.338 .429 .462

trauma-

exposed .087 .742** .418 .792** .242 .218 .191 .082 .498* .057 .614** .342 .452 .701** .781** -.205 .664** .349

control .299 .310 .277 .278 -.086 .004 .101 .143 -.056 .253 -.067 .460 .150 .504 .456 -.071 .178 .214

All .113 .561** .446** .593** .287 .246 .247 .106 .352* .370* .475** .514** .497** .603** .621** -.128 .486** .504**

H P

PTSD .222 -.272 -.294 -.363 -.139 -.046 -.132 -.195 -.218 .009 .204 -.204 -.175 -.379 -.281 -.338 .109 -.165

trauma-

exposed .573* .053 -.092 -.212 -.134 -.031 -.061 .532* -.462 .000 -.015 -.082 -.596* .072 -.059 -.205 -.062 -.209

control .082 -.262 .082 .178 .343 .433 .317 .289 .076 .076 .591* .201 .073 .072 .043 -.071 .230 -.083

All .421** .039 .013 -.078 .020 .115 .105 .325* -.162 .092 .222 .039 -.159 .046 -.019 -.128 .097 -.004

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 38

N P

PTSD -.199 .225 -.024 .103 .411 -.101 .133 -.183 .356 .369 .515 .694** .749** .287 .275 .429 .109 .404

trauma-

exposed .102 .806** .589* .748** .415 .399 .196 .144 .651** .294 .789** .627** .562* .710** .846** .664** -.062 .322

control -.015 .130 -.080 .229 .298 .258 -.186 -.275 .697** .655** .460 .780** .404 .269 .815** .178 .230 .584*

All .085 .470** .255 .435** .413** .272 .102 -.029 .617** .457** .594** .707** .534** .480** .612** .486** .097 .447**

B P

PTSD -.149 .470 .516 .731** .500 .005 -.035 .213 .633* .735** .435 .772** .734** .706** .553 .462 -.165 .404

trauma-

exposed .336 .439 .404 .299 .483* .584* .625** .191 .539* .505* .415 .179 .612** .463 .252 .349 -.209 .322

control .048 .265 -.017 .222 .223 .187 -.218 -.305 .655** .689** .253 .751** .439 .381 .766** .214 -.083 .584*

All .283 .596** .569** .600** .542** .418** .291* .235 .559** .668** .511** .609** .762** .735** .568** .504** -.004 .447**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PA= Domineering/Controlling; BC=Vindictive/Self-Centered; DE= Cold/Distant; FG= Socially Inhibited; HI= Nonassertive; JK= Overly Accommodating; LM= Self Sacrificing; NO=

Intrusive/Needy; AvPD= Avoidant Personality Disorder; DPD= Dependent Personality Disorder; OCPD= Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder; PAPD= Passive-Aggressive

Personality Disorder; DpPD= Depressive Personality Disorder; PPD= Paranoid Personality Disorder; StPD= Schizotypal Personality Disorder; SzPD= Schizoid Personality Disorder; HPD=

Hisrionic Personality Disorder; NPD= Narcissistic Personality Disorder; BPD= Borderline Personality Disorder

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 39

Appendix B

Pearson Correlations between for the PTSD, trauma-exposed, and control groups for the IIP-C-IRT subscales and different trust face morphs

on the Trust Fear Task

Morph

BC PTSD .178 .180 .340 .463 .482 .451 .552 .618 .528 .697 .395

trauma-

exposed -.323 -.418 -.326 -.204 -.302 -.366 -.244 -.148 -.410 -.353 -.448

Control .013 .018 .051 .098 .226 .177 -.048 .016 .045 -.006 -.166

DE PTSD .349 .355 .380 .328 .194 .414 .333 .341 .176 -.080 -.202

trauma-

exposed -.627* -.700* -.641* -.504 -.673* -.602* -.565 -.477 -.705* -.690* -.717**

Control -.064 -.144 -.094 -.026 .011 .064 -.196 -.109 .063 -.114 -.139

FG PTSD -.327 -.202 -.220 -.405 -.445 -.148 -.413 -.593 -.450 -.787 -.959**

trauma-

exposed -.390 -.452 -.270 -.271 -.216 -.196 -.119 -.021 -.278 -.214 -.220

Control .041 .064 .018 .261 .315 .268 -.093 .075 .178 .010 -.101

HI PTSD .560 .457 .477 .578 .491 .433 .580 .739 .475 .525 .601

trauma-

exposed -.596* -.703* -.761** -.581* -.724** -.679* -.699* -.609* -.810** -.840** -.826**

Control -.502 -.478 -.502 -.308 -.163 -.215 -.310 -.034 -.095 -.009 .065

JK PTSD -.408 -.346 -.206 -.181 -.192 -.049 -.091 -.081 -.146 -.050 -.379

trauma-

exposed -.385 -.521 -.620* -.420 -.667* -.627* -.587* -.602* -.718** -.755** -.850**

Control -.159 -.092 -.233 .132 .217 .153 .025 .138 .262 .196 .157

LM PTSD -.447 -.365 -.361 -.398 -.272 -.321 -.388 -.516 -.245 -.182 -.264

trauma-

exposed -.318 -.522 -.625* -.453 -.620* -.601* -.571 -.547 -.711** -.721** -.770**

Control .046 -.077 -.005 .077 .094 .150 .005 .022 .238 .054 .084

Morph

PTSD 1 .988** .970** .951* .920* .917* .915* .851 .895* .594 .550

trauma-

exposed 1 .929** .789** .711** .830** .740** .785** .686* .687* .635* .534

Control 1 .959** .977** .728** .712** .598* .567 .211 .314 .243 -.033

Morph

PTSD .988** 1 .986** .944* .917* .949* .909* .809 .893* .540 .448

trauma-

exposed .929** 1 .919** .871** .912** .839** .854** .725** .856** .729** .615*

Control .959** 1 .929** .780** .761** .642* .545 .268 .353 .275 -.023

Morph

PTSD .970** .986** 1 .976** .955* .986** .959* .866 .941* .623 .476

trauma-

exposed .789** .919** 1 .862** .921** .916** .942** .796** .946** .804** .741**

Control .977** .929** 1 .731** .747** .661* .615* .267 .346 .327 .039

Morph

PTSD .951* .944* .976** 1 .989** .963** .995** .950* .981** .771 .637

trauma-

exposed .711** .871** .862** 1 .863** .681* .723** .691* .786** .633* .445

Control .728** .780** .731** 1 .954** .853** .686* .709** .699* .586* .399

Morph

PTSD .920* .917* .955* .989** 1 .945* .988** .937* .998** .821 .678

trauma-

exposed .830** .912** .921** .863** 1 .886** .913** .897** .895** .850** .759**

Control .712** .761** .747** .954** 1 .895** .761** .720** .735** .688* .466

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 40

Morph

PTSD .917* .949* .986** .963** .945* 1 .959** .857 .939* .626 .414

trauma-

exposed .740** .839** .916** .681* .886** 1 .961** .847** .909** .806** .793**

Control .598* .642* .661* .853** .895** 1 .812** .716** .866** .828** .597*

Morph

PTSD .915* .909* .959* .995** .988** .959** 1 .964** .986** .806 .643

trauma-

exposed .785** .854** .942** .723** .913** .961** 1 .882** .897** .874** .814**

Control .567 .545 .615* .686* .761** .812** 1 .696* .857** .873** .741**

Morph

PTSD .851 .809 .866 .950* .937* .857 .964** 1 .938* .880* .772

trauma-

exposed .686* .725** .796** .691* .897** .847** .882** 1 .723** .853** .718**

Control .211 .268 .267 .709** .720** .716** .696* 1 .848** .840** .840**

Morph

PTSD .895* .893* .941* .981** .998** .939* .986** .938* 1 .842 .682

trauma-

exposed .687* .856** .946** .786** .895** .909** .897** .723** 1 .820** .834**

Control .314 .353 .346 .699* .735** .866** .857** .848** 1 .934** .862**

Morph

PTSD .594 .540 .623 .771 .821 .626 .806 .880* .842 1 .906*

trauma-

exposed .635* .729** .804** .633* .850** .806** .874** .853** .820** 1 .877**

Control .243 .275 .327 .586* .688* .828** .873** .840** .934** 1 .918**

Morph

PTSD .550 .448 .476 .637 .678 .414 .643 .772 .682 .906* 1

trauma-

exposed .534 .615* .741** .445 .759** .793** .814** .718** .834** .877** 1

Control -.033 -.023 .039 .399 .466 .597* .741** .840** .862** .918** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 41

Appendix C

Pearson correlations for the PTSD, trauma-exposed, and control groups for the trust face morphs on the Trust Fear Task and the

number of symptoms endorsed for each PD on the SCID-II PQ

AvPD DPD OCPD PAPD DpPD PPD StPD SzPD HPD NPD BPD

Morph

PTSD .266 .744 .705 .059 -.172 .586 .172 .478 .853 .140 .336

trauma-

exposed -.412 -.370 -.353 -.027 -.558 .043 -.198 -.011 .540 -.185 -.207

Control -.343 -.417 -.316 -.331 -.333 -.431 -.404 -.569 -.079 .008 -.368

Morph

PTSD .205 .737 .669 .109 -.174 .510 .295 .577 .764 .046 .352

trauma-

exposed -.482 -.571 -.512 -.147 -.631* -.094 -.239 -.072 .429 -.258 -.354

Control -.210 -.291 -.224 -.147 -.211 -.271 -.263 -.422 -.022 .166 -.284

Morph

PTSD .129 .629 .754 -.038 -.281 .376 .227 .500 .751 -.005 .201

trauma-

exposed -.515 -.687* -.492 -.101 -.649* -.073 -.064 .089 .314 -.150 -.472

Control -.376 -.445 -.390 -.416 -.321 -.439 -.473 -.669* -.096 -.075 -.406

Morph

PTSD .081 .515 .872 -.215 -.317 .342 .036 .325 .829 .111 .037

trauma-

exposed -.401 -.594* -.399 -.069 -.541 .044 -.086 -.002 .405 -.143 -.273

Control -.361 -.276 .009 -.208 -.333 -.123 -.252 -.281 .243 .017 -.246

Morph

PTSD -.061 .426 .903* -.229 -.229 .286 .059 .336 .791 .194 -.031

trauma-

exposed -.547 -.600* -.397 -.188 -.659* -.038 -.052 .138 .482 -.147 -.503

Control -.321 -.278 -.032 -.289 -.177 -.294 -.315 -.405 .239 -.013 -.255

Morph

PTSD .055 .532 .767 -.122 -.373 .222 .230 .475 .669 -.115 .095

trauma-

exposed -.456 -.593* -.403 -.071 -.551 -.069 -.110 .181 .162 -.188 -.592*

Control -.488 -.345 -.163 -.417 -.289 -.251 -.498 -.348 .312 -.214 -.489

Morph

PTSD .032 .432 .906* -.305 -.376 .251 -.014 .263 .803 .081 -.062

trauma-

exposed -.476 -.648* -.331 .000 -.604* .050 -.005 .271 .310 -.097 -.527

Control -.666* -.707* -.163 -.664* -.384 -.533 -.650* -.593 .153 -.422 -.522

Morph

PTSD .103 .347 .948* -.470 -.441 .269 -.274 .016 .882* .178 -.182

trauma-

exposed -.507 -.607* -.203 .049 -.578 .092 .009 .239 .430 -.072 -.653*

Control -.521 -.437 .086 -.433 -.169 -.082 -.362 -.158 .266 -.321 -.406

Morph

PTSD -.108 .371 .921* -.274 -.245 .229 .041 .309 .767 .188 -.089

trauma-

exposed -.515 -.684* -.532 -.289 -.668* -.183 -.062 .133 .162 -.169 -.482

Control -.647* -.507 .030 -.508 -.334 -.255 -.572 -.183 .392 -.402 -.542

PTSD -.291 -.059 .977** -.632 -.212 .043 -.402 -.177 .717 .460 -.501

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 42

Morph

trauma-

exposed -.598*

-.839*

* -.409 -.232 -.691* -.153 -.011 .168 .338 -.187 -.697*

Control -.572 -.519 -.031 -.580* -.171 -.391 -.561 -.401 .381 -.404 -.557

Morph

PTSD -.105 .057 .833 -.467 .022 .353 -.510 -.259 .813 .730 -.306

trauma-

exposed -.712** -.630* -.510 -.374 -.765** -.292 -.099 .115 .267 -.211 -.646*

Control -.623* -.567 .165 -.566 -.244 -.267 -.528 -.271 .439 -.495 -.518

AvPD PTSD 1 .706** .304 .635* .533 .751** .525 .395 -.218 .356 .633*

trauma-

exposed 1 .431 .675** .538* .929** .514* .510* .498* -.462 .651** .539*

Control 1 .684** .246 .536* .454 .116 .524* -.056 .076 .697** .655**

DPD PTSD .706** 1 .401 .652* .579* .606* .150 .536 .009 .369 .735**

trauma-

exposed .431 1 .535* .293 .478 .295 .079 .057 .000 .294 .505*

Control .684** 1 .298 .747** .517* .333 .705** .253 .076 .655** .689**

OCPD PTSD .304 .401 1 .437 .574* .333 .288 .254 .204 .515 .435

trauma-

exposed .675** .535* 1 .707** .626** .817** .661** .614** -.015 .789** .415

Control .246 .298 1 .424 .000 .345 .388 -.067 .591* .460 .253

PAPD PTSD .635* .652* .437 1 .883** .651* .517 .595* -.204 .694** .772**

trauma-

exposed .538* .293 .707** 1 .396 .778** .322 .342 -.082 .627** .179

Control .536* .747** .424 1 .468 .659** .854** .460 .201 .780** .751**

DpPD PTSD .533 .579* .574* .883** 1 .578* .425 .431 -.175 .749** .734**

trauma-

exposed .929** .478 .626** .396 1 .406 .489* .452 -.596* .562* .612**

Control .454 .517* .000 .468 1 .023 .498 .150 .073 .404 .439

PPD PTSD .751** .606* .333 .651* .578* 1 .632* .291 -.379 .287 .706**

trauma-

exposed .514* .295 .817** .778** .406 1 .591* .701** .072 .710** .463

Control .116 .333 .345 .659** .023 1 .460 .504 .072 .269 .381

StPD PTSD .525 .150 .288 .517 .425 .632* 1 .375 -.281 .275 .553

trauma-

exposed .510* .079 .661** .322 .489* .591* 1 .781** -.059 .846** .252

Control .524* .705** .388 .854** .498 .460 1 .456 .043 .815** .766**

SzPD PTSD .395 .536 .254 .595* .431 .291 .375 1 -.338 .429 .462

trauma-

exposed .498* .057 .614** .342 .452 .701** .781** 1 -.205 .664** .349

Control -.056 .253 -.067 .460 .150 .504 .456 1 -.071 .178 .214

HPD PTSD -.218 .009 .204 -.204 -.175 -.379 -.281 -.338 1 .109 -.165

trauma-

exposed -.462 .000 -.015 -.082 -.596* .072 -.059 -.205 1 -.062 -.209

Control .076 .076 .591* .201 .073 .072 .043 -.071 1 .230 -.083

PERSONALITY, TRUST AND FEAR 43

NPD PTSD .356 .369 .515 .694** .749** .287 .275 .429 .109 1 .404

trauma-

exposed .651** .294 .789** .627** .562* .710** .846** .664** -.062 1 .322

Control .697** .655** .460 .780** .404 .269 .815** .178 .230 1 .584*

BPD PTSD .633* .735** .435 .772** .734** .706** .553 .462 -.165 .404 1

trauma-

exposed .539* .505* .415 .179 .612** .463 .252 .349 -.209 .322 1

Control .655** .689** .253 .751** .439 .381 .766** .214 -.083 .584* 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PA= Domineering/Controlling; BC=Vindictive/Self-Centered; DE= Cold/Distant; FG= Socially Inhibited; HI= Nonassertive;

JK= Overly Accommodating; LM= Self Sacrificing; NO= Intrusive/Needy; AvPD= Avoidant Personality Disorder; DPD=

Dependent Personality Disorder; OCPD= Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder; PAPD= Passive-Aggressive Personality

Disorder; DpPD= Depressive Personality Disorder; PPD= Paranoid Personality Disorder; StPD= Schizotypal Personality

Disorder; SzPD= Schizoid Personality Disorder; HPD= Hisrionic Personality Disorder; NPD= Narcissistic Personality

Disorder; BPD= Borderline Personality Disorder