ArticlePDF Available

Seven Dimensions Of Personality Pathology Are Under Sexual Selection In Modern Spain

May 2016
Evolution and Human Behavior 37(3):169-178

DOI:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.10.004

Authors:

Gemma Vall

Hospital Universitari de Santa Maria-IRB Lleida

Fernando Gutiérrez

Hospital Clínic de Barcelona

Josep Maria Peri

Hospital Clínic de Barcelona

Miguel Gárriz

Hospital Clínic de Barcelona

Show all 7 authorsHide

Personality variation is increasingly thought to have an adaptive function. This is less clear for personality disorders (PDs)—extreme variants of personality that cause harm in most aspects of life. However, the possibility that PDs may be maintained in the population because of their advantages for fitness has been not convincingly tested. In a sample of 959 outpatients, we examined whether, and how, sexual selection acts on the seven main dimensions of personality pathology, taking into account mating success, reproductive success, and the mediating role of status. We find that, to varying extents, all personality dimensions are under sexual selection. Far from being predominantly purifying, selective forces push traits in diverging, often pathological, directions. These pressures differ moderately between the sexes. Sexual selection largely acts in males through the acquisition of wealth, and through the duration (rather than the number) of mates. This gives a reproductive advantage to males high in persistence–compulsivity. Conversely, because of the decoupling between the number of mates and offspring, the promiscuous strategy of psychopaths is not so successful. Negative emotionality, the most clinically detrimental trait, is slightly deleterious in males but is positively selected in females,which can help to preserve variation. The general picture is that at least somePDs form part of high-risk alternative strategies, although a sole evolutionary mechanism is unlikely to apply to all traits. An evolutionary perspective on PDs can provide a better understanding of their nature and causes than we have achieved to date by considering them as illnesses.

Mediation models of the effect of personality on main fitness outcomes.

…

. Sex differences for personality and life history variables a .

…

Figures - uploaded by Fernando Gutiérrez

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Fernando Gutiérrez

Content may be subject to copyright.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 1

SEVEN DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ARE UNDER

SEXUAL SELECTION IN MODERN SPAIN

Gemma Vall

1,2

, Fernando Gutiérrez

3,4,*

, Josep M. Peri

, Miguel Gárriz

, Eva Baillés

Juan Miguel Garrido

, Jordi E. Obiols

Department of Psychiatry, Mental Health and Addiction, GSS - Hospital Santa Maria -

IRB, Lleida, Spain.

Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona,

Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain.

Personality Disorder Unit, Institute of Neurosciences, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona,

Barcelona, Spain.

IDIBAPS (Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi Sunyer), Barcelona, Spain.

Institute of Neurosciences, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

INAD (Institute of Neuropsychiatry and Addiction), Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona,

Spain.

Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra,

Barcelona, Spain.

Correspondence should be addressed to Fernando Gutiérrez, Personality Disorder

Unit, Institute of Neurosciences, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036

Barcelona, Spain. Tel.: +34 93 227 54 00 x 2407. E-mail: fguti@clinic.ub.es.

The final copy-edited version can be directly requested to the corresponding author or

found at the publisher’s page. This article should be cited as:

Vall G, Gutiérrez F, Peri JM, Gárriz M, Baillés E, Garrido, JM, Obiols JE (2016).

Seven dimensions of personality are under sexual selection in modern Spain. Evolution

and Human Behavior, 37, 169-178. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.10.004

Personality pathology under sexual selection 2

Abstract

Personality variation is increasingly thought to have an adaptive function. This is

less clear for personality disorders (PDs) – extreme variants of personality that cause

harm in most aspects of life. However, the possibility that PDs may be maintained in the

population because of their advantages for fitness has been not convincingly tested. In a

sample of 959 outpatients, we examine whether, and how, sexual selection acts on seven

main dimensions of personality pathology, taking into account mating success,

reproductive success, and the mediating role of status. We find that, to varying extents,

all personality dimensions are under sexual selection. Far from being predominantly

purifying, selective forces push traits in diverging, often pathological, directions. These

pressures differ moderately between the sexes. Sexual selection largely acts in males

through the acquisition of wealth, and through the duration (rather than the number) of

mates. This gives a reproductive advantage to males high in Persistence-Compulsivity.

Conversely, because of the decoupling between the number of mates and offspring, the

promiscuous strategy of psychopaths is not so successful. Negative Emotionality, the

most clinically detrimental trait, is slightly deleterious in males but is positively selected

in females, which can help to preserve variation. The general picture is that at least

some PDs form part of high-risk alternative strategies, though a sole evolutionary

mechanism is unlikely to apply to all traits. An evolutionary perspective on PDs can

provide a better understanding of their nature and causes than we have achieved to date

by considering them as illnesses.

Keywords: Sexual selection; Life History Strategies; Fitness; Personality; Personality

Disorder.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 3

SEVEN DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ARE UNDER

SEXUAL SELECTION IN MODERN SPAIN

1. Introduction

The idea that Personality Disorders (PDs) are alternative strategies rather than

illnesses is gaining ground (Brüne et al., 2010; Troisi, 2005). Although it is mostly

believed that psychopaths have dysfunctional self-regulation and affiliation systems, it

has also been proposed that they may be implementing a successful sociosexual strategy

based on promiscuity and exploitation (Glenn et al., 2011; Jonason et al., 2009; Mealey,

1995). Schizotypy may be a milder form of schizophrenia, but some schizotypal

features may function as a fitness indicator signaling good quality to potential mates

(Del Giudice, 2014; Nettle & Clegg, 2006). And the recurrent fears and miseries of

many neurotic patients may result either from the dysregulation of alarm circuits or

from their normal, survival-enhancing operation (Bateson et al., 2011; Ein-Dor et al.,

2010; Lafreniere, 2009; Nesse, 2001a). At present, we lack data to establish whether

certain maladaptive personalities really are failures or in fact high-risk shortcuts to

fitness.

Increasingly, the evidence suggests that normal-range personality variation has

adaptive functions rather than being random noise around a behavioral optimum

(Bergmuller & Taborsky, 2010; Buss, 2009; Kight et al., 2013; Réale et al., 2010; Sih et

al., 2004; Wolf & Weissing, 2010). This variation largely takes place along the same

universal axes from insects to humans (Gosling & John, 1999); it is moderately

heritable (Bouchard, 2004; Penke et al., 2007); and it has a substantial impact on

resource acquisition, mating, reproduction, and survival (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006;

Roberts et al., 2007; Smith & Blumstein, 2008). In consequence, personality must be

subject to the same selective pressures as many other traits (Stearns et al., 2010). As

personality ultimately is the axial organization of enduring motivations, emotions,

cognitions and behaviors that determine the effective adaptation to the environment

(DeYoung, 2015; MacDonald, 2012), it may even be a major target for selection.

All the above is harder to defend in the case of PDs, extreme personality traits

that cause problems in everyday living. Inordinate levels of any trait — anxiousness,

impulsivity, asociality, aggressiveness, eccentricity — have been reported to harm

career opportunities, social adaptation, family life, health, longevity, and well-being

(Tyrer et al., 2015). Significantly, PDs shorten life expectancy by about 18 years (Fok et

al., 2012), so their permanence in the population, without being eroded by selection, is a

conundrum (Keller & Miller, 2006; Troisi, 2005). Nevertheless, their maladaptivity is

not undisputed: the detrimental consequences are not the same for all pathological traits

(Ullrich et al., 2007; Vall et al., in press), nor is clinical adaptation the same as

biological fitness (Nesse, 2001b). For example, unlike most other mental disorders, PDs

do not globally harm reproductive success (Keller & Miller, 2006), and some subtypes

definitely enhance resource accrual or multiply mating success (Gutiérrez et al., 2013;

Sansone et al., 2011; Ullrich et al., 2007). It is our contention that studying PDs is

essential to evolutionary psychology not only because of their high prevalence (about

10% of us have extreme traits, Tyrer et al., 2015) but also because examining the entire

range of phenotypic variation, beyond normal-range traits, may provide a fuller picture

of the evolutionary dynamics of personality. Indeed, if personality is about deleterious

variation around an optimum, subjects with PDs will be the most maladapted; if it is

Personality pathology under sexual selection 4

about alternative strategies, they will be the most extreme strategists. In either case, PDs

hold unique keys to understand why we are all different, and why some of these

differences bring trouble.

To date, the possibility that personality traits are under sexual selection has not

been studied in depth (Schuett et al., 2010). Sexual selection favors those traits that

enhance access to mates. The literature has identified it as the strongest selective force

in nature, as mating success impacts on reproductive output more directly than any other

component of fitness (Geher et al., 2008; Kingsolver & Diamond, 2011). In fact, sexual

selection can spread traits even if they reduce survival chances (Fritzsche &

Booksmythe, 2013; Hosken & House, 2011; Jones & Ratterman, 2009). In humans,

height, body shape, physical attractive, voice pitch, or masculinity have shown some

evidence of being under sexual selection (Hill et al., 2013; Jokela, 2009; Stulp et al.,

2013). Similarly, traits like psychopathy, aggressiveness, anxiousness, extraversion,

eccentricity, insecure attachment and narcissism have been hypothesized to enhance

mating success or to form part of alternative sexual strategies (Belsky, 2012; Ein-Dor et

al., 2010; Holtzman & Donnellan, 2015; Holtzman & Strube, 2011; Lafreniere, 2009;

Nettle, 2006; Nettle & Clegg, 2006). Unfortunately, the evidence regarding the most

fundamental aspects is very limited: whether and how sexual selection really affects

personality; which evolutionary processes (mutation-selection balance, tradeoffs,

fluctuating selection, frequency-dependent selection, condition-dependent selection) are

at work (Buss, 2009; Kight et al., 2013; Wolf & Weissing, 2010); whether selective

forces are similar or differ in each sex (Fritzsche & Booksmythe, 2013); what

mechanisms (number of mates, earlier reproduction, stable relationships, status, wealth,

prestige) mediate the relationships between personality and fitness (Berg et al., 2013;

Lyon & Montgomerie, 2012); and whether the answers to all the above questions are the

same or different for each personality trait.

To approach these questions, we use an improved personality pathology system

(Gutiérrez et al, 2014). This system overcomes the limitations of traditional psychiatric

diagnoses, which are poorly conceived mixtures of heterogeneous traits (Widiger &

Trull, 2007). For example, we know that borderline PD doubles the number of sexual

partners (Sansone et al., 2011) but not which of its constituent traits — impulsivity,

negative emotionality, insecure attachment, aberrant perceptions — account for this

effect. The system is also comprehensive, covering previously underexplored traits as

well as the pathological extremes of each trait. Indeed, although Extraversion has been

shown to increase fitness and Neuroticism to decrease it (Jokela et al., 2011; Roberts et

al., 2007), we lack information on other important traits, and results in normal-range

traits do necessarily say anything about extreme variants. Finally, this model is in line

both with forthcoming taxonomies (Tyrer et al., 2015) and with evolutionarily-based

classificatory proposals (DeYoung, 2015; MacDonald, 2012). On the other hand, in the

present study we try to look deeper into some previously neglected aspects (Fritzsche &

Booksmythe, 2013; Jones & Ratterman, 2009; Schuett et al., 2010). We measure a wide

range of life history variables encompassing mating success, reproductive success and

status/wealth; we analyze selective pressures separately in both sexes; we examine the

strength of directional, stabilizing, disruptive, and correlational selection on mating and

reproduction; and we trace the entire path from personality to status, to mating success,

and to reproductive success.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 5

Our aim is to know whether, and how, sexual selection acts on personality

pathology. To this end, in a sample of 959 outpatients we examine a comprehensive set

of pathological dimensions and explore which ones bring advantages for either mating

or reproduction, in which sex, and through which evolutionary processes and mediating

mechanisms. In this way we seek to extend previous knowledge of the evolutionary

nature of pathological personalities and of the causes of its persistence in the population.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample was composed of 959 outpatients aged 16 to 67 (mean 34.5, SD

10.7), 53% female, consecutively referred to the Personality Disorder Unit of a General

Hospital in Barcelona during a 6-year period. A quarter of the sample were currently

studying. Among those employed, 19.9% were skilled and 33.0% semiskilled workers.

The sample did not differ from the general Spanish population in key parameters such

as study level, salary, or average maternal age (www.ine.es). However, it was a younger

population (34.5 years vs. 40.2 in Spain) which had not exhausted its reproductive

potential at the time of assessment (.5 children vs. 1.3 in Spain). About 62% of the

subjects had a personality disorder, as estimated in a random subsample (n=362) by the

PDQ-4+ Clinical Interview (Hyler, 1994). However, it should be noted that the sample

was spread along the entire PDQ-4+ range; the subjects in the lower quartile of the

distribution had normal personalities whereas those in the upper quartile were severely

disordered. Half of the subjects presented concomitant Axis I disorders, mainly

affective and anxiety disorders. The study was approved by the ethical committee of the

hospital and all patients gave their informed consent to participate in the study. This

sample, or a part of it, has been studied elsewhere (Gutiérrez et al., 2013; Vall et al., in

press).

2.2. Instruments

We used a comprehensive, empirically-based model that comprises the main

dimensions of personality pathology (Gutiérrez et al., 2014). This model derives from

the factorization of 57 scales included in three personality questionnaires: (1) the

Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+; Hyler, 1994), which measures the

ten official PDs included in the DSM classification, (2) the Temperament and Character

Inventory - Revised (TCI-R; Cloninger et al., 1994), which assesses the seven

dimensions and twenty-nine facets contained in Cloninger's Biosocial Model of

personality, and (3) the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology - Basic

Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley & Jackson, 2009), which encompasses eighteen

pathological personality traits organized into four higher-order dimensions. Descriptives

for the original instruments are provided in Supplementary Table S1. Both the Spanish

versions of the three instruments and the resulting model have shown good

psychometric properties (Gutiérrez et al., 2014; Vall et al., in press). The integrated

model includes seven dimensions of personality pathology:

(1) Negative Emotionality (or Neuroticism) covers a range of distress-related

traits such as affective instability, anxiety, worry, insecure attachment, lack of life goals,

reduced sense of control, and self-harm, and includes borderline PD;

Personality pathology under sexual selection 6

(2) Persistence-Compulsivity refers to high energy, ambition,

hardworkingness, overachievement, perfectionist and self-demanding attitudes, as well

as compulsive features at its high end;

(3) Asociality reflects a tendency toward emotional restraint, detachment,

and discomfort with social involvement and intimacy, and includes schizoid PD;

(4) Impulsive Sensation Seeking refers to unrestrained behavior, risk-taking,

disorderliness, and rule-breaking, and includes antisocial PD;

(5) Antagonism reflects low empathy, selfishness, opportunism, distrust, and

hostility, and includes paranoid PD;

(6) Subordination reflects fear of negative evaluation, need for approval,

submissiveness, insecurity, and low self-esteem, and includes avoidant and dependent

PDs;

(7) Oddity covers a tendency to spirituality, magical thinking, quirky

behaviour, and perceptive distortions, and includes schizotypal PD.

The Life Outcome Questionnaire (LOQ) is a self-report instrument developed to

assess a number of life areas such as studies, job, finances, mating, reproduction, social

relationships, and health. Fourteen life history variables were selected due to their

relevance to this study. The main outcome, mating success, was estimated through the

number of short-term mates (< 1 year), long-term mates (> 1 year), and the duration of

the longest relationship. Whereas the two former focus on quantity, the third reflects a

drift towards enduring pair bonding. Furthermore, mating success does not invariably

lead to reproductive success, because of ecological conditions, cultural constraints,

contraception, or other factors. In consequence, we also measured parenthood, number

of offspring, and age of the first reproduction. Finally, a range of variables hereafter

referred to as ‘status’ covered aspects of academic and job level, access to material

resources (income), upward mobility (job changes for the better), and job stability

(duration, leaving jobs, dismissals). All variables were assessed on a lifetime basis and

appear in full in Table 1. Self-reported data were checked against clinical records when

available. The LOQ has shown adequate criterion validity in previous studies (Gutiérrez

et al., 2013; Vall et al., in press).

2.3. Data Analysis

Pearson correlations between all variables in the study were calculated

(Supplementary Table S2). We performed multiple linear regressions to examine the

strength and direction of the associations between each of the seven personality

pathology dimensions and the 14 life history variables covering mating success,

reproductive success, and status. Personality dimensions were introduced

simultaneously into the equation to analyze their unique contributions, which are

reported as standardized beta coefficients. With α=.05, 1−β=.80, and introducing up to

seven predictors, this sample size allowed us to detect effect sizes of R

=.015 (.031 and

.028 in males and females separately). No collinearity effects were found, with

tolerance > .90 and VIF < 1.5 in all cases. Age and sex were controlled for in all the

models, together with squared and cubed age in order to account for non-linear

associations. All analyses were conducted both in the whole sample and in males and

females separately, and sex x personality interactions were introduced in the equations

to detect between-sex differences. The false discovery rate was applied to correct for

multiple comparisons. Applying logistic, ordinal, and negative binomial regressions for

dichotomous, count, and ordinal variables respectively did not affect the results.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 7

Regression-based predicted values for the 14 life history variables were obtained for the

lower and upper quartiles of each personality dimension to provide an intuitive idea of

the impact of some of the variables. Moreover, the quadratic and interaction terms were

introduced together in a second step to examine the presence of stabilizing, disruptive,

and correlational selection. Finally, status variables were tested to assess their possible

mediating role between personality and mating success, and both status and mating

variables for their mediating role between personality and reproductive success.

Mediation models for each dependent variable were tested through the MEDIATE

procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014) with all personality dimensions and mediators

analyzed simultaneously. Then, redundant mediators were discarded, and bias-corrected

bootstrapped indirect effects were calculated based on 5,000 samples with a 95%

confidence interval. SPSS 18 was used for all analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Sex differences in personality and life history

Differences between males and females were generally small (Table 1). Males

showed lower Negative Emotionality than females, as well as higher Asociality,

Impulsivity, and Antagonism. They also had significantly more short-term mates and

fewer long-term mates, with no differences in the duration of the longest relationship.

Reproduction began earlier in females, but reproductive output was the same across the

sexes. As for variability, standard deviation was greater in males for short-term mates

(4.8 vs. 3.5, p<.001, a 27% increase) but was similar for all other mating and

reproductive variables.

3.2. Pathological personality and life history variables

All personality dimensions had a significant effect on either mating or

reproductive success. Relationship patterns were roughly similar between males and

females, so results are reported for the whole sample (Table 2). Relationships that

differed significantly between the sexes are marked with ♂ or ♀ (see Supplementary

Tables S3 and S4 for sex-segregated results).

Negative Emotionality advanced reproduction by about 1.7 years (Table 2). In

females, it also increased the number of long-term mates (2.1 vs. 1.6 mates in the upper

and lower quartiles respectively), the probability of motherhood (.39 vs. .23), and the

number of children (.64 vs. .37), though only the former relationship differed

significantly between the sexes (Table S4). In contrast, Persistence-Compulsivity had a

greater impact on male success. It lengthened the duration of relationships (9.5 vs. 6.3

years) but not their number, and it increased both fatherhood (.35 vs. .18) and number of

offspring (.58 vs. .35) (Table S3). Whereas Asociality reduced mating success in both

sexes, Impulsive Sensation Seeking had the opposite effect: It doubled the number of

short-term mates and multiplied the number of long-term mates by 1.5. However,

neither Asociality nor Impulsivity had a significant impact on reproduction, except that

the former reduced the number of children in males (.62 vs. .34). Antagonism

selectively increased the number of short-term mates, especially in males, but had no

effect on other parameters. Subordination delayed reproductive onset, with an average

deferral of four years in males. Finally, Oddity had no net effect on mating and

Personality pathology under sexual selection 8

reproduction except for a tendency to bring the reproductive age forward. Some more

relationships became significant later in the mediation analysis (see below).

Table 1. Sex differences for personality and life history variables

Males

(n=451)

Females

(n=508)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Age 35.0

(10.8)

34.0

(10.6)

1.469

.142

Personality

Negative Emotionality

-.180

(.914)

.159

(.992)

-5.479

<.001

Persistence-Compulsivity -.060

(.994)

.053

(.924)

-1.836

.067

Asociality

.192

(.998)

-.169

(.906)

5.833

<.001

Impulsive Sensation Seeking

.084

(.965)

-.077

(.913)

2.666

.008

Antagonism

.211

(.977)

-.186

(.893)

6.579

<.001

Subordination -.028

(.952)

.022

(.942)

-.801

.424

Oddity -.058

(.914)

.051

(.951)

-1.799

.072

Mating

Short-term mates (#)

3.4

(4.8)

2.6

(3.5)

2.484

.013

Long-term mates (#)

1.6

(1.3)

1.8

(1.4)

-2.395

.017

Relationship duration (yr.)

8.3

(8.7)

8.1

(7.6)

.380

.704

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

.28

(.45)

.30

(.46)

-.761

.447

Offspring (#)

.48

(.88)

.50

(.86)

-.275

.784

Age first reproduction

30.3

(5.5)

28.4

(5.6)

2.691

.008

Status

Education level (0–5)

3.2

(1.2)

3.4

(1.2)

-2.091

.037

Age starts working

18.5

(3.6)

18.7

(3.9)

-1.031

.303

Max. length job (yr.)

8.9

(9.0)

7.4

(7.7)

2.388

.017

Job level (1–3)

1.6

(.78)

1.8

(.75)

-3.251

.001

Upward mobility (#)

1.6

(2.2)

1.5

(2.0)

.783

.434

Leaving job (#)

1.2

(1.8)

1.3

(2.4)

-.619

.536

Dismissal (#)

1.4

(3.9)

1.0

(2.0)

1.522

.129

Net income (€/month)

1,492

(1271)

1,157

(842)

4.054

<.001

Student’s t-test was used; significant differences are in bold type. Differences

remained significant after controlling for age.

Personality dimensions are factor scores with mean=0 and SD =1 in the whole sample.

Scores for the original instruments (PDQ-4+, DAPP-BQ, and TCI-R) are provided in

Supplementary Table S1.

Categories: ‘Education level’ (0=no studies, 1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=bachelor,

4=master, 5=doctor); ‘Job level’ (1=unskilled worker, 2=semi-skilled worker, 3=skilled

worker).

Personality pathology under sexual selection 9

Table 2. Multiple regression of seven personality pathology factors predicting life history variables in the whole sample

Negative

Emotionality

Persistence-

Compulsivity Asociality

Impulsive

Sens. Seeking Antagonism Subordination Oddity

Life history variables Beta

(p) Beta

(p) R²

Mating

Short-term mates (#)

.034

.480 .026

.536

♂

-.132

.002 .191

.000 .087

.039

-.013

.760 -.006

.888

.069

Long-term mates (#)

.101

.017

♀

.052

.166

-.168

.000 .198

.000

-.034

.363 -.020

.598 -.042

.267

.074

Relationship duration (yr.)

-.002

.963

.076

.009

♂

.006

.823

♂

-.042

.126 .025

.392 -.056

.065 -.023

.429

.011

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

.093

.015 .108

.001

♂

-.045

.188 .039

.227 .006

.861 -.029

.408 -.046

.177

.013

Offspring (#)

.088

.022 .088

.009

-.062

.067* .059

.066 -.020

.549 -.062

.074 -.026

.444

.015

Age first reproduction

-.178

.032

-.094

.188 .083

.230 -.099

.140 .028

.712

.213

.004 -.154

.048 .084

Status

Education level (0–5)

-.265

.000

.068

.071 .019

.621 -.049

.171

-.089

.019 .248

.000 -.120

.002 .100

Age starts working

-.243

.000 -.164

.000

.073

.074 -.057

.144 .008

.837

.267

.000

-.003

.936

.076

Max. length job (yr.)

-.007

.840

.083

.004

♂

-.022

.449 -.047

.091 -.054

.064 .014

.639 .011

.699

.014

Job level (1–3)

-.185

.000

.083

.064 -.045

.324 -.046

.284 -.080

.074

.202

.000

♂

-.152

.001 .084

Upward mobility (#)

-.006

.904

.159

.000

.994 .080

.064 .058

.202 -.029

.540 -.012

.802

.036

Leaving job (#)

.131

.012 -.140

.002

.009

.845

.143

.001

.031

.497 -.077

.102

.092

.047 .072

Dismissal (#)

.138

.009

♂

-.183

.000

-.027

.554 .022

.618

.147

.001 -.103

.031 .123

.008 .081

Net income (€/month)

-.119

.011 .214

.000

♂

-.103

.013

.054

.162 -.001

.977 .066

.120

-.180

.000

♂

.098

Significant coefficients are in bold type. After applying the false discovery rate the corrected significance level q* remained .050, so no results

lose their significance. ♂ and ♀ indicate a significantly stronger relationship in males and females respectively.

* Significant only when logistic or negative binomial regressions were applied.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 10

As for the influence of personality on status, Negative Emotionality and Oddity

were detrimental, Persistence-compulsivity and Subordination were relatively

beneficial, and the remaining dimensions produced minor or no effects. Notably,

personality pathology accounted for twice as much variance in status in males as in

females. For example, males in the upper quartile of Persistence earned 91% more

(1845 vs. 964€) and those high in Oddity earned 41% less respectively.

Interestingly, the relationships of personality with mating and reproductive

success were mostly linear. Only Negative Emotionality showed a steep disruptive

curve in predicting short-term mates in males (γ=.351, p=.002), so that subjects had 6.0

and 4.4 predicted mates in the lower and upper quartiles respectively and 2.7 in the

middle range. Correlational selection — the effect of combinations of traits on fitness

— was somewhat more common, but it only explained an additional variance of 1.1%

for mating and 2.0% for reproductive success on average. Significant nonlinear terms

appear in full in Supplementary Tables S5 and S6.

3.3. Pathological personality, fitness, and their mediating mechanisms

As a preliminary step before mediation analyses, we examined the association of

status with mating success, and the association of status and mating success with

reproductive success (Supplementary Table S7). We thus aimed to identify some of the

mechanisms through which personality dispositions affect fitness. The strongest life

history predictor of number of offspring in both sexes were a longer duration of the

main relationship (beta

males

= .460, beta

females

= .467, both p < .001) and an earlier

reproductive onset (beta

males

= -.427, beta

females

= -.352, both p < .001), albeit the latter

was excluded from subsequent analyses because of low n. In contrast, Bateman’s

gradient — the relationship between the number of mates and offspring — was flat in

both sexes for both short-term and long-term mates. As for status, higher income was

the main predictor of fitness only in males: It increased the number of long-term mates,

the relationship duration, the probability of parenthood, and the number of offspring.

Some of these variables proved to mediate the relationship between personality and

fitness. Furthermore, mediation analyses revealed some associations between

pathological traits and fitness that did not appear among the total effects (Table 2); this

is often the case when direct and indirect effects have opposite signs (MacKinnon et al.,

2007). As the results differed considerably between the sexes, they are reported

separately.

In males, Persistence was associated with more long-term mates through higher

income, whereas Negative Emotionality and Oddity showed the opposite effect (Figure

1a). Mating success for persistent and antagonistic males was also mediated by upward

mobility, whereas Impulsivity increased the number of mates without detectable

mediation. Relationship duration (Figure 1b), which turned out to be the best predictor

of reproductive success (see below), was longer in persistent males through higher

income and earlier job onset, and was shorter in emotional, odd and subordinate males

through either lower income or delayed job onset. No mediation effects were found for

short-term mates in men or for any of the mating variables in women.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 11

Figure 1. Mediation models of the effect of personality on main fitness outcomes.

Note. Standardized betas for “a” path (personality-to-mediator) and “b” path (mediator-to-outcome) are reported when the indirect effect “a*b”

was significant. With same-sign “a” and “b” paths, the final effect is positive (+, increases fitness), otherwise it is negative (–, decreases fitness).

Mediators were tested all at once for each fitness outcome assuming parallel effects. See Supplementary Tables S8 to S11 for complete mediation

analyses.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 12

As regards reproductive success (number of offspring), it was greater in

persistent males through enduring relationships and higher income (Figure 1c). In

contrast, it was lower in emotional and odd males through lower income, in subordinate

males through shorter relationships, and in asocial males without any known mediator.

In females (Figure 1d), Negative Emotionality and Antagonism increased the number of

offspring through reducing academic achievement, with the opposite being true for

Subordination. The number of mates (either short- or long-term) did not mediate

reproductive success in either sex. The complete mediation analyses are provided in

Supplementary Tables S8 to S11.

4. Discussion

4.1. Personality pathology is under sexual selection

Our results show that, to varying extents, each of our seven dimensions of

personality pathology is under sexual selection. Selective pressures are not

homogeneously purifying, as would be expected if they were diseases (Keller & Miller,

2006). Instead, some dimensions are selected for, others against, and still others show

tradeoffs, either between fitness costs and benefits or between the sexes. Thus, whereas

evolutionary forces contribute to the maintenance of some pathological traits, no single

mechanism applies to every one.

Although the evidence on PDs is limited at present (Brüne et al., 2010; Gutiérrez

et al., 2013; Sansone et al., 2011; Ullrich et al., 2007), our results are consistent with

earlier findings that normal, non-pathological personality variation is subject to

selective pressures in both humans and nonhumans (Kight et al., 2013; Réale et al.,

2010; Skirbekk & Blekesaune, 2014; Smith & Blumstein, 2008; Wolf & Weissing,

2010). The amount of variance of mating (6.0%) and reproductive success (4.7%) that

we were able to explain is also consistent with previous studies (Møller & Jennions,

2002), as is the fact that selection is overwhelmingly directional (Kingsolver &

Diamond, 2011; Siepielski et al., 2009). The absence of any hint of stabilizing selection

suggests that pathological personalities are not maintained by the advantages of milder

forms of the traits.

As for sex differences, dimorphism was moderate. With few exceptions, neither

males show greater variability in either mating or reproductive success (see also Betzig,

2012; Brown et al., 2009) nor the number of short- or long-term mates increases

reproductive output in either sex. It is relationship duration that results in more

offspring; therefore, in our sample sexual selection acts through stability of mates rather

than through quantity. The greatest between-sex differences were to do with status,

which raises mating and reproductive success only in males. As we shall now discuss,

all the above determines to a great extent how selective forces act on personality

pathology.

4.2. Pathological personalities as alternative strategies

Certain personality traits are related to diverging life history strategies,

supporting the idea that they are alternative pathways to fitness. Impulsive Sensation

Seeking leads to the greatest increase in mating success in both sexes, with around

Personality pathology under sexual selection 13

105% more short-term mates and 45% more long-term mates, but no effect on

relationship duration. Antagonism, the other component of psychopathy (Gutiérrez et

al., 2014), has a more specific effect on the amount of short-term relationships. This is

in line with the growing view that traits such as disinhibition, novelty-seeking,

selfishness, low empathy, and aggressiveness are aimed to maximize fertilization

opportunities, maybe at the cost of a lower investment in mates or offspring (Glenn et

al., 2011; Jonason et al., 2009). Put another way, psychopathic traits form the

psychological machinery of a promiscuous strategy that fulfils its function even at

pathological levels (Mealey, 1995; Yao et al., 2014). However, such traits are also

known to increase life-threatening behaviors such as drug use, violence, and self-harm

(Vall et al., in press), suggesting a tradeoff between sexual and survival selection. A

similar balance has been found for boldness in other species (Smith & Blumstein,

2008).

Importantly, this strategy does not lead to greater reproductive success in our

sample, so it ultimately seems to miss its purported evolutionary target. This is

unexpected especially for males, at least if we assume that males indiscriminately

compete for fecundation opportunities through casual sex whereas females passively

choose their mates in search of long-term pair bonds. In support of this assumption,

increased sexual access is known to promote fitness in the males of most species,

including ours (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Jokela et al., 2010b; Tang-Martínez,

2010), and a male monogamous strategy is statistically rare in other mammals (around

9%) and has been hard to explain in humans (Lukas & Clutton-Brock, 2013). However,

this overly dimorphic view of sexual strategies has been partly qualified since its

conception (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Scelza, 2013; Sefcek et al., 2006). Bateman’s

principles, which were first developed in flies, have turned out not to be fully applicable

to humans, nor even to all flies (Tang-Martínez, 2010); and Bateman’s gradient has

been found to depend on ecological parameters such as the prevailing mating system, so

that it approaches zero in monogamous societies (Brown et al., 2009; Jones &

Ratterman, 2009; Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). In this respect, it has been

proposed that the need to provide highly dependent offspring with enduring protection

and provisioning may have favored pair bonding and biparental care in our species

through mutual mate choice (Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). Under such selective

pressures, reproductive output in males would not be limited by the number of

accessible mates but, as in females, by the number of affordable children, thus making

male uncommitted strategies less successful and eroding sexual dimorphism.

On the other hand, recent environmental changes such as the demographic

transition or the spreading of more effective birth control methods appear to have sped

up the uncoupling of mating success and reproduction (Colleran & Mace, 2015).

Contraceptive use in Spain is high, similar to the rates recorded in other European

countries (70.4%) (Ruiz-Muñoz et al., 2012). Therefore, it is expected to significantly

impact reproductive rates, and may have modified the fitness payoffs of previously

successful sexual strategies in several ways (Alvergne & Lumma, 2010). Mating

success, signaling the probability of producing offspring under natural conditions, may

in this case be a better indicator of the ancestral adaptive value of the trait than current

reproductive output (Camargo et al., 2013). It should be added that all the above does

not mean that sexual selection is weaker in humans or in post-industrial societies: It

suggests instead that selection pressures push personality traits through different

Personality pathology under sexual selection 14

mechanisms and in different directions than previously thought (Conroy-Beam et al.,

2015; Miller, 2013).

Unlike promiscuity, industriousness and commitment seem to pay off in our

sample. In males, sexual selection largely acts through the acquisition of status and

wealth. Therefore, males high in Persistence-Compulsivity, who are energetic,

ambitious, hard-working, self-demanding, and eventually more able to attain such goals

(Roberts et al., 2007; Ullrich et al., 2007) have competitive advantages: they are chosen

by females as stable partners, and they out-reproduce less striving males. Females have

been found before to be choosier than males about rank and provisioning abilities, and

this is true across cultures (Buss, 2014), historic periods (Hopcroft, 2015; Nettle &

Pollet, 2008; Skjærvø et al., 2011), levels of gender parity (Schmitt, 2012), and species

(Ellis, 1995). Persistence-Compulsivity, or at least the adjacent trait of

Conscientiousness, might show additional appeal: It increases trustworthiness and

reduces sexual infidelity, which are also desired qualities in a male (Buss, 2014).

Indeed, despite the well-known advantages of male promiscuity, stability and

commitment seem to have non-negligible payoffs (Conroy-Beam et al., 2015): a stable

relationship strongly determines parenthood and reproductive timing (Amato et al.,

2008; Jokela et al., 2009) and may ensure higher quality mates, paternity certainty, and

offspring survival (Buss, 2014; Conroy-Beam et al., 2015; Lukas & Clutton-Brock,

2013; Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). In sum, sexual selection favors males who

are psychologically better equipped to control resources and be long-term provisioners.

Although this was expected in the light of previous knowledge, it was not expected for

pathological levels of the trait, which include inflexibility, meticulousness, unattainable

standards, and other obsessive features. Furthermore, the complete path from

personality to status to mating and to reproductive success had not previously been

reported.

Our data also suggest that, beyond resource supply and uprightness, Persistence

would be selected because it is an honest signal of good quality (Hunt et al., 2004;

Jennions et al., 2001). The struggle of persistent males for status and resources is costly,

difficult to fake and, as far as we know, free of tradeoffs: Indeed, social position and

wealth (as well as longevity; Friedman et al., 2010), which are forms of somatic effort,

are not achieved in our sample at the expense of mating or parenting effort, but rather

the opposite; nor more mates and more enduring relations detract from reproductive

output or timing. Thus, although extreme conscientiousness has been convincingly

characterized as a slow strategy (Del Giudice, 2014), its apparent advantage in all

fitness components would characterize it as a mental fitness indicator (Miller, 2000).

However, this does not preclude the possibility that Persistence may divert time and

effort from other unmeasured tasks, such as investment in offspring.

Two more points about Persistence-Compulsivity should be mentioned. First,

mating success is not the only route to reproductive success for persistent males, as

income increases the number of offspring independently of mating success and with

similar strength (Figure 1c; see also Nettle & Pollet, 2008). This supports the view that

competition for mates is just part of a broader contest for a range of limited resources —

food, territory, health, rank, prestige, wealth, alliances, knowledge — which all promote

fitness to different extents (Lyon & Montgomerie, 2012). Second, most of the above

does not apply to females, whose competition for mates and offspring is not effected via

status or wealth.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 15

Negative Emotionality presents a complex picture. It is the most deleterious trait

in the literature, underlying a wide range of health problems, psychopathology,

interpersonal conflict, and career difficulties (Lahey, 2009; Ozer & Benet-Martínez,

2006; Roberts et al., 2007; Vall et al., in press). Its maintenance in the population has

been ascribed to the eventual survival advantages of a hyperreactive defense system

(Nesse, 2001a), a credible idea with incipient support (Bateson et al., 2011; Ein-Dor et

al., 2010; Lee et al., 2006). We can now add that Negative Emotionality also has major

effects on mating and reproductive success: in females, it increases the number of long-

term mates, the probability of motherhood, and the number of offspring; in males, its

negative effects on status limit the chances of mating and reproducing, and it has a

strongly disruptive relationship with the number of short-term mates. Favorable

outcomes are not unprecedented (Alvergne et al., 2010; Berg et al., 2013; Harville et al.,

2015) and support the role of sexual selection in preserving varying levels of Negative

Emotionality in the population. However, they are at odds with other reports in the

literature (Gurven et al., 2014; Jokela et al., 2010a, 2011; Skirbekk & Blekesaune,

2014) and leave it unclear how low status, high morbidity, and relational discord can

increase fitness. A partial explanation, suggested by our data, is that reproductive

success in highly neurotic females is attained at the expense of formal education; in

other studies it has been related to adolescent pregnancy (Harville et al., 2015), non-

planned offspring (Berg et al., 2013), or unhealthier children (Alvergne et al., 2010).

Therefore, Negative Emotionality seems to be subject to complex tradeoffs between the

sexes and between different components of fitness: growth and reproduction, offspring

quantity and quality, and natural and sexual selection.

As for the remaining personality traits, Asociality was the only dimension

decreasing offspring number in males and both short- and long-term mates in both

sexes, as advanced by Holtzman and Strube (2013), whereas Subordination and Oddity

showed weaker relationships with fitness. Mediating variables explained only a small

part of these relationships. Previous studies have postulated fitness advantages for

conceptually similar traits that fall outside the range of this work. For example, it has

been hypothesized that constructs encompassing low self-esteem, insecure attachment,

and social avoidance (therefore close to our Subordination dimension) come from a

mismatch with novel social environments (Lafreniere, 2009), but also that they favor

survival or inclusive fitness (Bateson et al., 2011; Ein-Dor et al., 2010). Similarly,

Asociality might fit well the solitary forager hypothesis (Reser, 2011), Oddity might be

understood as a fitness indicator offset by an increased risk of schizophrenia (Nettle &

Clegg, 2006), and both traits might be roughly aligned with the diametrical model of

autism and psychosis (Del Giudice, 2014). Nevertheless, at present these proposals

await support, and the correspondence between these constructs and ours is speculative.

4.3. Heterogeneous evolutionary mechanisms underlie pathological

personalities

Our data suggest the coexistence of alternative life history strategies of which

personality traits form an essential part. Alternative strategies are the norm across

animal taxa (Bergmuller & Taborsky, 2010; Roff & Fairbairn, 2007; Stearns, 2000), and

have been convincingly argued for in humans (Belsky, 2012; Del Giudice, 2014; Ellis et

al., 2009; MacDonald, 2012

). From a life history perspective, being overly impulsive,

submissive, or asocial is not simply adaptive or maladaptive. Different personalities

Personality pathology under sexual selection 16

maximize fitness by investing in distinct resources, depending on their particular

leanings and aptitudes. For example, psychopathic individuals do not seem particularly

able to attain status or retain partners, but are well equipped for short-term opportunistic

relationships, whereas the reverse is true for persistent-compulsive males. The need for

coordination between a strategy and its psychological machinery is perhaps more

noticeable when a submissive person has to take on a position of leadership or a

psychopath is expected to look after their children. Personality, the axial representation

of this machinery made up of motivations, emotions, and cognitions (DeYoung, 2015;

MacDonald, 2012) is at the core of such life history strategies, enabling and energizing

the appropriate behaviors. Tradeoffs between the fitness costs and benefits of each

strategy have often been proposed as a force maintaining variability (Buss, 2009; Nettle,

2006; Penke et al., 2007; Roff & Fairnbarn, 2007).

Two remarks are in order here. Our results do not imply that personality traits

are the sole, or even the main, target of selection. Personality traits are packaged into

suites of correlated characters (Sih et al., 2004) which interact with each other and with

the prevailing ecological conditions. Therefore, it is the entire frame of traits that

respond to selective pressures. This is not limited to behavioral traits: for example, the

cost-benefit tradeoffs of a given personality strategy may differ across individuals

depending on their quality or condition. This may include features such as physical

attractiveness, strength, height, immune status, intelligence, and others (Hunt et al.,

2004; Miller, 2000), which have been proposed to calibrate personality (Dingemanse &

Wolf, 2010; Lukaszewski et al., 2014). We have suggested that Persistence may be

understood as a mental fitness indicator signaling quality. However, Asociality and

Subordination, which were mostly found to be disadvantageous in our study, might also

make the best of a bad job in subjects in low condition. Indeed, withdrawing from social

contact or adopting an insecure-submissive position are perhaps not winning strategies,

but they can reduce damage by minimizing niche overlap and therefore interpersonal

conflict when the competition cannot be beaten (Bergmuller & Taborsky, 2010).

Finally, sex is a state of the organism too (Wolf & Weissing, 2010), and we find that

some traits have differing optima in each sex. Persistence, for example, is sexually

selected in males but not in females. In contrast, Negative Emotionality increases

female fitness whereas it undermines mating and reproductive success in males (Figure

1). Even if differences are of degree, not of kind, this suggests a certain role of sexually

antagonistic selection. This mechanism can maintain variation in a trait even if it is

detrimental to one sex, and hence it is able to explain the persistence of some apparently

maladaptive traits in the population (Gangestad, 2003; Mokkonen et al., 2012).

The other point is that no strategy gives an advantage under all circumstances, so

the fitness payoffs we report may be subject to fluctuations over time and across

environments (Bell, 2010; Nettle, 2006; Siepielski et al., 2009). Changing ecological

conditions have been shown to modify the cost-benefit balance of aggressiveness in red

squirrels, exploration in great tits, docility in bighorn ewes, boldness in rodents, and

sociality in lizards (Le Coeur et al., 2015; Réale et al., 2010). In humans, the

reproductive benefits of industriousness, extraversion, prosociality and neuroticism are

reversed between Tsimane women living near towns or in the forest in Amazonian

Bolivia (Gurven et al., 2014). Many environmental conditions can be significant:

climate, resource availability, extrinsic mortality, operational sex ratio; but also newer

socio-demographic trends or scientific advances affecting fertility or mortality such as

delayed reproduction, increasing infertility rates, changes in sex roles, or contraceptive

Personality pathology under sexual selection 17

use. As proposed above, psychopathic traits may be a successful strategy under natural

fertility conditions but may become an evolutionary trap with broad access to

contraceptives (Colleran & Mace, 2015). Conversely, Persistence-Compulsivity may

pose a problem under harsh and unpredictable conditions (Belsky, 2012; Ellis et al.,

2009) and in fact has not always proven successful (Jokela et al., 2010a, 2011; Skirbekk

& Blekesaune, 2014). One particularly important ecological parameter is the momentary

prevalence of the trait itself, since a rare strategy can produce high fitness payoffs which

decline as such a strategy becomes more common (Wolf & McNamara, 2012). Negative

frequency-dependent selection is able to produce different adaptive tactics that coexist

at evolutionary equilibrium within a population, and is therefore a potent explanation

for the maintenance of variation over time.

4.4. Limitations and conclusions

Some limitations of our design must be mentioned. First, our sample was made

up of relatively young clinical subjects. This implies that extreme personalities that do

not seek professional help may obtain different fitness outcomes. Moreover, our

findings need replication in samples which have completed their reproductive period, as

we may be measuring delayed rather than decreased reproduction. Second, some study

variables deserve further comment. Whereas our personality model is quite

comprehensive, this is not the case of the mediators; a range of additional attributes like

physical attractiveness, health, or intelligence are probably relevant to sexual selection

and should be included in future designs. Furthermore, we use offspring count as the

closest proxy for long-term fitness. Despite preliminary evidence supporting this

approach (Goodman et al., 2012), the equivalence would not be upheld if children have

different survival or quality (Lawson et al., 2012). And it should be noted that all fitness

outcomes are self-reported and therefore susceptible to deception or bias: For example,

we have no way of knowing if psychopathic subjects exaggerate the number of mates or

if they have unknown children. In future studies, obtaining data from the subject’s

social environment may be essential to obtaining a full picture. Finally, concerning

design, the cross-sectional nature of our study, as well as the lack of a genetically

informative sample, hinder any inferences about the direction of causality between

personality and fitness. Although longitudinal studies find that personality predicts

outcomes more than the other way around (Jokela et al., 2009) our results should be

interpreted with caution.

In spite of recent advances (Geary, 2006; Geher & Miller, 2008; Sefcek et al.,

2006), central aspects of sexual selection mechanisms in humans remain poorly

understood (Jones & Ratterman, 2009; Puts, 2016; Tang-Martinez, 2010). Our study

supports the growing conviction that personality takes part in the competition over

resources, mating opportunities, and reproductive success, and is therefore a product as

well as a driver of evolution. However, a single explanation for the maintenance of all

personality traits is unlikely to be found, as selective forces push each personality

dimension in diverging directions, with different intensities, and acting through distinct

evolutionary processes and pathways. Indeed, a range of mechanisms such as life

history tradeoffs, sexual selection for indicators, correlational selection, and sexually

antagonistic selection all find some support in our data. Furthermore, the fitness costs

and benefits of any trait may be ephemeral, so we do not know whether our results are a

window

to the ancestral origins of personality differences or simply reflect their current

evolutionary dynamics.

Personality pathology under sexual selection 18

Our findings also support the less widespread view that the principles of

evolution apply equally well to pathological personalities. Some extreme traits are not

as disadvantageous for fitness as they appear to be for social adaptation or well-being,

even when severely disordered subjects are examined. What is more, the ubiquity of

directional selection suggests that some PDs become more evolutionarily advantageous

as they grow more severe. This would characterize them as risky shortcuts to fitness,

owing less to failures than to the twists and turns made by genes in order to perpetuate

themselves.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data to this article can be found online.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by grants from Spain’s Ministerio de

Educación y Ciencia (FIS 07/0033 and ETES 08/90434) awarded to F. Gutiérrez.

References

Alvergne, A., Jokela, M. & Lummaa, V. (2010). Personality and reproductive success in

a high-fertility population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

107, 11745-11750. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001752107

Alvergne, A., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in

humans? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 171-179. doi:

10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.003

Amato, P. R., Landale, N. S., Havasevich, T. C., Booth, A., Eggebeen, D. J., Schoen,

R., … & Pennsylvania State University (2008). Precursors of young women’s

family formation pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1271–1286.

doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00565.x.

Bateson, M., Brilot, B., & Nettle, D. (2011). Anxiety: An evolutionary approach.

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 707–715.

Bell, G. (2010). Fluctuating selection: the perpetual renewal of adaptation in variable

environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B,

365, 87–97. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0150

Belsky, J. (2012). The development of human reproductive strategies: progress and

prospects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 310–316. doi:

10.1177/0963721412453588

Berg, V., Rotkirch, A., Väisänen, H., & Jokela, M. (2013). Personality is differentially

associated with planned and non-planned pregnancies. Journal of Research in

Personality, 47, 296–305. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.010

Bergmüller, R., & Taborsky, M. (2010). Animal personality due to social niche

specialisation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 504–511. doi:

10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.012

Personality pathology under sexual selection 19

Betzig, L. (2012). Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive success: comparative

evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 309–317. doi:

10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.10.008

Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits. A survey.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 148–151. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-

7214.2004.00295.x

Brown, G. R., Laland, K. N., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Bateman’s principles

and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 297–304. doi:

10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005

Brüne, M., Ghiassi, V., & Ribbert, H. (2010). Does Borderline Personality Disorder

reflect the pathological extreme of an adaptive reproductive strategy? Insights

and hypotheses from evolutionary life-history theory. Clinical Neuropsychiatry,

7, 3-9.

Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality

and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359–366.

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.x

Buss, D. (2014). Women’s long-term mating strategies. In D. Buss, Evolutionary

Psychology. The new science of the mind, 4

ed., new international edition (pp.

141-174). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

Camargo, M. A., Geher, G., Fisher, M. L., & Arrabaca, A. (2013). The relationship

between hypothesized psychological genetic fitness indicators and indices of

mating success. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7,

138-162. doi: 10.1037/h0099205

Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The

Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and

use. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington

University.

Colleran, H., & Mace, R. (2015). Social network- and community-level influences on

contraceptive use: evidence from rural Poland. Proceedings of the Royal Society

of London B, 282, 20150398. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.0398

Conroy-Beam, D., Goetz, C. D., Buss, D. M. (2015). Why do humans form long-term

mateships? An evolutionary game-theoretic model. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 51, 1-39. doi: 10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.11.001

Del Giudice, M. (2014). An evolutionary life history framework for psychopathology.

Psychological Inquiry, 25, 261–300. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2014.884918

DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five theory. Journal of Research in

Personality, 56, 33–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004

Dingemanse, N. J., & Wolf, M. (2010). Recent models for adaptive personality

differences: A review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London B, 365, 3947–3958. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0221

Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The attachment

paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive

advantages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123–141. doi:

10.1177/1745691610362349

Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental

dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable

environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human

nature, 20, 204–268. doi: 10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7

Personality pathology under sexual selection 20

Ellis, L. (1995). Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: A

cross-species comparison. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 257–333. doi:

10.1016/0162-3095(95)00050-U

Fok, M. L.-Y., Hayes, R. D., Chang, C.-K., Stewart, R., Callard, F. J., & Moran, P.

(2012). Life expectancy at birth and all-cause mortality among people with

personality disorder. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 73, 104–107. doi:

10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.05.001

Friedman, H. S., Kern, M. L., & Reynolds, C. A. (2010). Personality and health,

subjective well-being, and longevity. Journal of Personality, 78, 179–216. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00613.x

Fritzsche, K., & Booksmythe, I. (2013). The measurement of sexual selection on

females and males. Current Zoology, 59, 558–563.

Gangestad, S. W. (2003). Sexually antagonistic coevolution: Theory, evidence, and

implications for patterns of human mating and fertility. In K. W. Wachter & R.

A. Bulatao (Eds.), Offspring: Human fertility behavior in biodemographic

perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs

and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644. doi:

10.1017/S0140525X0000337X

Geary, D. C. (2006). Sexual selection and the evolution of human sex differences.

Psychological Topics, 15, 203-238.

Geher, G., Miller, G., & Murphy, J. (2008). Mating intelligence: Toward an

evolutionarily informed construct. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating

intelligence. Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 3-34).

New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geher, G., & Miller, G. (Eds.) (2008). Mating intelligence. Sex, relationships, and the

mind’s reproductive system. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glenn, A. L., Kurzban, R., & Raine, A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and psychopathy.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 371–380. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.03.009

Goodman, A., Koupil, I., & Lawson, D. W. (2012). Low fertility increases descendant

socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial

society. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 279, 4342-4351. doi:

10.1098/rspb.2012.1415

Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: A

cross-species review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 69-75.

doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00017

Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Stieglitz, J., Kaplan, H., & Rodriguez, D. E. (2014). The

evolutionary fitness of personality traits in a small-scale subsistence society.

Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 17–25. doi:

10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.002

Gutiérrez, F., Gárriz, M., Peri, J. M., Ferraz, L., Sol, D., Navarro, J. B., . . . Valdés, M.

(2013). Fitness costs and benefits of personality disorder traits. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 34, 41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.09.001

Gutiérrez, F., Vall, G., Peri, J. M., Gárriz, M., & Garrido, J. M. (2014). A hierarchical

model of normal and abnormal personality up to seven factors. Comprehensive

Psychiatry, 55, 326–335. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.08.022

Harville, E. W., Madkour, A. S. & Xie, Y. (2015). Personality and adolescent

pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71, 148–159. doi:

10.1111/jan.12481

Personality pathology under sexual selection 21

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a

multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and

Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. doi: 10.1111/bmsp.12028

Hill, A. K., Hunt, J., Welling, L. L. M., Cárdenas, R. A., Rotella, M. A., Wheatley, J.

R., … Puts, D. A. (2013). Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection

on men’s traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 334–341. doi:

10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.05.004

Holtzman, N. S., & Donnellan, M. B. (2015). The roots of Narcissus: Old and new

models of the evolution of narcissism. In V. Zeigler-Hill, L. L. M. Welling, & T.

K. Shakelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology. New

York, NY: Springer.

Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2011). The intertwined evolution of narcissism and

short-term mating: An emerging hypothesis. In W. K. Campbell, & J. D. Miller

(Eds.), The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder:

Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments (pp 210-220).

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Holtzman, N. S., & Strube, M. J. (2013). Above and beyond short-term mating, long-

term mating is uniquely tied to human personality. Evolutionary Psychology, 11,

1101-1129. doi: 10.1177/147470491301100514

Hopcroft, R. L. (2015). Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of

offspring in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 146–

151. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.10.003

Hosken, D. J., & House, C. M. (2011). Sexual selection. Current Biology, 21, R62–R65.

doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.11.053

Hunt, J., Bussière, L. F., Jennions, M. D., & Brooks, R. (2004). What is genetic quality?

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 329–333. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.035

Hyler, S.E. (1994). PDQ-4+ Personality Questionnaire. New York: Author.

Jennions, M. D., Møller, A. P., & Petrie, M. (2001). Sexually selected traits and adult

survival: A meta-analysis. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 76, 3-36. doi:

10.1086/393743

Jokela, M. (2009). Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans:

Evidence from the late 20th century United States. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 30, 342–350. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.006

Jokela, M., Alvergne, A., Pollet, T. V, & Lummaa, V. (2011). Reproductive behavior

and personality traits of the Five Factor Model. European Journal of

Personality, 25, 487–500. doi: 10.1002/per.822

Jokela, M., Hintsa, T., Hintsanen, M., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2010a). Adult

temperament and childbearing over the life course. European Journal of

Personality, 166, 151–166. doi: 10.1002/per.749

Jokela, M., Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2009). Personality

and having children: A two-way relationship. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 96, 218–230. doi: 10.1037/a0014058

Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J., & Lummaa, V. (2010b). Serial

monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral

Ecology, 21, 906-912. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arq078

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad:

Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of

Personality, 23, 5-18. doi: 10.1002/per.698

Personality pathology under sexual selection 22

Jones, A. G., & Ratterman, N. L. (2009). Mate choice and sexual selection: What have

we learned since Darwin? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

106, 10001–10008. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901129106

Keller, M. C. & Miller, G. (2006). Resolving the paradox of common, harmful,

heritable mental disorders: Which evolutionary genetic models work best?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 385-452. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X06009095

Kight, C. R., David, M., & Dall, S. R. X. (2013). The evolution of animal personality

variation. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester.

doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0024662

Kingsolver, J. G., & Diamond, S. E. (2011). Phenotypic selection in natural populations:

What limits directional selection? The American Naturalist, 177, 346–357. doi:

10.1086/658341

Lafreniere, P. (2009). A functionalist perspective on social anxiety and avoidant

personality disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1065–1082. doi:

10.1017/S0954579409990046

Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist,

64, 241–256. doi: 10.1037/a0015309.

Lawson, D. W., Alvergne, A., & Gibson, M. A. (2012). The life-history trade-off

between fertility and child survival. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

B, 279, 4755–4764. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1635

Le Coeur, C., Thibault, M., Pisanu, B., Thibault, S., Chapuis, J.-L., & Baudry, E.

(2015). Temporally fluctuating selection on a personality trait in a wild rodent

population. Behavioral Ecology, 26, 1285-1291. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv074

Lee, W. E., Wadsworth, M. E. J., & Hotopf, M. (2006). The protective role of trait

anxiety: A longitudinal cohort study. Psychological Medicine, 36, 345-351. doi:

10.1017/S0033291705006847

Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. N. (2009). Dimensional Assessment of Personality

Pathology - Basic Questionnaire: Technical Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma

Assessment Systems.

Lukas, D. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in

mammals. Science, 341, 526-530. doi: 10.1126/science.1238677

Lukaszewski, A. W., Larson, C. M., Gildersleeve, K. A., Roney, J. R., & Haselton, M.

G. (2014). Condition-dependent calibration of men’s uncommitted mating

orientation: Evidence from multiple samples. Evolution and Human Behavior,

35, 319–326. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.03.002

Lyon, B. E., & Montgomerie, R. (2012). Sexual selection is a form of social selection.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 367, 2266–2273.

doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0012

MacDonald, K. B. (2012). Temperament and evolution. In M. Zentner & R. L. Shiner

(Eds.), Handbook of temperament (pp. 273-296). New York: Guilford Press.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual

Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614. doi:

10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of psychopathy: An integrated evolutionary model.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523-599. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00039595

Miller, G. (2000). Mental traits as fitness indicators. Expanding evolutionary

psychology’s adaptationism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 907,

62–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06616.x

Miller, G. F. (2013). Mutual mate choice models as the red pill in evolutionary

psychology: Long delayed, much needed, ideologically challenging, and hard to

Personality pathology under sexual selection 23

swallow. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 207–210. doi:

10.1080/1047840X.2013.817937

Mokkonen, M., Koskela, E., Mappes, T., & Mills, S. C. (2012). Sexual antagonism for

testosterone maintains multiple mating behaviour. Journal of Animal Ecology,

81, 277–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01903.x

Møller, A. P., & Jennions, M. D. (2002). How much variance can be explained by

ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia, 132, 492–500. doi:

10.1007/s00442-002-0952-2

Nesse, R. M. (2001a). The smoke detector principle. Natural selection and the

regulation of defensive responses. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,

935, 75-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03472.x

Nesse, R. M. (2001b). On the difficulty of defining disease: A Darwinian perspective.

Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 4, 37-46. doi:

10.1023/A:1009938513897

Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals.

American Psychologist, 61, 622-631. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622

Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. (2006). Schizotypy, creativity and mating success in humans.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 273, 611-615. doi:

10.1098/rspb.2005.3349

Nettle, D., & Pollet, T. V. (2008). Natural selection on male wealth in humans. The

American Naturalist, 172, 658–666. doi: 10.1086/591690

Ozer, D. J. & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of

consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. doi:

10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127

Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of

personality. European Journal of Personality, 587, 549–587. doi:

10.1002/per.629

Puts, D. (2016). Human sexual selection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 28-32. doi:

10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.011

Réale, D., Dingemanse, N. J., Kazem, A. J. M., & Wright, J. (2010). Evolutionary and

ecological approaches to the study of personality. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London B, 365, 3937-3946. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0222

Reser, J. E. (2011). Conceptualizing the autism spectrum in terms of natural selection

and behavioral ecology: The solitary forager hypothesis. Evolutionary

Psychology, 9, 207–238.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A. & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The

power of personality. The comparative validity of personality traits,

socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life

outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313-345.

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

Roff, D. A. & Fairbairn, D. J. (2007). The evolution of trade-offs: Where are we?

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 433–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-

9101.2006.01255.x

Ruiz-Muñoz, D., Pérez, G., Gotsens, M., & Rodríguez-Sanz, M. (2012). Regional

inequalities in the use of contraception in Spain: A multilevel approach. Health

& Place, 18, 408–414. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.12.007

Sansone, R. A., Lam, C., & Wiederman, M. W. (2011). The relationship between

Borderline Personality Disorder and number of sexual partners. Journal of

Personality Disorders, 25, 782–788. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2011.25.6.782

Personality pathology under sexual selection 24

Scelza, B. A. (2013). Choosy but not chaste: Multiple mating in human females.

Evolutionary Anthropology, 22, 259–269. doi: 10.1002/evan.21373

Schmitt, D. P. (2012). When the difference is in the details: A critique of Zentner and

Mitura ( 2012 ) “Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap

predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences”. Evolutionary

Psychology, 10, 720–726. doi: 10.1177/147470491201000406

Schuett, W., Tregenza, T., & Dall, S. R. X. (2010). Sexual selection and animal

personality. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 85,

217–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00101.x

Sefcek, J. A., Brumbach, B. H., Vásquez, G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). The evolutionary

psychology of human mate choice: How ecology, genes, fertility, and fashion

influence our mating behavior. In M. R. Kauth (Ed.). On the evolution of sexual

attraction [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 125-

182. doi: 10.1300/J056v18n02_05

Siepielski, A. M., DiBattista, J. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2009). It’s about time: The

temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. Ecology Letters, 12,

1261–1276. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01381.x

Sih, A., Bell, A. & Johnson, J. C. (2004). Behavioral syndromes: An ecological and

evolutionary overview. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 372-378. doi:

10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009

Skirbekk, V. & Blekesaune, M. (2014). Personality traits increasingly important for

male fertility: Evidence from Norway. European Journal of Personality, 28,

521–529. doi: 10.1002/per.1936

Skjærvø, G. R., Bongard, T., Viken, Å., Stokke, B. G., & Røskaft, E. (2011). Wealth,

status, and fitness: A historical study of Norwegians in variable environments.

Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 305–314. doi:

10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.11.006

Smith, B. R. & Blumstein, D. T. (2008). Fitness consequences of personality: A meta-

analysis. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 448-455. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arm144

Stearns, S. C. (2000). Life history evolution: Successes, limitations, and prospects.

Naturwissenschaften, 87, 476-486. doi: 10.1007/s001140050763

Stearns, S. C., Byars, S. G., Govindaraju, D. R. & Ewbank, D. (2010). Measuring

selection in contemporary human populations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11,

611-622. doi: 10.1038/nrg2831

Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock:

Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological

Inquiry, 24, 137–168. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899

Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Pollet, T. V, Nettle, D., & Verhulst, S. (2013). Are human

mating preferences with respect to height reflected in actual pairings? PLoS

ONE, 8, e54186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054186

Tang-Martínez, Z. (2010). Bateman’s principles: Original experiment and modern data

for and against. In M. D. Breed & J. Moore (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Animal

Behavior (pp. 166–176). Oxford, UK: Academic Press.

Troisi, A. (2005). The concept of alternative strategies and its relevance to psychiatry

and clinical psychology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 159–168.

doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.06.012

Tyrer, P., Reed, G. M., & Crawford, M. J. (2015). Classification, assessment,

prevalence, and effects of personality disorder. Lancet, 385, 717-726. doi:

10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61995-4

Personality pathology under sexual selection 25

Ullrich, S., Farrington, D. P. & Coid, J. W. (2007). Dimensions of DSM-IV personality

disorders and life-success. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 657-663. doi:

10.1521/pedi.2007.21.6.657

Vall, G., Gutiérrez, F., Peri, J. M., Gárriz, M., Ferraz, L., Baillés, E., & Obiols, J. E. (in

press). Seven basic dimensions of personality pathology and their clinical

consequences: Are all personalities equally harmful? British Journal of Clinical

Psychology. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12091

Widiger, T. A. & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality

disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.

doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71

Wolf, M. & McNamara, J. M. (2012). On the evolution of personalities via frequency-

dependent selection. The American Naturalist, 179, 679–692. doi:

10.1086/665656

Wolf, M. & Weissing, F. J. (2010). An explanatory framework for adaptive personality

differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 365,

3959-3968. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0215

Yao, S., Långström, N., Temrin, H., & Walum, H. (2014). Criminal offending as part of

an alternative reproductive strategy: Investigating evolutionary hypotheses using

Swedish total population data. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 481–488.

doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.06.007

Supplementary Material:

SEVEN DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ARE UNDER SEXUAL

SELECTION IN MODERN SPAIN

Table S1. Sex differences for the original instruments forming the seven dimensions of

personality pathology

Males

(n=451)

Females

(n=508)

Mean

(SD) Mean

(SD) t

(p)

PDQ-4+

Paranoid 2.7

(1.9) 2.7

(1.9) .444

(.657)

Schizoid 2.2

(1.5) 2.0

(1.5) 1.706

(.088)

Schizotypal 3.3

(2.1) 3.1

(2.0) 1.937

(.053)

Histrionic

2.3

(1.7) 2.7

(1.7) -4.078

(<.001)

Narcissistic 2.4

(1.9) 2.3

(1.6) 1.388

(.166)

Borderline 3.9

(2.3) 4.2

(2.4) -1.755

(.080)

Antisocial

1.7

(1.6) 1.3

(1.4) 3.343

(.001)

Avoidant 3.4

(2.1) 3.7

(2.0) -1.773

(.077)

Dependent 2.5

(2.2) 2.8

(2.3) -1.549

(.122)

Obsessive 4.0

(1.7) 3.9

(1.6) .281

(.779)

DAPP-BQ

Submissiveness

40.1

(11.7) 42.6

(12.8) -3.193

(.001)

Affective Lability

48.6

(13.6) 53.2

(13.3) -5.364

(<.001)

Anxiousness

50.4

(14.8) 53.9

(15.1) -3.586

(<.001)

Insecure Attachment

44.3

(13.6) 48.1

(15.5) -3.950

(<.001)

Cognitive Dysregulation

37.4

(12.7) 39.3

(13.3) -2.249

(.025)

Identity Problems 46.8

(15.0) 48.3

(15.4) -1.530

(.126)

Social Avoidance 45.3

(14.2) 43.7

(13.7) 1.799

(.072)

Oppositionality 45.9

(13.0) 44.9

(12.7) 1.166

(.244)

Narcissism 45.0

(13.9) 44.4

(12.9) .624

(.533)

Sensation Seeking 40.5

(12.1) 40.7

(11.9) -.276

(.783)

Callousness

35.3

(9.9) 30.9

(8.5) 7.238

(<.001)

Rejection

43.9

(11.2) 41.4

(10.7) 3.553

(<.001)

Conduct Problems

30.4

(10.7) 25.9

(9.1) 6.932

(<.001)

Restricted Expression

45.1

(12.2) 40.6

(11.9) 5.867

(<.001)

Intimacy Problems 33.1

(9.9) 34.0

(10.0) -1.340

(.180)

Compulsivity

51.1

(12.3) 53.0

(12.2) -2.396

(.017)

Suspiciousness 33.1

(11.6) 32.2

(11.6) 1.251

(.211)

Self-harm

21.6

(12.0) 25.1

(13.6) -4.166

(<.001)

TCI-R

Novelty Seeking 103.5

(16.9) 104.2

(15.6) -.627

(.531)

Harm Avoidance

108.1

(20.5) 111.8

(21.8) -2.707

(.007)

Reward Dependence

99.2

(17.2) 107.6

(15.6) -7.954

(<.001)

Persistence 105.5

(23.0) 107.8

(21.2) -1.587

(.113)

Self–directedness 127.9

(24.2) 127.9

(23.4) .035

(.972)

Cooperativeness

132.2

(19.1) 137.9

(16.8) -4.882

(<.001)

Self–transcendence

63.0

(17.6) 65.3

(17.8) -2.088

(.037)

NS1–Exploratory Excitability

30.6

(5.9) 31.6

(6.2) -2.615

(.009)

NS2–Impulsiveness 24.2

(6.0) 24.2

(6.2) -.131

(.896)

NS3–Extravagance

28.6

(7.3) 29.6

(7.1) -1.992

(.047)

NS4–Disorderliness

20.1

(4.7) 18.8

(4.6) 4.455

(<.001)

HA1–Anticipatory Worry

34.4

(7.7) 36.1

(8.2) -3.242

(.001)

HA2–Fear of Uncertainty

25.0

(5.3) 26.1

(5.5) -2.918

(.004)

HA3–Shyness 23.2

(6.6) 22.4

(6.5) 1.899

(.058)

HA4–Fatigability

25.5

(6.7) 27.4

(7.3) -4.088

(<.001)

RD1–Sentimentality

27.9

(5.0) 30.4

(4.7) -8.001

(<.001)

RD2–Warm Communication

32.2

(8.2) 35.3

(7.5) -6.107

(<.001)

RD3–Attachment

19.1

(5.8) 21.5

(5.5) -6.344

(<.001)

RD4–Dependence

20.0

(4.0) 20.5

(4.1) -1.986

(.047)

PS1–Eagerness of Effort

27.6

(6.5) 29.2

(6.3) -3.950

(<.001)

PS2–Work hardened

24.7

(6.3) 25.5

(6.2) -2.074

(.038)

PS3–Ambitious

28.8

(7.7) 27.9

(7.3) 2.004

(.045)

PS4–Perfectionist 24.4

(6.4) 25.2

(6.4) -1.829

(.068)

SD1–Responsibility 27.7

(6.5) 26.9

(7.0) 1.873

(.061)

SD2–Purposeful 18.6

(5.5) 18.3

(5.5) .881

(.379)

SD3–Resourcefulness 16.0

(4.6) 15.6

(4.4) 1.616

(.106)

SD4–Self acceptance 31.4

(8.6) 32.3

(7.9) -1.571

(.117)

SD5–Enlightened Second Nature 34.1

(8.1) 34.9

(7.8) -1.378

(.169)

CO1–Social Acceptance 29.4

(5.7) 30.0

(5.3) -1.733

(.083)

CO2–Empathy

17.6

(3.6) 18.8

(3.3) -5.195

(<.001)

CO3–Helpfulness

29.7

(4.4) 30.9

(4.3) -4.366

(<.001)

CO4–Compassion

26.0

(7.0) 27.7

(6.1) -4.029

(<.001)

CO5–Pure-hearted Conscience

29.4

(5.0) 30.4

(4.5) -3.264

(.001)

ST1–Self-forgetful 28.2

(7.7) 27.9

(8.1) .552

(.581)

ST2–Transpersonal Identification

17.9

(6.4) 19.0

(6.4) -2.623

(.009)

ST3–Spiritual Acceptance

16.9

(6.8) 18.5

(6.8) -3.590

(<.001)

Student’s t-test was used; significant differences are in bold type.

Table S2. Pearson’s correlations of the study variables in the whole sample

Age

Sex

Negative Emotionality

Persistence-Compulsivity

Asociality

Impulsive Sens. Seeking

Antagonism

Subordination

Oddity

Short-term mates (#)

Long-term mates (#)

Relationship duration (yr.)

Parenthood (N/Y)

Offspring (#)

Age first reproduction

Education level (0–5)

Age starts working

Max. length job (yr.)

Job level (1–3)

Upward mobility (#)

Leaving job (#)

Dismissal (#)

Net income (€/month)

Age

--- -.05 -.03

.08

-.03

-.18 -.14 -.20

.03 -.03

.28 .71 .56 .55 .15 .16 .11 .73 .24

.07

-.10

.03

.27

Sex

---

.17

.06

-.19 -.09 -.21

.03 .06

-.09 .08

-.01 .03 .01

-.17 .07

.04

-.09 .13

-.03 .02 -.06

-.16

Personality

Negative Emotionality

---

-.20 .27

.03

.24 .51 .27

.01 .04

-.09

.00 -.03

-.17 -.17

-.04

-.11 -.15

-.03

.17 .13 -.24

Persistence-Compulsivity

---

-.22

.00 .02 -.05

.39

.05

.09 .12 .11 .10

-.11

.10 -.12 .10 .08 .17 -.13 -.11 .19

Asociality

---

-.16 .34

.01 -.02

-.12 -.22

.00 -.06

-.08

.05

-.12

.03 -.03

-.17

-.02 .06

.10 -.16

Impulsive Sens. Seeking

---

.28 .11 .21 .24 .16 -.17 -.07

-.05

-.14 -.12 -.09 -.19 -.15 .08 .19

.04 -.03

Antagonism

---

.23 .17 .11 -.08 -.09 -.08 -.10

-.03

-.17

-.03

-.16 -.20

.07

.11 .12 -.08

Subordination

---

.22

.05 -.01

-.21 -.13 -.16

.01 .05

.12 -.17

.01 -.01 .07 .05

-.10

Oddity

--- .06 .05 .01 .03 .03

-.22 -.12 -.08

.02

-.14 .08 .10

.05

-.12

Mating

Short-term mates (#)

---

.26 -.15

-.02 -.04 .03 .06 -.05

-.11

.02

.14

.15

.10

.08

Long-term mates (#)

---

.09 .20 .17

.09

.12

-.02

.14 .16 .16

.07

-.04

.21

Relationship durat. (yr.)

---

.60 .62

-.05 .04 .03

.59 .14

.00

-.14

.03

.25

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

---

.89

--- -.01 -.03

.47

.06 -.02

-.13

-.07

.27

Offspring (#)

---

-.30

.00 -.02

.49

.08 -.05

-.15

-.08

.31

Age first reproduction

. ---

.22

.11

.13 .21

.00

-.10

-.05

.19

Age

Sex

Negative Emotionality

Persistence-Compulsivity

Asociality

Impulsive Sens. Seeking

Antagonism

Subordination

Oddity

Short-term mates (#)

Long-term mates (#)

Relationship duration (yr.)

Parenthood (N/Y)

Offspring (#)

Age first reproduction

Education level (0–5)

Age starts working

Max. length job (yr.)

Job level (1–3)

Upward mobility (#)

Leaving job (#)

Dismissal (#)

Net income (€/month)

Status

Education level (0–5)

---

.39

.04

.67

-.07

-.11

-.09

.29

Age starts working

--- -.05

.32 -.14

-.11

-.01

.09

Max. length job (yr.)

---

.12 -.08

-.25

-.13

.30

Job level (1–3)

--- -.06

-.17

-.04

.27

Upward mobility (#)

---

.25

.02

.05

Leaving job (#)

---

.12

-.18

Dismissal (#)

---

-.12

Net income (€/month)

---

Significant coefficients (p < .05) are in bold type.

Table S3. Multiple regression of seven personality pathology factors predicting life history variables in males

Negative

Emotionality

Persistence-

Compulsivity Asociality

Impulsive

Sens. Seeking Antagonism Subordination Oddity

Life history variables Beta

(p) Beta

(p) R²

Mating

Short-term mates (#) -.016

.824 .085

.193 * -.114

.086

.172

.005 .135

.041

-.030

.635 -.022

.730

.074

Long-term mates (#) .015

.809 * .065

.248

-.121

.035 .234

.000

-.075

.185 -.008

.883 -.029

.590

.082

Relationship duration (yr.) .084

.056

.144

.000 * .068

.091 * .013

.729 .003

.941

-.095

.013

-.023

.554

.025

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y) .048

.394

.145

.005 * -.063

.232 .056

.255 -.032

.537 .012

.815 -.016

.761

.028

Offspring (#) .053

.358

.104

.049 -.111

.040

.055

.269 -.015

.777 -.040

.431 -.007

.889

.028

Age first reproduction -.248

.094 -.059

.645 .131

.256 -.099

.438 -.111

.390

.303

.020

-.040

.780 .083

Status

Education level (0–5)

-.316

.000

.064

.257 .066

.258 -.097

.075 -.065

.265

.304

.000 -.161

.004 .147

Age starts working -.121

.072

-.181

.003

.020

.754

-.130

.031

.018

.768

.283

.000

-.097

.109

.107

Max. length job (yr.) -.012

.790

.125

.003 * -.043

.312 -.055

.182 -.015

.726 -.030

.460 .056

.177

.032

Job level (1–3)

-.208

.006

.073

.292 -.029

.676 -.025

.709 -.068

.339

.314

.000 *

-.182

.009 .112

Upward mobility (#) -.001

.990

.220

.001

.985 .078

.237 .110

.108 -.005

.943 -.054

.417

.061

Leaving job (#) .078

.323

-.193

.005

.050

.476 .102

.130 .005

.941 -.050

.465 .086

.207

.068

Dismissal (#)

.179

.018 *

-.217

.001

.000

.994 -.004

.953

.181

.009

-.086

.186 .090

.174

.136

Net income (€/month)

-.157

.021 .260

.000 * -.102

.103 .083

.151 .052

.401 .100

.094

-.216

.000 *

.147

Significant coefficients are in bold type. After applying the false discovery rate the corrected significance level q* was .046, so no results lose their

significance.

* There is a significant difference between males and females.

Table S4. Multiple regression of seven personality pathology factors predicting life history variables in females

Negative

Emotionality

Persistence-

Compulsivity Asociality

Impulsive

Sens. Seeking Antagonism Subordination Oddity

Life history variables Beta

(p) Beta

(p) R²

Mating

Short-term mates (#) .085

.184 -.060

.293 *

-.159

.004 .205

.000

.029

.587 .011

.851 .031

.602

.090

Long-term mates (#)

.154

.009 * .028

.571

-.171

.000 .184

.000

-.005

.917 -.030

.585 -.043

.407

.076

Relationship duration (yr.) -.067

.159 .020

.633 * -.042

.288 * -.063

.110 .008

.835 -.017

.708 -.016

.702 .015

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

.137

.008

.069

.123 * -.020

.642 .020

.633 .037

.386 -.074

.129 -.066

.152 .015

Offspring (#)

.123

.016

.067

.130 -.023

.587 .048

.249 -.016

.713 -.090

.062 -.040

.389 .013

Age first reproduction -.116

.248 -.176

.051 .054

.542 -.085

.295 .126

.186 .121

.196 -.175

.069

.126

Status

Education level (0–5)

-.216

.000

.064

.204 -.029

.552 -.010

.835

-.111

.024 .202

.000

-.084

.110

.077

Age starts working

-.319

.000 -.144

.008

.088

.093 -.007

.888 .010

.846

.268

.000

.058

.303

.076

Max. length job (yr.) -.005

.906 .034

.401 * .012

.748 -.024

.527

-.088

.024

.058

.190 -.028

.505 .011

Job level (1–3)

-.136

.057 .090

.137 -.070

.242 -.080

.173 -.094

.103 .092

.168 *

-.127

.047 .078

Upward mobility (#) -.011

.875 .090

.145 -.006

.922 .088

.123 .020

.737 -.068

.314 .037

.562 .027

Leaving job (#)

.145

.037 -.120

.047

-.009

.884

.171

.003

.054

.349 -.092

.175 .099

.120

.086

Dismissal (#) .094

.198 *

-.138

.027

-.078

.197 .066

.257 .088

.132 -.106

.135

.162

.011 .056

Net income (€/month) -.071

.281

.145

.009 * -.096

.079 .033

.534 -.053

.331 .009

.887

-.139

.016 *

.063

Significant coefficients are in bold type. After applying the false discovery rate the corrected significance level q* was .032, so no results lose their

significance.

* There is a significant difference between males and females.

Table S5. Non-linear and correlational selection in males: significant quadratic and interaction terms.

Quadratic terms

∆R²

Interaction terms

∆R²

Mating

Short-term mates (#)

NEM

(.350, p=.002) R

=.022 PERxANT (.137, p=.013)

.016

Long-term mates (#)

---

PERxSUB (-.124, p=.007) ANTxSUB (.109, p=.019) .026

Relationship duration (yr.)

---

SUBxODD (.068, p=.035)

.004

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

---

PERxIMP (-.121, p=.004) NEMxODD (.111, p=.009) .027

Offspring (#)

---

PERxIMP (-.100, p=.021) NEMxODD (.100, p=.022) .020

Age first reproduction

---

--- ---

NEM=Negative Emotionality; PER=Persistence-Compulsivity; ASO=Asociality; IMP=Impulsive Sensation Seeking;

ANT=Antagonism; SUB=Subordination; ODD=Oddity.

Table S6. Non-linear and correlational selection in females: significant quadratic and interaction terms.

Quadratic terms

∆R²

Interaction terms

∆R²

Mating

Short-term mates (#)

--- --- --- ---

Long-term mates (#)

---

ANTxODD (-.150, p=.002) PERxANT (.104, p=.026) R

=.020

Relationship duration (yr.)

---

--- ---

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

---

ANTxODD (-.099, p=.015) NEMxANT (.093, p=.025) R

=.013

Offspring (#)

---

ANTxODD (-.089, p=.024)

=.007

Age first reproduction

---

ASOxSUB (.162, p=.035) PERxASO (-.159, p=.041) R

=.053

NEM=Negative Emotionality; PER=Persistence-Compulsivity; ASO=Asociality; IMP=Impulsive Sensation Seeking;

ANT=Antagonism; SUB=Subordination; ODD=Oddity.

Table S7. Status predicting mating, and status and mating predicting reproduction after controlling for age

Short-term mates (#)

Long-term mates (#) Relationship duration (yr.) Offspring (#)

Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females

Life history variables

Beta

(p) Beta

(p)

Mating

Short-term mates (#)

--- --- --- --- --- ---

.027

(.567) -.047 (.270)

Long-term mates (#)

--- --- --- --- --- ---

.090

(.054) .011 (.794)

Relationship duration (yr.)

--- --- --- --- --- ---

.460

(<.001)

.467 (<.001)

Reproduction

Parenthood (N/Y)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Offspring (#)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Age first reproduction

--- --- --- --- --- ---

-.427

(<.001)

-.352 (<.001)

Status

Education level (0–5)

.010

(.864) .060

(.260) .005

(.924) .013

(.788) -.057

(.086) -.030

(.423) -.031

(.481)

-.096 (.016)

Age starts working

-.069

(.255) -.057

(.293)

-.099

(.046)

-.068

(.157)

-.109

(.002)

.060

(.118)

-.090

(.047)

-.055 (.177)

Max. length job (yr.)

-.090

(.299) -.114

(.136) -.020

(.791) .003

(.970)

.212

(<.001)

.047

(.382)

.397

(<.001)

.041 (.472)

Job level (1–3)

.029

(.644) .039

(.556) .060

(.309) .045

(.437) -.059

(.149) .045

(.326) -.038

(.478) -.060 (.212)

Upward mobility (#)

.057

(.346)

.195

(.001) .132

(.012)

.089

(.083) .023

(.525) -.057

(.161) -.090

(.068) -.052 (.234)

Leaving job (#)

.077

(.202)

.183

(.001)

.008

(.880)

.107

(.041)

-.068

(.081) -.053

(.203)

-.127

(.011)

-.046 (.300)

Dismissal (#)

.075

(.211) .063

(.264) -.057

(.302) -.069

(.188) .039

(.319) -.022

(.603)

-.116

(.023)

-.016 (.725)

Net income (€/month)

.111

(.076) .038

(.520)

.207

(<.001)

.073

(.172)

.090

(.018) .092

(.030) .319

(<.001)

.049 (.276)

Significant coefficients are in bold type. Results for ‘parenthood’ were similar to those for ‘number of offspring’ and are not presented.

Tables S8 to S11. Mediation effects of life history variables for mating and reproductive success by sex, corresponding to Figures 1a to 1d.

In mediation models:

a is the path from personality to the mediator.

b is the path from the mediator to the outcome controlling for personality.

c’ (direct effect) is the path from personality to the outcome

controlling for the mediator.

a*b (indirect effect) is the amount of mediation.

Table S8. Mediation analysis for the number of long-term mates in males (Figure 1a) (n= 290)

Net income Upward mobility

Direct effect

(c’ path)

a1 path b1 path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a1*b1) a2 path b2 path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a2*b2)

Negative Emotionality .011 (.883)

-.139

(.063) -.017

(-.062

-.001)

.008 (.922) .001 (-.015 .017)

Persistence - Compulsivity -.033 (.634)

.263

(<.001)

.036

(.001

.092)

.250 (<.001) .032 (.011 .067)

Asociality -.116 (.085) -.072

(.281) -.010

(-.047

.003) -.017 (.811) -.002

(-.026 .016)

Impulsivity SS

.209 (.001)

.111

(.083) .015

(-.001

.055) .085 (.221) .011 (-.001 .035)

Antagonism -.100 (.141) .008

(.907) .001

(-.017

.026)

.140 (.054) .017 (.002 .040)

Subordination -.004 (.953) .097

(.137) .013

(-.001

.061) -.004 (.952) -.001

(-.016 .015)

Oddity .022 (.729)

-.176

(.006)

.151

(.013)

-.024

(-.071

-.001)

-.073 (.289)

.138 (.014)

-.009

(-.032 .008)

Paths are standardized betas. 95% CI are the confidence intervals from 5,000 bootstrapped samples through the MEDIATE procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Significant indirect

effects (a*b) are in bold type.

In mediation models:

a is the path from personality to the mediator.

b is the path from the mediator to the outcome controlling for personality.

c’ (direct effect) is the path from personality to the outcome

controlling for the mediator.

a*b (indirect effect) is the amount of mediation.

Table S9. Mediation analysis for the duration of the longest relationship in males (Figure 1b) (n= 311)

Net income Age starts working

Direct effect

(c’ path)

a1 path b1 path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a1*b1) a2 path b2 path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a2*b2)

Negative Emotionality .078 (.120)

-.177

(.012) -.020

(-.054

-.003)

-.123 (.108) .013 (-.001 .046)

Persistence - Compulsivity

.106 (.022)

.251

(<.001)

.032

(.006

.070)

-.166 (.015) .020 (.004 .054)

Asociality .061 (.165) -.090

(.151) -.012

(-.043

.001) .057 (.397) -.007 (-.033 .006)

Impulsivity SS .001 (.975) .081

(.185) .011

(-.002

.037) -.073 (.270) .009 (-.004 .036)

Antagonism .002 (.964) .065

(.308) .008

(-.006

.037) -.004 (.957) .001 (-.017 .020)

Subordination

-.088 (.049)

.104

(.088) .014

(.000

.042)

.308 (<.001) -.039 (-.086 -.009)

Oddity -.033 (.452)

-.206

(.001)

.099

(.017)

-.027

(-.063

-.004)

-.088 (.184)

-.095 (.012)

.011 (-.001 .039)

Paths are standardized betas. 95% CI are the confidence intervals from 5,000 bootstrapped samples through the MEDIATE procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Significant indirect

effects (a*b) are in bold type.

In mediation models:

a is the path from personality to the mediator.

b is the path from the mediator to the outcome controlling for personality.

c’ (direct effect) is the path from personality to the outcome

controlling for the mediator.

a*b (indirect effect) is the amount of mediation.

Table S10. Mediation analysis for the number of offspring in males (Figure 1c) (n= 312)

Net income Relationship duration

Direct effect

(c’ path)

a1 path b1 path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a1*b1) a2 path b2 path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a2*b2)

Negative Emotionality -.009 (.884)

-.159

(.025) -.038

(-.084

-.009)

.077 (.129) .025 (-.003 .062)

Persistence - Compulsivity -.048 (.406)

.254

(<.001)

.067

(.032

.118)

.145 (.001) .053 (.018 .099)

Asociality

-.116 (.036)

-.096

(.125) -.026

(-.068

.002) .042 (.342) .016 (-.013 .050)

Impulsivity SS .055 (.301) .076

(.209) .021

(-.001

.061) .012 (.783) .005 (-.024 .036)

Antagonism -.001 (.983) .065

(.318) .017

(-.014

.060) .010 (.835) .003 (-.027 .035)

Subordination .014 (.803) .102

(.100) .028

(.000

.071)

-.108 (.015) -.040 (-.087 -.011)

Oddity .064 (.241)

-.210

(.001)

.280

(<.001)

-.058

(-.108

-.025)

-.040 (.363)

.388 (<.001)

-.015 (-.054 .016)

Paths are standardized betas. 95% CI are the confidence intervals from 5,000 bootstrapped samples through the MEDIATE procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Significant indirect

effects (a*b) are in bold type.

In mediation models:

a is the path from personality to the mediator.

b is the path from the mediator to the outcome controlling for personality.

c’ (direct effect) is the path from personality to the outcome

controlling for the mediator.

a*b (indirect effect) is the amount of mediation.

Table S11. Mediation analysis for the number of offspring in females (Figure 1d) (n= 453)

Education level

Direct effect

(c’ path)

a path b path

Indirect effect (95% CI)

(a*b)

Negative Emotionality

.116 (.024)

-.213

(<.001)

.017

(.001

.043)

Persistence – Compulsivity .080 (.071) .063

(.212) -.006

(-.024

.002)

Asociality -.029 (.460) -.029

(.550) .003

(-.005

.018)

Impulsivity SS .046 (.268) -.009

(.859) .001

(-.009

.015)

Antagonism -.025 (.563)

-.113

(.021) .011

(.001

.034)

Subordination -.074 (.132)

.199

(<.001)

-.017

(-.043

-.002)

Oddity -.054 (.237) -.084

(.115)

-.086

(.037)

.008

(-.001

.026)

Paths are standardized betas. 95% CI are the confidence intervals from 5,000 bootstrapped samples through the

MEDIATE procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Significant indirect effects (a*b) are in bold type.

The evolution of personality disorders: A review of proposals

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Personality disorders (PDs) are currently considered dysfunctions. However, personality differences are older than humanity and are ubiquitous in nature, from insects to higher primates. This suggests that a number of evolutionary mechanisms—other than dysfunctions—may be able to maintain stable behavioral variation in the gene pool. First of all, apparently maladaptive traits may actually improve fitness by enabling better survival or successful mating or reproduction, as exemplified by neuroticism, psychopathy, and narcissism. Furthermore, some PDs may harm important biological goals while facilitating others, or may be globally beneficial or detrimental depending on environmental circumstances or body condition. Alternatively, certain traits may form part of life history strategies: Coordinated suites of morphological, physiological and behavioral characters that optimize fitness through alternative routes and respond to selection as a whole. Still others may be vestigial adaptations that are no longer beneficial in present times. Finally, variation may be adaptative in and by itself, as it reduces competition for finite resources. These and other evolutionary mechanisms are reviewed and illustrated through human and non-human examples. Evolutionary theory is the best-substantiated explanatory framework across the life sciences, and may shed light on the question of why harmful personalities exist at all.

Severity in the ICD-11 personality disorder model: Evaluation in a Spanish mixed sample

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Severity is the main component of the ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) classification, but pertinent instruments have only recently been developed. We analyzed the psychometric properties of the ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity scale (PDS-ICD-11) in a mixed sample of 726 community and clinical subjects. We also examined how the different components of the ICD-11 PD system —five trait domains, the borderline pattern specifier, and severity, all of them measured through self-reports— are interconnected and operate together. PDS-ICD-11 properties were adequate and similar to those of the original instrument. However, regressions and factor analyses showed a considerable overlap of severity with the five personality domains and the borderline specifier (72.6%). Bifactor modeling resulted in a general factor of PD (g-PD) that was not equivalent to severity nor improved criterion validity. The whole ICD-11 PD system, i.e., five personality domains, borderline, and severity, explained an average of 43.6% of variance of external measures of well-being, disability, and clinical problems, with severity contributing 4.8%. Suggestions to further improve the ICD-11 PD taxonomy include remodeling the present definition of severity to give more weight to the real-life consequences of traits.

Preprint "The relative importance of intra- and intersexual selection on human male sexually dimorphic traits"

Preprint

Dec 2017

Recent evidence suggests that in sexual selection on human males, intrasexual competition plays a larger role than female choice. In a sample of men (N = 164), we sought to provide further evidence on the effects of men’s physical dominance and sexual attractiveness on mating success and hence in sexual selection. Objective measures and subjective ratings of male sexually dimorphic traits purportedly under sexual selection (height, vocal and facial masculinity, upper body size from3D scans, physical strength, and baseline testosterone) and observer perceptions of physical dominance and sexual attractiveness based on self-presentation video recordings were assessed and associated with mating success (sociosexual behaviour and number of potential conceptions) in a partly longitudinal design. Results from structural equation models and selection analyses revealed that physical dominance, but not sexual attractiveness, predicted mating success. Physical dominance mediated associations of upper body size, physical strength, as well as vocal and facial physical dominance and attractiveness with mating success. These findings thus suggest a greater importance of intrasexual competition than female choice in human male sexual selection.

A Double-Track Pathway to Fast Strategy in Humans and Its Personality Correlates

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2022

The fast–slow paradigm of life history (LH) focuses on how individuals grow, mate, and reproduce at different paces. This paradigm can contribute substantially to the field of personality and individual differences provided that it is more strictly based on evolutionary biology than it has been so far. Our study tested the existence of a fast–slow continuum underlying indicators of reproductive effort—offspring output, age at first reproduction, number and stability of sexual partners—in 1,043 outpatients with healthy to severely disordered personalities. Two axes emerged reflecting a double-track pathway to fast strategy, based on restricted and unrestricted sociosexual strategies. When rotated, the fast–slow and sociosexuality axes turned out to be independent. Contrary to expectations, neither somatic effort—investment in status, material resources, social capital, and maintenance/survival—was aligned with reproductive effort, nor a clear tradeoff between current and future reproduction was evident. Finally, we examined the association of LH axes with seven high-order personality pathology traits: negative emotionality, impulsivity, antagonism, persistence-compulsivity, subordination, and psychoticism. Persistent and disinhibited subjects appeared as fast-restricted and fast-unrestricted strategists, respectively, whereas asocial subjects were slow strategists. Associations of LH traits with each other and with personality are far more complex than usually assumed in evolutionary psychology.

Seven Dimensions Of Personality Pathology Are Under Sexual Selection In Modern Spain

Abstract and Figures