The Handbook of Antagonism: Conceptualizations, Assessment, Consequences, and Treatment of the Low End of Agreeableness

2005;88:139–156.

1

On the ubiquity and importance of antagonism

Donald R. Lynam⁎; Joshua D. Miller†    ⁎ Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States

† Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States

Abstract

Antagonism, defined here as the low pole of trait Agreeableness, references traits related to immorality, combativeness, grandiosity, callousness, and distrustfulness. It is a robust correlate of externalizing behaviors such as antisocial behavior, aggression, and substance use; in many cases, it is by far the strongest correlate of these behaviors among the traits that make up the five-factor model of personality. It similarly represents the core of many psychopathological constructs that are of great interest to the public and researchers alike (e.g., psychopathy, antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders) due to their relations with externalizing behaviors. As Neuroticism is core to understanding the intense distress and suffering that comes with internalizing disorders, Antagonism is core to understanding the impairment and suffering (to the individual and society at large) that comes with externalizing disorders.

Keywords

Antisocial behavior; Aggression; Personality disorders; Psychopathy; Narcissism

What is antagonism?

Antagonism can be defined in many ways. Most minimally, Antagonism, in this chapter and throughout this book, is conceptualized as one end of a bipolar personality domain dealing with an orientation toward others that runs from Antagonistic to Agreeable. Slightly less minimally, we can define this domain extensionally, through more basic trait terms that comprise Antagonism. Crowe, Lynam, and Miller (2018; see chap. 4) recently examined the structure of Antagonism/Agreeableness among personality inventories designed to capture this domain. The authors administered 131 items from 22 scales to a large sample of participants (N = 1205) recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) website. After deleting redundant items, the authors conducted a bass-ackward analysis (Goldberg, 2006) which allows one to examine the factor emergence of the domain, from a single factor to increasingly more specific factors. An optimal five-factor structure was identified through this procedure. Accordingly, the Antagonism/Agreeableness dimension can be said to include these more basic bipolar traits: callousness versus compassion, immorality versus morality, distrust versus trust, combativeness versus affability, and arrogance versus modesty. Table 1 includes these bipolar dimensions as well as traits describing both the Antagonistic and Agreeable poles.

Table 1

More broadly, this domain can be characterized as individual differences in the motivation to maintain positive social relations with others; as such, Antagonism/Agreeableness is firmly grounded in an interpersonal context (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano & Tobin, 2017). Antagonistic individuals place less value on interpersonal harmony, being more likely to sacrifice interpersonal harmony for other goals. Agreeable individuals, on the other hand, are likely to be motivated to maintain harmonious relations across many interpersonal contexts, whether it be with a romantic partner or an acquaintance. This domain also has theoretical links to behaviors that have figured prominently in human evolutionary history, such as altruism and social cooperation (Axelrod, 1984; Brown & Brown, 2006; Riolo, Cohen, & Axelrod, 2001). Indeed, the consistent cross-cultural emergence of an Antagonism/Agreeableness domain using natural language approaches (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Heaven, Connors, & Stones, 1994) suggests that Antagonism-related traits describe fundamental ways in which human beings think, feel, and relate to one another.

We have two goals for the remainder of the chapter. First, we review the role of Antagonism in personality, personality disorders, and general psychopathology. Second, we examine the role of Antagonism in various sorts of interpersonal problems. We seek to answer two questions. How ubiquitous is Antagonism in models of behavior? How important is it to outcomes we care about? Our answer to both questions is very.

Antagonism in basic models of personality

Antagonism/Agreeableness appears in all major models of personality. It has its most explicit representation in the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM) which was derived from studies of the English language undertaken to identify the domains of personality functioning most important in describing oneself and others (Digman, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992). This research was rooted in the lexical hypothesis which posits that most socially relevant and salient personality characteristics have been encoded in the natural language and that the representation in the language is reflective of their relevance and salience (e.g., Allport, 1937). This lexical research emphasized five broad personality domains, identified, in order of their relative linguistic representation from most to least, as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion entails an individual's proneness to positive emotions and degree of sociability. Agreeableness references an individual's interpersonal relationships and strategies; people high in Agreeableness tend to be trusting, straightforward, and empathic, whereas those who score low are manipulative, arrogant, and unconcerned about others. Conscientiousness deals with the control of impulses, and the ability to plan, organize, and complete behavioral tasks. The domain of Neuroticism includes emotional adjustment and emotional stability. The fifth domain, Openness, assesses an individual's interest in culture, and in experiencing and exploring new activities, ideas, and emotions. Each of these five broad domains can be further divided into finer-grained facets or components. Costa and McCrae (1995) proposed six facets within each domain on the basis of their research with the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). For example, they parse the domain of Agreeableness (vs Antagonism) into more specific facets of trust (vs suspicion), straightforwardness (vs deception), altruism (vs exploitation), compliance (vs aggression), modesty (vs arrogance), and tender-mindedness (vs tough-mindedness). Soto and John (2017) recently identified three facets under each of the five domains within the second version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-2). The facets underlying Antagonism/Agreeableness are compassion (e.g., is compassionate, has a soft heart), respectfulness (e.g., starts arguments with others), and trust (e.g., is suspicious of others’ intentions).

Antagonism/Agreeableness is also found in other major models of personality, often in combination with other basic dimensions. Eysenck's PEN model includes factors of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970): Neuroticism entails emotional stability and adjustment; Extraversion reflects traits related to sociability and agency; and Psychoticism encompasses egocentricity, (lack of) interpersonal warmth, (lack of) empathy, and impulsiveness. Within this model, Antagonism is combined with Conscientiousness in the Psychoticism factor (McCrae & Costa, 1985). The case is similar in Tellegen's (1985) model which also posits three basic dimensions: Positive Emotionality which refers to the tendency to be positively engaged with others and the world; Negative Emotionality which reflects an individual's tendency to experience negative emotions (e.g., fear, anxiety, and anger) and his or her tendency to break down under stress, and Constraint which assesses an individual's ability to control impulses, act deliberately, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and endorse traditional values and standards. In this model, the Negative Emotionality factor includes content from both Neuroticism (i.e., a subscale measuring stress reactivity) and Antagonism (i.e., subscales assessing aggression and alienation).

Watson, Clark, and Harkness (1994) have argued that these Big Three and Big Five models define a common ‘Big Four’ space in which (a) two traits are equivalent (Neuroticism and Extraversion), (b) the third Big Three dimension (Constraint or Psychoticism) represents some combination of two Big Five factors (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness), and (c) the final Big Five trait (Openness, or imagination) is excluded (p. 24). They label the Big Four as Neuroticism (or Negative Emotionality), Extraversion (or Positive Emotionality), Conscientiousness (or Constraint), and Agreeableness. The top half of Table 2 presents the correspondence among major dimensions of general personality functioning.

Table 2

a Assignments based on results from Brockleback, Pauls, Rockmore, and Bates (2015) and Gaughan, Miller, and Lynam (2012).

b Assignments based on results from Costa and McCrae (1995).

c Assignments based on Church (1994) and Gaughan, Miller, Pryor, and Lynam (2009).

d Assignments based on Markon et al. (2005) and Van den Broeck et al. (2014).

e Assignments based on Wright and Simms (2014).

f Assignments based on Markon et al. (2005).

More recently, a six-factor model of personality has been introduced that largely (but not identically) captures the FFM/Big Five and adds an additional Honesty-Humility factor that comprises traits of sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty (e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2008). This model and resultant scales (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2018) were created on the basis of data that suggest that this domain is sufficiently separable from the domain of Agreeableness in lexical analyses. We would note that measures of the FFM, typically from the NEO family of measures (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) contain this Honesty-Humility content to a much greater extent than do measures from the Big Five tradition (e.g., see Miller et al., 2011). Crowe and colleagues’ item-level analysis of existing Agreeableness measures included HEXACO items from Honesty-Humility but found little evidence that it formed a separate factor.

Antagonism is one of the major axes of the interpersonal circumplex

Researchers interested in interpersonal behaviors have identified two major dimensions that are useful in conceptualizing, organizing, and assessing interpersonal behavior—Agency and Communion. Agency is primarily concerned with becoming individuated and involves behaviors/traits such as dominance, status, control, and power (Gurtman, 2009). Communion is concerned with connecting with others and involves behaviors/traits such as love, friendliness, and affiliation (Gurtman, 2009). When crossed, these two dimensions yield an interpersonal circumplex on which any interpersonal behavior can be placed. High Communion (i.e., friendly) sits at 0 degrees, low Communion (i.e., hostile) sits at 180 degrees, high Agency (i.e., dominance) sits at 90 degrees, and low Agency (i.e., submission) sits at 270 degrees. Any interpersonal trait or behavior can be placed on this circle. Individuals who are both dominant and warm are placed at approximately 45 degrees. Much research suggests that the two interpersonal domains of the FFM, Extraversion and Agreeableness, represent slight (i.e., 30–45 degrees) rotations of the Agency and Communion dimensions (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1989). Within the Agency/Communion Circumplex, Agreeableness lies in the Warm Submission quadrant (at 330 degrees) with Antagonism in the Cold Dominant quadrant (at 150 degrees; see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Interpersonal circumplex with Agency, Communion, Extraversion, and Antagonism.

In a recent study examining the relations between psychopathy, a personality disorder with Antagonism at its core, and Communion–Hostility, Sherman and Lynam (2017) examined the relations among self-reported psychopathy, the interpersonal circumplex, the five-factor model, and a laboratory measure of social discounting. We found that psychopathy and Agreeableness were highly correlated with one another (r = − .75), with a measure of Communion (rs = − .68 and .79 for psychopathy and Agreeableness, respectively), and with the measure of social discounting (rs = .19 and − .28 for psychopathy and Agreeableness, respectively). The social discounting results were particularly interesting as they provided a behavioral measure of the relative importance of others. These results indicated that individuals high in psychopathy and Antagonism (i.e., low in Agreeableness) were less willing to give up money for others; this was especially true when the others involved were rated as interpersonally close compared to distant. That is, whereas individuals low in psychopathy and Antagonism are less willing to give up money for individuals as the interpersonal distance grows, individuals who are high in these traits show little willingness to forego money even when the individual is interpersonally close.

Antagonism in models of personality dysfunction

For a number of years, dimensional trait theorists and personality disorder researchers have sought to replace the existing categorical PD nosology with a more dimensional, trait-based approach. The categorical system has many flaws including high comorbidities, within-disorder heterogeneity, arbitrary boundaries, and no clear bridge to basic personality science (see Widiger & Trull, 2007 for a review); these problems do not exist for the dimensional system. Psychiatrists have been generally cool to this suggestion, and for years, a frequent rejoinder to the push for a more dimensional system was which one? In fact, the Chair of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 1994), Allen Frances, published an article titled Dimensional diagnosis of personality disorder – not whether but, when and which (Frances, 1993). It is now recognized, however, that, as is the case for models of general personality functioning, various trait models of personality pathology converge around a common, four-factor structure (Widiger, Livesley, & Clark, 2009). This structure includes an explicit dimension of Antagonism versus Agreeableness in addition to constructs that are very similar to three of the remaining four dimensions of the FFM: Extraversion versus Introversion/Detachment, Emotional Stability versus Neuroticism/Emotional Dysregulation, and Constraint/Conscientiousness versus Disinhibition.

There are four commonly used inventories for assessing pathological traits, the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP; Livesley, Jackson, & Schroeder, 1992), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012), Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder (CAT-PD; Simms et al., 2011), and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993). A number of studies (e.g., Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005; Van den Broeck et al., 2014; Wright & Simms, 2014) have examined these inventories in relation to one another and to the FFM. Results have been remarkably consistent; Antagonism versus Agreeableness appears in every system of pathological personality traits—as Antagonism in the PID-5 and CAT, Dissocial Behavior in the DAPP, and in multiple traits within the SNAP including Aggression and Manipulation. All systems also include a Detachment/Positive Emotionality dimension corresponding to Extraversion in the FFM, a Negative Affect/Emotion Dysregulation dimension that is similar to FFM Neuroticism, and a Disinhibition/Disconstraint dimension corresponding to FFM Conscientiousness. Less consistent across these models is the inclusion of an Oddity/Eccentricity dimension; this particular dimension, when it is present, is not particularly consistent with Openness in the FFM, which may be due to the inclusion of particularly heterogeneous content in the latter that includes both intelligence and apophenia—the latter of which is positively related to oddity while the former is negatively related (DeYoung, Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012). See Table 2 for the mapping of the dimensions from models of disordered personality on to the FFM.

Antagonism in hierarchical models of psychopathology

A number of structural studies of psychopathological constructs have been conducted in an effort to refine and organize clinical symptoms and syndromes. Factor-analytic work traditionally identified two broad dimensions (or spectra) of common mental disorders—internalizing and externalizing (e.g., Achenbach, 1991; Krueger & Markon, 2006). The internalizing spectrum encompasses depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, and eating disorders, whereas the externalizing spectrum consists of substance use disorder, antisocial behavior, aggression, and the disruptive behavior disorders (conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and ADHD). More recently, a third thought disorder spectrum has been identified (e.g., Kotov et al., 2011) which encompasses psychotic disorders, cluster A PDs, and bipolar I disorder. Within this three-factor structure, Antagonism does not emerge as a separable factor but, along with Disinhibition, comprises the higher order externalizing dimension, which is comprised of the strongest joint behavioral correlates of A and C—antisocial behavior, aggression, and drug use. Although some see Disinhibition as the core of the externalizing spectrum (Krueger, McGue, & Iacono, 2001; Venables & Patrick, 2012), empirical work demonstrates that indicators of Antagonism are as or more strongly related to externalizing than indicators of disinhibition. For example, correlations with total scores on the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory are stronger for MPQ indicators of Antagonism (i.e., r = .45 for higher order NEM, rs = .30 and .44 for lower order Alienation and Aggression) than for MPQ indictors of Conscientiousness (r = − .22 for higher order Constraint, rs = − .33, − .17, and .07 for lower order Control, Harm Avoidance, and Traditionalism; Venables & Patrick, 2012). Similar findings were observed by Tackett, Herzhoff, Reardon, De Clercq, and Sharp (2014) who modeled the externalizing spectrum using aggression, relational aggression, and rule breaking. These authors found that markers of Antagonism (rs = .72, .47, .66, .78, and .65 for irritable-aggressive, narcissistic, affective lability, resistance, and lack of empathy; average r = .66) were slightly more strongly related to externalizing scores than were markers of disinhibition (rs = .65, .72, .51, .55, and .62 for hyperactive, impulsivity, disorderliness, distraction, and risk taking; average r = .61).

When studies of structure began to include separate indicators of Antagonism and Disinhibition, not just joint behavioral indicators, via the inclusion of personality disorders and/or traits in larger quantitative models, separate dimensions of Antagonism and Disinhibition emerged (Kotov et al., 2011; Wright & Simms, 2014). A recent integration of research on the structure of psychopathology, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), explicitly includes Antagonism as one of its higher order spectra (Kotov et al., 2017). This model includes six levels arranged hierarchically with symptoms at the lowest level and an unspecified set of super-spectra that capture shared variance from the spectra at the next level below. Between symptoms and super-spectra lie components (e.g., symptom groupings and lower order maladaptive traits), syndromes/disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, conduct disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder), subfactors (e.g., fear, substance use, and antisocial behavior), and finally spectra. There are five core spectra and one provisional one (i.e., somatoform) in the HiTOP model. The five spectra are Internalizing, Thought Disorder, Detachment, Disinhibited Externalizing, and Antagonistic Externalizing. The levels below antagonistic externalizing include antisocial behavior (i.e., subfactor), antisocial PD, conduct disorder, and narcissistic PD.

Antagonism is important to multiple life outcomes

Antagonism is ubiquitous. It appears in all models of individual differences whether these models describe general personality functioning, more specific interpersonal functioning, personality pathology, or more general psychopathology. Not surprisingly, Antagonism is an important predictor of multiple negative outcomes, especially those dealing with harm to others which is not surprising given the interpersonal nature of the construct. To illustrate the importance of Antagonism, we searched the literature for meta-analyses of the relations between FFM domains and various outcomes. Effects sizes were examined to identify outcomes where Antagonism made a sizable contribution in order to ascertain the type of outcomes for which Antagonism is most important. We subjected the coefficients for the FFM domains for these outcomes to a relative importance analysis (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011). Such an analysis takes into account correlations among FFM domains in order to specify the relative importance of each domain in predicting the outcome, where relative importance is defined in terms of variance in the outcome attributable to each domain. The output is a series of weights that can be converted to proportions of the total variance accounted for by the set of predictors attributable to a given predictor. For example, the first row of Table 3 shows that the five domains accounted for a total of 26.3% of the variance in psychopathy in the Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, and De Clercq (2009) study (see last column). Of this 26.3% of the variance, Antagonism/Agreeableness accounted for over half of that (i.e., 54.6%). Because the intercorrelations among domains scores are a prerequisite for the analysis, we used the intercorrelations from a large meta-analysis by van der Linden, te Nijenhuis, and Bakker (2010).

Table 3

An examination of Table 3 reveals four major findings. First, Antagonism is a major contributor to what are typically referred to as externalizing behaviors—antisocial personalities (psychopathy and APD), substance use, aggression, and antisocial behavior. In terms of relative importance, Antagonism accounts for more of the explained variance than do the other four FFM domains combined for psychopathy, antisocial PD, and all forms of aggression and antisocial PD. Antagonism makes a sizable contribution to substance use on par with Neuroticism, but about half of the relative weight of Conscientiousness in these analyses. Second, Antagonism makes substantial contributions to relationship satisfaction; it is the second largest contributor behind Neuroticism. Third, and surprisingly, Antagonism is related to accident history, especially work-related accidents. Fourth, perhaps unsurprisingly given the positive relationship between victimizing and victimization, Antagonism is the second most important correlate of victimization behind Neuroticism. In general, Antagonism is related to important outcomes.

Antagonism is especially important for antisocial behavior (ASB) and related behaviors

As was seen in Table 3, Antagonism is particularly important for antisocial behavior and personality disorders associated with antisocial behavior, including psychopathy and narcissism. In fact, Antagonism is so central to the latter two PDs, that we have argued elsewhere that it is a necessary and near sufficient condition for both PDs (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2015; Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017). Because Antagonism is so central to these conditions, we spend additional time explicating these relations. More specifically, we review research that indicates Antagonism is the most robust correlate of all types of antisocial behavior, that it is the central feature of psychopathy that holds inventories together and accounts for most of the intercorrelations among inventories, and that it is the central feature of narcissism, serving to define the common space shared by the grandiose and vulnerable dimensions, and that it is the glue that binds together the Dark Triad (see Vize, Miller, & Lynam, in press, chap. 17).

Antisocial behavior. In a comprehensive meta-analytic investigation of the FFM and antisocial behavior, Vize, Collison, Miller, and Lynam (in press) examined the relations between each of the FFM domains and a variety of antisocial behavior outcomes ranging from nonviolent antisocial behavior to sexually based aggression. Vize, Collison, Miller, et al. (in press) incorporated previous meta-analytic data into their work in order to expand previous research that had only examined broad-based outcomes of antisocial and aggressive behavior (Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011; Miller & Lynam, 2001). By expanding the number of antisocial behaviors included in the meta-analysis, the study was able to examine whether or not differences among FFM relations with antisocial behaviors were dependent on the type of antisocial behavior under investigation. The sample size was extremely large for the broadest antisocial behavior (k = 120, n > 58,000) and aggression (k = 97, n > 33,000) outcomes; even the smallest specific types of aggression (i.e., physical, relational, reactive, proactive, verbal, and bullying), except for sexual aggression and child molestation, had at least 10 studies and over 3500 participants.

The results of the meta-analysis showed that Antagonism (i.e., low Agreeableness) was the most consistent correlate of various antisocial behaviors. Additionally, the effect sizes for (low) Agreeableness were consistently larger than effect sizes observed for the other FFM domains. When collapsing across all antisocial behaviors, the average effect size for Agreeableness (r = − .38) was largest, followed by Conscientiousness (r = − .22), and then Neuroticism (r = .15). Across outcomes, Neuroticism showed notable variability in effect size magnitude, due to its stronger relations with outcomes like relational and reactive aggression (rs of .28 and .32, respectively). Antagonism/Agreeableness did not show a similar pattern. It was as strongly related to relational and reactive aggression (rs of − .39) as it was to qualitatively different outcomes like proactive aggression (r = − .42) and nonviolent antisocial behavior (r = − .38). Taken together, these meta-analytic results suggest that traits related to Antagonism are the most robust correlates of a wide variety of antisocial behaviors. These results even hold when examining antisocial outcomes, namely, aggression, in tightly controlled laboratory studies; a recent meta-analysis revealed Antagonism was the strongest correlate of laboratory aggression paradigms (Hyatt, Zeichner, & Miller, 2018). Importantly, Antagonism-related constructs are the strongest predictors of lab aggression paradigms irrespective of the various scoring approaches that are used (Hyatt, Chester, Zeichner, & Miller, in