Beyond understanding one’s own personality, possible associated risk factors for burnout, and personality-based strategies to reduce that risk, it is critically important for individuals to attend to self-care. Self-care strategies are relatively easily implemented and are largely under the control of the individual. Such self-care strategies center on rest and relaxation, healthy diet, and regular exercise. We present and elaborate on a list of “Ten Pillars” of self-care, which include health literacy; mental well-being; physical activity; healthy eating; risk-avoidance or mitigation; good hygiene; rational and responsible use of products, services, diagnostics, and medicines; social self-care; emotional self-care; and a comprehensive workplace self-care strategy. Active self-care on the part of physicians and other healthcare providers can influence similar behaviors on the part of their coworkers. We emphasize that the self-care strategies we overview are largely under the control of the individual and are relatively easily implemented. They should be a primary focus of all healthcare providers.

The chapter considers gender and personality research within the dispositional paradigm. It provides a brief discussion of current research to demonstrate the largely Western focus on empirical research on gender differences in personality traits. The chapter draws on our own research with the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) in Chinese and non-Chinese samples, South African work on the etic NEO Personality Inventory - Revised (NEO-PI-R), and the development of the emic South African Personality Inventory (SAPI), and extraction of personality traits in the Arab Levant to present a more balanced picture of gender research in personality beyond the etic context. In so doing we illustrate the need for a more nuanced approach to understanding gender in personality psychology where gender is recognized alongside issues of culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. The chapter illustrates the value of incorporating intersectionality in understanding gender within the dispositional approach to personality.

This is a commentary on Miller and Widiger’s (this volume) excellent chapter on personality disorders from the perspective of five factor personality models. In this commentary, the author discusses several issues of importance as the field moves forward with respect to dimensional personality-based diagnosis of personality disorder, most of which center on clinical application. First, a question is posed as to what level of personality abstraction is necessary for optimal formulation of personality disorders; although most five-factor models are established at the domain level, proposed personality disorder trait profiles appear at a much narrower facet level for which less scholarly consensus exist. Moreover, the author calls for more research into determining at what threshold on various trait dimensions clinical dysfunction begins to emerge. He also notes that most assessment devices currently available for dimensional trait models do not meet the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, which needs to be rectified prior to clinical application. Such tests also need to include validity scales to assess for noncredible responding. Finally, the author recommends that proposed personality inventories for these dimensional personality models show incremental utility above and beyond already well-established clinical assessment instruments.

This chapter comments on the review of the Triarchic Psychopathy Model provided by Brislin and Patrick. The review provides an excellent discussion of the model, however, the author disagrees with several of its key tenets. First, the model places too much emphasis on boldness as a central feature. Boldness is too adaptive a trait to serve this function; its primary correlates are positive psychological adjustment and the traits associated with such adjustment (e.g., low neuroticism and high extraversion) and it shows little relation to other aspects of psychopathy or antisocial behavior. Second, the model de-emphasizes antisocial behavior—the defining feature of psychopathy in historical accounts (e.g., Cleckley, Lykken, Hare) and the outcome that has driven interest in psychopathy. Third, the model also de-emphasizes meanness which, in the form of Five-Factor Model antagonism, is central to all descriptions of psychopathy, shows the strongest correlation with psychopathy inventories, and serves as the glue that binds subscales within an inventory together. Throughout this commentary, the author discusses a variety of historical accounts and review empirical results in support of these criticisms.

This commentary on the chapter from Bach and Presnall-Shvorin (this volume) describes the use of the five-factor model (FFM) in treatment planning. Specifically, Bach and Presnall-Shvorin describe how knowledge of a patient’s personality profile can enhance the therapeutic alliance and assist in the selection of treatment components. Their focus is largely at the facet level of the five broad domains, resulting in a large number of intervention strategies necessary to provide adequate coverage for disorder-based sequelae of the FFM. Using neuroticism as an exemplar, this commentary focuses on how clinicians can streamline treatment by understanding functional processes that explain associations between FFM domains and their downstream disorder manifestations. This may allow for a limited number of treatment elements (i.e., five) that may be applicable to the broad range of psychopathology, perhaps increasing treatment efficiency and increasing the likelihood that empirically supported interventions are routinely employed.

In addressing questions posed by Marcus and Nagel, the authors call attention to the variegated nature of psychopathy, highlighting its symptom subdimensions and differing manifest expressions (variants/subtypes). They discuss how the constructs of the triarchic model can be viewed both as phenotypic characteristics and as biobehavioral dispositions, and consider how these alternative perspectives can be helpful for clarifying what psychopathy “is” and “how” it develops. In responding to Lynam, they consider the sources of his criticisms as well as their content – focusing in particular on his preference for the five-factor trait model (FFM) as a descriptive framework, and the priority he places on psychopathy in its aggressive-criminal form. The authors discuss how the triarchic model complements the FFM descriptive approach through its emphasis on biobehavioral systems/processes and its ability to account for other variants of psychopathy.