Dimensions and categories: the "big five" factors and the DSM personality disorders

The five-factor model of personality, which has been widely studied in personality psychology, has been hypothesized to have specific relevance for DSM-defined personality disorders. To evaluate hypothesized relationships of the five-factor model of personality to personality disorders, 144 patients with personality disorders (diagnosed via a structured interview) completed an inventory to assess the five-factor model. Results indicated that the majority of the personality disorders can be differentiated in theoretically predictable ways using the five-factor model of personality. However, while the personality disorders as a whole appear to be differentiable from normal personality functioning on the five factors, the patterns are quite similar across the disorders, a finding that may provide some insight into the general nature of personality pathology but may also suggest problems with discriminant validity. Third, it does not appear that considering disorders as special combinations of features (as might be expected in some categorical models) is more informative than considering them as the sum of certain features (as might be expected in a dimensional model).     

Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers

Two data sources--self-reports and peer ratings--and two instruments--adjective factors and questionnaire scales--were used to assess the five-factor model of personality. As in a previous study of self-reports (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), adjective factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness-antagonism, and conscientiousness-undirectedness were identified in an analysis of 738 peer ratings of 275 adult subjects. Intraclass correlations among raters, ranging from .30 to .65, and correlations between mean peer ratings and self-reports, from .25 to .62, showed substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors. Similar results were seen in analyses of scales from the NEO Personality Inventory. Items from the adjective factors were used as guides in a discussion of the nature of the five factors. These data reinforce recent appeals for the adoption of the five-factor model in personality research and assessment.     

Folk Concepts, Natural Language, and Psychological Constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor Model

ABSTRACT Both the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) and the five-factor model of personality have roots in folk concepts of personality. The present article offers a conceptual analysis of CPI scales in terms of the five-factor model. In the first study, judges rated the item content of CPI scales in terms of the five factors. In the second, CPI scales were correlated with the factors as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985b) in a sample of 348 men and women ages 19 to 92. Both studies showed meaningful links between CPI scales and four of the factors; Agreeableness appeared to be underrepresented in CPI scales. The utility of systematic rational item analysis in terms of the five factors and the evolving relation of folk concepts to psychological constructs are discussed.     

The representation of borderline,avoidant, obsessive-compulsive,and schizotypal personality disorders by the five-factor model

This study evaluated the accuracy of hypothesized relationships of the five-factor model of personality to four targeted personality disorders in a large multisite sample of patients. Data were gathered from 668 patients, who were assigned to one of five study cells: Borderline, Schizotypal, Avoidant, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, and a Major Depression without personality disorder comparison group. Patients were administered a questionnaire designed to assess the domains and facets of the five-factor model and results were compared among diagnostic groups and between patients and community norms. Although many relationships between personality traits and disorders were obtained, the magnitude of the relationships varied greatly as a function of the comparison group involved. In general, the differences between the personality disorder patients and community norms were far larger than the differences between the specific personality disorder groups. Also, for avoidant personality, it appeared that statistical interactions between personality factors are needed to better differentiate it from other personality disorder groups. The four personality disorder groups studied could each be distinguished from community norms on the personality dimensions of the five-factor model. However, differentiating among the four groups proved more difficult, as each shared the configuration of high Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness. It does not appear that these disorders represent extremes of different personality dimensions, but rather each appears to be a variant of the same extreme configuration. Differences between personality disorders may reflect diverse interactions among the dimensions, rather than differences on single dimensions.     

An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications

The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors; and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.     

Personality and intimate partner aggression in dating relationships: the role of the "Big Five"

Although personality is shown to predict negative relationship experiences, few researchers have used a structural model of personality to study the ways that personality contributes to intimate partner aggression (IPA). This study investigates the five-factor model of personality and its associations with both the use and receipt of psychological, physical, and sexual IPA in 179 men and 301 women. Each of the five factors of personality was associated with at least one type of IPA perpetration or victimization. The dimensions of neuroticism and agreeableness were the strongest predictors of IPA particularly for women. Results are discussed in terms of why personality should be considered as a predictor for both the use and receipt of IPA, why sex differences emerged, and future research that should be conducted.     

The Big-5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model

Despite the popularity and prevalence of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, numerous questions regarding its psychometric properties have yet to be investigated. One issue of particular concern is the underlying premise that these five personality factors are universally shared by all individuals. The present study examined the impact of cognitive complexity on the FFM by directly assessing whether individuals with higher or lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities comprised of a greater or lesser number of factors, respectively, than the five widely accepted factors outlined by the FFM. Results indicated that individuals with lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a three-factor model, whereas individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a seven-factor model. In light of these findings, the appropriateness of universally applying the FFM to individuals of differing levels of cognitive complexity is discussed.     

The Influence of Personality on the Decision to Cheat

Seventeen transgressive behaviors were studied in the context of six personality variables using survey methods. The personality variables were impulsivity, sensation seeking, empathetic perspective taking, guilt, and shame, with social desirability used as a control. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a five-factor model as having the best fit. Those five factors are competitive cheating, self-cheating, school cheating, relationship cheating, and breaking a social contract. A structural equation model indicated that only impulsivity, sensation seeking, and empathetic perspective taking were related to frequency of transgressive behaviors, thus supporting the hypothesis that moral decision making has a critical automatic component.     

Assessing the Five-Factor Model of Personality Description

Several approaches to assessing the dimensions of the five-factor model are reviewed and evaluated. The items in the assessment instrument may be adjectives or phrases, and the instrument itself may have been developed specifically to measure the five factors or may have been reinterpreted in terms of the five-factor model. Data are presented comparing an adjective-based measure of the model (Goldberg, 1990) with two phrase-based measures (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Hogan, 1986), and recommendations are made for the choice of an instrument in different research contexts. Allport's (1937) distinctions between the structure of the trait lexicon and the structure of personality in individuals are reiterated.     

The Big-5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model

Despite the popularity and prevalence of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, numerous questions regarding its psychometric properties have yet to be investigated. One issue of particular concern is the underlying premise that these five personality factors are universally shared by all individuals. The present study examined the impact of cognitive complexity on the FFM by directly assessing whether individuals with higher or lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities comprised of a greater or lesser number of factors, respectively, than the five widely accepted factors outlined by the FFM. Results indicated that individuals with lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a three-factor model, whereas individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a seven-factor model. In light of these findings, the appropriateness of universally applying the FFM to individuals of differing levels of cognitive complexity is discussed.     

Personality and Psychopathology: An Application of the Five-Factor Model

Our review is concerned with the relationship of the five-factor model of personality to psychopathology, focusing in particular on Axis II personality disorders and depression. The five factors provide a particularly compelling model for interpreting the Axis II personality disorders as maladaptive variants of normal personality traits. However, we also discuss methodological and conceptual limitations of this application. There has been little research on the relationship of Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness to Axis I mental disorders, but considerable attention has been given to Neuroticism and Extraversion. We focus in particular on the difficulty in distinguishing between the various ways in which personality can relate to depression, either as a predisposition to, a complication of, a pathoplastic effect upon, or a spectrum variant of the mental disorder. We conclude with recommendations for future research.     

An assessment of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule from the perspective of the five-factor model.

We examined the validity of need scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) by correlating them with a measure of the five basic factors of personality; we also considered test format as a possible source of invalidity. Three hundred thirty (223 women, 107 men) undergraduate students completed both the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)--a measure of the five factors--and one of two versions of the EPPS. Results show that both ipsative and normative versions of the EPPS could be meaningfully interpreted within the five-factor model, although the ipsative, forced-choice format of the standard EPPS apparently lowered validity coefficients and decreased convergent and discriminant validity. We argue that the five-factor model can provide a useful interpretive context for evaluating many clinical measures.     

A comparative study of the dimensions and facets of the five-factor model in the diagnosis of cases of personality disorder

Two national samples of psychologists (n = 92, n = 89) rated personality disorder cases using either the five factors (domains) or the 30 facets of the five-factor model (FFM) to examine reliability and clinical utility of the model when used as a diagnostic tool. The cases were prototypic and nonprototypic cases representing the three clusters of personality disorders in the DSM-IV. Although confidence was higher using the factors rather than the facets to rate the cases, interrater reliability was similar and the facets were rated more useful for professional communication, case conceptualization, and treatment. Mean ratings for the prototypic cases supported the theorized relationships between those personality disorders and the FFM. Principal components factor analysis of the facet ratings largely replicated the structure of the FFM with only a few facets failing to load with their superordinate dimension in the model. Implications for use of the FFM with personality disorder are discussed.     

Examination of Personality Characteristics in a Turkish Sample: Development of Basic Personality Traits Inventory

The aim of the present study was to test the cross-cultural validity of the five-factor nature of personality. For this aim, an indigenous, psychometrically strong instrument measuring the basic personality dimensions within Turkish culture and language was developed through three consecutive studies. The first study aimed to reveal the adjectives that have been most frequently used to define people in the Turkish culture. In the second study, factor analysis of these personality characteristics revealed big five personality factors, along with the sixth factor, which had been called as the Negative Valence factor. The adjectives that most strongly represented and differentiated each factor constituted 45-item “Basic Personality Traits Inventory”. Finally, in the third study, psychometric characteristics of the Basic Personality Traits Inventory were examined. Factor structure and psychometric properties of this instrument confirmed that five-factor nature of personality may not hold true in every culture.     

非言语五因素人格问卷(FF-NPQ):一种半投射式人格测验评介

非言语五因素人格问卷(FF-NPQ)由Paunonen等人于2001年开发,用于测查人格五因素。它是一种半投射式人格测验,由60幅黑白图片组成,被试用7点李克特量表评价图中中心人物的行为。FF-NPQ多用于跨文化研究,也可用于文盲、老人或有语言、阅读障碍人群的人格研究。多个国家研究表明,FF-NPQ的内部一致性信度、与多个言语式五因素人格问卷的会聚效度及对行为的预测效度,均达到了心理测量学要求。在中国,该测验尚未使用,建议引进并根据使用情况修订。     

Personality Resemblance Between Parents and Offspring: Study of Five Factors Across Four Samples and Questionnaires

The aim of this study was to compare personality resemblance in four independent Croatian samples using the same family study design, but different measures of five-factor personality traits. The family study design can provide evidence of familial aggregation of personality and of assortative mating. Father-mother correlations, father-offspring correlations, mother-offspring correlations and regressions of offspring on midparent score were computed for five broad personality domains in each sample. Father-mother correlations ranged between ?.12 and .27 across different samples and questionnaires, while father-offspring correlations ranged between .04 and .34, mother-offspring correlations between ?.01 and .28 and regressions of offspring on midparent scores between .05 and .35. These results are congruent with earlier findings of: (a) low assortative mating for personality, and (b) moderate familial aggregation of personality, which is lower compared to heritability estimates from earlier studies using twin design. Familial aggregation is mostly comparable in size across four different five-factor questionnaires suggesting that, from a behavior genetic perspective, conclusions on family resemblance should not differ depending on the five-factor personality questionnaire used.     

On the heritability of job satisfaction: the mediating role of personality

In this article the authors investigate the extent to which traits reflecting individual differences in personality and affectivity explain or mediate genetic influences on job satisfaction. Using estimates of the dispositional source of job satisfaction according to 2 dispositional frameworks--the five-factor model and positive affectivity-negative affectivity (PA-NA)--and behavioral-genetic estimates of the heritabilities of job satisfaction and the dispositional factors, the authors computed the proportion of genetic variance in job satisfaction that is explained by these trait frameworks. Results indicate that the affectivity model is a stronger mediator of genetic effects on job satisfaction than the five-factor model. PA and NA mediate about 45% of the genetic influences on job satisfaction, whereas the five-factor model mediates approximately 24% of these genetic effects.     

The five-factor model and its assessment in clinical settings.

Personality researchers have recently converged on the five-factor model as an adequate representation of the structure of personality traits. This article introduces the factors and the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), a questionnaire designed to measure the factors and some of the traits that define them. Data on the comprehensiveness of the model and on the reliability, validity, and stability of measures of the factors are reviewed, and correlations between scales from the NEO-PI and two instruments widely used in clinical practice (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI] and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory [MCMI]) are used to illustrate similarities and differences between normal and clinical assessment. Some issues regarding the clinical use of the five-factor model are discussed.     

Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory

Personality traits are organized hierarchically, with narrow, specific traits combining to define broad, global factors. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c) assesses personality at both levels, with six specific facet scales in each of five broad domains. This article describes conceptual issues in specifying facets of a domain and reports evidence on the validity of NEO-PI-R facet scales. Facet analysis-the interpretation of a scale in terms of the specific facets with which it correlates-is illustrated using alternative measures of the five-factor model and occupational scales. Finally, the hierarchical interpretation of personality profiles is discussed. Interpretation on the domain level yields a rapid understanding of the individual interpretation of specific facet scales gives a more detailed assessment.     

Clinical Use of the Five-Factor Model: An Introduction

In the past decade, clinical psychologists have developed a renewed appreciation of the value of assessment. At the same time, personality psychologists have come to agree on a fundamental taxonomy of personality traits, the five-factor model. Articles in this special series describe the model and its measurement and discuss applications in three different settings: general clinical practice, a sexual behaviors consultation unit, and a behavioral medicine clinic. This introduction raises questions about the use of personality profiles in psychodiagnosis, the range of applicability of the five-factor model, the utility of personality feedback in psychotherapy, the stability of personality scores among psychotherapy patients, and the feasibility of using personality scores to select optimal forms of treatment. This special series is intended to stimulate research on such topics.