DSM5 Dimensional Trait Model and Five-Factor Models of General Personality
DSM5 Dimensional Trait Model and Five-Factor Models of General Personality
DSM5 Dimensional Trait Model and Five-Factor Models of General Personality
BRIEF REPORT
The current study tests empirically the relationship of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) with five-factor models
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of general personality. The DSM-5 maladaptive trait dimensional model proposal included 25 traits
organized within five broad domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition,
and psychoticism). Consistent with the authors of the proposal, it was predicted that negative affectivity
would align with five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism, detachment with FFM introversion, antagonism
with FFM antagonism, disinhibition with low FFM conscientiousness and, contrary to the proposal;
psychoticism would align with FFM openness. Three measures of alternative five-factor models of
general personality were administered to 445 undergraduates along with the Personality Inventory for
DSM-5. The results provided support for the hypothesis that all five domains of the DSM-5 dimensional
trait model are maladaptive variants of general personality structure, including the domain of
psychoticism.
The purpose of this study was to test empirically the relationship affectivity aligns with FFM neuroticism, detachment with intro-
of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth edition of the version, antagonism with antagonism, and disinhibition with low
American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statis- conscientiousness, but there is disagreement as to whether psy-
tical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; APA, 2011) with choticism aligns with FFM openness (Krueger et al., 2011). As
five-factor models of general personality. Proposed for DSM-5 was expressed at one point on the APA DSM-5 Web site, ‘“openness to
a five-domain model of maladaptive personality traits, consisting experience’ is a major domain of normal-range personality varia-
of negative affectivity, detachment, psychoticism, antagonism, and tion, but an extensive literature shows essentially no relationship
disinhibition (Krueger et al., 2011) that, in the end, was placed in between this domain and DSM–IV PDs” (APA, 2011).
Section 3 of DSM-5 for proposals needing further study. In the The relationship between FFM openness and the cognitive-
final posting on the DSM-5 Web site, it was stated that “the perceptual aberrations of schizotypal PD has been weakly to
proposed model represents an extension of the Five Factor Model inconsistently confirmed (e.g., Watson, Clark, & Chmielewski,
(FFM; Costa & Widiger, 2002) of personality that specifically 2008). However, a relationship of FFM openness with schizotypal
delineates and encompasses the more extreme and maladaptive traits has been reported in a number of studies (e.g., DeYoung,
personality variants” (APA, 2012, p. 7). Some researchers have
Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012; Kwapil, Barrantes-Vidal & Silvia,
long argued for an integration of the classification of personality
2008; Ross, Lutz, & Bailey, 2002) and it may also be more evident
disorder (PD) with dimensional trait models of general person-
when alternative measures of this domain are used (Haigler &
ality, as a fully integrative model of normal and abnormal
Widiger, 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2008).
personality could have a number of conceptual and empirical
There are other instruments, such as the HEXACO Personality
advantages (Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009).
Inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2004), the 5-Dimensional Personality
Nevertheless, there has been some disagreement as to the extent
of the alignment of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model proposal Test (5DPT; van Kampen, 2012), and the Inventory of Personal
with general personality. There is general agreement that negative Characteristics (IPC; Tellegen & Waller, 1987), that include do-
mains that correspond empirically and conceptually with FFM
openness. For example, the IPC includes a scale titled Conven-
tionality which Tellegen and colleagues indicate “corresponds to
the Big Five dimension of . . . (reversed) Openness” (Almagor,
This article was published Online First July 1, 2013.
Tellegen, & Waller, 1995, p. 301). Empirical support for this
Whitney L. Gore and Thomas A. Widiger, Department of Psychology,
University of Kentucky.
alignment is provided by McCrae and Costa (1995), Tellegen and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Whitney Waller (1987), and Durrett and Trull (2005); however, only weak
L. Gore, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, 111E Kastle support is provided by Simms (2007). The 5DPT scale, Absorp-
Hall, Lexington, KY 40506. E-mail: [email protected] tion, similarly aligns with FFM openness. van Kampen (2012)
816
DSM-5 DIMENSIONAL TRAIT MODEL 817
reported “convergent correlations between 5DPT A and the NEO- consists of 220 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (very
FFI and HEXACO-PI-R Openness to Experience scales” (p. 97). false or often false) to 3 (very true or often true). Coefficient
Most importantly, the authors of these instruments suggest that alphas ranged in the current study from .71 for Suspiciousness to
their respective “openness” scales are associated with oddity, .94 for Eccentricity, consistent with Krueger, Derringer, Markon,
peculiarity, eccentricity, and/or cognitive-perceptual aberrations Watson, and Skodol (2012), which ranged from .73 for Grandios-
(Almagor et al., 1995; Lee & Ashton, 2004; van Kampen, 2012). ity to .95 for Eccentricity.
The purpose of this study was to test empirically the relationship NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa &
of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model of maladaptive personality McCrae, 1992). The NEO PI-R is a measure of the FFM of
with dimensional trait models of general personality, including the personality and contains 240 items rated on a Likert scale ranging
FFM along with the 5DPT and the IPC. It was expected that the from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Coefficient alphas
PID-5 domains would align with the five-factor model of general ranged in the current study from .86 for Agreeableness to .91 for
personality as follows: Negative affectivity would align with neu- Conscientiousness, consistent with results reported in the test
roticism, antagonism with agreeableness, disinhibition with low manual, which ranged from .86 for Agreeableness to .92 for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 1
Exploratory Structural Equation Model of the Domain Scales of the NEO PI-R, the PID-5, the IPC, and the 5DPT
NEO Agreeableness ⴚ.93 .03 .06 .03 .00 .02 ⫺.01 .03 .20 .05
IPC Agreeability ⴚ.74 .03 .00 .03 .14 .04 .01 .03 .03 .04
DPT Insensitivity .63 .04 .20 .05 .05 .03 .07 .05 .05 .04
PID Antagonism .67 .04 .01 .03 .06 .04 ⫺.14 .05 .04 .04
NEO Neuroticism ⫺.05 .03 .83 .02 ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.09 .04 ⫺.06 .04
IPC Negative Emo. ⫺.02 .03 .86 .02 .01 .03 .05 .03 ⫺.01 .03
DPT Neuroticism .01 .02 .86 .02 ⫺.06 .03 .09 .03 .01 .03
PID Negative Aff. .07 .04 .72 .03 .08 .04 ⫺.09 .05 .00 .04
NEO Extraversion .03 .03 .01 .03 .86 .02 ⫺.03 .03 .03 .03
IPC Positive Emo. ⫺.23 .05 ⫺.02 .02 .80 .03 .01 .02 ⫺.02 .02
DPT Extraversion .04 .03 .03 .03 .85 .02 ⫺.03 .03 .03 .03
PID Detachment .28 .05 .30 .04 ⴚ.45 .04 ⫺.10 .05 .12 .04
NEO Conscient. .04 .02 ⫺.16 .05 .01 .02 .89 .03 .11 .04
IPC Dependability ⫺.09 .04 ⫺.10 .04 .10 .04 .71 .03 ⫺.05 .03
DPT Order .10 .05 .14 .05 .01 .02 .82 .03 .00 .02
PID Disinhibition .20 .05 ⫺.01 .01 .20 .04 ⴚ.74 .04 .08 .04
NEO Openness ⴚ.36 .06 ⫺.04 .02 .11 .05 .00 .01 .76 .04
IPC Conventional. ⫺.08 .05 .05 .03 .07 .04 .22 .06 ⴚ.62 .05
DPT Absorption ⫺.03 .02 .26 .05 .00 .02 .16 .06 .67 .05
PID Psychoticism .20 .06 .21 .04 ⫺.15 .05 ⫺.11 .06 .45 .05
Note. Factor loadings ⱖ |.30| are in boldface. NEO ⫽ NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992); NEO Conscient. ⫽ NEO
Conscientiousness; IPC ⫽ Inventory of Personal Characteristics-5 (Tellegen & Waller, 1987); IPC Negative Emo. ⫽ IPC Negative Emotionality;
IPC Positive Emo. ⫽ IPC Positive Emotionality; IPC Conventional. ⫽ IPC Conventionality; DPT ⫽ 5 Dimensional Personality Test (van Kampen, 2012);
PID ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (Krueger et al., 2011); PID Negative Aff. ⫽ PID Negative Affectivity.
DSM-5 DIMENSIONAL TRAIT MODEL 819
tained in prior research is the absence of much representation of separation of PID-5 from openness in a seven-factor solution.
maladaptive openness within the NEO PI-R. It is noteworthy that However, the findings of the current study are consistent with
the NEO PI-R Openness scale was originally constructed prior to other recent PID-5 studies. For example, Thomas et al. (in press)
any knowledge of Costa or McCrae of the lexical Big Five. Costa reported an exploratory factor analysis involving the PID-5 and the
and McCrae (1980) began with just a three-factor model, assessed Five Factor Model Rating Form (Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Sam-
by the NEO Inventory (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1983). They did not uel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006). They concluded that “the structure
conceptualize openness as having any maladaptive variant, con- of the DSM-5 personality traits corresponds to the structure of the
sidering it instead to concern such ideal personality traits as FFM” (Thomas et al., in press, p. 6), including an alignment of
self-actualization, an open mind, and self-realization (Coan, 1974; psychoticism with openness. The same finding and conclusion was
Rogers, 1961; Rokeach, 1960). Shortly after the development of reached by De Fruyt, De Clerq, De Bolle, Markon, and Krueger (in
the NEO Inventory, Costa and McCrae became aware of the Big press) in a joint factor analysis of the PID-5 with the NEO PI-R.
Five and they extended their instrument to include agreeableness Wright et al. (in press) likewise reported the results of an explor-
and conscientiousness. However, they did not revise their scales atory factor analysis confined to the PID-5 and concluded that “the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
assessing neuroticism, extraversion, or openness, and they subse- five-factor structure is easily recognizable and best interpreted as
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
quently acknowledged that FFM openness does not align as well maladaptive variants or pathological forms of the Big Five factors”
with the Big Five (McCrae, 1990). (p. 4). In sum, although the original and some recent presentations
It was partly for this reason that the current study included of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model proposal have emphasized a
alternative measures of this domain of personality, notably the lack of congruence of psychoticism with FFM openness (e.g.,
5DPT (van Kampen, 2012) and the IPC-5 (Tellegen & Waller, Clark & Krueger, 2010; Krueger et al., 2012, 2011), a shift might
1987), which include subscales and/or items that are more sugges- be occurring with respect to an understanding of PID-5 psychoti-
tive of unconventionality, eccentricity, and peculiarity hypothe- cism (De Fruyt et al., in press; Thomas et al., in press; Wright et
sized to be maladaptive variants of FFM openness (Widiger, al., in press).
2011). Nevertheless, although PID-5 Psychoticism loaded clearly
on the fifth factor, the magnitude was relatively lower than was
Limitations
obtained for the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC-5. This may reflect
that the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC-5 are all measures of general A strength of the current study was the inclusion of three
personality whereas the PID-5 is confined to abnormal personality. alternative measures of general personality functioning. Prior stud-
The PID-5 loaded as strongly as the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC-5 ies testing empirically the convergence of the PID-5 with general
on three of the other factors and in all three of these cases the items personality functioning have included only one such measure (e.g.,
within the general measures of personality are keyed largely in the De Fruyt et al., in press; Thomas et al., in press). Nevertheless,
same maladaptive direction as the PID-5. For example, over 80% concerns could be raised with respect to the choice of measures;
of the NEO PI-R items assessing neuroticism, antagonism, and low more specifically, that the 5DPT and IPC-5 are not actually direct
conscientiousness also concern maladaptive traits (Haigler & Wi- measures of the FFM as described by Costa and McCrae (1992).
diger, 2001), consistent with the focus of the PID-5. However, the authors of each instrument state explicitly that their
PID-5 Psychoticism though may indeed involve some psychotic respective domains do align with the FFM and some of the scales
symptomatology that lies outside of general personality structure. even share the same name with a respective NEO PI-R scale
Some of the PID-5 items do appear to be referring to overt (Almagor et al., 1995; van Kampen, 2012). Nevertheless, it would
psychotic symptoms (e.g., “Sometimes I feel ‘controlled’ by be useful for future studies to consider additional measures of the
thoughts that belong to someone else,” and “Sometimes I think FFM.
someone else is removing thoughts from my head”). Items that An additional potential limitation of the current study was the
suggest Schneiderian delusions (Schneider, 1959), such as thought sampling of an undergraduate student population. Prior research
control and thought broadcasting, are perhaps best understood as has indicated that the structure of the PID-5 is congruent across
part of a psychotic disorder rather than reflecting the magical clinically relevant (Krueger et al., 2012) and student samples
thinking and perceptual confusions that would be evident in per- (Wright et al., in press). Nevertheless, the bulk of the existing
sons who are just odd, peculiar, and/or eccentric in a schizotypic PID-5 research has been confined largely to college samples (e.g.,
manner (Kwapil & Barrantes-Vidal, 2012). Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, in press; Thomas
PID-5 Detachment also loaded relatively lower on the third et al., in press: Wright et al., in press) and it would be useful to
factor than the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC. This finding was extend this research into a clinical population wherein there would
unexpected, as there is no dispute that PID-5 Detachment aligns be an improved range of maladaptive personality functioning.
with FFM introversion (Krueger et al., 2011). It may reflect in part
that PID-5 Detachment includes the traits of depressivity and
Conclusions
suspiciousness that are placed within the domains of neuroticism
and antagonism (respectively) within the FFM. PID-5 Detachment In conclusion, the present findings support the hypothesis that
did obtain a secondary loading within the second factor, defined by the dimensional trait model proposed for DSM-5 is aligned with
the scales assessing neuroticism and negative affectivity, and a five-factor models of general personality. More generally, the
marginal secondary loading of .28 within the first factor, defined findings also support the hypothesis that PD traits are maladaptive
by the scales assessing antagonism. variants of FFM traits. The present study also connects the PID-5
In a joint factor analysis of the PID-5 with measures of disso- model with the broader nomological network of general personal-
ciation and the HEXACO-PI, Ashton et al. (2012) reported a ity research by examining how it relates to preexisting measures.
820 GORE AND WIDIGER
There are a number of evident advantages in having an inte- De Fruyt, F., De Clerq, B., De Bolle, M., Willie, B., Markon, K. E., &
grated model of normal and abnormal personality (Krueger & Krueger, R. F. (in press). General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor
Eaton, 2010; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009). Such a model can framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment.
provide a comprehensive description of a person, including both DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). From
madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domain as a paradoxical
normal and abnormal traits. In addition, the considerable breadth
simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63–78. doi:10.1016/j
of general personality research may help inform the understanding .jrp.2011.12.003
of personality disorder. Researchers are now focusing attention on Durrett, C., & Trull, T. (2005). An evaluation of evaluative personality
the development of new instruments that span the full range of terms: A comparison of the Big Seven and five-factor models in pre-
normal and abnormal personality functioning (e.g., De Clercq, De dicting psychpathology. Psychological Assessment, 17, 359 –368. doi:
Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006; Edmundson, Lynam, 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.359
Miller, Gore, & Widiger, 2011; Gore, Presnall, Lynam, Miller, & Edmundson, M., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Gore, W. L., & Widiger,
Widiger, 2012; Simms et al., 2011). T. A. (2011). A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits.
Assessment, 18, 321–334. doi:10.1177/1073191111408228
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Joint factors in self-reports and ality disorder: Introducing the CAT-PD project. Journal of Personality
ratings: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. Person- Assessment, 93, 380 –389. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.577475
ality and Individual Differences, 4, 245–255. doi:10.1016/0191- Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1987). Exploring personality through test
8869(83)90146-0 construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Ques-
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1995). Positive and negative valence within tionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Univer-
the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 443– sity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
460. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1026 Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., Markon,
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (in press). The convergent structure of DSM-5
Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated in- personality trait facets and Five-Factor Model trait domains. Assessment.
strument of the Five-Factor model. Assessment, 13, 119 –137. doi: van Kampen, D. (2012). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT):
10.1177/1073191106286748 Relationships with two lexically-based instruments and the validation of
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, the absorption scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 92–101.
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.627966
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures of per-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.