The Big Five Factors of Personality and Their

Relationship to Personality Disorders

Jamie A. Dyce
University of Alberta

Articles examining the relationship between the Big Five factors of per-
sonality and personality disorders (PDs) are reviewed. A survey of these
studies indicates that there is some agreement regarding the relationship
between the Big Five and PDs. However, the level of agreement varies and
may be a function of instrumentation, the method of report, or how data
have been analyzed. Future research should consider the role of peer-
ratings, examine the relationship between PDs and the first-order factors
of the Big Five, consider dimensions over and above the Big Five as pre-
dictors of PDs. 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 53: 587
593, 1997.

The third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III; American Psychiatric
Association, 1980), has stimulated the study of personality disorders (PDs).1 However, it has
become apparent that there are concerns about the classification of PDs. For example, numer-
ous studies indicate that interrater reliability for PDs is low (Oldham, 1987; Tyrer & Ferguson,
1987) and other investigators have questioned the validity of categorical classification (Marin,
Widiger, Frances, Goldsmith, & Kocsis, 1989; Tyrer, 1988; Widiger & Frances, 1985; Widiger
& Frances, 1994). Because of problems with the classification of PDs, researchers have pro-
posed alternative models. One model that has sustained a great deal of attention is the Big Five
factors of personality (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993). The purpose of this article is to exam-
ine the empirical research as it pertains to the Big Five and its relationship to DSM PDs 2 and to
offer suggestions for future research.

1
In this context, personality disorders (PDs) are characterized by traits that become inflexible and maladaptive.
2
In this context, DSM PDs consist of 10 categories (i.e., paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, narcissistic, antisocial,
borderline, histrionic, avoidant, dependent and compulsive). A variety of measures parallel DSM PDs. For example,
the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPersonality
Disorder Scales (MMPI-PD), as well as variety of structured interviews are similar to DSM PDs. There are other
conceptions of PDs (see Clark, Vorhies, & McEwen, 1994; Schroeder, Wormworth, & Livesley, 1994), but these
models fall outside the parameters of the present discussion.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 53(6), 587593 (1997)

1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0021-9762/97/060587-07
588 Journal of Clinical Psychology, October 1997

Table 1. Descriptions of the Big Five

Extraversion = extraverted, assertive, bold, active, spontaneous, vigorous

Agreeableness = warm, empathetic, courteous, generous, flexible, moral
Conscientiousness = orderly, efficient, precise, persistent, cautious, industrious
Neuroticism = anxious, uptight, nervous, guilt-prone, agitated, excitable
Openness = intellectual, deep, insightful, creative, curious, sophiticated, artitistic

Note.The above description of the Big Five is for explanatory purposes. A full description of
the Big Five would also include a listing of adjectives that are interstitial to the Big Five factors
(see Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992).

THE BIG FIVE

By definition, the Big Five or five-factor model 3 consists of five broad factors of personality
Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and Openness
to Experience (O)derived from the factor analyses of adjectives (see Table 1). Although
interest in the model is relatively recent, the fact of the matter is that the Big Five have been
identified for some time (see Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Research
indicates that the Big Five is robust across factor rotations (Goldberg, 1990) and comprehen-
sive (Conn & Ramanaiah, 1990; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1991;
Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1992; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). In addition, other inventories
may be subsumed within the Big Five (Costa, Busch, Zonderman, & McCrae, 1986; Costa &
McCrae, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Probably the strongest evidence for this model comes
from that fact the Big Five are found in variety of languages (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). At
minimum, research on the FFM has given us a useful set of broad dimensions that characterize
individual differences (Digman, 1990), p. 436).
Despite the enthusiasm for the Big Five, the model is not universally supported. For exam-
ple, Eysenck (1987, 1992) has consistently argued in favor of a three-dimensional model of
personality, Psychoticism (P), Extraversion-Introversion (E), and Neuroticism (N). However,
there is evidence that Eysencks P is a blend of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, while
Eysencks E and N are closely correlated with the Big Five factors of Extraversion and Neu-
roticism (McCrae & Costa, 1985). Eysencks model does not seem to provide an adequate
measure of Openness to Experience. Despite the fact that factor analyses has been used to
develop the Big Five and Eysencks P-E-N, two different interpretations of personality have
emerged. Although, it can be argued that in the case of the Big Five, factor analysis has been
used to suggest a theory rather than to test one (Eysenck, 1993, 1994).
Over and above the number of factors considered to be most basic, there are other criti-
cisms of the Big Five. For example, Mershon and Gorsuch (1988) have indirectly argued that
the Big Five are too broad to predict behavior in a useful way. Fortunately, there is one oper-
ationalized measure of the Big Five that is designed to assess higher-order and first-order
factors (i.e., NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992a). Epstein (1994) has argued that the Big Five
are useful for describing what people are like (structure) but not for how they operate (pro-
cess) (p. 120). However, it could be argued that the purpose of an instrument is to assist in
description while it is the clinicians purpose to explain how personality traits are related to real
life functioning. Finally, McAdams (1992) argues that the Big Five do not address core per-
sonality constructs beyond traits. This perspective is of course valid as there are many ways to
conceptualize personality.

3
For the purposes of this article, the terms Big Five and FFM (Five-Factor Model) will be used interchangeably. It will
be noted, however, that the Big Five represents a global term for personality models that consist of five factors. The
FFM is a specific type of Big Five.
 Big Five Factors 589

THE BIG FIVE AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS

Despite the limitations of the Big Five, it is interesting to consider its relationship to PDs.4 To
date a number of studies have examined this relationship (see Cloninger & Svrakic, 1994;
Coolidge et al., 1994; Costa & McCrae, 1990; Hyer et al., 1994; Lehne, 1994; Soldz, Budman,
Demby, & Merry, 1993; Trull, 1992; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989; Yeung, Lyons, Waternaux, Far-
aone, & Tsuang, 1993) and an entire book has been dedicated to this topic (see Costa & Widi-
ger, 1994). Based on the results from these studies it would seem that high N is the hallmark of
PDs in general. Histrionic and schizoid PDs are consistently associated with different ends of
the E continuum, while avoidant PD is a combination of low E and high N. High O is related to
the narcissistic and histrionic PDs while low O is associated with the schizoid PD. With the
exception of the dependent PD, many other PDs are associated with low A. Finally, compul-
sive, antisocial and borderline PDs are associated with C. In this case, compulsives tend to be
conscientious, while antisocial and borderline personalities are not.
On the other hand, a survey of the literature indicates a number of inconsistencies regard-
ing the relationship between the Big Five and PDs. For example, Widiger (1993) has found that
narcissistic and antisocial PDs have differential associations with N (i.e., high and low). One
possible explanation for discrepancies between studies may pertain to the use of different
personality measures. For example, Costa and McCrae (1990), Cloninger and Svrakic (1994),
Hyer et al. (1994), Lehne (1994), Trull (1992), and Wiggins and Pincus (1989) all used the
NEO-PI as the operationalized measure of the Big Five. The short version of the NEO-PI was
used by Yeung et al. (1993), and Soldz et al. (1993) used the 50-Bipolar Self-Rating Scales
(50-BSRS; Goldberg, 1992) as a Big Five measure. Similarly, a number of different measures
of PDs have been used. For example, the MMPI-PD (Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985),
MCMI-I (Millon, 1983), MCMI-II (Millon, 1987), Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-
Revised (PDQ-R; Hyler & Rieder, 1987) as well as the Structured Interview for DSM-III-R
Personality-Revised (SIDP-R; Pfohl, Blum, Zimmerman, & Stangl, 1989) have been used. A
second explanation for discrepancies between studies may be related to how data have been
analyzed as a variety of methods 5 have been used to study the relationship between the Big
Five and PDs. Finally, differences between studies may be a function of the type of population
studied. For example, Wiggins and Pincus (1989) used a student population, Coolidge et al.
(1994), Costa and McCrae (1990), and Yeung et al. (1993) used an adult population, Cloninger
and Svrakic (1994), Hyer et al. (1994), Lehne (1994), Trull (1992), Soldz et al. (1993) used a
clinical population. In sum, there are variety of reasons why results vary across studies.
Despite the limitations of previous studies, there are a number of ways in which research in
this area can be extended. One way is through the use of self- and peer-reports of personality.
To date, only Costa and McCrae (1990) have used peer-reports. However, the Costa and McCrae
(1990) study is limited because the MMPI-PD scales were used in their study. The problem
with the MMPI-PD scales is that they do not measure the total spectrum of personality (Costa
et al., 1986). Trull and McCrae (1994) comment that it would be wise to supplement self-
reports with ratings from knowledgeable informants (p. 68). Soldz et al. (1993) add that
patients with PDs would not necessarily agree with the external perceptions of others. In fact,
there is empirical data to support such a claim when psychiatric patients are studied (Sim &
Romney, 1990). Even in the study of nonclinical participants there is evidence that the corre-
lation between peer and self-ratings is less than perfect (Funder & Dobroth, 1987; McCrae &

4
The assumption in this context is that the Big Five represent the domain of personality. Also, it is assumed that PDs
are exaggerations of normal personality dimensions.
5
The methods of analyses include Pearson correlations, canonical correlations, joint factor analyses, and multiple
regression.
590 Journal of Clinical Psychology, October 1997

Costa, 1987; Shrauger & Schoneman, 1979). In sum, future work should attempt to clarify the
role differing perspectives play in the personality disorderBig Five relationship (Soldz et al.,
1993, p. 51).
The Big Five can be understood from a hierarchical perspective. The Big Five are consid-
ered to be higher-order factors while the smaller components of each factor are considered
first-order factors. For example, N is a higher-order factor that consists of the first-order factors
of anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsivity and vulnerability. Of the key
studies reviewed, only Hyer et al. (1994) and Wiggins and Pincus (1989) have examined the
relationship between PDs and the first-order factors of the Big Five. But the version of the Big
Five used in these studies (i.e., NEO-PI) only had first-order scales for N, E and O. In 1992,
Costa and McCrae released the NEO-PI-R and this instrument has first-order scales for all Big
Five factors. Because so many PDs are related to low A, it would be worthwhile to examine the
relationship between PDs and the first-order scales for A. In addition, it would be useful to
examine the relationship between PDs and the first-order scales for C.
The studies reviewed indicate that the Big Five account for a significant proportion of the
variance in PDs. However, it is possible that other nonpersonality factors are needed to
account for more of the variance. Cognitive distortions (McCrae, 1994), dysfunctional beliefs
(Beck & Freeman, 1990), personal evaluations (Tellegen, 1993), and psychometrically mea-
sured intelligence (as cited in Derksen, 1995) may be potential factors. Another possibility is
socially desirable responding. Paulhus (1990) has found that socially desirable responding
consists of two factors (Impression Management, Self-Deception Enhancement). Self-Decep-
tion enhancement (SDE), indexes the tendency to give honest but exaggerated positive reports
whereas Impression Management (IM), indexes purposeful attempts to impress others with
ones socially desirable qualities (p. 2). With respect to PDs, it is conceivable that SDE is a
factor for narcissistic PD whereas IM may be factor for compulsive PD. However, the ability of
socially desirable dimensions to predict a significant portion of the variance in PDs has not
been examined.
In sum, interest in the classification of PDs has increased over the last 15 years (Costa &
Widiger, 1994). However, it is clear that there are problems with the classification of DSM
PDs. For this reason, researchers have proposed alternative models (as cited in Dyce, 1994). Of
the available models, the Big Five has sustained a fair degree of recent empirical attention.
Although a few studies have considered the relationship between the Big Five and PDs, there
are a few issues that need to be addressed. For example, future research should: consider the
role of peer-ratings, examine the relationship between PDs and the first-order factors of the Big
Five, and consider dimensions over and above the Big Five as predictors of PDs. When these
suggestions are implemented, we will have a better answer to the question . . . What is the
relationship between PDs and the Big Five?

REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Beck, A.T., & Freeman, A. (1990). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. New York: Guilford.
Clark, L.A., Vorhies, L., & McEwen, J.L. (1994). Personality disorder symptomatology from the
five-factor model perspective. In P.T. Costa, T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the
five-factor model of personality (pp. 95116). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Cloninger, C.R., & Svrakic, D.M. (1994). Differentiating normal and deviant personality by the
seven-factor personality model. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal
personality (pp. 4064). New York: Springer.
 Big Five Factors 591

Coolidge, F.L., Becker, L.A., Dirito, D.C., Durham, R.L., Kinlaw, M.M., & Philbrick, P.B.
(1994). On the relationship of the five-factor personality model to personality disorders: Four reser-
vations. Psychological Reports, 75, 1121.
Conn, S.R., & Ramanaiah, N.V. (1990). Factor structure of the Comrey Personality Scales, the Per-
sonality Research Form-E, and the five-factor model. Psychological Reports, 67, 627632.
Costa, P.T., Busch, C.M., Zonderman, A.B., & McCrae, R.R. (1986). Correlations of MMPI factor
scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,
640650.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1988). From catalogue to classification: Murrays needs and the five-
factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 258265.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wigginss circumplex and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586595.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 362371.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992a). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-
factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992b). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to per-
sonality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343359.
Costa, P.T., & Widiger, T.A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Derksen, J. (1995). Personality disorders: Clinical and social perspectives. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 41, 417440.
Dyce, J.A. (1994). Personality Disorders: Alternatives to the official diagnostic system. Journal of Per-
sonality Disorders, 8, 7788.
Epstein, S. (1994). Trait theory as personality theory: Can a part be as great as the whole? Psychological
Inquiry, 5, 120124.
Eysenck, H.J. (1987). The definition of personality disorders and the criteria appropriate for their descrip-
tion. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 211219.
Eysenck, H.J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13,
667673.
Eysenck, H.J. (1993). Comment on Goldberg. American Psychologist, 48, 12991300.
Eysenck, H.J. (1994). Normal-abnormality and the three-factor model of personality. In S. Strack & M.
Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 325). New York: Springer.
Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329344.
Funder, D.C., & Dobroth, K.M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with inter-
judge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409418.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 12161229.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
2642.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 2634.
Hofstee, W.K., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L.R. (1992). Integration of the big-five and circumplex
approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146163.
Hyer, L., Brawell, L., Albrecht, B., Boyd, S., Boudewyns, P., & Talbert, S. (1994). Relationship
of NEO-PI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50, 699707.
592 Journal of Clinical Psychology, October 1997

Hyler, S.E., & Rieder, R.O. (1987). Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised (PDQ-R). New
York: Author.
Lehne, G.K. (1994). The NEO-PI and MCMI in the forensic evaluation of sex offenders. In P.T. Costa,
& T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 175188).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Marin, D.B., Widiger, T.A., Frances, A.J., Goldsmith, S., & Kocsis, J. (1989). Personality disorders:
Issues in assessment. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 25, 508514.
McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality,
60, 329361.
McCrae, R.R. (1994). Psychopathology from the perspective of the five-factor model. In S. Strack & M.
Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 2639). New York: Springer.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the
five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587597.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instru-
ments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 8190.
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in
factors increase predictability of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
675680.
Millon, T. (1983). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems.
Millon, T. (1987). Manual for the MCMI-II. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Morey, L.C., Waugh, M.H., & Blashfield, R.K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSM-III personality dis-
orders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245251.
Norman, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor struc-
ture in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574
583.
Oldham, J.M. (1987). DSM-III personality disorders: Assessment problems. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 1, 241247.
Paulhus, D.L. (1990). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Bal-
anced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia.
Pfohl, B., Blum, N., Zimmerman, M., & Stangl, D. (1989). Structured interview for DSM-III-R
personality: SIDP-R. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1991). Adjective Check List Scales and the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630637.
Piedmont, R.L., McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1992). An assessment of the Edwards Personal Pref-
erence Schedule from the perspective of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality Assessment,
58, 6778.
Schroeder, M.L., Wormworth, J.A., & Livesley, W.J. (1994). Dimensions of personality disorder and
the five-factor model of personality. In P.T. Costa, & T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and
the five-factor model of personality (pp. 117127). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation.
Shrauger, J.S., & Schoneman, T.J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of the self-concept: Through
the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549573.
Sim, J.P., & Romney, D.M. (1990). The relationship between a circumplex model of interpersonal
behaviors and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 329341.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation of personality disorders in
circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 5,
4152.
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder.
Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122130.
 Big Five Factors 593

Trapnell, P.D., & Wiggins, J.S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the
big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781790.
Trull, T.J. (1992). DSM-III-R personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: An empir-
ical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 3, 553560.
Trull, T.J., & McCrae, R.R. (1994). A five-factor perspective on personality disorder research. In P.T.
Costa, & T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp.
5971). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tupes, E.C., & Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. (USAF
ASD Technical Report, No. 61-97). Lackland Airforce Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
Tyrer, P. (1988). Whats wrong with DSM-III personality disorders? Journal of Personality Disorders, 2,
281291.
Tyrer, P., & Ferguson, B. (1987). Problems in the classification of personality disorders. Psychological
Medicine, 17, 1520.
Widiger, T.A. (1993). The DSM-III-R categorical personality disorder diagnoses: A critique and an
alternative. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 7590.
Widiger, T.A., & Frances, A. (1985). The DSM-III personality disorders: Perspectives from psychol-
ogy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 615623.
Widiger, T.A., & Frances, A. (1994). Toward a dimensional model for the personality disorders. In P.T.
Costa, & T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp.
1939). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, A.L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of person-
ality. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 305316.
Yeung, A.S., Lyons, M.J., Waternaux, C.M., & Faraone, S.V., & Tsuang, M.T. (1993). The
relationship between DSM-III personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Com-
prehensive Psychiatry, 34, 227234.