European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.563

DSM-IV Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model

of Personality: A Multi-Method Examination of
Domain- and Facet-Level Predictions

R. MICHAEL BAGBY1*, PAUL T. COSTA, JR.2, THOMAS A. WIDIGER3,

ANDREW G. RYDER4 and MARGARITA MARSHALL5
1
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Canada
2
National Institute of Aging, USA
3
University of Kentucky, USA
4
Concordia University, Canada
5
McGill University, Canada

Abstract
The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of
repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its
flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of
personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five-Factor Model of
personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet
traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to
clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of
psychiatric patients (n ¼ 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of
the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as
measured by a semi-structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor
Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self-report questionnaire, the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). These results
provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured
by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and
scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a
way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the
limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders. Copyright # 2005
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: R. Michael Bagby, Ph.D., C. Psych., Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Clarke Site,
250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1R8. E-mail: michael_bagby@camh.net

Received 7 January 2005

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 30 March 2005
308 R. M. Bagby et al.

DSM-IV PERSONALITY DISORDERS AND THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF

PERSONALITY: A MULTI-METHOD TEST OF FACET-LEVEL PREDICTIONS

The publication of the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) in 1980 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1980) set forth
an innovative and influential formal classification system for the identification and
diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs). Although many specific modifications have been
made in subsequent editions of DSM, the basic structure and core features remain in the
most recent version—DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000). The influence of this system in psychiatry
and clinical psychology is profound, dominating the research discourse and shaping
clinical consciousness on personality psychopathology for 25 years. These disorders have
created a common language from which clinicians draw to communicate quickly
important clinical description—the words ‘Borderline’, ‘Narcissistic’, and ‘Antisocial’,
for example, connote readily recognized ‘patient types’.
It is perhaps this, by now, intuitive diagnostic and clinical template that has kept the
Axis II personality disorder system in place, despite repeated criticisms and substantial
empirical evidence documenting its flaws (see e.g. Livesley, 1998; Westen & Arkowitz-
Westen, 1998; Widiger & Frances, 2002). Such criticisms have focused on the difficulties
in discriminating various traits, low levels of clinician agreement, and high levels of
comorbidity (Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997). Other concerns relate to the clinical utility
of the PDs, the extent to which PDs accurately and thoroughly cover the domain of
personality psychopathology (Westen & Arkowitz-Westen, 1998), and even the very
notion of maintaining discrete PD categories (Livesley, 1991). These latter problems, in
particular, cast doubt on the capacity of the DSM PDs to be fixed by simply tinkering with
existing concepts (Bornstein, 2003; Ryder, Bagby, & Schuller, 2002).
Over the past 10 years, in response to these and other issues, many researchers have
developed alternative models to describe and classify personality psychopathology (see
e.g. Clark, 1990; Clark, McEwen, Collard, & Hickok, 1993; Cloninger, 1987; Cloninger,
Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993; Harkness, 1992; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995;
Livesley, 1991; Livesley, Jackson, & Schroeder, 1989, 1991; Westen & Shedler, 1999a,
1999b). Among these efforts has been the application of existing and well validated
models of general personality functioning to understand personality psychopathology.
Prominent, in this regard, is the Five-Factor Model of Personality (FFM) as conceptualized
by Costa and McCrae (1992). The FFM is composed of five broad trait domains—
Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C), and Agree-
ableness (A)—each of which contains six lower-order trait facets. The domains emerged,
initially, from factor analysis of adjectives found in different languages. This method of
inquiry is referred to as the lexical–semantic hypothesis and posits that the most socially
relevant and salient personality characteristics have become encoded in the natural
language (John & Srivastava, 1999). Using this method, the same five domains or factors
have been repeatedly extracted and replicated in samples across a variety of languages and
cultures (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Allik, 2002). Factor analytic investigations of
a variety of personality scales measuring traits not identified with the lexical approach
have typically uncovered the same five factors (see e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1997), further
substantiating the robustness of this model.
There are many aspects of the FFM that make it an appealing model for understanding
and conceptualizing personality pathology. Not only is the taxonomy widely used; each of
the five domains and 26 of the 30 personality traits facets are highly inheritable, with

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 309

additive genetic effects accounting for 25–65% of the reliable specific variance (Jang,
McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998). Moreover, a factor analytic
investigation using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa and
McCrae, 1992) in a diagnostically heterogeneous psychiatric sample revealed that the
same five factors extracted in non-patient samples could be recovered in patient samples
(Bagby et al., 1999).
In the current study we examine the relations between the FFM facets and DSM-IV PDs
using previously published hypothesized predictions as a theoretical basis for the current
hypotheses. Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (2002) updated a previous set of
predicted relations, which was based on the combined diagnostic criteria of the DSM-III-R
and the related literature for each PD (Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, & Costa, 1994)
using DSM-IV diagnostic criteria only, in order to tie them more specifically to DSM-IV
PD symptomatology. This recent prediction-set is thus based solely on the diagnostic
criterion sets for each of the disorders as specified in DSM-IV (see Appendix I). In contrast,
Lynam and Widiger (2001) expanded the predicted associations by obtaining FFM facet
descriptions of prototypic cases of each PD from 120 PD researchers. These FFM
descriptions are not confined to the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and provide appreciably
more comprehensive and thorough FFM descriptions of each PD (see Appendix II). For
example, the Antisocial PD researchers’ FFM description of prototypic cases of this PD
included low anxiousness, low self-consciousness, high assertiveness, and low modesty (in
addition to facets of low C and low A) and the Obsessive–Compulsive PD researchers
included low impulsiveness, low excitement-seeking, low openness to values and ideas,
high anxiousness, high self-discipline, and high competence. These are potential aspects
of the personality profiles of prototypic cases of these PDs that may not be adequately
represented by the existing DSM-IV diagnostic criterion sets.
Some investigators have examined the associations between the FFM trait domain and
facets and the PDs using theoretically driven a priori predictions (i.e. Bagby, Schuller,
Marshall, & Ryder, 2004; Dyce & O’Connor, 1998; Huprich, 2003; Trull, Widiger, &
Burr, 2001; Trull et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2002) and other studies have examined this
question using the full set of FFM facets (Axelrod, Widiger, Trull, & Corbitt, 1997;
Huprich, 2003; Miller, Pilkonis, & Morse, 2004; Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis, 2004;
Reynolds & Clark, 2001). The results of these studies suggested that a better test of the
hypothesized relationships between the FFM and PDs might be obtained when analyses
are conducted at the level of the 30 facets of the FFM rather than the broader five domains
of personality functioning. The current study goes beyond previously conducted research
by including two different methods for the assessment of the FFM, self-report, and semi-
structured interview. Although previous investigations have examined the relations
between DSM PDs and the FFM using either self-report or semi-structured interview when
assessing the domains and facets of the FFM, no study has used both in validation research
efforts. Multi-modal personality trait assessment offers clear advantages over mono-
method assessment (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
The current investigation examines the relations between the DSM-IV PDs and the FFM
in a sample of Canadian psychiatric patients using both the broad FFM trait domains and
two sets of specific FFM trait facets—those hypothesized by Widiger et al. (2002) to be
diagnostically prescriptive of individual PDs and those considered to be phenomen-
onologically prototypic of individual PDs (Lyman & Widiger, 2001; see Appendices I and
II for a full list of PD symptom-to-FFM trait predictions from which the hypotheses were
derived).

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
310 R. M. Bagby et al.

METHOD

Research participants
The sample consisted of 115 patients (53 men and 62 women) assessed at the Psycho-
logical Assessment Service at a large tertiary care, medical-school affiliated, psychiatric
facility located in a large metropolis. The mean age of this sample was 40.2 (SD ¼ 11.45).
The primary DSM-IV-based, Axis I diagnoses derived from the Structured Clinical
Interview for DSM-IV, Axis I Disorders—Patient version (SCID-I/P; First, Spitzer,
Gibbon, & Williams, 1995) consisted primarily of patients with mood and anxiety dis-
orders, but included some inpatients and some individuals with schizophrenia or substance
dependence.

Measures
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders Questionnaire
(SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997a, 1997b)
The SCID-II is designed to assess the Axis II personality disorders and is the companion to
the SCID-I/P. The standard and recommended procedure for administering the SCID-II
follows a two-tiered procedure. First, respondents complete a 119-item self-report
questionnaire (SCID-II/PQ, First et al., 1997b) using a Yes/No response format. The 119
questions correspond to the diagnostic criteria for the 10 different personality disorders in
the main text of DSM-IV and the two additional PDs listed in Appendix B of DSM-IV (the
additional PDs were not considered in the current study). After the respondents have
completed the questionnaire, the interviewer/examiner identifies those personality dis-
orders for which the respondent endorsed the minimum criteria required for a diagnosis,
according to DSM-IV criteria. We did not include interview data in the current study, as full
interview data for every PD was not obtained, depending instead on the results of the
questionnaire. However, we did examine the correlations between questionnaire and
interview across those instances were both instruments were administered, and found that
the two methods were highly correlated despite the restriction in range caused by this
approach (r ¼ 0.70, p < 0.01).
Following the methodology used in previous investigations (see e.g. Huprich, 2003),
composite scales for each disorder (i.e. SCID-II PD scores) were constructed by summing
the item scores. Such scores provide a systematic and comprehensive assessment of each
PD in contrast to the SCID-II interview procedure, which typically involves deriving
categorical ratings for a subset of disorders. A number of studies have shown the
dimensional self-report scales to have reasonable validity (Carey, 1994; Ekselius,
Lindstrom, von Knorring, Bodlund, & Kullgren, 1994; Huprich, 2003; Jacobsberg, Perry,
& Frances, 1995; Neal, Fox, Carrol, Holden, & Barnes, 1997). Although the self-report
portion of the SCID-II has a tendency to over-diagnose (Jacobsberg et al., 1995), it is
thought to be a useful source of information related to the symptom traits of the DSM-IV
personality disorders as reflected by the patients’ view of their typical manner of thinking,
feeling and relating to others (Carey, 1994).

Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)

The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was specifically designed to measure the Five-
Factor Model of personality and provides domain scores corresponding to N, E, O, A, and

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 311

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and scale reliabilities for the domain and facets of the SIFFM
and NEO PI-R
FFM domain and facets SIFFM NEO PI-R SIFFM/
NEO-PI-R
Mean SD
rm Mean SD
rm rtt

Neuroticism 21.03 10.11 0.90 0.26 66.99 12.89 0.94 0.24 0.60
N1 Anxiety 3.34 2.59 0.85 0.60 62.33 11.70 0.84 0.40 0.54
N2 Angry Hostility 3.03 2.50 0.77 0.46 58.58 12.94 0.85 0.41 0.62
N3 Depression 4.77 2.31 0.76 0.45 69.77 12.24 0.87 0.47 0.46
N4 Self-consciousness 4.19 2.58 0.79 0.48 61.70 13.01 0.78 0.30 0.54
N5 Impulsiveness 2.02 1.84 0.63 0.29 52.96 11.61 0.70 0.23 0.42
N6 Vulnerability 3.68 2.40 0.74 0.42 70.34 15.00 0.81 0.35 0.43
Extraversion 20.26 10.32 0.91 0.29 38.54 12.51 0.91 0.18 0.72
E1 Warmth 3.47 2.03 0.62 0.29 39.23 13.91 0.81 0.36 0.38
E2 Gregariousness 3.57 1.95 0.68 0.34 43.78 11.73 0.77 0.30 0.55
E3 Assertiveness 3.38 2.69 0.82 0.53 42.85 10.87 0.77 0.30 0.69
E4 Activity 3.82 2.40 0.75 0.43 42.99 11.27 0.70 0.23 0.54
E5 Excitement-seeking 2.88 2.05 0.68 0.37 47.74 9.87 0.61 0.18 0.45
E6 Positive emotions 4.14 2.46 0.73 0.40 35.41 14.52 0.84 0.40 0.64
Openness 23.61 6.65 0.80 0.14 52.25 12.77 0.91 0.17 0.76
O1 Fantasy 2.53 1.60 0.59 0.31 53.58 11.56 0.79 0.31 0.51
O2 Aesthetics 4.44 1.72 0.69 0.34 53.45 11.31 0.81 0.36 0.64
O3 Feelings 5.77 1.82 0.53 0.23 51.95 12.86 0.76 0.29 0.62
O4 Actions 2.69 1.84 0.68 0.35 45.85 10.41 0.53 0.13 0.51
O5 Ideas 3.86 1.89 0.62 0.29 50.34 13.12 0.87 0.44 0.65
O6 Values 4.32 1.65 0.45 0.15 52.33 10.23 0.68 0.22 0.51
Agreeableness 30.89 5.59 0.67 0.08 49.56 12.13 0.89 0.15 0.51
A1 Trust 4.63 1.67 0.45 0.18 41.17 14.49 0.87 0.47 0.51
A2 Straightforwardness 5.77 1.56 0.51 0.25 50.06 10.04 0.67 0.20 0.45
A3 Altruism 5.02 1.73 0.43 0.15 47.78 12.71 0.78 0.31 0.41
A4 Compliance 5.02 1.86 0.56 0.24 48.09 12.41 0.71 0.23 0.48
A5 Modesty 5.37 1.82 0.59 0.26 57.94 12.42 0.80 0.34 0.47
A6 Tender-mindedness 5.08 1.98 0.58 0.26 53.74 10.98 0.61 0.18 0.42
Conscientiousness 28.77 7.80 0.81 0.14 37.02 14.85 0.94 0.23 0.79
C1 Competence 5.21 2.05 0.51 0.21 36.87 15.20 0.76 0.30 0.50
C2 Order 3.63 2.10 0.65 0.29 42.06 13.24 0.76 0.29 0.73
C3 Dutifulness 5.48 1.23 0.06 0.03 41.00 12.75 0.70 0.22 0.27
C4 Achievement striving 4.10 1.86 0.50 0.20 39.77 15.22 0.82 0.36 0.68
C5 Self-discipline 4.77 2.42 0.69 0.35 33.13 15.34 0.87 0.46 0.67
C6 Deliberation 5.58 2.01 0.63 0.30 49.74 12.77 0.81 0.35 0.64
rm ¼ mean inter-item correlation;
¼ Cronbach’s alpha; rtt ¼ corresponding correlation between SIFFM and
NEO PI-R.

C. The NEO PI-R consists of 240 self-report items answered on a five-point scale, with
separate scales for each of the five domains. Each scale consists of six correlated facets or
subscales with eight items for a total of 48 items for each scale (for a list of the facets
within each domain, see Table 1).

Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM)

The SIFFM (Trull & Widiger, 1997) is a 120-item semi-structured interview that assesses
the five domains and 30 facets of the FFM. Answers to each SIFFM item (i.e. interview
questions) are scored 0 (absent), 1 (present and does not result in significant dysfunction),

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
312 R. M. Bagby et al.

or 2 (present and may result in significant dysfunction). Initial research with the SIFFM
indicates good-to-excellent internal consistency and test–retest reliability, and excellent
convergent and discriminant validity with the NEO PI-R (Trull & Widiger, 1997; Trull
et al., 1998).
Procedure
All patients were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis I
Disorders (Version 2.0/Patient Form) (SCID-I/P; First et al., 1995) and the SCID-II and
also completed the SIFFM and NEO PI-R. Advanced clinical psychology interns (n ¼ 5),
two M.A. level clinical psychologists, and a post-doctoral clinical fellow conducted the
interviews. Although inter-rater agreement was not formally determined, all interviewers
were trained extensively in the interview procedures and carefully observed and approved
by a Ph.D. level clinical psychologist prior to conducting any interview.
Although not the primary aim of the study, the first set of analyses examined the
psychometric properties of the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM and the correlations between
the domain and facets scales from these two instruments, as the validity and reliability
of the SIFFM has yet to be examined extensively, especially in clinical samples. Next, the
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First
et al., 1997a, 1997b) was also administered. The next set of analyses examined the
predicted relations between the facets of the FFM and the PDs using bivariate correlations
between PD symptom counts from the SCID-II and scores from the SIFFM and NEO PI-R.
Finally, a series of hierarchical, linear regression analyses were performed to assess which
of the hypothesized SIFFM and NEO PI-R traits were significant predictors of PDs.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and scale reliability estimates

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and estimates for scale homogeneity for
both the domain and facet scales for the NEO PI-R and SIFFM. T-scores derived from the
NEO PI-R normative sample (Costa & McCrae, 1992) with a mean of 50 and a standard
deviation of 10 were used to represent the NEO PI-R domain and facet scores. Raw scores
are presented for the SIFFM domain and facet scales, as normative data for this instrument
have not yet been provided. Scale homogeneity was estimated using both Cronbach’s
alpha and the mean inter-item correlation. Across the ten scales of the SCID-II, the mean
Cronbach alpha was 0.45 (range ¼ 0.26–0.70), and the average mean inter-item correlation
was 0.14 (range ¼ 0.07–0.18).
As displayed in Table 1, the scale elevations for this patient sample are similar to those
reported for other patient samples for both the NEO PI-R (see e.g. Bagby et al., 1997) and
the SIFFM (Trull & Widiger, 1997). For example, N scores are typically elevated in
psychiatric samples and the T-scores on this trait domain for the NEO PI-R were more than
one standard deviation above the norm. This corresponds to other results obtained with the
NEO PI-R in samples of diagnostically hetereogenous patients (Bagby et al., 1997). For
the SIFFM, the mean N score for the current sample was clearly elevated relative to the
mean score for the non-clinical samples and similar to the mean score reported for the
sample of clinical outpatients by Trull and Widiger (1997). Similarly, for both the NEO PI-
R and SIFFM, scores on the E domain were generally lower in the current patient sample
as compared with non-clinical participants.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 313

Estimates of scale homogeneity for both the domains and facets for the NEO PI-R and
SIFFM are also displayed in Table 1. Overall, these estimates are in the range indicating
acceptable scale homogeneity (Briggs & Cheek, 1986; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994),
although the alpha coefficient and mean inter-item correlation for the SIFFM A domain
scale were somewhat below the recommended standards. Some of the facet scores were
less than optimal, with one particularly outstanding example being the Dutifulness facet of
C for the SIFFM.
The SIFFM and NEO PI-R demonstrated good to excellent convergent validity for most
of their assessments of the domains and facets of the FFM. Convergent cross-method
validity coefficients for the domains of N, E, O, and C ranged from 0.74 to 0.82. The
convergent validity for the assessment of the domain of A, however, was 0.54, reflecting
perhaps the relatively low internal consistency obtained by the SIFFM assessment of this
domain. No off-diagonal coefficients exceeded an absolute value of 0.40, suggesting good
discriminant validity at the domain level. Convergent validity coefficients for the
assessment of facets of the FFM were also generally high; the lowest convergent
coefficients were found for the dutifulness facet of C and the altruism facet of A.
Examination of facet-level discriminant validity was beyond the scope of this paper, as
such investigation begins to explore the construct validity of the FFM, and not simply the
convergence of two methods of measuring this model.

Predicted associations—bivariate correlation

Table 2 displays the bivariate correlations of the domain and facet scores of the NEO PI-R
and SIFFM with the SCID-IIP PD scales, and includes the facet-level PD predictions. The
strongest facet to PD support emerged for four disorders: Schizoid, Schizotypal,
Borderline, and Avoidant. All of the facets of low E as assessed by the SIFFM cor-
related with the Schizoid PD. Only the facets of low warmth, low gregariousness, and low
positive emotionality were hypothesized by Widiger et al. (2002) to be included within the
DSM-IV criterion set for this PD, and correlations with these facets were obtained by both
the SIFFM and the NEO PI-R. The hypothesized relationships with low openness to
feelings and low openness to actions were also confirmed with both the NEO PI-R and
the SIFFM.
Low warmth, low gregariousness, and low positive emotionality were also predicted to
correlate with the Schizotypal PD and these predictions were confirmed with both the
SIFFM and NEO PI-R. Predicted correlations of the Schizotypal PD with the N facets of
anxiety and self-consciousness were also confirmed. However, the PD researchers
surveyed by Lynam and Widiger (2001) described the prototypic Schizotypal patient as
being high in openness to ideas, a hypothesis that was not confirmed. Widiger et al. (2002),
in contrast, predicted a correlation with openness to fantasy, a prediction that was
confirmed with both instruments.
Strong support was also obtained for the Borderline PD, confirming the predicted
correlations for the facets of N (i.e. angry hostility, anxiety, impulsiveness, vulnerability,
and depressiveness) with both the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM. The additional associations
with the facets of low openness to feelings and low deliberation were also confirmed with
both the SIFFM and NEO PI-R. Widiger et al. (2002) also predicted a relationship with the
antagonism facets of low trust and low compliance, and with the C facet of low
competence. All three were confirmed with the NEO PI-R; the negative correlations with
trust and competence were confirmed with the SIFFM.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Table 2. Zero-order correlations between the NEO PI-R and SIFFM facets and SCID-II Personality Disorder Scales
314

Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal Antisocial Borderline Histrionic Narcissistic Avoidant Dependent Obsessive-Compulsive

SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO
PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R
Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r

Neuroticism 53** 39** 18* 19* 51** 37** 16 10 66** 57** 01 09 38** 40** 57** 63** 38** 46** 24* 31**
N1: Anxiety 43** 33** 16 19* (H) H 44** 41** L 06 04 (H) H 50** 53**
03 02 22* 32** (H) H 49** 54** (H) H 40** 38** H 21* 22*
N2: Angry Hostility (H) H 46** 44** 16 15 27** 24** (H) H 17 22* (H) H 53** 55** 01 22* (H) H 38** 45** 18 32** 13 21* 28** 33**
N3: Depression 44** 31** 29** 16 40** 27** 08 00 (H) H 47** 38** (H)
16
04 13 22* (H) 49** 54** 32** 39** 13 28**
N4: Self-consciousness 28** 29** 10 10 (H) H 37** 31** L 05 04 39** 36** (H) L
06 03 (H) L 22* 27** (H) H 60** 59** (H) H 21* 33** 11 30**
N5: Impulsiveness 26** 22*
12 13 19* 13 H 28** 10 (H) H 44** 38** H 32** 14 49** 32** L 09 35** 34** 32** L 14 12
N6: Vulnerability 38** 19* 15 13 45** 31** 09 04 (H) H 48** 38** 04 05 24** 26** (H) H 51** 51** (H) H 25** 46** 14 15
R. M. Bagby et al.

Extraversion
28**
25**
46**
37**
35**
27** 08 07
22*
24** 37** 22*
04
08
60**
58**
19*
24* 04
11
E1: Warmth L
18*
28** (L) L
40**
32** (L) L
26**
27** 07
08
15
29** (H) 39** 11 L
01
24**
42**
40** (H)
08
12 05
18
E2: Gregariousness L
25**
19* (L) L
44**
33** (L) L
32**
28**
06 01
29**
29** (H) H 20* 12
15
11 (L) L
40**
50**
14
20
03
14
E3: Assertiveness
24**
24* L
33**
20*
33**
27** H 12 10
17
21* 17 03 H
05
04 (L) L
60**
56** (L) L
26**
34** (H)
04
05
E4: Activity
26**
12 L
36**
27**
20*
06 H 06 11
15
01 H 37** 27** 02 07
45**
30**
14
08 08 06

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E5: Excitement-seeking
08 07 L
20*
07
13 03 (H) H 10 20* 04 07 (H) H 32** 24* H 13 11 (L) L
33**
22*
08
07 L 18
02
E6: Positive emotions
25**
28** (L) L
37**
35** (L) L
32**
26** 04
01
28**
26** (H) H 28** 18
12
11 L
47**
48**
13
20* (L)
04
13
Openness 22* 08
13
24* 14 05 22* 12 32** 19* 27** 24* 24* 19*
02
09 15 00 26** 15
O1: Fantasy 24* 23* 04 00 (H) 52** 35** 20* 15 32** 38** (H) H 21* 25** (H) 28** 41** 14 21* 27** 25** 19* 24*
O2: Aesthetics 04 02
14
16
10
02 07 04 14 11 27** 20* 13 18
03 00 16 08 14 11
O3: Feelings 16 09 (L) L
19*
35** 08 10
07
02 H 24* 20* (H) H 15 19* L 14 09 16
02 20* 12 L 30** 16
O4: Actions L 21*
07 L
10
16 (H)
11
11 H 25** 00 H 21*
02 H 18 13 H 11
02 L
22*
36**
07
31** L 10
02
O5: Ideas 12
01
04
18 (H) H 08
05 23* 17 15 02 01 09 17 05
01
19* 01
10 L 18 12
O6: Values L 06 03
06
19* 10
13 14 11 17 06 23* 15 05 04
13
10 02
13 (L) L 05
03
Agreeableness
06
39**
10
15 04
30**
15
29**
08
38**
06
16
29**
48** 05
24** 12
07
09
25**
A1: Trust (L) L
45**
50**
25**
15 (L)
27**
39** L
06
12 (L)
28**
40** (H) H 13
04 L
34**
36**
38**
45** (H) H
21*
25**
17
24*
A2: Straightforwardness (L) L 04
25**
16
22*
15
20* (L) L
10
14
15
26**
12
06 L
20*
37**
20*
24**
02
08
02
08
A3: Altruism L 01
23*
06
17
07
22* (L) L 01
22*
06
34** 01
04 (L) L
14
30**
08
22* (H) 02
13 12
08
A4: Compliance (L) L
01
29** 06
06 12
11 (L) L
22*
30** (L)
08
39**
08
12 L
11
31** 27**
06 (H) H 17
02 (L) 04
20*
A5: Modesty 26** 01 22* 08 22*
07 L
06
18* 18 05
26**
29** (L) L
07
32** H 45** 16 (H) H 14 13
04
16
A6: Tender- L
05
17
16
11 19*
09 (L) L
04
18 09
07 13
05 (L) L
10
21* 01
06 22* 14
21*
24*
mindedness
Conscientiousness
25**
24*
32**
23*
27**
26**
12
14
34**
37**
06
10
32**
33**
34**
46**
27**
42** 11 01
C1: Competence
28**
15
31**
17
34**
27** 04
12 (L)
28**
36**
01
02
27**
19*
36**
36**
21*
33** (H) H 10 13
C2: Order
07
08
23*
22* L
17
14 04 06
06
16 00
05
16
22*
13
27**
10
22* (H) H 05
02
C3: Dutifulness
06
25** 03
20* 02
23* (L) L
12
19*
12
31**
16
19*
08
34**
01
34** 07
34** (H) H 16 03
C4: Achievement-
20*
22*
26**
27**
34**
22*
06
07
32**
22*
02 01 (H)
16
17
36**
45**
35**
37** (H) H 06 15
striving
C5: Self-discipline
18
15
26**
16
19*
19* (L) L
08 03
24*
22* L 04 00
20*
20*
36**
42**
28**
35** H 00
13
C6: Deliberation
19*
27**
13
05 02
15 (L) L
33**
38** L
29**
50** L
15
25**
35**
45**
04
29**
10
35** H 11
12

Pred. ¼ Five Factor Model facet traits predicted to be associated with DSM-IV PDs. L ¼ low score on facet and H ¼ high score on facet. Parenthesized letters refer to Widiger et al.
(2002) diagnostic based prediction and non-parenthesized letters refer to Lynam & Widiger (2001) expert-based consensus predictions. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)

 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 315

Comparable support was obtained for the hypothesized relationships with the Avoidant
PD. All of the predicted associations with the four facets of low E were confirmed with
both the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM (i.e. low gregariousness, low assertiveness and low
excitement-seeking), as were the predicted associations with low openness to actions and
high modesty. Three of the N facet predictions were confirmed with both the SIFFM and
the NEO PI-R (i.e. self-consciousness, anxiousness, and vulnerability). The researchers’
description of the prototypic Avoidant as being low in impulsiveness was not confirmed,
but the prediction by Widiger et al. (2002) of an association with depressiveness was
demonstrated using both assessment instruments.
The two sets of facet predictions obtained more modest support in four further PDs. Low
trust, angry hostility, low straightforwardness, and low compliance are FFM facets that are
perhaps particularly important for the FFM conceptualization of the Paranoid PD (Widiger
et al., 2002) and all four of these predicted associations were confirmed by the NEO PI-R,
as were the researchers’ additional descriptions of low warmth, low gregariousness, low
altruism, and low tender-mindedness. The predictions for low openness to activities and
low openness to values were not confirmed with either the NEO PI-R or the SIFFM,
suggesting that these FFM facets are not in fact central to the psychopathology of this PD.
Most of the facet predictions for the Narcissistic PD were also confirmed with the NEO PI-
R, notably low modesty, low altruism, high openness to fantasy, and angry hostility.
Confirmed for the Antisocial PD were the predicted association with facets of antagonism
(i.e. the exploitation of low altruism and the aggression and opposition of low compliance)
and low C (low dutifulness and low deliberation), along with the N facet of angry hostility.
The Histrionic PD is conceptualized by the FFM primarily in terms of E (Millon et al.,
1994; Widiger et al., 2002). Predicted correlations were obtained for the E facets of
warmth, gregariousness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotionality, as well as
for the facet of openness to fantasy.
Weak results, however, were obtained for two PDs: Dependent and Obsessive–
Compulsive. From the perspective of the FFM, the Dependent PD is defined to a great
extent in terms of maladaptively excessive A and the Obsessive–Compulsive PD is defined
by maladaptively excessive C (Widiger et al., 2002). However, none of the facets of A
correlated positively with Dependent PD symptomatology and none of the facets of C
correlated with Obsessive–Compulsive PD.
Regression analyses—domain level
Table 3 provides the results from regression analyses using the NEO PI-R and SIFFM
domain scores as the predictor variables and the SCID-II for each of the 10 criterion
variables. The domain scores of both the NEO PI-R and SIFFM were statistically
significant predictors for each of the ten DSM-IV PDs, suggesting that traits derived from
the realm of general personality can account for much of the variance associated with
DSM-IV personality psychopathology. At the domain level, both the NEO PI-R and the
SIFFM were particularly effective in predicting symptom counts associated with
Borderline, Narcissistic, and Avoidant PDs. On the other hand, both instruments were
poorer predictors of Antisocial PD traits.
The NEO PI-R and SIFFM performed remarkably similar to one another in the
prediction of PD psychopathology, with neither instrument or method conferring a clear
predictive advantage over the other. In combination, the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM always
yielded higher effect sizes than either single instrument, although the differences between
the mean R2 values did not attain statistical significance (i.e. using Fisher’s Z-tests).

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
316 R. M. Bagby et al.

Table 3. Hierarchical regression predicting SCID-II Personality Disorder Symptom Counts with
SIFFM and NEO PI-R domain scores
Predictions

SCID-II PD SIFFM NEO PI-R SIFFM/NEO PI-R

scales domains domains combined domains

R2 F(5, 114) R2 F(5, 114) R2 F(10, 114)

Paranoid 0.31 9.95*** 0.23 6.35** 0.37 6.16**

Schizoid 0.25 7.28*** 0.16 4.05** 0.28 3.95**
Schizotypal 0.28 8.67*** 0.17 4.42** 0.32 4.84**
Antisocial 0.11 2.66* 0.12 3.02* 0.16 1.96*
Borderline 0.52 23.22** 0.38 13.18** 0.56 13.16**
Histrionic 0.24 6.78*** 0.16 4.27** 0.26 3.70**
Narcissistic 0.33 10.74** 0.35 11.60** 0.40 6.92**
Avoidant 0.46 18.82** 0.46 18.83** 0.56 13.50**
Dependent 0.20 5.35** 0.28 8.44** 0.33 5.19**
Obsessive–Compulsive 0.14 3.69** 0.20 5.54** 0.24 3.34**
Mean R2 0.28 0.25 0.35
Range of Scores 0.11–0.52 0.12–0.46 0.16–0.56
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Regression analyses—facet level

Tables 4 and 5 display the results from the regression analyses using the SIFFM and NEO
PI-R facet scales as the predictor variables. Table 4 provides results from the
diagnostically based facet predictors proposed by Widiger et al. (2002) and Table 5
provides the results from the facet descriptions for each PD based on expert consensus
(Lynam and Widiger, 2001). For both sets of predictors, the facets hypothesized to be
associated with each of the PDs were entered as a block.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression predicting SCID-II Personality Disorder Symptom Counts with
Widiger et al. (2002) predicted facets of the SIFFM and NEO PI-R
Predictions

SCID-II PD SIFFM NEO PI-R SIFFM/NEO PI-R

scales facets facets combined facets

R2 F df R2 F df R2 F df

Paranoid 0.34 14.40** 4, 110 0.29 11.36** 4, 110 0.41 9.23** 8, 106
Schizoid 0.28 10.78** 4, 110 0.24 8.68** 4, 110 0.33 6.57** 8, 106
Schizotypal 0.44 9.35** 9, 105 0.30 4.88** 9, 105 0.50 5.32** 18, 96
Antisocial 0.18 2.49* 9, 105 0.24 3.61** 9, 105 0.28 2.12* 18, 96
Borderline 0.48 12.37** 8, 106 0.46 11.30** 8, 106 0.60 9.28** 16, 98
Histrionic 0.22 3.30** 9, 105 0.13 1.71 9, 105 0.28 2.02* 18, 96
Narcissistic 0.26 5.36** 7, 107 0.38 9.20** 7, 107 0.43 5.43** 14, 100
Avoidant 0.55 18.87** 7, 107 0.50 15.50** 7, 107 0.62 11.80** 14, 100
Dependent 0.20 2.88** 9, 105 0.20 2.88** 9, 105 0.35 2.91** 18, 96
Obsessive–Compulsive 0.05 0.78 7, 107 0.11 1.94 7, 107 0.17 1.47 14, 100
Mean R2 0.30 0.28 0.42
Range 0.05–0.55 0.11–0.50 0.17–0.62

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 317

Table 5. Hierarchical regression predicting SCID-II Personality Disorder Symptom Counts with
Lynam and Widiger (2001) predicted facets of the SIFFM and NEO PI-R
Predictions

SCID-II PD SIFFM NEO PI-R SIFFM/NEO PI-R

Scales facets facets combined facets

R2 F df R2 F df R2 F df

Paranoid 0.38 6.28** 10, 104 0.31 4.70** 10, 104 0.48 4.40** 20, 94
Schizoid 0.30 5.76** 8, 106 0.28 5.24** 8, 106 0.39 3.88** 16, 98
Schizotypal 0.28 5.94** 7, 107 0.20 3.75** 7, 107 0.32 3.36** 14, 100
Antisocial 0.22 1.66 17, 97 0.27 2.16** 17, 97 0.36 1.30 34, 80
Borderline 0.52 14.67** 8, 106 0.51 13.99** 8, 106 0.64 11.03** 16, 98
Histrionic 0.30 3.63** 12, 102 0.20 2.09* 12, 102 0.35 2.01** 24, 90
Narcissistic 0.30 3.33** 13, 101 0.35 4.14** 13, 101 0.42 2.41** 26, 88
Avoidant 0.57 13.63** 10, 104 0.54 12.00** 10, 104 0.66 9.21** 20, 94
Dependent 0.19 3.62** 7, 107 0.24 4.75** 7, 107 0.32 3.40** 14, 100
Obsessive–Compulsive 0.24 2.51** 13, 101 0.26 2.79** 13, 101 0.37 2.00** 26, 88
Mean R2 0.33 0.31 0.43
Range of scores 0.19–0.57 0.20–0.54 0.32–0.66

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Facet-to-domain comparison
It is evident from Tables 4 and 5 that the proportion of variance accounted for by the FFM
instruments was generally higher when the analyses used the facets rather than the domain
scales. The domains never accounted for more variance than did the facets in the
prediction of individual PDs.
Method comparison
Overall, the R2 values for the NEO PI-R and SIFFM facets were largely the same as they
were at the broader domain level. Across the individual PDs, regardless of the prediction-
set used, neither instrument was consistently better than the other. Notably, on the 26
occasions when an a priori prediction was supported by only one instrument, that
instrument was the NEO PI-R in 73% of the cases. This finding is attributable, at least in
part, to some shared method between the SCID-II and the NEO PI-R. As with the domains,
multimethod assessment yielded higher effect sizes although again these differences
generally did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance.
Facet prediction-set comparison
Examination of the combined SIFFM and NEO PI-R trait facet predictors in comparison of
the Widiger et al. (2002) and Lynam and Widiger (2001) predictors also reveals that each
set of predictor traits performed about the same in assessing PD symptoms. Finally, for the
56 agreed upon by both sets of authors, 52% were confirmed by both instruments;
however, one-quarter of these theoretically more robust predictions were not confirmed by
either instrument.

DISCUSSION

The DSM-IV PDs are the result of a rich history of clinical experience and clinical theory
(Millon et al., 1994). A commonly raised criticism, however, is that the diagnoses have

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
318 R. M. Bagby et al.

been drawn from a diverse array of theoretical perspectives, ‘including classical

phenomenology, classical psychoanalytic theory, self-psychology, object-relations theory,
and social learning concepts’ (Livesley, 1995). The PDs included within DSM-III were
intended to provide an atheoretical representation of clinical experience, but instead ‘one
can identify a potpourri of diverse theoretical biases that influenced the formulation of
Axis II’ (Frances & Widiger, 1986, p. 382). There has since been a repeated call for a
unifying conceptual framework (Livesley, 1995; Millon et al., 1994), which as noted
earlier has often been a call for a dimensional model. One prime candidate for such a
model is the FFM, which has the potential to address both the conceptual disunity and the
empirical concerns surrounding the current PD categories.
The FFM has been successful in providing a reasonably compelling conceptual model
for the integration of the wide array of personality constructs studied in children (Shiner,
1998), normal adults (McCrae & Costa, 1999), and the elderly (Costa & McCrae, 1994).
‘One of the apparent strengths of the Big Five taxonomy is that it can capture, at a broad
level of abstraction, the commonalities among most of the existing systems of personality
traits, thus providing an integrative descriptive model for research’ (John & Srivastava,
1999, p. 122). The results of the current study provide further support for the potential
ability of the FFM to provide a unifying, integrative model—one that includes the
conceptualization of the PDs within DSM-IV while also having the capacity to transcend
the limitations of this system.
The current study also adds to the evidence that the proper implementation of the FFM
for the study of PDs is the full model, working primarily at the level of the facets.
Assessment at that level generally accounted for more variance in PD symptomatology
than did assessment confined to the domains of the FFM. It is therefore unfortunate that
most of the prior work in this area has been confined to the five broad domains (e.g. Blais,
1997; Hyer et al., 1994; Morey, Gunderson, Quigley, & Lyons, 2000). Only a few, more
recent, studies have explored the relation of the FFM to PDs at the level of the more
specific facets (Axelrod et al., 1997; Dyce & O’Connor, 1998; Huprich, 2003; Miller et al.,
2004a, 2004b; Reynolds & Clark, 2001). One reason for the relative neglect of the facet
level is the increased complexity created by having to consider 30 variables as opposed to
five. In this light, the predictive hypotheses developed by Widiger et al. (2002) and Lynam
and Widiger (2001) have provided a theoretical starting point for researchers in the area,
encouraging them to work with the full FFM. Indeed, a priori theoretical predictions are
more likely to be confirmed at the facet level, as the symptoms and features of the 10 DSM-
IV PDs are not specified at the broad level of description provided by the FFM domains.
Some of the diagnostic criteria are even more specific and narrow in their level of
description than the facets of the FFM. Convergence is perhaps most likely to be obtained
when the constructs are at comparable levels of abstraction (Reynolds & Clark, 2001).
General support for the FFM conceptualization of the DSM-IV PDs (i.e. all six
regression equations calculated for a given PD, as shown in Tables 4 and 5, were
statistically significant) was obtained for the Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal, Borderline,
Narcissistic, Dependent, and Avoidant PDs. Weaker support was obtained for Antisocial,
Histrionic, and Obsessive–Compulsive PDs. One potential explanation for some of these
failures is that these PDs may not in fact represent maladaptive variants of these respective
domains or facets of the FFM (Haigler & Widiger, 2001).
For those disorders where the FFM conceptualization was successful, the use of the
facet traits allows for theoretical description and differentiation, capturing some of the
subtle distinctions that are said to separate the various PDs. For example, the essential

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 319

features of Schizoid personality are ‘a pervasive pattern of detachment from social

relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings’
(APA, 2000, p. 697), represented by the FFM E facets of low warmth (indifference to
social relationships), low gregariousness (preference for solitary activities), and low
positive emotions (anhedonic restricted range of emotional expression). The essential
features of the Avoidant PD are ‘a pervasive pattern of social inhibition, feelings of
inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to negative evaluation’ (APA, 2000, p. 721), aspects of
which are captured by facets of low E, particularly low assertiveness (social restraint and
inhibition), low gregariousness, and low excitement-seeking (unwilling to take risks). The
Avoidant and Schizoid PDs co-occur frequently (Alden, Laposa, Taylor, & Ryder, 2002),
which is not surprising given their mutual emphasis on maladaptive variants of low E.
Nevertheless, prototypic cases might be distinguishable with respect to facets of N,
particularly self-consciousness, anxiety, and vulnerability (Widiger et al., 2002). As
predicted, these facets of N did correlate with the Avoidant PD symptomatology, but did
not correlate with Schizoid PD symptoms.
A methodological strength of the current study was the inclusion of two different
methods for the assessment of the FFM—the NEO PI-R self-report inventory (Costa &
McCrae, 1992) and the SIFFM semi-structured interview (Trull & Widiger, 1997). It was
apparent from the results of the current study that each instrument did at times confer a
slight predictive advantage over the other. There were instances in which one instrument
accounted for more variance in PD symptomatology than did the other, but neither
instrument showed a consistent advantage. The NEO PI-R did demonstrate a slight
advantage in detecting relations identified a priori, in that predictions confirmed by only
one instrument were more often detected by this instrument than by the SIFFM. This
advantage may be attributable to shared method variance between the NEO PI-R and the
PD instrument used; in any event, there were also predictions that were only detected by
the SIFFM.
Although the results of this investigation are a reasonably compelling affirmation that
DSM-IV PDs can be adequately conceptualized with the trait facets of the FFM, there are
some limitations. One potential limitation is that the sample consisted mostly of patients
with mood and anxiety disorders. Although these disorders are among the most common
of all psychiatric conditions, generalization of the findings of this study to other disorders
is at present unclear. Future studies assessing the relations between DSM PDs and the
FFM using more diagnostically heterogeneous samples of psychiatric patients are needed.
A second potential limitation is that the composite personality disorder SCID-II scores
were based on patient self-report, a measurement procedure that typically results in
the over-endorsement of personality psychopathology, which may have spuriously inflated
the association between the individual PDs and the FFM domain and facet scales.
Notwithstanding, a high correlation between self-report and interview methods was found
for those instances where both instruments were administered, and an earlier study using
semi-structured interviews to assess PDs (Trull, Useda, Costa, & McCrae, 1995) reported
results very similar to those presented in the current study. A third limitation results from
the generally low internal reliability of the SCID-II PD scales, which acts to constrain
effect size estimates of the relation between PDs and domains or facets of the FFM. Under
these conditions, many theoretically predicted relations were nonetheless identified.
Most of the dimensional alternatives for PDs that have been proposed over the past 10
years have been derived, at least in part, from the pathological personality traits presented
in the APA diagnostic nomenclature. Although this approach is a legitimate way to

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
320 R. M. Bagby et al.

proceed, it also suffers from the same lack of theoretical consistency as the existing PDs.
Moreover, the success of these models in predicting DSM personality disorder
psychopathology is hardly a surprise, given that both dependent and independent variables
share a common ancestry. The success of the FFM in predicting many of these same PDs,
in contrast, is striking. Despite being developed using a different starting point and for
different populations, its conception of ‘normal’ personality has proven broad enough to
encompass many abnormal variants. Although there remain areas of weakness in

APPENDIX I. WIDIGER ET AL. (2002) FFM FACET TRAIT PREDICTOR SET

FOR DSM-IV PD

FFM PAR SZD SZT ATS BDL HST NAR AVD DEP OBC

Neuroticism
Anxiety H H H H
Angry Hostility H H H H
Depression H H H
Self-consciousness H H H H H
Impulsiveness H
Vulnerability H H H
Extraversion
Warmth L L H H
Gregariousness L L H L
Assertiveness L L H
Activity
Excitement seeking H H L
Positive emotions L L H
Openness to Experience
Fantasy H H H
Aesthetics
Feelings L H
Actions H
Ideas H
Values L
Agreeableness
Trust L L L H H
Straightforwardness L L
Altruism L L H
Compliance L L L H L
Modesty L H
Tender mindedness L L
Conscientiousness
Competence L H
Order H
Dutifulness L H
Achievement striving H H
Self-discipline L
Deliberation L
Adapted from Costa and Widiger (2002); H ¼ high; L ¼ low; Personality disorders: PAR ¼ Paranoid;
SZD ¼ Schizoid; SZT ¼ Schizotypal; ATS ¼ Antisocial; BDL ¼ Borderline; HST ¼ Histrionic; NAR ¼ Narcissis-
Narcissistic; AVD ¼ Avoidant; DEP ¼ Dependent; OBC ¼ Obsessive–compulsive.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 321

APPENDIX II. LYNAM AND WIDIGER (2001) FFM FACET TRAIT

PROTOTYPIC RATINGS FOR DSM-IV PDS

FFM PAR SZD SZT ATS BDL HST NAR AVD DEP OBC

Neuroticism
Anxiety H L H H H H
Angry Hostility H H H H
Depression H
Self-consciousness H L L L H H
Impulsiveness H H H L L
Vulnerability H H H
Extraversion
Warmth L L L L
Gregariousness L L L H L
Assertiveness L H H L L
Activity L H H
Excitement seeking L H H H L L
Positive emotions L L H L
Openness to Experience
Fantasy H
Aesthetics
Feelings L H H L L
Actions L L H H H H L L
Ideas H L
Values L L
Agreeableness
Trust L L H L H
Straightforwardness L L L
Altruism L L L
Compliance L L L H
Modesty L L H H
Tender mindedness L L L
Conscientiousness
Competence H
Order L H
Dutifulness L H
Achievement striving H
Self-discipline L L H
Deliberation L L L H
Adapted from Lynam and Widiger (2001); H ¼ high; L ¼ low; Personality disorders: PAR ¼ Paranoid;
SZD ¼ Schizoid; SZT ¼ Schizotypal; ATS ¼ Antisocial; BDL ¼ Borderline; HST ¼ Histrionic; NAR ¼ Narcissis-
Narcissistic; AVD ¼ Avoidant; DEP ¼ Dependent; OBC ¼ Obsessive–compulsive.

predicting some aspects of personality psychopathogy (areas that could benefit from the
predictions offered by competing models), it is our contention that future editions of the
diagnostic nomenclature can, and should, be represented by a dimensional model
structured around the FFM. Not only would such a shift eliminate many of the current
problems associated with relying on a categorical system of PDs; it would also confer upon
this complex field the conceptual unity provided by an overarching, and oft-studied,
general model of personality functioning.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
322 R. M. Bagby et al.

REFERENCES

Alden, L. E., Laposa, J. M., Taylor, C. T., & Ryder, A. G. (2002). Avoidant personality disorder:
Current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 1–29.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th edn., Text Revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Axelrod, S. R., Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., & Corbitt, E. M. (1997). Relations of five-factor model
antagonism facets with personality disorder symptomatology. Journal of Personality Assessment,
69, 297–313.
Bagby, R. M., Bindseill, K. D., Rector, N. A., Schuller, D. R., Joffe, R. J., Young, L. T., Seeman,
M. V., & Cooke, R. G. (1997). The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and
unipolar, bipolar, and schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 70, 83–94.
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T. Jr., McCrae, R. R., Livesley, W. J., Kennedy, S. H., Levitan, R. D., Levitt,
A. J., Joffe, R. T., & Young, L. T. (1999). Replicating the five factor model of personality in a
psychiatric sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1135–1139.
Bagby, R. M., Schuller, D. R., Marshall, M. B., & Ryder, A. G. (2004). Depressive Personality
Disorder: Rates of comorbidity with personality disorders and relations to the Five-Factor Model
of Personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 542–554.
Blais, M. A. (1997). Clinician ratings of the five-factor model of personality and the DSM-IV
personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185, 388–393.
Bornstein, R. F. (2003). Behaviorally referenced experimentation and symptom validation:
A paradigm for 21st century personality disorder research. Journal of Personality Disorders,
17, 1–18.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of
personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Carey, K. B. (1994). Use of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality
Questionnaire in the presence of severe axis I disorders: A cautionary note. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 182, 669–671.
Clark, L. A. (1990). Toward a consensual set of symptom clusters for the assessment of personality
disorder. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 8).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. (1997). Personality disorder assessment: The challenge of
construct validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 205–231.
Clark, L. A., McEwen, J. L., Collard, L. M., & Hickok, L. G. (1993). Symptoms and traits
of personality disorder: Two new methods for their assessment. Psychological Assessment, 5,
81–91.
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of
personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of
temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). ‘Set like plaster’? Evidence for the stability of adult
personality. In T. Heatherton, & J. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21–40).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dyce, J. A., & O’Connor, B. P. (1998). Personality disorders and the five-factor model: A test of the
facet-level predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 31–45.
Ekselius, L., Lindstrom, E., von Knorring, L., Bodlund, O., & Kullgren, G. (1994). SCID II
interviews and the SCID Screen questionnaire as diagnostic tools for personality disorders in
DSM-III-R. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 90, 120–123.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
 Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 323

First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997a). Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders. Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997b). Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Self-Report. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995). Structured Clinical Interview
for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders—Patient edition (Version 2.0). New York: New York Biometrics
Research Department.
Frances, A., & Widiger, T. A. (1986). Methodological issues in personality disorder diagnosis. In T.
Millon, & G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-
IV (pp. 381–400). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of NEO-PI-R items. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 77, 339–358.
Harkness, A. R. (1992). Fundamental topics in the personality disorders: Candidate trait dimensions
from lower regions of the hierarchy. Psychological Assessment, 4, 251–259.
Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology Five
(PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104–114.
Huprich, S. K. (2003). Evaluating NEO Personality Inventory—Revised profiles in veterans with
personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 33–44.
Hyer, L., Braswell, L., Albrecht, B., Boyd, S., Boudewyns, & Talbert, S. (1994). Relationship of
NEO-PI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50, 699–707.
Jacobsberg, L., Perry, S., & Frances, A. (1995). Diagnostic agreement between the SCID-II
screening questionnaire and the personality disorder examination. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 65, 428–433.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of
facets-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556–1565.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.
Livesley, W. J. (1991). Classifying personality disorders: Ideal types, prototypes, or dimensions?
Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 52–59.
Livesley, W. J. (1995). Past achievements and future directions. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), The DSM-IV
personality disorders (pp. 497–505). New York: Guilford.
Livesley, W. J. (1998). Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of
personality disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 137–147.
Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N., & Schroeder, M. L. (1989). A study of the factorial structure of
personality psychopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 292–306.
Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N., & Schroeder, M. L. (1991). Dimensions of personality
psychopathology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 557–562.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV
personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110,
401–412.
McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (2002). The Five-Factor Model across cultures. New York: Kluwer–
Plenum.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American
Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 130–153). New York:
Guilford.
Miller, J. D., Pilkonis, P. A., & Morse, J. Q. (2004a). Five factor model prototypes for personality
disorders: The utility of self-reports and observer ratings. Assessment, 11, 127–138.
Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004b). The validity of the five-factor model
prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 16,
310–322.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
324 R. M. Bagby et al.

Millon, T., Davis, R. D., Millon, M., Wenger, A., Van Zuilen, M. H., Fuchs, M., & Millon, R. B.
(1994). Disorders of personality. DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley.
Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J., Quigley, B. D., & Lyons, M. (2000). Dimensions and categories: The
‘Big Five’ factors and the DSM personality disorders. Assessment, 7, 203–216.
Neal, L. A., Fox, C., Carroll, N., Holden, M., & Barnes, P. (1997). Development and validation of a
computerized screening test for personality disorders in DSM-III-R. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 95, 351–356.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains
and facets of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222.
Ryder, A. G., Bagby, R. M., & Schuller, D. R. (2002). The overlap of depressive personality disorder
and dysthymia: A categorical problem with a dimensional solution. Harvard Review of Psychiatry,
10, 337–352.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle childhood? A
preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308–322.
Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI-2
Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and NEO-PI-R. Psychological
Assessment, 7, 508–516.
Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (1997). Structured interview for the five-factor model of personality:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., & Burr, R. (2001). A structured interview for the assessment of the five-
factor model of personality: Facet-level relations to the Axis II personality dimensions. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 69, 175–198.
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Useda, J. D., Holcomb, J., Doan, B. T., Axelrod, S. R., Stern, B. L., &
Gershuny, B. S. (1998). A structured interview for the assessment of the five-factor model of
personality. Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–240.
Westen, D., & Arkowitz-Westen, L. (1998). Limitations of axis II in diagnosing personality
pathology in clinical practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 1767–1771.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999a). Revising and assessing axis II: I—Developing a clinically and
empirically valid assessment method. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 258–272.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999b). Revising and assessing axis II: II—Toward an empirically based
and clinically useful classification of personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156,
273–285.
Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. J. (2002). Toward a dimensional model for the personality disorders. In
P. T. Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality (pp. 23–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). A description of the
DSM-III-R and DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In P. T.
Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(pp. 41–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2002). A description
of the DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa, Jr., &
T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 9–
99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Yang, J., Dai, X., Yao, S., Cai., T., Gao, B., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of personality in Chinese psychiatric patients. In P. T. Costa,
Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 215–
221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)