See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7505634

An evaluation of evaluative personality terms: A comparison of the Big Seven

and Five-Factor Model in predicting psychopathology

Article  in  Psychological Assessment · October 2005

DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.359 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
47 268

2 authors:

Christine Durrett Timothy J Trull

Flint Hills Neuropsychology University of Missouri
11 PUBLICATIONS   1,010 CITATIONS    253 PUBLICATIONS   14,004 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Elevated rate of alcohol consumption in borderline personality disorder patients in daily life View project

Event-Level Predictors of Alcohol-Impaired Driving Intentions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy J Trull on 20 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Assessment Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 17, No. 3, 359 –368 1040-3590/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.359

An Evaluation of Evaluative Personality Terms: A Comparison of the Big

Seven and Five-Factor Model in Predicting Psychopathology
Christine Durrett and Timothy J. Trull
University of Missouri—Columbia

Two personality models are compared regarding their relationship with personality disorder (PD)
symptom counts and with lifetime Axis I diagnoses. These models share 5 similar domains, and the Big
7 model also includes 2 domains assessing self-evaluation: positive and negative valence. The Big 7
model accounted for more variance in PDs than the 5-factor model, primarily because of the association
of negative valence with most PDs. Although low-positive valence was associated with most Axis I
diagnoses, the 5-factor model generally accounted for more variance in Axis I diagnoses than the Big 7
model. Some predicted associations between self-evaluation and psychopathology were not found, and
unanticipated associations emerged. These findings are discussed regarding the utility of evaluative terms
in clinical assessment.

Keywords: Big Seven, five-factor model, positive valence, negative valence, psychopathology

The five-factor model (FFM) is a model of personality based on
the lexical hypothesis, the assumption that important individual
differences are represented in language. Several researchers have
based empirical investigations of the structure of personality on the
lexical hypothesis by subjecting lists of adjectives culled from
dictionaries to factor analysis in an effort to find underlying
dimensions of personality. Results of these analyses have generally
converged on five broad dimensions, which, according to FFM
terminology, are known as Neuroticism (or Emotional Stability),
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to
Experience (or Intellect/Culture) (Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1990;
Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961).
In all the previous studies, exclusion rules were applied in the
selection of the adjectives used in the factor analyses in order to
retain only those words that were descriptive of personality. For
instance, some words were ruled out for describing physical char-
acteristics or for being too obscure or ambiguous. Significantly,
evaluative terms like evil or worthy were also excluded because
they do not describe specific personality characteristics. For ex-
ample, Saucier and Goldberg (1998) differentiated “personality
descriptors” and “person descriptors.” Personality descriptors re-
fer to stable behavioral characteristics. In contrast, evaluative
terms fall under the larger category of person descriptors because
ratings would not necessarily be consistent between self and others
or because they contain pure valence and less content than other
adjectives. Similarly, Ashton and Lee (2001) argued that evalua-
tive terms are not descriptive of persons like personality trait terms
Christine Durrett and Timothy J. Trull, Department of Psychological
Sciences, University of Missouri—Columbia.
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
Grant R01 MH52695 awarded to Timothy J. Trull. We thank Tom Widiger
for his comments on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy
J. Trull, Department of Psychological Sciences, 210 McAlester Hall,
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: trullt@missouri.edu
359
are and, instead, when endorsed, may reflect a more global indi-
cation of positive or negative self-esteem. In other words, positive
and negative self-evaluation terms may not reflect specific person-
ality traits but rather the person’s opinion of the merits of his or her
personality.
Tellegen and Waller (1987) have argued that such evaluative
descriptors should have been included in studies of the structure of
personality. Tellegen (1993) has written that self-evaluation should
be considered a personality trait because of its relationship with
self-esteem, “a core area of individual differences,” and that it was
an error to leave out purely evaluative terms in the creation of the
FFM. He has further stated that self-evaluation is a critical diag-
nostic factor in personality disorder (PD). Therefore, Tellegen and
Waller repeated the factor analytic method used to create the FFM,
including evaluative terms in the initial list of adjectives. The
resulting Big Seven domains include five dimensions that roughly
correspond with the FFM—Positive and Negative Emotionality,
Openness/Conventionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientious-
ness—as well as two unique dimensions, Positive and Negative
Valence. Positive Valence is defined by terms such as excellent,
superior, and impressive (vs. ordinary), whereas Negative Valence
is defined by terms such as evil, awful, and cruel (vs. decent).
The Big Seven model of personality has been replicated in
research with Americans as well as in cross-cultural research with
British, Israeli, and Spanish individuals (Almagor, Tellegen, &
Waller, 1995; Benet & Waller, 1995; Benet-Martinez & Waller
1997; Blumberg, 2001; Waller & Zavala, 1993). In all these
studies, factor analyses of trait adjectives, including evaluative
terms, resulted in a seven-factor solution with dimensions closely
resembling those originally delineated by Tellegen and Waller
(1987). However, other research has shown support for the Neg-
ative Valence factor but not for the Positive Valence factor. For
example, results from a study of Filipinos indicated that when
evaluative terms were included in a factor analysis of adjectives, a
Negative Valence factor did emerge, but positively valenced items
tended to load on the Intellect (or Openness) factor (Church,
360 DURRETT AND TRULL
Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998). In fact, in all factor solutions (ranging
from 5 to 10 factors), a Positive Valence factor never emerged.
However, the Negative Valence factor was one of the most repli-
cable dimensions. Similar results were obtained in a study of
Americans by Saucier (1997), in which a Negative Valence factor
was identified, yet positively valenced items were split between
two factors labeled Intellect and Attractiveness. Finally, Schiller,
Tellegen, and Evens (1995) conducted another study using a
different method in which participants generated their own lists of
adjectives to describe other people. When the resulting items from
each participant were submitted for factor analysis, a Negative
Valence dimension sometimes appeared, but, in other cases, such
descriptors loaded on the opposite pole of Agreeableness. A Pos-
itive Valence dimension never emerged; this class of adjectives
generally loaded on the Intellect factor.
Some researchers have argued that the FFM already contains
positive and negative self-evaluation, and therefore separate di-
mensions to capture valence are unnecessary. For example, Mc-
Crae and Costa (1995) found that high scores on the FFM facets of
competence and assertiveness are associated with Big Seven Pos-
itive Valence, whereas low scores on warmth and dutifulness and
high scores on depression and vulnerability are associated with Big
Seven Negative Valence. Therefore, McCrae and Costa concluded
that “positive and negative valence are not separate factors of
personality, but reflections of the social and personal value of
objective features of personality encompassed by the five-factor
model” (p. 455). In another empirical test of this argument, Saucier
and Goldberg (1998) investigated 53 potential dimensions of
person-descriptive content in an effort to find which were most
strongly independent of the FFM. Negative Valence was reliable
and substantially distinct from the FFM, but Positive Valence did
not account for significant variance in personality independent of
the FFM factors.
Personality and Psychopathology
Previous research has uncovered significant relationships be-
tween constellations of FFM personality traits and PDs. In a recent
review, Widiger and Costa (2002) concluded that a substantial
proportion of this research supports the conceptualization of PD
symptomatology as maladaptive variants of FFM traits. Several
empirical studies have confirmed the predicted linkages between
the FFM and PDs in clinical and nonclinical participants (Trull,
1992; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989), with FFM traits generally ac-
counting for a moderate proportion of variance in PD symptom
counts. Furthermore, FFM traits in many cases discriminate be-
tween different types of personality pathology. For example,
avoidant PD corresponds with high Neuroticism and low Extra-
version, whereas borderline PD can be represented as high Neu-
roticism and low Conscientiousness (Widiger & Costa, 2002).
Despite the evidence supporting the conceptualization of PDs
within the FFM, others have argued that self-evaluation is an
important component of personality pathology that is missing from
the FFM (Waller & Zavala, 1993). Some of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM–IV;
American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994) criteria seem to
imply that self-evaluation may be a component of certain PDs,
such as the criterion for narcissistic PD “has a grandiose sense of
self-importance” or the criterion for avoidant PD “views self as
socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others” (APA,
1994). Furthermore, individuals with borderline PD “usually have
a self-image that is based on being bad or evil” (APA, 1994). For
this reason, Waller and Zavala (1993) posited that the Big Seven
domains of Positive and Negative Valence would likely add pre-
dictive value above and beyond the FFM in predicting personality
pathology. However, as of yet, there are no empirical studies of
this hypothesis. The formal evaluation and documentation of in-
cremental validity is a necessary first step in the justification of
new clinical assessment measures or scales (Haynes & Lench,
2003).
Not only are PDs related to personality traits, but Axis I diag-
noses are also related to such traits. Trull and Sher (1994) inves-
tigated the relationship between the FFM and Axis I diagnoses of
mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders in a nonclinical sample
of young adults. They found that FFM scores distinguished indi-
viduals with and without Axis I disorders and were, to some
extent, sensitive to diagnosis. Axis I disorders were associated
with higher than average Neuroticism and Openness to Experience
and lower than average Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Consci-
entiousness. These results have been replicated in community and
clinical samples for a wide range of Axis I disorders (Bagby et al.,
1997; Bienvenu et al., 2001). Given these findings of an associa-
tion between FFM domains and Axis I pathology, it seems rea-
sonable to propose that the Big Seven personality domains of
self-evaluation may also be related to Axis I pathology. For in-
stance, one symptom of depression is strong feelings of guilt or
worthlessness, which presumably reflects negative self-evaluation.
In the present study, we investigated the overlap between the
FFM and the Big Seven model of personality, giving special
attention to the extent to which Positive and Negative Valence are
independent of the FFM. We also assessed whether the Big Seven
model (and particularly the domains of Positive and Negative
Valence) contributed to the prediction of maladaptive personality
traits and DSM–IV (APA, 1994) Axis I disorders above and be-
yond the FFM. Another factor that warrants consideration in these
analyses is the extensive comorbidity of Axis I and Axis II disor-
ders (Dolan-Sewell, Krueger, & Shea, 2001). If both Axis I and II
disorders prove to be related to self-evaluation, then the meaning
and significance of the finding may be obscured by high rates of
comorbidity between Axis I and II. By controlling for this comor-
bidity, it is possible to determine what significant and unique
relations exist between dimensions of self-evaluation and various
forms of psychopathology.
In summary, our study compared the strength of association
between both the FFM and the Big Seven model and measures of
psychopathology. We expected that both models of personality
would show significant, clinically meaningful relationships with
personality pathology as well as with Axis I disorders. We further
hypothesized that the domains of Positive and Negative Valence
may contribute significant predictive value to PD symptoms and
Axis I diagnoses above and beyond the FFM. We also have a
number of specific hypotheses. First, we expect that Negative
Valence will significantly predict borderline, avoidant, and depen-
dent PDs, all of which share the core feature of low self-esteem. If
negative evaluation does indeed primarily tap low-self-esteem,
then it is not likely to be related to PDs that are not characterized
by low self-worth (e.g., schizotypal or antisocial PD). Also, we
expect that narcissistic PD will be significantly associated with
 FFM AND THE BIG SEVEN
Positive Valence, given that narcissists are characterized by overly
generous perceptions of their own self-worth. With regard to the
Axis I disorders, we expect that mood disorders and eating disor-
ders will be significantly associated with Negative Valence be-
cause both of these diagnoses include self-image distortion, shame
and guilt, and feelings of inadequacy (Hayaki, Friedman, &
Brownell, 2002; O’Connor, Berry, Weiss, & Gilbert, 2002),
respectively.
Method
Screening Procedure
Data for this analysis were obtained from a larger study of the devel-
opment of borderline PD features in young adults (see Trull, 2001).
Approximately 71% (N ⫽ 4,927) of all 18-year-old freshmen at the
University of Missouri—Columbia during two consecutive academic years
took part in the initial screening procedure. Participants were contacted
through mailings, classes, telephone calls, and electronic messages (e-
mails) and completed the screening battery during supervised sessions held
in dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and classrooms. Students were
scheduled up to 10 times to complete the screening battery or until they
indicated that they were no longer interested in participating. Screening
participants provided written consent to take part in the study. Those who
completed the screening received either $5 or research credit.
The screening battery included items from the Personality Assessment
Inventory—Borderline Features scale (PAI-BOR; Morey, 1991). The PAI-
BOR is a 24-item self-report measure that taps features of severe person-
ality pathology associated with borderline and other PDs (with subscales
including Affective Instability, Identity Problems, Negative Relationships,
and Self-Harm). The PAI-BOR scale has demonstrated reliability and
construct validity in predicting problems associated with borderline pathol-
ogy such as psychiatric diagnoses (Morey, 1991; Trull, 1995).
From the screening pool, individuals who scored ⱖ 38 on the PAI-BOR
(above threshold; two standard deviations above the mean score for com-
munity participants) and those who scored below threshold (⬍ 38) were
identified. From these lists of above- and below-threshold scorers, indi-
viduals were randomly chosen to participate in the laboratory phase of the
study. Above-threshold individuals were oversampled to increase the dis-
tribution of borderline personality disorder features (for the purposes of the
larger study, although not of this particular analysis), and attempts were
made to sample an equal number of men and women from each threshold
group.
Participants
Each person who agreed to participate in the laboratory phase of the
study first completed the PAI-BOR again in order to ensure that he or she
scored in the same range (i.e., above or below threshold) at retest. There
were two waves of laboratory data collection, Wave 1 at approximately age
18 and Wave 2 at age 20, 2 years later. Of the participants, 421 individuals
participated at Wave 1 and 361 at Wave 2. The present analysis focused on
data from Wave 2, at which time both personality trait measures were
administered (see below). At that time, 169 above-threshold (borderline
features positive) and 192 below-threshold (borderline features negative)
participants took part in the study. Of those individuals, 56.4% were
women, 84.1% were Caucasian, 8.4% were African American, and 3.9%
were Asian American.
Laboratory Procedure
The laboratory session required approximately 5 hr and involved com-
pletion of a number of self-report measures as well as the administration of
several structured interviews. Participants were paid $10 per hour for their
361
time or were given research credit. Written consent was obtained from each
participant as well as permission to have all interviews videotaped for
reliability purposes. Furthermore, all participants were informed that the
principal investigator had secured a certificate of confidentiality for the
study from the federal government. This added protection was obtained
because some of the interview and inventory questions in the larger study
concerned illegal behaviors (e.g., antisocial behaviors). A certificate of
confidentiality protects participants’ data from subpoena to the fullest
extent possible allowed by law regarding the anonymity of their individual
responses.
Three interviewers with backgrounds in clinical psychology underwent
2 months of training before gathering data for the study. Training was
supervised by Timothy J. Trull and involved didactic instruction, review of
manuals and any training videotapes that were available for these inter-
views, review of previously taped interviews, and at least 10 practice
interviews with each measure.
All interviewers were unaware of the borderline features status (above or
below threshold) of the participants, and interviews and inventories were
administered in randomized sequences to control for possible order effects.
All interviews were videotaped, and 80 participants’ interviews were
randomly selected for reliability checks. For each of these selected inter-
views, one of the other two interviewers reviewed the relevant portion(s) of
the videotape and made independent ratings.
Measures
Self-reports. The primary measures for this analysis include two self-
report measures of personality, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), a 240-item measure that assesses the
FFM of personality, and the Inventory of Personality Characteristics #7-
short form (IPC7; Tellegen, Grove, & Waller, 1991), a 70-item measure
that assesses the Big Seven personality domains. The two measures do not
share any items in common. The NEO-PI-R includes six facet scales
(subscales) for each domain; however, the IPC7-short form does not
include subscales. Reliability coefficients (internal consistency alphas) for
the FFM domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were .94, .91, .89, .91, and .93,
respectively. For the Big Seven domains of Negative Emotionality, Posi-
tive Emotionality, Conventionality, Positive Valence, Negative Valence,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, reliability coefficients were .86,
.88, .82, .83, .86, .80, and .86.
Interviews. Participants also completed two interview measures of
psychopathology. The Structured Interview for DSM–IV Personality
(SIDP-IV; Pfohl, Blum, & Zimmerman, 1997) is a semistructured inter-
view that assesses DSM–IV (APA, 1994) PD criteria. Interrater reliabilities
(intraclass correlations) for the number of criteria met for each PD were as
follows: paranoid PD, .77; schizoid PD, .92; schizotypal PD, .93; antisocial
PD, .97; borderline PD, .94; histrionic PD, .89; narcissistic PD, .93;
avoidant PD, .99; dependent PD, .89; and obsessive– compulsive, .91. At
Wave 2, 34 individuals (9.6%) met diagnostic criteria for at least one
DSM–IV PD; the most prevalent PDs were antisocial (7.0%), avoidant
(2.0%), and borderline (1.1%).
Also, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis I Disorders/
Nonpatient Version (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1995) was admin-
istered to assess the presence and severity of Axis I disorders. For the
purposes of this study, we included variables indicating the lifetime pres-
ence of any mood disorder (major depression, dysthymia, and bipolar I and
II disorders), of any anxiety disorder, of any substance use disorder (abuse
or dependence on alcohol or any other drug), and of any eating disorder.
Interrater reliabilities (kappas) were 1.0 for all of those diagnostic classes.
Of the full sample at Wave 2, 241 (66.7%) were diagnosed with a lifetime
history of any Axis I disorder, 137 (38.0%) were diagnosed with any mood
disorder, 57 (15.8%) were diagnosed with any anxiety disorder, 174
(48.2%) were diagnosed with any substance use disorder, and 13 (3.6%)
were diagnosed with any eating disorder.
362 DURRETT AND TRULL
Table 1
Correlations Between Five-Factor Model and Big Seven Domains
Big Seven Neuroticism Extraversion
Negative Emotionality .79*** ⫺.16**
Positive Emotionality ⫺.24*** .79***
Conscientiousness ⫺.16** ⫺.01
Agreeableness ⫺.26*** .11*
Conventionality ⫺.23*** .13*
Negative Valence .45*** ⫺.31***
Positive Valence ⫺.26*** .40***
Note. n ⫽ 354.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
Statistical Analyses
First, bivariate correlations between the FFM and Big Seven domains
were calculated to assess overlap and similarity between domains. Further-
more, regressions of Positive and Negative Valence on the FFM domains
as well as bivariate correlations between FFM facet scores and the Big
Seven domains of Positive and Negative Valence were calculated to
determine the extent to which the self-evaluation domains were indepen-
dent of the FFM (similar to the analysis conducted by McCrae & Costa,
1995). Finally, a factor analysis of the FFM facets and Big Seven domains
was carried out to investigate the relationship between the scales of each
model of personality.
Next, to determine the association between the FFM and Big Seven
models of personality and Axis I and II pathology, three series of hierar-
chical multiple regression analyses were carried out. In the first series, sex
and then the personality domain scores from both models were entered in
blocks to predict PD symptom counts. Two models were constructed for
each criterion: one in which the FFM domains were entered first, followed
by the Big Seven domains, and the other in which the Big Seven domains
were entered first, followed by the FFM domains. In the full model, sex and
both the FFM and Big Seven domains were entered. In the second series of
regressions, lifetime Axis I diagnoses were predicted from sex and the two
models of personality in logistic models. Again, two models were tested for
each criterion, entering the FFM and then the Big Seven domains (and vice
versa) to determine the incremental contribution of each model of person-
ality in the prediction of lifetime Axis I diagnoses above and beyond the
other model.
To address the alternate hypothesis that any observed associations be-
tween PD symptoms and personality traits (especially self-evaluation)
result from the comorbidity between Axis I and II disorders, we also
carried out one further parallel series of hierarchical regression models. In
this series, we tested hierarchical regression models predicting PD symp-
tom counts from sex, the two models of personality, and lifetime Axis I
diagnoses to determine the contributions of both models of personality in
the prediction of PD symptoms above and beyond Axis I diagnoses.
Results
Correlations between the FFM and Big Seven domains are
presented in Table 1. Associations between parallel domains
across the two models of personality were substantial and signif-
icant, as expected (i.e., Negative Emotionality and Neuroticism,
Positive Emotionality and Extraversion, Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness in both, and Conventionality and Openness to Ex-
perience, which have an inverse relationship). In general, these
Five-factor model
Openness to
Conscientiousness Agreeableness Experience
⫺.28*** ⫺.28*** .03
.12* .17** .12*
.70*** .24*** ⫺.38***
.10 .61*** ⫺.05
.44*** .26*** ⫺.50***
⫺.37*** ⫺.39*** .05
.23*** ⫺.13* .10
results indicate good convergent and discriminant validity in that
convergent correlations were greater than discriminant correla-
tions. However, in some cases, nonparallel domains were also
associated. For example, both Neuroticism and Agreeableness
from the FFM were at least minimally correlated with every
domain from the Big Seven. Therefore, although there are five
pairs of similar domains between the two models, these pairs are
far from identical.
Positive and Negative Valence scores from the Big Seven also
showed significant relationships with scores from most domains of
the FFM. Negative Valence was positively related to Neuroticism
and negatively related to Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and
Agreeableness. Positive Valence was moderately associated with
Extraversion and to a lesser extent correlated with Conscientious-
ness and inversely associated with Neuroticism. Both were inde-
pendent of Openness to Experience.1
Next, Positive and Negative Valence scores, separately, were
regressed on the FFM domain scores to determine how much
variance in the domains of self-evaluation could be accounted for
by the FFM. FFM domains accounted for 29% of the variance in
Positive Valence and 30% of the variance in Negative Valence.
Positive Valence was most strongly related to high Extraversion
and Agreeableness and low Neuroticism, whereas Negative Va-
lence was most strongly related to high Neuroticism and low
Agreeableness.
Last, we conducted a factor analysis of the 30 FFM facets and
seven Big Seven domains. A factor analysis of all items from each
instrument would have been ideal, but a much larger sample would
be required for a factor analysis of 310 items. Factors were
generated with principal-components extraction and Promax rota-
1
Not only were the FFM domains related to self-evaluation, but Positive
and Negative Valence showed differential relationships with the facet
scales of the FFM. In the bivariate case, Positive Valence was most highly
correlated with the facets of Depression (r ⫽ ⫺.34), Self-Consciousness
(r ⫽ ⫺.25), Assertiveness (r ⫽ .40), Positive Emotions (r ⫽ .36), Modesty
(r ⫽ ⫺.52), Competence (r ⫽ .31), and Achievement Striving (r ⫽ .32).
Negative Valence was most highly correlated with the facets of Angry
Hostility (r ⫽ .42), Depression (r ⫽ .49), Vulnerability (r ⫽ .34), Warmth
(r ⫽ ⫺.36), Trust (r ⫽ ⫺.40), Altruism (r ⫽ ⫺.33), Competence (r ⫽
⫺.34), and Self-Discipline (r ⫽ ⫺.40).
 FFM AND THE BIG SEVEN 363

tion. Seven factors had eigenvalues greater than one, and a five-
factor solution was retained after examining the scree plot and the
coherency of the factor solutions. There was a clear break in the
scree plot after five factors, and the sixth and seventh factors
consisted of only two scales, each loading at greater than 0.35
(Agreeableness-Modesty and the reverse of Positive Valence and
Extraversion-Excitement Seeking and Openness to Values, respec-
tively). The pattern matrix for the five-factor solution is shown in
Table 2. The solution is largely consistent with the FFM, with
factors reflecting Conscientiousness, Neuroticism/Negative Emo-
tionality, Extraversion/Positive Emotionality, Agreeableness, and
Openness to Experience/Conventionality (reversed coded), respec-
tively. Positive Valence loads on the Extraversion/Positive Emo-
tionality factor, and both Positive and Negative Valence load
inversely on the Agreeableness factor. Factor correlations ranged
from ⫺.35 (Conscientiousness and Neuroticism) to ⫺.04 (Agree-
ableness and Openness to Experience); the average factor corre-
lation was 兩.17兩.
Hierarchical Regressions on Axis II Symptom Counts
A series of hierarchical regressions was next conducted to
determine the relative contributions of the FFM and Big Seven
domains in predicting PD symptom counts (see Table 3). In the
first step for Model 1, sex and the FFM domains were entered,
followed by the Big Seven domains entered in the second step. The
combination of sex and the FFM domains accounted for a signif-
icant increment in variance for all symptom counts. When the Big
Seven domains were next entered in Model 1, they accounted for
small but significant increments in variance above and beyond the

Table 2
Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix of Five-Factor Model (FFM) and Big Seven Domains

Component

Facet and domain 1 2 3 4 5

FFM Neuroticism
Anxiety .84
Angry Hostility .69 ⫺.49
Depression .75
Self-Consciousness .74
Impulsiveness ⫺.35 .56
Vulnerability .69
FFM Extraversion
Warmth .70 .44
Gregariousness .79
Assertiveness .65 ⫺.37
Activity .32 .69
Excitement Seeking .62
Positive Emotions .70 .30
FFM Openness
Fantasy ⫺.33 .42
Aesthetics .78
Feelings .44 .44 .48
Actions ⫺.31 .42
Ideas .82
Values .64
FFM Agreeableness
Trust .31 .54
Straightforwardness .69
Altruism .71
Compliance .77
Modesty ⫺.42 .63
Tender Mindedness .59 .33
FFM Conscientiousness
Competence .72
Order .76
Dutifulness .74
Achievement Striving .82
Self-Discipline .81
Deliberation .71
Big Seven Negative Emotionality .87
Big Seven Positive Emotionality .87
Big Seven Positive Valence .47 ⫺.33
Big Seven Negative Valence ⫺.32
Big Seven Agreeableness .76
Big Seven Conscientiousness .78
Big Seven Conventionality .34 ⫺.60

Note. Loadings above .30 are displayed.

364 DURRETT AND TRULL

Table 3
Regression Results Predicting Personality Disorder Symptom Counts From Five-Factor Model (FFM) and Big Seven Scores

Model 1 Model 2
Significant predictors
Predictor Sex FFM R 2
Big Seven added ⌬R 2
Sex Big Seven R2 FFM added ⌬R2 ␤ at last step

Cluster A
Paranoid 0.07*** 0.03 0.08*** 0.02 .22** Negative Valence
Schizoid 0.04* 0.01 0.04* 0.01 (none)
Schizotypal 0.05** 0.05* (.22) 0.09*** 0.01 .23** Negative Valence
⫺.13* Positive Valence
Cluster B
Antisocial 0.22*** 0.05*** (.22) 0.21** 0.06*** (.24) .12* Sex
.15* Negative Valence
⫺.23** Conventionality
.19* Neuroticism
⫺.17* Conscientiousness (FFM)
⫺.15* Agreeableness (FFM)
Borderline 0.23*** 0.08*** (.28) 0.29*** 0.02* (.14) .30*** Negative Valence
.23* Neuroticism
Histrionic 0.24*** 0.03* (.17) 0.24*** 0.03* (.17) .20* Extraversion
Narcissistic 0.15*** 0.02 0.13*** 0.04** (.20) ⫺.22** Agreeableness (FFM)
Cluster C
Avoidant 0.14*** 0.05** (.22) 0.17*** 0.02 .22** Negative Valence
Dependent 0.11*** 0.04* (.20) 0.12*** 0.03* (.17) .20** Negative Valence
.26** Neuroticism
Obsessive–compulsive 0.10*** 0.07*** (.26) 0.16*** 0.01 .19** Negative Valence
⫺.22** Agreeableness (Big 7)

Note. Effect sizes appear in parentheses.

* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

effects of sex and the FFM for all individual PD symptom counts,
with the exception of paranoid, schizoid, and narcissistic PDs. The
effect sizes of the significant increment of prediction afforded by
the Big Seven domains were in the small to medium range (0.17–
0.28; Cohen, 1992).
Model 2 was identical to Model 1 except that the order of entry
of the personality domains in Steps 1 and 2 were reversed. When
sex and the Big Seven domains were entered in Step 1, they
accounted for a significant increment in variance for all symptom
counts. In Step 2, the FFM domains were entered, and these
accounted for significant increments in variance above and beyond
the effects of sex and the Big Seven for all four Cluster B PDs and
for dependent PD. The effect sizes of the significant increment of
prediction afforded by the FFM scales were in the small to medium
range (0.14 – 0.24; Cohen, 1992).
An examination of the significant individual predictors of
PDsymptom counts once all variables were entered into the re-
gression models (see last column of Table 3) revealed that Nega-
tive Valence was a significant, positive predictor in the full model
for all symptom counts, with the exception of schizoid, histrionic,
and narcissistic PDs. However, Positive Valence only accounted
for significant variance in schizotypal PD symptom counts in the
full model, above and beyond both the Big Seven and FFM.
Hierarchical Regressions on Axis I Diagnoses
A similar series of regressions was conducted next to determine
the contribution of self-evaluation to the prediction of lifetime
Axis I diagnoses (see Table 4). The diagnoses were coded as
dichotomous variables (present vs. absent), so logistic regressions
were used with chi-square difference tests to determine model fit
at each step. For Model 1, Step 1, with sex and the FFM domains
entered, the FFM significantly predicted all diagnostic classes (any
Axis I diagnosis and any mood, substance, anxiety, and eating
disorder). When the Big Seven domains were added in Model 1,
Step 2, no significant improvement in model fit was observed for
any diagnostic class. However, the addition of the FFM domains
significantly improved model fit in Model 2, Step 2 for all Axis I
diagnoses except substance use disorders. Effect sizes were in the
small to moderate range (0.20 – 0.33).
Although the Big Seven domains as a group did not predict Axis
I diagnoses over and above the FFM, self-evaluation proved to be
an important predictor for several diagnostic classes. Low Positive
Valence was a significant predictor in the full model for any Axis
I disorder, any substance use disorder, and any eating disorder.
Hierarchical Regressions on Axis II Symptom Counts
Controlling for Axis I
Finally, a third series of regressions was conducted to determine
the relative contributions of the FFM and Big Seven domains in
predicting Axis II symptom counts while controlling for lifetime
Axis I diagnoses (see Table 5). These models were identical to the
first series of regressions on PD symptom counts, except that in
Step 1 of each model, the presence or absence of any Axis I
diagnosis was entered as well as sex and the first set of personality
domains. Results from this analysis were similar to the results from
the first series of regressions. Whereas the Big Seven model
accounted for significant variance in schizotypal, antisocial, bor-
derline, avoidant, dependent, and obsessive– compulsive symptom
counts above and beyond sex, Axis I diagnosis, and the FFM, the
FFM only accounted for significant variance in antisocial and
 FFM AND THE BIG SEVEN
Table 4
Logistic Regression Results Predicting Axis I Lifetime Diagnoses From Five-Factor Model (FFM) and Big Seven Scores
Model 1
Predictor Sex FFM R 2
Big Seven added ⌬R
Any Axis I disorder 0.27*** 0.04
Mood disorder 0.29*** 0.03
Anxiety disorder 0.20*** 0.03
Substance use disorder 0.17*** 0.04
Eating disorder 0.24* 0.13
Note. Effect sizes appear in parentheses. Nagelkerke R2 is used.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
narcissistic symptom counts above and beyond sex, Axis I diag-
nosis, and the Big Seven.
Negative Valence remained a significant predictor of all PD
symptom counts except for schizoid, histrionic, and narcissistic
PDs in the full model, including sex, Axis I diagnosis, the FFM
and the Big Seven. Positive Valence was a negative, significant
predictor in the full model for only the schizotypal PD symptom
count. In the full model, Axis I diagnostic status was a significant
predictor only for antisocial PD symptom count.2
Discussion
Positive and Negative Valence of the Big Seven share a signif-
icant proportion of variance with the domains of the FFM, as
indicated by the results of the correlational and factor analyses.
These findings suggest that there is some redundancy of informa-
tion between the FFM and the self-evaluation domains. Though
there is a moderate degree of overlap between the FFM and
Positive and Negative Valence, these correlations were no higher
than the correlations between some FFM domains in the present
sample (for instance, between Neuroticism and Conscientiousness,
r ⫽ ⫺.48 and between Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, r ⫽
.27). McCrae and Costa’s (1995) argument that the FFM already
contains self-evaluation is to some extent true; however, Positive
and Negative Valence are about as independent of the FFM do-
mains as the FFM domains are of each other.
Both the FFM and the Big Seven models of personality ac-
counted for similar proportions of variance in PD symptom counts.
However, the Big Seven model more consistently accounted for
variance in PD symptoms above and beyond that accounted for by
the FFM. Negative Valence was a significant predictor of all
individual PD symptom counts in the full regression model, with
the exception of narcissistic and histrionic PDs. The inclusion of
this domain in the Big Seven is likely the reason that the Big Seven
outperformed the FFM in accounting for variance in PD
symptoms.
Therefore, it appears that Negative Valence accounts for unique
variance in personality pathology above and beyond the FFM
despite its moderately high correlations with some domains of the
FFM. Although we predicted that Negative Valence would be
associated with borderline, avoidant, and dependent PD symptoms,
we did not anticipate that Negative Valence would also predict
365
Model 2
Significant predictors
2
Sex Big Seven R2 FFM added ⌬R2 Odds ratio at last step
0.27*** 0.04* (.20) 0.94* Positive Valence
1.03** Neuroticism
0.26*** 0.06** (.24) 1.04*** Neuroticism
0.16*** 0.07** (.26) 1.04** Neuroticism
0.18*** 0.03 0.94* Positive Valence
0.94* Conventionality
0.26* 0.11* (.33) 0.85* Positive Valence
1.06* Neuroticism
schizotypal, paranoid, antisocial, or obsessive– compulsive PD
symptoms. Also contrary to hypotheses, Positive Valence was not
a significant predictor of narcissistic PD symptoms. Positive Va-
lence scores did show a weak, negative relationship with schizo-
typal symptoms. It is somewhat surprising that Positive Valence
was not also positively associated with narcissistic PD symptoms,
given that relatively high-positive self-evaluation is implied in the
criteria set. Perhaps this is because of the possibility that the
characteristics of positive self-evaluation in the context of those
PDs may be somewhat different than those captured by the Big
Seven domain of Positive Valence. Having a sense of entitlement
or requiring excessive admiration from others may not be ade-
quately tapped by a domain assessing whether an individual feels
special and unique.
For lifetime Axis I diagnoses, the results were different from
those for Axis II symptom counts. In this case, the FFM accounted
for variance above and beyond the Big Seven domains for each
diagnosis, with the exception of substance use disorders, whereas
the Big Seven model did not account for variance above and
beyond the FFM in any case. Therefore, in general, the FFM
appeared to be a better predictor of Axis I pathology than is the Big
Seven model. We had anticipated that high Negative Valence
would be associated with Axis I pathology, but low scores on
Positive Valence were a consistent predictor of several forms of
Axis I pathology in the full model, including both the FFM and the
2
Given that some of the domains in the FFM and Big Seven are quite
similar, multicollinearity among predictors in the full model was also of
possible concern. Therefore, tolerance statistics were examined to assess
this potential problem. Tolerance ranges from 0 to 1, with a value of 1
indicating complete independence from the other predictors in the model
and values near 0 indicating unacceptably high multicollinearity among the
predictors. For the models in the present analysis, tolerance never dropped
below a cutoff of 0.10 for any predictor.
All of the above regression models were then tested again using
weighted data (to control the effects of oversampling participants on
borderline PD features) to ascertain whether these results would generalize
to the larger population of young adults (see Trull, 2001). The regression
results were generally consistent with those from the unweighted data in
terms of what personality domains predicted each symptom count or
diagnosis and the incremental contributions of each model of personality in
predicting psychopathology.
366 DURRETT AND TRULL

Table 5
Regression Results Predicting Personality Disorder Symptom Counts From Five-Factor Model (FFM) and Big Seven Scores,
Controlling for Axis I Disorder

Model 1 Model 2

Sex Axis I diagnosis Sex Axis I diagnosis Significant predictors at

Predictor FFM R2 Big Seven added ⌬R2 Big Seven R2 FFM added ⌬R2 ␤ last step

Cluster A
Paranoid 0.09*** 0.03 0.10*** 0.02 .23** Negative Valence
Schizoid 0.04* 0.01 0.04* 0.01
Schizotypal 0.05** 0.05* (.22) 0.09*** 0.01 .23** Negative Valence
⫺.13* Positive Valence
Cluster B
Antisocial 0.33*** 0.04** (.20) 0.34*** 0.03** (.17) .12* Sex
.37*** Any Axis I diagnosis
.16** Negative Valence
⫺.16* Negative Emotionality
⫺.19** Conventionality
⫺.18* Conscientiousness (FFM)
⫺.13* Agreeableness (FFM)
Borderline 0.23*** 0.08*** (.28) 0.29*** 0.02 .31*** Negative Valence
.20* Neuroticism
Histrionic 0.24*** 0.03 0.24*** 0.02 .20* Extraversion
Narcissistic 0.15*** 0.02 0.13*** 0.04* (.20) ⫺.22** Agreeableness (FFM)
Cluster C
Avoidant 0.14*** 0.05** (.20) 0.17*** 0.02 .22** Negative Valence
Dependent 0.11*** 0.04* (.20) 0.12*** 0.03 .20** Negative Valence
.25* Neuroticism
Obsessive–compulsive 0.10*** 0.07*** (.26) 0.16*** 0.01 .19** Negative Valence
⫺.22** Agreeableness (Big 7)

Note. Effect sizes appear in parentheses.

* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

Big Seven, whereas Negative Valence did not emerge as a predic-
tor of any form of Axis I pathology. This suggests a possible role
of self-evaluation in Axis I disorders, but further research is
necessary to confirm these findings.
One may argue that these findings appear to support a distinc-
tion between Axis I and II disorders from the perspective of
positive and negative evaluation. Lifetime Axis I disorders are
associated with the personality trait of low-positive self-evaluation
(feeling ordinary or plain) but not negative self-evaluation,
whereas PDs are associated with the personality trait of high-
negative self-evaluation (feeling evil or awful) but not positive
self-evaluation. One possible explanation for this finding is that
PD symptoms, which are by definition more chronic and pervasive
in nature, may be viewed by patients as ego-syntonic—patients, in
a sense, see their symptoms or deficits as part of their own
personality (APA, 2000). Thus, those with PD symptoms may be
more inclined to endorse negative, evaluative terms in describing
their own personality (e.g., vicious, cruel, mentally disturbed) than
those who suffer from episodic Axis I disorders. These latter
disorders are more likely to be seen as ego-dystonic and as foreign
to one’s “typical” self or personality style.
However, these results also suggest that negative and positive
evaluation scores are limited in their diagnostic utility. These
scores are associated with a wide range of personality pathology
and Axis I pathology, respectively. Contrary to predictions, Neg-
ative Valence scores were significantly associated with paranoid,
schizotypal, antisocial, and obsessive– compulsive PD symptoms
and not with mood or anxiety disorders. Positive Valence scores
were not significantly associated with narcissistic symptom counts,
but these scores were significantly, negatively associated with
schizotypal symptoms as well as with substance use and eating
disorders. The lack of predictable, differential associations with
personality or Axis I psychopathology that are theoretically coher-
ent call into question the utility of these evaluative terms in clinical
assessment.3
These findings also highlight that there are different aspects or
dimensions of incremental validity (Haynes & Lench, 2003; Hun-
sley & Meyer, 2003). In the present case, Big Seven scores do
account for significant increments of variance in several psycho-
pathology scores, meeting the general requirement for “incremen-
tal validity.” However, because of a lack of predicted differential
association between Negative Valence scores (or Positive Valence
scores) and psychopathology scores, it is difficult to advocate for
the use of these evaluative dimensions in clinical assessment (see
Haynes & Lench, 2003, for an extended discussion of these and
related issues).
Focusing on Negative Valence, these findings call into question
the interpretation of this domain as an indicator of low self-esteem.
Perhaps more important, this finding supports the argument that
evaluative terms do not reflect specific aspects of one’s personality
3
Although beyond the scope of this article, which primarily focused on
FFM domain scores, it is important to note that a number of studies have
found that facet scores from the NEO-PI-R do show differential correla-
tions with the DSM PDs (Trull & Durrett, 2005).
 FFM AND THE BIG SEVEN
but rather an evaluation of one’s personality traits. Those with
personality features may endorse Negative Valence items because
they feel bad about their personality traits, traits that create dis-
tress, as well as social and occupational impairment. However,
these terms will not aid in the differentiation between maladaptive
personality styles, a differentiation that is critical for clinical
assessment and one that is afforded by FFM scores (Widiger &
Costa, 2002). It will be important to attempt to replicate these
findings in clinical samples as well as to determine whether
clinical and nonclinical participants may have different views of
their own PD symptoms.
Another potential limitation of these evaluative scales in clinical
assessment is that one may not expect to obtain the same findings
for evaluative terms if peer or collateral ratings were used. Other
persons would not likely label a dependent, avoidant, or borderline
individual as evil, awful, or cruel (although, perhaps, one could
make a case for the possibility of a peer labeling an antisocial
inmate this way). Thus, self- versus other-reports of evaluative
terms may not converge. However, this is in contrast to ratings of
personality traits, provided by self- versus other formats of per-
sonality items. For example, self- versus other-ratings of the NEO-
PI-R personality facets and domains have been shown to converge
in several studies (McCrae & Costa, 2003). In these cases, what is
being rated are specific personality features not the respondent’s
evaluation of the target’s personality.
Another interesting finding from this study is that although
Neuroticism and Negative Emotionality are correlated at .79, only
Neuroticism proved a significant predictor of Axis I pathology.
One possible contributing factor may be the difference in the
reliability of the two scales, which differ in length. However, this
alone seems insufficient to account for this finding. We conducted
further analyses to explore this result, focusing on the facet level
scales of the FFM. NEO-PI-R Neuroticism has six facet scales:
Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Vul-
nerability, and Impulsiveness. Negative Emotionality scores were
correlated with the first five facet scale scores between .57 and .71
but were correlated less with Impulsiveness scores (.46). In hier-
archical logistic regressions predicting each of the Axis I diagnos-
tic variables from the FFM Neuroticism facets and Big Seven
Negative Emotionality scores, Negative Emotionality did not ac-
count for variance above and beyond the Neuroticism facets in any
case. However, the Impulsiveness facet accounted for significant
variance in mood, substance use, and eating disorder diagnoses.
Therefore, Impulsiveness is significantly and independently pre-
dictive of Axis I pathology but is not fully captured in the Negative
Emotionality scale. This evidence again suggests some limitation
of predictive utility in using the IPC7-short form as a clinical
assessment tool.
In summary, Positive and Negative Valence were significantly
related to personality and Axis I and II psychopathology. Although
these evaluative scales were significantly and uniquely related to
several forms of psychopathology, these relations were, at times,
inconsistent with theoretical predictions. Therefore, based on these
results, their utility in clinical assessment seems questionable. It is
important to note that this study had several limitations that could
be fruitfully addressed with additional research. The sample con-
sisted of 20-year-old young adults, of whom few fully met criteria
for a PD, although a substantial proportion had personality pathol-
ogy at a subdiagnostic level. Also, borderline PD features were
367
oversampled relative to other PDs, and, as a result, there was less
variation in symptoms of Clusters A and C PD than in Cluster B
PDs. By using weighted data, we did find evidence to suggest that
our findings would generalize to a nonclinical young adult popu-
lation of similar age (see Footnote 2). However, it will be impor-
tant to replicate these results in clinical samples that are more
diverse in age and background and exhibit, on average, more
extreme PD pathology.
References
Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The Big Seven model:
A cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimen-
sions of natural language trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 300 –307.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major
dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–
353.
Bagby, R. M., Bindseil, K. D., Schuller, D. R., Rector, N. A., Young, N. L.,
Cooke, R. G., et al. (1997). Relationship between the five-factor model
of personality and unipolar, bipolar and schizophrenic patients. Psychi-
atry Research, 70, 83–94.
Benet, V., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The Big Seven factor model of
personality description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a
Spanish sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
701–718.
Benet-Martinez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997). Further evidence for the
cross-cultural generality of the Big Seven factor model: Indigenous and
imported Spanish personality constructs. Journal of Personality, 65,
567–598.
Bienvenu, O. J., Nestadt, G., Samuels, J. F., Costa, P. T., Howard, W. T.,
& Eaton, W. W.. (2001). Phobic, panic, and major depressive disorders
and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Nervous & Mental
Disease, 189, 154 –161.
Blumberg, H. H. (2001). The common ground of natural language and
social interaction in personality description. Journal of Research in
Personality, 35, 289 –312.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, J. A. S. (1998). Further explo-
ration of Filipino personality structure using the lexical approach: Do the
Big-Five or Big-Seven dimensions emerge? European Journal of Per-
sonality, 12, 249 –269.
Cohen, J. A. (1992). Power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Pro-
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dolan-Sewell, R. T., Krueger, R. F., & Shea, M. T. (2001). Co-occurrence
with syndrome disorders. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), Handbook of person-
ality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 84 –104). New
York: Guilford Press.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. (1995).
Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I DSM–IV Disorders, nonpatient
edition (SCID-I/NP, Version 2.0). New York: New York State Psychi-
atric Institute.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality
ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
44, 329 –344.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 1216 –1229.
368 DURRETT AND TRULL
Hayaki, J., Friedman, M. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2002). Shame and
severity of bulimic symptoms. Eating Behaviors, 3, 73– 83.
Haynes, S. N., & Lench, H. C. (2003). Incremental validity of new clinical
assessment measures. Psychological Assessment, 15, 456 – 466.
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psycho-
logical testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statis-
tical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446 – 455.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1995). Positive and negative valence
within the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29,
443– 460.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A
five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Morey, L. C. (1991). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality
attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality
ratings. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 66, 574 –583.
O’Connor, L. E., Berry, J. W., Weiss, J., & Gilbert, P. (2002). Guilt, fear,
submission, and empathy in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders,
71, 19 –27.
Pfohl, B., Blum, N., & Zimmerman, M. (1997). Structured Interview for
DSM–IV Personality. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Publishing.
Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of
person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1296 –1312.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five?
Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.
Schiller, R., Tellegen, A., & Evens, J. (1995). An idiographic and nomo-
thetic study of personality description. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spiel-
berger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 1–23).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of person-
ality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.
Tellegen, A., Grove, W. M., & Waller, N. G. (1991). Inventory of Personal
View publication stats
Characteristics #7-short form (IPC7). Minneapolis: Department of Psy-
chology, University of Minnesota.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1987). Reexamining basic dimensions of
natural language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY.
Trull, T. J. (1992). DSM–III–R personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality: An empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 101, 553–560.
Trull, T. J. (1995). Borderline personality disorder features in nonclinical
young adults: I. Identification and validation. Psychological Assessment,
7, 33– 41.
Trull, T. J. (2001). Structural relations between borderline personality
disorder features and putative etiological correlates. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 110, 471– 481.
Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models
of personality disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1,
355–380.
Trull, T. J., & Sher, K. J. (1994). Relationship between the five-factor
model of personality and Axis I disorders in a nonclinical sample.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 350 –360.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based
on trait ratings (USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 61–97). Lacklund Air
Force Base, TX: United States Air Force.
Waller, N. G., & Zavala, J. D. (1993). Evaluating the Big Five. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 4, 131–135.
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Five-factor model personality
disorder research. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 59 – 87).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disor-
ders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment: A Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 305–316.
Received September 17, 2004
Revision received February 3, 2005
Accepted April 12, 2005 䡲