Psychological Assessment © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 21, No. 4, 543–553 1040-3590/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016899

Assessment of Dependency, Agreeableness, and Their Relationship

Jennifer Ruth Lowe, Maryanne Edmundson, and Thomas A. Widiger

University of Kentucky

Agreeableness is central to the 5-factor model conceptualization of dependency. However, 4 meta-

analyses of the relationship of agreeableness with dependency have failed to identify a consistent
relationship. It was the hypothesis of the current study that these findings might be due in part to an
emphasis on the assessment of adaptive, rather than maladaptive, variants of agreeableness. This
hypothesis was tested by using experimentally altered NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (Costa &
McCrae, 1992) items that were reversed with respect to their implications for maladaptiveness. The
predicted correlations were confirmed with the experimentally altered version with measures of depen-
dent personality disorder, measures of trait dependency (including 2 measures of adaptive dependency),
and measures of dependency from alternative dimensional models of personality disorder. The theoretical
implications of the findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: dependency, agreeableness, five-factor model, personality disorder

Quite a few studies have documented that the personality dis-
orders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation, 2000) can be understood as maladaptive variants of the
domains and facets of the five-factor model (FFM) of general
personality structure (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Costa, 2002). Nev-
ertheless, problematic findings have been obtained for some of the
DSM–IV–TR personality disorders, notably the dependent person-
ality disorder (Bornstein & Cecero, 2000; Miller & Lynam, 2008).
Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (2002) hypothesized
that dependent personality disorder represents, in large part, an
extreme or maladaptive variant of the FFM domains of neuroti-
cism and agreeableness. Empirical support for the association with
neuroticism has been obtained, but support for agreeableness has
been weak or inconsistent. It was the purpose of the current study
to explore the possible effect of the assessment instruments, with
respect to the assessment of both FFM agreeableness and depen-
dency.
Agreeableness, as assessed by the NEO Personality Inventory—
Revised (NEO PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), is the tendency to
be trusting, straightforward, altruistic, compliant, modest, and
tender-minded. Well before ever considering the DSM–IV–TR
personality disorders as maladaptive variants of the FFM, Costa
and McCrae (1985) suggested that “agreeableness can also assume
a pathological form, in which it is usually seen as dependency” (p.
12). Widiger et al. (2002) subsequently suggested more specifi-
cally that “the DSM–IV diagnostic criteria set includes many
explicit examples of pathological agreeableness, such as excessive
Jennifer Ruth Lowe, Maryanne Edmundson, and Thomas A. Widiger,
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky.
The authors express their appreciation to Brittany Stark and Leigh
Ridings for their help with the data collection and analyses.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer
Ruth Lowe, 115 Kastle Hall, Department of Psychology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044. E-mail: jennifer.lowe@uky.edu
compliance (difficulty expressing disagreement), altruism (volun-
teering to do unpleasant things), and modesty (needing advice and
reassurance from others to make everyday decisions)” (p. 96).
Pincus (2002) similarly conceptualized dependency from the
perspective of the interpersonal circumplex (IPC; Pincus, 2005).
The IPC has been defined in a number of ways, but the more
common conceptualization consists of two fundamental dimen-
sions of agency (e.g., dominance vs. submission) and communion
(e.g., love vs. hate). Pincus suggested that various forms of de-
pendency involve combinations of low agency and high commun-
ion, consistent with the fact that such trait terms as docile, servile,
self-sacrificing, modest, compliant, clinging, obedient, gullible,
submissive, self-effacing, and dependent have long been consid-
ered interpersonal in nature (Wiggins, 1982). This conceptualiza-
tion is congruent with FFM agreeableness, as agreeableness and
extraversion are rotational variants of IPC dominance and love
(Pincus, 2002; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989, 2002).
Studies have reported positive associations of agreeableness
with dependency using a variety of methodologies, such as clini-
cians’ ratings of prototypic cases (Samuel & Widiger, 2004),
researchers’ descriptions of prototypic cases (Lynam & Widiger,
2001), clinicians’ descriptions of actual cases (Blais, 1997), clini-
cians’ ratings of case vignettes (Sprock, 2002), informants’ ratings
of persons with personality disorders (Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger,
2007), behavioral indices of dependency (Rubinstein, 2007), and a
few self-report inventory studies (e.g., Bagby et al., 2001; Costa &
McCrae, 1990; Mongrain, 1993; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989; Zuroff,
1994).
Nevertheless, most self-report inventory studies have failed to
confirm the expected relationship between agreeableness and de-
pendency. In fact, four largely independent meta-analyses of the
research literature have all reported no consistent relationship
between agreeableness and dependency, leading some to question
the validity of the hypothesized association (Bornstein & Cecero,
2000; Miller & Lynam, 2008).
Saulsman and Page (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 15
independent samples correlating the domains of the FFM with

543
544 LOWE, EDMUNDSON, AND WIDIGER
measures of dependent personality disorder (DPD). They reported
a statistically significant effect size for the relationship of DPD
with agreeableness (r ⫽ .05, weighted), but it fell well below their
cutoff for what would constitute a meaningful effect size (i.e., r ⫽
.20). There was, in contrast, a meaningful effect size for neuroti-
cism (r ⫽ .41 weighted). The effect size for agreeableness was
even the lowest among all of the five domains of the FFM. This
finding was replicated more recently by Samuel and Widiger
(2008) in their meta-analysis of 16 FFM studies that provided
facet-level assessments of agreeableness (only one of which over-
lapped with Saulsman & Page, 2004), reporting an effect size of
only .08 between agreeableness and DPD (the highest effect size
for an agreeableness facet was only .16 for modesty).
Bornstein and Cecero (2000) conducted a meta-analysis that
focused specifically on the relationship of dependency with the
domains of the FFM. Their meta-analysis was broader than those
of Saulsman and Page (2004) and Samuel and Widiger (2008), as
they included measures of trait dependency in addition to measures
of DPD. They reported that the effect size for agreeableness was,
at best, modest, if not weak (r ⫽ .08). One of the worst effect sizes
reported by them for an individual study (i.e., Dunkley, Blankstein,
& Flett, 1997) was miscoded (it was reported to be ⫺.32 when it
was in fact .32), but even with this correction, the overall effect
size increased to only .10. They suggested that the much-smaller-
than-expected correlation between dependency and agreeableness
warranted further research.
In a fourth meta-analysis of eight studies reporting correlations
between the NEO PI–R and measures of DPD, Miller and Lynam
(2008) indicated that although Lynam and Widiger (2001) consid-
ered dependency to involve “three agreeableness facets (i.e., trust,
compliance, modesty), the meta-analytic findings suggest that
none should be included” (Miller & Lynam, 2008, p. 7). They
proposed a revised conceptualization of dependency that excluded
any significant representation of any facet from agreeableness, and
they further demonstrated empirically that this revised version
obtains greater validity than the original version, using the NEO
PI–R as their criterion measure of the FFM.
Miller and Lynam (2008) are not alone in this conceptualization
of dependency. An alternative to the FFM is the six-factor model
of Lee and Ashton (2004), who used as their measure of person-
ality the HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO–PI). One of
the HEXACO–PI facet scales is identified as Dependency, defined
as a “need for emotional support from others” (Lee & Ashton,
2004, p. 334). In other words, Lee and Ashton explicitly included
trait dependency as a maladaptive variant of general personality
structure but placed the HEXACO–PI Dependency facet scale
within the domain of emotional instability (which aligns with FFM
neuroticism), rather than within the domain of agreeableness (or
honesty-humility).
Similarly, the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Person-
ality (SNAP; Clark, 1993) and Dimensional Assessment of Per-
sonality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (DAPP–BQ; Livesley &
Jackson, in press) include Dependency and Diffidence scales,
respectively, along with other maladaptive trait scales. In higher
order factor analyses of the SNAP and DAPP–BQ, the trait de-
pendency and diffidence scales loaded consistently within the
neuroticism factor, even when the factor structure could be said to
include agreeableness (e.g., Clark, Livesley, Schroeder, & Irish,
1996; Clark, Vorhies, & McEwen, 2002). In proposals for a
dimensional model of personality disorder for the forthcoming
fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic
manual, SNAP dependency and DAPP–BQ diffidence have both
been included within the domain of neuroticism or emotional
instability, rather than within agreeableness (Krueger, Skodol,
Livesley, Shrout, & Huang, 2008; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005).
One potential explanation for the weak and/or inconsistent re-
lationship of dependency with FFM agreeableness is the assess-
ment instrument. Pincus and Gurtman (1995) suggested the poten-
tial importance of measurement instrument in their comparison of
five measures of dependency with respect to their location along
the IPC. They distinguished between three variants of dependency
(Pincus, 2002): a love dependency (confined largely to the dimen-
sion of communion), a submissive dependency (confined largely to
the dimension of submission or low agency), and an exploitable
dependency (representing a combination of high communion and
low agency). They suggested that the submissive dependent would
not be considered to involve much agreeableness, whereas the love
and exploitable variants would. The love dependent would involve
in particular the facets of trust, altruism, and tender-mindedness,
whereas the exploitable would involve the facets of straightfor-
wardness, compliance, and modesty (Pincus, 2002).
It might also be useful to distinguish between measures of
trait dependency and DPD (Bornstein, 2005, 2006). Many of the
measures of trait dependency are concerned with a maladaptive
dependency (e.g., the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory;
Hirschfeld et al., 1977), but many researchers are now making a
distinction between adaptive and maladaptive dependency (Born-
stein & Huprich, 2006; Cogswell & Alloy, 2006; Dunkley, Blank-
stein, Zuroff, Lecce, & Hui, 2006; Pincus & Wilson, 2001). Pincus
and Wilson (2001), for instance, suggested that submissive and
exploitable dependence are more closely associated with maladap-
tivity than is love dependence, the latter concerning a healthy
desire for obtaining and maintaining close relationships. Cogswell
and Alloy (2006) and Dunkley et al. (2006) similarly distinguished
between neediness and connectedness components of dependency
as assessed by subscales of the Depressive Experiences Question-
naire (Blatt, D’Afflittie, & Quinlan, 1976). Connectedness is per-
haps comparable to love dependency, as it involves a valuing of
relationships and a sensitivity to the effect of one’s actions upon
others. Dunkley et al. and Zuroff, Moskowitz, and Koestner (1996)
validated the adaptive–maladaptive distinction between neediness
and connectedness by demonstrating a correlation of neediness
with NEO PI–R neuroticism and connectedness with NEO PI–R
agreeableness. Bornstein and Huprich (2006) likewise distin-
guished between destructive overdependence and healthy depen-
dence using the Relationship Profile Test. Consistent with their
expectations, destructive overdependence correlated with NEO
PI–R neuroticism but not agreeableness, whereas healthy depen-
dence correlated positively with agreeableness and negatively with
neuroticism. However, both Bacchiochi, Bagby, Cristi, and
Watson (2003) and McBride, Zuroff, Bagby, and Bacchiochi
(2006) failed to replicate the connectedness findings of Dunkley et
al. for agreeableness.
A distinction between adaptive and maladaptive variants may
also occur for the assessment of FFM agreeableness. None of the
four previously summarized meta-analyses obtained a moderating
effect of assessment instrument on the relationship of agreeable-
ness with dependency. However, it was also the case that there was,
 DEPENDENCY AND AGREEABLENESS
in fact, very little variation in the assessment of FFM agreeableness.
Eleven of the 15 samples considered by Saulsman and Page (2004),
17 of the 18 studies considered by Bornstein and Cecero (2000), all
eight of the studies considered by Miller and Lynam (2008), and
all 16 studies considered by Samuel and Widiger (2008) used the
NEO PI–R or a measure modeled closely after the NEO PI–R.
Haigler and Widiger (2001) suggested that some relationships of
FFM domains with measures of personality disorder, including
DPD, might be affected by the fact that the NEO PI–R was
constructed largely for the purpose of providing a measure of
normal personality functioning, particularly items assessing high
conscientiousness; low neuroticism; high extraversion; high open-
ness; and, most important for the current study, high agreeable-
ness. They indicated that 83% of the NEO PI–R agreeableness
items, when keyed in the direction of high agreeableness, were
assessing an adaptive, rather than a maladaptive, trait. They con-
structed an experimentally altered version of the NEO PI–R by
inserting words into the items to change the direction of the
maladaptivity without otherwise altering its content. For example,
the agreeableness items of “I think of myself as a charitable
person,” “I believe that most persons are basically well-
intentioned,” and “I would rather cooperate with others than com-
pete with them” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, pp. 71–72) became “I am
so charitable that I give more than I can afford,” “I tend to be
gullible regarding the intentions of others,” and “I cooperate with
others even when it would be better to competitive” (Haigler &
Widiger, 2001, p. 347). In sum, 83% of the items contained within
the experimentally altered version of NEO PI–R agreeableness
described maladaptive, dysfunctional behavior. They reported in a
college-student sample that correlations of agreeableness with
three DPD scales were significant for the experimentally altered
scale but not for the original NEO PI–R agreeableness.
It is the purpose of the current study to determine whether the
weak and inconsistent relationship of measures of trait dependence
and/or DPD with agreeableness might be due in part to the instru-
ments of assessment. The current study considers 13 alternative
measures of dependency, including three measures of DPD, eight
measures of trait dependency (two of which are scales assessing an
adaptive dependency), and two measures of dependency from
alternative dimensional models of personality disorder, along with
the original and the experimentally altered versions of NEO PI–R
agreeableness (as well as the other four NEO PI–R domain scales).
The study samples from both a student and a clinical population.
Method
Participants included, in separate data collections, female col-
lege students and women residing at a substance-dependence res-
idential treatment program. The current study was confined to
women because DPD has been a disorder that has traditionally
(rightly or wrongly) been closely associated with women and
feminine gender (Morey, Alexander, & Boggs, 2005), a perception
consistent with a recent meta-analysis of gender differences in the
prevalence of personality disorder (Lynam & Widiger, 2007). As
Bornstein (1996) indicated in his review of sex differences in the
prevalence of DPD, a woman is 40% more likely to be said to have
the disorder when this assessment is provided by self-report in-
ventories, which are the focus of the current investigation. It is also
worth noting though that in none of the prior FFM dependency
545
studies included in the meta-analyses of Bornstein and Cecero
(2000), Miller and Lynam (2008), Saulsman and Page (2004), or
Samuel and Widiger (2008) was there a report of differences in the
relationship of FFM agreeableness with trait dependency or DPD
because of gender (e.g., see Ball, Tennen, Poling, Kranzler, &
Rounsaville, 1997; Dunkley et al., 1997; Mongrain, 1993).
Participants from the student population were enrolled in an
introductory undergraduate psychology course that awarded class
credit for study participation. Participants from the substance-
dependence residential treatment program were recruited either by
flyer (containing a brief description of the study) or verbally by
members of the research team at one of two locations. Participants
received a packet containing the study materials and consent forms
and were allowed to complete the study materials at the time and
location of their choosing. Upon completion of the study, partic-
ipants from the clinical sample received payment of $15.00 and a
debriefing form.
Of the 105 college student participants, 94% reported their ages
as being 18 –23 years, 1 reported her age as being 30 –35, and 5 did
not report their ages. With respect to ethnicity, 84% were identi-
fied as Caucasian/White, 5% as African American/Black, 4% as
Hispanic/Latina, and 3% as Asian. Five student participants did
not indicate their ethnic identification. Of the 69 women of the
residential substance-dependence treatment programs, 7% reported
their ages as 18 –23 years old, 28% as 24 –29, 19% as 30 –35, 16%
as 36 – 41, and 16% as over 41. Ten participants from the clinical
population did not report their ages. Regarding ethnicity, 59%
from the clinical population were identified as Caucasian/White,
23% as African American/Black, and 1 participant identified her-
self as Native American/Pacific Islander/other. Eleven participants
(16%) did not identify their ethnicity.
Materials
The current study included 13 alternative measures of depen-
dency: three measures of DPD, eight measures of trait dependency,
and two measures of dependency from alternative dimensional
models of personality disorder.
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory—III (MCMI–III). The
MCMI–III (Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1997) is a 175-item true/false
self-report inventory, developed in accordance with the DSM–IV–TR,
which assesses 14 personality disorders as well as 10 other clinical
syndromes. The MCMI–III is among the most frequently used per-
sonality disorder self-report inventories in clinical practice (Widiger
& Boyd, in press) and has been used in prior FFM agreeableness
research (Bornstein & Cecero, 2000; Miller & Lynam, 2008;
Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004). The DPD
scale of the MCMI–III consists of 16 items.
Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire— 4 (PDQ– 4). The
PDQ– 4 (Bagby & Farvolden, 2004) is a 99-item true/false self-
report inventory that assesses 12 personality disorders according to
the DSM–IV personality disorder criteria. The PDQ– 4 is perhaps
the most commonly used self-report measure of personality disor-
der within clinical research (Widiger & Boyd, in press) and has
been used in prior FFM agreeableness research (Samuel & Widi-
ger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004). The DPD scale from the
PDQ– 4 has eight items, each of which corresponds to a DSM–
IV–TR diagnostic criterion.
546 LOWE, EDMUNDSON, AND WIDIGER
Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory (WISPI). The
WISPI (Klein et al., 1993) is a 214-item self-report inventory that
assesses the DSM–IV–TR personality disorders. Each item is rated
on a 1–10-point Likert scale. The WISPI has not been used in
previous FFM agreeableness research. Items of the WISPI corre-
spond to DPD diagnostic criteria, albeit written in a manner that
emphasizes an object-relational, interpersonal perspective (Klein
et al., 1993). The DPD scale consists of 28 items.
Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ). The DEQ
(Blatt et al., 1976) is a 66-item inventory designed to assess two
psychoanalytically derived dimensions of depression experience:
dependency and self-criticism. Each item is rated on a 1–7-point
scale. DEQ dependency assesses “concerns about being rejected,
hurting or offending people, and having difficulty in managing
anger and aggression for fear of losing someone” (Blatt et al.,
1976, pp. 384 –385). The DEQ includes subscales assessing Con-
nectedness (29 items) and Neediness (29 items), which represent
(in part) adaptive and maladaptive dependency, respectively
(Dunkley et al., 2006; Zuroff et al., 1996). The findings for the
DEQ are provided for only the clinical sample.
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI). The 48-item IDI
(Hirschfeld et al., 1977) consists of three scales, with each item
rated on a 4-point Likert scale. The IDI is one of the most widely
used self-report dependence measures over the past 25 years
(Bornstein, 2005). Two scales assess dependency: Emotional Re-
liance on Another Person (IDI–ER; sample item, “I do my best
work when I know it will be appreciated”) and Lack of Social
Self-Confidence (IDI–SSC; sample item, “It is hard for me to ask
someone for a favor”). A third scale is a measure of autonomy (i.e.,
Assertion of Autonomy; “I prefer to be by myself”). All three
scales were administered in the current study, but for the sake of
conserving space, only the findings for the IDI–ER (14 items) and
IDI–SSC (16 items) are reported, because Assertion of Autonomy
is not generally considered to be a measure of dependency traits.
3 Vector Dependency Inventory (3VDI). The 27-item 3VDI
(Pincus & Wilson, 2001) consists of three scales, with each item
rated on a 1– 6-point Likert scale. The three scales (each with nine
items) concern different variants of dependency, including Love
(3VDI–L), Exploitable (3VDI–E), and Submissive (3VDI–S), cor-
responding to segments along the friendly–submissive quadrant of
the IPC (Pincus & Gurtman, 1995). All three subscales were
included in the current study.
Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic
Questionnaire (DAPP–BQ). The DAPP–BQ (Livesley & Jack-
son, in press) contains 560 statements to which an individual
responds on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The DAPP–BQ contains
18 scales of personality pathology (e.g., affective lability, social
avoidance, conduct problems, compulsivity). The DAPP–BQ is
among the leading contenders for a dimensional model of person-
ality disorder (Clark, 2007; Krueger et al., 2008; Widiger &
Simonsen, 2005). In the current study, we administered only the
diffidence scale, consisting of 16 items.
Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP).
The SNAP (Clark, 1993) is a 375-item true/false instrument that
assesses a dimensional model of personality disorder containing
three broad temperament and 12 maladaptive personality trait
scales (e.g., detachment, exhibitionism, workaholism). The SNAP
is among the leading contenders for a dimensional model of
personality disorder (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). In the current
study, we administered only the dependency scale, consisting of 21
items.
NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO PI–R). The NEO
PI–R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a measure of the FFM of
personality and contains 240 items that are rated on a Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This
instrument is composed of five broad domain scales, which are
each in turn assessed by six underlying facet scales. There are 48
items for each of the five FFM domain scales. Internal consistency
coefficients have ranged from .86 (Agreeableness) to .92 (Neurot-
icism), and 7-year test–retest reliability coefficients ranged from
.63 to .81 (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Experimentally altered NEO PI–R Agreeableness scale (EXP–A).
The development of the 48 EXP–A items proceeded through two
stages. In the first stage, the direction of the adaptiveness versus
maladaptiveness of each of the 240 NEO PI–R items was deter-
mined; in the second stage, each item was revised to reverse the
direction of maladaptiveness. For example, Haigler and Widiger
(2001) judged whether it was more adaptive to agree or disagree
with the NEO PI–R agreeableness item “I have a good deal of faith
in human nature” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 72). In all but a few
instances, this judgment was straightforward (e.g., it is generally
preferable to have a good deal of faith in human nature). Items for
which there was a perceived ambiguity by either judge, or for
which a disagreement occurred, were discussed until a consensus
decision was reached.
To assess the reliability of the coding decisions, three graduate
students in clinical psychology were also asked to indicate (inde-
pendently and blindly) whether it would be more adaptive to agree
or disagree with each of the 240 NEO PI–R items. All three of
these independent coders agreed unanimously with the authors’
judgments on 75% (181) of the 240 items; at least two of the three
coders agreed with the authors on 90% (217). Haigler and Widiger
(2001) reevaluated their decisions for the remaining 23. The final
coding indicated that 83% of the NEO PI–R agreeableness items
were considered to involve a more adaptive, desirable behavior
when the person responded in the direction of agreeableness rather
than antagonism.
The second stage was to alter each item to reverse the direction
of adaptiveness (or maladaptiveness) without changing the direc-
tion in which the item was keyed or otherwise altering the content
of the item. For example, the agreeableness item “I have a good
deal of faith in human nature” was revised to “I have too much
faith in the goodness of human nature.” These experimentally
altered items were then submitted to three additional graduate
students in clinical psychology to independently and blindly judge
the adaptiveness of each item to provide an estimate of the success
of the item reversals. At least two of the three raters agreed with
the alterations for 89% of the items. The wording of the remaining
items was reevaluated. Further details regarding the development
of the experimentally altered NEO PI–R agreeableness scale are
provided in Haigler and Widiger (2001). The experimentally al-
tered agreeableness scale correlated .53 ( p ⬍ .001) with the
original NEO PI–R agreeableness scale in Haigler and Widiger.
Results
Table 1 provides the mean scores and alpha coefficients for each
measure of dependency and the NEO PI–R domain scales for both
 DEPENDENCY AND AGREEABLENESS 547

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Dependency and Five-Factor Model Measures

Student Clinical

Measure M SD ␣ M SD ␣ t Cohen’s d

MCMI–III 7.5 5.8 .80 8.9 6.4 .83 ⫺1.48 (df ⫽ 164) ⫺0.23
PDQ–4 1.8 2.2 .73 2.2 2.3 .80 ⫺1.16 (df ⫽ 164) ⫺0.18
WISPI 74.9 26.8 .81 110.1 37.2 .87 ⫺6.38ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 101) ⫺1.09
DEQ–D — ⫺0.61 0.97 .89
DEQ–N — 0.74 0.74 .83
DEQ–C — ⫺0.66 1.15 .83
IDI–ER 45.1 9.9 .81 47.6 10.3 .83 ⫺1.48 (df ⫽ 152) ⫺0.25
IDI–SSC 33.4 8.1 .82 38.3 8.4 .77 ⫺3.65ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 152) ⫺0.59
3VDI–L 32.9 10.3 .87 36.6 10.0 .83 ⫺2.21ⴱ (df ⫽ 156) ⫺0.36
3VDI–E 25.0 9.4 .87 30.5 8.2 .68 ⫺3.74ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 156) ⫺0.62
3VDI–S 38.4 8.2 .83 37.5 8.2 .73 .76 (df ⫽ 156) 0.11
DAPP–BQ 42.3 12.8 .93 40.5 15.2 .94 .81 (df ⫽ 163) 0.13
SNAP 7.1 5.0 .85 10.0 4.2 .76 ⫺3.95ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 150) ⫺0.63
NEO–N 96.6 25.1 .92 99.6 17.7 .78 ⫺.82 (df ⫽ 153) ⫺0.14
NEO–E 117.7 20.1 .88 99.3 17.8 .80 5.45ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 145) 0.97
NEO–O 110.1 20.3 .87 100.5 18.1 .81 2.87ⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 145) 0.50
NEO–A 113.3 22.4 .91 99.3 15.9 .74 4.38ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 142) 0.72
EXP–A 91.2 17.0 .83 88.8 18.1 .79 1.23 (df ⫽ 160) 0.14
NEO–C 113.2 23.8 .93 96.4 16.5 .76 5.02ⴱⴱⴱ (df ⫽ 144) 0.82

Note. MCMI–III ⫽ Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1997); PDQ– 4 ⫽ Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire– 4 (Bagby
& Farvolden, 2004); WISPI ⫽ Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory (Klein et al., 1993); DEQ–D, DEQ–N, and DEQ–C ⫽ Depressive Experiences
Questionnaire (Dependency, Neediness, and Connectedness subscales, respectively; Blatt, D’Afflittie, & Quinlan, 1976); IDI–ER and IDI–SSC ⫽
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, Emotional Reliance and Social Self-Confidence subscales, respectively (Hirschfeld et al., 1977); 3VDI–L, 3VDI–E,
and 3VDI–S ⫽ 3 Vector Dependency Inventory, Love, Exploitation, and Submissive subscales, respectively (Pincus & Wilson, 2001); DAPP–BQ ⫽
Diffidence subscale from the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (Livesley & Jackson, in press); SNAP ⫽
Dependency subscale from the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); NEO–N, NEO–E, NEO–O, NEO–A, and NEO–C ⫽ the
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Connectedness subscales, respectively, of the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (Costa &
McCrae, 1992); EXP–A ⫽ experimentally altered NEO Personality Inventory—Revised Agreeableness scale. There were 105 students and 69 patients.
Degrees of freedom for t values vary because not all persons completed all items on each inventory. Analyses for WISPI and SNAP involved unequal
variances.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

the student and patient samples. No differences were obtained
between the clinical and student samples for neuroticism. This is
perhaps due to the fact that the members of the 6-month residential
treatment program had been in treatment for quite a period of time
(an average of 4 months). There is a considerable body of research
indicating that scores on neuroticism decrease during the course of
treatment, with much of this decrease attributed to changes in
mood state (Widiger, in press). The patient group did obtain
significantly higher levels of trait dependency and/or DPD, as
assessed by the WISPI, IDI–SSC, 3VDI–L, 3VDI–E, and SNAP.
In a complementary fashion, the students also obtained signifi-
cantly higher scores on NEO PI–R agreeableness, extraversion,
openness, and conscientiousness.
Table 2 provides the correlations among the trait dependency
and/or DPD measures for the clinical and student samples. It is
evident from Table 2 that there is quite a range of convergent
validity among the measures of trait dependency and DPD, from a
low of .03 between the SNAP and 3VDI–Exploitable to .76 be-
tween the MCMI–III and PDQ– 4 within the clinical sample. None
of the trait and DPD measures of dependency correlated signifi-
cantly with all of the other scales, although both the DAPP–BQ
and IDI–ER failed to correlate significantly with only one other
scale (i.e., DEQ Connectedness and 3VDI–E, respectively) within
the clinical sample. The WISPI and the 3VDI scales are the four
with the greatest emphasis on an interpersonal conceptualization of
dependency (Klein et al., 1993; Pincus & Wilson, 2001), and
consistent with their common interpersonal emphasis, they were
all highly convergent. In contrast, the SNAP failed to correlate
significantly with the WISPI or with any one of the three 3VDI
dependency scales within the clinical sample. The correlations
within the student sample were generally higher. In fact, within the
student sample, SNAP dependency obtained consistent convergent
validity with all other measures of dependency.
Table 3 provides the correlations of the measures of trait de-
pendency and DPD with the NEO PI–R domain scales and the
experimentally altered assessment of agreeableness (EXP–A) for
both the student and clinical samples (EXP–A correlated .49 and
.47 [both p ⬍ .001] with NEO PI–R agreeableness for the student
and clinical samples, respectively). It is evident from Table 3 that
measures of trait dependency and DPD correlated more highly
with EXP–A than with the original version. Only one of the
measures of dependency correlated significantly with NEO PI–R
agreeableness within the student sample, and only two within the
clinical sample. None of the adaptive trait measures (i.e., 3VDI–L
and DEQ-C) correlated positively with agreeableness. When the
experimentally altered version of the NEO PI–R agreeableness
scale was used, only 1 of the 13 measures of dependency failed to
correlate significantly with agreeableness in the clinical sample
(i.e., the SNAP dependency) and only one failed in the student
sample (i.e., 3VDI–S). In 75% of the 20 instances in which a
548 LOWE, EDMUNDSON, AND WIDIGER

measure of trait dependency or DPD failed to correlate signifi-

3VDI–E, and 3VDI–S ⫽ 3 Vector Dependency Inventory, Love, Exploitation, and Submissive subscales, respectively (Pincus & Wilson, 2001); DAPP–BQ ⫽ Diffidence subscale from the Dimensional
Personality Disorders Inventory (Klein et al., 1993); DEQ–D, DEQ–N, and DEQ–C ⫽ Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Dependency, Neediness, and Connectedness subscales, respectively; Blatt,
D’Afflittie, & Quinlan, 1976); IDI–ER and IDI–SSC ⫽ Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, Emotional Reliance and Social Self-Confidence subscales, respectively (Hirschfeld et al., 1977); 3VDI–L,
Note. MCMI–III ⫽ Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1997); PDQ– 4 ⫽ Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire– 4 (Bagby & Farvolden, 2004); WISPI ⫽ Wisconsin

Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (Livesley & Jackson, in press); S ⫽ student; C ⫽ clinical; SNAP ⫽ Dependency subscale from the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive
.41ⴱ
DAPP–BQ

C
cantly with NEO PI–R agreeableness, this correlation was also
statistically significantly lower than the correlation with maladap-

.66ⴱⴱ
S
tive agreeableness (see Table 3).
Table 4 provides partial correlations between the measures of

Personality (Clark, 1993). There were 105 students and 69 patients. The number for each analysis varies because not all persons completed all items on each inventory (see Table 1).
.30ⴱ
trait dependency and DPD with EXP–A, neuroticism, and consci-

.21
C
3VDI–S

entiousness in both the clinical and student samples. In the student

sample, when variance that could be accounted for by neuroticism

.52ⴱⴱ
.50ⴱⴱ
S

was partialed out, EXP–A continued to correlate significantly with

all of the trait-dependency and DPD measures (a significant cor-

.43ⴱ
relation with 3VDI–S was now also obtained). In the clinical
.10

⫺.03
C
3VDI–E

sample, it continued to correlate with the WISPI, IDI–SSC,

3VDI–L, 3VDI–E, and DAPP–BQ. However, significant correla-
.31ⴱⴱ
.58ⴱⴱ
.65ⴱⴱ
tions with the MCMI–III, PDQ– 4, IDI–ER, and SNAP were lost.
S

On the other hand, in a complementary fashion, when the variance

that could be explained by EXP–A was partialed out, neuroticism
.51ⴱ
.53ⴱ
.32ⴱ
.12
C

failed to correlate significantly with the PDQ– 4, IDI–ER,

3VDI–L

3VDI–L, 3VDI–E, and DAPP–BQ in the clinical sample. The

.49ⴱⴱ
.41ⴱⴱ
.68ⴱⴱ
.52ⴱⴱ

correlations for conscientiousness remained for the IDI–SSC and

S

3VDI–E when we controlled for neuroticism in the clinical sample

and remained for all but one of the measures (WISPI) within the
.39ⴱ
.56ⴱ
.29ⴱ
.50ⴱ
.13
C
IDI–SSC

student sample.
.53ⴱⴱ
.78ⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱ
.72ⴱⴱ
.70ⴱⴱ
S

Discussion
The results of the current study suggest that the failure to
.59ⴱ
.35ⴱ

.68ⴱ
.34ⴱ
.32ⴱ
.12
C
IDI–ER

recognize in past research the potentially important role of agree-

ableness in conceptualizing and understanding dependency may
.67ⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱ
.46ⴱⴱ
.49ⴱⴱ
.58ⴱⴱ
.57ⴱⴱ

reflect in part how FFM agreeableness is being assessed. The

S

assessment of the FFM in the four published meta-analyses was

confined largely, if not solely, to the NEO PI–R or a measure
DEQ–C

.55ⴱⴱ

.63ⴱⴱ

.73ⴱⴱ

modeled after the NEO PI–R. In the current study, only 1 of the 13
C

.24

.15

.15
.19

measures of trait dependency or DPD within the student sample

and only 2 of 13 within the clinical sample correlated significantly
DEQ–N

with NEO PI–R agreeableness, consistent with the prior research.

.56ⴱⴱ
.55ⴱⴱ
.41ⴱⴱ
.43ⴱⴱ
.43ⴱⴱ
.61ⴱⴱ
.26ⴱ
C

.24

However, when the experimentally altered version of the NEO

PI–R agreeableness scale was used, only 1 of the 13 measures of
trait dependency or DPD failed to correlate significantly with
DEQ–D

.73ⴱⴱ
.80ⴱⴱ
.69ⴱ
.41ⴱ
.56ⴱ
.33ⴱ
.67ⴱ
.45ⴱ
.34ⴱ

agreeableness within the clinical sample and only 3 of 13 failed to

C

do so within the student sample.

Theoretical models should be revised in response to empirical
.55ⴱ
.59ⴱ
.46ⴱ
.51ⴱ
.53ⴱ
.68ⴱ
.42ⴱ
.54ⴱ
.48ⴱ
.11
C

refutation, but failures to confirm hypotheses do at times reflect

WISPI

methodological limitations of the existing research (Cronbach &

.72ⴱⴱ
.71ⴱⴱ
.56ⴱⴱ
.62ⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱ
.67ⴱⴱ
.65ⴱⴱ

Meehl, 1955). As suggested in the classic article by Cronbach and

Correlations Among Measures of Dependency

—
—
—
S

Meehl (1955), no single measure should be understood as provid-

ing an operational definition of a construct, and Costa and McCrae
.34ⴱ

.26ⴱ

.32ⴱ
.37ⴱ

.30ⴱ

.43ⴱ
.35ⴱ
.25

.12

.15

.16
C

(1995) acknowledged some time ago that “the NEO PI–R is not the
PDQ–4

gold standard by which other conceptualizations of the FFM

.58ⴱⴱ

.46ⴱⴱ
.57ⴱⴱ
.48ⴱⴱ
.59ⴱⴱ
.40ⴱⴱ
.57ⴱⴱ
.78ⴱⴱ

should be judged” (p. 36). The NEO PI–R is justifiably the

—
—
—
S

predominant measure of the FFM, given its very extensive con-

struct validation (Costa & McCrae, 1992). However, it was con-
.76ⴱ
.28ⴱ
.35ⴱ
.32ⴱ

.39ⴱ
.40ⴱ

.25ⴱ

.45ⴱ
.61ⴱ
.19

.22

.20
MCMI–III

structed largely for the purpose of assessing the FFM within the
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

general population, and it may lack some fidelity in the assessment

.77ⴱⴱ
.67ⴱⴱ

.57ⴱⴱ
.69ⴱⴱ
.61ⴱⴱ
.64ⴱⴱ
.41ⴱⴱ
.67ⴱⴱ
.82ⴱⴱ

of abnormal variants of some of the FFM domains.

—
—
—
S

A reasonable concern regarding the methodology of the current

study is that the authors might have simply replaced NEO PI–R
DAPP–BQ
Measure

IDI–SSC

agreeableness items with dependency items. However, the exper-

Table 2

3VDI–L
3VDI–E
3VDI–S
DEQ–D
DEQ–N
DEQ–C
IDI–ER
PDQ–4
WISPI

SNAP

imental manipulation was instead confined to reversing the direc-

tion of the maladaptivity of each respective item without otherwise
ⴱ
 DEPENDENCY AND AGREEABLENESS 549

Table 3
Correlations of Measures of Dependency With Five-Factor Model Scales

NEO–N NEO–E NEO–O NEO–A EXP–A NEO–C

Measure S C S C S C S C S C S C

MCMI–III .43ⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱ ⫺.22 .12 ⫺.14 .09 ⫺.04 .44ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱa .44ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ .05
PDQ–4 .38ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ ⫺.16 .04 ⫺.11 .06 ⫺.14 .32ⴱ .31ⴱⴱa .39ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱ .05
WISPI .36ⴱⴱ .13 ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.23ⴱ ⫺.21 ⫺.15 ⫺.06 .28ⴱa .42ⴱⴱa ⫺.28ⴱ .20
DEQ–D — .51ⴱⴱ — .07 — .11 — .20 — .35ⴱⴱ — .12
DEQ–N — .34ⴱ — .00 — .03 — .00 — .43ⴱⴱa — ⫺.08
DEQ–C — .45ⴱ — .11 — .15 — .25 — .31ⴱⴱ — .10
IDI–ER .39ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ ⫺.11 .29ⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.06 .23ⴱ .18 .23ⴱ .30ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ
IDI–SSC .45ⴱⴱ .20 ⫺.38ⴱⴱ .10 ⫺.22ⴱ .08 ⫺.09 .16 .45ⴱⴱa .42ⴱⴱa ⫺.41ⴱⴱ ⫺.37ⴱⴱ
3VDI–L .33ⴱⴱ .28ⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ .04 ⫺.20 .14 .03 .24 .49ⴱⴱa .43ⴱⴱa ⫺.18 ⫺.05
3VDI–E .48ⴱⴱ .23ⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.23ⴱ .17 ⫺.12 .19 .40ⴱⴱa .34ⴱⴱa ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ
3VDI–S .35ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .00 .11 ⫺.08 .10 .01 .24 .20 .37ⴱⴱa ⫺.03 .03
DAPP–BQ .38ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱ .12 ⫺.31ⴱⴱ .10 .05 .18 .49ⴱⴱa .52ⴱⴱa ⫺.29ⴱ ⫺.08
SNAP .49ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ ⫺.19 .12 ⫺.14 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 .12 .38ⴱⴱa .13 ⫺.30ⴱⴱ .23

Note. NEO–N, NEO–E, NEO–O, NEO–A, and NEO–C ⫽ the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Connectedness subscales,
respectively, of the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992); EXP–A ⫽ experimentally altered NEO Personality Inventory—Revised
Agreeableness scale; S ⫽ student; C ⫽ clinical; MCMI–III ⫽ Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1997); PDQ– 4 ⫽
Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire– 4 (Bagby & Farvolden, 2004); WISPI ⫽ Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory (Klein et al., 1993); DEQ–D,
DEQ–N, and DEQ–C ⫽ Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Dependency, Neediness, and Connectedness subscales, respectively; Blatt, D’Afflittie, &
Quinlan, 1976); IDI–ER and IDI–SSC ⫽ Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, Emotional Reliance and Social Self-Confidence subscales, respectively
(Hirschfeld et al., 1977); 3VDI–L, 3VDI–E, and 3VDI–S ⫽ 3 Vector Dependency Inventory, Love, Exploitation, and Submissive subscales, respectively
(Pincus & Wilson, 2001); DAPP–BQ ⫽ Diffidence subscale from the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (Livesley
& Jackson, in press); SNAP ⫽ Dependency subscale from the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993). There were 105 students
and 69 patients. The number for each analysis varies because not all persons completed all items on each inventory (see Table 1).
a
The correlation between dependency measure and EXP–A was significantly higher ( p ⫽ .05) than the correlation between dependency measure and
NEO–A.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

altering its content. For example, the NEO PI–R altruism items “I
try to be courteous to everyone I meet,” “Some people think of me
as cold and calculating,” “I think of myself as a charitable person,”
“Some people think I’m selfish and egotistical,” and “I go out of
my way to help others if I can” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 72) all
describe behavior for which it would be preferable (or adaptive) to
endorse the item in the altruistic direction. The experimentally
altered versions were “I am overly courteous to everyone I meet,”
“I can be cold and calculating when it’s necessary,” “I am so
charitable that I give more than I can afford,” “Most people think
that I take good care of my own needs,” and “I have sacrificed my
own needs to help others” (respectively). The correlation of NEO
PI–R agreeableness with the experimentally altered version was
not so high that one could interpret the two measures as assessing
the same construct (the median convergent validity of any two
measures of DPD, as reported in 24 studies, is only .59; Widiger
& Boyd, in press), nor should they be interpreted as such. The
NEO PI–R can be said to be assessing adaptive agreeableness
while the EXP–A would be assessing maladaptive agreeableness.
In sum, an adequate clinical understanding of dependency
should probably include the excessive and extreme gullibility,
self-effacement, self-sacrifice, and compliance of persons with this
personality disorder. There is much that is interpersonal about
dependency (Wiggins, 1982), and clinicians may fail to appreciate
this point if it is understood to be just a component of neuroticism,
as in the models of Clark (1993), Krueger et al. (2008), Lee and
Ashton (2004), and Livesley and Jackson (in press). The self-
consciousness, vulnerability, and insecurity of neuroticism con-
tribute to the occurrence of dependent behavior (Miller & Lynam,
2008), as anger contributes to the occurrence of antagonistic be-
havior (Costa & McCrae, 1992). However, just as it is the case that
not all antagonistic behavior is driven by the negative affect of
anger (e.g., manipulation, exploitation, arrogance, and deception),
the disposition to be docile, servile, self-effacing, compliant, obe-
dient, gullible, and submissive may not necessarily be driven by
anxious insecurity. There is a rich clinical, empirical, and theoret-
ical literature on interpersonal models of personality and person-
ality disorders (Benjamin, Rothweiler, & Critchfield, 2006; Pin-
cus, 2005) that should be brought to bear on one’s understanding
and treatment of maladaptive dependent behavior. This clinical
understanding will be sorely handicapped if trait dependency and
DPD are understood solely in terms of neuroticism and negative
affect.
The relationship of the experimentally altered measure of agree-
ableness with the WISPI, 3VDI–E, 3VDI–L, IDI–SSC, and
DAPP–BQ held up for both the student and clinical samples when
variance due to neuroticism was removed (as well as the MCMI–
III, PDQ– 4, and SNAP within the student sample). The WISPI,
3VDI–E, 3VDI–L, and IDI–SSC are among the more interperson-
ally oriented measures of trait dependency and/or DPD (Hirschfeld
et al., 1977; Klein et al., 1993; Pincus & Wilson, 2001). Never-
theless, those instances where significant correlations were lost within
the clinical sample when variance because of neuroticism was first
removed could suggest that a degree of neuroticism was uninten-
tionally injected into the assessment of maladaptive agreeableness.
On the other hand, correlations of neuroticism with measures of
trait dependency and DPD were also lost when we controlled for
maladaptive agreeableness within the clinical sample. In other
550 LOWE, EDMUNDSON, AND WIDIGER

Table 4 petent and needing support, assistance, and guidance from others).
Partial Correlations of Measures of Dependency With EXP–A, It should be noted, however, that this negative correlation with
NEO–N, and NEO–C conscientiousness was not replicated well within the clinical sam-
ple, with the exception of the IDI–SSC and 3VDI–E.
EXP–A NEO–N NEO–C The current study also found, at best, only a modest effect for
controlling for controlling for controlling for
NEO–N EXP–A NEO–N
the measure of dependency. The effect of the experimental ma-
nipulation of agreeableness items was largely consistent across 12
Measure S C S C S C of the 13 measures of dependency, including measures of DPD,
adaptive and maladaptive trait dependency, and one of the two
MCMI–III .43ⴱⴱ .17 .49ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱ .02
alternative dimensional models of personality disorder. The sole
PDQ–4 .32ⴱⴱ .23 .42ⴱⴱ .16 ⫺.25ⴱ .01
WISPI .26ⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ ⫺.17 ⫺.22 ⫺.17 exception occurred for the SNAP within the clinical sample. SNAP
DEQ–D — .20 — .23 — .00 dependency did correlate significantly with the experimentally
DEQ⫺N — .38ⴱⴱ — .02 — ⫺.08 manipulated version of NEO PI–R agreeableness within the stu-
DEQ–C — .04 — .32ⴱ — .07 dent sample but not within the clinical sample. The failure to
IDI–ER .29ⴱⴱ .27 .45ⴱⴱ .12 ⫺.25ⴱ .11
IDI–SSC .51ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ obtain a significant correlation for the SNAP, however, could be
3VDI–L .52ⴱⴱ .29ⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.14 ⫺.02 consistent with the convergent validity findings, which suggested
3VDI–E .38ⴱⴱ .33ⴱ .50ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ that the SNAP assessment of trait dependency is the least inter-
3VDI–S .33ⴱⴱ .14 .36ⴱⴱ .29ⴱ .02 .04 personal of all 13 measures, failing to correlate as well with the
DAPP–BQ .54ⴱⴱ .32ⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .22 ⫺.26ⴱ ⫺.11
WISPI or with any one of the three 3VDI measures in the clinical
SNAP .44ⴱⴱ ⫺.15 .53ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱ .24
sample.
Note. NEO–N and NEO–C ⫽ the Neuroticism and Connectedness sub- The current study found weak support for the distinction be-
scales, respectively, of the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (Costa & tween adaptive and maladaptive trait dependency. The findings
McCrae, 1992); EXP–A ⫽ experimentally altered NEO Personality Inven- were consistent across DEQ connectedness and neediness, incon-
tory—Revised Agreeableness scale; S ⫽ student; C ⫽ clinical; MCMI–
III ⫽ Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (Millon, Millon, & Davis, sistent with Dunkley et al. (2006) and Zuroff et al. (1996) but
1997); PDQ– 4 ⫽ Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire– 4 (Bagby & Far- consistent with Bacchiochi et al. (2003) and McBride et al. (2006).
volden, 2004); WISPI ⫽ Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory (Klein Specific relationships were obtained with the 3VDI scales but not
et al., 1993); DEQ–D, DEQ–N, and DEQ–C ⫽ Depressive Experiences in the precise manner expected. The latter findings are perhaps best
Questionnaire (Dependency, Neediness, and Connectedness subscales, re-
understood as reflecting limitations of the NEO PI–R facet scales
spectively; Blatt, D’Afflittie, & Quinlan, 1976); IDI–ER and IDI–SSC ⫽
Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, Emotional Reliance and Social Self- (original and experimentally altered) in providing truly specific
Confidence subscales, respectively (Hirschfeld et al., 1977); 3VDI–L, assessments of octants of the IPC, representing instead complex
3VDI–E, and 3VDI–S ⫽ 3 Vector Dependency Inventory, Love, Exploi- blends of agency and communion.
tation, and Submissive subscales, respectively (Pincus & Wilson, 2001);
DAPP–BQ ⫽ Diffidence subscale from the Dimensional Assessment of
Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (Livesley & Jackson, in Limitations
press); SNAP ⫽ Dependency subscale from the Schedule for Nonadaptive
and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993). There were 105 students and 69 The current study sampled both a student and a clinical popu-
patients; the numbers vary because not all persons completed all items on lation, providing an ability to directly compare findings across two
each inventory (see Table 1).
ⴱ different populations that have been studied separately in prior
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
research. No prior FFM dependency study included both a clinical
and student sample. However, the sampling was confined solely to
words, their shared variance may simply reflect that both neurot- female participants. Dependency scores are much higher in
icism and maladaptive agreeableness were assessing some com- women, particularly when the assessment is conducted with self-
mon impairments in functioning. report inventories, which were the focus of the current investiga-
The current study found partial support for the suggestion of tion. Nevertheless, the relationship of dependency to female sex
Miller and Lynam (2008) to revise the FFM conceptualization of and gender is controversial, as the relationship could reflect biases
dependency to include low facets of conscientiousness. Most of the in the conceptualization or assessment of trait dependency or DPD
measures of dependency did correlate negatively with conscien- (Bornstein, 1996; Morey et al., 2005; Widiger & Bornstein, 2001).
tiousness in the student sample, consistent with the meta-analysis Sex differences tend not to be found when free-response or per-
of Miller and Lynam (2008). Low conscientiousness was not formance tests are used (i.e., tests previously identified as projec-
included in the FFM conceptualization of DPD by Widiger et al. tive tests; Bornstein, 1996, 2005). No prior FFM dependency study
(2002), nor was it evident in researchers’ or clinicians’ descrip- has used free response or performance tests and it would be of
tions of prototypic cases of DPD (Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Sam- interest to extend this research to other approaches for assessing
uel & Widiger, 2004). Low conscientiousness may in fact be an dependency, including behavioral indices (Rubinstein, 2007) as
important trait of dependency that was not adequately recognized well as free response or performance tests (Bornstein, 2005;
in prior FFM conceptualizations that has become apparent through Ganellen, 2007).
empirical research. A valid description of dependency should It would also be useful for future studies to explore whether the
perhaps recognize the presence of (for instance) low competence, results generalize to men. We expect that men will obtain lower
low self-discipline, immaturity, and poor impulse control (low scores on the self-report measures of dependency but that the
constraint) in persons high in dependency (reflecting in part their correlations between the measures of the FFM and dependency
belief and presentation of themselves as being helpless and incom- will be largely replicated, consistent with all of the prior studies
 DEPENDENCY AND AGREEABLENESS
that considered the effect of gender on the relationship of trait
dependency and DPD with agreeableness (Bornstein & Cecero,
2000; Miller & Lynam, 2008; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman
& Page, 2004). On the other hand, studies using trait measures of
dependency (e.g., the IDI), rather than measures of DPD (e.g., the
MCMI–III), have obtained elevated scores for men who were
violently aggressive toward women (Bornstein, 2006). It would
then be of interest to extend the current research to include samples
of men who are violently aggressive toward women. We hypoth-
esize that a positive relationship of dependency will still be ob-
tained with maladaptive agreeableness, although the dependent
behavior in violent men could indeed be due more to elevated
neuroticism than to maladaptive agreeableness (Widiger &
Mullins-Sweatt, 2004).
Sampling of persons within a residential treatment program for
substance abuse may also not have been optimal. The ideal sample
might be persons in treatment for DPD or, perhaps more realistic,
persons in treatment for a personality disorder. Only one of the
prior FFM dependency studies sampled persons in treatment for a
personality disorder (Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry, 1993),
and even in that instance, only 5% of the persons met diagnostic
criteria for DPD.
Another possibility is to sample persons in treatment for depres-
sion, given the considerable interest in the study of the relationship
of trait dependency, DPD, and neuroticism with depression. The
authors of the current study preferred a sample without elevated
scores on neuroticism that could be attributed to depressed mood
(Widiger, in press). However, Costa, Bagby, Herbst, and McCrae
(2005) argue that elevated scores on neuroticism because of de-
pressed mood should not be understood as simply a reflection of
this depressed mood, because these scores do correlate with other
variables unrelated to depression, and they have incremental va-
lidity in the prediction of personality-relevant criteria above and
beyond the effects of severity of depression. Costa et al. also
demonstrated empirically no significant changes in NEO PI–R
profiles over the course of treatment (however, there was substan-
tially more change in the depression and vulnerability facets of
neuroticism than for any other NEO PI–R facet scores). In any
case, the concern is perhaps moot in the current study, given the
relatively low levels of neuroticism for the persons within clinical
treatment. The clinical sample did have elevated scores on mea-
sures of trait dependency and/or DPD and lower scores on NEO
PI–R agreeableness (as well as extraversion, conscientiousness,
and openness).
It would be of interest for future research to consider additional
measures of the FFM, perhaps in particular the HEXACO–PI (Lee
& Ashton, 2004), as it includes a scale for dependency within its
assessment of general personality structure. However, the
HEXACO–PI assessment of dependency is concerned with feel-
ings of emotional instability or neuroticism, and its items are then
perhaps confined to feelings of self-consciousness, vulnerability,
and insecurity. Although it may include items that describe being
docile, servile, self-sacrificing, modest, compliant, clinging, obe-
dient, gullible, submissive, and self-effacing (i.e., trait terms typ-
ically associated with dependent behavior), the items are perhaps
coupled with feelings of insecurity and self-consciousness with
regard to this manner of interpersonal relatedness. In any case, it
might be of interest in future research to explore the relationship of
HEXACO–PI dependency with other measures of trait dependency
551
and DPD and with the original and experimentally altered assess-
ments of FFM agreeableness.
Conclusions
Dependency has long been considered to be a disorder primarily
of interpersonal relatedness (Pincus, 2002). From the perspective
of the FFM, this would imply a relationship with agreeableness
(Wiggins & Pincus, 1989, 2002). Nevertheless, a relationship of
dependency with FFM agreeableness has not been observed in
quite a number of studies. In fact, four largely independent meta-
analyses have all failed to report a consistent relationship, leading
some to suggest a reformulation of an FFM conceptualization of
dependency. The results of the current study suggest instead that
the absence of an empirical relationship may reflect a methodolog-
ical limitation of the existing research, most notably the reliance on
measures that are failing to provide an adequate assessment of
maladaptive variants of agreeableness.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bacchiochi, J. R., Bagby, R. M., Cristi, C., & Watson, J. (2003). Validation
of connectedness and neediness as dimensions of the dependency con-
struct. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 233–242.
Bagby, R. M., & Farvolden, P. (2004). The Personality Diagnostic
Questionnaire– 4 (PDQ– 4). In M. J. Hilsenroth, D. L. Segal, & M.
Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment:
Vol. 2. Personality assessment (pp. 122–133). New York: Wiley.
Bagby, R. M., Gilchrist, E. J., Rector, N. A., Dickens, S. E., Joffe, R. T.,
Levitt, A., et al. (2001). The stability and validity of the sociotropy and
autonomy personality dimensions as measured by the Revised Personal
Style Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 765–779.
Ball, S. A., Tennen, H., Poling, J. C., Kranzler, H. R., & Rounsaville, B. J.
(1997). Personality, temperament, and character dimensions and the
DSM–IV personality disorders in substance abusers. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 106, 545–553.
Benjamin, L. S., Rothweiler, J. C., & Critchfield, K. L. (2006). The use of
Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB) as an assessment tool.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 83–109.
Blais, M. A. (1997). Clinician ratings of the five-factor model of person-
ality and the DSM–IV personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 185, 388 –393.
Blatt, S. J., D’Afflittie, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of
depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85,
383–389.
Bornstein, R. F. (1996). Sex differences in dependent personality disorder
prevalence rates. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 1–12.
Bornstein, R. F. (2005). The dependent patient: Diagnosis, assessment, and
treatment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 82– 89.
Bornstein, R. F. (2006). The complex relationship between dependency
and domestic violence: Converging psychological factors and social
forces. American Psychologist, 61, 595– 606.
Bornstein, R. F., & Cecero, J. J. (2000). Deconstructing dependency in a
five-factor world: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 74, 324 –343.
Bornstein, R. F., & Huprich, S. K. (2006). Construct validity of the
Relationship Profile Test: Three-year retest reliability and links with
core personality traits, object relations, and interpersonal problems.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 162–171.
Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adap-
tive Personality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
552 LOWE, EDMUNDSON, AND WIDIGER
Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder:
Perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 227–257.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., Schroeder, M. L., & Irish, S. L. (1996).
Convergence of two systems for assessing personality disorder. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 8, 294 –303.
Clark, L. A., Vorhies, L., & McEwen, J. L. (2002). Personality disorder
symptomatology from the five-factor perspective. In P. T. Costa & T. A.
Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of per-
sonality (2nd ed., pp. 125–148). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Cogswell, A., & Alloy, L. B. (2006). The relation of neediness and Axis II
pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 16 –21.
Costa, P. T., Bagby, R. M., Herbst, J. F., & McCrae, R. R. (2005).
Personality self-reports are concurrently reliable and valid during acute
depressive episodes. Journal of Affective Disorders, 89, 45–55.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the
five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4,
362–371.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical
personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological
tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Flett, G. L. (1997). Specific
cognitive-personality vulnerability styles in depression and the five-
factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
1041–1053.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Zuroff, D. C., Lecce, S., & Hui, D.
(2006). Neediness and connectedness and the five factor model of
personality. European Journal of Personality, 20, 123–136.
Ganellen, R. J. (2007). Assessing normal and abnormal personality func-
tioning: Strengths and weaknesses of self-report, observer, and perfor-
mance-based methods. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 30 – 40.
Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of
NEO PI–R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339 –358.
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gough, H. G., Barret, J., Korchin,
S. J., & Chodoff, P. (1977). A measure of interpersonal dependency.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 610 – 619.
Klein, M. H., Benjamin, L. S., Rosenfeld, R., Treece, C., Husted, J., &
Greist, J. H. (1993). The Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory: I.
Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Personality Disorders,
7, 285–303.
Krueger, R. F., Skodol, A. E., Livesley, W. J., Shrout, P. E., & Huang, Y.
(2008). Synthesizing dimensional and categorical approaches to person-
ality disorders: Refining the research agenda for DSM–V. In J. E. Helzer,
H. C. Kraemer, R. F. Krueger, H.-U. Wittchen, P. J. Sirovatka, & D. A.
Regier (Eds.), Dimensional approaches in diagnostic classification (pp.
85–99). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO
Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329 –358.
Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. (in press). Manual for the Dimensional
Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire. Port Huron,
MI: Sigma Press.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to
represent the DSM–IV personality disorders: An expert consensus ap-
proach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401– 412.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of
personality to understand sex differences in the personality disorders.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 583– 602.
McBride, C., Zuroff, D. C., Bagby, R. M., & Bacchiochi, J. (2006).
Depressive Experiences Questionnaire: Does it measure maladaptive
and adaptive forms of dependency? Social Behavior and Personality, 34,
1–16.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2008). Dependent personality disorder:
Comparing an expert generated and empirically derived five-factor
model personality disorder count. Assessment, 15, 4 –15.
Millon, T., Millon, C., & Davis, R. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory: MCMI–III. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Assessments.
Mongrain, M. (1993). Dependency and self-criticism located within the
five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
15, 455– 462.
Morey, L. C., Alexander, G. M., & Boggs, C. (2005). Gender and person-
ality disorder. In J. Oldham, A. Skodol, & D. Bender (Eds.), Textbook of
personality disorders (pp. 541–554). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chiatric Association.
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). The Shedler-Westen
Assessment Procedure from the perspective of general personality struc-
ture. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 618 – 623.
Pincus, A. L. (2002). Constellations of dependency within the five factor
model of personality. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality
disorders and the five factor model of personality (pp. 203–214). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pincus, A. L. (2005). The interpersonal nexus of personality disorders. In
S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp.
120 –139). New York: Wiley.
Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonal
dependency: Structural analyses of self-report dependency measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 744 –758.
Pincus, A. L., & Wilson, K. R. (2001). Interpersonal variability in depen-
dent personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 223–251.
Rubinstein, G. (2007). The behavioural indicators of dependency and the
five-factor model of personality. Psychology and Psychotherapy: The-
ory, Research, and Practice, 80, 333–342.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). Clinicians’ descriptions of
prototypic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18,
286 –308.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the
relationships between the five-factor model and DSM–IV–TR personality
disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326 –
1342.
Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and
personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clin-
ical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation of
personality disorders in circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations
with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 5, 41–52.
Sprock, J. (2002). A comparative study of the dimensions and facets of the
five-factor model in the diagnosis of cases of personality disorder.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 402– 423.
Widiger, T. A. (in press). Neuroticism. In M. Leary & R. Hoyle (Eds.),
Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York:
Guilford Press.
Widiger, T. A., & Bornstein, R. F. (2001). Histrionic, narcissistic, and
dependent personality disorders. In H. E. Adams & P. Sutker (Eds.),
Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 507–529).
New York: Plenum Press.
Widiger, T. A., & Boyd, S. (in press). Personality disorder assessment
instruments. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality
assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2002). Five-factor model personality
disorder research. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality
 DEPENDENCY AND AGREEABLENESS
disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 59 – 87).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. (2004). Typology of maritally violent
men: A discussion of Holtzworth-Monroe and Meehan (2003). Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1396 –1400.
Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of
personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 19, 110 –130.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C. J., & Costa, P. T.,
Jr. (2002). A description of the DSM–IV personality disorders with the
five-factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.,
pp. 89 –99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in
clinical psychology. In P. Kendall & J. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183–221). New York:
Wiley.
553
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disor-
ders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment, 1, 305–
316.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2002). Personality structure and the
structure of personality disorders. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.,
pp. 103–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Depressive personality styles and the five-factor
model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 453– 472.
Zuroff, D. C., Moskowitz, D. S., & Koestner, R. (1996, August). Differ-
entiating the construct of dependency: Rude and Burnheim’s neediness
and connectedness factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Received August 21, 2008
Revision received June 3, 2009
Accepted June 11, 2009 䡲