English Traits: New and Revised Edition

---

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the FFM, compare it with the DSM-5 Section 3 dimensional trait model, and outline its potential strengths and advantages as a dimensional model of personality and personality disorder. Most models of personality have been developed through the reflections of well-regarded theorists eg, refs 10, The development of the FFM was more strictly empirical; specifically, through studies of the trait terms within different languages.

This lexical paradigm was guided by the premise that what has the most importance, interest, or meaning to persons will be encoded within the language. Language can be understood as a sedimentary deposit of persons' observations over the thousands of years of the language's growth and transformation. From this perspective, the most important domains of personality will be those with the greatest number of terms to describe and differentiate the gradations and variations of a particular trait, and the structure of personality will be evident in the empirical relationship among these trait terms.

The initial lexical studies were conducted on the English language, and these investigations converged onto a fivefactor structure, 23 consisting of extraversion versus introversion , agreeableness versus antagonism , conscientiousness or constraint , emotional instability or neuroticism , and intellect unconventionality or openness. Subsequent lexical studies have been conducted in Czech, Dutch, Filipino, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, and other languages, and the findings have supported reasonably well the universal existence of the five domains.

For example, the six facets they identified for agreeableness were trust, straightforwardness, compliance, altruism, modesty, and tender-mindedness. The universality of the FFM domains is not terribly surprising when one considers their content.

Английские черты от Ральф Уолдо Эмерсон (ранний х годов) в твердом переплете | eBay

The first two domains that appear in every language have consistentlybeen extraversion and agreeableness. Many theorists have similarly placed special emphasis on interpersonal relatedness as providing the core of personality disorder. The third domain extracted from every language is conscientiousness or constraint. This domain concerns the control and regulation of behavior, contrasting being disciplined, compulsive, dutiful, conscientious, deliberate, workaholic, and achievement-oriented, with being carefree, irresponsible, lax, impulsive, spontaneous, disinhibited, negligent, and hedonistic.

It is again self-evident that all cultures would consider it to be important to describe the likelihood a person will be responsible, conscientious, competent, and diligent as a mate, parent, friend, employee, or colleague versus being negligent, lax, disinhibited, or impulsive.

Сведения о продавце

The fourth domain, emotional instability, is of considerable importance in mental and also medical health, 29 saturating most measures of personality disorder. The fifth domain, openness, intellect, or unconventionality, reflects a culture or society's interest in creativity, intellect, and imagination, contrasting being open-minded, unusual, odd, weird, creative, peculiar, and unconventional with being closedminded, practical, conventional, and rigid.

The FFM has amassed a considerable body of empirical support, including multivariate behavior genetics with respect to its structure 31 and even some molecular genetic support for neuroticism 30 , neurobiological correlates, 32 childhood antecedents, 33 temporal stability across the life span, 34 and cross-cultural validity, both through the emic studies considering the structures indigenous to different languages 24 and etic studies translating the FFM across the major regions of the world. One of the strengths of the FFM is its robustness, which follows naturally from its coverage of essentially all of the trait terms within a variety of languages.

The FFM has been used effectively as a basis for comparing, contrasting, and integrating broad sets of personality scales and traits considered within diverse areas of research. However, it also goes beyond DSM-IV-TR to include traits that are unique to the widely popular Psychopathy Checklist-Revised PCL-R 39 , such as glib charm low self-consciousness , arrogance low modesty , and lack of empathy tough-minded callousness and goes even further to include traits of psychopathy emphasized originally by Cleckley 40 but not included in either the DSM-IV-TR or the PCL-R, such as low anxiousness and low vulnerability or fearlessness.

A compelling body of empirical research has now accumulated in support of this understanding. Samuel et al 50 demonstrated through item response theory analysis that the maladaptive personality trait scales assessed in the models of Livesley 11 and Clark 18 lie along the same latent traits as those assessed by measures of the FFM, with the measures of abnormal personality representing more extreme variants of the traits of normal personality. Samuel et al 51 extended this research to focus specifically on borderline personality disorder.

They indicated that the borderline symptoms eg, recurrent suicidality lie along the same latent trait as FFM neuroticism or emotional instability. Stepp et al 52 similarly integrated an FFM measure with scales to assess the dimensional models of Cloninger 10 and Clark, 8 in a confirmatory factor and item response theory analyses that documented the presence of a common five-factor model that was closely aligned with the FFM.

More specifically, they demonstrated that dependent traits were extreme variants of FFM agreeableness, obsessive-compulsive traits were extreme variants of FFM conscientiousness, and schizotypal cognitive-perceptual aberrations were extreme variants of FFM openness. Distel et al 53 examined the phenotypic and genetic association between borderline personality and FFM personality traits in monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, and siblings from Dutch, Belgian, and Australian families.

Multivariate genetic analyses indicated that the genetic factors that influenced individual differences in neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion accounted for all of the genetic liability for borderline personality though unique environmental effects were not completely shared with the FFM traits. Samuel and Widiger 55 replicated and extended this meta-analysis with 16 studies containing 18 independent samples that administered a facet-level assessment of the FFM.

Positive affect aligns well with FFM extraversion, as positive affectivity is the driving temperament underlying extraversion. FFM conscientiousness or constraint is a domain of self-regulation. The RDoC domain of cognition would include the psychoticism and cognitive-perceptual aberration dimension of the DSM5 dimensional trait model, which aligns closely with the FFM domain of openness otherwise known as intellect The purpose of the FFM of personality disorder, however, is not simply to provide another means with which to diagnose DSM-IV-TR personality disorders, as the latter system is stricken with a number of fundamental limitations and inadequacies, including inadequate coverage, heterogeneous and overlapping categories, and a weak scientific foundation.

Widiger et al 19 proposed a four-step procedure for the diagnosis of a personality disorder from the perspective of the FFM. The first step is to obtain an FFM description of the person. There are quite a number of alternative measures to facilitate this description, which is itself a testament to the interest in the FFM. Simply describing a person in terms of the FFM would be insufficient to determine whether or not a person has a personality disorder. Thus, the second step is to identify the maladaptive traits that are associated with elevations on any respective facet of the FFM. Widiger et al 64 listed typical impairments associated with each of the 60 poles of the 30 facets of the FFM.

Researchers are also now developing measures designed specifically to assess these maladaptive variants. The third step is to determine whether the impairment and distress reach a clinically significant level that would warrant a diagnosis of personality disorder.

It is clear that the diagnostic thresholds for the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders do not relate well to any one of these clinical decisions, hence the lack of clinical utility for the existing nomenclature. A potential advantage of a dimensional classification is that different thresholds can be provided for different social and clinical decisions, an option that could be quite helpful for various public health care services and agencies.

With respect to the fundamental question of whether the person should be provided with a personality disorder diagnosis, a useful guide for this decision is the global assessment of functioning scale on Axis V of DSM-IV-TR.

This point of demarcation is arbitrary in that it does not carve nature at a discrete joint, but it provides a reasonable basis for identifying the presence of disorder that can be used consistently across different personality disorders. The fourth step is a matching of the individual's personality profile to FFM profiles of theoretically, socially, or clinically important constructs for those researchers or clinicians who wish to continue to provide a single diagnostic term to describe a heterogeneous profile of maladaptive personality traits.

The Workgroup's proposal for DSM-5 was a five-domain, trait dimensional model of maladaptive personality. Also proposed for DSM-5 was the retention of six personality disorder types ie, borderline, antisocial, schizotypal, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and avoidant that would have been diagnosed in large part by a list of maladaptive personality traits, 4 consistent with the FFM prototype matching approach developed by Miller et al. The FFBI though goes further than the DSM-5 to include such additional traits as self-disturbance, fragility, distrust, manipulation, and oppositionality.

There are, however, some important differences between the FFM of personality disorder and the proposed DSM-5 dimensional trait model. The latter was largely a unidimensional model. They simply lacked the trait of antagonism. The FFM has a bipolar structure, such that opposite to antagonism is agreeableness, with its own maladaptive variants. It is generally better to be extraverted than introverted, but gregariousness can turn into attention-seeking and inappropriate flirtatiousness, normal assertiveness can become pushiness and authoritarianism, and normal excitement-seeking can become recklessness and excessive risk-taking.

These traits are nearly universally valued as positive, and may even be described as virtuous. However, when taken to their extremes, they can be quite maladaptive, as trusting becomes gullibility, altruism becomes self-sacrificing selflessness, 44 compliance becomes subservience, and modesty becomes self-effacement. One concern that has been raised with respect to the FFM of personality disorder is its potential complexity. Figure 1 provides only a few illustrative traits. The FFM includes well over maladaptive traits. The DSM-5 dimensional trait model included only The relative simplicity of the proposed DSM-5 dimensional trait model ie, unipolar structure and fewer traits was perhaps a necessary compromise.

The dimensional trait proposal for DSM-5 did meet considerable opposition within the personality disorder field 72 , A dimensional trait model consisting of over traits would likely be considered way too complex for many clinicians to accept. Although the confinement of the DSM-5 trait model to just 25 traits would have resulted in a lack of adequate coverage eg, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was to be assessed by just the two traits of perfectionism and perseveration, and narcissistic by just the two traits of grandiosity and attentionseeking , it was perhaps necessary to keep the model as simple as possible for it to be considered acceptable.

The convergence of the proposed DSM-5 dimensional trait model with the FFM, though, is far greater than the divergence. Therefore the proposal presented in Section 3 of DSM-5 appears to be taking a significant step closer to the FFM of personality disorder by conceptualizing personality disorders in large part as constellations of maladaptive personality traits organized within a five-domain dimensional trait model. Conceptualizing personality disorders from the perspective of the FFM has a number of potential advantages.

Some studies have suggested that the FFM is unable to provide an adequate differentiation among the personality disorders. Scales to assess the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders will even contain the same items precisely because they share many of the same traits.

What the FFM can do well is explain the diagnostic cooccurrence. For example, the avoidant and schizoid personality disorders share traits of introversion; dependent and avoidant share traits of agreeableness; and most of the personality disorders contain a considerable amount of neuroticism. Some of the FFM facets do correlate with other domains eg, the angry hostility of neuroticism correlates with antagonism; and the excitement-seeking of extraversion correlates with low conscientiousness , but the five domains of the FFM are much less correlated than the 10 personality disorders or the three clusters of the DSM-IV-TR.

Gender bias within the personality disorder nomenclature has been a heated issue for quite some time. In contrast, the FFM has proved useful in helping to explain and understand gender differences in personality 90 , 91 and can help explain as well the gender differences in personality disorder. They reported that the differential sex prevalence rates obtained through a meta-analytic aggregation of prior studies was consistent with the sex differences that would be predicted if the personality disorders were understood to be maladaptive variants of the FFM.

Associated Data

One exception was for histrionic personality disorder. The FFM conceptualization predicted no differential sex prevalence rate, whereas this personality disorder is diagnosed much more frequently in women. This finding is consistent with the fact that histrionic personality disorder has been the most controversial diagnosis with respect to concerns of gender bias.

One of the difficulties for the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders is a temporal stability that is less than one would have expected for a disorder of personality.

English Traits

A further advantage of the FFM is that it will also allow the clinician to recognize the presence of personality strengths step one of the four-step procedure 19 as well as the deficits and impairments step two. Personality disorders are among the more stigmatizing labels within the diagnostic manual.

Anxiety and mood disorders are events that happen to the person, whereas a personalitydisorder is who that person is and might always be. Some of these strengths can also be quite relevant for treatment planning, such as openness to experience indicating an interest in exploratory psychotherapy, agreeableness indicating an engagement in group therapy, and conscientiousness indicating a willingness and ability to adhere to the demands and rigor of dialectical behavior therapy.

Clinicians, when treating a personality disorder, do not attempt to address the entire personality structure all at once. They focus instead on underlying components, such as the dysregulated anger, the oppositionality, or the manipulativeness of persons diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.

This more specific assessment available with the FFM could be more useful for clinicians and third-party payers tracking clinical progress. The primary purpose of the APA diagnostic manual is to facilitate treatment planning. One possible reason for the absence of manualized treatment programs for the APA personality disorders is their complex heterogeneity. The factor analytically derived FFM is better suited for treatment planning because the domains are considerably more distinct and homogeneous. Extraversion and agreeableness are concerned specifically with social, interpersonal dysfunction.

Interpersonal models of therapy, marital-family therapy, and group therapy would be particularly suitable for them. In contrast, neuroticism provides information with respect to mood, anxiety, and emotional dyscontrol. Maladaptively high openness implies cognitive-perceptual aberrations, and so would likely have pharmacologic implications ie, neuroleptics that are quite different from those for neuroticism. The domain of conscientiousness has specific relevance to occupational dysfunction.

Maladaptive high levels involve workaholism, perfectionism, and compulsivity, whereas low levels involve laxness, negligence, and irresponsibility with potentially their own specific pharmacologic treatment implications eg, methylphenidates In sum, the potential for the development of relatively specific treatment plans, including pharmacotherapy, are considerably better for the FFM domains than for the overlapping DSM-IV-TR personality disorder categories. The FFM of personality disorder provides a reasonably comprehensive integration of normal and abnormal personality within a common hierarchical structure.

Advantages of the FFM of personality disorder include the provision of precise, individualized descriptions of the personality structure, the inclusion of homogeneous trait constructs that will have more specific treatment implications, and the inclusion of normal, adaptive personality traits that will provide a richer and more appreciative description of each patient. The FFM of personality disorder addresses the many fundamental limitations of the categorical model eg, heterogeneity within diagnoses, inadequate coverage, lack of consistent diagnostic thresholds, and excessive diagnostic co-occurrence , and brings to the nomenclature a wealth of knowledge concerning the origins, childhood antecedents, stability, and universality of the dispositions that underlie personality disorder.

It is apparent that DSM-5 is shifting much closer to the FFM through the inclusion of a supplementary fivedomain dimensional model that aligns with the five factors of the FFM, and through an emphasis on FFM traits in the diagnosis of each respective personality disorder type. Nevertheless, the DSM-5 could move even closer through the recognition of the bipolarity of personality structure, the inclusion of normal traits, and the expansion of the coverage of maladaptive personality traits. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.

Journal List Dialogues Clin Neurosci v. Widiger , PhD Thomas A. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http: This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. It takes less than 15 minutes. If you log out before you have completed the survey, your answers will be saved so you can log back in and complete it at any time. We only require the personal information that is necessaryto provide your complete results.

See our privacy policy Available for Adults and Youth ages Available in multiple languages see list. Results create personalized in-depth reports that help you lead a happier, more engaged and satisfying life! Register to get started. Gender Male Female Other. Date of Birth Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Year I would like to receive the VIA newsletter with tips, stories and practices on applying character strengths to help me flourish in my life and work!

We do not share our email lists.

• Pip the Piano: plus Stevie the Steamroller and other stories
• Real Fast Puddings
• La Máscara del Tigre (Spanish Edition)
• Melody (THE LOGAN FAMILY)
• Groupwork With Women/Groupwork With Men: An Overview of Gender Issues in Social Groupwork Practice (Social Work With Groups Series, Vol 6, No 3&4)
• Garfield - tome 5 - Moi, on maime (French Edition)