The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality.

Abstract

The current study tests empirically the relationship of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) with five-factor models of general personality. The DSM-5 maladaptive trait dimensional model proposal included 25 traits organized within five broad domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism). Consistent with the authors of the proposal, it was predicted that negative affectivity would align with five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism, detachment with FFM introversion, antagonism with FFM antagonism, disinhibition with low FFM conscientiousness and, contrary to the proposal; psychoticism would align with FFM openness. Three measures of alternative five-factor models of general personality were administered to 445 undergraduates along with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. The results provided support for the hypothesis that all five domains of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model are maladaptive variants of general personality structure, including the domain of psychoticism.

Associations between belief in conspiracy theories and the maladaptive personality traits of the personality inventory for DSM-5

“…That is, by using broad dimensions that span normative and pathological functioning, it becomes possible to develop a reliable scaffold to understand the nature of conspiracist ideation. In addition, given evidence that the DSM-5 dimensional trait model are maladaptive variants of general personality structure (e.g., Gore & Widiger, 2013), a focus on the former may help to explicate mixed and typically weak associations between conspiracist ideation and the Big Five personality domains (Swami, ChamorroPremuzic, & Furnham, 2010;Swami et al, 2011;Swami & Furnham, 2012).…”

Five-factor model of personality disorders: Spanish normative data and validation

“…Empirical evidence indicates that the best way to describe, evaluate and diagnose PDs is a model conceiving them as a continuum with normal personality and considering the differences between normal and maladaptive personality as gradual and quantitative rather than qualitatively different systems (Samuel & Widiger, 2008;Saulsman & Page, 2004;Widiger & Trull, 2007). In fact, the FFM provides a reasonably complete integration of normal and abnormal personality, explaining the abnormal personality functioning within the same model and language used to describe the general structure of personality (Gore & Widiger, 2013;Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2006;Trull & Widiger, 2013). On the other hand, the derived methodological development to assess PDs from NEO PI-R facets is also relevant, with simple techniques applied in daily practice and normative data to interpret results (Miller, 2012).…”

“…Secondly, their preliminary validation was presented in two Spanish samples in order to test FFM-PD count approach utility in describing and analyzing DSM-PD. In order to assess PDs from a dimensional perspective, in which they are conceived as extreme variants of general traits in the continuum of normal and abnormal personality (Gore & Widiger, 2013;Trull & Widiger, 2013;Widiger & Costa, 2012), the representative values of scores obtained in the Spanish population with FFM-PD count method was calculated. The statistical deviation of each PD referred to in the DSM-IV was considered.…”

An Examination of the Higher-Order Structure of Psychopathology and Its Relationship to Personality

“…Research suggests that mental disorders have consistent relationships with normal personality trait dimensions (e.g., Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010;Saulsman & Page, 2004). This is a particularly salient issue for personality disorders, as many recent studies have examined the relationship between personality disorders and the DSM-5 trait model for personality disorders (e.g., Gore & Widiger, 2013;.…”