Personality Traits in theDSM–5

Personality Functioning, Problems in Living, and Personality Traits

The publication of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was a signpost achievement in the personality assessment. However, research on the AMPD has generally not led to either a deeper understanding of personality disorder or personality assessment or new ideas about how to provide better care for people with personality disorder diagnoses. A significant portion of research has focused on narrow issues and appears to be driven in part by ideological differences between scholars who prefer Criterion A (personality functioning) or Criterion B (maladaptive traits). I trace these issues to ambiguity about the concept of personality functioning as defined in the AMPD and its conceptual distinction from personality traits and problems in living. In this paper, I reground these concepts in coherent and distinct definitions, elaborate upon the implications of their differences, and show how these differences can help clarify and reorient AMPD research to focus on generating clinically useful models for personality pathology and personality assessment.

Volitional Change in Pathological Traits: Can People Change Their Maladaptive Traits?

Research suggests people want to change their normative personality traits-and they can volitionally do so. However, studies have not yet addressed volitional change in pathological personality. Consequently, the current study examined (a) people's desires to change pathological traits, (b) whether these change goals predict subsequent trait change, (c) whether this withstands controlling normative traits, and (d) the extent to which pathological trait change predicts relevant outcomes. College students (N = 463) self-reported their pathological traits weekly for up to 16 weeks. People with elevated pathological traits generally desired to decrease these traits. Furthermore, goals to change negative affectivity and disinhibition predicted corresponding trait change. Thus, people want to reduce their pathological traits-and they may be able to do so for some traits.

Dimensional personality impairment is associated with disruptions in intrinsic intralimbic functional connectivity

BACKGROUND

Recently proposed alternative dimensional models of personality disorder (PD) place the severity of impairments in self and interpersonal functioning at the core of personality pathology. However, associations of these impairments with disturbances in social, cognitive, and affective brain networks remain uninvestigated.

METHODS

The present study examined patterns of resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) in a sample of 74 age- and sex-matched participants (45 inpatients with PD and 29 healthy controls). At a minimum, PD patients carried a diagnosis of borderline PD, although the majority of the sample had one or more additional PDs. rsFC patterns in the following networks were compared between groups and in association with dimensional personality impairments: default mode network (DMN)/core mentalization, frontolimbic, salience, and central executive. Further, the extent to which variation in rsFC was explained by levels of personality impairment as compared to typology-specific borderline PD symptom severity was explored.

RESULTS

Relative to controls, the PD group showed disruptions in rsFC within the DMN/core mentalization and frontolimbic networks. Among PD patients, greater severity of dimensional self-interpersonal impairment was associated with stronger intralimbic rsFC. In contrast, severity of borderline PD-specific typology was not associated with any rsFC patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Disruptions in core mentalization and affective networks are present in PD. Higher intralimbic functional connectivity may underlie self-interpersonal personality impairment in PD regardless of diagnostic typology-specific PD symptoms, providing initial neurobiological evidence supporting alternative dimensional conceptualizations of personality pathology.

Experimental Manipulation of the BFI-2, IPIP-NEO-120, and the IPC-5

Research assessing the relationship of the five-factor model (FFM) to personality disorder symptomatology has generally been confirmatory, with three exceptions. The exceptions have been failures to confirm associations of conscientiousness with the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, agreeableness with dependent, and openness with schizotypal. Haigler and Widiger demonstrated empirically years ago that this was occurring because the predominant FFM measure at that time, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised, does not include a sufficient representation of maladaptive variants of the respective FFM personality trait domains. Research since their study has continued to fail to confirm the FFM hypotheses, using other measures of the FFM. The current study extended the work of Haigler and Widiger by considering three additional FFM measures, the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), the International Item Pool-NEO-120 (IPIP-NEO-120), and the Inventory of Personal Characteristics-5 (IPC-5). Data were obtained from a community sample of adults with experience of mental health treatment. The results confirmed an improvement in the FFM-personality disorder relationships when the experimentally manipulated versions of the BFI-2, IPIP-NEO-120, and IPC-5 were used. The implications of the findings for existing and future FFM-personality disorder research are discussed.

Global personality dysfunction and the relationship of pathological and normal trait domains in the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders

OBJECTIVE

The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes core personality dysfunction common to all personality pathology from maladaptive traits that delineate specific variants of disorder. Previous research shows the convergence between maladaptive and normal range trait domains as well as substantial correlations between maladaptive traits and core dysfunctions, leading some to conclude that personality traits and dysfunction are redundant. This study sought to examine the potential utility of the concept of core dysfunctions as a means of clarifying the nature of the relationship between maladaptive and normal-range traits.

METHOD

Three nonclinical samples (n = 178, 307, and 1,008) were evaluated for personality dysfunction, maladaptive traits, and normal-range traits using different measures.

RESULTS

Results indicated that: (1) normal trait domains and core dysfunction contribute independently to understanding maladaptive traits; (2) the correlation of a normal trait domain with its putative maladaptive equivalent is consistently accounted for in part by core dysfunction; and (3) the multitrait multimethod matrices of normal and maladaptive personality trait domains demonstrate appreciable discriminant validity problems that are clarified by a consideration of core dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that maladaptive traits reflect the distinguishable contributions of core personality dysfunction (problems) and normal-range personality traits (person).

Categorical and Dimensional Conceptions of Personality Pathology in DSM-5: Toward a Model-Based Synthesis

Symptom-based models, typically operationalized through diagnostic interview, and trait models, typically operationalized via questionnaire inventories, reflect historically competing conceptions of personality disorder (PD). DSM-5 includes models of both types, in Sections II and III, respectively. In this study, we sought to synthesize these alternative conceptualizations by fitting bifactor models to data for both Section II PD symptoms (assessed using the SCID-II interview protocol) and dimensional traits for the six PDs retained in Section III (assessed using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5). Bifactor models fit the data effectively for all six PDs, and trait and symptom indicators both loaded appreciably on general factors reflecting cross-domain PD constructs. These results provide the basis for a principled, quantitative synthesis of categorical/interview and dimensional/self-report approaches to operationalizing and studying PDs, with considerable implications for diagnosis, research, and practice.

Examining the Incremental Utility of DSM-5 Section III Traits and Impairment in Relation to Traditional Personality Disorder Scores in a Female Correctional Sample

Personality disorders (PDs) are challenging to assess and are associated with great individual and societal costs. In response to the limitations of categorical models, the DSM-5 included an alternative model (i.e., Section III), which uses impairment (Criterion A) and pathological traits (Criterion B) to diagnose PDs. Although numerous studies have illustrated dimensional trait models' ability to capture personality psychopathology, less attention has been paid to personality impairment. The present investigation sought to examine Criterion A's ability to contribute incrementally to the prediction of antisocial (ASPD), borderline (BPD), and narcissistic personality disorders (NPD), and Interpersonal-Affective (F1) and Impulsive-Antisocial (F2) features of psychopathy. The current study used 200 female inmates and found that impairment contributed to the prediction of BPD, NPD, and psychopathy F1 scores and did not add to the prediction of ASPD and psychopathy F2 scores. Difficulties in distinguishing between personality impairment and personality disordered traits are discussed.

Moving beyond categories and dimensions in personality pathology assessment and diagnosis

It has been suggested that a dimensional model of personality pathology should be adopted for the development and refinement of personality disorder classification. In this article, the advantages and challenges of moving toward a dimensional model are briefly reviewed. However, it is suggested that although categories and dimensions are valuable frameworks for personality pathology diagnosis, an expansion beyond categories and dimensions is needed to improve the shortcoming seen in current diagnostic systems. Ideas and examples are offered for how this might occur.Declaration of interestNone.

Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders

Clinical and basic personality psychologists interact less than they should, given their similar interests. In clinical personality psychology, available evidence supports a transition from the current categorical system to a hierarchical trait scheme for diagnosing the stable features of personality disorder. However, trait models do not capture the dynamic aspects of personality disorders as they have been described in the clinical literature, and thus miss a clinically critical feature of personality pathology. In contrast, basic personality psychologists have coalesced around a consensual structure of individual differences and become increasingly interested in the dynamic processes that underlie and contextualize traits. But trait psychology models are not sufficiently specific to characterize dynamic personality processes. In this paper, I filter clinical descriptions of personality disorders through the lens of interpersonal theory to specify a recursive within–situation interpersonal pattern of motives, affects, behaviours, and perceptions that could contribute to the stable between–situation patterns of maladaptive behaviour of historical interest to both basic and clinical personality psychologists. I suggest that this interpersonal model adds specificity to recent proposals regarding processes in the basic personality literature and has significant potential to advance research on personality dynamics. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Borderline personality disorder is equally trait-like and state-like over ten years in adult psychiatric patients

Borderline personality disorder (PD) has historically been cast as an unabating condition. Longitudinal data, however, support a more variable time course marked by remission and relapse. In the present study, we tested the possibility that borderline PD has both stable (i.e., consistently present across time and situation, as modern diagnostic systems stipulate) and dynamic (i.e., episodic and situational) elements. Participants were 668 patients from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study who were administered semistructured diagnostic interviews 5 times over a decade. Trait-state-occasion modeling dissected borderline pathology into time-invariant (i.e., trait) and time-varying (i.e., state) components. Contradicting traditional views of PD intransigence, less than half of borderline PD variability (approximately 45%) was time-invariant (i.e., perfectly stable) over the study timeframe. Furthermore, we found that the time-invariant component of borderline pathology, which we termed borderline proneness, was very closely related (r = .81) to a previously validated Five Factor Model trait composite of borderline features. Moreover, the trait versus state components showed a clear pattern of discriminant validity in relation to several putative causal agents for borderline PD (i.e., environmental pathogens, temperament dimensions). We conclude that borderline pathology contains a stable core and sizable situational components, and that both elements relate systematically to normative personality dimensions and known risk factors. These findings have key implications for etiological research, prognosis, and treatment for borderline PD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Validity of the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report

In this study we examined the structure, reliability, and validity of the Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SR) in 3 large community samples. The LPFS-SR is a questionnaire with content that corresponds directly to the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders, Criterion A. We found that the LPFS-SR was highly reliable across a brief retest interval. LPFS-SR scores correlated substantially with a wide range of maladaptive personality traits, personality disorder constructs, and interpersonal problems. The LPFS-SR did not correlate as strongly with aspects of personality with less clear relations to distress and dysfunction. Data further support that identity, self-direction, intimacy, and empathy components of the LPFS-SR can be characterized by a single factor and have similar correlations with criterion variables, consistent with the hypothesis that DSM-5 Criterion A is a relatively homogeneous construct. Overall, these results support the validity of the LPFS-SR, highlight important issues in assessing personality pathology, and point toward novel avenues for research on personality disorder classification.

Transdiagnostic group CBT vs. standard group CBT for depression, social anxiety disorder and agoraphobia/panic disorder: Study protocol for a pragmatic, multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Transdiagnostic Cognitive Behavior Therapy (TCBT) manuals delivered in individual format have been reported to be just as effective as traditional diagnosis specific CBT manuals. We have translated and modified the "The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders" (UP-CBT) for group delivery in Mental Health Service (MHS), and shown effects comparable to traditional CBT in a naturalistic study. As the use of one manual instead of several diagnosis-specific manuals could simplify logistics, reduce waiting time, and increase therapist expertise compared to diagnosis specific CBT, we aim to test the relative efficacy of group UP-CBT and diagnosis specific group CBT.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is a partially blinded, pragmatic, non-inferiority, parallel, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) of UP-CBT vs diagnosis specific CBT for Unipolar Depression, Social Anxiety Disorder and Agoraphobia/Panic Disorder. In total, 248 patients are recruited from three regional MHS centers across Denmark and included in two intervention arms. The primary outcome is patient-ratings of well-being (WHO Well-being Index, WHO-5), secondary outcomes include level of depressive and anxious symptoms, personality variables, emotion regulation, reflective functioning, and social adjustment. Assessments are conducted before and after therapy and at 6 months follow-up. Weekly patient-rated outcomes and group evaluations are collected for every session. Outcome assessors, blind to treatment allocation, will perform the observer-based symptom ratings, and fidelity assessors will monitor manual adherence.

DISCUSSION

The current study will be the first RCT investigating the dissemination of the UP in a MHS setting, the UP delivered in groups, and with depressive patients included. Hence the results are expected to add substantially to the evidence base for rational group psychotherapy in MHS. The planned moderator and mediator analyses could spur new hypotheses about mechanisms of change in psychotherapy and the association between patient characteristics and treatment effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02954731 . Registered 25 October 2016.

Longitudinal validation of general and specific structural features of personality pathology

Theorists have long argued that personality disorder (PD) is best understood in terms of general impairments shared across the disorders as well as more specific instantiations of pathology. A model based on this theoretical structure was proposed as part of the DSM-5 revision process. However, only recently has this structure been subjected to formal quantitative evaluation, with little in the way of validation efforts via external correlates or prospective longitudinal prediction. We used the Collaborative Longitudinal Study of Personality Disorders dataset to: (a) estimate structural models that parse general from specific variance in personality disorder features, (b) examine patterns of growth in general and specific features over the course of 10 years, and (c) establish concurrent and dynamic longitudinal associations in PD features and a host of external validators including basic personality traits and psychosocial functioning scales. We found that general PD exhibited much lower absolute stability and was most strongly related to broad markers of psychosocial functioning, concurrently and longitudinally, whereas specific features had much higher mean stability and exhibited more circumscribed associations with functioning. However, both general and specific factors showed recognizable associations with normative and pathological traits. These results can inform efforts to refine the conceptualization and diagnosis of personality pathology. (PsycINFO Database Record

Specific personality traits and general personality dysfunction as predictors of the presence and severity of personality disorders in a clinical sample

This study examined the associations of specific personality traits and general personality dysfunction in relation to the presence and severity of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) personality disorders in a Dutch clinical sample. Two widely used measures of specific personality traits were selected, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory as a measure of normal personality traits, and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire as a measure of pathological traits. In addition, 2 promising measures of personality dysfunction were selected, the General Assessment of Personality Disorder and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems. Theoretically predicted associations were found between the measures, and all measures predicted the presence and severity of DSM-IV personality disorders. The combination of general personality dysfunction models and personality traits models provided incremental information about the presence and severity of personality disorders, suggesting that an integrative approach of multiple perspectives might serve comprehensive assessment of personality disorders.

The interpersonal core of personality pathology

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that personality pathology is, at its core, fundamentally interpersonal. The authors review the proposed DSM-5 Section 3 redefinition of personality pathology involving self and interpersonal dysfunction, which they regard as a substantial improvement over the DSM-IV (and Section 2) definition. They note similarities between the proposed scheme and contemporary interpersonal theory and interpret the Section 3 definition using the underlying assumptions and evidence base of the interpersonal paradigm in clinical psychology. The authors describe how grounding the proposed Section 3 definition in interpersonal theory, and in particular a focus on the "interpersonal situation," adds to its theoretical texture, empirical support, and clinical utility. They provide a clinical example that demonstrates the ability of contemporary interpersonal theory to augment the definition of personality pathology. The authors conclude with directions for further research that could clarify the core of personality pathology, and how interpersonal theory can inform research aimed at enhancing the Section 3 proposal and ultimately justify its migration to Section 2.

Clinical application of the five-factor model

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) has become the predominant dimensional model of general personality structure. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a clinical application. A substantial body of research indicates that the personality disorders included within the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) can be understood as extreme and/or maladaptive variants of the FFM (the acronym "DSM" refers to any particular edition of the APA DSM). In addition, the current proposal for the forthcoming fifth edition of the DSM (i.e., DSM-5) is shifting closely toward an FFM dimensional trait model of personality disorder. Advantages of this shifting conceptualization are discussed, including treatment planning.

Qualitative and quantitative distinctions in personality disorder

The categorical-dimensional debate has catalyzed a wealth of empirical advances in the study of personality pathology. However, this debate is merely one articulation of a broader conceptual question regarding whether to define and describe psychopathology as a quantitatively extreme expression of normal functioning or as qualitatively distinct in its process. In this article I argue that dynamic models of personality (e.g., object relations, cognitive-affective processing system) offer the conceptual scaffolding to reconcile these seemingly incompatible approaches to characterizing the relationship between normal and pathological personality. I propose that advances in personality assessment that sample behavior and experiences intensively provide the empirical techniques, whereas interpersonal theory offers an integrative theoretical framework, for accomplishing this goal.

Introduction to the special issue on personality assessment in the DSM-5

The DSM-5 is poised to dramatically reshape the way clinicians and researchers assess personality by reconfiguring the conceptualization of DSM-IV personality disorders. This special issue brings together leading scholars in personality pathology, including members of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Pathology Work Group, as well as personality assessors operating from a variety of theoretical perspectives, to describe various facets of these changes and their potential impacts and in some cases to propose alternative solutions. As we describe in this brief introductory article, the articles in this special issue highlight several important and controversial issues in the transition to DSM-5 personality assessment.

DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders

Two issues pertinent to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) proposal for personality pathology, the recovery of DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs) by proposed DSM-5 traits and the validity of the proposed DSM-5 hybrid model, which incorporates both personality pathology symptoms and maladaptive traits, were evaluated in a large undergraduate sample (N = 808). Proposed DSM-5 traits as assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 explained a substantial proportion of variance in DSM-IV PDs as assessed with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+, and trait indicators of the 6 proposed DSM-5 PDs were mostly specific to those disorders with some exceptions. Regression analyses support the DSM-5 hybrid model in that pathological traits, and an indicator of general personality pathology severity provided incremental information about PDs. Findings are discussed in the context of broader issues around the proposed DSM-5 model of personality disorders.