Personality disorders (categorical approach) and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality (continuous trait approach) need to be reconciled over various PDs. This paper attempts to relate the FFM and borderline personality across instruments. A sample of 246 (153 females and 93 males) participants responded to NEO-FFI, Big Five Mini-Markers, MCMI-III Borderline Scale and BPI-Cut-20. The correlations between NEO-FFI and Mini-Markers and their factor analysis provided concurrent validity evidence and construct validity across instruments evidence respectively, for the FFM. The correlations between FFM scales and borderline personality yielded FFM Neuroticism as an important correlate. The strength of association was more for NEO-FFI N than Mini-Markers' emotional stability. Similar findings were obtained in canonical correlation analysis between sets of neuroticism and borderline personality (canonical correlation = .58). The obtained findings and their implications for further research and practitioners are discussed.
Título original
Five-Factor Model and Borderline Personality: India (2011). Belhekar, V. M., & Sabnis, S. V. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37.
Personality disorders (categorical approach) and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality (continuous trait approach) need to be reconciled over various PDs. This paper attempts to relate the FFM and borderline personality across instruments. A sample of 246 (153 females and 93 males) participants responded to NEO-FFI, Big Five Mini-Markers, MCMI-III Borderline Scale and BPI-Cut-20. The correlations between NEO-FFI and Mini-Markers and their factor analysis provided concurrent validity evidence and construct validity across instruments evidence respectively, for the FFM. The correlations between FFM scales and borderline personality yielded FFM Neuroticism as an important correlate. The strength of association was more for NEO-FFI N than Mini-Markers' emotional stability. Similar findings were obtained in canonical correlation analysis between sets of neuroticism and borderline personality (canonical correlation = .58). The obtained findings and their implications for further research and practitioners are discussed.
Personality disorders (categorical approach) and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality (continuous trait approach) need to be reconciled over various PDs. This paper attempts to relate the FFM and borderline personality across instruments. A sample of 246 (153 females and 93 males) participants responded to NEO-FFI, Big Five Mini-Markers, MCMI-III Borderline Scale and BPI-Cut-20. The correlations between NEO-FFI and Mini-Markers and their factor analysis provided concurrent validity evidence and construct validity across instruments evidence respectively, for the FFM. The correlations between FFM scales and borderline personality yielded FFM Neuroticism as an important correlate. The strength of association was more for NEO-FFI N than Mini-Markers' emotional stability. Similar findings were obtained in canonical correlation analysis between sets of neuroticism and borderline personality (canonical correlation = .58). The obtained findings and their implications for further research and practitioners are discussed.
“beson Journal of Clinical Psychology
BWI, Vo. 37, No, 6-16:
Copyright, 2011 Indian Association of
Clinical Psychologists (ISSN 0303-2582)
The Five-Factor Model and Borderline Personality
"Vivek M. Belhekar, *Sujay V. Sabnis
Personality disorders (categorical approach) and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of
personality (continuous trait approach) need to be reconciled over various PDs.
This paper attempts to relate the FEM and borderline personality across instruments.
A sample of 246 (153 females and 93 males) participants responded to NEO-FFI,
Big Five Mini-Markers, MCMI-II Borderline Seale and BPI-Cut-20. The correlations
between NEO-FFI and Mini-Markers and their factor analysis provided concurrent
validity evidence and construct validity across instruments evidence respectively,
for the FEM. The correlations between FFM scales and borderline personality
xyielded FFM Neuroticism as an important correlate. The strength of association was
‘more for NEO-FFIN than Mini-Markers’ emotional stability. Similar findings were
‘obtained in canonical correlation analysis between sets of neuroticism and borderline
personality (canonical correlation ~ $8), The obtained findings and their implications
for further research and practitioners are discussed.
Keywords: Five-Factor Model, borderline personality, MCMI-II borderline,
Goldberg's mini-markers, Indian data
The relationship of personality disorders with
“major systems of traits descriptors, ike the Five-
Factor Model (FFM) of personality (Widiger &
‘Chaynes, 2003) is an important problem in
personality and clinical psychology. The
‘Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) of Axis Il
‘of DSM-IV-TR is one of the most researched
personality deviations (Adams, Bernat, &
Luscher, 2001; Links, 2007). The trait of
‘neuroticism of FFM has been considered as a
‘cortelatc of BPD. This paper secks to understand.
the relationship of BPD with FFM across
instruments.
‘The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Personality
‘The Five-Factor Model isa robust deseription
‘of personality traits (e.g., McCrae & Allik, 2002)
‘with two dominant approaches: the Five-Factor
Model (FFM) approach and the Big-Five
‘epproach. The Big-Five approach belongs to
psycho-lexical tradition that explores lexicon of
personality descriptors for unearthing taxonomic
structure of traits (Saucier & Goldberg, 2001, 2002)
and the tools developed are primarily adjective
check lists (Goldberg, 1992). The Five-Factor
‘Model (FFM) of personality focuses mainly on
development of questionnaires by using
traditional psychometric approach (Costa &
McCrae, 1992a) and validating factor structures
of five-factors across cultures (McCrae & Allik,
2002), The Big Five labels are Emotional Stability,
Surgency, Intellect, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. The FFM labels are
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. In spite of these finer
differences, these approaches have contributed
to the growth of each other. The FFM draws
support from cross-cultural generalizability in
terms ofits structural organization, ontogenesis
and gender differences. The FFM argue that traits
‘Department of Applied Psychology, University of Mumbai, Santacruz (E), Mumbai: 400098, This
esearch was supported by UGC. e-mail: vivekbelhekar@hotmail.com.not mere descriptions of behavior but they
atribute causally to development of habits,
ides, skills and characteristic adaptations.
Gross-cultural studies, including Indian work
Deo, & Belhekar, 2002; Belhekar & Padhye,
) have provided a serious impetus to the
adel (McCrae, & Allik, 2002). Belhekar (2008)
ised various issues regarding cross-cultural
earch in trait psychology with reference to
FFM.
Stability of FFM across instruments has been
sablished in various North American and
sem Buropean studies (e.g., McCrae & Costa,
57), It typically involves factor analyzing
vents measuring FFM constructs. These
while showing strength of FFM, have
» indicated specific issues within FFM, for
ole, nature of fifth factor. Inthe lexical format,
of V has been conceptualized as intellect and
72, 1992) whereas it
to experience in the FFM tradition and
scified in terms of openness to values,
stics, actions, etc. Though, factor analysis
the FFM is discussed in the Indian context
edhi, Deo, and Belhekar, 2004) no published
Jhad reported validity of the FFM across
ts in India.
Personality Disorder
‘The BPD is heterogeneous condition
II]9MH] S39
LINN = [HV ‘SsousnOnUaIosUOD SIE: HUY = D-1DV ‘SSAUEIQOAIBY SOW =MIW = V-TOY “Auiquis feuonowg sae,
“HUI = S9~TOV ‘Wolsioawunxg si9yzeWAUIWY = J-TDV ‘SS9USMONUD!ISUOD [J+ N =O-Ldd ‘S89U2}qe20:8 V |4d-OAN = Vel “200
uadxy 0 ssouuiedO 14st OAN = O-lda ‘YO!saNEH XA Ldd-ON = d-Ldd ‘WSIONOMEN [dd-ON = N-Ldd “104 = en 15024 =e 20N
eco
nays aeBE DN DL ST 60 nek we wel Z- 90" ant saa
oor 95%
OL 4B I neBZ- naZE* aeZ- naBl an9E™ ant onl f= O91 nS oz-n,
os sors
OO velZ’ eet’ 80" ST eS OW eeSE we nebZ* TOV
6 067s
O01 —ex6Z'asZEanlZ’ ae Sahl I$“ OFTOV
cB ses
O01 eelZ a1 aad Z’ webb aSI wal ZI wtov
v6 Let
ODT SI aetZ ase wet SIOV
Wor seep
OL abe 806405 eae TOV
wo
O01 eek eelZ waZE nets Ord
ws ee
OL aefZ we6T eels VoL
ws 66're
Ol 1 aefZ* Orta
rs oFsz
OOL et" ald
WL vEDT
ool Nelda
ase oe TOV _3*TOV_vTOV_Sd1OV_SIQV_ Odd Wild _O-ldd_aeLdl_NeIdd_ serge,
TOW Saf Pur OZIND [ag "S9|Og SIAyEPL-UIFY ‘S2]ROS 1HI-OAN PAY UDMA SUONBJaLZ09 pue Joy soLISHELS aanndiiosoq “4 a1.
12Belhekar etal, | FFM and borderline personality
Table 2.
Factor a 0-FFI and ACL Mini-Markers: The factor pattem,
matt
‘actorN—FactorE Factor O FactorA Factor C
FEIN 79 -27 -28 -02 ~16
ACL-Es 15 -01 224 15 25
FFIE 02 82 00 35 08
ACL-E 19 84 14 =05 AS
FFI-A 35 08 21 80 ~09
ACL-A -10 7 -01 79: 37
FIC 31 7 19 26 37
ACL-C 24 08 00 07 85
FFI-O 06 04 89 AS ol
ACL-L 07 AT 39 -02 Sl
Note. * Principal component method ofextraction and varimax rotation. Absolute value > .40
are shown in bold-face. FFI = NEO-Five-Factor Inventory; ACL = Mini-Markers Adjective
Check List, N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeable-
ness, C= Conscientiousness, Es = Emotional Stability, I = IntellectBelhekar et al. | FFM and borderline personality
personality measures, then questionnaire
‘measures like NEO-FFI are preferable over
adjectival measures. The trait of neuroticism is
valuable in early screening and identifying
vulnerability. Unusually high scores on
neuroticism dimension can be considered as a
marker for borderline functioning. This will assist
better preventive planning in clinical situations.
References
‘Adams, H.E., Bemat,J.A., & Luscher, K. A. (2001),
Borderline personality disorder: An overview.
In P. B. Sutker & H. E, Adams (Eds.),
Comprehensive Handbook of
Psychopathology (pp. 491-507). New York:
Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
American Psychiatric Assgciation. (2000).
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.).
Washington DC: Author.
Barrett. P. & Rolland, J. (2009). The meta-analytic
correlation between the big five personality
constructs of emotional stability and
‘conscientiousness: Something is not quite
right in the woodshed. URL:http://
www.hoganassessments.com/_hoganweb/
documents/Meta_analytic_correlation_e
motional%20stability_and_conscien
tiousness. pdf
Belhekar, V. M. (2008). Trait psychology and
cultural studies: Issues in the Five-Factor
model of personality. Indian Journal of
Psychology and Mental Health, 1, 184-195.
Belhekar, V. M. & Padhye, A. A. (2009). The
Borderline Personality: Exploring the role of
affective instability and the Five-Factor
Model neuroticism. Journal of
Psychological Researches, 53, 91-99.
Berelowitz, M. & Tarnopolsky, A. (1993). The
validity of borderline personality disorder:
an updated review of recent research. In P.
‘Tyrer and G Stein (ed.) Personality disorder
reviewed, (pp. 90-112). Gaskell, London.
Cohen, J, (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for
the Behavioral Sciences (second ed.)
Lawrence Fribaum Associates, New Jersey
Cohen, P,, Crawford, T.N., Johnson, J. G, Kasen,
S. (2005). The children in the community
study of developmental course of
personality disorder. Journal of Personality
Disorder, 19, 466-486.
Costa, P.T. Ir, & 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, Inc.
Costa, P.T, Jr. & MoCrae, R. R. (1992b). The five-
factor model of personality and its relevance
to personality disorders. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 6, 343-359.
Costa, P. T. Jr, Patriciu, N. S., & McCrae, R. R
(2005), Lessons from longitudinal studies for
new approaches to the DSM-V: The FFM
and FFT. Journal of Personality Disorders,
19, 533-539.
Costa, P.T., & Widiger, T.A, (2002). Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of
personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association
Dyce, J. A. (1997). The Big Five factors of
personality and their relationship to
personality disorders. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 53, 587-593.
Esbec, E, & Echeburia, E. (2011). New criteria for
personality disorders in DSM-V. Actas Esp
Psiquiatr, 39, 1-11. URL: http://www.ehu.es/
echeburua/pdfs/
Personality%20Disorders%20in%20DSM-
Vpdf
Gelder, M.G, Lépez-Tbor Jr, J.J., & Andreasen, N.
(eds) (2009). New Oxford Textbook of
Psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of
markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4,26-42.
Kemberg, O. (1977). The structural diagnosis of
borderline personality organization. In P.
Hartocollis (ed.), Borderline personalityBelhekar et al. / FFM and borderline personality
disorder (pp. 87-121), NY: Intemational
University Press.
Leichsenring, F. (1999). Development and first
results of the Borderline Personality
Inventory: A self-report instrument to assess
the borderline personality organization.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 45-
6.
Links, P. S. (2007). Impact of recent research on
borderline personality disorder. Current
Psychiatry Reports, 9, \-2.
Livesley, W. J. (2001). Commentary on
reconceptualising personality disorder
categories using trait dimensions. Journal
of Personality, 69, 277-286.
Lodhi, P. H., Deo, S., & Bethekar, V.M. (2002).
The Five-Factor model of personality in
Indian context: measurement and correlates.
In R.R. McCrae & J. Allik (Bds,), The Five-
Factor model of personality across cultures
(pp. 227-248). N.Y.: Kluwer Academic
Publisher
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P.T, (1987). Validation of
the Five-Factor Model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-
90.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience:
expanding the boundaries of Factor V.
European Journal of Personality 8, 251-272.
MoCrac, R. R., & Alik, J. (Eds.) (2002). The Five-
Factor model of personality across cultures.
New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, PT. Jr. (1989). The
Structure of Interpersonal Traits: Wiggins’s
Circumplex and the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 586-595.
Millon. T., Millon, C., & Grossman, S. (2006). The
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IIl
Manual, (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN:
Pearson Assessments.
Mooradian, T.A., & Nezlek, J.B. (1996). Comparing,
the NEO-FFI and Saucier’s Mini-Markers as
measures of the big five. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21, 213-215.
15
Morey, L.C., Gunderson, J. G., Quigley, B.
Shea, T., Skodol, A., McGlashan, T., Stout
R,, Zanarini, M. (2002). The Representation
of Borderline, Avoidant, Obsessive
Compulsive, and Schizotypal Personality
Disorders by the Five-Factor Model
Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 215:
24,
Paris, J. (2007). The nature of borderline
personality disorder: multiple dimensions,
multiple symptoms, but one category.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 457-
4B.
R Development Core Team. (2011).R: A Language
and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Rossier, J., Rigozzi, C., & 16 members of
Personality Across Culture Research Group.
(2008). Personality disorders and the Five-
Factor Model among French speakers in
‘Africa and Europe. La Revue canadienne dle
psychiatrie, 53, 534-544
Saucier, G (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version
of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-
516.
Saucier, G.& Goldberg, L.R. (2001), Lexical studies
of indigenous personality factors: premises.
products and prospects. Journal of
Personality, 69, 847-879.
Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing
the Big Five: Applications of 10
psychometric criteria to the development of
marker scales. In D. De Raad, & M. Perugini,
(2002) (Ed), Big Five assessment (pp. 29-
58). Seattle, WA: Hogref and Huber.
Sharan, P.(2010). An overview of Indian research
in personality disorders. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry, 52, 250-254.
Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G, Shea, M. .,
McGlashan, T. H., & Morey, L. C. (2005) The
collaborative longitudinal personality
disorders study (CLPS): overview and
implications., Journal of Personality
Disorders,‘19, 487-504.Bethekar etal. FEM and borderline personality
Tabachnick, B. G, & Fidell, L. $. (2007). Using
Multivariate Statisties, th ed. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon,
Tinsley, H. E. & Brown, S. D. (2000)(Eds.)
Handbook of applied multivariate statistics
‘and mathematical modeling. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Widiger, T. A. (1993). The DSM-I-R categorical
personality diagnoses: A critique and an
alternative. Psychological Inquiry, 4,75-90.
Widiger, T. A. (2005). Five-Factor model of
personality disorder: Integrating science and
practice. Journal of Research in Personality,
39,67-83.
Widiger, T., & Frances, A. (1989). Epidemiology,
diagnosis, and comorbidity of borderline
personality disorder. In A. Tasman, R. Hales
& A, Frances (Eds.), Review of Psychiatry
(Vol. 8, pp. 8-24). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press
Widiger, T.A., & Chaynes, K. (2003). Current
issues in the assessment of personality
disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 5,
28.36.
Widiger, 1. A. & Mullins-Sweatt, S.1N. 2009). Five-
Factor Model of Personality Disorder: A
16
Proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 5, 197-220
Wilberg, T., Umes, 0., Friis, S., Pedersen, G. &
Karterud, 8. (1995). Borderline and avoidant
personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality: a comparison between
DSM-IV diagnoses and NEO-PLR. Journal
of Personality Disorders, 13, 226-40.
Zanasini, M. C., Gunderson, J. G., Frankenburg,
R. N., Chauncey, D. L, (1989). Revised
diagnostic interview for borderlines:
Discriminating BPD from other Axis Il
disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders,
3,10-18,
Zweig-Frank H, & Paris J.(1995). The five-factor
model of personality in borderline and
nonborderline personality disorders. Can J
Psychiatry, 40, 523-526.
Acknowledgement
The research is funded by UGC-University
with Potential for Excellence (UGC-UPE) Grant to
Centre for Behavioral Research, University of
Mumbai. We thank Archana Ambhore for
‘comments on the initial draft.