HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Curr Opin Psychol. 2018 June ; 21: 18–22. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.09.007.

Basic Personality Model

Thomas A. Widiger1, Cristina Crego1, Stephanie L. Rojas1, and Joshua R. Oltmanns1
1University of Kentucky, USA

Abstract
The personality structure of persons within clinical populations may not be fundamentally
Author Manuscript

different from the personality structure of persons who have not sought treatment for their
maladaptive personality traits. Indeed, there has long been an interest in understanding personality
disorders as maladaptive variants of general personality structure. Presented herein is an
understanding of personality disorder from the perspective of basic personality research; more
specifically, the five factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Potential advantages of
understanding personality disorders from the perspective of the FFM are provided.

Keywords
five-factor model; trait; personality; personality disorder; DSM-IV; DSM-5

The personality disorders provided within the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA)
Author Manuscript

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; 1) and the World Health
Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10; 2) trace their
origins to research within psychiatric, clinical populations. Perhaps though the personality
structure of persons within clinical populations is not fundamentally different from the
personality structure of persons who have not sought treatment for their maladaptive
personality traits. Indeed, there has long been an interest in understanding personality
disorders as maladaptive variants of general personality structure (3–5).

The five-factor model (FFM) is the predominant dimensional model of general personality
structure (6,7), consisting of the five broad domains of neuroticism (or negative affectivity),
extraversion (versus introversion), openness (or unconventionality), agreeableness (versus
antagonism), and conscientiousness (or constraint). Each domain includes both adaptive and
maladaptive personality traits (8,9). Consider, for example, the domain of agreeableness
Author Manuscript

versus antagonism. Most of the traits of agreeableness are adaptive (e.g., trusting, honest,
generous, cooperative, and humble) but there are also maladaptive variants of these traits
(e.g., gullible, guileless, selflessly sacrificial, subservient, and self-denigrating, respectively).
Most of the traits of antagonism are maladaptive (e.g., cynical-suspicious, manipulative,
boastful, and callous) but there are also adaptive variants of these traits (e.g., cautious-
skeptical, savvy, confident, and tough-minded).

Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Thomas A. Widiger, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0044; 859-257-6849; widiger@[Link].
 Widiger et al. Page 2

The FFM traces its roots to the lexical paradigm: what is of most importance, interest, or
Author Manuscript

meaning to persons is encoded within the language. The most important domains of
personality are those with the greatest number of terms to describe and differentiate their
various manifestations and nuances, and the structure of personality is provided by the
empirical relationship among these trait terms. The lexical research of the English language,
and all other languages considered, have converged well onto the Big Five or FFM, albeit
the convergence has been less strong for the last two domains typically extracted:
neuroticism and openness (10).

One of the compelling attributes of the FFM is its robustness, which is a natural
consequence of accounting for virtually every trait term within the language. Other
dimensional models of general personality are well understood in terms of the domains and
facets of the FFM (11). For example, O’Connor (12) conducted integrative factor analyses of
previously published findings from approximately 75 studies involving FFM scales, along
Author Manuscript

with the scales of 28 commonly used self-report inventories of personality. He concluded

that “the basic dimensions that exist in other personality inventories can thus be considered
‘well captured’ by the FFM” (p. 198). Markon, Krueger, and Watson (13) conducted meta-
analytic and exploratory hierarchical factor analyses of numerous measures of normal and
abnormal personality, consistently obtaining a five factor solution that they indicated
“strongly resembles the Big Five factor structure commonly described in the literature,
including neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness factors”
(p. 144). Psychodynamic measures and models of personality structure are also well
understood within the FFM, including the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (see 14),
the California Q-Set (see 15), and the General Assessment of Personality Disorder (see 18).

Personality Disorders and the Five Factor Model of General Personality

Author Manuscript

Structure
There is a considerable body of research to indicate that all of the personality disorders of
DSM-5 and ICD-10 can be readily understood as maladaptive variants of general personality
structure. The volume of FFM-personality disorder research is substantial and can not really
be summarized within this limited space. Widiger, Gore, Crego, Rojas, and Oltmanns (8)
provide a reasonably comprehensive summary of all of the FFM-personality disorder
studies. Reviews concerning individual personality disorders have been provided for the
borderline (17), the schizotypal (18), the antisocial or psychopathic (19), the dependent (20),
and the narcissistic (21). Livesley (22) concluded on the basis of his review of this research
that “all categorical diagnoses of DSM can be accommodated within the five-factor
framework” (p. 24). Clark (6) similarly concluded that “the five-factor model of personality
Author Manuscript

is widely accepted as representing the higher-order structure of both normal and abnormal
personality traits” (p. 246).

For example, from the perspective of the FFM, borderline personality disorder includes (in
part) such traits as affective dysregulation, fragility (which includes self-harm), dysregulated
anger, behavioral dysregulation, self-disturbance, despondence, and anxious uncertainty
(23), all of which are considered to be within the FFM domain of neuroticism. The Five

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
 Widiger et al. Page 3

Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI) includes scales for the assessment of each of these traits,
Author Manuscript

and multiple studies have documented large effect size relationships with FFM neuroticism
(convergent validity), as well as weak relationships (discriminant validity) with the other
domains of the FFM (23,24). Likewise, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder includes
(in part) such traits as workaholism, ruminative deliberation, doggedness, punctiliousness,
perfectionism, and fastidiousness (25), all of which are considered to be within the domain
of conscientiousness. The Five Factor Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory includes scales for
the assessment of these traits, and multiple studies have again documented large effect size
relationships with conscientiousness, as well as weak relationships with the other domains of
the FFM (25,26). There are also FFM self-report measures for the schizotypal, narcissistic,
dependent, antisocial (psychopathic), histrionic, and avoidant personality disorders (27).

A major step toward a conceptualization of personality disorders from the perspective of the
FFM occurred with DSM-5 (1). The dimensional trait model included within Section III of
Author Manuscript

DSM-5, consisting of five broad domains of negative affectivity, detachment, psychoticism,

antagonism, and disinhibition, are aligned with the FFM domains of neuroticism,
introversion, openness, antagonism, and low conscientiousness, respectively. As expressed
in DSM-5, “these five broad domains are maladaptive variants of the five domains of the
extensively validated and replicated personality model known as the ‘Big Five’ or Five
Factor Model of personality (FFM)” (1, p. 773). Similarly, proposed for ICD-11 is another
five-domain dimensional trait model, consisting of the five domains of negative affective,
detachment, dissocial, disinhibited, and anankastic, that are again aligned with the FFM:
“Negative Affective with neuroticism, Detachment with low extraversion, Dissocial with low
agreeableness, Disinhibited with low conscientiousness and Anankastic with high
conscientiousness” (28, p. 85). Research has supported the alignment of the DSM-5 trait
model with the FFM (29–31), albeit the alignment of DSM-5 psychoticism with FFM
Author Manuscript

openness has been more inconsistent and complex (32). The strength of the relationship
appears to depend on how both openness (29,33,34) and psychoticism (35) are
conceptualized and/or assessed.

Another focus of future research would be the relationship of the FFM, DSM-5, and ICD-11
dimensional trait models with the self-other deficits of DSM-5 Criterion A (1). In DSM-5
Section III, the maladaptive traits (Criterion B) are coupled with deficits in the sense of self
(identity and self-direction) and interpersonal relatedness (empathy and intimacy), as if
Criterion A and B are independent of one another. The Criterion A deficits are also
considered in theory to define the core of personality disorder (1).

However, from the perspective of the FFM, deficits in the sense of self and interpersonal
Author Manuscript

relatedness are also expressions of maladaptive traits. For example, the empathy deficit
specified for antisocial personality disorder in DSM-5 is said to involve a “lack of concern
for feelings, needs, or suffering of others” and “lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating
another” (1, p. 654). This deficit would appear to be essentially equivalent to the trait of
callousness, which is also said to involve a “lack of concern for feelings or problems of
others” and “lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions
on others” (1, p. 654). Research has suggested a substantial overlap of the self-interpersonal
deficits with maladaptive personality traits (16,36,37). Indeed, one of the neuroticism scales

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
 Widiger et al. Page 4

of the Five Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI) is Self-Disturbance (sample items include “I
Author Manuscript

can be so different with different people that I wonder who I am” and “I am often ashamed
of my thoughts and feelings”), and research has consistently indicated a strong alignment of
this scale with FFM neuroticism (23,24).

In the typical presentation of the FFM of personality disorder, one first assesses for the
presence of an FFM trait, followed by an assessment of impairment (9). This can be
misunderstood to imply a fundamental distinction between traits and impairment. It is
certainly necessary to assess for impairments secondary to apparently adaptive traits (e.g.,
determining if a trusting person is in fact gullible, or if a cooperative person is in fact
submissive). However, the assessment of a maladaptive trait will inevitably include as well
an assessment of impairment (38). For example, as noted earlier, an assessment for the
presence of callousness will include an assessment for the presence of deficits in empathy.
Author Manuscript

Potential Strengths of Basic Personality Conceptualization

There are a number of advantages in conceptualizing personality disorders as maladaptive
variants of general personality structure. First, the dimensional personality structure would
address the many limitations inherent to the existing categorical model (6,39,40). Rather
than lump patients into categories that fail to describe all of the person’s traits and includes
traits that do not apply to a respective patient, a dimensional trait model would provide a
more precise, individualized description. Insurance, disability, and other social, clinical
decisions would be easier and more informative because more relevant and specific cutoff
points could be placed along the trait dimensions that would be optimal and specific to each
particular decision.

The homogeneous and distinct trait constructs also have more specific treatment
Author Manuscript

implications (41). In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association began publishing

empirically-based practice guidelines, some of which are now in their third edition.
However, to date, guidelines have been provided for only one personality disorder:
borderline. None have been developed for the other nine personality disorders. Note as well
that the treatment section of this issue of Current Opinion in Psychology is devoted largely
to one personality disorder: borderline.

One potential reason for the absence of treatment manuals might be the complex
heterogeneity of the DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (41). Each personality disorder
is a syndromal assortment of different maladaptive personality traits (6,40) for which it
would be quite difficult to develop a uniform treatment program. This is a limitation that is
not present for the FFM domains and facets, nor for the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models.
Author Manuscript

Indeed, treatment guidelines have been developed for neuroticism (42,43).

The inclusion of normal, adaptive FFM personality traits (along with the maladaptive) would
also provide a richer, fuller, and more appreciative description of each patient (41).
Personality disorders are among the more stigmatizing labels within the diagnostic manual,
suggesting that who the person is, and perhaps always will be, is itself a mental disorder.
The FFM of personality disorder recognizes that the person is more than just the disorder

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
 Widiger et al. Page 5

and that other aspects of the self can be adaptive, even commendable. “Some of these
Author Manuscript

strengths may also be quite relevant to treatment, 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” (44, p. 203).

Finally, to the extent that the DSM-5 Section II personality disorders are understood as
maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM, all that has become known about
the FFM (7) would be applicable to an understanding of the personality disorders. Indeed,
some of the more problematic findings for the personality disorders are well addressed when
they are understood within the FFM. For instance, diagnostic co-occurrence has been highly
problematic, even providing a primary rationale for the proposal to delete half of the
personality disorder diagnoses in DSM-5. However, this co-occurrence is largely explained
by the extent of shared FFM traits (45). Gender differences have also been very controversial
Author Manuscript

(46) but the differential sex prevalence rates are consistent with the sex differences that
would be predicted if the personality disorders are understood to be maladaptive variants of
the FFM (46).

Very little is known on the childhood antecedents for most of the personality disorders. In
contrast, there is a considerable body of research on the childhood antecedents of the FFM
(48). De Clercq, De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen and Mervielde (49) have even developed an
instrument for the assessment of the maladaptive FFM traits within childhood. Tyrer (50),
Chair of the WHO ICD-11 Personality Disorders Work Group, lamented the reluctance of
childhood clinicians and researchers to recognize childhood antecedents of adult personality
disorders. However, as indicated by De Fruyt and De Clerq (48), “an integrative model of
personality pathology precipitants for childhood and adolescence is available now” (p. 469).
Author Manuscript

Conclusions
It would appear to be self-evident that it would be useful to seek an integration of the clinical
understanding of personality disorder with general personality research, as the personality of
persons with personality disorder does not appear to be fundamentally different from general
personality structure. (5,6,39,40). This integration would improve the validity of personality
disorder diagnosis and conceptualization, as well as increase its clinical utility, allowing
clinicians to provide more individualized, accurate, and precise descriptions of their clients
with respect to homogeneous and distinct traits that will have more specific treatment
implications.

References
Author Manuscript

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5.

American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
2. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Clinical
descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. World Health Organization; 1992.
3. Eysenck HJ. The definition of personality disorders and the criteria appropriate for their description.
J Pers Disord. 1987; 1:211–219.
4. Livesley WJ. The classification of personality disorder: I. The choice of category concept. Can J
Psychiatry. 1985; 30:353–358. [PubMed: 4027859]

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
 Widiger et al. Page 6

5. Widiger TA, Frances AJ. The DSM-III personality disorders: Perspectives from psychology. Arch
Gen Psychiatry. 1985; 42:615–623. [PubMed: 3890799]
Author Manuscript

6. Clark LA. Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an emerging
reconceptualization. Ann Rev Psychol. 2007; 57:227–257.
7**. Widiger, TA., editor. The Oxford handbook of the five-factor model. Oxford University Press;
2017. Edited text that provides comprehensive summary of the research concerning and the social
and clinical application of the five-factor model of personality
8**. Widiger, TA., Gore, WL., Crego, C., Rojas, SL., Oltmanns, JR. Five factor model and personality
disorder. In: Widiger, TA., editor. The Oxford handbook of the five factor model. Oxford
University Press; 2017. p. [Link] summary of vast body of research concerning
the relationship and conceptualization of personality disorders from the perspective of the five-
factor model of general personality
9. Widiger, TA., Samuel, DB., Mullins-Sweat, S., Gore, WL., Crego, C. Integrating normal and
abnormal personality structure: the five-factor model. In: Widiger, TA., editor. Oxford handbook of
personality disorders. Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 82-107.
10. De Raad, B., Mlačić, B. The lexical foundation of the Big Five factor model. In: Widiger, TA.,
Author Manuscript

editor. The Oxford handbook of the five factor model. Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 191-216.
11. Costa, PT., McCrae, R. The NEO inventories as instruments of psychological theory. In: Widiger,
TA., editor. The Oxford handbook of the five factor model. Oxford University Press; 2017. p.
11-37.
12. O’Connor BP. A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation
to popular personality inventories. Assess. 2002; 9:188–203.
13. Markon KE, Krueger RF, Watson D. Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality:
An integrative hierarchical approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005; 88:139–157. [PubMed: 15631580]
14. Mullins-Sweatt SN, Widiger TA. The Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure from the perspective
of general personality structure. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007; 116:618–623. [PubMed: 17696718]
15. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Busch CM. Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: the
California Q-Set and the five-factor model. J Pers. 1986; 54:430–446.
16**. Oltmanns JR, Widiger TA. Self-pathology, the five-factor model, and bloated specific factors: A
cautionary tale. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016; 125:423–434. Empirical support for understanding
Author Manuscript

self-pathology in terms of general personality. [PubMed: 26845254]

17*. Trull, TJ., Brown, WC. Borderline personality disorder: a five-factor model perspective. In:
Widiger, TA., Costa, PT., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model. 3. American
Psychological Association; 2013. p. [Link] of research concerning the relationship
and conceptualization of borderline personality disorders from the perspective of the five-factor
model of general personality
18. Edmundson, M., Kwapil, TR. A five-factor model perspective of schizotypal personality disorder.
In: Widiger, TA., Costa, PT., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model. 3. American
Psychological Association; 2013. p. 147-162.
19. Derefinko, K., Lynam, DR. Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-factor model. In: Widiger,
TA., Costa, PT., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model. 3. American
Psychological Association; 2013. p. 103-118.
20. Gore, WL., Pincus, AL. Dependency and the five-factor model. In: Widiger, TA., Costa, PT.,
editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model. 3. American Psychological Association;
2013. p. 163-178.
Author Manuscript

21. Campbell, WK., Miller, JD. Narcissistic personality disorder and the five-factor model: Delineating
narcissistic personality disorder, grandiose narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism. In: Widiger,
TA., Costa, PT., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model. 3. American
Psychological Association; 2013. p. 133-146.
22. Livesley, WJ. Conceptual and taxonomic issues. In: Livesley, WJ., editor. Handbook of personality
disorders. Theory, research, and treatment. Guilford; 2001. p. 3-38.
23*. Mullins-Sweatt SN, Edmundson M, Sauer-Zavala S, Lynam DR, Miller JD, Widiger TA. Five-
factor measure of borderline personality traits. J Pers Assess. 2012; 94:475–487. Empirical

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
 Widiger et al. Page 7

support for a measure of DSM-5 borderline personality disorder from the perspective of the five-
factor model of general personality. [PubMed: 22489634]
Author Manuscript

24. DeShong HL, Lengel GJ, Sauer-Zavala SE, O’Meara M, Mullins-Sweatt SN. Construct validity of
the Five-Factor Borderline Inventory. Assess. 2015; 22:319–331.
25. Samuel DB, Riddell ADB, Lynam DR, Miller JD, Widiger TA. A five-factor measure of obsessive-
compulsive personality traits. J Pers Assess. 2012; 94:456–465. [PubMed: 22519829]
26. Crego C, Samuel DB, Widiger TA. The FFOCI and other measures and models of OCPD. Assess.
2015; 22:135–151.
27. Widiger TA, Lynam DR, Miller JD, Oltmanns TF. Measures to assess maladaptive variants of the
five factor model. J Pers Assess. 2012; 94:450–455. [PubMed: 22519804]
28. Mulder RT, Horwood J, Tyrer P, Carter J, Joyce PR. Validating the proposed ICD-11 domains. Pers
Ment Health. 2016; 10:84–95.
29*. Gore WL, Widiger TA. The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five factor models of general
personality. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013; 122:816–821. Empirical support for the relationship of the
DSM-5 dimensional trait model to the five-factor model, as well as demonstrating impact of
alternative models and measures on this relationship. [PubMed: 23815395]
Author Manuscript

30. Griffin SA, Samuel DB. A closer look at the lower-order structure of the Personality Inventory for
DSM-5: Comparison with the Five-Factor Model. Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. 2014; 5:406–412.
31*. Wright AGC, Simms LJ. On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analysis of the
CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO PI-3 trait models. Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. 2014; 5:43–54.
Empirical support for the relationship of the DSM-5 Section III dimensional trait model with the
five-factor model of general personality.
32. Watson D, Clark LA, Chmielewski M. Structures of personality and their relevance to
psychopathology: II. Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. J Pers. 2008;
76:1485–1522. [PubMed: 19012656]
33. DeYoung CG, Carey BE, Krueger RF, Ross SR. Ten aspects of the Big Five in the Personality
Inventory for DSM–5. Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. 2016; 7:113–123.
34. Samuel DB, Widiger TA. A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model
and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008; 28:1326–
1342. [PubMed: 18708274]
Author Manuscript

35**. Crego C, Widiger TA. The conceptualization and assessment of schizotypal traits: A comparison
of the FFSI and PID-5. J Pers Disord. in press. Comparison of alternative conceptualizations and
assessment of DSM-5 psychoticism and schizotypal traits on the relationship with the five-factor
model of general personality.
36**. Berghuis H, Kamphuis JH, Verheul R. Specific personality traits and general personality
dysfunction as predictors of the presence and severity of personality disorders in a clinical
sample. J Pers Assess. 2014; 96:410–416. Empirical study of the relationship of general
personality, maladaptive personality traits, and DSM-5 Criterion A (e.g., self-pathology).
[PubMed: 24111812]
37. Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples S, Terry J, Collins B, Mackillop J.
Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system to personality disorders in an outpatient
clinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013; 122:1057–1069. [PubMed: 24364607]
38. Mullins-Sweatt SN, Widiger TA. Personality-related problems in living: an empirical approach.
Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. 2010; 1:230–238.
39. Krueger RF, Eaton NR. Personality traits and the classification of mental disorders: toward a
Author Manuscript

complete integration in DSM-V and an empirical model of psychopathology. Pers Disord Theory
Res Treat. 2010; 1:97–118.
40. Widiger TA, Trull TJ. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a
dimensional model. Am Psychol. 2007; 62:71–83. [PubMed: 17324033]
41*. Widiger TA, Presnall JR. Clinical application of the five-factor model. J Pers. 2013; 81:515–527.
Overview of the clinical utility of the five-factor model of general personality. [PubMed:
22924994]
42. Armstrong L, Rimes KA. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for neuroticism (stress
vulnerability): A pilot randomized study. Behav Therapy. 2016; 47:287–298.

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.
 Widiger et al. Page 8

43**. Sauer-Zavala S, Wilner JG, Barlow DH. Addressing neuroticism in psychological treatment.
Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. in press. Treatment program for five-factor neuroticism.
Author Manuscript

44. Widiger TA, Mullins-Sweatt SN. Five-factor model of personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V.
Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2009; 5:115–138.
45. Lynam DR, Widiger TA. Using the five factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality
disorders: An expert consensus approach. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001; 110:401–412. [PubMed:
11502083]
46. Oltmanns, TF., Powers, AD. Gender and personality disorders. In: Widiger, TA., editor. The
Oxford handbook of personality disorders. Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 147-162.
47. Lynam DR, Widiger TA. Using a general model of personality to understand sex differences in the
personality disorders. J Pers Disord. 2007; 21:583–602. [PubMed: 18072861]
48. De Fruyt F, De Clercq B. Antecedents of personality disorder in childhood and adolescence:
toward an integrative developmental model. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2014; 10:449–476. [PubMed:
24471374]
49. De Clercq B, De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Mervielde I. The structure of maladaptive personality
traits in childhood: A step toward an integrative developmental perspective for DSM-V. J Abnorm
Author Manuscript

Psychol. 2006; 115:639–657. [PubMed: 17100523]

50. Tyrer P. Personality dysfunction is the cause of recurrent non-cognitive mental disorder: a testable
hypothesis. Pers Ment Health. 2015; 9:1–7.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Curr Opin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 June 01.