“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. 12Belhekar 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 = IntellectBelhekar 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 personalityBelhekar 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.