Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-rbv74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-26T04:58:04.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - On Personality Dimensions and Disorders

Is a Trait-Based Approach Really the Answer?

from Part III - Novel Conceptual Approaches to Personality Disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2025

By
Simon Boag
Edited by
Konrad Banicki  and
Peter Zachar
Konrad Banicki
Affiliation:
Jagiellonian University, Krakow
Peter Zachar
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Montgomery
Get access

Summary

There is general agreement that the categorical approach to personality disorders is flawed, and many propose that the Five Factor Model (FFM) provides a sound alternative dimensional model of normal personality that can be applied to helping understand personality pathology. There are, however, logical concerns as to whether trait-based approaches can provide a coherent theoretical framework for comprehending personality pathology. This chapter evaluates the theoretical soundness of the FFM trait approach as a basis for comprehending personality pathology. The chapter first examines the conceptual standing of traits in relation to the generally under-appreciated conceptual distinction between nonrelational properties and relations. The theoretical problems of reification and circular explanation are then used to demonstrate that although traits might help discern individual differences within the population, they are logically precluded from explaining personality pathology. An alternative theoretical approach for understanding personality is proposed based on integrating motivational, cognitive, and affective processes and recognizing the importance of philosophical enquiry for identifying logical commitments that any theory of personality must satisfy. This chapter further highlights the necessity for rigorous theoretical research in scientific psychology to effectively address personality pathology.

Keywords

metapsychologypersonality pathologypersonality traitsrelationsreification
Type
Chapter
Information
Conceptualizing Personality Disorder
Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychological Science, and Psychiatry
 , pp. 215 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1962). Studies in empirical philosophy. Angus & Robertson.Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J. B. (2016). Causal unity of broader traits is an illusion. European Journal of Personality, 30, 304–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. J. (1986). Australian realism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Banicki, K. (2012). Connective conceptual analysis and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22, 310–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, P., Staines, P., & Michell, J. (2000). Logical psych. University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J., Hennecke, M., Hill, P. L., … & Zimmermann, J. (2021). Personality trait stability and change. Personality Science, 2, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, S. (2011). Explanation in personality research: ‘Verbal magic’ and the Five-Factor Model. Philosophical Psychology, 24, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, S. (2015). Personality assessment, ‘construct validity’, and the significance of theory. Personality & Individual Differences, 84, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, S. (2017). Metapsychology and the foundations of psychoanalysis: Attachment, neuropsychoanalysis and integration. Routledge.Google Scholar
Boag, S. (2018). Personality dynamics, motivation, and the logic of explanation. Review of General Psychology, 22, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation: Structure and measurement. World Book Company.Google Scholar
Cervone, D. (1999). Bottom-up explanation in personality psychology: The case of cross-situational coherence. In Cervone, D. & Shoda, Yuichi (eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 303–341). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D. (2023). Theory and application in personality science: The case of social-cognitive theory. Psychology & Developing Societies, 35, 220–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervone, D., & Little, B. R. (2019). Personality architecture and dynamics: The new agenda and what’s new about it. Personality & Individual Differences, 136, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2009). The five-factor model and the NEO inventories. In Butcher, J. N. (ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (pp. 299–322). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawid, A. P. (2000). Causal inference without counterfactuals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freud, S. (1915). Instincts and their vicissitudes. Standard edition (Vol. 14). Hogarth.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternate ‘description of personality’: The Big-Five Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampshire, S. (1953). Dispositions. Analysis, 14, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibberd, F. J. (2014). The metaphysical basis of a process psychology. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 34, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., … & Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality & Mental Health, 12, 82–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G., Krueger, R. F., Schade, N., Markon, K. E., & Morey, L. C. (2013). DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 20, 269–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe, M. J. A. (1990). Does intelligence exist? The Psychologist, 3, 490–493.Google Scholar
Hyman, S. E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: the problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, R. F., Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G., & Markon, K. E. (2014). DSM‐5 and the path toward empirically based and clinically useful conceptualization of personality and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 245–261.Google Scholar
Lamiell, J. T. (2013). Statisticism in personality psychologists’ use of trait constructs: What is it? How was it contracted? Is there a cure? New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplanche, J., & Pontalis, J.-B. (1973). The language of psychoanalysis. Karnac.Google Scholar
Leising, D., Rogers, K., & Ostner, J. (2009). The undisordered personality: Normative assumptions underlying personality disorder diagnoses. Review of General Psychology, 13, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesley, W. J. (2021). Why is an evidence‐based classification of personality disorder so elusive? Personality and Mental Health, 15, 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesley, W. J., & Jang, K. L. (2005). Differentiating normal, abnormal, and disordered personality. European Journal of Personality, 19, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, A. & Silva, F. J. (2007). Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1962). The philosophy of John Anderson. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 40, 265–282.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Dispositions, grounds, and causes. Synthese, 34, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, N., & Petocz, A. (eds.). (2010). Realism and psychology: Collected essays. Brill.Google Scholar
Maze, J. R. (1954). Do intervening variables intervene? Psychological Review, 61, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maze, J. R. (1983). The meaning of behaviour. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2004). Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9, 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In Boyle, G., Matthews, G., & Daklofske, D. (eds.), Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment (pp. 273–294). Sage.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & CostaJr, P. T. (2021). Understanding persons: From Stern’s personalistics to Five-Factor Theory. Personality & Individual Differences, 169, 109816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, W. (1923). An outline of psychology. Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
McMullen, T. (1982). A critique of humanistic psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 34, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullen, T. (1996). Psychology and realism. In Latimer, C. R. & Michell, J. (eds.), At once scientific and philosophic: A festschrift for John Philip Sutcliffe (pp. 59–66). Boombana.Google Scholar
Michell, J. (1988). Maze’s direct realism and the character of cognition. Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory and Psychology, 10, 639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michell, J. (2004). The place of qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michell, J. (2005). The logic of measurement: A realist overview. Measurement, 38, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morey, L. C., Benson, K. T., Busch, A. J., & Skodol, A. E. (2015). Personality disorders in DSM-5: Emerging research on the alternative model. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nilsson, A. (2014). Personality psychology as the integrative study of traits and worldviews. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., & Zochowski, M. (2005). The emergence of personality: Dynamic foundations of individual variation. Developmental Review, 25, 351–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panksepp, J., & Biven, L. (2012). The archaeology of mind: Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotions. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Passmore, J. A. (1935). The nature of intelligence. Australasian Journal of Psychology & Philosophy, 13, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petocz, A., & Mackay, N. (2013). Unifying psychology through situational realism. Review of General Psychology, 17, 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petocz, A., & Newbery, G. (2010). On conceptual analysis as the primary qualitative approach to statistics education research in psychology. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9, 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauthmann, J. F. (2024). Personality is (so much) more than just self-reported Big Five traits. European Journal of Personality, 38, 863–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-language studies of lexical personality factors. In Hampson, S. E. (Ed.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. I). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and behavior. The Free Press.Google Scholar
Shedler, J., Beck, A., Fonagy, P., Gabbard, G. O., Gunderson, J., Kernberg, O., … & Westen, D. (2010). Personality disorders in DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1026–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2012). Why do (some) birds flock? Causality and the structure of characteristic adaptations. European Journal of Personality, 26, 449–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trull, T. J. & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P., Mulder, R., Kim, Y. R., & Crawford, M. J. (2019). The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: An amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 481–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (2002). The dynamical perspective in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (2020). Personality traits as an organizing framework for personality pathology. Personality & Mental Health, 14, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiger, T. A. (2005). Five factor model of personality disorder: Integrating science and practice. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: The five‐factor model. Journal of Personality, 80, 1471–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2019). The Five Factor Model of personality structure: An update. World Psychiatry, 18, 271–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, T. A., & McCabe, G. A. (2020). The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) from the perspective of the five-factor model. Psychopathology, 53, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, T. A., Sellbom, M., Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., DeYoung, C. G., Kotov, R., … & Wright, A. G. (2019). Personality in a hierarchical model of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 7, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiger, T. A., Crego, C., Rojas, S. L., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2018). Basic personality model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 21, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, A. G. (2011). Qualitative and quantitative distinctions in personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 370–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yankelovich, D. (1973). The idea of human nature. Social Research, 40, 407–428.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). Personality disorder and validity: A history of controversy. In Fulford, K. W. M., Davies, M., Gipps, R., Graham, G., Sadler, J. Z., Stanghellini, G., & Thornton, T. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy & psychiatry (pp. 889–910). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×