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-2c8nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-25T22:29:41.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - What Can the Dimensional Model of Personality Disorders Learn from Mischel’s Classical Challenge to the Trait Theory of Personality?

from Part I - Historical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2025

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

Summary

Development of the dimensional models of personality disorders in DSM-5 and ICD-11 is a milestone for trait-theoretic research on personality. For a trait concept, such as “cautious,” “humorous,” to characterize a person’s personality, their behavior must be consistent regarding that concept. Since the 1960s, however, Walter Mischel insisted that human behavior lacks cross-situational consistency, and that it emerges instead from the interplay between personal factors and situational contexts. According to this “interactionism” of personality, it would be difficult to characterize healthy personality in terms of trait concepts. Conversely, the diagnosis of personality disorders requires the existence of maladaptive behavior across diverse situations, which itself is a sign of personality pathology. This chapter discusses some caveats in adopting a dimensional model of personality disorders in the light of Mischel’s arguments, as his perspective is vital when working clinically with individuals with personality disorders. First, one should be cautious about over-diagnosing personality disorders. Second, because personality disorders are characterized by consistent problematic behavior, facet-level rather than domain-level characterization of personality is most clinically relevant from a third-person perspective. Third, personality trait domains do not illuminate the causes of problematic behavior in each individual, which is necessary for treating persons with personality disorders.

Keywords

consistency debatedimensional models of personality disordersinteractionismtrait theoryWalter Mischel
Type
Chapter
Information
Conceptualizing Personality Disorder
Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychological Science, and Psychiatry
 , pp. 40 - 56
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

Allport, F. H., & Allport, G. W. (1921). Personality traits: Their classification and measurement. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 16(1), 6–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed., text-revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A. & Davis, D. D. (2014). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders, 3rd ed. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Schwartz, J. E., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Martin, L. R., Wingard, D. L. & Criqui, M. H. (1995). Psychosocial and behavioral predictors of longevity. American Psychologist, 50(2), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gnambs, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of dependability coefficients (test–retest reliabilities) for measures of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1980). Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality. Symposium Presentation at the Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H. & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kernberg, O. (1967). Borderline personality organization. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 15(3), 641–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306516701500309CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, N. (2007). The responsibility of the psychopath revisited. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 14(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.0.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugnegård, T., Hallerbäck, M. U., & Gillberg, C. (2012). Personality disorders and autism spectrum disorders: What are the connections? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.05.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCabe, G. A. & Widiger, T. A. (2020). A comprehensive comparison of the ICD-11 and DSM-5 Section III personality disorder models. Psychological Assessment, 32(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000772CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKitrick, J. (2004). A defense of the causal efficacy of dispositions. Sats: Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 5(1), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/SATS.2004.110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2007). Introduction to personality: Toward an integrative science of the person, 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Robins, C. J. & Chapman, A. L. (2004). Dialectical behavior therapy: Current status, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Personality Disorder, 18(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.18.1.73.3277CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, K. (1950). Die Psychopathischen Persönlichkeiten, 9th ed. Franz Deuticke.Google Scholar
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intra-individual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the diographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (2010). What was personality? Psychology and folk concepts [Seikaku Towa Nandatta Noka?]. Shin’yosha (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Widiger, T. A. & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. (2022). ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/enGoogle Scholar
Zachar, P., Krueger, R. F. & Kendler, K. S. (2016). Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history. Psychological Medicine, 46(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715001543CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×