See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364660025

Borderline personality disorder and its facets in the context of personality

metatraits and pathological traits

Article in Personality and Individual Differences · October 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111958

CITATIONS READS

2 291

2 authors:

Piotr Brud Jan Cieciuch

Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
8 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 232 PUBLICATIONS 8,272 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Piotr Brud on 28 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Borderline personality disorder and its facets in the context of personality metatraits

and pathological traits

Piotr Paweł Brud1 & Jan Cieciuch1 2

1Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw, Poland
2University of Zürich, Switzerland

Author Contribution

Piotr Paweł Brud: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,

Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review

& editing. Jan Cieciuch: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted article.

Data availability

All of the data, syntaxes and Supplementary Material used for the purposes of the current

study are freely available at:

https://osf.io/w5qxm/?view_only=031cca5b0e56417c9b7e935b939641c3.

Correspondence: Piotr Paweł Brud, Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan

Wyszynski University, Wóycickiego 1/3 (building 14), 01-938 Warsaw, Poland; E-mail:

[email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0002-0320-3239.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Abstract

Borderline personality disorder is characterized by considerable heterogeneity. The

present studies attempt to describe this heterogeneity by locating the borderline construct and

its facets in the overall personality structure within the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits

and by using the pathological personality traits of the ICD-11. Two studies were conducted

with adults – a non-clinical group and a clinical group. It turned out that two facets of the

borderline can be differentiated: the Borderline Internalizing Facet and Borderline

Externalizing Facet, which have distinct personality underpinnings. General borderline was

explained by Negative affectivity, Dissociality, Disinhibition and Detachment. At the facet

level, the Borderline Internalizing Facet was mainly explained by Negative affectivity and

Detachment, while the Borderline Externalizing Facet was explained by Disinhibition and

Dissociality. Moreover, in both groups the general borderline was located close to Alpha-

Minus (between Alpha-Minus and Gamma-Minus in the non-clinical group and between

Alpha-Minus and Delta-Minus in the clinical group) and the Borderline Internalizing Facet

and the Borderline Externalizing Facet were located on both sides of the general borderline.

The results of our research revealed broader personality underpinnings of borderline

personality disorder and distinct personality underpinnings of its facets.

Keywords: borderline personality disorder, borderline heterogeneity, pathological traits,

DSM-5, ICD-11, Circumplex of Personality Metatraits

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

1. Introduction

In general, personality disorders (PD) show considerable variation in the clinical

picture. In the case of borderline personality disorder (BPD) the heterogeneity of the clinical

picture is particularly high (Oladottir et al., 2022). In this study, we explain this diversity

through the prism of pathological personality traits from ICD-11 PD model (World Health

Organization [WHO], 2021), and the integrative model of personality structure such as the

Circumplex of Personality Metatraits (Strus et al., 2014).

1.1. Borderline personality and its heterogeneity

BPD is primarily characterized by instability in interpersonal relationships, affect

regulation, impulse control, and self-image. Clinical symptoms usually focus on emotional

dysregulation, impulsive aggression, repeated self-harm and chronic suicidal tendencies

(Skodol et al., 2002; WHO, 2021). The medical history of patients with this pathology often

shows insecure attachment, childhood trauma (e.g., physical and sexual abuse), parental

psychopathology and detrimental parenting practices such as controlling and rejecting

(Armour et al., 2022; Boucher et al., 2017).

So far, in trying to unravel the problem of heterogeneity, researchers have tended to

focus on determining the dimensionality (i.e., whether BPD is a single or multi-dimensional

construct) and/or distinguishing the typology of the BPD construct. In relation to the

determination of the BPD factor structure, some have argued for two to four dimensions,

while others have supported a one-dimensional model (see Hallquist & Pilkonis, 2012). Sharp

et al. (2015) evaluated a bifactor model of PD pathology, suggesting that the nine BPD

criteria from the DSM may represent core traits of general PD severity instead of a discrete

disorder – which has proven to complicate the matter even further.

In a theoretical review, Brud (2021) identified 37 borderline models based on both

dimensionality and BPD typology. He distinguished 59 individual units of meaning and

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

finally formed them into eleven semantic-consistent domain-groups. The distinguished

domains differ not only in terms of meaning, but also in scope. As it turns out, this grouping

clearly shows the specificity of the internalization and externalization of BPD. Interestingly,

these two pathologies are usually treated as distinct ones (Eaton et al., 2011), but nevertheless

they represent two basic facets of BPD. In conclusion, the issue of heterogeneity is far from

being resolved (Oladottir et al., 2022). In this paper we explain the heterogeneity by looking

at the personality underpinnings (in terms of personality metatraits and pathological traits) of

BPD.

1.2. Relations of normal and pathological personality traits with BPD

Current official disorders classification systems – ICD-11 (WHO, 2021) and DSM-5

(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) changed the paradigm in describing

personality disorders from the categorical to the dimensional one. It is worth noting that even

before the introduction of DSM-5 and ICD-11 a dimensional approach had already been

adopted to describe many personality disorders by using a Five Factor Model (FFM)

including Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and

Conscientiousness (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992).

This was also the case for BPD. Mullins-Sweatt et al. (2012) selected eleven facets

from four FFM domains (Neuroticism, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and

Conscientiousness) that are of particular importance in the description of BPD and developed

an instrument to measure them. They are Anxious uncertainty (parallel to FFM Anxiety),

Dysregulated anger (parallel to FFM Angry hostility), Despondence (parallel to FFM

Depression), Self-disturbance (parallel to FFM Self-consciousness), Behavioural

dysregulation (parallel to FFM Impulsiveness), Affective dysregulation (parallel to FFM

Vulnerability), Fragility (parallel to FFM Vulnerability), Dissociative tendencies (parallel to

FFM Fantasy), Distrustfulness (parallel to low level FFM Trust), Manipulativeness (parallel
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

to low level FFM Straightforwardness), Oppositional (parallel to low level FFM Compliance)

and Rashness (parallel to low level FFM Deliberation).

In addition to describing BPD in terms of FFM, researchers have shown empirical

relations (with varying strength and shape of the relationship) of BPD with normal and

pathological traits. Generally, with regard to normal traits, significant positive associations

have been demonstrated between BPD and Neuroticism, and depending on reports, inter alia,

significant negative associations with Agreeableness (including Trust, Straightforward and

Compliance), Conscientiousness (including Competence, Dutifulness and Deliberation) and

Extraversion (including Warmth and Positive emotions) were also identified, as well as a

positive association with Openness to experience (Distel et al., 2009; Samuel & Widiger,

2008).

There are also several results empirically demonstrating relations between BPD and

the pathological Big Five and some of them are mentioned bellow. Both DSM-5 and ICD-11

distinguished the pathological Big Fives. In the case of ICD-11 these were: Negative

affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibition and Anankastia. In the case of DSM-5

four traits are the same as in the ICD-11, with the exception of Psychoticism instead of

Anankastia. Researchers typically reported associations of BPD with Negative affectivity,

Detachment, Disinhibition as well as Antagonism/Dissociality from both the DSM-5

(Anderson et al., 2018; Bach & Sellbom, 2016) and ICD-11 (Gutiérrez et al., 2022; Oltmanns

& Widiger, 2019) models. Considering the fifth dimension of Pathological Big Fives with

DSM-5 and ICD-11 (i.e., Psychoticism vs. Anankastia), researchers showed that Psychoticism

was significantly associated with the BPD (Bach & Sellbom, 2016). As for Anankastia, apart

from one report we found (Bach et al., 2018), no such link has been recorded (Oltmanns &

Widiger, 2019; Stricker & Pietrowsky, 2022). However, the question remains how the

personality associated explain the heterogeneity of BPD. We address this question by using
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Circumplex of Personality Metatraits (CPM; Strus & Cieciuch, 2017, 2021; Strus et al., 2014)

in addition to pathological Big Five.

1.3. Circumplex of Personality Metatraits

Overall, there is some theoretical rationale and empirical evidence for an association

of BPD with FFM traits. However, some authors have previously expressed warnings or

concerns about the adequacy of FFM to fully explain BPD (e.g., Hopwood & Zanarini, 2010;

Morey & Zanarini, 2000). Considering the above, as well as numerous controversies and

critical voices around the FFM itself (e.g., the number of basic, orthogonality, or the general

personality factor; Block, 1995; Borsboom, 2006; McAdams, 1992) – the proposal of a

comprehensive approach to BPD with the use of FFM is not entirely satisfactory. Therefore,

we decided to use the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits (Strus et al., 2014), which uses the

knowledge produced in the Big Five tradition and proposes a refined and comprehensive

description of the personality structure.

The CPM is based on the assumption that personality metatraits are the broadest

dimensions of personality (DeYoung et al., 2002), both normal and pathological (Strus et al.,

2021). At the core of the circumplex matrix are the two metatraits Alpha and Beta, first

recognized by Digman (1997) as factors of socialization and personal development, and later

reinterpreted by DeYoung et al. (2002) as stability and plasticity. Alpha/Stability is

responsible for maintaining stability in emotional, social and motivational functioning, while

Beta/Plasticity is responsible for the tendency to discover and voluntarily engage in new

cognitive experiences and behaviours. Strus et al. (2014) proposed two additional metatraits:

(1) Gamma, whose positive pole is associated with high self-esteem, positive well-being, and

the negative pole is associated with characteristics potentially predisposing to PD, especially

internalized disorders, and (2) Delta, whose positive pool is associated with a combination of

high stability and low plasticity, while negative pool is associated with externalized disorders.
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

The two poles of Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta form a circumplex. It is worth noting that

recent research by Strus and Cieciuch (2021) has directly contributed to modifying the

original CPM model. Namely, Neuroticism/Emotional stability occupies a central position

within Gamma, rather than in the Alpha location as previously claimed by Digman (1997) and

DeYoung et al. (2002). Thus, it is more related to the Beta metatrait than to Delta. A graphical

representation of the revised Circumplex of Personality Metatraits is shown in Figure 1 and

the content of each metatrait is described in Table 1.

Fig. 1. Revised Circumplex of Personality Metatraits. N, Neuroticism; E, Extraversion; O, Openness to

experience; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientiousness; + means positive pole of the trait; - means negative
pole of the trait. Figure adapted from Strus & Cieciuch (2021).

Table 1
Meaning of the eight metatraits in the revised CPM model (Cieciuch & Strus, 2021)
Metatrait Meaning
Delta-Plus Low emotionality (both negative and positive), high behavioural and emotional control,
(Self-Restraint) meticulousness, and perfectionistic tendencies as well as modesty, conventionality, and
severe social adjustment.

Alpha-Plus Stability in the area of emotional, motivational, and social functioning, expressed as
(Stability) a general social adaptation tendency, an ethical attitude toward the world, benevolence,
and calmness, as well as the ability to delay gratification, diligence and perseverance.
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Gamma-Plus Well-being, a warm and prosocial attitude toward people, both intra- and interpersonal
(Integration) balance and harmony; serenity, openness to the world in all its richness, as well as
endurance and effectiveness in attaining important goals.

Beta-Plus Cognitive and behavioural openness to change and engagement to new experiences,
(Plasticity) a tendency to explore, self-confidence, initiative and invention in social relations,
enthusiasm and orientation toward personal growth.

Delta-Minus Broadly defined impulsiveness, recklessness, emotional volatility, stimulation-seeking

(Sensation and risk taking; self-enhancement and hedonistic tendencies as well as interpersonal
-Seeking) dominance and expansiveness.

Alpha-Minus High level of antisocial tendencies underpinned by unsustainability, low frustration

(Disinhibition) tolerance and egotism as well as aggression and antagonism toward people, social norms,
and obligations.

Gamma-Minus Inaccessibility, coldness and distrust in interpersonal relations; negative affectivity and
(Disharmony) low self-worthiness; depressiveness, pessimism and proneness to suffer from
psychological problems.

Beta-Minus Social avoidance and timidity, along with submissiveness and dependency in close
(Passiveness) relationships; cognitive and behavioural passivity and inhibition; some type of
stagnation, apathy, and tendency for anhedonia.
Note: For abbreviations see Fig. 1.

CPM serves as a matrix where several personality constructs can be located and

explained, for example, narcissism (Rogoza, Cieciuch et al., 2019), the Dark Triad (Brud et

al., 2020; Rogoza, Kowalski et al., 2019) or personality disorders (Zawadzki, 2017).

Zawadzki (2017) used CPM to organize and compare PD and presented that they can be

meaningfully located in the space of CPM. With regard to this manuscript, its results showed

that BPD, along with the paranoid, schizotypal, and antisocial personality, were located near

the Alpha-Minus pole.

Moreover, Strus et al. (2021), using the integrative potential of CPM, compared the

two Pathological Big Fives with the DSM-5 and ICD-11, demonstrating a greater validity of

pathological traits from the ICD-11. CPM showed that the Pathological Big Five ICD-11 fills

the entire space provided for pathology, i.e., below the Delta line – from Delta-Minus,

through Gamma-Minus to Delta-Plus. In the case of the Pathological Big Five DSM-5, such

an effect was not achieved. As it turns out there is evidence that pathological traits from the
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

ICD-11 can more accurately describe personality structure, this article also explores their

potential.

2. Current study

The main goal of this article, with the help of two studies on the non-clinical and

clinical groups, was to describe BPD heterogeneity by using the pathological Big Five and

integrating the CPM. We ran two studies. The first one with a non-clinical population, due to

the fact that personality traits, including those related to BPD, can also be observed at a

sufficiently low intensity in such a non-clinical population and the second study among

people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.

We hypothesize that the general borderline construct will be located between two

metatraits: Gamma-Minus and Alpha-Minus (Strus & Cieciuch, 2017; Zawadzki, 2017). We

also anticipate that, due to its complex nature, BPD may differentiate into two facets –

internalization and externalization. We expect these two facets to be scattered on both sides of

the general borderline. The facet representing a more internalized pathology is expected to be

related to Gamma-Minus, while the facet representing a more externalized pathology – to

Delta-Minus (DeYoung et al., 2008; Zawadzki, 2017). The graphical representation of our

hypotheses is illustrated in Fig. 2.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Fig. 2. Location of the general borderline construct and its two facets within the Circumplex of Personality
Metatraits.

Based on the reports by Strus et al. (2021) that Negative affectivity was located in the

vicinity of Gamma-Minus and Dissociality near Alpha-Minus, we expect the general

borderline to be predicted mainly by Negative affectivity and Dissociality and less by

Disinhibition and Detachment. Taking into account other reports on high borderline

Neuroticism and associations with Negative affectivity, we hypothesize that Negative

affectivity will be the strongest predictor (Bach et al., 2018; Distel et al., 2009; Oltmanns &

Widiger, 2019).

At the facet level, given that Negative affectivity, but also Detachment, was the main

focus of the Gamma-Minus metatrait, we predict that these domains will explain

internalization of BPD. In turn, externalization of BPD will be predicted by the domains of

Disinhibition and Dissociality, which were most closely related to Delta-Minus (Strus et al.,

2021).

In addition, we hypothesize that in the group of people diagnosed with borderline

personality disorder staying in a ward associated with the treatment of personality disorders,
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

the severity of borderline personality traits, pathological traits from the ICD-11, and

personality metatraits with negative poles is greater than in the group of people in the general

population.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and procedure

We ran two studies: the first one with a non-clinical sample and the second with a

clinical sample. The first study was conducted on a group of 315 adults from Poland aged 18-

70 years (Mage = 33.56 years; SDage = 10.71 years; 48.6% of men). Most of the respondents

had completed higher education (66%) and one third had a secondary education (33.1%). The

study was conducted online in two sessions seven days apart. In the first session, the subjects

were asked to complete questionnaires for the measurement of borderline personality, and in

the second session – to measure pathological personality traits and personality metatraits. A

previously prepared link, which contained a battery of tests, was sent to various people, and

placed on various thematic groups on social media. Participation in the study was completely

voluntary and the subject was allowed to stop the study at any time. Ultimately, 315 people

participated in both sessions.

The second study concerned verification of the adopted hypotheses for the clinical

group. People diagnosed with borderline personality disorder were recruited and were

currently in psychiatric hospitals in inpatient wards associated with personality disorders in

Poland. 113 people aged 18-54 (Mage = 26.76 years; SDage = 7.79 years; 23% of men)

participated in the study, with one person indicating a non-binary identity. Inclusion criteria

for this study included a formal diagnosis of BPD and free consent. The exclusion criteria

were pregnancy, active addiction to psychoactive substances, chronic psychotic disorders,

organic brain damage, recent brain surgery and intellectual disability. Moreover, concomitant
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

psychiatric diagnoses and pharmacological treatment (mood stabilizers, antidepressants) were

allowed. The study was conducted using the paper-and-pencil method.

More than half of the respondents (67%) completed secondary education, with 23%

completing higher education. 78% of people declared that they were unmarried, while 22

people remained in relationships (informal relationship – 12.4%, marriage – 7.1%). Regarding

professional situation, 32.7% of the respondents were employed and 41.6% lacked paid work.

Among the respondents, 23% of people declared that they study at the university. The

respondents usually lived in large cities with a population of more than 500,000. (36.3%), as

well as in cities up to 50,000. (28.3%) and in the countryside (19.5%). Apart from the

diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, among the respondents, other comorbidities were

also noted (paranoid personality disorder – 6.2%, schizoid personality disorder – 1.8%,

schizotypal personality disorder – 6.2%, antisocial personality disorder – 8.8%, histrionic

personality disorder – 12.4%, narcissistic personality disorder – 15.9%, avoidant personality

disorder – 9.7%, dependent personality disorder – 11.5%, obsessive-compulsive personality

disorder – 18.6%). In addition, 72.6% of the respondents indicated a diagnosis of depressive

disorders, 60.2% indicated anxiety disorders, 19.5% eating disorders, 12.4% post-traumatic

stress disorder, 6.2% bipolar disorder, 5.3% attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 4.4%

attention deficit disorder, and 4.4% Asperger's syndrome. Prior to the commencement of the

studies, the approval of the relevant Ethics Committee was obtained.

3.2. Measures

In both studies, four self-report questionnaires were used. In all questionnaires, the

respondents assessed their consent on a five-point Likert type scale.

3.2.1. Borderline personality disorder

The study used two questionnaires to measure BPD – 1) Screening Instrument for

Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord; Lohanan et al., 2020) and 2) Five‑Factor

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Borderline Inventory – Short Form (FFBI-SF; DeShong et al., 2016; Polish adaptation: Brud

& Cieciuch, 2022). SI-Bord is a screening tool for BPD, consisting of five items based on

DSM-5 criteria (Avoid abandonment, Unstable relationship, Identity disturbance, Self-harm,

Mood change). The α coefficient in this study was 0.83. The FFBI-SF is a self-reported,

abbreviated version of the 120-item FFBI (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2012) questionnaire for

measuring twelve trait-facets of BPD (Anxious uncertainty, Dysregulated anger,

Despondence, Self-disturbance, Behavioural dysregulation, Affective dysregulation, Fragility,

Dissociative tendencies, Distrustfulness, Manipulativeness, Oppositional and Rashness). It

consists of 48 items, where four items fall into one of the twelve scales. The mean α

coefficients in both studies were 0.82/0.74.

3.2.2. Pathological personality traits

In order to measure the five broad personality domains of the ICD-11 Personality

Disorder model, i.e., Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, Detachment, Dissociality and

Anankastia, we used the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD; Oltmanns & Widiger,

2018; Polish adaptation: Cieciuch et al., 2021). Each domain consists of twelve items. In the

tested samples, the mean Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.87/0.85.

3.2.3. Personality metatraits

Eight metatraits were measured by the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits

Questionnaire – Short Form (CPM-Q-SF; Strus & Cieciuch, 2017). The metatraits, defined in

Table 1 and presented in Fig. 1, are: Delta-Plus/Self-Restraint, Alpha-Plus/Stability, Gamma-

Plus/Integration, Beta-Plus/Plasticity, Delta-Minus/Sensation Seeking, Alpha-

Minus/Disinhibition, Gamma-Minus/Disharmony, Beta-Minus/Passiveness. The

questionnaire consists of 72 (nine items for each metatrait) items. The mean α coefficients in

both studies were 0.82/0.79.

3.3. Data
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

All of the data, syntaxes and Supplementary Material used for the purposes of the

current study are freely available at:

https://osf.io/w5qxm/?view_only=031cca5b0e56417c9b7e935b939641c3.

As predicted, the severity of all BPD traits and pathological personality traits of ICD-

11 is greater in the clinical group.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics and scale correlations

Descriptive statistics and scales correlations are available online in the Supplementary

Material.

4.2. Factorial structure of the FFBI-SF

In the first study, to distinguish the number of higher-order factors in the FFBI-SF

model, we compared the twelve factors’ eigenvalues for sample correlation matrix with the

average eigenvalues from a parallel analysis (Hayton et al., 2004; Horn, 1965). The results

suggested extraction of two factors – more internalizing (factor 1) as well as externalizing

pathology (factor 2; DeYoung et al., 2008), which were distinguished in an Exploratory

Factor Analysis with Principal Axis Factoring (see Table 2) on factor scores obtained in

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (see Brud & Cieciuch, 2022). In a further analysis, we named

factor 1 Borderline Internalizing Facet (BIF), and factor 2 – Borderline Externalizing Facet

(BEF). This solution explains 58.02% of the variance of the factor scores. In the second study,

the eigenvalues for subsequent factors were as follows: 4.55; 1.62; 1.13; 0.96. Based on the

differences between (a) the second and third and (b) the third and fourth, we decided to run

the two-factor solution in an Exploratory Factor Analysis on the twelve FFBI-SF scales in an

attempt to replicate the solution from the first study. This solution explains 51.41% of the

variance.
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

The overall results are generally consistent with the first study with the exception of

the two scales (Distrustfulness, Dissociative tendencies) that load low on both the

externalization and internalization factor. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Factor loadings in a two-factor solution in an Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax rotation for study
1 and raw values for study 2.
Factor
BIF BEF
Anxious uncertainty (N1) 0.78/0.66 0.13/0.13
Fragility (N6b) 0.69/0.62 0.05/0.21
Distrustfulness (A1) 0.67/0.15 0.23/0.22
Dissociative tendencies (O1) 0.65/0.10 0.46/0.24
Self-disturbance (N4) 0.64/0.47 0.35/0.37
Affective dysregulation (N6a) 0.52/0.56 0.28/0.38
Despondence (N3) 0.51/0.78 0.34/0.07
Rashness (C6) 0.17/0.31 0.74/0.72
Manipulativeness (A2) 0.06/0.12 0.69/0.72
Behavioural dysregulation (N5) 0.28/0.28 0.67/0.78
Oppositional (A4) 0.39/0.04 0.59/0.62
Dysregulated anger (N2) 0.36/0.22 0.50/0.67
Note: Method: Principal Axis Factoring. The bold line separates factors with a value equal to or greater
than 0.50 (study 1), and also 0.47 (study 2) from successive factors with a lower value.
The values for study 1 are before the dash and the values for study 2 are shown after the dash.
BIF, Borderline Internalizing Facet; BEF, Borderline Externalizing Facet.

4.3. Locating the borderline construct within the CPM

The hypotheses regarding the location of the borderline within the CPM were verified

using the circular model analysis procedure (Rogoza et al., 2021). Details on data and

procedures are available at the following link:

https://osf.io/w5qxm/?view_only=031cca5b0e56417c9b7e935b939641c3.

4.3.1 Study 1

We tested whether the CPM assumes the criteria of the circumplex model in our data

(that is, with both spacing and communalities constrained to be equal). The results supported

the circumplex character of the model (χ2(24) = 146.75; p < .001; CFI = 0.917; GFI = 0.911;

AGFI = 0.867; RMSEA = 0.128). Thus, it is plausible to locate external variables within its

space.

The results of the SSM are provided in Table 3, and the empirical projections of the

General borderline factor of SI-Bord and FFBI-SF as well as its facets are presented in Fig. 3,
 BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

while in Fig. A (Supplementary Materials) the projections related to the twelve scales of the

FFBI-SF are displayed. All the external variables were well-fitted, which indicates the

plausibility of the structural profiles. All amplitude values were above 0.15, suggesting that

each profile is distinct, and all elevation values were below 0.15, which, in line with the

theoretical assumptions of the CPM model, indicates that one major factor cannot be inferred.

As expected, General borderline factors (SI-Bord and FFBI-SF) were located between

Alpha-Minus and Gamma-Minus. Regarding the facets of internalization and externalization,

as expected, the BIF was positioned very close to the Gamma-Minus, while the BEF was

positioned very close to the Alpha-Minus and the Delta-Minus (closer to the Alpha-Minus).

4.3.2 Study 2

The circumplex structure was also replicated in the second study (χ2(24) = 57.16; p <

.001; CFI = 0.922; GFI = 0.931; AGFI = 0.897; RMSEA = 0.111). Compared to the first

study, where the borderline construct was located between Gamma-Minus and Alpha-Minus,

here the General borderline factors were on the right side of Alpha-Minus, namely between

Alpha-Minus and Delta-Minus. At the facet level, the BIF did not fit well to the CPM matrix

according to the coefficients (R2) but it was otherwise located as predicted on the left side of

the General borderline factor - FFBI-SF, and the BEF on the right, confirming the expected

locations. As in the first study, the values of amplitude and elevation generate the same

conclusions.

The results of the SSM are provided in Table 3, and similarly to the first study, the

empirical projections of the General borderline factor of SI-Bord and FFBI-SF as well as its

facets are presented in Fig. 3, while in Fig. B (Supplementary Materials) the projections

related to the twelve scales of the FFBI-SF are displayed.

Table 3
Structural summary profiles of the borderline within the self-reported Circumplex of Personality Metatraits
(study 1 and study 2).
Profile R2 Displacement Amplitude Elevation
Study 1
 BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

SI-Bord
General borderline factor 0.98 253.6 [245.8, 261.5] 0.66 [0.59, 0.74] 0.05 [0.02, 0.08]
FFBI-SF
General borderline factor 0.99 257.5 [251.4, 264.0] 0.74 [0.68, 0.80] 0.06 [0.03, 0.09]
BIF 0.96 236.1 [227.0, 244.6] 0.59 [0.50, 0.68] 0.06 [0.03, 0.09]
BEF 0.99 282.4 [273.1, 292.0] 0.63 [0.55, 0.70] 0.03 [0.01, 0.06]
Study 2
SI-Bord
General borderline factor 0.94 272.4 [253.2, 290.4] 0.41 [0.30, 0.53] 0.06 [0.00, 0.11]
FFBI-SF
General borderline factor 0.98 284.5 [273.7, 295.8] 0.64 [0.55, 0.72] 0.06 [0.02, 0.11]
BIF 0.68 254.3 [226.1, 275.4] 0.32 [0.18, 0.45] 0.10 [0.05, 0.15]
BEF 0.99 294.6 [283.5, 306.6] 0.64 [0.55, 0.73] 0.01 [-0.03, 0.05]
Note. SI-Bord, Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder; FFBI-SF, Five‑Factor Borderline
Inventory – Short Form; BIF, Borderline Internalizing Facet; BEF, Borderline Externalizing Facet.

Fig. 3. Empirical locations of the borderline within Circumplex of Personality Metatraits (first figure from
the top – study 1, bottom figure – study 2).
Note. SI-Bord, Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder; FFBI-SF, Five‑Factor Borderline
Inventory – Short Form.
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

4.4. Relations between borderline facets and pathological traits

To estimate the relations in both studies between the pathological personality trait

domains measured by PiCD and BPD measured by SI-Bord and FFBI-SF, we performed a

series of regression analyses (Table 4). In each analysis, the set of predictors consisted of five

dysfunctional traits measured with PiCD, and the explained variables were General borderline

factor of SI-Bord and FFBI-SF as well as its facets. As for the SI-Bord – General borderline

factor, it turned out that pathological traits accounted for 62%/47% of its total variance, while

for the FFBI-SF – General borderline factor it was 72%/71%, with the mean value of

explained variance for FFBI-SF – BIF and BEF 61%/52.5%. The General borderline factor in

both SI-Bord and FFBI-SF was largely explained by Negative affectivity and Dissociality. At

the facet level: FFBI-SF – BIF was mostly explained by Negative affectivity and Detachment

while FFBI-SF – BEF by Dissociality and Disinhibition.

Table 4
Pathological personality traits as predictors of the BPD and its facets (study 1 and study 2).
SI-Bord – FFBI-SF – FFBI-SF – FFBI-SF –
General factor General factor BIF BEF
β β β β
Negative affectivity 0.67***/0.62*** 0.61***/0.50*** 0.74***/0.66*** 0.13*/0.16*
Disinhibition 0.09/-0.20 0.12*/0.28*** -0.08/0.07 0.32***/0.31***
** *** **
Detachment 0.03/0.01 0.10 /0.03 0.22 /0.22 -0.10*/-0.17*
** * *** ***
Dissociality 0.13 /0.18 0.24 /0.31 -0.04/-0.14 0.45***/0.51***
**
Anankastia -0.03/-0.31 -0.06/-0.12 0.03/-0.14 -0.14**/-0.04
2
R 0.62/0.47 0.72/0.71 0.64/0.45 0.58/0.60
F(5,309/5,107) 103.87***/20.81*** 166.90***/54.73*** 111.36***/19.74*** 89.33***/34.09***
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
The values for study 1 are before the dash and the values for study 2 are shown after the dash.
SI-Bord, Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder; FFBI-SF, Five‑Factor Borderline
Inventory – Short Form; FFBI-SF – BIF, Five‑Factor Borderline Inventory – Short Form – Borderline
Internalizing Facet; FFBI-SF – BEF, Five‑Factor Borderline Inventory – Short Form – Borderline
Externalizing Facet.

5. Discussion

The topic of BPD heterogeneity has been of interest for a long time (Oladottir et al.,

2022). The present study used metatraits and pathological traits to investigate the broader

personality underpinnings of borderline and its facets as a foundation for BPD heterogeneity

from the perspective of self-reports in non-clinical and clinical groups.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Our predictions were basically confirmed. In the case of the first study, BPD was

located between two metatraits: Gamma-Minus (pathology centre; Strus & Cieciuch, 2017)

and Alpha-Minus. Analysing Fig. 3, a certain deviation is observed in the second study, in

which the BPD shifts to the right and is located still close to Alpha-Minus but on its right side

(moving to the Delta-Minus). So Alpha-Minus seems to be always the main personality

predictor of borderline in both groups. These results may suggest that in the general

population the characteristics of borderline personality traits are more related to the general

pathology (Gamma-Minus) than in the clinical population. The clinical population is already

characterized by higher pathology (Gamma-Minus) and distinguishes borderline is rather

Alpha-Minus and Delta-Minus. The placement of borderline close to Alpha-Minus makes

means that the personality underpinnings of borderline are similar to those of Dark Triad

(Rogoza, Kowalski et al., 2019).

Moreover, the expected localization of the internalization and externalization facets

within CPM was generally supported – scattered on both sides of general borderline factors.

Despite the broadly consistent results of both studies, in the clinical group all variables in the

space of the circumplex shifted to the right, and the internalization facet did not fit well to the

CPM matrix. Taking into account the Delta line, which in CPM marks the border of healthy

vs. pathological functioning, it can be concluded that the facet of externalization may lead to

faster recovery.

Interestingly, with regard to the aforementioned narcissism, Rogoza, Cieciuch et al.

(2019) argued that vulnerable narcissism as well as hypersensitive narcissism are located

close to the Gamma-Minus pole – similarly to the Borderline Internalizing Facet in the results

of our research. This would indicate common personality underpinnings of both constructs

(see Gunderson, 2011; Ronningstam, 2014), but also confirm earlier reports on the association

of vulnerable narcissism with BPD (Euler et al., 2018). Moreover, the facet of externalizing
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

BPD seems to have something to do with grandiose narcissism – being located near the Delta-

Minus pole. However, despite the fact that the current research on the relationship between

grandiose narcissism and BPD is not entirely convincing and unambiguous, the division of

BPD into two facets of internalization and externalization may organize their mutual relations

(Euler et al., 2018; Rogoza, Cieciuch et al., 2019). However, to be able to say this, more

research is needed.

Moreover, regression analyses showed that the borderline construct can be, to a large

extent, explained by pathological personality traits and shows a special affinity for Negative

affectivity. Furthermore, we proved that two facets of internalization and externalization have

different patterns of association with pathological traits. BIF showed significant associations

with Negative affectivity and Detachment, while BEF was associated with all pathological

traits, but to the greatest extent with Disinhibition and Dissociality. Interestingly, our results

showed that the General borderline factor of SI-Bord tends to reflect Negative affectivity

more uniformly than FFBI-SF. In FFBI-SF, borderline symptoms tended to spread across

more domains. In the context of BPD heterogeneity, such a report may suggest that SI-Bord

indicates a more homogeneous borderline construct than FFBI-SF.

6. Limitations

Current research has several limitations. Firstly, the relatively limited number of

participants, especially in the clinical trial, undoubtedly influenced the final results and should

therefore be approached with caution. Secondly, in the conducted research, the description of

the respondent by other people was omitted, which seems to be particularly important when it

comes to personality disorder. Thirdly, the above studies did not take into account the role of

gender in shaping particular aspects of disturbed personality due to insufficient sample size.

Fourth, it should be noted that the research was limited to the Polish population, therefore the

results obtained here cannot be generalized in relation to other cultures.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., & Salekin, R. T. (2018). Utility of the Personality Inventory for

DSM-5–Brief Form (PID-5-BF) in the measurement of maladaptive personality and

psychopathology. Assessment, 25, 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116676889

Armour, J. A., Joussemet, M., Mageau, G. A., & Varin, R. (2022). Perceived parenting and

borderline personality features during adolescence. Child Psychiatry & Human

Development, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01295-3

Bach, B., & Sellbom, M. (2016). Continuity between DSM-5 categorical criteria and traits

criteria for borderline personality disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61,

489–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716640756

Bach, B., Sellbom, M., Skjernov, M., & Simonsen, E. (2018). ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality

trait domains capture categorical personality disorders: Finding a common ground.

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 425–434.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417727867

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Psychological Bulletin, 177, 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117

Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425–440.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6

Boucher, M. È., Pugliese, J., Allard‐Chapais, C., Lecours, S., Ahoundova, L., Chouinard, R.,

& Gaham, S. (2017). Parent-child relationship associated with the development of

borderline personality disorder: A systematic review. Personality and Mental Health,

11, 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1385

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Brud, P. P. (2021). A review of diagnostic criteria, traits and types of borderline personality

with an attempt to order them. Studia Psychologica: Theoria et Praxis, 21, 37–56.

https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2021.21.2.03

Brud, P. P., & Cieciuch, J. (2022). Polish adaptation of self-report instruments for studying

borderline personality traits – FFBI and FFBI-SF. Psychiatria Polska, 286, 1–16.

Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/150420

Brud, P. P., Rogoza, R., & Cieciuch, J. (2020). Personality underpinnings of dark

personalities: An example of Dark Triad and deadly sins. Personality and Individual

Differences, 163, Article 110085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110085

Cieciuch, J., Łakuta, P., Strus, W., Oltmanns, J. R., & Thomas Widiger, T. (2021).

Assessment of personality disorder in the ICD-11 diagnostic system: Polish validation

of the Personality Inventory for ICD-11. Psychiatria Polska, 138563 (10.12740).

Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/138563

Cieciuch, J., & Strus, W. (2021). Toward a model of personality competencies underlying

social and emotional skills: Insight from the circumplex of personality metatraits.

Frontiers in Psychology, 4891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711323

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO Personality

Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Odessa, FL: PAR.

DeShong, H. L., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Miller, J. D., Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (2016).

Development of a short form of the five-factor borderline inventory. Assessment, 23,

342–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115581475

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big

Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual

Differences, 33, 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Séguin, J. R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Externalizing

behaviour and the higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 117, 947–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013742

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73, 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246

Distel, M. A., Trull, T. J., Willemsen, G., Vink, J. M., Derom, C. A., Lynskey, M., ... &

Boomsma, D. I. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and borderline personality

disorder: A genetic analysis of comorbidity. Biological Psychiatry, 66, 1131–1138.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.07.017

Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., Keyes, K. M., Skodol, A. E., Markon, K. E., Grant, B. F., &

Hasin, D. S. (2011). Borderline personality disorder co-morbidity: Relationship to the

internalizing–externalizing structure of common mental disorders. Psychological

Medicine, 41, 1041–1050. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710001662

Euler, S., Stöbi, D., Sowislo, J., Ritzler, F., Huber, C. G., Lang, U. E., ... & Walter, M. (2018).

Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism in borderline personality disorder.

Psychopathology, 51, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486601

Gunderson, J. G. (2011). Borderline personality disorder. New England Journal of Medicine,

364, 2037–2042. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1007358

Gutiérrez, F., Aluja, A., Ruiz Rodríguez, J., Peri, J. M., Gárriz, M., Garcia, L. F., ... & Calvo,

N. (2022). Borderline, where are you? A psychometric approach to the personality

domains in the international classification of diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). In

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000592
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Hallquist, M. N., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2012). Refining the phenotype of borderline personality

disorder: Diagnostic criteria and beyond. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and

Treatment, 3, 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027953

Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in

exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research

Methods, 7, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

Hopwood, C. J., & Zanarini, M. C. (2010). Five-factor trait instability in borderline relative to

other disorders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 58–66.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018230

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 32, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

Lohanan, T., Leesawat, T., Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., Karawekpanyawong, N.,

Oon-Arom, A., & Kuntawong, P. (2020). Development and validation of a screening

instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university

students. BMC Psychiatry, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02807-6

McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of

Personality, 60, 329–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00976.x

Morey, L. C., & Zanarini, M. C. (2000). Borderline personality: Traits and disorder. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 733–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.4.733

Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Edmundson, M., Sauer-Zavala, S., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., &

Widiger, T. A. (2012). Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 94, 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.672504

Oladottir, K., Wolf-Arehult, M., Ramklint, M., & Isaksson, M. (2022). Cluster analysis of

personality traits in psychiatric patients with borderline personality disorder. Borderline

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 9, 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-022-00178-w

Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional

trait model proposal: The personality inventory for ICD-11. Psychological Assessment,

30, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000459

Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2019). Evaluating the assessment of the ICD-11

personality disorder diagnostic system. Psychological Assessment, 31, 674–684.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000693

Rogoza, R., Cieciuch, J., & Strus, W. (2021). A three-step procedure for analysis of

circumplex models: An example of narcissism located within the circumplex of

personality metatraits. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, Article 109775.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109775

Rogoza, R., Cieciuch, J., Strus, W., & Baran, T. (2019). Seeking a common framework for

research on narcissism: An attempt to integrate the different faces of narcissism within

the circumplex of personality metatraits. European Journal of Personality, 33, 437–455.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2206

Rogoza, R., Kowalski, C. M., & Schermer, J. A. (2019). Dark Triad traits within the

framework of the Circumplex Model of Personality Metatraits. Journal of Individual

Differences, 40, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000289

Ronningstam, E. (2014). Beyond the diagnostic traits: A collaborative exploratory diagnostic

process for dimensions and underpinnings of narcissistic personality disorder.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 434–438.

https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000034
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between

the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis.

Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002

Sharp, C., Wright, A. G., Fowler, J. C., Frueh, B. C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J., & Clark, L. A.

(2015). The structure of personality pathology: Both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’)

factors? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 387–398.

http://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000033

Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., Pfohl, B., Widiger, T. A., Livesley, W. J., & Siever, L. J.

(2002). The borderline diagnosis I: psychopathology, comorbidity, and personality

structure. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 936–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-

3223(02)01324-0

Stricker, J., & Pietrowsky, R. (2022). Incremental validity of the ICD-11 personality disorder

model for explaining psychological distress. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,

and Treatment, 13, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000489

Strus, W., & Cieciuch, J. (2017). Towards a synthesis of personality, temperament,

motivation, emotion and mental health models within the Circumplex of Personality

Metatraits. Journal of Research in Personality, 66, 70–95.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.12.002

Strus, W., & Cieciuch, J. (2021). The circumplex of personality metatraits and the HEXACO

model: Toward refinement and integration. Journal of Personality, 89, 803–818.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12616

Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014). The circumplex of personality metatraits: A

synthesizing model of personality based on the big five. Review of General Psychology,

18, 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fgpr0000017

 BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, METATRAITS, AND PATHOLOGICAL TRAITS

Strus, W., Łakuta, P., & Cieciuch, J. (2021). Anankastia or psychoticism? Which one is better

suited for the fifth trait in the pathological Big Five: Insight from the Circumplex of

Personality Metatraits perspective. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12 (648386).

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.648386

World Health Organization (2021). ICD-11, the 11th revision of the international

classification of diseases. Available online at: https://icd.who.int/en (accessed July 31,

2022).

Zawadzki, B. (2017). The location of personality disorders in the Circumplex of Personality

Metatraits. Annals of Psychology, 20, 493–512.

https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych.2017.20.2-7en

View publication stats