Neuroticism and Borderline Personality Disorder: Trait Models and Clinical Diagnosis
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism and borderline personality disorder (BPD) overlap substantially at the level of emotional tendencies, but they are not the same construct. Neuroticism is a continuous personality dimension describing a relatively stable tendency toward negative emotionality and distress. BPD is a clinical diagnosis defined by a broader pattern of personality dysfunction and characteristic problems involving affect, identity, relationships, and behavior. High neuroticism can help describe part of the BPD phenotype, yet a neuroticism score cannot establish, rule out, or replace a BPD diagnosis.
Research using the Five-Factor Model consistently finds that BPD is associated with higher neuroticism at the group level. Meta-analytic work also shows that BPD is not captured by neuroticism alone: lower agreeableness and conscientiousness, and in some samples lower extraversion, contribute additional information. The larger personality-disorder literature shows why this distinction matters: elevated neuroticism is common across many forms of psychopathology and personality pathology, making it useful as a broad vulnerability dimension but limited as a disorder-specific marker. See the 2008 facet-level meta-analysis by Samuel and Widiger and the earlier meta-analysis by Saulsman and Page.
For the broader dimensional relationship across personality disorders, see Neuroticism and Personality Disorders: Dimensional Traits and Clinical Diagnosis.
If you need the broader personality-science definition first, read Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For the NEO-specific six-facet structure, see Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability. This article focuses only on the relationship between neuroticism and BPD. It does not replace a clinical guide to BPD, diagnostic assessment, or treatment.
Neuroticism and BPD: The Short Answer
People with BPD, on average, score higher on neuroticism or closely related negative-emotionality dimensions than comparison groups. That association is large enough to be theoretically important and has appeared across Five-Factor Model research, longitudinal studies, twin studies, and molecular-genetic work. It reflects meaningful overlap in tendencies such as emotional reactivity, anxiousness, dysphoric affect, anger proneness, vulnerability under stress, and difficulty returning to emotional baseline.
The overlap remains incomplete. Neuroticism is a broad personality trait found throughout the population. BPD is a clinical syndrome requiring a pattern of personality dysfunction and clinically significant problems that cannot be inferred from a Big Five profile. Two people with similarly high neuroticism can differ dramatically in identity stability, interpersonal functioning, impulsivity, self-harm history, chronic emptiness, abandonment sensitivity, dissociation, anger, and overall impairment. Conversely, people who meet criteria for BPD are heterogeneous and do not share one identical Big Five profile.
A classic NEO-PI-R study found that patients with BPD were especially high in neuroticism and low in agreeableness relative to community norms, but their broad Five-Factor scores did not cleanly separate them from patients with other personality disorders. The authors concluded that dimensional personality profiles only partially accounted for BPD clinical symptomatology; see Zweig-Frank and Paris. That result captures the central point of this article: trait models illuminate BPD, but clinical diagnosis contains information that a broad trait score does not.
Two Levels of Description: Personality Trait and Clinical Diagnosis
Neuroticism is a dimensional personality construct
In contemporary personality science, neuroticism is a continuous dimension. People vary in degree rather than falling into two natural groups called neurotic and non-neurotic. Higher values generally indicate a greater propensity to experience negative emotions, perceive events as stressful or threatening, and react strongly to frustration, uncertainty, loss, or interpersonal strain. Lower values indicate greater emotional stability on average.
A neuroticism score is meaningful only within a specific instrument and scoring system. NEO PI-R and NEO PI-3 neuroticism, NEO-FFI neuroticism, BFI-2 Negative Emotionality, IPIP-based scales, and Eysenck neuroticism measures overlap conceptually but are not interchangeable. Their item content, facets, norms, score ranges, reliability, and intended interpretation differ. A raw score or percentile never has a universal diagnostic meaning outside its measure, normative sample, population, and scoring method.
BPD is a clinical diagnosis
BPD assessment operates at a different level. The 2024 American Psychiatric Association practice guideline recommends a broad initial evaluation when BPD is possible, including presenting concerns, treatment goals and preferences, psychiatric symptoms, core personality-disorder features, common co-occurring disorders, treatment history, physical health, psychosocial and cultural factors, mental status, and risk of suicide, self-injury, and aggression. A quantitative measure can assist evaluation, but no single personality-trait score substitutes for that assessment.
This distinction is clinically decisive. A personality trait describes a probabilistic tendency. A diagnosis integrates a pattern of symptoms and personality functioning, persistence and context, severity and impairment, differential diagnosis, co-occurring conditions, and clinical judgment. A trait can be associated with a disorder without being equivalent to it.
For the broader diagnostic boundary, see Is Neuroticism a Mental Illness? Why a Personality Trait Is Not a Diagnosis and Is Neuroticism a Disorder? DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and Personality Science.
What the Five-Factor Model Shows About BPD
The Five-Factor Model describes personality using neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. When researchers translate personality-disorder features into this framework, BPD most consistently appears as a pattern centered on high neuroticism, with lower agreeableness and lower conscientiousness also frequently represented. Associations with extraversion vary more by sample and by which facets are measured.
The broad meta-analytic literature supports both overlap and nonspecificity. Saulsman and Page synthesized 15 independent samples and found that positive associations with neuroticism and negative associations with agreeableness were among the most consistent personality patterns across multiple personality disorders, rather than unique signatures of BPD. Samuel and Widiger later extended this work to facet-level profiles and found that empirical Five-Factor profiles were generally meaningful, while also documenting exceptions and instrument-specific findings.
That means a Big Five profile can answer a descriptive question—what broad personality tendencies are statistically associated with BPD?—more effectively than a categorical diagnostic question—does this person have BPD? The same broad trait can contribute to several clinical outcomes, and the same diagnosis can emerge through different combinations of traits, developmental histories, symptoms, and contextual factors.
Why high neuroticism is prominent
Many experiences central to neuroticism resemble part of the emotional territory seen in BPD: frequent negative affect, rapid activation of distress, worry, shame, anger, sensitivity to perceived threat or rejection, and vulnerability under stress. This makes neuroticism an efficient broad summary of affective liability. It also explains why neuroticism often correlates strongly with BPD symptom counts or borderline features.
In a large twin-family study, borderline personality showed its strongest phenotypic correlation with neuroticism among the Big Five, at r = .68, while high neuroticism combined with low agreeableness best predicted borderline personality in the regression analyses. The same study found extensive genetic overlap between borderline personality and several Five-Factor traits. These are population-level statistical relations, not individual diagnostic rules; see Distel and colleagues.
Why neuroticism is not enough
BPD contains clinically important dimensions that are not reducible to a general tendency toward negative emotion. Identity disturbance, unstable or conflictual interpersonal functioning, impulsive or risky behavior, specific patterns of attachment and abandonment sensitivity, and the severity of personality dysfunction require additional assessment. The Five-Factor Model can represent some of these features through lower agreeableness, lower conscientiousness, or specific facets, but broad domains do not reproduce every clinically relevant feature.
A 2025 systematic review of factor-analytic studies underscores the heterogeneity of BPD criteria and the continuing debate over their internal structure. Across 27 studies, both a unified model and multidimensional models received empirical support. That literature is about the structure of BPD symptoms themselves, not neuroticism, but it helps explain why one broad trait cannot serve as a complete proxy for the diagnosis; see Triantafyllou and colleagues.
Neuroticism Facets and BPD Features
The NEO PI-R and NEO PI-3 divide neuroticism into six named facets: Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability. Those labels are measurement constructs, not psychiatric diagnoses. Their full interpretation belongs to the Neuroticism Facets article. In the BPD literature, several of these facets are conceptually relevant because they resemble emotional and behavioral tendencies commonly observed in the disorder.
Anxiety-related tendencies can overlap with intense apprehension, interpersonal threat sensitivity, and difficulty tolerating uncertainty. Angry Hostility can overlap with irritability and anger reactivity. Depression as a NEO facet reflects a tendency toward dysphoric emotion and should not be read as a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Self-Consciousness can overlap with shame and sensitivity to evaluation. Vulnerability concerns feeling unable to cope under stress. NEO Impulsiveness primarily concerns difficulty controlling urges and temptations under emotional pressure; it is narrower than the broad clinical construct of impulsivity.
The important measurement boundary is that these six facets belong to the NEO framework. The NEO-FFI is a shorter domain-level measure and does not provide the same detailed six-facet profile. BFI-2 uses the label Negative Emotionality and a different facet structure. PID-5 Negative Affectivity is a maladaptive personality-trait domain used in the DSM alternative model and is not simply a renamed NEO neuroticism score. Instrument names therefore matter whenever research findings or individual scores are interpreted.
Negative Affectivity Is Related to Neuroticism but Not Identical to It
The phrase negative affectivity appears in several neighboring literatures, which can make the BPD–neuroticism relationship look simpler than it is. In normal-range personality models, neuroticism or Negative Emotionality refers to a broad dimension of individual differences. In dimensional models of personality pathology, Negative Affectivity refers to maladaptive trait content that occupies a related part of personality space but is defined and measured differently.
The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders describes personality pathology using impairment in self and interpersonal functioning together with pathological trait domains. For BPD, Negative Affectivity is important, but the trait description also draws on Disinhibition and Antagonism, depending on the person's features. In the proposed BPD trait pattern, emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, and depressivity fall under Negative Affectivity, while impulsivity and risk taking fall under Disinhibition and hostility under Antagonism.
This model makes the boundary especially clear: even within a dimensional diagnostic framework, negative emotionality is only one part of the clinical picture. Personality dysfunction and other pathological trait domains remain necessary for a full formulation. Big Five neuroticism, PID-5 Negative Affectivity, and a BPD diagnosis therefore answer related but different questions.
ICD-11: Severity, Trait Qualifiers, and the Borderline Pattern
ICD-11 also moved personality-disorder classification toward a dimensional structure. The World Health Organization's ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements organizes personality disorder primarily by severity and allows trait qualifiers including Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Anankastia; it also permits a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This is a clinical classification system, not a Big Five test.
The ICD-11 structure illustrates why the statement “BPD is high neuroticism” is too compressed. Negative Affectivity can help characterize the style of personality pathology, but diagnosis begins with personality dysfunction and severity. Other trait qualifiers can add information, and the Borderline Pattern qualifier preserves a clinically recognizable borderline configuration. A person can therefore have prominent negative affectivity without the Borderline Pattern, and a Big Five neuroticism score is not an ICD-11 diagnosis.
What Longitudinal Research Adds
Cross-sectional correlations show that neuroticism and BPD symptoms occur together; they do not show how the two change across time. Longitudinal studies add a more informative layer by asking whether trajectories of traits and BPD symptoms move together.
A 16-year clinical study followed 362 patients, including 290 with BPD, and repeatedly assessed BPD symptoms with the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines and normal-range traits with the NEO-FFI. Changes in BPD symptoms were associated with changes in neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, with symptom reductions occurring alongside decreasing neuroticism and increases in agreeableness and conscientiousness. The study supports a longitudinal relationship between trait and symptom trajectories; see Wright, Hopwood, and Zanarini.
The causal interpretation must remain narrower than the statistical finding. Concurrent change does not establish that lowering neuroticism causes BPD remission, that treatment works by changing neuroticism, or that a change in a personality score is equivalent to clinical recovery. BPD symptom severity, psychosocial functioning, personality traits, and momentary emotional states are different outcomes and can change at different rates.
This distinction also prevents a common conceptual error: treating personality as fixed while treating symptoms as entirely temporary. Both personality traits and BPD manifestations can show stability and change. Relative stability, mean-level change, individual change, and state fluctuation are separate statistical phenomena and should not be collapsed into one idea of being stable or unstable.
Genetic Evidence: Shared Liability, Not a Biological Diagnosis
Genetic studies strengthen the conclusion that BPD and neuroticism partly share underlying liability. A 2022 molecular-genetic analysis reported a significant positive genetic correlation between BPD and neuroticism (r_g = .34) and evidence of overlap with a broad range of neuroticism items. The authors interpreted the findings as partial shared genetic architecture and emphasized the need for larger BPD genome-wide studies; see Streit and colleagues (2022).
That larger evidence base has now advanced. A 2026 Nature Genetics GWAS meta-analysis—the largest BPD GWAS reported to date—analyzed 12,339 cases and more than one million controls in the discovery sample, identified 11 independent associated loci, and found extensive genetic correlations with psychiatric and behavioral phenotypes. Its polygenic score explained a modest proportion of BPD liability in the reported analyses; see Streit and colleagues (2026).
These findings are about variation across populations. Heritability, genetic correlation, genome-wide association, and polygenic score performance are not individual diagnostic tests. Shared genetic architecture does not mean that neuroticism genetically causes BPD, that one gene produces BPD, or that a person's Big Five result can reveal their biological risk. The 2026 study's discovery sample was also restricted to participants of European ancestry, an important limitation for generalizing effect estimates to other populations.
Is Neuroticism a Risk Factor for BPD?
Higher neuroticism can be described as a vulnerability or risk-related trait because it is associated with stronger and more frequent negative emotion and with a wide range of mental-health outcomes. In BPD research, higher neuroticism is associated with borderline features, symptom severity, and dimensions of emotional dysregulation. The word risk factor, however, does not mean destiny or diagnosis.
Neuroticism is transdiagnostic. Benjamin Lahey's major review documented broad associations between neuroticism and multiple forms of psychopathology and adverse outcomes; see Lahey (2009). A trait that predicts or correlates with many conditions has value as a broad vulnerability dimension precisely because it is not specific to one disorder. The same logic applies within personality pathology: meta-analyses find elevated neuroticism across many personality-disorder categories.
For BPD specifically, developmental pathways are multifactorial. Genetic liability, temperament, learning history, family and peer environments, trauma and adversity in some individuals, attachment and interpersonal processes, and other psychological mechanisms can interact over time. A group-level correlation between neuroticism and BPD does not establish which pathway produced symptoms in any one person.
Does High Neuroticism Mean Someone Has BPD?
No. High neuroticism is a personality description, not a BPD screening result or diagnosis. A person can score high on neuroticism and have no personality disorder. The trait is also associated with anxiety, depression, stress sensitivity, and other forms of distress, so it lacks the specificity required for BPD diagnosis. For a fuller explanation of the high end of the trait, see High Neuroticism: Meaning, Traits, Strengths, and Risks.
The reverse inference is also unsafe. A diagnosis of BPD does not imply one universal neuroticism score because instruments differ, individuals vary, symptoms can change, and the diagnosis is heterogeneous. Group averages cannot be converted into a mandatory individual profile.
A common online mistake is to treat a percentile as if it were a clinical cutoff. A percentile only locates a person's score relative to a particular reference distribution. It does not tell whether BPD criteria are met, whether symptoms cause clinically significant impairment, whether another condition better explains the presentation, or whether acute state effects influenced the questionnaire response.
Can a Big Five Test Screen for or Diagnose BPD?
A Big Five test measures broad personality traits. It was not designed to establish BPD. Even a strong statistical association between neuroticism and BPD does not convert a general personality inventory into a disorder-specific diagnostic instrument.
Clinical and research assessments of BPD use condition-specific interviews or validated symptom measures for purposes appropriate to those instruments. The APA guideline explicitly places quantitative measures inside a broader psychiatric evaluation rather than treating a single scale as the diagnosis. Personality measures can contribute useful descriptive information about emotional style, interpersonal tendencies, and self-regulation, but their role is supplementary.
The same principle applies to online tests. A high Big Five neuroticism result can motivate reflection or a conversation with a qualified clinician if distress or impairment is significant. It cannot confirm BPD, and a low result cannot rule it out. Instrument identity, norms, validity, current state, population, and response context all matter.
Why BPD and Neuroticism Can Look Similar in Everyday Life
Both constructs can involve visible emotional reactivity. Someone may worry intensely, become overwhelmed by conflict, react strongly to rejection, experience anger quickly, or need longer to recover from stress. Those experiences can appear in high neuroticism, BPD, anxiety disorders, depressive states, trauma-related conditions, ordinary responses to difficult circumstances, or combinations of these.
What differentiates a clinical BPD formulation is the broader pattern. Clinicians consider personality functioning, identity and self-direction, interpersonal relationships, affective and behavioral regulation, persistence across contexts, severity, functional impairment, co-occurring conditions, and safety. The same outward behavior can have different psychological meanings depending on its pattern and context.
This is why casual labeling is especially misleading. Calling someone borderline because they are emotionally sensitive, reactive, jealous, angry, or high in neuroticism collapses a dimensional personality tendency into a psychiatric diagnosis. The scientifically useful question is not which label feels most dramatic, but which construct is actually being measured or clinically assessed.
Trait Models Can Improve Clinical Formulation Without Replacing Diagnosis
Dimensional traits can add clinical value because they describe variation within diagnostic categories. Two people with BPD may differ in angry hostility, anxiousness, depressivity, social withdrawal, antagonism, disinhibition, conscientiousness, or other traits. Those differences can shape interpersonal patterns, treatment goals, and the way distress is experienced.
The DSM alternative model illustrates this logic by combining the severity of personality functioning with maladaptive trait domains rather than asking traits to do the whole diagnostic job. The clinical application of the Alternative Model emphasizes assessment of personality functioning before pathological traits. In other words, traits can sharpen formulation after the clinical problem has been located at the correct level.
For research, trait models also allow continuity between general personality science and psychopathology. Instead of assuming a hard boundary between normal and pathological personality, researchers can ask how common dimensions become extreme, inflexible, contextually maladaptive, or linked to impairment. This dimensional perspective is one reason neuroticism is so informative in BPD research even though it is not a diagnosis.
What the Evidence Does Not Show
The evidence does not show that BPD is simply an extreme score on neuroticism. It does not show that all people with BPD have the same Big Five profile. It does not show that high neuroticism uniquely predicts BPD. It does not show that a genetic correlation can diagnose an individual. It does not show that reducing neuroticism alone is sufficient to treat BPD. And it does not justify interpreting a self-report trait score without knowing the instrument, norms, and context.
Some findings are also sample-dependent. Many classic studies used relatively small clinical samples, and some relied heavily on self-report. Studies differ in diagnostic interviews, trait instruments, sex and age composition, clinical setting, culture, and statistical model. Meta-analytic convergence strengthens the broad conclusion that neuroticism is elevated in BPD, while the exact profile, facet magnitudes, and degree of specificity remain sensitive to measurement choices.
The strongest current synthesis is therefore relational rather than reductive: neuroticism is one major dimension through which BPD can be understood, especially its negative-emotionality component, but BPD remains a broader clinical construct involving personality dysfunction, multiple trait domains, symptoms, behavior, context, and impairment.
Practical Interpretation: If You Have a High Neuroticism Score and Wonder About BPD
Start with the name of the measure. Identify whether the result comes from NEO PI-R, NEO-FFI, BFI-2, an IPIP inventory, an Eysenck measure, or an unvalidated online quiz. Check whether the score is raw, standardized, percentile-based, or norm-referenced. Without those details, “high” has no stable psychometric meaning.
Then separate trait from current state. Personality questionnaires ask about typical patterns, but current depression, anxiety, acute stress, sleep loss, recent conflict, or other states can influence self-report. A score can be informative without being a permanent description of the person.
Finally, separate the reason for concern from the trait result. If the real concern involves unstable relationships, identity disturbance, recurrent self-harm, severe emotional crises, impulsive behavior, dissociation, or persistent functional impairment, the appropriate next step is condition-specific clinical assessment rather than trying to infer a diagnosis from a Big Five score. The assessment question is broader than neuroticism.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is neuroticism the same as borderline personality disorder?
No. Neuroticism is a continuous personality trait. BPD is a clinical diagnosis involving a broader pattern of personality dysfunction, symptoms, and impairment. The two overlap statistically but are not interchangeable.
Is high neuroticism a sign of BPD?
High neuroticism is associated with BPD at the group level, so it can be part of a BPD-related personality profile. It is not a specific sign of BPD because elevated neuroticism also occurs in many other conditions and in people without a psychiatric disorder.
Which Big Five traits are most associated with BPD?
The most consistent profile is higher neuroticism together with lower agreeableness and lower conscientiousness. Some studies also find lower extraversion or facet-specific patterns. Exact associations depend on the sample and instrument.
Can a Big Five or neuroticism test diagnose BPD?
No. Big Five instruments measure broad personality dimensions. BPD diagnosis requires condition-specific clinical assessment. A general personality score cannot confirm or exclude the disorder.
Is DSM-5 Negative Affectivity the same as Big Five neuroticism?
They are strongly related domains occupying similar personality space, but they are defined within different measurement and diagnostic models. PID-5 Negative Affectivity should not be treated as interchangeable with NEO neuroticism, BFI-2 Negative Emotionality, or another Big Five score.
Does everyone with BPD have high neuroticism?
BPD groups tend to score high on neuroticism on average, but a group-level pattern is not an individual requirement. People with BPD are heterogeneous, measures differ, and no universal neuroticism cutoff is part of the diagnosis.
Can neuroticism decrease when BPD symptoms improve?
Longitudinal research shows that reductions in BPD symptoms can occur alongside decreases in neuroticism and changes in other personality traits. That association does not prove that changing neuroticism causes symptom improvement or that trait change and clinical recovery are identical outcomes.
Are BPD and neuroticism genetically related?
Research supports partial shared genetic architecture. Twin-family and molecular-genetic studies find overlap, but the relationship is polygenic and probabilistic. Genetic correlation is a population statistic and cannot diagnose BPD or predict an individual's outcome by itself.
What kind of assessment is used when BPD is suspected?
A proper evaluation is broader than any one questionnaire. It considers the presenting problems, personality-disorder features, co-occurring psychiatric symptoms, psychosocial context, functional impairment, mental status, clinical history, and safety, with structured or quantitative measures used as appropriate.
Related Articles
Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Focus, 11(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.11.2.189
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.24181010
Distel, M. A., Trull, T. J., Willemsen, G., Vink, J. M., Derom, C. A., Lynskey, M., Martin, N. G., & Boomsma, D. I. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and borderline personality disorder: A genetic analysis of comorbidity. Biological Psychiatry, 66(12), 1131–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.07.017
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
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(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002
Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1055–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001
Skodol, A. E., Morey, L. C., Bender, D. S., & Oldham, J. M. (2015). The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders: A clinical application. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(7), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14101220
Streit, F., Witt, S. H., Awasthi, S., et al. (2022). Borderline personality disorder and the big five: Molecular genetic analyses indicate shared genetic architecture with neuroticism and openness. Translational Psychiatry, 12, 153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-01912-2
Streit, F., Awasthi, S., Hall, A. S. M., et al. (2026). Genome-wide association analyses of borderline personality disorder identify 11 loci and highlight shared risk with mental and somatic disorders. Nature Genetics, 58(8), 1831–1844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-026-02654-3
Triantafyllou, A., Konstantakopoulos, G., Stefanatou, P., Giannouli, E., & Malogiannis, I. A. (2025). Underlying dimensions of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review of factor analytic studies. Psychiatric Quarterly, 96(4), 751–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-025-10141-x
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. WHO publication
Wright, A. G. C., Hopwood, C. J., & Zanarini, M. C. (2015). Associations between changes in normal personality traits and borderline personality disorder symptoms over 16 years. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000092
Zweig-Frank, H., & Paris, J. (1995). The five-factor model of personality in borderline and nonborderline personality disorders. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 40(9), 523–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379504000904