Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study had four objectives: (a) examining the sex-related differences in the level of personality functioning (LOPF), (b) exploring the association between personality traits (PT) and LOPF, (c) exploring the association between identity statuses (IS) and LOPF, (d) exploring whether PT and IS can predict LOPF. A sample of 1450 students aged 15–21 years from high schools and universities from all the governorates of Lebanon participated in this online study. The Arabic version of three measures were used: (a) Revised Personality Inventory: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, EXtraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience (HEXACO) – PI – R, (b) Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS), (c) Level of Personality Functioning Screener- Brief Form 2.0 (LOPF-BF-2.0) were rated for the sample. Results showed no statistical differences in LOPF between males and females; IS and LOPF were correlated similarly in both males and females except for Achievement (Ach), which did not correlate significantly with LOPF in males, but correlated negatively and significantly among females. Conversely, Moratorium (M), Foreclosure (F) and Diffusion (D) correlated positively with LOPF in both males and females. All Identity statuses could predict LOPF, except for F; likewise, all personality dimensions Humility (H), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C) could predict LOPF except for Openness to experience (O). Implications of the results are discussed.

Keywords

identity statuses personality traits level of personality functioning predictors

Adolescence is a critical period in a person's formation of identity (Erikson, 1968, 1977), and it plays a fundamental role in forming subsequent stages of life. Success in identity formation leads to inner peace, self-satisfaction, and harmony with the social norms; whereas, failure in figuring out one's identity leads to inner fragmentation, negative roles in society, and maladaptive coping mechanisms such as drug abuse (Erikson, 1977, p. 234–237). Further research of Eriksonian concepts of identity formation and identity crisis have led to the conclusion that identity is a complicated and multidimensional construct (Benzi et al., 2022), and that failure in resolving identity crisis leads to moratorium or diffusion, which result in myriad of psychological and social repercussions due to personality malfunctioning (Demir et al., 2009; Kroger et al., 2010; Rivnyák et al., 2021; Zahid & Goth, 2022).

Other researchers have studied the relationship between self-concept, identity statuses and their role in self-functioning and found a strong link between a clear sense of self, resolved identity statuses and proper level of personality functioning and vice versa (Ickes et al., 2012; Pilarska, 2016; Schoot & Wong, 2012; Schwartz et al., 2010; Su et al., 2017).

However, clinicians have found limitations in the categorical classification of personality disorders (PD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5), which may place a person in more than one category of PD at a time. This fact has encouraged to a lot of research that resulted in the birth of the alternative dimensional model of diagnosis (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Similarly, previous studies that associate personality psychopathology and personality dimensions described by the Five Factor Model (FFM/OCEAN) concluded that personality disorders do not result from new distinguishing traits or from alterations of personality dimensions; rather, they are the outcome of various problematic combinations of familiar personality traits (O'Connor & Dyce, 1998). In contrast, some researchers and clinicians argue that such characterization is a mere oversimplification of personality pathology; studies using different assessment tools have been conducted in this regard (Coolidge et al., 1994; Costa & McCrae, 1990; Hyer et al., 1994; Soldz et al., 1993; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989).

As such, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) found it necessary to address the shortcomings of the existing criteria in diagnosing personality disorders. The new approach did not abolish the previously established one that depended merely on a number of pathological symptoms; conversely, the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) presented impairments of the level of personality functioning as Criterion A, and the pathological symptoms as Criterion B in PD diagnosis. According to AMPD, impairments of LOPF in two domains: self-functioning problems (represented by identity and self-direction difficulties) and interpersonal-functioning problems (represented by empathy and intimacy troubles) are the central and primary causes of personality psychopathology (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 761–762).

While DSM-5 does not differentiate between the two sexes in this regard, many measures have been devised to capture such LOPF disturbances (Bach & Hutsebaut, 2018; Clinical trial, 2021; Gonzalez Flores et al., 2022; Hutsebaut et al., 2016; Kerr et al., 2023; Sexton et al., 2019; Sharp et al., 2023; Siefert et al., 2020; Weekers et al., 2018).

In the same vein, related literature has also confirmed that salient symptoms of maladaptive psychological and behavioral symptoms have been linked to identity confusion and disturbances (Demir et al., 2009; Ferrer-Wreder & Kroger, 2020; Kroger et al., 2010; Kroger & Marcia, 2011; Marcia & Josselson, 2013; Rivnyák et al., 2021; Schlüter-Müller et al., 2015; Soldz et al., 1993; Sollberger et al., 2012; Zahid & Goth, 2022; Zandersen & Parnas, 2019).

With respect to personality traits, the new model of personality structure, HEXACO, founded by Lee and Ashton (2009) has proved to be successful in capturing many pathological symptoms and maladaptive personalities. First, the founders of the HEXACO model have found few sex differences in personality traits; for example, in a multicultural study it was shown that females had higher levels of the honesty – humility and emotionality and moderately higher levels of conscientiousness than males, while males had moderately higher levels of openness and agreeableness than women (Lee & Ashton, 2020). It was also found that the combination of the low level of honesty - humility - the distinctive factor of the model - with other factors in a personality can result in different maladaptive behaviors and features (Lee & Ashton, 2012, p. 22–32). Similarly, other studies have shown that personality traits are linked to impairments of personality (Amani, 2015; Ashton et al., 2012; De Vreis et al., 2009; De Vries & Kampen, 2010; Knight, 2016; Lobrano, 2014; Reinout et al., 2009). Such results indicate that personality disorders are not casual symptoms that are incompatible with the personality, a fact that explains why PDs are resistant to change.

Lack of similar research in the Lebanese context motivated the researchers to fill this gap and examine how personality traits and identity statuses contribute to the level of personality functioning among adolescents in Lebanon.

Indeed, studies in different countries as diverse as Argentina, Iran, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Zimbabwe were conducted to investigate whether there are cross-cultural differences in the psychological constructs using the FFM; it was found that there were no differences in the FFM though there were many cultural, religious, linguistics, political, historical and other cultural dissimilarities. Moreover, it was found that covariation among traits was maintained among cultures, which indicated that personality dimensions could be assessed and explained through the FFM worldwide (Terracciano & McCrae, 2006).

Similarly, personality structure was examined in different cultures: India, Indonesia, Oman, Romania, and Thailand to investigate whether personality dimensions can be replicated using the HEXACO model; results yielded similar results in some cultures only. While in other studies that included 10 countries the six dimensions were replicated, part of its validity is attributed to the incremental validity of the Honesty – Humility Factor (Ion et al., 2017).

As a matter of fact, the universality of some invariant features in personality structure can be obtained through FFM, which made it dominant for a long time. However, different cross-cultural recent studies using the FFM, some of which incorporated up to 11 cultures, including Croatia, Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, Holland, South Africa, and Bolivia have yielded varied numbers of personality dimensions that could range between 2 or three factors to nine factors depending on the socio-economic and educational level of the culture being investigated. These findings re-open the debate to whether the FFM is the omnipresent model that can explain personality structure and retrieve the same personality dimensions worldwide (Ion et al., 2017).

When personality can be explained by common universal dimensions, personality traits and psychopathology can be easily compared across cultures. That is why reproducing similar studies in the local community becomes a need. That is why such a study becomes a need.

Method

Participants

The researchers were interested in getting a sample that can be really representative of the population, so they asked for the consent of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education to involve all the 250 public high schools nationwide in the study. After getting the consent, google forms were disseminated via principals and administrative directors to students. Students had the complete freedom to participate or withdraw from the study. Those who were willing to participate responded to the measures. After one month of data collection, the result was a convenience sample of 1450 (Aged 15–21years) students from different high schools and universities across all the governorates of Lebanon (1139 females) participated in this online study. They responded to the Arabic versions of the scales.

Procedure

Scales were checked for reliability and validity first (N = 608), then data collection for the study followed (N = 1450). Finally, data analysis using SPSS version 23 was completed.

Measures

HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO – PI – R) for Personality Structure

The Arabic version of HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO – PI – R) for Personality Structure was manipulated in the study. It is a 60 - item instrument that assesses the six major dimensions of personality: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, EXtraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience. Each subscale consists of ten items; all items employ a 1 to 5 response scale: 1 for ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 for ‘strongly agree’. It is devised by Lee and Ashton (2009) and has been validated worldwide. Internal consistency ranged between .77 and 80 (Ashton & Lee, 2009). The researchers tested the reliability of the scale in Lebanon (N = 608); Results showed good Cronbach α = .758; and the internal consistency coefficients ranged between .506 and .687, except for Emotionality .289.

Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS)

This study incorporates the Arabic version of the extended objective measure of identity statuses built on Marcia's theory (1964). It discriminates between four statuses of identity: (a) achievement (which refers to adolescent's success in exploring alternatives and commitment to one), (b) moratorium (which refers to a status of suspended exploration of choices, and hence to commitment); (c) foreclosure (which refers to a status of commitment to a choice with a little, if any, exploration; (d) diffusion (which indicates neither exploration nor commitment to any of the choices) (Kroger & Marcia, 2011). Each status includes both ideological and interpersonal content domains of identity. It is a 64 item six-point Likert scale. The Arabic version was validated in the Egyptian society by M. Abed Al-Rahman (1998) and yielded similar results to the original scale by Bennion and Adams (1986): Cronbach alpha ranged between .58 and .80 on subscales and internal consistency showed acceptable results. The researchers tested the validity and reliability of the scales in the Lebanese society (N = 608) and the results yielded a higher value of Cronbach α = .844 and high internal consistency coefficients ranging between .285(very few items) and .785.

Level of Personality Functioning Screener- Brief Form 2.0 (LOPF-BF-2.0)

LOPF-BF-2.0 assesses the level of personality functioning and complies with the AMPD. It is a 4-point Likert self-report scale (ranging from ‘very false or often false’ = 0 to ‘very true or often true’ = 3). It is composed of 12 items divided into two subscales: the first measures self-functioning problems and is composed of two subscales that assess impairments in identity and self-direction; the second assesses interpersonal functioning impairments, and it incorporates two subscales about intimacy and empathy difficulties. This indicates that the lower the total score, the better functioning the personality is. The screener can be used in both clinical and non-clinical settings (Siefert et al., 2020). The internal consistency estimates for the LPFS-BF 2.0 were high, with α = 0.82 for the total scale and α = 0.79; 0.71 for the self-functioning and interpersonal functioning scales respectively (Weekers et al., 2018). Cronbach α was .844, for the total scale in the Lebanese validation sample (N = 608), .815 for self-functioning, and .723 for interpersonal functioning. Coefficients of internal consistency ranged between .707 and .90.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviation) in addition to inferential statistics (Pearson correlations, t-tests, multiple linear regression model were utilized in analyzing the data through SPSS 23.

Results T-tests showed no statistical differences between males and females in the level of personality functioning, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.
Independent Sample T- Test: LOPF Differences Between Males and Females.

Sex M SD T α df MD 95% CI

L U

LOPF M 26.16 6.852 −4.525 .000 1448 −1.993 −2.871 −1.115

F 28.16 7.037 −4.520 .000 502.885 −1.993 −2.680 −1.127

Pearson Correlational coefficients in Table 2 show that there are significant correlations between all identity statuses and LOPF in males, except for Achievement of identity. Similarly, no correlation exists in the overall level of personality functioning and Foreclosure in both males and females. As for personality dimensions, all domains are correlated with LOPF in both sexes.

Table 2.
Pearson Correlations Between Personality Functioning and Each Subscale of Identity Status and Personality Structure.

Males (n = 311) Females (n = 1139)

LOPF SFP IPFP PFP SFP IPFP PFP

Identity Status

Ach −.087 −.049 −.078 −.223 −.087 −.183

M .277 .307 .328 .218 .230 .255

F .007 .154 .084 −.035 .093 .026

D .274 .331 .339 .220 .256 .269

Personality Structure

H −.263 −.238 −.284 −.221 −.253 −.268

E .165 .169 .188 .159 .092 .146

X −.449 −.345 −.453 −.504 −.399 −.519

A −.146 −.234 −.210 −.213 −.277 −.276

C −.346 −.346 −.390 −.410 −.329 −.424

O −.076 −.191 −.145* −.115 −.193 −.172

Level of Personality Functioning = LOPF; Self- Functioning Problems = SFP; Interpersonal Functioning Problems = IPFP: Personality Functioning Problems = PFP: Humility = H; Emotionality = E; Extraversion = X; Agreeableness = A; Conscientiousness = C; Openness = O; Achievement = Ach; Moratorium = M; Foreclosure = F; Diffusion = D. p = 0.01(2 – tailed).

Based on Table 3, the results indicated that the model of identity statuses was a significant predictor of the level of personality functioning: F (4, 1445) = 87.942, p = .000.

Table 3.
Multiple Linear Regression Models for Predicting Level of Personality Functioning.

Dependent Predictor Constant β t α R R² F df

LOPF Identity Status 22.54 .000 .423 1.79 87.942 4, 1445

Achievement −1.57 −9.59 .000

Moratorium .169 10.83 .000

Foreclosure −0.22 −1.77 0.77

Diffusion .105 7.21 .000

LOPF HEXACO 60.052 .000

Humility −.230 −8.86 .000 .645 .416 171.362 6, 1443

Emotionality .173 7.75 .000

Extraversion −.460 −19.65 .000

Agreeableness −1.39 −4.93 .000

Conscientiousness −3.04 −10.15 .000

Openness .002 .097 9.22

LOPF = Level of Personality Functioning; Humility = H; Emotionality = E; Extraversion = X; Agreeableness = A; Conscientiousness = C; Openness = O; Achievement = Ach; Moratorium = M; Foreclosure = F; Diffusion = D.

Similarly, Table 3 indicated that the model of personality structure was a significant predictor of the level of personality functioning: F (6, 1443) = 171.362, p = .000.

Discussion

Table 1 shows there were no statistical differences in the level of personality functioning in terms of sex. Both males and females may have disturbances either in self –functioning (identity and/or self- direction) or in interpersonal functioning (empathy and/or intimacy). This conforms with both the literature and DSM5-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 761–762). However, DSM – 5 (2013) states that there are sex-related differences in the type of personality disorders and its intensity; for example, schizotypal personality disorder is slightly more prevalent in males (p. 658); antisocial personality disorder is mainly diagnosed in males (p. 662); narcissistic personality disorder is more common in males (50–75%) (p.671); obsessive compulsive disorders are double in males (p. 681); borderline personality disorder is predominant in females (75%) (p. 666); dependent personality disorder is more frequent in females (p. 677). Other studies need to be conducted to confirm or disconfirm such differences in the Lebanese society.

Regarding the associations between identity statuses and LOPF, results indicated that there were no significant statistical correlations between achievement of identity and LOPF in males; whereas achievement of identity in females had statistical negative correlations with LOPF, indicating that females may have less personality troubles when they achieve their identities. Contrary to what is expected, male results do not conform with the literature, which may be due to the political and socioeconomic distress they are suffering from, whereas female results can be understood in the light of both feminine nature and the female role and responsibilities in this age in the local community.

However, data indicated that both males and females were vulnerable to personality difficulties in the moratorium status, which points to the adolescents’ suspension of exploration of alternatives as well as commitment to any choice. This status logically leads to many dilemmas and was confirmed in the previous studies.

In addition, foreclosure of identity was positively correlated only with interpersonal functioning problems which have to do with empathy and intimacy. This may be interpreted in the light of the adolescent's abhorrence of their parents’ interference in the choice of friends, cliques, or intimate people of the other sex. Conversely, foreclosure is not significantly associated with self-functioning problems or personality functioning problems as a whole. This may be partially true in adolescence, but longitudinal studies need to confirm such a result.

Finally, the strongest positive correlations exist between diffusion of identity and personality functioning problems in both males and females. Different types of related disturbances on the psychological, personal, and interpersonal levels are confirmed in the literature (Demir et al., 2009; Ferrer-Wreder & Kroger, 2020; Kroger et al., 2010; Kroger & Marcia, 2011; Marcia & Josselson, 2013; Rivnyák et al., 2021; Schlüter-Müller et al., 2015; Soldz et al., 1993; Sollberger et al., 2012; Zahid & Goth, 2022; Zandersen & Parnas, 2019). In addition, DSM-5 confirms these results. According to AMPD, all types of PDs suffer from moderate to severe impairments in identity (APA, 2013, p. 761–762). The DSM-5 categorical classification of personality disorders also includes identity disturbances as one of the distinctive criteria of borderline personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 663).

On the level of personality dimensions, Table 2 shows that low level of honesty- humility was associated with self and interpersonal functioning problems and personality functioning problems as a whole. This is expected because people with these traits tend to exploit others and take advantage of them as confirmed by Lee and Ashton (2012). Narcissistic personality disorder also displays symptoms of problematic interpersonal skills due to lack of empathy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 670). High emotionality was found to be positively correlated with both scales of LOPF and with the overall level of personality functioning. Ashton (2017) reports that “people with high levels of emotionality have gains and, thus, stay secure because they tend to be fearful and overprotective, while people with low levels of emotionality will endanger their lives as well as their families’ lives” (p. 279).

The highest negative statistically negative correlations were found between extraversion and the level of personality functioning. This means that the lower the levels of extraversion, the more problems and impairments in self-functioning, interpersonal functioning and overall personality functioning. This result is expected due to the features that characterize the extraversion domain and to their contribution to possessing effective personal, social and interpersonal skills in life. A person with high levels of extraversion will be lively, hopeful and energetic, while low levels of extraversion are associated with feelings of unpopularity, introversion, avoidance, and loss of dynamism (Lee & Ashton, 2012, p. 15–16) This result is reinforced in the negative correlations between each of the agreeableness (versus anger), conscientiousness and openness to experience domains on one hand and LOPF on the other. Through a series of studies, Ashton (2017) delineated the traits of people with low and high levels on each personality domain (p. 279), and the results of this study align with Ashton's results.

Finally, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether the four statuses of identity could significantly predict the level of personality functioning problems. Results of the regression indicated that the model explained 17.9% of the variance, and that the model was a significant predictor of the levels of personality functioning problems, F (4, 1445) = 87.942, p = .000. While Achievement contributed negatively to the model (β = -.157, p = .000), Moratorium and Diffusion contributed positively (β = .169, p = .000 and β = .105, p = .000 respectively). Foreclosure was not found to be a predictive factor of LOPF. These results point to the probability that one can predict problems and disorders in the personality of an adolescent when their identity is in the moratorium or diffusion state, while identity achievement makes an adolescent less vulnerable to personality troubles. The final predictive model was:
$LOPF = 22.54 + (- .157 * Ach .) + (.169 * M) + (.105 * D) .$
Another multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether the six dimensions of personality (HEXACO) could significantly predict the level of personality functioning problems. Results of the regression indicated that the model explained 41.6% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of the levels of personality functioning problems, F (6, 1443) = 171.362, p = .000. While emotionality contributed positively to the model (β = -.173, p = .000), all the other dimensions contributed to it negatively, except for openness, which was not found to be predictive of LOPF at all. Honesty - Humility contribution to the model (β = -.230, p = .000) means that it is expected that adolescents with low levels of honesty – humility to have personality problems. Similar results were drawn for the other dimensions: agreeableness (versus anger) β = -.139, p = .000; this means the less agreeable a person is, the more personality problems they will face, and in the same sense, the angrier they are, the more troublesome and quarrelsome personality they will have, which complies with common sense. More significantly is the contribution of conscientiousness in the prediction of personality functioning problems (β = -.304, p = .000), which means lack of conscientiousness would lead to difficulties on both self and interpersonal functioning. This is a logical result since the absence of this trait will lead to a reckless, disorganized behavior and to novice, imperfect and incomplete work (Lee & Ashton, 2012, p. 15–16). Maximum predictive contribution to the model was attributed to the low levels of extraversion (β = -.406, p = .000). This is because the lack of this trait leads to feelings of awkwardness, low self-confidence and self- esteem, unpopularity and lack of enthusiasm and energy (Lee & Ashton, 2012, pp. 15–16). Finally, openness was not found to be a predictive factor of LOPF. These results conform with (Coolidge et al., 1994), but are opposite to the results of O’Connor and Dyce (1998) regarding openness. Thus, the final predictive model was:
$LOPF = 60.05 + (- .230 * H) + (.173 * E) + (- .460 * X) + (- .139 * A) + (- .304 * C) .$
The findings of this study call for further follow up, cohort and longitudinal studies to disentangle the delicate relationship and interaction between its variables and to trace the effect of age on LOPF. It is well-known that all psychological traits lie on a continuum; for this reason, the educational implications and clinical interventions drawn from this study can be beneficial, especially in this age group in which personality and identity are in a critical stage of formation. Such educational and clinical interventions may facilitate approaching the fully-functioning person that Carl Rogers’ person-centered theory of personality focuses on. Rogers considers being a fully functioning person is the essence of their successful existence. In his conceptualization of the fully-functioning person, Rogers highlights that three factors are particularly crucial: the willingness to try new things, living an existential life, and having faith in one's self (Straume & Vittersø, 2020). These pillars are similar to the dimensions of the HEXACO model of personality. In this way, the results of this study may have feasible and practical implications for educational and clinical practitioners who have to reinforce the positive poles of the HEXACO dimensions as well as to support adolescents during their identity crisis. As such, future studies about the effectiveness of educational and counseling supportive and precautionary programs are highly recommended.

Limitations of this study result from the nature of the self-reporting scales, which may not guarantee accurate responses of the sample. In addition, it is possible that some students who responded to the questionnaires may have misunderstood some questions and responded inaccurately due to the nature of online studies, where the researchers were not available for clarifications. In addition, it would be, indeed, difficult to conduct a follow-up or longitudinal study due to the cross-sectional nature of the sample that is distributed all over Lebanon.

Another limitation may rise from the Hexaco personality model itself which has its proponents and opponents. For example, a minor criticism from the FFM adherents involves lexical criticism. They object that the HEXACO model is based on an extensive use of adjectives that represent personality traits. This is basically lexical criticism that bounces back into the FFM pointing to its psycho-lexical approach which manipulates a restrictive list of adjectives. Additionally, correlation matrices might not have been fully explored to capture all the potential dimensions of the human personality. As such, this lexical criticism seems like a rather minor point (Anglim, 2019). In addition, some scholars argue that the application of HEXACO in different cultures and throughout different languages doesn’t reclaim the six factors of HEXACO. This is a privilege that even Ashton and Lee (2020) themselves did not claim though they also report that “The six-factor structure is the largest widely replicated structure of personality characteristics.”

This raises the question on why researchers have to be satisfied using the FFM when, indeed, there is another model to describe the personality comprising another factor that expresses the moral dimension of the human behavior described by HEXACO: Honesty-Humility Factor (H-factor). Though the H-factor may be similar to the politeness aspect of Agreeableness in the FFM, it has more advantages in many different ways. Anglim and O'Connor (2019) cite many studies (Jonason & O'Connor, 2017; Lee et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2003) that prove the H-factor's capability of predicting ‘unethical, manipulative, and deceptive’ behavior as well as its ability to predict prosocial behavior (e.g., Zhao & Smillie, 2015); similarly, the authors cite studies that prove that the reverse of the H-factor is synonymous with the Dark Triad (Aghababaei et al., 2014; Lee & Ashton, 2014), and that it has been utilized in studies of the dark personality (Smith et al., 2018), and in employee selection to exclude applicants who are likely to engage in counter-productive behaviors (Anglim et al., 2017; Hough & Connelly, 2013). Such advantages motivate researchers to utilize the HEXACO model for its ability to capture a wider spectrum of human traits and behaviors.

However, some opponents still call for the lack of need of the H- factor in personality measures, claiming that it is a measure of values, not personality. In refuting such a claim Ashton and Lee (2020) depend on the same premise to question the need of Openness to Experience and even Agreeableness in the FFM for their overlap with values. They draw the attention to the fact that excluding the H-factor from a personality measure leads to disregard of a lot of important variance (Ashton & Lee, 2020).

Finally, it is highly recommended that future studies about personality be conducted in Lebanon to fill in the research gap. To counteract the limitations of the present study that has to do with the impracticality of conducting a longitudinal study and a cross-sectional one at the same time, cohort studies which involve students from selected high schools and universities nationwide may be more feasible and practical. Such studies may address the analysis of personality traits and the effectiveness of counseling programs to address problematic issues.

	Sex	M	SD	T	α	df	MD	95% CI
LOPF	M	26.16	6.852	−4.525	.000	1448	−1.993	−2.871	−1.115
F	28.16	7.037	−4.520	.000	502.885	−1.993	−2.680	−1.127

	Males (n = 311)	Females (n = 1139)
Identity Status
Ach	−.087	−.049	−.078	−.223**	−.087**	−.183**
M	.277**	.307**	.328**	.218**	.230**	.255**
F	.007	.154**	.084	−.035	.093**	.026
D	.274**	.331**	.339**	.220**	.256**	.269**
Personality Structure
H	−.263**	−.238**	−.284**	−.221**	−.253**	−.268**
E	.165**	.169**	.188**	.159**	.092**	.146**
X	−.449**	−.345**	−.453**	−.504**	−.399**	−.519**
A	−.146**	−.234**	−.210**	−.213**	−.277**	−.276**
C	−.346**	−.346**	−.390**	−.410**	−.329**	−.424**
O	−.076	−.191**	−.145*	−.115**	−.193**	−.172**

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mayssah Ahmad El-Nayal

Author Biographies

Mona Ghazi Sayegh has got her PhD in Psychology from Beirut Arab University in 2023, Diploma in Pedagogical counseling from USJ in 2022, MA in Education from Lebanese University (LU) in 2012, and BA in English literature from LU in 1995. She has become a licensed psychologist in 2019. She got a CBT certificate in CBT for complex case, children and adolescents. Career-wise, she has been teaching since 1988. She has also become the coordinator of English Department at Al-Mostafa School. In addition, she has trained teachers in and outside of Al Mostafa School (volunteering work) in both methodologies of teaching and educational psychology topics. Then she has joined the public sector and became an educational counselor in charge of teachers of English language from grade 1 till 12 in Nabatieh governorate (ongoing). she also worked with the Lebanese University - Faculty of Education - to train teachers of secondary classes so that they can be officially recruited and trained primary school teachers with CERD and MEHE. She is currently a lecturer at Lebanese International University. Being a licensed clinical psychologist, she also offers counseling, therapeutic and clinical services in mental health care using CBT approach and training on DBT skills.

Mayssah Ahmad El-Nayal is professor of Clinical Psychology and Personality, who obtained her PhD from the University of Alexandria (Egypt), after an academic mission to London University (UK). She worked at Qatar University, where she was the Head of the Mental Health Department. Upon her return to Egypt, she was the Head of the Psychology Department at the Faculty of Arts, Alexandria University for ten years. She also worked as a consultant at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina (Egypt) for children, young people and education, a consultant at the Egyptian Association of Psychology, and a consultant at the Egyptian Organization of Children with Special Needs. She was also the Dean of the Faculty of Human Sciences, Beirut Arab University, until she completed her tenure in Lebanon, to join Gulf Medical University in Ajman. She has a large body of research and academic publications in social and clinical psychology as well as personality, and she contributed numerous interventions as a consultant of mental health in the Middle East. As part of her academic work, she has supervised a large number of MA and PhD theses in the field.

References

Abed Al-Rahman, M. (1998). Miqyas Mowdouei lirotab alhawweyya wal-ijtimaya fi marhalatai almorahaka wal roshed elmobker (Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status in adolescence and early adulthood). Dar Kibaa.

Aghababaei

Wasserman

J. A.

Andnannini

(2014). The religious person revisited: Cross-cultural evidence from the HEXACO model of personality structure. Mental health, Religion and Culture, 17(1), 24–29.

Amani

(2015). The role of six- factor model of personality in prediction of personality disorders clusters. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(12), 132–153. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335389307

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, DSM-5 (5th ed.) American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Anglim

(2019, June 13). What are some criticisms of HEXACO from the Big Five camp? psychology.stackexchange. https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/22078/what-are-some-criticisms-of-hexaco-from-the-big-five-camp

Anglim

O'Connor

(2019). Measurement and research using the big five, HEXACO, and narrow traits: A primer for researchers and practitioners. Australian Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12202

Anglim, J., Morse, G., De Vries, R. E., MacCann, C., & Marty, A. (2017). Comparing job applicants to non-applicants using an item-level bifactor model on the HEXICO personality inventory. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 669–684.

Ashton

(2017). Individual differences and personality (3rd ed.). Elsevier.

Ashton

Lee

(2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878

10.

Ashton

Lee

(2020). Objections to the HEXACO Model of personality structure—and why those objections fail. European Journal of Personality 34(4), 492–510. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339904780_Objections_to_the_HEXACO_Model_of_Personality_Structure-and_why_those_Objections_Fail . https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2242

11.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

de Vries

R. E.

Hendrickse

Born

M. P.

(2012). The maladaptive personality traits of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in relation to the HEXACO personality factors and schitzotypy/dissociation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26(5), 641–659. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.641

12.

Bach

Hutsebaut

(2018). Level of Personality Functioning Scale–Brief Form 2.0: Utility in capturing personality problems in psychiatric outpatients and incarcerated addicts. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(6), 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1428984

13.

Bennion

L. D.

Adams

G. R.

(1986). A revision of the extended version of the objective measure of ego identity status: An identity instrument for use with late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355488612005

14.

Benzi

I. M. A.

Fontana

Di Pierro

Perugini

Cipresso

Madeddu

Clarkin

J. F.

Preti

(2022). Assessment of personality functioning in adolescence: Development of the adolescent personality structure questionnaire. Assessment, 29(4), 668–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120988157

15.

Clinical trial: French adaptation of the AIDA (assessment of identity development in adolescence) and LoPF-Q (levels of personality functioning questionnaire) scales (2021, January 1). US Fed News Service, Including US State News. https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/wire-feeds/clinical-trial-french-adaptation-aida-assessment/docview/2474384657/se-2

16.

Coolidge

F. L.

Becker

L. A.

DiRito

D. C.

Durham

R. L.

Kinlaw

M. M.

Philbrick

P. B.

(1994). On the relationship of the five-factor personality model to personality disorders: Four reservations. Psychological Reports, 75(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.75.1.11

17.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4(4), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1990.4.4.362

18.

Demir

H. K.

Dereboy

Ç.

(2009). Identity confusion and psychopathology in late adolescence. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry 20(3), 227–235. https://hdl.handle.net/1511/66368

19.

De Vreis

De Hoogh

Fei

J. J.

(2009). More than the big five: Egoism and the HEXACO model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 23(8), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.733

20.

De Vries

R. E.

Kampen

D. V.

(2010). The HEXACO and 5DPT models of personality: A comparison and their relationships with psychopathy, egoism, pretentiousness, immorality, and machiavellianism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2010.24.2.244

21.

Erikson

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton & Company.

22.

Erikson

E. H.

(1977). Childhood and society. Paladin Grafton Books.

23.

Ferrer-Wreder

Kroger

(2020). Identity in adolescence: The balance between self and other (4th ed.). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

24.

Gonzalez Flores

Goth

Díaz-Hernandez

R. A.

(2022). Psychometric properties of a cultural adapted version of the assessment of identity development in adolescence in Panama. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 806033. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.806033

25.

Hough, L. M. & Connelly, B. S. (2013). Personality measurement and use in industrial and organizational psychology. In APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology. Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 501–531). American Psychological Association.

26.

Hutsebaut

Feenstra

D. J.

Kamphuis

J. H.

(2016). Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a brief self-report questionnaire for the assessment of the DSM–5 level of Personality Functioning Scale: The LPFS brief form (LPFS-BF). Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(2), 192. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000159

27.

Hyer

Brawell

Albrecht

Boyd

Boudewyns

Talbert

(1994). Relationship of NEO-PI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 699–707.https://doi.org/<699::AID-JCLP2270500505>3.0.CO;2-C

28.

Ickes

Park

Johnson

(2012). Linking identity status to strength of sense of self: Theory and validation. Self and Identity, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.625646

29.

Ion

Iliescu

Aldhafri

Rana

Ratanadilok

Widyanti

Nedelcea

(2017). A cross-cultural analysis of personality structure through the lens of the HEXACO model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(1), 25–34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27359346/ . https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1187155

30.

Jonason

P. K.

Connor

P. J.

(2017). Cutting corners at work: An individual differences perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 146–153.

31.

Kerr

McLaren

Cano

Vanwoerden

Goth

Sharp

(2023). Levels of personality functioning questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18): Factor structure, validity, and clinical cut-offs. Assessment, 30(6), 1764–1776. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221124340

32.

Knight

N. M.

(2016). The dark triad and Hexaco Model of personality in relational aggression. The Aquila Digital Community. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses

33.

Kroger

Marcia

(2011). The identity statuses: Origins, meanings, and interpretations. In Schwartz

Luyckx

Vignoles

(Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 31–55). Springer.

34.

Kroger

Martinussen

Marcia

(2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33(5),141–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002

35.

Lee

Andashton

M. C.

(2014). The dark traid, the big five and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2–5.

36.

Lee

Ashton

(2009). The HEXACO personality inventory-revised: A measure of the six major dimensions of personality. https://hexaco.org/history.

37.

Lee

Ashton

(2020). Sex differences in HEXACO personality characteristics across countries and ethnicities. Journal of Personality, 88(6), 1075–1090. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12551

38.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2012). The H Factor of Personality: why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and why it matters for everyone. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

39.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

Morrison

D. L.

Cordery

Dunlop

P. D.

(2008). Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self-and observer reports. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 147–167.

40.

Lee

Gizzarone

Andashton

M. C.

(2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49, 59–69.

41.

Lobrano

(2014). Psychopathy and the HEXACO personality model. Louisiana Tech University. ProQuest LLC. https://digitalcommons.latech.edu/dissertations .

42.

Marcia

(1964). Determination and construct validity of ego identity status [Doctoral Dissertation]. Ohio State University, Ohio, United States of America.

43.

Marcia

Josselson

(2013). Eriksonian personality research and its implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Personality, 81(6), 617–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12014

44.

O'Connor

B. P.

Dyce

J. A.

(1998). A test of models of personality disorder configuration. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(1), 3–16.

45.

Pilarska

(2016). How do self-concept differentiation and self-concept clarity interrelate in predicting sense of identity? Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.064

46.

Reinout

D. V.

De Vreis

De Hoogh

FeiJ

(2009). More than the big five: Egoism and the HEXACO model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 23(8), https://doi-org.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/10.1002/per.733

47.

Rivnyák

Pohárnok

Péley

Láng

(2021). Identity diffusion as the organizing principle of borderline personality traits in adolescents—A non-clinical study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 683288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.683288

48.

Schlüter-Müller

Goth

Jung

Schmeck

(2015). Assessment and treatment of identity pathology during adolescence. Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, 3(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.21307/sjcapp-2015-006

49.

Schoot

Wong

(2012). Do delinquent young adults have a high or a low level of self-concept? Self & Identity, 11(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.517713

50.

Schwartz

S. J.

Klimstra

T. A.

Luyckx

Hale

Frijns

Oosterwegel

van Lier

P. A. C.

Koot

H. M.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2010). Daily dynamics of personal identity and self-concept clarity. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.798

51.

Sexton

Hilton

Benson

Rosen

(2019). Exploring Kernberg’s model of personality functioning as a moderator of traits: Focus on DSM-5’s section III alternative model of personality disorder. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 67(6), 1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003065119898772

52.

Sharp

McLaren

Musetti

Vanwoerden

Hernandez Ortiz

Schmeck

Birkhoelzer

Goth

(2023). The Assessment of Identity Development in Adolescence (AIDA) questionnaire: First psychometric evaluation in two North American samples of young people. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(4), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2119860

53.

Siefert

C. J.

Sexton

Meehan

Nelson

Haggerty

Dauphin

Huprich

(2020). Development of a short form for the DSM–5 levels of personality functioning questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(4), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1594842

54.

Smith, M. B., Hill, A. D., Wallace, J. C., Recendes ,T., & Judge,T. A. (2018). Upsides to dark and downsides to bright personality: A multi domain review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 44,191–217.

55.

Soldz

Budman

Demby

Merry

(1993). Representation of personality disorders in circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 41–52. https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=73befd5d-dcf4-4c91-96d2-bdb0923ed31b%40redis . https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.1.41

56.

Sollberger

Gremaud-Heitz

Riemenschneider

Küchenhoff

Dammann

Walter

(2012). Associations between identity diffusion, axis II disorder, and psychopathology in inpatients with borderline personality disorder. Psychopathology, 45(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000325104

57.

Straume

L. V.

Vittersø

(2020). Fully functioning person. In Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_301995

58.

Yanan

(2017). The research on the relationship between the self-concept and the personality traits. Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(3), 141–146.

59.

Terracciano

McCrae

R. R.

(2006). Cross-cultural studies of personality traits and their relevance to psychiatry. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 15(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00004425

60.

Weekers

L. C.

Hutsebaut

Kamphuis

J. H.

(2018). The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. Personality and Mental Health, 13(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1434

61.

Widiger

T. A.

Simonsen

(2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(2), 110–130. https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/scholarly-journals/alternative-dimensional-models-personality/docview/195240392/se-2 . https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.19.2.110.62628

62.

Wiggins

J. S.

Pincus

A. L.

(1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(4), 305–316. https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=21648610-a661-493a-bf76-4eaa0f16cc42%40redis . https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.4.305

63.

Zahid

Goth

(2022). Adolescents’ identity development, personality characteristics, and psychological well-being in adolescent students: A mediating model. Nature – Nurture Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.53107/nnjp.v2i2.24

64.

Zandersen

Parnas

(2019). Identity disturbance, feelings of emptiness, and the boundaries of the schizophrenia spectrum. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 45(1), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbx183

65.

Zhao

Smillie

L. D.

(2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision- making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and social Psychology Review, 19, 277–302. https://doi.org/10.177/1088868314553709

	Males (n = 311)			Females (n = 1139)
LOPF	SFP	IPFP	PFP	SFP	IPFP	PFP
Identity Status
Ach	−.087	−.049	−.078	−.223**	−.087**	−.183**
M	.277**	.307**	.328**	.218**	.230**	.255**
F	.007	.154**	.084	−.035	.093**	.026
D	.274**	.331**	.339**	.220**	.256**	.269**
Personality Structure
H	−.263**	−.238**	−.284**	−.221**	−.253**	−.268**
E	.165**	.169**	.188**	.159**	.092**	.146**
X	−.449**	−.345**	−.453**	−.504**	−.399**	−.519**
A	−.146**	−.234**	−.210**	−.213**	−.277**	−.276**
C	−.346**	−.346**	−.390**	−.410**	−.329**	−.424**
O	−.076	−.191**	−.145*	−.115**	−.193**	−.172**

Dependent	Predictor	Constant	β	t	α	R	R²	F	df
LOPF	Identity Status	22.54			.000	.423	1.79	87.942	4, 1445
	Achievement		−1.57	−9.59	.000
	Moratorium		.169	10.83	.000
	Foreclosure		−0.22	−1.77	0.77
	Diffusion		.105	7.21	.000
LOPF	HEXACO		60.052	.000
	Humility	−.230	−8.86	.000	.645	.416	171.362	6,	1443
	Emotionality	.173	7.75	.000
	Extraversion	−.460	−19.65	.000
	Agreeableness	−1.39	−4.93	.000
	Conscientiousness	−3.04	−10.15	.000
	Openness	.002	.097	9.22

Personality traits and identity statuses as predictors of personality functioning in mid and late adolescence

Abstract

Keywords

Method

Participants

Procedure

Measures

HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO – PI – R) for Personality Structure

Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS)

Level of Personality Functioning Screener- Brief Form 2.0 (LOPF-BF-2.0)

Statistical Analysis

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References