In this research, Linden and his co-authors try to explain the connection between personality disorders and life events. They say that personality is one of the foremost predictors of life events. The authors describe how personality disorders (PDs) lead to negative life events like imprisonment, and unsound relationships. According to them, some personality disorders can be readily associated with the high possibility of occurrence of certain negative life events. For instance, a person with a personality disorder exhibits harmful interpersonal events like arguments and limited interactions with other people. The outcome of their findings points out that normal personal characteristics can be employed to make it possible to understand the lives of persons with personality disorders. The authors anticipated that the five-factor model (FFM) used in the study would show a relationship between positive as well as negative events. The study partly supports their prediction. For example, among all persons with personality disorders, there is a positive connection between neuroticism and negative life events. Moreover, extroversion, frankness, and fussiness were positively linked to positive life events in the research. The authors also note that the findings are similar to those of studies conducted by other researchers. The researchers also note an exciting part about normal and disordered traits. They found some unique relationships concerning the disordered personality group. Therefore, despite the predictive ability of the normal personality character, there is the need to use both the normal and the abnormal personalities concurrently as Linden, and his fellow researchers note.
In the research, the authors discuss the positive links between frankness and extroversion and positive life events. The authors say that the links are consistent with the result from community samples. Again, Linden and his group confirmed that the connection that exists between neuroticism and negative experiences in life among persons with borderline personality disorder (BPD) agrees with the outcome of the community samples. They also note that it is peculiar for such associations to be absent among other personality disorder groups. The occurrence, however, may be possible due to the ceiling effects as borderline personality disorder is usually associated with a high level of neuroticism. The authors also discuss some contradictory results in this study. For instance, they found out that borderline personality pathology may increase the harmful effect of neuroticism on life experiences. The eminent patterns of the forecast for normal characteristics and life experiences among the borderline personality disorder group show that there might be a wide-ranging influence of borderline personality disorder pathology and the relationship between traits and outcomes. Linden and others note that the five-factor index of the disorder failed to take the variance used in the earlier measures of the disorder into consideration.
Furthermore, the writers note that the schizotypal personality disorder group contradicts the findings on the Borderline disorder group. For instance, schizotypal pathology seems to stop the effects of normal personality traits. The schizotypal personality disorder group shows evidence of weak links between consistency and fewer negative experiences. The same case applies to extroversion and more positive experiences. The authors think that this occurrence is due to the social isolation that accompanies STPD (Schizotypal personality disorder) persons. The isolation prevents the potential personality from influencing life experiences. Linden and his company say that this interpretation agrees with that of comparable patterns in AVPD (Avoidant personality disorder) persons
Linden and his friends also admit that their study suffers some limitations. The first limitation of the research is the sample. The researchers allowed only 4 PDs as well as MDD (Major depressive disorder). The samples, therefore, could not permit the study of associations across the whole PDs spectrum. The second weakness that the scholars note is in the PLEs and the NLEs. The researchers investigated negative and positive life experiences as broad categories. Therefore, the research provides less detailed information on the connection between PDs, the five-factor model, and life experiences. It could have been better if they studied life experiences within a particular domain separately, or examined specific life experiences. Third, the researchers say that they never assessed the understanding of the participants about life experiences. Some life events may be viewed as negative or positive. For instance, the end of a relationship can be seen as a positive event. To alleviate the impact of this limitation, the authors have tried to avoid ambiguous cases. Finally, the study uses a less effective method (NEO-PI) to study maladaptive variants of the five-factor model traits concerning personality disorders. The authors say that NEO-PI is meant for the study of normal habits, and therefore a better method could have been employed. The limitations, however, do not mean that the study does not have an impact on the area of study. The authors explain that the research helps in explaining the degree to which the five-factor model expounds on the life experiences among the PDs. This achievement helps in understanding the cause of the undesirable results among the people with personality disorders.