Enneagram vs. Maladaptive Schemas
What are Maladaptive Schemas?
Developed by psychologist Jeffrey Young, maladaptive schemas are the dysfunctional beliefs/worldviews we learn in childhood that endure as cognitive and behavioral templates into adulthood. They are generated from a combination of innate temperament and childhood experience and come to define our self-concept and how we view the world -- making them self-perpetuating and exceedingly difficult to change.
Young identified a total of 18 maladaptive schemas falling into five categories: Disconnection & Rejection, Autonomy & Performance, Impaired Limits, Other-Directedness, and Over-Vigilance & Inhibition.
Abandonment: The feeling that the people you love will leave you and you will end up emotionally isolated forever.
Domain I: Disconnection & RejectionMistrust & Abuse: The expectation that people will cheat, lie to, manipulate, humiliate, physically harm, or otherwise take advantage of you.
Domain I: Disconnection & RejectionEmotional Deprivation: The belief that your emotional needs are unimportant or weak, especially in the eyes of others.
Domain I: Disconnection & RejectionDefectiveness: Feeling inwardly flawed and shameful, believing that you are fundamentally unlovable if anyone really knew you.
Domain I: Disconnection & RejectionSocial Isolation: The feeling that your fundamental differences isolate you from the rest of the world.
Domain I: Disconnection & RejectionDependence: Feeling unable to competently handle everyday life without considerable help from those around you.
Domain II: Impaired Autonomy & PerformanceVulnerability: The feeling that you aren’t safe in the world and can’t protect yourself against the challenges/stressors coming your way.
Domain II: Impaired Autonomy & PerformanceEnmeshment: The lack of a strong, stable sense of who you are individually, feeling like you aren’t whole without others.
Domain II: Impaired Autonomy & PerformanceFailure: The belief that you are inadequate in areas of achievement, and that you have failed relative to your peers.
Domain II: Impaired Autonomy & PerformanceEntitlement: The feeling you are superior over others, focusing on strengths and minimizing your flaws.
Domain III: Impaired LimitsInsufficient Self-Control: The inability to resist your impulses and endure discomfort, instead focusing on short-term gratification without considering the consequences.
Domain III: Impaired LimitsSubjugation: Feeling you are required to sacrifice your own needs and desires to please others or meet their needs.
Domain IV: Other-DirectednessSelf-Sacrifice: Choosing to put others and their needs before your own out of a sense that it’s the right thing to do.
Domain IV: Other-DirectednessApproval-Seeking: Your sense of self-worth is based on the opinions, reactions, and approval of others, believing you won’t fit in or be valued without their approval.
Domain IV: Other-DirectednessPessimism: The tendency to focus on the pain, suffering, failure, and adversity of life while downplaying its positive aspects.
Domain V: Over-Vigilance & InhibitionEmotional Inhibition: Placing a lot of value on self-control, suppressing your instincts to act naturally, spontaneously, or playfully.
Domain V: Over-Vigilance & InhibitionUnrealistic Expectations: The attempt to meet your own extreme and rigid standards, and struggling to accept rational limits in your life.
Domain V: Over-Vigilance & InhibitionPunitiveness: The rigid belief that mistakes should be punished rather than forgiven, both in others and in yourself.
Domain V: Over-Vigilance & Inhibition
Enneagram vs. Schema Research
Very little research is available on the relationship between the Enneagram and maladaptive schemas.
The one study available, titled Enneagram Styles and Maladaptive Schemas: A Research Inquiry, was an exploratory study performed by Jerome Wagner, PhD, in 2008 and published in the Enneagram Journal. Wagner’s research question was: “What correlations exist among Enneagram styles and various maladaptive schemas?”
Research Findings
In general, reliable patterns did appear to emerge for all nine Enneagram Types in Arthur’s research.
Type 1
There was a positive correlation with 4 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Mistrust/Abuse: There was a small correlation (r=.24), suggesting a One tends to be suspicious of the intention of others.
Emotional Deprivation: There was a small correlation (r=.22), suggesting a One tends to believe their emotional needs are unimportant/weak.
Defectiveness: There was a moderate correlation (r=.32), suggesting a One tends to feel inwardly flawed and shameful.
Unrealistic Standards: There was a large correlation (r=.54), suggesting a One tends to focus on meeting excessively high expectations.
Type 2
There was a positive correlation with 6 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Abandonment: There was a moderate correlation (r=.33), suggesting a Two tends to believe that those they love will leave them.
Dependence: There was a small correlation (r=.24), suggesting a Two tends to rely on others for most aspects of their life.
Vulnerability: There was a small correlation (r=.20), suggesting a Two tends to feel unsafe in the world.
Entitlement: There was a small correlation (r=.28), suggesting a Two tends to have feelings of superiority over others.
Subjugation: There was a moderate correlation (r=.35), suggesting a Two tends to feel obligated to sacrifice themselves for others.
Unrealistic Standards: There was a moderate correlation (r=.35), suggesting a Two tends to focus on meeting excessively high expectations.
Type 3
There was a positive correlation with 2 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Entitlement: There was a small correlation (r=.26), suggesting a Three tends to have feelings of superiority over others.
Unrealistic Standards: There was a small correlation (r=.23), suggesting a Three tends to focus on meeting excessively high expectations.
Type 4
There was a positive correlation with 9 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Abandonment: There was a moderate correlation (r=.35), suggesting a Four tends to believe that those they love will leave them.
Mistrust/Abuse: There was a small correlation (r=.24), suggesting a Four tends to be suspicious of the intention of others.
Emotional Deprivation: There was a moderate correlation (r=.32), suggesting a Four tends to believe their emotional needs are unimportant/weak.
Defectiveness: There was a small correlation (r=.27), suggesting a Four tends to feel inwardly flawed and shameful.
Social Isolation: There was a small correlation (r=.26), suggesting a Four tends to feel isolated from groups due to being “different”.
Dependence: There was a small correlation (r=.20), suggesting a Four tends to rely on others for most aspects of their life.
Vulnerability: There was a small correlation (r=.27), suggesting a Four tends to feel unsafe in the world.
Failure: There was a small correlation (r=.21), suggesting a Four tends to believe their achievements are inferior to others.
Entitlement: There was a small correlation (r=.24), suggesting a Four tends to have feelings of superiority over others.
Type 5
There was a positive correlation with 3 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Emotional Deprivation: There was a small correlation (r=.24), suggesting a Five tends to believe their emotional needs are unimportant/weak.
Social Isolation: There was a moderate correlation (r=.42), suggesting a Five tends to feel isolated from groups due to being “different”.
Dependence: There was a small correlation (r=.25), suggesting a Five tends to rely on others for most aspects of their life.
Type 6
There was a positive correlation with 7 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Abandonment: There was a small correlation (r=.20), suggesting a Six tends to believe that those they love will leave them.
Defectiveness: There was a small correlation (r=.25), suggesting a Six tends to feel inwardly flawed and shameful.
Social Isolation: There was a small correlation (r=.28), suggesting a Six tends to feel isolated from groups due to being “different”.
Dependence: There was a moderate correlation (r=.31), suggesting a Six tends to rely on others for most aspects of their life.
Vulnerability: There was a small correlation (r=.25), suggesting a Six tends to feel unsafe in the world.
Failure: There was a moderate correlation (r=.34), suggesting a Six tends to believe their achievements are inferior to others.
Subjugation: There was a small correlation (r=.25), suggesting a Six tends to feel obligated to sacrifice themselves for others.
Type 7
There was a positive correlation with 1 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Entitlement: There was a small correlation (r=.24), suggesting a Seven tends to have feelings of superiority over others.
Type 8
There was a positive correlation with 1 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Entitlement: There was a small correlation (r=.27), suggesting an Eight tends to have feelings of superiority over others.
Type 9
There was a positive correlation with 2 of the 11 maladaptive schemas considered:
Dependence: There was a small correlation (r=.28), suggesting a Nine tends to rely on others for most aspects of their life.
Subjugation: There was a small correlation (r=.28), suggesting a Nine tends to feel obligated to sacrifice themselves for others.
The Fine Print
It's important to use a critical eye when reviewing research. Authors do their best to protect against biases and assess results objectively, but no study is perfect. Make sure to consider what research is (and isn't) actually telling you before taking it at face value.
Research Question
What correlations exist among Enneagram styles and various maladaptive schemas?
Sample
The data was gathered from 125 participants of in Wagner’s Enneagram course, ranging in age from 27-72 and all of whom had 4+ years of higher education.
Methodology
The Wagner Enneagram Personality Style Scale (WEPSS) was used to determine Enneagram Type (total scores), as well as adaptive and non-adaptive tendencies (subscale scores).
The “Lifetraps Questionnaire” from Young’s book Reinventing Your Life was used to measure scores for a subset of 11 maladaptive schemas.
Strengths
The theoretical overlap between Enneagram and maladaptive schemas makes this interesting and worthwhile research.
The relationship has otherwise gone unexplored, making this a novel study.
There was higher-than-average male participation in comparison to most psychological studies.
Findings mostly align with Enneagram theory.
Limitations
The Enneagram Journal is inherently biased toward the promotion of the Enneagram framework. The results would carry more weight in the psychology realm if it had been published in a psychological journal.
Exploratory studies are useful for gathering preliminary information to inform new, untesting theories, but they aren’t intended to be explanatory or experimental in nature.
The sample used — older, educated, dedicated to personal development — is not representative of the general population.
Young notes that the Lifetraps Questionnaire is not intended for research, but used it anyway. Without information on the validity of the tool, it’s results are questionable.
Only 11 of the 18 schemas were used in the analysis with no explanation provided as to why. This seems to leave out a great deal of nuance in the study.
Other researchers have noted that WEPSS has poor factor structure and low internal consistency (Hook et al., 2021).
The data table was overall disorganized and mismanaged, with errors such as missing cells, mistyped correlations, and improper flagging of significance.
Wager’s analysis consistently flipped between discussion of Type averages, Type adaptive scores, and Type non-adaptive scores, making it confusing to follow and seeming to focus only on particular areas of the findings.
While sensical correlations were elaborated upon, there was no discussion of theoretical misalignments (e.g., a positive correlation between Dependence and Type 5).
Source List
Primary article:
Wagner, J. (2008). Enneagram styles and maladaptive schemas: A research inquiry. The Enneagram Journal, 1(1), 52-64. Full article
Other article:
Hook JN, Hall TW, Davis DE, Van Tongeren DR, Conner M. (2021) The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. J Clin Psychol. 2021;77:865–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23097
