Big Five personality traits

The Big Five personality traits is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits,^[1] developed from the 1980s onward in psychological trait theory.

Starting in the 1990s, the theory identified five factors by labels, for the US English speaking population, typically referred to as:

• openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
• conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
• extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
• agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/rational)
• neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)^[2]

When factor analysis (a statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, it reveals semantic associations: some words used to describe aspects of personality are often applied to the same person. For example, someone described as conscientious is more likely to be described as "always prepared" rather than "messy". These associations suggest five broad dimensions used in common language to describe the human personality, temperament and psyche.^[3][4]

Those labels for the five factors may be remembered using the acronyms "OCEAN" or "CANOE". Beneath each proposed global factor, there are a number of correlated and more specific primary factors. For example, extraversion is typically associated with qualities such as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.^[5] These traits are not black and white, but rather placed on continua.^[6]

Development

The Big Five personality traits was the model to comprehend the relationship between personality and academic behaviors.^[7] This model was defined by several independent sets of researchers who used factor analysis of verbal descriptors of human behavior.^[8] These researchers began by studying relationships between a large number of verbal descriptors related to personality traits. They reduced the lists of these descriptors by 5–10 fold and then used factor analysis to group the remaining traits (using data mostly based upon people's estimations, in self-report questionnaire and peer ratings) in order to find the underlying factors of personality.^{[9][10][11][12][13]}

The initial model was advanced by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal in 1961,^[12] but failed to reach an academic audience until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced his five-factor model of personality, which Lewis Goldberg extended to the highest level of organization.^[14] These five overarching domains have been found to contain and subsume most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic structure behind all personality traits.^[15]

At least four sets of researchers have worked independently within lexical hypothesis in personality theory for decades on this problem and have identified generally the same five factors: Tupes and Christal were first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute,^{[16][17][18][19][20]} Cattell at the University of Illinois,^{[11][21][22][23]} and Costa and McCrae.^{[24][25][26][27]} These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-analytically aligned.^{[28][29][30][31][32]} Studies indicate that the Big Five traits are not nearly as powerful in predicting and explaining actual behavior as are the more numerous facets or primary traits.^[33][34]

Each of the Big Five personality traits contains two separate, but correlated, aspects reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet scales that are also part of the Big Five.^[35] The aspects are labeled as follows: Volatility and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness for Extraversion; Intellect and Openness for Openness to Experience; Industriousness and Orderliness for Conscientiousness; and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness.^[35] People who do not exhibit a clear predisposition to a single factor in each dimension above are considered adaptable, moderate and reasonable, yet they can also be perceived as unprincipled, inscrutable and calculating.^[36]

Descriptions of the particular personality traits

Openness to experience

Openness to experience is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, open to emotion, sensitive to beauty and willing to try new things. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are also more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus, and more likely to engage in risky behavior or drug-taking.^[37] Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven – sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness factor as there is a lack of biological support for this particular trait. Openness has not shown a significant association with any brain regions as opposed to the other four traits which did when using brain imaging to detect changes in volume associated with each trait.^[38]

Sample items

• I have a rich vocabulary.
• I have a vivid imagination.
• I have excellent ideas.
• I am quick to understand things.
• I use difficult words.
• I spend time reflecting on things.
• I am full of ideas.
• I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (Reversed)
• I am not interested in abstract ideas. (Reversed)
• I do not have a good imagination. (Reversed)^[39]

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is a tendency to display self-discipline, act dutifully, and strive for achievement against measures or outside expectations. It is related to the way in which people control, regulate, and direct their impulses. High conscientiousness is often perceived as being stubborn and focused. Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability.^[36] High scores on conscientiousness indicate a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior.^[40] The average level of conscientiousness rises among young adults and then declines among older adults.^[41]

Sample items

• I am always prepared.
• I pay attention to details.
• I get chores done right away.
• I like order.
• I follow a schedule.
• I am exacting in my work.
• I leave my belongings around. (Reversed)
• I make a mess of things. (Reversed)
• I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (Reversed)
• I shirk my duties. (Reversed)^[39]

Extraversion

Extraversion is characterized by breadth of activities (as opposed to depth), surgency from external activity/situations, and energy creation from external means.^[42] The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy interacting with people, and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and assert themselves. Extraverted people may appear more dominant in social settings, as opposed to introverted people in this setting.^[43]

Introverts have lower social engagement and energy levels than extraverts. They tend to seem quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; instead they are more independent of their social world than extraverts. Introverts need less stimulation, and more time alone than extraverts. This does not mean that they are unfriendly or antisocial; rather, they are reserved in social situations.^[1]

Generally, people are a combination of extraversion and introversion, with personality psychologist Hans Eysenck suggesting a model by which individual neurological differences produce these traits.^[43]: 106

Sample items

• I am the life of the party.
• I feel comfortable around people.
• I start conversations.
• I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
• I do not mind being the center of attention.
• I do not talk a lot. (Reversed)
• I keep in the background. (Reversed)
• I have little to say. (Reversed)
• I do not like to draw attention to myself. (Reversed)
• I am quiet around strangers. (Reversed)

^[39]

Agreeableness

The agreeableness trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, kind, generous, trusting and trustworthy, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others.^[1] Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.^[44] Low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy.^[36]

Because agreeableness is a social trait, research has shown that one's agreeableness positively correlates with the quality of relationships with one's team members. Agreeableness also positively predicts transformational leadership skills. In a study conducted among 169 participants in leadership positions in a variety of professions, individuals were asked to take a personality test and have two evaluations completed by directly supervised subordinates. Leaders with high levels of agreeableness were more likely to be considered transformational rather than transactional. Although the relationship was not strong (r=0.32, β=0.28, p<0.01), it was the strongest of the Big Five traits. However, the same study showed no predictive power of leadership effectiveness as evaluated by the leader's direct supervisor.^[45]

Conversely, agreeableness has been found to be negatively related to transactional leadership in the military. A study of Asian military units showed leaders with a high level of agreeableness to be more likely to receive a low rating for transformational leadership skills.^[46] Therefore, with further research, organizations may be able to determine an individual's potential for performance based on their personality traits. For instance,^[47] in their journal article "Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace?" Paul Sackett and Philip Walmsley claim that conscientiousness and agreeableness are "important to success across many different jobs."

Sample items

• I am interested in people.
• I sympathize with others' feelings.
• I have a soft heart.
• I take time out for others.
• I feel others' emotions.
• I make people feel at ease.
• I am not really interested in others. (Reversed)
• I insult people. (Reversed)
• I am not interested in other people's problems. (Reversed)
• I feel little concern for others. (Reversed)

^[39]

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression.^[48] It is sometimes called emotional instability, or is reversed and referred to as emotional stability. According to Hans Eysenck's (1967) theory of personality, neuroticism is interlinked with low tolerance for stress or aversive stimuli.^[49] Neuroticism is a classic temperament trait that has been studied in temperament research for decades, before it was adapted by the Five Factors Model.^[50] Those who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening. They can perceive minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They also tend to be flippant in the way they express emotions. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. For instance, neuroticism is connected to a pessimistic approach toward work, to certainty that work impedes personal relationships, and to higher levels of anxiety from the pressures at work.^[51] Furthermore, those who score high on neuroticism may display more skin-conductance reactivity than those who score low on neuroticism.^[49][52] These problems in emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a person scoring high on neuroticism to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress. Lacking contentment in one's life achievements can correlate with high neuroticism scores and increase one's likelihood of falling into clinical depression. Moreover, individuals high in neuroticism tend to experience more negative life events,^[48][53] but neuroticism also changes in response to positive and negative life experiences.^[48][53] Also, individuals with higher levels of neuroticism tend to have worse psychological well-being.^[54]

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings.^[55]

Neuroticism is similar but not identical to being neurotic in the Freudian sense (i.e., neurosis). Some psychologists^[who?] prefer to call neuroticism by the term emotional instability to differentiate it from the term neurotic in a career test.

Sample items

• I get stressed out easily.
• I worry about things.
• I am easily disturbed.
• I get upset easily.
• I change my mood a lot.
• I have frequent mood swings.
• I get irritated easily.
• I often feel blue.
• I am relaxed most of the time. (Reversed)
• I seldom feel blue. (Reversed)

^[39]

History

Early trait research

Historically preceding the Big Five personality traits (B5) or the Five Factors Model (FFM) was Hippocrates's four types of temperament: sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic. The sanguine type is most closely related to emotional stability and extraversion, the phlegmatic type is also stable but introverted, the choleric type is unstable and extraverted, and the melancholic type is unstable and introverted.^[56]

In 1884, Sir Francis Galton was the first person who is known to have investigated the hypothesis that it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits by sampling language: the lexical hypothesis.^[9]

In 1936, Gordon Allport and S. Odbert put Sir Francis Galton's hypothesis into practice by extracting 4,504 adjectives which they believed were descriptive of observable and relatively permanent traits from the dictionaries at that time.^[57] In 1940, Raymond Cattell retained the adjectives, and eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to 171.^[11] He constructed a self-report instrument for the clusters of personality traits he found from the adjectives, which he called the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.

In 1949, the first systematic multivariate research of personality was conducted by Joy P. Guilford. Guilford analyzed ten factors of personality, which he measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. These scales included general activity (energy vs inactivity); restraint (seriousness vs impulsiveness); ascendance (social boldness vs submissiveness); sociability (social interest vs shyness); emotional stability (evenness vs fluctuation of mood); objectivity (thick-skinned vs hypersensitive); friendliness (agreeableness vs belligerence); thoughtfulness (reflective vs disconnected), personal relations (tolerance vs hypercritical); masculinity (hard-boiled vs sympathetic).^[56] These overlapping scales were later further analyzed by Guilford et al., and condensed into three dimensions: social activity (general activity, ascendence, sociability), introversion-extraversion (restraint, thoughtfulness), and emotional health (emotional stability, objectivity, friendliness, personal relations).^[56]

Based on a subset of only 20 of the 36 dimensions that Cattell had originally discovered, Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal (1961) claimed to have found just five broad factors which they labeled: "surgency", "agreeableness", "dependability", "emotional stability", and "culture".^[12] Warren Norman subsequently relabeled "dependability" as "conscientiousness".^[13]

Hiatus in research

During the late 1960s to 1970s, the changing zeitgeist made publication of personality research difficult. In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walter Mischel asserted that personality instruments could not predict behavior with a correlation of more than 0.3. Social psychologists like Mischel argued that attitudes and behavior were not stable, but varied with the situation. Predicting behavior from personality instruments was claimed to be impossible.^{[by whom?]}

Renewed attention

The paradigm shift back to acceptance of the five-factor model came in the early 1980s. In a 1980 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality instruments of the day.^[58] This event was followed by widespread acceptance of the five-factor model among personality researchers during the 1980s.

By 1983, experiments had demonstrated that the predictions of personality models correlated better with real-life behavior under stressful emotional conditions, as opposed to typical survey administration under neutral emotional conditions.^[59]Peter Saville and his team included the five-factor "Pentagon" model with the original Occupational Personality Questionnaires (OPQ) in 1984. The Pentagon model was closely followed by the NEO PI-R (NEO) five-factor personality inventory, published by Costa and McCrae in 1985. However, the methodology employed in constructing the NEO instrument has been subject to critical scrutiny (see section below).^{[60]: 431–33}

Emerging methodologies increasingly confirmed personality theories during the 1980s. Though generally failing to predict single instances of behavior, researchers found that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large numbers of observations.^[61] As a result, correlations between personality and behavior increased substantially, and it was clear that "personality" did in fact exist.^[62]

Personality and social psychologists now generally agree that both personal and situational variables are needed to account for human behavior.^[63] Trait theories amassed favorable evidence, and there was a resurgence of interest in this area.^[64] In the 1980s, Lewis Goldberg started his own lexical project, again emphasizing five broad factors^[65] which he later labeled the "Big Five".

In 2007, Colin G. DeYoung, Lena C. Quilty and Jordan B. Peterson concluded that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates.^[66] This was derived through factor analyses of two data samples with the International Personality Item Pool (L. R. Goldberg, 1999),^[67] followed by cross-correlation with scores derived from 10 genetic factors identified as underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets (K. L. Jang et al., 2002).^[68]

Colin G. DeYoung et al. (2016) researched the Big Five model and how the five broad factors are compatible with the 25 scales of the Personality Inventory (PID-5) for the DSM-5. DeYoung et al. considers the PID-5 to measure facet-level traits.^[69] Because the Big Five factors are broader than the 25 scales of the PID-5, there is disagreement in personality psychology relating to the number of factors within the Big Five. According to DeYoung et al. (2016), "the number of valid facets might be limited only by the number of traits that can be shown to have discriminant validity."^[69]

The FFM-associated test was used by Cambridge Analytica, and was part of the "psychographic profiling"^[70] controversy during the 2016 US presidential election.^[71][72]

Biological and developmental factors

There of course are factors that influence a personality and these are called the determinants of personality. These factors determine the traits which a person develops in the course of development from a child.

Temperament vis-à-vis personality

There are debates between researchers of temperament and researchers of personality as to whether or not biologically based differences define a concept of temperament or a part of personality. The presence of such differences in pre-cultural individuals (such as animals or young infants) suggests that they belong to temperament since personality is a socio-cultural concept. For this reason developmental psychologists generally interpret individual differences in children as an expression of temperament rather than personality.^[73] Some researchers argue that temperaments and personality traits are age-specific manifestations of virtually the same latent qualities.^[74][75] Some believe that early childhood temperaments may become adolescent and adult personality traits as individuals' basic genetic characteristics actively, reactively, and passively interact with their changing environments.^{[73][74][76][clarification needed]}

Researchers of adult temperament point out that, similarly to sex, age, and mental illness, temperament is based on biochemical systems whereas personality is a product of socialization of an individual possessing these four types of features. Temperament interacts with social-cultural factors, but still cannot be controlled or easily changed by these factors.^{[77][78][79][80]} Therefore, it is suggested that temperament should be kept as an independent concept for further studies and not be conflated with personality.^[81] Moreover, temperament refers to dynamical features of behavior (energetic, tempo, sensitivity and emotionality-related), whereas personality is to be considered a psycho-social construct comprising the content characteristics of human behavior (such as values, attitudes, habits, preferences, personal history, self-image).^[78][79][80] Temperament researchers point out that the lack of attention to extant temperament research by the developers of the Big Five model led to an overlap between its dimensions and dimensions described in multiple temperament models much earlier. For example, neuroticism reflects the traditional temperament dimension of emotionality, extraversion the temperament dimension of "energy" or "activity", and openness to experience the temperament dimension of sensation-seeking.^[80][82]

Heritability

 

Personality research often uses twin studies to determine how much heritable and environmental factors contribute to the Big Five personality traits.

A 1996 behavioural genetics study of twins suggested that heritability and environmental factors both influence all five factors to the same degree.^[83] Among four twin studies examined in 2003, the mean percentage for heritability was calculated for each personality and it was concluded that heritability influenced the five factors broadly. The self-report measures were as follows: openness to experience was estimated to have a 57% genetic influence, extraversion 54%, conscientiousness 49%, neuroticism 48%, and agreeableness 42%.^[84]

Non-humans

 

The Big 5 personality traits can be seen in chimpanzees.

The Big Five personality traits have been assessed in some non-human species but methodology is debatable. In one series of studies, human ratings of chimpanzees using the Hominoid Personality Questionnaire, revealed factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness – as well as an additional factor of dominance – across hundreds of chimpanzees in zoological parks, a large naturalistic sanctuary, and a research laboratory. Neuroticism and openness factors were found in an original zoo sample, but were not replicated in a new zoo sample or in other settings (perhaps reflecting the design of the CPQ).^[85] A study review found that markers for the three dimensions extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness were found most consistently across different species, followed by openness; only chimpanzees showed markers for conscientious behavior.^[86]

A study completed in 2020 concluded that dolphins have some similar personality traits to humans. Both are large brained intelligent animals but have evolved separately for millions of years.^[87]

Development during childhood and adolescence

Research on the Big Five, and personality in general, has focused primarily on individual differences in adulthood, rather than in childhood and adolescence, and often include temperament traits.^[73][74][76] Recently, there has been growing recognition of the need to study child and adolescent personality trait development in order to understand how traits develop and change throughout the lifespan.^[88]

Recent studies have begun to explore the developmental origins and trajectories of the Big Five among children and adolescents, especially those that relate to temperament.^[73][74][76] Many researchers have sought to distinguish between personality and temperament.^[89] Temperament often refers to early behavioral and affective characteristics that are thought to be driven primarily by genes.^[89] Models of temperament often include four trait dimensions: surgency/sociability, negative emotionality, persistence/effortful control, and activity level.^[89] Some of these differences in temperament are evident at, if not before, birth.^[73][74] For example, both parents and researchers recognize that some newborn infants are peaceful and easily soothed while others are comparatively fussy and hard to calm.^[74] Unlike temperament, however, many researchers view the development of personality as gradually occurring throughout childhood.^[89] Contrary to some researchers who question whether children have stable personality traits, Big Five or otherwise,^[90] most researchers contend that there are significant psychological differences between children that are associated with relatively stable, distinct, and salient behavior patterns.^[73][74][76]

The structure, manifestations, and development of the Big Five in childhood and adolescence have been studied using a variety of methods, including parent- and teacher-ratings,^[91][92][93] preadolescent and adolescent self- and peer-ratings,^[94][95][96] and observations of parent-child interactions.^[76] Results from these studies support the relative stability of personality traits across the human lifespan, at least from preschool age through adulthood.^{[74][76][97][98]} More specifically, research suggests that four of the Big Five – namely Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness – reliably describe personality differences in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.^{[74][76][97][98]} However, some evidence suggests that Openness may not be a fundamental, stable part of childhood personality. Although some researchers have found that Openness in children and adolescents relates to attributes such as creativity, curiosity, imagination, and intellect,^[99] many researchers have failed to find distinct individual differences in Openness in childhood and early adolescence.^[74][76] Potentially, Openness may (a) manifest in unique, currently unknown ways in childhood or (b) may only manifest as children develop socially and cognitively.^[74][76] Other studies have found evidence for all of the Big Five traits in childhood and adolescence as well as two other child-specific traits: Irritability and Activity.^[100] Despite these specific differences, the majority of findings suggest that personality traits – particularly Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness – are evident in childhood and adolescence and are associated with distinct social-emotional patterns of behavior that are largely consistent with adult manifestations of those same personality traits.^{[74][76][97][98]} Some researchers have proposed the youth personality trait is best described by six trait dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and activity.^[101] Despite some preliminary evidence for this "Little Six" model,^[89][101] research in this area has been delayed by a lack of available measures.

Previous research has found evidence that most adults become more agreeable, conscientious, and less neurotic as they age.^[102] This has been referred to as the maturation effect.^[75] Many researchers have sought to investigate how trends in adult personality development compare to trends in youth personality development.^[101] Two main population-level indices have been important in this area of research: rank-order consistency and mean-level consistency. Rank-order consistency indicates the relative placement of individuals within a group.^[103] Mean-level consistency indicates whether groups increase or decrease on certain traits throughout the lifetime.^[102]

Findings from these studies indicate that, consistent with adult personality trends, youth personality becomes increasingly more stable in terms of rank-order throughout childhood.^[101] Unlike adult personality research, which indicates that people become agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable with age,^[102] some findings in youth personality research have indicated that mean levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience decline from late childhood to late adolescence.^[101] The disruption hypothesis, which proposes that biological, social, and psychological changes experienced during youth result in temporary dips in maturity, has been proposed to explain these findings.^[89][101]

Extraversion/positive emotionality

In Big Five studies, extraversion has been associated with surgency.^[73] Children with high Extraversion are energetic, talkative, social, and dominant with children and adults; whereas, children with low Extraversion tend to be quiet, calm, inhibited, and submissive to other children and adults.^[74] Individual differences in Extraversion first manifest in infancy as varying levels of positive emotionality.^[104] These differences in turn predict social and physical activity during later childhood and may represent, or be associated with, the behavioral activation system.^[73][74] In children, Extraversion/Positive Emotionality includes four sub-traits: three traits that are similar to the previously described traits of temperament – activity, sociability, shyness,^[105][50] and the trait of dominance.

• Activity: Similarly to findings in temperament research, children with high activity tend to have high energy levels and more intense and frequent motor activity compared to their peers.^{[74][91][106]} Salient differences in activity reliably manifest in infancy, persist through adolescence, and fade as motor activity decreases in adulthood^[107] or potentially develops into talkativeness.^[74][108]
• Dominance: Children with high dominance tend to influence the behavior of others, particularly their peers, to obtain desirable rewards or outcomes.^{[74][109][110]} Such children are generally skilled at organizing activities and games^[111] and deceiving others by controlling their nonverbal behavior.^[112]
• Shyness: Children with high shyness are generally socially withdrawn, nervous, and inhibited around strangers.^[74] In time, such children may become fearful even around "known others", especially if their peers reject them.^[74][113] Similar pattern was described in temperament longitudinal studies of shyness^[50]
• Sociability: Children with high sociability generally prefer to be with others rather than alone.^[74][114] During middle childhood, the distinction between low sociability and high shyness becomes more pronounced, particularly as children gain greater control over how and where they spend their time.^{[74][115][116]}

Development throughout adulthood

Many studies of longitudinal data, which correlate people's test scores over time, and cross-sectional data, which compare personality levels across different age groups, show a high degree of stability in personality traits during adulthood, especially Neuroticism that is often regarded as a temperament trait ^[117] similarly to longitudinal research in temperament for the same traits.^[50] It is shown that the personality stabilizes for working-age individuals within about four years after starting working. There is also little evidence that adverse life events can have any significant impact on the personality of individuals.^[118] More recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, however, indicate that change occurs in all five traits at various points in the lifespan. The new research shows evidence for a maturation effect. On average, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas extraversion, neuroticism, and openness tend to decrease.^[119] Research has also demonstrated that changes in Big Five personality traits depend on the individual's current stage of development. For example, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness demonstrate a negative trend during childhood and early adolescence before trending upwards during late adolescence and into adulthood.^[88] In addition to these group effects, there are individual differences: different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all stages of life.^[120]

In addition, some research (Fleeson, 2001) suggests that the Big Five should not be conceived of as dichotomies (such as extraversion vs. introversion) but as continua. Each individual has the capacity to move along each dimension as circumstances (social or temporal) change. He is or she is therefore not simply on one end of each trait dichotomy but is a blend of both, exhibiting some characteristics more often than others:^[121]

Research regarding personality with growing age has suggested that as individuals enter their elder years (79–86), those with lower IQ see a raise in extraversion, but a decline in conscientiousness and physical well-being.^[122]

Group differences

Gender differences

Some cross-cultural research has shown some patterns of gender differences on responses to the NEO-PI-R and the Big Five Inventory.^[123][124] For example, women consistently report higher Neuroticism, Agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet) and openness to feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness (a facet of extraversion) and openness to ideas as assessed by the NEO-PI-R.^[125]

A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed.^[126]

Gender differences in personality traits are largest in prosperous, healthy, and more gender-egalitarian nations. The explanation for this given by the researchers of a 2001 paper is that acts by women in individualistic, egalitarian countries are more likely to be attributed to their personality, rather than being attributed to ascribed gender roles within collectivist, traditional countries.^[125]

Measured differences in the magnitude of sex differences between more or less developed world regions were caused by the changes in the measured personalities of men, not women, in these respective regions. That is, men in highly developed world regions were less neurotic, less extraverted, less conscientious and less agreeable compared to men in less developed world regions. Women, on the other hand tended not to differ in personality traits across regions.^[126]

The authors of this 2008 study speculated that resource-poor environments (that is, countries with low levels of development) may inhibit the development of gender differences, whereas resource-rich environments facilitate them. This may be because males require more resources than females in order to reach their full personality potential of less conscientious, less agreeable, less neurotic, and less extraverted. The authors also speculated in their discussion that due to different evolutionary pressures, men may have evolved to be more risk taking and socially dominant, whereas women evolved to be more cautious and nurturing. The authors further posited that ancient hunter-gatherer societies may have been more egalitarian than later agriculturally oriented societies. Hence, the development of gender inequalities may have acted to constrain the development of gender differences in personality that originally evolved in hunter-gatherer societies. As modern societies have become more egalitarian, again, it may be that innate sex differences are no longer constrained and hence manifest more fully than in less-wealthy cultures.^[126] This is one interpretation of the results among other possible interpretations.

Birth-order differences

Main article: Birth order

Frank Sulloway argues that firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to siblings that were born later. Large-scale studies using random samples and self-report personality tests, however, have found milder effects than Sulloway claimed, or no significant effects of birth order on personality.^[127][128] A study using the Project Talent data, which is a large-scale representative survey of American high school students, with 272,003 eligible participants, found statistically significant but very small effects (the average absolute correlation between birth order and personality was .02) of birth order on personality, such that firstborns were slightly more conscientious, dominant, and agreeable, while also being less neurotic and less sociable.^[129] Parental socioeconomic status and participant gender had much larger correlations with personality.

In 2002, the Journal of Psychology posted a Big Five Personality Trait Difference; where researchers explored the relationship between the five-factor model and the Universal-Diverse Orientation (UDO) in counselor trainees. (Thompson, R., Brossart, D., and Mivielle, A., 2002). UDO is known as one social attitude that produces a strong awareness and/or acceptance towards the similarities and differences among individuals. (Miville, M., Romas, J., Johnson, J., and Lon, R. 2002) The study found that the counselor trainees that are more open to the idea of creative expression (a facet of Openness to Experience, Openness to Aesthetics) among individuals are more likely to work with a diverse group of clients, and feel comfortable in their role.^[130]

Cultural differences

Main article: Big Five personality traits and culture

The Big Five have been pursued in a variety of languages and cultures, such as German,^[131] Chinese,^[132] and Indian.^[133][134] For example, Thompson has claimed to find the Big Five structure across several cultures using an international English language scale.^[135] Cheung, van de Vijver, and Leong (2011) suggest, however, that the Openness factor is particularly unsupported in Asian countries and that a different fifth factor is identified.^[136]

Recent work has found relationships between Geert Hofstede's cultural factors, Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with the average Big Five scores in a country.^[137] For instance, the degree to which a country values individualism correlates with its average extraversion, whereas people living in cultures which are accepting of large inequalities in their power structures tend to score somewhat higher on conscientiousness.^[138][139]

Personality differences around the world might even have contributed to the emergence of different political systems. A recent study has found that countries' average personality trait levels are correlated with their political systems: countries with higher average trait Openness tended to have more democratic institutions, an association that held even after factoring out other relevant influences such as economic development.^[140]

Attempts to replicate the Big Five in other countries with local dictionaries have succeeded in some countries but not in others. Apparently, for instance, Hungarians do not appear to have a single agreeableness factor.^[141] Other researchers have found evidence for agreeableness but not for other factors.^[142] It is important to recognize that individual differences in traits are relevant in a specific cultural context, and that the traits do not have their effects outside of that context.^[43]: 189

Health

Personality change from disease

Some diseases cause changes in personality. For example, although gradual memory impairment is the hallmark feature of Alzheimer's disease, a systematic review of personality changes in Alzheimer's disease by Robins Wahlin and Byrne, published in 2011, found systematic and consistent trait changes mapped to the Big Five. The largest change observed was a decrease in conscientiousness. The next most significant changes were an increase in Neuroticism and decrease in Extraversion, but Openness and Agreeableness were also decreased. These changes in personality could assist with early diagnosis.^[143]

Personality disorders

Main article: Personality disorders

As of 2002^[update], there were over fifty published studies relating the FFM to personality disorders.^[144] Since that time, quite a number of additional studies have expanded on this research base and provided further empirical support for understanding the DSM personality disorders in terms of the FFM domains.^[145]

In her review of the personality disorder literature published in 2007, Lee Anna Clark asserted that "the five-factor model of personality is widely accepted as representing the higher-order structure of both normal and abnormal personality traits".^[146] However, other researchers disagree that this model is widely accepted (see the section Critique below) and suggest that it simply replicates early temperament research.^[80][147] Noticeably, FFM publications never compare their findings to temperament models even though temperament and mental disorders (especially personality disorders) are thought to be based on the same neurotransmitter imbalances, just to varying degrees.^{[80][148][149][150]}

The five-factor model was claimed to significantly predict all ten personality disorder symptoms and outperform the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in the prediction of borderline, avoidant, and dependent personality disorder symptoms.^[151] However, most predictions related to an increase in Neuroticism and a decrease in Agreeableness, and therefore did not differentiate between the disorders very well.^[152]

Common mental disorders

 

Average deviation of five factor personality profile of heroin users from the population mean.^[153] N stands for Neuroticism, E for Extraversion, O for Openness to experience, A for Agreeableness and C for Conscientiousness.

Converging evidence from several nationally representative studies has established three classes of mental disorders which are especially common in the general population: Depressive disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder (MDD), dysthymic disorder),^[154] anxiety disorders (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, agoraphobia, specific phobia, and social phobia),^[154] and substance use disorders (SUDs).^[155][156] The Five Factor personality profiles of users of different drugs may be different.^[157] For example, the typical profile for heroin users is ${\displaystyle {\rm {N}}\Uparrow ,{\rm {O}}\Uparrow ,{\rm {A}}\Downarrow ,{\rm {C}}\Downarrow }$ , whereas for ecstasy users the high level of N is not expected but E is higher: ${\displaystyle {\rm {E}}\Uparrow ,{\rm {O}}\Uparrow ,{\rm {A}}\Downarrow ,{\rm {C}}\Downarrow }$ .^[157]

These common mental disorders (CMDs) have been empirically linked to the Big Five personality traits, neuroticism in particular. Numerous studies have found that having high scores of neuroticism significantly increases one's risk for developing a common mental disorder.^[158][159] A large-scale meta-analysis (n > 75,000) examining the relationship between all of the Big Five personality traits and common mental disorders found that low conscientiousness yielded consistently strong effects for each common mental disorder examined (i.e., MDD, dysthymic disorder, GAD, PTSD, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, specific phobia, and SUD).^[160] This finding parallels research on physical health, which has established that conscientiousness is the strongest personality predictor of reduced mortality, and is highly negatively correlated with making poor health choices.^[161][162] In regards to the other personality domains, the meta-analysis found that all common mental disorders examined were defined by high neuroticism, most exhibited low extraversion, only SUD was linked to agreeableness (negatively), and no disorders were associated with Openness.^[160] A meta-analysis of 59 longitudinal studies showed that high neuroticism predicted the development of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, psychosis, schizophrenia, and non-specific mental distress, also after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history.^[163]

The personality-psychopathology models

Five major models have been posed to explain the nature of the relationship between personality and mental illness. There is currently no single "best model", as each of them has received at least some empirical support. It is also important to note that these models are not mutually exclusive – more than one may be operating for a particular individual and various mental disorders may be explained by different models.^[163][164]

• The Vulnerability/Risk Model: According to this model, personality contributes to the onset or etiology of various common mental disorders. In other words, pre-existing personality traits either cause the development of CMDs directly or enhance the impact of causal risk factors.^{[160][165][166][167]} There is strong support for neuroticism being a robust vulnerability factor.^[163]
• The Pathoplasty Model: This model proposes that premorbid personality traits impact the expression, course, severity, and/or treatment response of a mental disorder.^{[160][166][6]} An example of this relationship would be a heightened likelihood of committing suicide in a depressed individual who also has low levels of constraint.^[166]
• The Common Cause Model: According to the common cause model, personality traits are predictive of CMDs because personality and psychopathology have shared genetic and environmental determinants which result in non-causal associations between the two constructs.^[160][165]
• The Spectrum Model: This model proposes that associations between personality and psychopathology are found because these two constructs both occupy a single domain or spectrum and psychopathology is simply a display of the extremes of normal personality function.^{[160][165][166][167]} Support for this model is provided by an issue of criterion overlap. For instance, two of the primary facet scales of neuroticism in the NEO-PI-R are "depression" and "anxiety". Thus the fact that diagnostic criteria for depression, anxiety, and neuroticism assess the same content increases the correlations between these domains.^[167]
• The Scar Model: According to the scar model, episodes of a mental disorder 'scar' an individual's personality, changing it in significant ways from premorbid functioning.^{[160][165][166][167]} An example of a scar effect would be a decrease in openness to experience following an episode of PTSD.^[166]

Physical health

To examine how the Big Five personality traits are related to subjective health outcomes (positive and negative mood, physical symptoms, and general health concern) and objective health conditions (chronic illness, serious illness, and physical injuries), Jasna Hudek-Knezevic and Igor Kardum conducted a study from a sample of 822 healthy volunteers (438 women and 384 men).^[168] Out of the Big Five personality traits, they found neuroticism most related to worse subjective health outcomes and optimistic control to better subjective health outcomes. When relating to objective health conditions, connections drawn were presented weak, except that neuroticism significantly predicted chronic illness, whereas optimistic control was more closely related to physical injuries caused by accident.^[168]

Being highly conscientious may add as much as five years to one's life.^[vague][162] The Big Five personality traits also predict positive health outcomes.^[169][170] In an elderly Japanese sample, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness were related to lower risk of mortality.^[171]

Higher conscientiousness is associated with lower obesity risk. In already obese individuals, higher conscientiousness is associated with a higher likelihood of becoming non-obese over a five-year period.^[172]

Effect of personality traits through life

Education

Academic achievement

Personality plays an important role in academic achievement. A study of 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory Processes and reported their GPA suggested that conscientiousness and agreeableness have a positive relationship with all types of learning styles (synthesis-analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism shows an inverse relationship. Moreover, extraversion and openness were proportional to elaborative processing. The Big Five personality traits accounted for 14% of the variance in GPA, suggesting that personality traits make some contributions to academic performance. Furthermore, reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing) were able to mediate the relationship between openness and GPA. These results indicate that intellectual curiosity significantly enhances academic performance if students combine their scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing.^[173]

A recent study of Israeli high-school students found that those in the gifted program systematically scored higher on openness and lower on neuroticism than those not in the gifted program. While not a measure of the Big Five, gifted students also reported less state anxiety than students not in the gifted program.^[174] Specific Big Five personality traits predict learning styles in addition to academic success.

• GPA and exam performance are both predicted by conscientiousness
• neuroticism is negatively related to academic success
• openness predicts utilizing synthesis-analysis and elaborative-processing learning styles
• neuroticism negatively correlates with learning styles in general
• openness and extraversion both predict all four learning styles.^[173]

Studies conducted on college students have concluded that hope, which is linked to agreeableness,^[175] conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness,^[175] has a positive effect on psychological well-being. Individuals high in neurotic tendencies are less likely to display hopeful tendencies and are negatively associated with well-being.^[176] Personality can sometimes be flexible and measuring the big five personality for individuals as they enter certain stages of life may predict their educational identity. Recent studies have suggested the likelihood of an individual's personality affecting their educational identity.^[177]

Learning styles

Learning styles have been described as "enduring ways of thinking and processing information".^[173]

In 2008, the Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissioned a report that concludes that no significant evidence exists that learning-style assessments should be included in the education system.^[178] Thus it is premature, at best, to conclude that the evidence links the Big Five to "learning styles", or "learning styles" to learning itself.

However, the APS report also suggested that all existing learning styles have not been exhausted and that there could exist learning styles worthy of being included in educational practices. There are studies that conclude that personality and thinking styles may be intertwined in ways that link thinking styles to the Big Five personality traits.^[179] There is no general consensus on the number or specifications of particular learning styles, but there have been many different proposals.

As one example, Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah (1997) defined four types of learning styles:^[180]

• synthesis analysis
• methodical study
• fact retention
• elaborative processing

When all four facets are implicated within the classroom, they will each likely improve academic achievement.^[173] This model asserts that students develop either agentic/shallow processing or reflective/deep processing. Deep processors are more often found to be more conscientious, intellectually open, and extraverted than shallow processors. Deep processing is associated with appropriate study methods (methodical study) and a stronger ability to analyze information (synthesis analysis), whereas shallow processors prefer structured fact retention learning styles and are better suited for elaborative processing.^[173] The main functions of these four specific learning styles are as follows:

Name	Function
Synthesis analysis:	processing information, forming categories, and organizing them into hierarchies. This is the only one of the learning styles that has explained a significant impact on academic performance.^[173]
Methodical study:	methodical behavior while completing academic assignments
Fact retention:	focusing on the actual result instead of understanding the logic behind something
Elaborative processing:	connecting and applying new ideas to existing knowledge

Openness has been linked to learning styles that often lead to academic success and higher grades like synthesis analysis and methodical study. Because conscientiousness and openness have been shown to predict all four learning styles, it suggests that individuals who possess characteristics like discipline, determination, and curiosity are more likely to engage in all of the above learning styles.^[173]

According to the research carried out by Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck & Avdic (2011), conscientiousness and agreeableness are positively related with all four learning styles, whereas neuroticism was negatively related with those four. Furthermore, extraversion and openness were only positively related to elaborative processing, and openness itself correlated with higher academic achievement.^[173]

In addition, a previous study by psychologist Mikael Jensen has shown relationships between the Big Five personality traits, learning, and academic achievement. According to Jensen, all personality traits, except neuroticism, are associated with learning goals and motivation. Openness and conscientiousness influence individuals to learn to a high degree unrecognized, while extraversion and agreeableness have similar effects.^[181] Conscientiousness and neuroticism also influence individuals to perform well in front of others for a sense of credit and reward, while agreeableness forces individuals to avoid this strategy of learning.^[181] Jensen's study concludes that individuals who score high on the agreeableness trait will likely learn just to perform well in front of others.^[181]

Besides openness, all Big Five personality traits helped predict the educational identity of students. Based on these findings, scientists are beginning to see that the Big Five traits might have a large influence of on academic motivation that leads to predicting a student's academic performance.^[177]

Some authors suggested that Big Five personality traits combined with learning styles can help predict some variations in the academic performance and the academic motivation of an individual which can then influence their academic achievements.^[182] This may be seen because individual differences in personality represent stable approaches to information processing. For instance, conscientiousness has consistently emerged as a stable predictor of success in exam performance, largely because conscientious students experience fewer study delays.^[177] Conscientiousness shows a positive association with the four learning styles because students with high levels of conscientiousness develop focused learning strategies and appear to be more disciplined and achievement-oriented.

Personality and learning styles are both likely to play significant roles in influencing academic achievement. College students (308 undergraduates) completed the Five Factor Inventory and the Inventory of Learning Processes and reported their grade point average. Two of the Big Five traits, conscientiousness and agreeableness, were positively related with all four learning styles (synthesis analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism was negatively related with all four learning styles. In addition, extraversion and openness were positively related with elaborative processing. The Big Five together explained 14% of the variance in grade point average (GPA), and learning styles explained an additional 3%, suggesting that both personality traits and learning styles contribute to academic performance. Further, the relationship between openness and GPA was mediated by reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing). These latter results suggest that being intellectually curious fully enhances academic performance when students combine this scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of teaching techniques and curriculum design.

— M Komarraju^[173]

Distance Learning

When the relationship between the five-factor personality traits and academic achievement in distance education settings was examined in brief, the openness personality trait was found to be the most important variable that has a positive relationship with academic achievement in distance education environments. In addition, it was found that self-discipline, extraversion, and adaptability personality traits are generally in a positive relationship with academic achievement. The most important personality trait that has a negative relationship with academic achievement has emerged as neuroticism. The results generally show that individuals who are organized, planned, determined, who are oriented to new ideas and independent thinking have increased success in distance education environments. On the other hand, it can be said that individuals with anxiety and stress tendencies generally have lower academic success.^{[183][184][185]}

Employment

Occupation and personality fit

 

The Vocations Map - many people in the same role share similar personality traits.

Researchers have long suggested that work is more likely to be fulfilling to the individual and beneficial to society when there is alignment between the person and their occupation.^[186] For instance, software programmers and scientists were generally more open to experiencing a variety of new activities, were intellectually curious, tended to think in symbols and abstractions, and found repetition boring.^[187]

Work success

 

Controversy exists as to whether or not the Big 5 personality traits are correlated with success in the workplace.

It is believed that the Big Five traits are predictors of future performance outcomes. Job outcome measures include job and training proficiency and personnel data.^[188] However, research demonstrating such prediction has been criticized, in part because of the apparently low correlation coefficients characterizing the relationship between personality and job performance. In a 2007 article^[189] co-authored by six current or former editors of psychological journals, Dr. Kevin Murphy, Professor of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University and Editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology (1996–2002), states:

The problem with personality tests is ... that the validity of personality measures as predictors of job performance is often disappointingly low. The argument for using personality tests to predict performance does not strike me as convincing in the first place.

Such criticisms were put forward by Walter Mischel,^[190] whose publication caused a two-decades' long crisis in personality psychometrics. However, later work demonstrated (1) that the correlations obtained by psychometric personality researchers were actually very respectable by comparative standards,^[191] and (2) that the economic value of even incremental increases in prediction accuracy was exceptionally large, given the vast difference in performance by those who occupy complex job positions.^[192]

There have been studies that link national innovation to openness to experience and conscientiousness. Those who express these traits have showed leadership and beneficial ideas towards the country of origin.^[193]

Some businesses, organizations, and interviewers assess individuals based on the Big Five personality traits. Research has suggested that individuals who are considered leaders typically exhibit lower amounts of neurotic traits, maintain higher levels of openness (envisioning success), balanced levels of conscientiousness (well-organized), and balanced levels of extraversion (outgoing, but not excessive).^[194] Further studies have linked professional burnout to neuroticism, and extraversion to enduring positive work experience.^[195] When it comes to making money, research has suggested that those who are high in agreeableness (especially men) are not as successful in accumulating income.^[196]

Some research suggests that vocational outcomes are correlated to Big Five personality traits. Conscientiousness predicts job performance in general. Conscientiousness is considered as top-ranked in overall job performance,^[47] research further categorized the Big 5 behaviors into 3 perspectives: task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. Task performance is the set of activity that a worker is hired to complete, and results showed that Extraversion ranked second after the Conscientiousness, with Emotional Stability tied with Agreeableness ranked third. For organizational citizenship behavior, relatively less tied to the specific task core but benefits an organization by contributing to its social and psychological environment, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability ranked second and third. Lastly, Agreeableness tied with Conscientiousness as top ranked for Counterproductive work behavior, which refers to intentional behavior that is counter to the legitimate interests of the organization or its members.^[47]

In addition, research has demonstrated that agreeableness is negatively related to salary. Those high in agreeableness make less, on average, than those low in the same trait. Neuroticism is also negatively related to salary while conscientiousness and extraversion are positive predictors of salary.^[197] Occupational self-efficacy has also been shown to be positively correlated with conscientiousness and negatively correlated with neuroticism. Significant predictors of career-advancement goals are: extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.^[197] Some research has also suggested that the Conscientiousness of a supervisor is positively associated with an employee's perception of abusive supervision.^[198] While others have suggested that those with low agreeableness and high neuroticism are traits more related to abusive supervision.^[199]

A 2019 study of Canadian adults found conscientiousness to be positively associated with wages, while agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism were negatively associated with wages. In the United States, by contrast, no negative correlation between extraversion and wages has been found. Also, the magnitudes found for agreeableness and conscientiousness in this study were higher for women than for men (i.e. there was a higher negative penalty for greater agreeableness in women, as well as a higher positive reward for greater conscientiousness).^[200]

Research designed to investigate the individual effects of Big Five personality traits on work performance via worker completed surveys and supervisor ratings of work performance has implicated individual traits in several different work roles performances. A "work role" is defined as the responsibilities an individual has while they are working. Nine work roles have been identified, which can be classified in three broader categories: proficiency (the ability of a worker to effectively perform their work duties), adaptivity (a workers ability to change working strategies in response to changing work environments), and proactivity (extent to which a worker will spontaneously put forth effort to change the work environment). These three categories of behavior can then be directed towards three different levels: either the individual, team, or organizational level leading to the nine different work role performance possibilities.^[201]

• Openness is positively related to proactivity at the individual and the organizational levels and is negatively related to team and organizational proficiency. These effects were found to be completely independent of one another. This is also counter-conscientious and has a negative correlation to Conscientiousness.^[202]
• Agreeableness is negatively related to individual task proactivity. Typically this is associated with lower career success and being less able to cope with conflict.^[202]
• Extraversion is negatively related to individual task proficiency. Extraversion has a higher job and life satisfaction but more impulsive behaviors.^[202]
• Conscientiousness is positively related to all forms of work role performance. This has a higher leadership effectiveness and lower deviance behaviors but also lower learning in skill acquisition.^[202]
• Neuroticism is negatively related to all forms of work role performance. This has a trend to engage in more risky behaviors ^[202][201]

Two theories have been integrated in an attempt to account for these differences in work role performance. Trait activation theory posits that within a person trait levels predict future behavior, that trait levels differ between people, and that work-related cues activate traits which leads to work relevant behaviors. Role theory suggests that role senders provide cues to elicit desired behaviors. In this context, role senders (i.e.: supervisors, managers, etc.) provide workers with cues for expected behaviors, which in turn activates personality traits and work relevant behaviors. In essence, expectations of the role sender lead to different behavioral outcomes depending on the trait levels of individual workers and because people differ in trait levels, responses to these cues will not be universal.^[201]

Romantic relationships

The Big Five model of personality was used for attempts to predict satisfaction in romantic relationships, relationship quality in dating, engaged, and married couples.^[203]

Dating couples

• Self-reported relationship quality is negatively related to partner-reported neuroticism and positively related to both self- and partner-reported conscientiousness^[203]

Engaged couples

• Self-reported relationship quality was higher among those high in partner-reported openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness.
• Self-reported relationship quality was higher among those high in self-reported extraversion and agreeableness.
• Self-reported relationship quality is negatively related to both self- and partner-reported neuroticism
• Observers rated the relationship quality higher if the participating partner's self-reported extraversion was high^[203]

Married couples

• High self-reported neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness are related to high levels of self-reported relationship quality
• Partner-reported agreeableness is related to observed relationship quality.^[203]

These reports are, however, rare and not conclusive.

Political identification

The Big Five Personality Model also has applications in the study of political psychology. Studies have been finding links between the big five personality traits and political identification. It has been found by several studies that individuals who score high in Conscientiousness are more likely to possess a right-wing political identification.^{[204][205][206]} On the opposite end of the spectrum, a strong correlation was identified between high scores in Openness to Experience and a left-leaning ideology.^{[204][207][208]} While the traits of agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism have not been consistently linked to either conservative or liberal ideology, with studies producing mixed results, such traits are promising when analyzing the strength of an individual's party identification.^[207][208] However, correlations between the Big Five and political beliefs, while present, tend to be small, with one study finding correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.24.^[209]

Scope of predictive power

The predictive effects of the Big Five personality traits relate mostly to social functioning and rules-driven behavior and are not very specific for prediction of particular aspects of behavior. For example, it was noted that high neuroticism precedes the development of all common mental disorders^[163] and is not associated with personality by all temperament researchers.^[81] Further evidence is required to fully uncover the nature and differences between personality traits, temperament and life outcomes. Social and contextual parameters also play a role in outcomes and the interaction between the two is not yet fully understood.^[210]

Religiosity

Though the effect sizes are small: Of the Big Five personality traits high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion relate to general religiosity, while Openness relate negatively to religious fundamentalism and positively to spirituality. High Neuroticism may be related to extrinsic religiosity, whereas intrinsic religiosity and spirituality reflect Emotional Stability.^[211]

Measurements

Several measures of the Big Five exist:

• International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)^[212]
• NEO-PI-R
• The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and the Five Item Personality Inventory (FIPI) are very abbreviated rating forms of the Big Five personality traits.^[213]
• Self-descriptive sentence questionnaires^[142]
• Lexical questionnaires^[214]
• Self-report questionnaires^[215]
• Relative-scored Big 5 measure^[216]

The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are self-descriptive sentences^[142] or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single adjectives.^[214] Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers^[135] or a very brief (10 item) measure of the Big Five domains.^[217] Research has suggested that some methodologies in administering personality tests are inadequate in length and provide insufficient detail to truly evaluate personality. Usually, longer, more detailed questions will give a more accurate portrayal of personality.^[218] The five factor structure has been replicated in peer reports.^[219] However, many of the substantive findings rely on self-reports.

Much of the evidence on the measures of the Big 5 relies on self-report questionnaires, which makes self-report bias and falsification of responses difficult to deal with and account for.^[215] It has been argued that the Big Five tests do not create an accurate personality profile because the responses given on these tests are not true in all cases and can be falsified.^[220] For example, questionnaires are answered by potential employees who might choose answers that paint them in the best light.^[221]

Research suggests that a relative-scored Big Five measure in which respondents had to make repeated choices between equally desirable personality descriptors may be a potential alternative to traditional Big Five measures in accurately assessing personality traits, especially when lying or biased responding is present.^[216] When compared with a traditional Big Five measure for its ability to predict GPA and creative achievement under both normal and "fake good"-bias response conditions, the relative-scored measure significantly and consistently predicted these outcomes under both conditions; however, the Likert questionnaire lost its predictive ability in the faking condition. Thus, the relative-scored measure proved to be less affected by biased responding than the Likert measure of the Big Five.

Andrew H. Schwartz analyzed 700 million words, phrases, and topic instances collected from the Facebook messages of 75,000 volunteers, who also took standard personality tests, and found striking variations in language with personality, gender, and age.^[222]

Critique

The proposed Big Five model has been subjected to considerable critical scrutiny in a number of published studies.^{[223][224][225][226][227][228][60][229][81]} One prominent critic of the model has been Jack Block at the University of California, Berkeley. In response to Block, the model was defended in a paper published by Costa and McCrae.^[230] This was followed by a number of published critical replies from Block.^{[231][232][233]}

It has been argued that there are limitations to the scope of the Big Five model as an explanatory or predictive theory.^[60][229] It has also been argued that measures of the Big Five account for only 56% of the normal personality trait sphere alone (not even considering the abnormal personality trait sphere).^[60] Also, the static Big Five^[234] is not theory driven, it is merely a statistically driven investigation of certain descriptors that tend to cluster together often based on less-than-optimal factor analytic procedures.^{[60]: 431–33 [81]} Measures of the Big Five constructs appear to show some consistency in interviews, self-descriptions and observations, and this static five-factor structure seems to be found across a wide range of participants of different ages and cultures.^[235] However, while genotypic temperament trait dimensions might appear across different cultures, the phenotypic expression of personality traits differs profoundly across different cultures as a function of the different socio-cultural conditioning and experiential learning that takes place within different cultural settings.^[236]

Moreover, the fact that the Big Five model was based on lexical hypothesis (i.e. on the verbal descriptors of individual differences) indicated strong methodological flaws in this model, especially related to its main factors, Extraversion and Neuroticism. First, there is a natural pro-social bias of language in people's verbal evaluations. After all, language is an invention of group dynamics that was developed to facilitate socialization and the exchange of information and to synchronize group activity. This social function of language therefore creates a sociability bias in verbal descriptors of human behavior: there are more words related to social than physical or even mental aspects of behavior. The sheer number of such descriptors will cause them to group into the largest factor in any language, and such grouping has nothing to do with the way that core systems of individual differences are set up. Second, there is also a negativity bias in emotionality (i.e. most emotions have negative affectivity), and there are more words in language to describe negative rather than positive emotions. Such asymmetry in emotional valence creates another bias in language. Experiments using the lexical hypothesis approach indeed demonstrated that the use of lexical material skews the resulting dimensionality according to a sociability bias of language and a negativity bias of emotionality, grouping all evaluations around these two dimensions.^[227] This means that the two largest dimensions in the Big Five model might be just an artifact of the lexical approach that this model employed.

Limited scope

One common criticism is that the Big Five does not explain all of human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as religiosity, manipulativeness/machiavellianism, honesty, sexiness/seductiveness, thriftiness, conservativeness, masculinity/femininity, snobbishness/egotism, sense of humour, and risk-taking/thrill-seeking.^[228][237] Dan P. McAdams has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger", because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five.^[238]

There may be debate as to what counts as personality and what does not and the nature of the questions in the survey greatly influence outcome. Multiple particularly broad question databases have failed to produce the Big Five as the top five traits.^[239]

In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent.^[240][241] Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with as few variables as possible.

Methodological issues

Factor analysis, the statistical method used to identify the dimensional structure of observed variables, lacks a universally recognized basis for choosing among solutions with different numbers of factors.^[242] A five factor solution depends on some degree of interpretation by the analyst. A larger number of factors may underlie these five factors. This has led to disputes about the "true" number of factors. Big Five proponents have responded that although other solutions may be viable in a single data set, only the five-factor structure consistently replicates across different studies.^[243]

Surveys in studies are often online surveys of college students. Results do not always replicate when run on other populations or in other languages.^[244]

Moreover, the factor analysis that this model is based on is a linear method incapable of capturing nonlinear, feedback and contingent relationships between core systems of individual differences.^[227]

Theoretical status

A frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not based on any underlying theory; it is merely an empirical finding that certain descriptors cluster together under factor analysis.^[242] Although this does not mean that these five factors do not exist, the underlying causes behind them are unknown.

Jack Block's final published work before his death in January 2010 drew together his lifetime perspective on the five-factor model.^[245]

He summarized his critique of the model in terms of:

• the atheoretical nature of the five-factors.
• their "cloudy" measurement.
• the model's inappropriateness for studying early childhood.
• the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality.
• the continuing non-consensual understandings of the five-factors.
• the existence of unrecognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the five-factors.

He went on to suggest that repeatedly observed higher order factors hierarchically above the proclaimed Big Five personality traits may promise deeper biological understanding of the origins and implications of these superfactors.

Evidence for six factors rather than five

It has been noted that even though early lexical studies in the English language indicated five large groups of personality traits, more recent, and more comprehensive, cross-language studies have provided evidence for six large groups rather than five, ^[246] with the sixth factor being Honesty-Humility. These six groups form the basis of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Based on these findings it has been suggested that the Big Five system should be replaced by HEXACO, or revised to better align with lexical evidence.^[247]

See also

• Core self-evaluations
• Dark triad
• DISC assessment
• Facet
• Genomics of personality traits
• Goal orientation
• HEXACO model of personality structure
• Moral foundations theory
• Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
• Personality psychology
• Szondi test
• Trait theory

References

1. Rothmann S, Coetzer EP (24 October 2003). "The big five personality dimensions and job performance". SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 29. doi:10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88.
2. Roccas, Sonia; Sagiv, Lilach; Schwartz, Shalom H.; Knafo, Ariel (2002). "The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (6): 789–801. doi:10.1177/0146167202289008. S2CID 144611052.
3. Goldberg LR (January 1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits". American Psychologist. 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26. PMID 8427480.
4. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.
5. Matthews G, Deary IJ, Whiteman MC (2003). (PDF) (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83107-9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-12-05.
6. De Bolle M, Beyers W, De Clercq B, De Fruyt F (November 2012). "General personality and psychopathology in referred and nonreferred children and adolescents: an investigation of continuity, pathoplasty, and complication models". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 121 (4): 958–70. doi:10.1037/a0027742. PMID 22448741. S2CID 33228527.
7. Poropat AE (March 2009). "A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance". Psychological Bulletin. 135 (2): 322–38. doi:10.1037/a0014996. hdl:10072/30324. PMID 19254083.
8. Digman JM (1990). "Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model". Annual Review of Psychology. 41: 417–40. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.
9. Shrout PE, Fiske ST (1995). Personality research, methods, and theory. Psychology Press.
10. Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study". Psychological Monographs. 47: 211. doi:10.1037/h0093360.
11. Bagby RM, Marshall MB, Georgiades S (February 2005). "Dimensional personality traits and the prediction of DSM-IV personality disorder symptom counts in a nonclinical sample". Journal of Personality Disorders. 19 (1): 53–67. doi:10.1521/pedi.19.1.53.62180. PMID 15899720.
12. Tupes EC, Christal RE (1961). "Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings". USAF ASD Tech. Rep. 60 (61–97): 225–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x. PMID 1635043.
13. Norman WT (June 1963). "Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (6): 574–83. doi:10.1037/h0040291. PMID 13938947.
14. Goldberg LR (January 1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits". The American Psychologist. 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26. PMID 8427480.
15. O'Connor BP (June 2002). "A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories". Assessment. 9 (2): 188–203. doi:10.1177/1073191102092010. PMID 12066834. S2CID 145580837.
16. Goldberg LR (1982). "From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality". In Spielberger CD, Butcher JN (eds.). Advances in personality assessment. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 201–34.
17. Norman WT, Goldberg LR (1966). "Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (6): 681–91. doi:10.1037/h0024002.
18. Peabody D, Goldberg LR (September 1989). "Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (3): 552–67. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552. PMID 2778639.
19. Saucier G, Goldberg LR (1996). "The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model". In Wiggins JS (ed.). The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.^{[page needed]}
20. Digman JM (June 1989). "Five robust trait dimensions: development, stability, and utility". Journal of Personality. 57 (2): 195–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x. PMID 2671337.
21. Karson S, O'Dell JW (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF (Report). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.
22. Krug SE, Johns EF (1986). "A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF". Psychological Reports. 59 (2): 683–93. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.59.2.683. S2CID 145610003.
23. Cattell HE, Mead AD (2007). "The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)". In Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH (eds.). Handbook of personality theory and testing, Volume 2: Personality measurement and assessment. London: Sage.^{[page needed]}
24. Costa PT, McCrae RR (September 1976). "Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach". Journal of Gerontology. 31 (5): 564–70. doi:10.1093/geronj/31.5.564. PMID 950450.
25. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
26. McCrae RR, Costa PT (January 1987). "Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (1): 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81. PMID 3820081.
27. McCrae RR, John OP (June 1992). "An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications". Journal of Personality. 60 (2): 175–215. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.470.4858. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x. PMID 1635039. S2CID 10596836.
28. "International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)". The Society for Judgment and Decision Making.
29. Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HG (February 2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures". Journal of Research in Personality. 40 (1): 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.
30. Conn S, Rieke M (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.
31. Cattell HE (1996). "The original big five: A historical perspective". European Review of Applied Psychology. 46: 5–14.
32. Grucza RA, Goldberg LR (October 2007). "The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators". Journal of Personality Assessment. 89 (2): 167–87. doi:10.1080/00223890701468568. PMID 17764394. S2CID 42394327.
33. Mershon B, Gorsuch RL (1988). "Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (4): 675–80. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675.
34. Paunonen SV, Ashton MS (2001). "Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 81 (3): 524–39. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524. PMID 11554651.
35. DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB (November 2007). "Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (5): 880–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880. PMID 17983306. S2CID 8261816.
36. Toegel G, Barsoux JL (2012). "How to become a better leader". MIT Sloan Management Review. 53 (3): 51–60.
37. Ambridge B (2014). Psy-Q: You know your IQ – now test your psychological intelligence. Profile. p. 11. ISBN 978-1782830238 – via Google Books.
38. DeYoung, Colin G.; Hirsh, Jacob B.; Shane, Matthew S.; Papademetris, Xenophon; Rajeevan, Nallakkandi; Gray, Jeremy R. (2010). "Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five". Psychological Science. 21 (6): 820–828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159. ISSN 0956-7976. JSTOR 41062296. PMC 3049165. PMID 20435951.
39. The 50-item IPIP representation of the Goldberg (1992) markers for the Big-Five structure at ipip.ori.org.
40. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.^{[page needed][ISBN missing]}
41. "Research Reports on Science from Michigan State University Provide New Insights". Science Letter. Gale Student Resource in Context. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
42. Laney MO (2002). The Introvert Advantage. Canada: Thomas Allen & Son Limited. pp. 28, 35. ISBN 978-0761123699.
43. Friedman H, Schustack M (2016). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (Sixth ed.). Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 978-0205997930.^{[page needed]}
44. Bartneck C, Van der Hoek M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (March 2007). ""Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!" switching off a robot". Eindhoven, Netherlands: Dept. of Ind. Design, Eindhoven Univ. of Technol. pp. 217–22. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
45. Judge TA, Bono JE (October 2000). "Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 85 (5): 751–65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751. PMID 11055147.
46. Lim BC, Ployhart RE (August 2004). "Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (4): 610–21. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610. PMID 15327348.
47. Sackett PR, Walmsley PT (2014). "Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace?". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 9 (5): 538–51. doi:10.1177/1745691614543972. PMID 26186756. S2CID 21245818.
48. Jeronimus BF, Riese H, Sanderman R, Ormel J (October 2014). "Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107 (4): 751–64. doi:10.1037/a0037009. PMID 25111305.
49. Norris CJ, Larsen JT, Cacioppo JT (September 2007). "Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures" (PDF). Psychophysiology. 44 (5): 823–26. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00551.x. PMID 17596178.
50. Kagan J, Snidman N (2009). The Long Shadow of Temperament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.^{[ISBN missing][page needed]}
51. Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G (2009). Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.^{[ISBN missing][page needed]}
52. Reynaud E, El Khoury-Malhame M, Rossier J, Blin O, Khalfa S (2012). "Neuroticism modifies psycho physiological responses to fearful films". PLOS ONE. 7 (3): e32413. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...732413R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032413. PMC 3316522. PMID 22479326.
53. Jeronimus BF, Ormel J, Aleman A, Penninx BW, Riese H (November 2013). "Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism". Psychological Medicine. 43 (11): 2403–15. doi:10.1017/s0033291713000159. PMID 23410535. S2CID 43717734.
54. Dwan T, Ownsworth T (2019). "The Big Five personality factors and psychological well-being following stroke: a systematic review". Disability and Rehabilitation. 41 (10): 1119–30. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1419382. PMID 29272953. S2CID 7300458.
55. Dolan SL (2006). Stress, Self-Esteem, Health and Work. p. 76.^{[ISBN missing]}
56. Musek, Janek (2017). The General Factor of Personality. London: Academic Press. pp. 14–25. ISBN 978-0-12-811249-6.
57. Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study". Psychological Monographs. 47: 211. doi:10.1037/h0093360.
58. Goldberg LR (May 1980). Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality. Symposium presentation at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association (Report). Honolulu, HI.^{[page needed]}
59. Boyle GJ (November 1983). "Effects on academic learning of manipulating emotional states and motivational dynamics". The British Journal of Educational Psychology. 53 (3): 347–57. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1983.tb02567.x. PMID 6652035.
60. Boyle GJ, Stankov L, Cattell RB (1995). "Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence". In Saklofske DH, Zeidner M (eds.). International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. pp. 417–46.^{[ISBN missing]}
61. Epstein S, O'Brien EJ (November 1985). "The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective". Psychological Bulletin. 98 (3): 513–37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.513. PMID 4080897.
62. Kenrick DT, Funder DC (January 1988). "Profiting from controversy. Lessons from the person-situation debate". The American Psychologist. 43 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.43.1.23. PMID 3279875.
63. Lucas RE, Donnellan MB (2009). "If the person-situation debate is really over, why does it still generate so much negative affect?". Journal of Research in Personality. 43 (3): 146–49. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.009.
64. Eysenck MW, Eysenck JS (1980). "Mischel and the concept of personality". British Journal of Psychology. 71 (2): 191–204. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb01737.x.
65. Goldberg LR (1981). "Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons". In Wheeler (ed.). Review of Personality and social psychology. Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 141–65.^{[ISBN missing]}
66. Deyoung, C. G.; Quilty, L. C.; Peterson, J. B. (2007). "Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (5): 880–896. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.513.2517. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880. PMID 17983306. S2CID 8261816.
67. Goldberg, Lewis R.; Johnson, John A.; Eber, Herbert W.; Hogan, Robert; Ashton, Michael C.; Cloninger, C. Robert; Gough, Harrison G. (2006). "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures" (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 40: 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 – via Elsevier.
68. "The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)". The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. 2: 223–257 – via Researchgate.
69. DeYoung CG, Carey BE, Krueger RF, Ross SR (April 2016). "Ten aspects of the Big Five in the Personality Inventory for DSM-5". Personality Disorders. 7 (2): 113–23. doi:10.1037/per0000170. PMC 4818974. PMID 27032017.
70. Alexander, Nix (2017-03-03). "From Mad Men to Math Men. Verbatim report of the presentation of Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica CEO, at Online Marketing Rockstars Festival 2017". freud.online. Retrieved 2022-10-23.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
71. . Cambridge Analytica. Archived from the original on 16 February 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
72. Sellers FS (19 October 2015). "Cruz campaign paid $750,000 to 'psychographic profiling' company". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
73. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE (2000). "Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 122–35. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122. PMID 10653510.
74. Shiner R, Caspi A (January 2003). "Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 44 (1): 2–32. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00101. PMID 12553411.
75. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Hrebícková M, Avia MD, Sanz J, Sánchez-Bernardos ML, Kusdil ME, Woodfield R, Saunders PR, Smith PB (January 2000). "Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (1): 173–86. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173. PMID 10653513.
76. Markey PM, Markey CN, Tinsley BJ (April 2004). "Children's behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality". Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (4): 423–32. doi:10.1177/0146167203261886. PMID 15070472. S2CID 33684001.
77. Rusalov VM (1989). "Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament". Personality and Individual Differences. 10 (8): 817–27. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90017-2.
78. Strelau J (1998). Temperament: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Plenum.
79. Rusalov VM, Trofimova IN (2007). Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press.^{[page needed]}
80. Trofimova IN (2016). "The interlocking between functional aspects of activities and a neurochemical model of adult temperament". In MC (ed.). Temperaments: Individual Differences, Social and Environmental Influences and Impact on Quality of Life. New York: Nova Science Publishers. pp. 77–147.
81. Trofimova I, Robbins TW, Sulis WH, Uher J (April 2018). "Taxonomies of psychological individual differences: biological perspectives on millennia-long challenges". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 373 (1744): 20170152. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0152. PMC 5832678. PMID 29483338.
82. Trofimova IN (2010). "An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality". American Journal of Psychology. 123 (4): 467–80. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.4.0467. PMID 21291163.
83. Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Vernon PA (September 1996). "Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: a twin study". Journal of Personality. 64 (3): 577–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x. PMID 8776880.
84. Bouchard TJ, McGue M (January 2003). "Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences". Journal of Neurobiology. 54 (1): 4–45. doi:10.1002/neu.10160. PMID 12486697.
85. Weiss A, King JE, Hopkins WD (November 2007). "A cross-setting study of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality structure and development: zoological parks and Yerkes National Primate Research Center". American Journal of Primatology. 69 (11): 1264–77. doi:10.1002/ajp.20428. PMC 2654334. PMID 17397036.
86. Gosling SD, John OP (1999). (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 8 (3): 69–75. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00017. S2CID 145716504. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-09-28. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
87. Morton FB, Robinson LM, Brando S, Weiss A (2021). "Personality structure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 135 (2): 219–231. doi:10.1037/com0000259. PMID 33464108. S2CID 231642036.
88. Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J (February 2011). "Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (2): 330–48. doi:10.1037/a0021717. PMID 21171787.
89. Soto CJ (August 2016). "The Little Six Personality Dimensions From Early Childhood to Early Adulthood: Mean-Level Age and Gender Differences in Parents' Reports". Journal of Personality. 84 (4): 409–22. doi:10.1111/jopy.12168. PMID 25728032.
90. Lewis M (2001). "Issues in the study of personality development". Psychological Inquiry. 12 (2): 67–83. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1202_02. S2CID 144557981.
91. Goldberg LR (2001). "Analyses of Digman's child- personality data: Derivation of Big Five Factor Scores from each of six samples". Journal of Personality. 69 (5): 709–43. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.695161. PMID 11575511.
92. Mervielde I, De Fruyt F (1999). "Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (Hi- PIC).". In Mervielde ID, De Fruyt F, Ostendorf F (eds.). Personality psychology in Europe: Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Personality. Tilburg University Press. pp. 107–27.
93. Resing WC, Bleichrodt N, Dekker PH (1999). "Measuring personality traits in the classroom" (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 13 (6): 493–509. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199911/12)13:6<493::aid-per355>3.0.co;2-v. hdl:1871/18675. S2CID 56322465.
94. Markey PM, Markey CN, Ericksen AJ, Tinsley BJ (2002). "A preliminary validation of preadolescents' self-reports using the Five-Factor Model of personality". Journal of Research in Personality. 36 (2): 173–81. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2341.
95. Scholte RH, van Aken MA, van Lieshout CF (December 1997). "Adolescent personality factors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection". Journal of Personality Assessment. 69 (3): 534–54. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_8. PMID 9501483.
96. van Lieshout CF, Haselager GJ (1994). "The Big Five personality factors in Q-sort descriptions of children and adolescents.". In Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP (eds.). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 293–318.
97. Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, eds. (1994). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
98. Kohnstamm GA, Halverson Jr CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL, eds. (1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five?. Psychology Press.^{[ISBN missing][page needed]}
99. Mervielde I, De Fruyt F, Jarmuz S (May 1998). "Linking openness and intellect in childhood and adulthood.". In Kohnstamm GA, Halverson CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL (eds.). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 105–26. ISBN 9780805823011.
100. John OP, Srivastava S (1999). "The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives" (PDF). In Pervin LA, John OP (eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Vol. 2. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 102–38.
101. Soto C, Tackett J (2015). "Personality Traits in Childhood and Adolescence: Structure, Development, and Outcomes" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 24: 358–62. doi:10.1177/0963721415589345. S2CID 29475747.
102. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W (January 2006). "Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies". Psychological Bulletin. 132 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. PMID 16435954.
103. Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF (January 2000). "The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 126 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3. PMID 10668348.
104. Lemery KS, Goldsmith HH, Klinnert MD, Mrazek DA (January 1999). "Developmental models of infant and childhood temperament". Developmental Psychology. 35 (1): 189–204. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.189. PMID 9923474.
105. Buss A, Plomin R (1984). Temperament: early developing personality trait. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
106. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey KL, Fisher P (2001). "Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: the Children's Behavior Questionnaire". Child Development. 72 (5): 1394–408. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.398.8830. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00355. PMID 11699677.
107. John OP, Caspi A, Robins RW, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M (February 1994). "The "little five": exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys". Child Development. 65 (1): 160–78. doi:10.2307/1131373. JSTOR 1131373. PMID 8131645.
108. Eaton WO (1994). "Temperament, development, and the Five-Factor Model: Lessons from activity level". In Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP (eds.). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 173–87.
109. Hawley PH (1999). "The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective". Developmental Review. 19: 97–132. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.459.4755. doi:10.1006/drev.1998.0470.
110. Hawley PH, Little TD (1999). "On winning some and losing some: A social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers". Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 45: 185–214.
111. Sherif M, Harvey O, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif C (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers' cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. OCLC 953442127.
112. Keating CF, Heltman KR (1994). "Dominance and deception in children and adults: Are leaders the best misleaders?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 20 (3): 312–21. doi:10.1177/0146167294203009. S2CID 19252480.
113. Asendorpf JB (1990). "Development of inhibition during childhood: Evidence for situational specificity and a two-factor model". Developmental Psychology. 26 (5): 721–30. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.5.721.
114. Asendorpf JB, Meier GH (1993). "Personality effects on children's speech in everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated re-activity to social situations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (6): 1072–83. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1072. PMID 8326470.
115. Harrist AW, Zaia AF, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Pettit GS (April 1997). "Subtypes of social withdrawal in early childhood: sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across four years". Child Development. 68 (2): 278–94. doi:10.2307/1131850. JSTOR 1131850. PMID 9180002.
116. Mathiesen KS, Tambs K (March 1999). "The EAS temperament questionnaire – factor structure, age trends, reliability, and stability in a Norwegian sample". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 40 (3): 431–39. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00460. PMID 10190344.
117. McCrae RR, Costa PT (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: The Guildford Press.^{[page needed]}
118. Cobb-Clark DA, Schurer S (2012). "The stability of big-five personality traits" (PDF). Economics Letters. 115 (2): 11–15. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.015. S2CID 12086995.
119. Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J (May 2003). "Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (5): 1041–53. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.499.4124. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041. PMID 12757147.
120. Roberts BW, Mroczek D (February 2008). "Personality Trait Change in Adulthood". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 17 (1): 31–35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x. PMC 2743415. PMID 19756219.
121. Fleeson W (2001). "Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (6): 1011–27. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011. PMID 11414368.
122. Mõttus R, Johnson W, Starr JM, Dearya IJ (June 2012). "Correlates of personality trait levels and their changes in very old age: The Lothian Birth Cohort 1921" (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 46 (3): 271–78. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.02.004. hdl:20.500.11820/b6b6961d-902f-48e0-bf25-f505a659a056.
123. Cavallera G, Passerini A, Pepe A (2013). "Personality and gender in swimmers in indoor practice at leisure level". Social Behavior and Personality. 41 (4): 693–704. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.693.
124. Falk, Armin; Hermle, Johannes (2018-10-19). "Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality". Science. 362 (6412): eaas9899. doi:10.1126/science.aas9899. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 30337384.
125. Costa PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR (August 2001). "Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (2): 322–31. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. PMID 11519935.
126. Schmitt DP, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J (January 2008). "Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 94 (1): 168–82. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168. PMID 18179326.
127. Harris, J. R. (2006). No two alike: Human nature and human individuality. WW Norton & Company.
128. Jefferson T, Herbst JH, McCrae RR (1998). "Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings". Journal of Research in Personality. 32 (4): 498–509. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233.
129. Damian RI, Roberts BW (October 2015). "The associations of birth order with personality and intelligence in a representative sample of U.S. high school students". Journal of Research in Personality. 58: 96–105. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.005.
130. Thompson RL, Brossart DF, Carlozzi AF, Miville ML (September 2002). "Five-factor model (Big Five) personality traits and universal-diverse orientation in counselor trainees". The Journal of Psychology. 136 (5): 561–72. doi:10.1080/00223980209605551. PMID 12431039. S2CID 22076221.
131. Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persoenlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validitaet des Funf-Factoren-Modells der Persoenlichkeit. Regensburg, Germany: S. Roderer Verlag.^{[page needed]}
132. Trull TJ, Geary DC (October 1997). "Comparison of the big-five factor structure across samples of Chinese and American adults". Journal of Personality Assessment. 69 (2): 324–41. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6902_6. PMID 9392894.
133. Lodhi PH, Deo S, Belhekar VM (2002). "The Five-Factor model of personality in Indian context: measurement and correlates.". In McCrae RR, Allik J (eds.). The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher. pp. 227–48.
134. McCrae RR (2002). "NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further Intercultural comparisons.". In McCrae RR, Allik J (eds.). The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher. pp. 105–25.
135. Thompson ER (2008). "Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers". Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (6): 542–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013.
136. Cheung FM, van de Vijver FJ, Leong FT (October 2011). . The American Psychologist. 66 (7): 593–603. doi:10.1037/a0022389. PMID 21261408. Archived from the original on 2013-05-18. Retrieved 2013-01-16.
137. McCrae RR, Terracciano A (September 2005). "Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89 (3): 407–25. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407. PMID 16248722.
138. Hofstede, Geert; Bond, Michael H. (1984). "Hofstede's Culture Dimensions: An Independent Validation Using Rokeach's Value Survey". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 15 (4): 417–433. doi:10.1177/0022002184015004003. ISSN 0022-0221. S2CID 145651845.
139. Mooradian, Todd A.; Swan, K. Scott (2006-06-01). "Personality-and-culture: The case of national extraversion and word-of-mouth". Journal of Business Research. Special Section - The 2005 La Londe Seminar. 59 (6): 778–785. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.015. ISSN 0148-2963.
140. Barceló J (2017). "National Personality Traits and Regime Type: A Cross-National Study of 47 Countries". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 48 (2): 195–216. doi:10.1177/0022022116678324. S2CID 151607260.
141. Szirmak Z, De Raad B (1994). "Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits". European Journal of Personality. 8 (2): 95–117. doi:10.1002/per.2410080203. S2CID 145275826.
142. De Fruyt F, McCrae RR, Szirmák Z, Nagy J (September 2004). "The Five-factor Personality Inventory as a measure of the Five-factor Model: Belgian, American, and Hungarian comparisons with the NEO-PI-R". Assessment. 11 (3): 207–15. doi:10.1177/1073191104265800. PMID 15358876. S2CID 29733250.
143. Robins Wahlin TB, Byrne GJ (October 2011). "Personality changes in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review". International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 26 (10): 1019–29. doi:10.1002/gps.2655. PMID 21905097. S2CID 40949990.
144. Widiger TA, Costa PT. Jr. "Five-Factor model personality disorder research". In: Costa Paul T Jr, Widiger Thomas A., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. 2nd. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 59–87. 2002.^{[ISBN missing]}
145. Mullins-Sweatt SN, Widiger TA (2006). "The five-factor model of personality disorder: A translation across science and practice.". In Krueger R, Tackett J (eds.). Personality and psychopathology: Building bridges. New York: Guilford. pp. 39–70.^{[ISBN missing]}
146. Clark LA (2007). "Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization". Annual Review of Psychology. 58: 227–57. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190200. PMID 16903806.
147. Trofimova I, Robbins TW (May 2016). "Temperament and arousal systems: A new synthesis of differential psychology and functional neurochemistry". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 64: 382–402. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.008. hdl:11375/26202. PMID 26969100. S2CID 13937324.
148. Trofimova I, Sulis W (2016). "Benefits of Distinguishing between Physical and Social-Verbal Aspects of Behavior: An Example of Generalized Anxiety". Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 338. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00338. PMC 4789559. PMID 27014146.
149. Trofimova I, Christiansen J (April 2016). "Coupling of Temperament with Mental Illness in Four Age Groups". Psychological Reports. 118 (2): 387–412. doi:10.1177/0033294116639430. PMID 27154370. S2CID 24465522.
150. Depue R, Fu Y (2012). "Neurobiology and neurochemistry of temperament in adults". In Zentner M, Shiner R (eds.). Handbook of Temperament. New York: Guilford Publications. pp. 368–99.
151. Bagby RM, Sellbom M, Costa PT, Widiger TA (April 2008). "PredictingDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality and the personality psychopathology five". Personality and Mental Health. 2 (2): 55–69. doi:10.1002/pmh.33.
152. "The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review." LM Saulsman, AC Page, Clinical Psychology Review, 2004 – Elsevier Science^{[ISBN missing][page needed]}
153. Fehrman E, Muhammad AK, Mirkes EM, Egan V, Gorban AN (2015). "The Five Factor Model of personality and evaluation of drug consumption risk". arXiv:1506.06297 [stat.AP].
154. Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Merikangas KR, Walters EE (June 2005). "Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication". Archives of General Psychiatry. 62 (6): 617–27. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617. PMC 2847357. PMID 15939839.
155. Compton WM, Conway KP, Stinson FS, Colliver JD, Grant BF (June 2005). "Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of DSM-IV antisocial personality syndromes and alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions". The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 66 (6): 677–85. doi:10.4088/jcp.v66n0602. PMID 15960559.
156. Hasin DS, Goodwin RD, Stinson FS, Grant BF (October 2005). "Epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions". Archives of General Psychiatry. 62 (10): 1097–106. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.10.1097. PMID 16203955.
157. Fehrman, Elaine; Egan, Vincent; Gorban, Alexander N.; Levesley, Jeremy; Mirkes, Evgeny M.; Muhammad, Awaz K. (2019). Personality Traits and Drug Consumption. A Story Told by Data. Springer, Cham. arXiv:2001.06520. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10442-9. ISBN 978-3-030-10441-2. S2CID 151160405.
158. Khan AA, Jacobson KC, Gardner CO, Prescott CA, Kendler KS (March 2005). "Personality and comorbidity of common psychiatric disorders". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 186 (3): 190–96. doi:10.1192/bjp.186.3.190. PMID 15738498.
159. Cuijpers P, Smit F, Penninx BW, de Graaf R, ten Have M, Beekman AT (October 2010). "Economic costs of neuroticism: a population-based study". Archives of General Psychiatry. 67 (10): 1086–93. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.130. PMID 20921124.
160. Kotov R, Gamez W, Schmidt F, Watson D (September 2010). "Linking "big" personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 136 (5): 768–821. doi:10.1037/a0020327. PMID 20804236.
161. Bogg T, Roberts BW (November 2004). "Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality". Psychological Bulletin. 130 (6): 887–919. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887. PMID 15535742.
162. Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR (December 2007). "The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2 (4): 313–45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x. PMC 4499872. PMID 26151971.
163. Jeronimus BF, Kotov R, Riese H, Ormel J (October 2016). "Neuroticism's prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: a meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443 313 participants". Psychological Medicine. 46 (14): 2883–906. doi:10.1017/S0033291716001653. PMID 27523506. S2CID 23548727.
164. Livesley WJ (2001). Handbook of Personality Disorders. New York: The Guildford Press. pp. 84–104. ISBN 978-1-57230-629-5. OCLC 783011161.
165. Ormel J, Jeronimus BF, Kotov R, Riese H, Bos EH, Hankin B, Rosmalen JG, Oldehinkel AJ (July 2013). "Neuroticism and common mental disorders: meaning and utility of a complex relationship". Clinical Psychology Review. 33 (5): 686–97. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003. PMC 4382368. PMID 23702592.
166. Millon T, Krueger R, Simonsen E (2011). Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology: Scientific Foundations of the DSM-IV and ICD-11. Guilford Press.
167. Krueger R, Tackett L (2006). Personality and Psychopathology. Guilford Press.^{[page needed][ISBN missing]}
168. Hudek-Knezević J, Kardum I (August 2009). "Five-factor personality dimensions and 3 health-related personality constructs as predictors of health". Croatian Medical Journal. 50 (4): 394–402. doi:10.3325/cmj.2009.50.394. PMC 2728392. PMID 19673040.
169. Jerram, Kathryn L.; Coleman, Peter G. (1999). "The big five personality traits and reporting of health problems and health behaviour in old age". British Journal of Health Psychology. 4 (2): 181–92. doi:10.1348/135910799168560. ISSN 2044-8287.
170. Jerram, Kathryn (16 December 2010). "The big five personality traits and reporting of health problems and health behaviour in old age". British Journal of Health Psychology. 4 (2): 181–192. doi:10.1348/135910799168560 – via Wiley.
171. Iwasa H, Masui Y, Gondo Y, Inagaki H, Kawaai C, Suzuki T (May 2008). "Personality and all-cause mortality among older adults dwelling in a Japanese community: a five-year population-based prospective cohort study". The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 16 (5): 399–405. doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181662ac9. PMID 18403571.
172. Jokela M, Hintsanen M, Hakulinen C, Batty GD, Nabi H, Singh-Manoux A, Kivimäki M (April 2013). "Association of personality with the development and persistence of obesity: a meta-analysis based on individual-participant data". Obesity Reviews. 14 (4): 315–23. doi:10.1111/obr.12007. PMC 3717171. PMID 23176713.
173. Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, Avdic A (September 2011). "The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement". Personality and Individual Differences. 51 (4): 472–77. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019.
174. Zeidner M, Shani-Zinovich I (11 October 2011). "Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions". Personality and Individual Differences. 51 (5): 566–70. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007.
175. Mutlu, Tansu; Balbag, Zafer; Cemrek, Fatih (2010-01-01). "The role of self-esteem, locus of control and big five personality traits in predicting hopelessness". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Administration Papers. 9: 1788–1792. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.401. ISSN 1877-0428.
176. Singh AK (2012). "Does trait predict psychological well-being among students of professional courses?". Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 38 (2): 234–41.
177. Klimstra TA, Luyckx K, Germeijs V, Meeus WH, Goossens L (March 2012). "Personality traits and educational identity formation in late adolescents: longitudinal associations and academic progress" (PDF). Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 41 (3): 346–61. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9734-7. PMID 22147120. S2CID 33747401.
178. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R (December 2008). "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 9 (3): 105–19. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x. PMID 26162104.
179. Zhang L (6 September 2001). "Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality traits?". Personality and Individual Differences. 33 (3): 445–58. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00166-0.
180. Schmeck RR, Ribich F, Ramainah N (1997). "Development of a Self-Report inventory for assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes". Applied Psychological Measurement. 1 (3): 413–31. doi:10.1177/014662167700100310. S2CID 143890188.
181. Jensen, Mikael (2015). "Personality Traits, Learning and Academic Achievements". Journal of Education and Learning. 4 (4): 91. doi:10.5539/jel.v4n4p91.
182. De Feyter T, Caers R, Vigna C, Berings D (22 March 2012). "Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation". Learning and Individual Differences. 22 (4): 439–48. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013.
183. Vedel A (2014). "The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 71: 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011.
184. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W. ve Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–51.
185. Bartolic-Zlomislic, Bates A (1999). "Investing in On-line Learning: Potential Benefits and Limitations". Canadian Journal of Communication. 24 (3). doi:10.22230/CJC.1999V24N3A1111.
186. Holland, J. L. (1966). The Psychology of Vocational Choice: A Theory of Personality Types and Model Environments. Oxford: Blaisdell.
187. Armitage, Catherine. "Scientists are curious and passionate and ready to argue". Retrieved 9 June 2021.
188. Mount MK, Barrick MR (1998). "Five reasons why the "big five" article has been frequently cited". Personnel Psychology. 51 (4): 849–57. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00743.x.
189. Morgeson FP, Campion MA, Dipboye RL, Hollenbeck JR, Murphy K, Schmitt N (2007). "Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts". Personnel Psychology. 60 (3): 683–729. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.493.5981. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x.
190. Mischel W (1968). Personality and assessment. London: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-8058-2330-1.
191. Rosenthal R (1990). "How are we doing in soft psychology?". American Psychologist. 45 (6): 775–77. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.6.775.
192. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Judiesch MK (1990). "Individual differences in output variability as a function of job complexity". Journal of Applied Psychology. 75: 28–42. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.28. S2CID 144507523.
193. Fairweather J (2012). "Personality, nations, and innovation: Relationships between personality traits and national innovation scores". Cross-Cultural Research. 46: 3–30. doi:10.1177/1069397111409124. S2CID 144015495.
194. Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW (August 2002). "Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 87 (4): 765–80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765. PMID 12184579.
195. Mehta P (2012). "Personality as a predictor of burnout among managers of manufacturing industries.". Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 32: 321–28.
196. Judge TA, Livingston BA, Hurst C (February 2012). "Do nice guys--and gals--really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102 (2): 390–407. doi:10.1037/a0026021. PMID 22121889.
197. Spurk D, Abele AE (16 June 2010). "Who Earns More and Why? A Multiple Mediation Model from Personality to Salary". Journal of Business and Psychology. 26: 87–103. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9184-3. S2CID 144290202.
198. Camps J, Stouten J, Euwema M (February 2016). "The relation between supervisors' big five personality traits and employees' experiences of abusive supervision". Frontiers in Psychology. 10 (7): 112. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00112. PMC 4748047. PMID 26903919.
199. Tepper BJ (June 2007). "Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda". Journal of Management. 33 (3): 261–89. doi:10.1177/0149206307300812. S2CID 143934380.
200. McLean, Dawson; Bouaissa, Mohsen; Rainville, Bruno; Auger, Ludovic (2019-12-04). "Non-Cognitive Skills: How Much Do They Matter for Earnings in Canada?". American Journal of Management. 19 (4). doi:10.33423/ajm.v19i4.2392. ISSN 2165-7998.
201. Neal A, Yeo G, Koy A, Xiao T (26 January 2011). "Predicting the Form and Direction of Work Role Performance From the Big 5 Model of Personality Traits". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 33 (2): 175–92. doi:10.1002/job.742.
202. Judge & LePine, "Bright and Dark Sides…" Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace, 2007
203. Holland AS, Roisman GI (October 2008). (PDF). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 25 (5): 811–29. doi:10.1177/0265407508096697. S2CID 28388979. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 March 2013. Retrieved 12 April 2012.
204. Gerber AS, et al. (2010). "Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts". The American Political Science Review. 104: 111–133. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000031. S2CID 6208090.
205. Sweetser KD (2014). "Partisan Personality: The Psychological Differences Between Democrats and Republicans, and Independents Somewhere in Between". American Behavioral Scientist. 58 (9): 1183–94. doi:10.1177/0002764213506215. S2CID 145674720.
206. Fatke M (2017). "Personality Traits and Political Ideology: A First Global Assessment". Political Psychology. 38 (5): 881–99. doi:10.1111/pops.12347.
207. Bakker BN, et al. (2015). "Personality Traits and Party Identification over Time". European Journal of Political Research. 54 (2): 197–215. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12070.
208. Gerber AS, et al. (2012). "Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification". Political Behavior. 34 (4): 653–688. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9178-5. S2CID 144317734.
209. Löwe, Konstantin Felix. "Is Politics Downstream from Personality? The Five Factor Model's Effect on Political Orientation in Sweden." (2019). http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8992021 Thesis
210. Roberts, p. 338
211. Saroglou, Vassilis (2002). "Religion and the five-factors of personality: A meta-analytic review". Personality and Individual Differences. 32: 15–25. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00233-6.
212. "IPIP Home". ipip.ori.org. Retrieved 2017-07-01.
213. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB (2003). "A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains". Journal of Research in Personality. 37 (6): 504–28. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1013.6925. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1. ISSN 0092-6566.
214. Goldberg LR (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-five factor structure". Psychological Assessment. 4 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.
215. Donaldson SI, Grant-Vallone EJ (2002). "Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research". Journal of Business and Psychology. 17 (2): 245–60. doi:10.1023/A:1019637632584. JSTOR 25092818. S2CID 10464760.
216. Hirsh JB, Peterson JB (October 2008). "Predicting creativity and academic success with a 'Fake-Proof' measure of the Big Five". Journal of Research in Personality. 42 (5): 1323–33. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.006. S2CID 18849547.
217. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB (2003). "A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains". Journal of Research in Personality. 37 (6): 504–28. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1013.6925. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
218. Credé M, Harms P, Niehorster S, Gaye-Valentine A (April 2012). "An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102 (4): 874–88. doi:10.1037/a0027403. PMID 22352328.
219. Goldberg LR (December 1990). "An alternative "description of personality": the big-five factor structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59 (6): 1216–29. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. PMID 2283588.
220. McFarland, Lynn A.; Ryan, Ann Marie (2000). "Variance in faking across noncognitive measures". Journal of Applied Psychology. 85 (5): 812–21. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812. ISSN 1939-1854. PMID 11055152.
221. "Big Five Personality Tests, traits and background". Personality and Aptitude Career Tests. Retrieved 2017-07-01.
222. Schwartz HA, Eichstaedt JC, Kern ML, Dziurzynski L, Ramones SM, Agrawal M, Shah A, Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Seligman ME, Ungar LH (2013). "Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: the open-vocabulary approach". PLOS ONE. 8 (9): e73791. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...873791S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073791. PMC 3783449. PMID 24086296.
223. Block J (March 1995). "A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (2): 187–215. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187. PMID 7724687.
224. Eysenck HJ (1991). "Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, 3?". Personality and Individual Differences. 12 (8): 773–90. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-z.
225. Eysenck HJ (1992). "Four ways five factors are not basic". Personality and Individual Differences. 13 (6): 667–73. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j.
226. Cattell RB (May 1995). "The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere". The Psychologist: 207–08.
227. Trofimova I (2014). "Observer bias: an interaction of temperament traits with biases in the semantic perception of lexical material". PLOS ONE. 9 (1): e85677. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...985677T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085677. PMC 3903487. PMID 24475048.   Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
228. Paunonen SV, Jackson DN (2000). (PDF). Journal of Personality. 68 (October 2000): 821–35. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00117. PMID 11001150. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-02-14. Retrieved 2012-01-15.
229. Boyle GJ (2008). "Critique of Five-Factor Model (FFM).". In Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH (eds.). The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 1 – Personality theories and models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-4651-3.
230. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1995). "Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (2): 216–20. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.216. PMID 7724688.
231. Block J (1995b). "Going beyond the five factors given: Rejoinder to Costa and McCrae and Goldberg and Saucier". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (2): 226–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.226.
232. Block J (2001). "Millennial contrarianism". Journal of Research in Personality. 35: 98–107. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2293. S2CID 40747837.
233. Block J (2010). "The Five-Factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations". Psychological Inquiry. 21: 2–25. doi:10.1080/10478401003596626. S2CID 26355524.
234. Cattell RB, Boyle GJ, Chant D (2002). . Psychological Review (Submitted manuscript). 109 (1): 202–05. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.1.202. PMID 11863038. Archived from the original on 2015-01-23. Retrieved 2018-10-25.
235. Schacter DL, Gilbert DT, Wegner DM (2011). Psychology (2nd ed.). Worth. pp. 474–75. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
236. Piekkola B (2011). "Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective". Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 31: 2–24. doi:10.1037/a0022478.
237. Paunonen SV, Haddock G, Forsterling F, Keinonen M (2003). "Broad versus Narrow Personality Measures and the Prediction of Behaviour Across Cultures". European Journal of Personality. 17 (6): 413–33. doi:10.1002/per.496. S2CID 143671349.
238. McAdams DP (1995). "What do we know when we know a person?". Journal of Personality. 63 (3): 365–96. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.527.6832. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x.
239. Saucier, Gerard; Srivastava, Sanjay (2015), "What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the big five and alternatives.", APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 4: Personality processes and individual differences., Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 283–305, doi:10.1037/14343-013, ISBN 978-1-4338-1704-5, retrieved 2021-01-03
240. Musek J (2007). "A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model". Journal of Research in Personality. 41 (6): 1213–33. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003.
241. Van der Linden D, te Nijenhuis J, Bakker AB (2010). (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 44 (3): 315–27. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-07-11. Retrieved 2012-06-17.
242. Eysenck HJ (1992). (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 13 (8): 667–73. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-11-07. Retrieved 2012-06-17.
243. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). "Reply to Eysenck". Personality and Individual Differences. 13 (8): 861–65. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7.
244. Gurven, M.; von Rueden, C.; Massenkoff, M.; Kaplan, H.; Lero Vie, M. (2013). "APA PsycNet". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 104 (2): 354–370. doi:10.1037/a0030841. PMC 4104167. PMID 23245291.
245. Block J (2010). "The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations". Psychological Inquiry. 21 (1): 2–25. doi:10.1080/10478401003596626. S2CID 26355524.
246. Ashton MC, Lee K, Goldberg LR (November 2004). "A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (5): 707–21. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.707. PMID 15535781.
247. Ashton MC, Lee K, de Vries RE (May 2014). "The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality factors: a review of research and theory". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 18 (2): 139–52. doi:10.1177/1088868314523838. PMID 24577101. S2CID 38312803.

January 30, 2023