Big Five Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality

1. Conscientiousness – impulsive, disorganized vs. disciplined, careful
2. Agreeableness – suspicious, uncooperative vs. trusting, helpful
3. Neuroticism – calm, confident vs. anxious, pessimistic
4. Openness to Experience – prefers routine, practical vs. imaginative, spontaneous
5. Extraversion – reserved, thoughtful vs. sociable, fun-loving

The Big Five remain relatively stable throughout most of one’s lifetime.

They are influenced significantly by genes and the environment, with an estimated heritability of 50%. They also predict certain important life outcomes such as education and health.

Each trait represents a continuum. Individuals can fall anywhere on the continuum for each trait.

Unlike other trait theories that sort individuals into binary categories (i.e. introvert or extrovert), the Big Five Model asserts that each personality trait is a spectrum.

Therefore, individuals are ranked on a scale between the two extreme ends of five broad dimensions:

For instance, when measuring Extraversion, one would not be classified as purely extroverted or introverted, but placed on a scale determining their level of extraversion.

By ranking individuals on each of these traits, it is possible to effectively measure individual differences in personality.

The Big Five personality traits are typically measured using standardized questionnaires or inventories, where individuals rate themselves on various statements or adjectives. 

These assessments, such as the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) or the Big Five Inventory (BFI), provide scores for each of the five traits, allowing for a comprehensive personality profile.

Openness to Experience

Openness to experience refers to one’s willingness to try new things as well as engage in imaginative and intellectual activities. It includes the ability to “think outside of the box.”

Facets of openness (John & Srivastava, 1999):

High openness people are usually:	Low openness people are usually:
Curious	Predictable
Imaginative	Not very imaginative
Creative	Uncomfortable with change
Open to trying new things	Strict with routine
Unconventional	Traditional

Openness vs. Closedness to Experience

Those who score high on openness to experience are perceived as creative and artistic. They prefer variety and value independence.

They are curious about their surroundings and enjoy traveling and learning new things.

People who score low on openness to experience prefer routine. They are uncomfortable with change and trying new things, so they prefer the familiar over the unknown.

As they are practical people, they often find it difficult to think creatively or abstractly.

Real-life impact of openness

• Creativity and Innovation – High openness is associated with greater creative thinking and innovation, particularly in artistic and scientific fields (Feist, 1998).
• Liberal Political Views – Studies suggest that individuals high in openness tend to hold more liberal and progressive attitudes (Carney et al., 2008).
• Entrepreneurial Success – More open individuals are more likely to take business risks and pursue entrepreneurial ventures (Zhao & Seibert, 2006).
• Marital Satisfaction: In marriages where one partner scores lower than the other on openness, there is likely to be marital dissatisfaction (Myers, 2011).
• Workplace Efficiency: Openness to experience is positively related to individual proactivity but negatively related to team efficiency in the workplace (Neal et al., 2012).
• Loneliness: People who score high in openness to experience are less likely to feel lonely (Buecker et al., 2020).

Reflective questions

Think about the following questions to see how open to experiences you are:

1. Do you enjoy trying new activities or prefer sticking to familiar routines?
2. How often do you find yourself daydreaming or exploring abstract ideas?
3. Are you drawn to art, music, or other creative pursuits?
4. How comfortable are you with change and uncertainty in your life?

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness describes a person’s ability to regulate impulse control to engage in goal-directed behaviors (Grohol, 2019). It measures elements such as control, inhibition, and persistence of behavior.

Facets of conscientiousness (John & Srivastava, 1999):

Highly conscientious people are usually:	Low conscientious people are usually:
Competent	Incompotent
Organized	Disorganized
Dutiful	Careless
Achievement-striving	Procrastinators
Self-disciplined	Undisciplined
Considerate	Impulsive

Conscientiousness vs. Lack of Direction

Those who score high on conscientiousness can be described as organized, disciplined, detail-oriented, thoughtful, and careful.

They also have good impulse control, which allows them to complete tasks and achieve goals.

Those who score low on conscientiousness may struggle with impulse control, leading to difficulty in completing tasks and fulfilling goals.

They tend to be more disorganized and may dislike too much structure. They may also engage in more impulsive and careless behavior.

Real-life impact of conscientiousness

• Job Performance: Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of all five traits for job performance (John & Srivastava, 1999).
• Health Outcomes: People who score high in conscientiousness have been observed to have better health outcomes and longevity (John & Srivastava, 1999). This could be due to having well-structured lives as well as the impulse control to follow diets, treatments, etc.
• Academic Success: A high score on conscientiousness predicts better high school and university grades (Myers, 2011).
• Juvenile Delinquency: Low conscientiousness predicts juvenile delinquency (John & Srivastava, 1999).
• Financial Stability: This trait is strongly linked to better financial planning, saving money, and long-term financial success (Duckworth & Weir, 2010).
• Relationship Stability: Conscientious individuals are more likely to have successful long-term relationships and lower divorce rates (Roberts et al., 2007).

Reflective questions

Think about the following questions to see how conscientious you are:

1. How important is it for you to keep your commitments and meet deadlines? 
2. Do you prefer to plan ahead or act spontaneously? 
3. How organized do you keep your living and working spaces? 
4. How easily can you resist temptations or distractions when focusing on a task?

Agreeableness

Agreeableness refers to how people tend to treat relationships with others.

Unlike extraversion which consists of the pursuit of relationships, agreeableness focuses on people’s orientation and interactions with others (Ackerman, 2017).

Facets of agreeableness (John & Srivastava, 1999):

Highly agreeable people are usually:	Low agreeable people are usually:
Trustful (forgiving)	Skeptical
Straightforward	Demanding
Altruistic (enjoy helping)	Insulting (and belittling others)
Compliant	Stubborn
Modest	Show-offs
Sympathetic	Unsympathetic
Empathetic	Less caring

Agreeableness vs. Antagonism

Those high in agreeableness can be described as soft-hearted, trusting, and well-liked. They are sensitive to the needs of others and are helpful and cooperative. People regard them as trustworthy and altruistic.

Those low in agreeableness may be perceived as suspicious, manipulative, and uncooperative.

They may be antagonistic when interacting with others, making them less likely to be well-liked and trusted.

Real-life impact of agreeableness

• Marital Satisfaction: In marriages where one partner scores lower than the other on agreeableness there is likely to be marital dissatisfaction (Myers, 2011).
• Health Risks: Low agreeableness has been linked to higher chances of health problems (John & Srivastava, 1999).
• Juvenile Delinquency: Low agreeableness predicts juvenile delinquency (John & Srivastava, 1999).
• Workplace Performance: Agreeableness predicts better performance in jobs where teamwork is involved. However, it is negatively related to individual proactivity (Neal et al., 2012).
• Community and Social Engagement: Highly agreeable individuals are more likely to engage in volunteer work and community-building activities (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Religious and Spiritual Involvement: Agreeableness has been linked to higher rates of religious participation and spirituality (Saroglou, 2010).

Reflective questions

Think about the following questions to see how agreeable you are:

1. How easily do you trust others and give them the benefit of the doubt?
2. How important is it for you to avoid conflicts and maintain harmony?
3. Do you find it easy to empathize with others' emotions and perspectives?
4. How often do you put others' needs before your own?

Extraversion

Extraversion reflects the tendency and intensity to which someone seeks interaction with their environment, particularly socially.

It encompasses the comfort and assertiveness levels of people in social situations.

Additionally, it also reflects the sources from which someone draws energy.

Facets of extraversion (John & Srivastava, 1999):

Highly extraverted people are usually:	Low extraverted people are usually:
Sociable	Happy in solitude
Energized by social interaction	Fatigued by too much social interaction
Excitement-seeking	Reflective
Happy to be the center of attention	Uncomfortable being center of attention
Outgoing	Reserved

Extraversion vs. Introversion

Those high on extraversion are generally assertive, sociable, fun-loving, and outgoing. They thrive in social situations and feel comfortable voicing their opinions.

They tend to gain energy and become excited from being around others.

Those who score low in extraversion are often referred to as introverts. These people tend to be more reserved and quieter. They prefer listening to others rather than needing to be heard.

Introverts often need periods of solitude in order to regain energy as attending social events can be very tiring for them.

Of importance to note is that introverts do not necessarily dislike social events, but instead find them tiring.

Real-life impact of extraversion

• Leadership: Extraversion is a predictor of leadership, as well as success in sales and management positions (John & Srivastava, 1999).
• Loneliness: Those who score high on extraversion are less likely to experience loneliness (Buecker et al., 2020).
• Perceived Listening Skills: People who interact with extroverts consistently judge them to be worse at listening compared to those low in extraversion (Flynn et al., 2023).
• Happiness: High extraversion is one of the strongest predictors of subjective well-being and overall life satisfaction (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).
• Leadership: Extraverts are more likely to emerge as leaders in workplace settings and succeed in social-driven careers (Judge et al., 2002).
• Increased Social Capital: Stronger social networks and friendships are common among extraverts, leading to increased support systems (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998).

Reflective questions

Think about the following questions to see how extroverted you are:

1. Do you feel energized or drained after spending time in large social gatherings?
2.How comfortable are you with being the center of attention?
3. Do you prefer working in teams or independently?
4. How often do you initiate conversations with strangers?

Neuroticism (Emotional Stability)

Neuroticism describes the overall emotional stability of an individual through how they perceive the world.

It takes into account how likely a person is to interpret events as threatening or difficult.

It also includes one’s propensity to experience negative emotions.

Facets of neuroticism (John & Srivastava, 1999):

Highly neurotic people are usually:	Low neurotic people are usually:
Anxious	Laid back
Hostile (irritable)	Calm
Very stressed	Emotionally stable
Self-conscious (shy)	Confident
Vulnerable	Resillient
Experiencing dramatic shifts in mood	Rarely sad or depressed

Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability

Those who score high on neuroticism often feel anxious, insecure, and self-pitying. They are often perceived as moody and irritable.

They are prone to excessive sadness and low self-esteem.

Those who score low on neuroticism are more likely to be calm, secure, and self-satisfied. They are less likely to be perceived as anxious or moody.

They are more likely to have high self-esteem and remain resilient.

Real-life impact of neuroticism

• Marital Satisfaction: In marriages where one partner scores lower than the other on emotional stability there is likely to be marital dissatisfaction (Myers, 2011).
• Health Risks: Neuroticism seems to be a risk factor for many health problems, including depression (and other mood disorders), schizophrenia, diabetes, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, and heart disease (Lahey, 2009).
• Job Dissatisfaction and Burnout: Neurotic individuals often experience more work-related stress, lower job commitment, and higher risk of burnout (Judge et al., 1999).
• Loneliness: Those who score high on neuroticism are more likely to experience loneliness (Buecker et al., 2020).

Reflective questions

Think about the following questions to see how emotionally stable you are:

1. How often do you worry about things that might go wrong?
2. How easily do you bounce back from setbacks or disappointments?
3. Do you tend to dwell on negative experiences or let them go quickly?
4. How confident do you feel in your ability to handle life's challenges?

Mental Health

Personality traits play a crucial role in mental health, influencing both vulnerability to psychological disorders and resilience in coping with stress.

Neuroticism and Mental Health Disorders

Neuroticism is the strongest predictor of mental health issues among the Big Five traits.

High levels of neuroticism are associated with an increased risk for anxiety disorders, depression, mood instability, and overall psychological distress (Lahey, 2009).

Research indicates that neurotic individuals are more likely to experience catastrophic thinking, emotional dysregulation, and difficulty coping with stress.

This makes neurotic individuals more prone to psychiatric conditions such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Kotov et al., 2010).

Conscientiousness and Psychological Resilience

Conscientiousness is linked to positive mental health outcomes and greater psychological resilience.

Highly conscientious individuals tend to engage in health-promoting behaviors, such as exercise, proper nutrition, and adherence to medical treatments, which contribute to lower rates of depression and anxiety (Roberts et al., 2007).

Studies also show that conscientiousness is negatively correlated with impulsive behaviors, substance abuse, and psychiatric hospitalizations (Hakulinen et al., 2015).

Extraversion and Subjective Well-Being

Extraversion is strongly associated with higher levels of happiness, optimism, and life satisfaction (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).

Extraverts tend to seek out social support, which serves as a protective factor against mental health problems.

Their tendency toward positive emotionality may act as a buffer against stress and depressive symptoms (Kotov et al., 2010).

However, in extreme cases, very high extraversion may be linked to impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors, which can contribute to substance abuse disorders (Wilson & Gullone, 1999).

Agreeableness and Social Well-Being

Agreeableness is linked to stronger interpersonal relationships, higher levels of empathy, and a lower risk of interpersonal conflict, all of which contribute to positive mental health outcomes (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006).

Highly agreeable individuals are more likely to seek emotional support and maintain stable social networks, which can protect against conditions such as depression and anxiety (Kotov et al., 2010).

However, extremely high agreeableness may make individuals more susceptible to people-pleasing behaviors, emotional dependency, and difficulty asserting personal boundaries, which can increase vulnerability to stress-related disorders.

Openness to Experience and Psychological Complexity

Openness to experience has a complex relationship with mental health.

On one hand, it is associated with creativity, cognitive flexibility, and emotional insight, which can be beneficial for psychological growth and resilience (DeYoung et al., 2005).

On the other hand, very high openness has been linked to a greater risk of psychotic-like experiences, including schizotypal personality traits and susceptibility to delusions or hallucinations (Macare et al., 2012).

This suggests that while moderate openness can support well-being, extremely high levels may be associated with certain mental health vulnerabilities.

New research on media and technology

Manolika (2023) investigated how Big Five personality traits relate to preferences for different movie and book genres among university students. Key findings include:

• Openness to experience predicted preferences for complex movies (e.g., documentaries) and unconventional books (e.g., philosophy).
• Conscientiousness was associated with a preference for informational books.
• Agreeableness predicted liking for conventional genres such as family movies and romance books.
• Neuroticism only correlated with a preference for light books, not movies.
• Extraversion did not significantly predict media preferences, contrary to initial hypotheses.

These results suggest that personality traits influence media choices, with individuals selecting entertainment that aligns with their psychological needs and personality aspects.

Roehrick et al. (2023) examined how Big Five traits relate to smartphone use among college students. Key findings include:

• Extraverts used their phones more frequently once checked.
• Conscientious people were less likely to use their phones and used them for shorter durations.
• Smartphones were used more in public, with weaker social ties, and during class/work activities.
• Extraversion and conscientiousness were the most relevant traits for predicting smartphone use patterns.
• Contextual factors (location, social ties, activities) significantly influenced smartphone use duration.

These results suggest that both personality traits and contextual factors significantly influence smartphone use patterns.

While traits like extraversion and conscientiousness predict certain aspects of digital behavior, situational elements such as location, social environment, and ongoing activities play a crucial role in determining the duration and frequency of smartphone use.

Critical Evaluation

Descriptor Rather Than a Theory

The Big Five was developed to organize personality traits rather than as a comprehensive theory of personality.

Therefore, it is more descriptive than explanatory and does not fully account for differences between individuals (John & Srivastava, 1999). It also does not sufficiently provide a causal reason for human behavior.

Cross-Cultural Validity

The Big Five personality traits have been studied across diverse cultures, and research generally supports the model’s validity across many linguistic and national groups (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005).

However, cultural variations exist in both the expression of traits and the structure of personality itself, raising important questions about the universality of the five-factor model.

Variations in the five-factor structure across cultures

While the Big Five model has been replicated in numerous countries, some studies suggest Openness to Experience does not always emerge as a distinct factor in certain cultures.

In some Asian and Indigenous societies, Openness appears to blend with other traits or is replaced by culturally specific dimensions of personality (Cheung et al., 2011).

For instance, research on Chinese personality structure has identified an alternative model that emphasizes interpersonal harmony and tradition, suggesting that personality traits may be shaped by cultural values and social norms (Cheung et al., 2008).

Additionally, studies indicate that certain trait dimensions may be less relevant or differently structured in non-Western contexts.

For example, an examination of an indigenous population in Bolivia found that the five-factor structure was not clearly replicated, possibly due to differences in cognitive styles, linguistic categories, and environmental demands (Gurven et al., 2013).

These findings suggest that while the Big Five traits may be biologically and socially influenced, their exact form can vary based on cultural and ecological factors.

Trait level differences between cultures

Research has also documented differences in average trait levels across cultures, often correlating with broader societal characteristics. Some key findings include:

• Extraversion and Openness tend to be higher in Western and individualistic societies (e.g., the United States, Canada, and Western Europe) compared to collectivist cultures such as Japan, China, and South Korea, where individuals score lower on these traits on average (McCrae et al., 2005).
• Conscientiousness is generally higher in countries with hierarchical social structures, as traits like discipline and order are reinforced in societies that emphasize traditional values and authority (Lukaszewski & Roney, 2011).
• Neuroticism scores tend to vary depending on societal stressors, economic stability, and health care access. Some studies suggest that populations in less economically developed or more politically unstable countries report higher levels of anxiety-related traits (Lynn & Martin, 1995).

Adaptive Value

Evolutionary psychologist, David Buss, proposed that these traits evolved as adaptive responses for our ancestors.

Different trait levels conferred survival advantages in different environments​

For instance, high Agreeableness could have fostered cooperation and group cohesion, while Conscientiousness may have supported long-term planning for scarce resources.

Extraversion might have aided in mate selection or alliance-building, whereas moderate levels of Neuroticism could have promoted vigilance and caution in risky environments.

Finally, Openness may have encouraged exploration, creativity, and adaptability in the face of changing ecological demands.

Gender Differences

Differences in the Big Five personality traits between genders have been observed, but these differences are small compared to differences between individuals within the same gender.

Costa et al. (2001) gathered data from over 23,000 men and women in 26 countries. They found that “gender differences are modest in magnitude, consistent with gender stereotypes, and replicable across cultures” (p. 328).

Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth (a facet of Extraversion), and Openness to Feelings compared to men. Men reported themselves to be higher in Assertiveness (a facet of Extraversion) and Openness to Ideas.

Another interesting finding was that bigger gender differences were reported in Western, industrialized countries.

Researchers proposed that the most plausible reason for this finding was attribution processes.

They surmised that the actions of women in individualistic countries would be more likely to be attributed to their personality, whereas actions of women in collectivistic countries would be more likely to be attributed to their compliance with gender role norms.

Factors that Influence the Big 5

Like with all theories of personality, the Big Five is influenced by both nature and nurture. Twin studies have found that the heritability (the amount of variance that can be attributed to genes) of the Big Five traits is 40-60%.

Jang et al. (1996) conducted a study with 123 pairs of identical twins and 127 pairs of fraternal twins.

They estimated the heritability of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion to be 44%, 41%, 41%, 61%, and 53%, respectively.

This finding was similar to the findings of another study, where the heritability of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience and extraversion were estimated to be 49%, 48%, 49%, 48%, and 50%, respectively (Jang et al., 1998).

Such twin studies demonstrate that the Big Five personality traits are significantly influenced by genes and that all five traits are equally heritable.

Heritability for males and females does not seem to differ significantly (Leohlin et al., 1998).

Studies from different countries also support the idea of a strong genetic basis for the Big Five personality traits (Riemann et al., 1997; Yamagata et al., 2006).

The Roehrick et al. (2023) study on smartphone use revealed that while personality traits like extraversion and conscientiousness influence technology use, context plays a crucial role.

Most variability in smartphone use was within-person, suggesting that situational factors often outweigh personality in determining behavior.

This finding underscores the importance of considering both individual traits and environmental factors when studying personality influences on behavior.

Stability of the Traits

People’s scores of the Big Five remain relatively stable for most of their life with some slight changes from childhood to adulthood.

A study by Soto & John (2012) attempted to track the developmental trends of the Big Five traits.

They found that overall agreeableness and conscientiousness increased with age. There was no significant trend for extraversion overall although gregariousness decreased and assertiveness increased.

Openness to experience and neuroticism decreased slightly from adolescence to middle adulthood.

The researchers concluded that there were more significant trends in specific facets (i.e. adventurousness and depression) rather than in the Big Five traits overall.

Big Five in Non-Human Animals

Although the Big Five model was originally developed in human personality research, a growing body of evidence suggests that non-human animals exhibit comparable trait dimensions.

For example, chimpanzees have demonstrated core analogues of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism, with an additional factor often referred to as “Dominance” (King & Figueredo, 1997).

Similar trait-like patterns have been observed in a range of other species – dogs, cats, hyenas, and even fish – indicating that consistent behavioral tendencies can span across diverse taxa (Gosling & John, 1999; Gosling, 2001).

Researchers emphasize that while there is substantial overlap with the human Big Five framework, the exact number and nature of trait dimensions may vary by species.

For instance, animals may express behaviors analogous to Openness (e.g., curiosity, exploratory behavior), but these can sometimes group differently than in humans.

Such findings support an evolutionary perspective: basic personality dimensions may confer adaptive advantages, such as better resource acquisition, social positioning, or mate selection, thereby persisting through natural selection across multiple species.

Genetics and Molecular Biology

Early twin studies demonstrated that personality traits are moderately heritable, with genetic influences accounting for 40-60% of trait variation (Jang et al., 1996).

However, modern molecular genetic research has revealed that personality traits are polygenic, meaning they are influenced by many genes with small effects rather than a single “personality gene” (Vukasović & Bratko, 2015).

Despite initial hopes of identifying specific genetic markers, large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) suggest that genetic contributions to personality traits are complex and intertwined with environmental factors (Lo et al., 2017).

Neuroscience and Brain Structures

Advances in neuroscience have begun mapping Big Five traits onto specific brain regions and neural networks.

Functional MRI (fMRI) and structural imaging studies have identified notable associations:

• Extraversion is linked to increased activity in the brain’s dopamine reward system, particularly the ventral striatum, explaining why extraverts seek excitement and social engagement (DeYoung et al., 2010).
• Conscientiousness correlates with greater volume and connectivity in the prefrontal cortex, an area associated with self-control, planning, and goal-directed behavior (DeYoung et al., 2009).
• Neuroticism is associated with heightened activity in the amygdala, a brain region involved in emotional processing and stress responses, supporting its link to anxiety and mood disorders (Servaas et al., 2013).

These findings reinforce the idea that personality is biologically rooted, though neuroplasticity allows for some flexibility in traits over time.

Artificial Intelligence and Personality Prediction

With the rise of big data and machine learning, researchers and companies are leveraging AI to predict personality traits from digital behavior.

Algorithms analyzing social media activity, language use, and browsing patterns can accurately estimate Big Five traits (Kosinski et al., 2013).

While this has practical applications in areas such as career assessment and targeted content recommendations, it has also sparked ethical concerns about privacy and the manipulation of personality-driven advertising (Matz et al., 2017).

History and Background

The Big Five model resulted from the contributions of many independent researchers. Gordon Allport and Henry Odbert first formed a list of 4,500 terms relating to personality traits in 1936 (Vinney, 2018).

Their work provided the foundation for other psychologists to begin determining the basic dimensions of personality.

In the 1940s, Raymond Cattell and his colleagues used factor analysis (a statistical method) to narrow down Allport’s list to sixteen traits.

However, numerous psychologists examined Cattell’s list and found that it could be further reduced to five traits.

Among these psychologists were Donald Fiske, Norman, Smith, Goldberg, and McCrae & Costa (Cherry, 2019).

In particular, Lewis Goldberg advocated heavily for five primary factors of personality (Ackerman, 2017).

His work was expanded upon by McCrae & Costa, who confirmed the model’s validity and provided the model used today: conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion.

The model became known as the “Big Five” and has seen received much attention. It has been researched across many populations and cultures and continues to be the most widely accepted theory of personality today.

Each of the Big Five personality traits represents extremely broad categories which cover many personality-related terms. Each trait encompasses a multitude of other facets.

For example, the trait of Extraversion is a category that contains labels such as Gregariousness (sociable), Assertiveness (forceful), Activity (energetic), Excitement-seeking (adventurous), Positive emotions (enthusiastic), and Warmth (outgoing) (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Therefore, the Big Five, while not completely exhaustive, cover virtually all personality-related terms.

Another important aspect of the Big Five Model is its approach to measuring personality. It focuses on conceptualizing traits as a spectrum rather than black-and-white categories.

It recognizes that most individuals are not on the polar ends of the spectrum but rather somewhere in between.

Use of the Big Five as a Continuum vs. “Types”

The Big Five model conceptualizes personality traits as continuous dimensions rather than strict “either-or” categories (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Within this framework, people can score high, low, or somewhere in between on each trait, reflecting a broad range of individual differences.

By contrast, “type-based” approaches, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), assign individuals to discrete personality categories.

While these typologies can be intuitively appealing, recent large-scale data analyses suggest that, even if clusters of common profiles sometimes emerge, personality traits are still best represented on a continuum (Gerlach et al., 2018).

This continuous view acknowledges that most individuals do not fit neatly into one extreme or the other and that subtle gradations can provide a richer, more accurate portrait of a person’s personality.

References

Ackerman, C. (2017, June 23). Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/big-five-personality-theory

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150-166.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2004). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. European Journal of Personality, 18(5), 405-419.

Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531-1544.

Buecker, S., Maes, M., Denissen, J. J., & Luhmann, M. (2020). Loneliness and the Big Five personality traits: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 8-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2229

Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual review of psychology, 42(1), 459-491.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.

Cherry, K. (2019, October 14). What Are the Big 5 Personality Traits? Verywell Mind. Retrieved 12 June 2020, from https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J. X., Leung, K., Leong, F., & Yeh, K. H. (2008). Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture: Aspects of its cultural relevance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 81-108.

Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7), 593-603.

Costa, P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. (2001). Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229.

DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820-828.

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 825-858.

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 481-504.

Duckworth, A. L., & Weir, D. R. (2010). Personality, lifetime earnings, and retirement wealth. University of Michigan Retirement Research Center Working Paper.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44 (3), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198

Flynn, F. J., Collins, H., & Zlatev, J. (2023). Are you listening to me? The negative link between extraversion and perceived listening. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(6), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211072815

Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 176-185.

Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature human behaviour, 2(10), 735-742.

Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research?. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 45.

Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: A cross-species review. Current directions in psychological science, 8(3), 69-75.

Grohol, J. M. (2019, May 30). The Big Five Personality Traits. PsychCentral. Retrieved 10 June 2020, from https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-big-five-personality-traits

Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104 (2), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841

Hakulinen, C., Elovainio, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., & Jokela, M. (2015). Personality and depressive symptoms: Individual participant meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies. Depression and Anxiety, 32(7), 461-470.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vemon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study. Journal of Personality, 64 (3), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x

Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1556–1565.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.

King, J. E., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality. Journal of research in personality, 31(2), 257-271.

Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802-5805.

Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768-821.

Lahey B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. The American psychologist, 64 (4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309

Lo, M.-T., Hinds, D. A., Tung, J. Y., Franz, C., Fan, C.-C., Wang, Y., … Chen, C.-H. (2017). Genome-wide analyses for personality traits identify six genomic loci and show evidence for major polygenic influence. Nature Genetics, 49(5), 752–756.

Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the Big Five Personality Factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32 (4), 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2225

Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 509-514.

Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1995). National differences in extraversion and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3), 403-406.

Manolika, M. (2023). The Big Five and beyond: Which personality traits do predict movie and reading preferences? Psychology of Popular Media, 12(2), 197–206.

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12714-12719.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). Cross-Cultural Research on the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1038

Macare, C., Bates, T. C., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2012). Openness to experience and creativity: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 77-90.

Myers, David G. (2011). Psychology (10th ed.). Worth Publishers.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407-425.

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547-561.

Neal, A., Yeo, G., Koy, A., & Xiao, T. (2012). Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.742

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Personality: A Study of Twins Reared Together Using the Self‐ and Peer Report NEO‐FFI Scales. Journal of Personality, 65 (3), 449-475.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 1-25.

Roehrick, K. C., Vaid, S. S., & Harari, G. M. (2023). Situating smartphones in daily life: Big Five traits and contexts associated with young adults’ smartphone use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1096–1118.

Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adaptation of basic traits: A five‐factor model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 108-125.

Servaas, M. N., Riese, H., Ormel, J., Aleman, A., & Marsman, J. B. (2013). The neural correlates of worry in association with individual differences in neuroticism. Human Brain Mapping, 35(9), 4303-4315.

Smith, T. W., & MacKenzie, J. (2006). Personality and risk of physical illness. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2(1), 435-467.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of Big Five Domains and Facets in Adulthood: Mean-Level Age Trends and Broadly Versus Narrowly Acting Mechanism. Journal of Personality, 80 (4), 881–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00752.x

Vinney, C. (2018, September 27). Understanding the Big Five Personality Traits. ThoughtCo. Retrieved 12 June 2020, from https://www.thoughtco.com/big-five-personality-traits-4176097.

Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769-785.

Wilson, C., & Gullone, E. (1999). The relationship between personality and risk-taking behavior in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 573-582.

Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., . . . Jang, K. (2006). Is the Genetic Structure of Human Personality Universal? A Cross-Cultural Twin Study From North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (6), 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.987

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271.

Keep Learning

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (3), 547.
• Cobb-Clark, DA & Schurer, S. The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics Letters. 2012; 115 (2): 11–15.
• Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental psychology, 49 (6), 1194.
• Power RA, Pluess M. Heritability estimates of the Big Five personality traits based on common genetic variants. Transl Psychiatry. 2015;5 :e604.
• Personality Theories Book Chapter
• The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology