Are the Big Five Personality Traits Types or Dimensions?

7 days ago

19 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy

The Big Five personality traits are dimensions, not five personality types. Every person varies along each of five broad, continuous trait dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A Big Five profile describes the combination of a person's relative standing on those dimensions; it does not sort humanity into five mutually exclusive kinds of people.

This distinction has direct consequences for how personality tests are scored, how results should be interpreted, and what researchers can reasonably infer about behavior. Someone can be moderately extraverted, highly conscientious relative to an appropriate comparison sample, near its mean in agreeableness, and anywhere along the other two dimensions. They do not have to qualify as an “extravert type” or a “conscientiousness type.” The American Psychological Association's definition of the Big Five expressly describes the framework as dimensions of individual differences.

The short answer: the Big Five measures degrees, not kinds

A dimension represents a property along which individuals differ in degree. A categorical type represents membership in a class, often implying a meaningful boundary between those inside and outside it. The Big Five describes continuous differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behavior. Its five domains are coordinates in a personality profile rather than five boxes from which an individual chooses one.

The five dimensions are typically labeled Openness to Experience (O), Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), and Neuroticism (N). OCEAN is a memory aid for those domain names. These names identify broad statistical constructs; they are not diagnostic criteria, behavioral guarantees, or moral categories. The terms vary somewhat by measurement tradition. For example, the Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2) calls its related domains Open-Mindedness and Negative Emotionality. The BFI-2's official instrument description documents the specific labels.

A person has some level of all five dimensions. Someone who enjoys social contact can also be highly imaginative, methodical, accommodating, and emotionally reactive. None of those characteristics has to “win” for a personality classification to become valid. The full profile is more informative than a single label.

What is the difference between a personality trait and a personality type?

In personality psychology, a trait is a relatively enduring individual difference in a characteristic tendency. It summarizes a person's typical patterns across occasions while allowing substantial changes in behavior from one situation to another. A type is a grouping rule or proposed category that assigns people to a class using one or more characteristics.

Consider two people who score 49 and 51 on a purely illustrative 0–100 extraversion scale. Their scores are close. If someone creates a rule that 50 and above is “extravert type” and below 50 is “introvert type,” the resulting labels suggest a qualitative difference that the underlying two-point gap does not establish. The dividing line came from the reporting procedure.

That example does not mean scores are measured without error or that every numerical difference is meaningful. It illustrates the central issue: cutting a measured continuum at an arbitrary threshold can transform small differences in score into large differences in label. The same methodological concern applies when someone divides openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, or neuroticism into binary categories.

A genuine categorical structure would require evidence of a difference in kind—such as a defensible latent boundary—rather than merely a convenient decision to split a distribution. In the Big Five research tradition, the usual scientific representation is dimensional.

Trait, type, state, and profile

A trait describes an enduring tendency that varies across individuals. A state describes what a person is thinking, feeling, or doing at a particular time. A profile is the pattern of scores across several traits or narrower facets. A type is a category assigned from a rule, theory, or classification procedure.

These words can be used informally, but they answer different questions. “I usually enjoy company” refers to a characteristic tendency. “I feel sociable this afternoon” reports a state. “My extraversion score is above my agreeableness score when both have been meaningfully standardized” refers to a profile comparison. “I am Type X” asserts a category whose definition and evidentiary basis must be specified.

What does it mean that the five traits are continuous?

In a dimensional model, a person can occupy many positions along each trait rather than only two or three preassigned categories. Researchers can examine differences near the middle, among people at either end, and across the range. Some instruments use short rating scales to estimate these positions; the psychological construct being estimated is broader than the discrete response choices.

A continuous trait does not require every possible value to appear equally often in a population. Score distributions may be approximately bell-shaped, skewed, bounded by the questionnaire scale, or affected by sampling and response styles. Continuity concerns the modeled structure of differences, not a guarantee that scores follow a particular mathematical distribution in every sample.

Nor does the word continuous mean perfectly precise. An observed Big Five score is an estimate influenced by the instrument, the respondent, item wording, context, scoring design, and measurement error. A 50th-percentile score is a rank relative to a specified reference distribution, not a literal statement that “half of your personality” exists.

Do traits have opposite poles?

Big Five questionnaires often describe contrasts between relatively higher and lower levels of a dimension. For extraversion, for example, higher average social assertiveness and positive social engagement often contrast with more reserved patterns; for conscientiousness, more organized and persistent tendencies may contrast with more flexible or less structured patterns.

These are descriptive tendencies rather than universal opposites in every situation. A lower extraversion score does not mean a person cannot be warm, confident, or effective in public speaking. A lower conscientiousness score does not establish irresponsibility. Agreeableness is not moral goodness, openness is not intelligence, and neuroticism is not a psychiatric disorder. A trait's statistical direction must not be turned into a judgment of human worth.

Does the Big Five divide people into five types?

No. There are five major domains, and each person can be assessed on all five. This is one of the most common misunderstandings of the model. “Five factors” refers to a broad structure of covarying personality characteristics found through research, not to five boxes labeled with the names of the traits.

A person described as “an openness personality” still has measurable levels of conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Researchers do not ordinarily assign a person's entire character to whichever of the five scale scores is numerically highest. Such raw scores may also be on different scales or use different normative distributions, so simply choosing the biggest number can be statistically meaningless.

The lexical research behind the Big Five investigated broad patterns among personality-descriptive terms. Goldberg's influential 1990 factor-structure study supported five recurring broad factors across multiple sets of terms and analytic approaches. Factor analysis organizes correlated variation; it does not, by itself, discover exclusive groups of people.

The five dimensions as a personality coordinate system

Imagine a map on which east–west and north–south are two separate dimensions. A location needs coordinates on both. Two locations can share one coordinate while being far apart on the other. The Big Five operates similarly, although it uses five broad personality coordinates and measurement scales rather than geographic distances.

Take three illustrative profiles. Person A is relatively high in extraversion and relatively low in conscientiousness; Person B is relatively high in both; Person C is near the middle of extraversion and relatively high in conscientiousness. A and B share a broadly similar relative extraversion standing, yet differ in organization and persistence. B and C may be similar in conscientiousness while differing in social engagement.

Those illustrations are not clinical examples and are not measured results. They show why one trait does not determine the other four, and why reducing a five-dimensional profile to one dominant label loses important information. Domains can be statistically correlated in empirical samples, but they remain distinguishable dimensions in the model.

A combination is not automatically a type

Someone described as “high in openness and high in conscientiousness” has a combination of two continuous tendencies. Another person might fall just below whichever thresholds a website selected. Calling the first person one type and the second a different type does not establish separate underlying psychological kinds.

Profiles can be useful for discussing interaction patterns, strengths, preferences, and contextual challenges, especially when interpreted at the level of the actual dimensions. The existence of a profile does not mean that the population contains a fixed number of mutually exclusive personality species.

What does scientific research say about dimensions versus categories?

The evidence base includes work on factor structure, direct tests of whether trait variation is dimensional or categorical, comparisons with typological questionnaires, and studies that search for recurring groups of multivariate profiles. These approaches ask related but different questions.

A direct study by Longley and colleagues, published in 2017, used taxometric methods across three samples of 857, 1,280, and 9,935 participants and different Big Five measures. Results generally favored dimensional latent structures for each of the five domains and were largely convergent across the measures and samples. This is more directly relevant to the types-versus-dimensions question than simply pointing to a questionnaire with numeric scores.

Taxometric research more broadly has often found dimensional structures across constructs studied in personality and psychopathology, although findings depend on the construct and methodological quality. The 2020 meta-analysis by Haslam and colleagues synthesizes this wider literature. It should not be treated as proof that every possible psychological construct is dimensional.

Factor analyses likewise support broad patterns of covariation among trait descriptors or questionnaire items. Their results help explain why researchers summarize so much personality variation with five domains. Yet the presence of five factors and the presence or absence of discrete personality classes are separate statistical issues. A factor model describes continuous dimensions; a clustering model investigates concentrations or groupings of profiles.

Does dimensional mean biologically fixed or exact?

No. Dimensionality is a claim about the organization of individual differences. It neither establishes that traits are immutable nor identifies five separate biological organs or mechanisms. Personality expression changes with situations and, to varying degrees, with age and experience. The Big Five is a useful structural model; specific causal explanations require further evidence.

The APA's entries for the Big Five and five-factor personality model also preserve a conceptual distinction: the descriptive Big Five taxonomy and the more explanatory Five-Factor Model tradition are closely related, often used interchangeably in practice, but have different theoretical emphases. Both use broad trait dimensions rather than a basic assignment of everyone to one of five kinds.

But haven't researchers found personality types using Big Five data?

Yes. Some person-centered statistical studies have identified recurring configurations of Big Five scores. That finding deserves careful interpretation rather than dismissal or automatic acceptance as a universal taxonomy.

In a prominent 2018 Nature Human Behaviour study, Gerlach and colleagues applied a data-driven approach to four large datasets totaling more than 1.5 million participants and reported evidence for four recurring profile clusters. They emphasized the possibility of spurious solutions from clustering procedures and attempted to distinguish more robust patterns.

A later 2019 methodological critique by Freudenstein and colleagues argued that only 42% of one reanalyzed sample was assigned to the four identified clusters in a meaningful way, cautioning against immediate use of the typology in personality assessment. Gerlach and colleagues' published reply defended the computational results while sharing the concern about premature practical assessment.

This exchange illustrates a crucial distinction. A dataset may contain denser and sparser regions of a continuous, multidimensional space, and a clustering algorithm may give those regions names. That does not automatically make the categories exhaustive, sharply bounded, stable over the lifespan, generalizable across cultures and measurement instruments, or superior to scores on the original dimensions for a particular decision.

A legitimate person-centered research result is therefore a claim about a particular procedure, dataset, classification rule, and degree of replication. It is not equivalent to rewriting the core Big Five as a theory of four, five, or sixteen permanent personality types. For a type-centered search, the scientific question is whether classification adds reproducible information beyond the underlying traits.

Why do personality websites turn dimensions into types?

Categorical labels are easy to remember and share. A website can split each of five traits into “high” and “low,” assign a letter or word to each direction, and produce combinations. Five binary decisions alone permit 32 possible combinations; additional subdivisions generate many more labels. The arithmetic creates possible codes, not empirical evidence that human personalities consist of 32 natural classes.

Some websites use SLOAN or similar labels to summarize Big Five-style profiles. Such shorthand can be a communication device, but the specific terminology, scoring thresholds, and validity evidence depend on the implementation. No universal SLOAN classification is part of the fundamental five-factor measurement model.

The problem is especially clear near a boundary. Suppose a site's cutoff for “outgoing” is a certain percentile: a person just above and a person just below may receive different identities despite nearly indistinguishable measured standings. Changes in item interpretation, recent mood, or measurement error can then change the type label even when the underlying relative trait level barely changes.

A better report preserves actual scale information and explains any optional category labels as descriptive shortcuts. There can be legitimate reasons to make categories for a particular communication or decision task, but the categories require a clearly stated purpose, a justified rule, and evidence appropriate to the use.

Is the Big Five like the MBTI or a sixteen-type personality system?

The Big Five and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) differ in theoretical organization and common reporting conventions. The Big Five is usually reported through five measured trait scores; the MBTI is commonly presented using combinations of dichotomous preference labels that yield sixteen types. A sixteen-type label is not one of the five Big Five domains, and translating one system directly into the other is not scientifically justified by a superficial similarity in words such as extraversion.

An influential 1989 analysis by McCrae and Costa found that MBTI indices showed relationships with aspects of four five-factor dimensions but did not support the premise of truly dichotomous preference types in their data. That study supports examining measured continua even when a commercial instrument presents outcomes through category labels.

Comparing instruments also requires separating a broad scientific model from one questionnaire's scoring and marketing claims. Validity, reliability, construct coverage, and interpretation are instrument- and use-specific. The terms “Big Five” and “personality test” alone do not identify a particular standardized assessment.

How does a Big Five score relate to a dimension?

A test score is the output of a specified measurement procedure. The trait dimension is the underlying construct the test is trying to estimate. Items ask about characteristic experiences or behaviors; answers are scored into domain estimates, and sometimes narrower facets or aspects. The relationship between those observed estimates and the intended constructs must be empirically evaluated.

Consider a hypothetical test with five items on social engagement. Its score would reflect responses to those five prompts under that scoring system. It would not be a direct readout of an unchanging internal substance. A validated questionnaire provides the basis for more defensible interpretation, particularly when norms and uncertainty are documented.

The BFI-2 development and validation paper describes a 60-item inventory assessing five domains with fifteen instrument-specific facets. The instrument explicitly includes Negative Emotionality and Open-Mindedness as its domain labels. NEO-family measures organize five domains using a different facet taxonomy; the Big Five Aspect Scales use an aspect-level organization. Five broad dimensions therefore do not imply one universal list of thirty facets, fifteen facets, or ten aspects shared by every inventory.

Can you be “high” in every Big Five trait?

Potentially, yes, relative to an appropriate reference group and depending on the particular measures used. Each domain is assessed separately. A person may have relatively elevated scores on several or all domains. Whether the scores are meaningfully “high” depends on the validated scale, its intended direction, norms, and uncertainty; there is no universal cutoff for the words high, low, and average across all Big Five tests.

Being high on all five also does not mean having the “best personality.” Neuroticism or Negative Emotionality concerns a different kind of tendency from conscientiousness or agreeableness, and the practical significance of any score varies with the setting. High and low are locations on measurements, not grades for worth or virtue.

Is the midpoint a personality type?

No. A midpoint may be the arithmetic center of the instrument's response scale, the sample average, or a specified normative percentile. These are different reference points. A respondent near the sample mean is not necessarily “ambivert type” or “balanced type”; the person is near that reference on the particular estimated dimension. Two questionnaires can assign different-looking numbers to broadly similar trait levels.

Should I compare my five raw scores directly?

Only if the measure and reporting system support that comparison. Different items, response formats, score ranges, or normative distributions can make direct raw-score rankings misleading. Standardized scores may permit more meaningful relative comparisons when the same validated normative basis and score direction are applied. Even then, within-person differences must be evaluated with attention to measurement precision.

Domain, aspect, and facet: which level is continuous?

The five domains are broad continuous traits. Many inventories also measure narrower continuous characteristics within them. Domains, aspects, and facets refer to levels of a hierarchy, but their exact number and content depend on the model and instrument.

Someone with a moderate broad extraversion score may differ in social assertiveness, sociability, and energy depending on how a particular inventory defines and assesses those characteristics. An overall middle-range score can conceal meaningful differences across narrower scales. Conversely, a narrow facet does not automatically determine the broad domain.

This is one reason simplistic “type” descriptions can be especially misleading: they collapse information within each trait as well as across traits. A well-interpreted profile identifies the instrument, broad domains, and any narrower scales that are sufficiently reliable and valid for the intended purpose.

Can someone act unlike their personality trait?

Yes. A trait describes a distribution of characteristic behavior, not a requirement that every episode look the same. A relatively introverted person can lead a meeting with enthusiasm. A typically conscientious person can miss an important deadline. A person lower in agreeableness may cooperate generously in a close relationship.

Fleeson's 2001 experience-sampling research followed Big Five-relevant states in everyday life and found substantial within-person variation alongside stable differences in average patterns. In that account, trait descriptions summarize distributions of states over time. This helps explain why a one-off action is usually an inadequate basis for assigning an enduring trait score.

Context matters as well. Roles, incentives, skills, stressors, cultural norms, fatigue, and social expectations influence what people do. The trait–state distinction protects against treating a familiar personality label as a prediction of each next act.

Are traits permanent, or can positions on the dimensions change?

Big Five traits show meaningful stability, particularly in the relative ordering of people over shorter intervals, and they also show developmental change. Stability can mean different things: rank-order stability asks whether people keep roughly the same relative standings, while mean-level change asks whether an age group tends to increase or decrease over time.

A 2006 meta-analysis of longitudinal studies by Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer reported systematic mean-level changes across the lifespan, including increases in conscientiousness and emotional stability particularly in young adulthood. The results undermine the idea that a category assigned at one age must define a person permanently.

Variation across instruments and cohorts also matters. An apparent score change may reflect genuine trait development, shifting states, changes in item functioning, or measurement error. A careful interpretation must distinguish the questions rather than assume that every observed difference is a profound personal transformation.

Do dimensional traits predict a person's behavior?

Big Five traits can be associated with and statistically predict some outcomes at the group level. Such findings concern distributions, average patterns, and probabilities. The size and reliability of an association vary by domain, outcome, measurement quality, sample, and context.

A person relatively high in conscientiousness may, in a particular population and outcome model, have a higher predicted average probability of some organized or persistent behaviors. That does not tell us whether this person will submit a particular assignment tomorrow, excel in one job, or behave responsibly in an unfamiliar circumstance. Two individuals with comparable trait scores can have substantially different outcomes.

Converting a continuous predictor into a binary type can further discard information, especially when the cutoff is arbitrary. The useful scientific question is whether a specific measure improves calibrated prediction of a defined criterion and whether the improvement generalizes out of sample. Trait associations cannot be silently turned into causal claims. A trait's measured correlation with an outcome does not by itself prove that changing the trait would cause the outcome to change.

Are Big Five traits universal across cultures and languages?

Broad Big Five structures have substantial cross-cultural research support, yet the wording, item meanings, factor solutions, and predictive relations do not reproduce identically in every population or language. Evidence for the usefulness of a five-domain taxonomy in many settings does not imply that every lexical study uncovers precisely the same five factors or that an instrument developed in one group is automatically suitable elsewhere.

The dimensional-versus-categorical distinction remains applicable, but interpretation of individual scores depends on evidence for the specific translated or adapted measure. A percentile derived from one country, language, age distribution, or recruitment setting may not be appropriate for interpreting a person from another group. Cross-cultural generalizability requires direct testing rather than inference from the popularity of a questionnaire.

Can a Big Five “type” diagnose a mental disorder or personality disorder?

No. Broad traits, narrower facets, questionnaire results, clinical symptoms, impairment, and diagnoses are distinct types of information. A high or low Big Five score does not establish a mental disorder, a personality disorder, disability, risk to others, or suitability for treatment. In clinical practice, diagnosis requires an appropriate professional evaluation of criteria and context; the Big Five was developed as a framework for describing individual differences.

Neuroticism is a useful example because the word sometimes sounds medical. Its modern trait meaning concerns differences in the tendency toward negative emotional experience, not possession of a disorder. For a focused account of the N dimension, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. This article keeps the domain-specific definition with that established English Hub reference.

Avoid using personality scores to infer that a person has anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, or another clinical condition. The appropriateness of assessment depends on its purpose, consent, competence, and supporting validity evidence.

How to interpret a dimensional Big Five profile responsibly

Begin with the exact instrument and version. Record its domain labels, scoring direction, scale type, and the population from which its norms or validation evidence come. A result reported by a short entertainment quiz should not be assigned the same interpretive weight as a carefully validated inventory administered and scored for a relevant purpose.

Next, read each domain as a relative tendency. Separate scores from observable behaviors, and consider what is stable across time and what varies with context. If a score is described as high, ask high relative to whom and using what rule. Avoid comparing unrelated raw scales as if they were interchangeable.

Then inspect narrower information only if the specific instrument provides valid facets or aspects and their precision is adequate. A broad profile can hide important internal variation. Use all five scores rather than imposing one “dominant trait” label. Treat any profile-cluster or type shorthand as an optional summary whose evidence and limitations must be stated.

Finally, interpret prediction in probabilistic terms. Use the profile to ask productive questions about preferences, goals, habits, and environmental fit rather than to declare what a person must be like. A score is evidence about a construct under defined measurement conditions, not a verdict on the whole person.

Common misconceptions about Big Five traits and types

A frequent claim is that there are five personality types because there are five Big Five factors. The correct interpretation is five broad dimensions measured for every person.

Another is that a person must be either an introvert or an extravert. Extraversion is ordinarily treated as a continuum, and people can be located at many points along it. Mid-range standing is common and does not require the creation of a new scientific category.

A third is that “high” and “low” are official clinical cutoffs. These words require instrument-specific scoring and a relevant normative or interpretive framework; arbitrary internet boundaries do not become universal psychological thresholds.

A fourth is that finding clusters proves the existence of hard natural kinds. Clusters can represent recurring configurations of continuous scores. Their robustness, coverage, interpretation, and usefulness must be evaluated separately.

A fifth is that personality cannot change because traits are stable. Personality has both stability and change, and an enduring tendency still allows substantial situational variation.

Frequently asked questions

Are there five types of personality in the Big Five?

No. The model organizes personality differences into five broad trait dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Everyone can have a position on each dimension.

Is the Big Five a dimensional or categorical model?

It is principally dimensional. The fundamental outputs of validated Big Five measures are scores on continuous constructs. Some researchers create profile groups from those scores, but those groups are additional analytic classifications, not the core Big Five structure.

What does OCEAN stand for?

OCEAN stands for Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The precise wording of scales depends on the instrument.

Can you belong to more than one Big Five trait?

Every person is described on all five domains. The domains are not membership groups, so there is no restriction to one.

Does my highest trait score identify my personality type?

No. Comparing scores requires instrument-specific knowledge, and the largest reported number is not a scientifically established type. A multivariate profile is the proper starting point.

Are introvert and extravert separate kinds of people?

In the Big Five, extraversion is modeled as a graded trait. Familiar labels can describe relatively lower and higher tendencies, but an arbitrary dividing line does not by itself establish discrete underlying kinds.

Does “high neuroticism” mean a diagnosis?

No. Neuroticism is a personality dimension involving negative emotionality, and a higher test score is neither a psychiatric diagnosis nor evidence of a disorder by itself.

Do the Big Five traits form exactly 32 combinations?

Dividing five continuous scales into two artificial bins mathematically produces 32 combinations. That arithmetic is not evidence for 32 naturally occurring personality types.

Are personality profile clusters scientifically real?

Some clustering studies report reproducible concentrations of Big Five profiles, while critics dispute the extent to which proposed groups are exhaustive and useful for individual assessment. The evidence concerns particular datasets and methods, and it does not replace dimensional trait measurement.

Is the Big Five more scientific because it uses numbers?

A numeric result does not guarantee validity. Scientific strength comes from clearly defined constructs, appropriate item design, measurement evidence, reproducibility, and useful interpretation. Any individual test requires evaluation on those grounds.

Do Big Five scores stay constant throughout life?

Not necessarily. Traits display meaningful relative stability while average levels and individual trajectories can change with age and experience. Scores can also fluctuate because of states or measurement error.

Can a Big Five score tell me which career or partner is right for me?

It may provide one piece of information about characteristic tendencies and preferences. It cannot determine the suitability of a particular career, relationship, or decision for one person. Context, interests, skills, values, circumstances, and measurement uncertainty matter.

Conclusion

The Big Five is a five-dimensional framework for describing personality differences. Its central scientific claim is that people vary in degree along broad, distinguishable domains. A complete profile retains information across all five scales and, where appropriate, within instrument-specific narrower scales.

Personality types can function as informal shortcuts or research-derived profile groupings, but they require their own definitions and validation. A categorical label is not an automatic discovery of a natural boundary, and it does not turn trait scores into diagnoses, guarantees, or permanent identities. The strongest interpretation of a Big Five result remains dimensional, contextual, instrument-aware, and probabilistic.

References

American Psychological Association. (2018). Big Five personality model. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Official definition.

American Psychological Association. (2018). Five-factor personality model (FFM). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Official definition.

Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011.

Freudenstein, J.-P., Strauch, C., Mussel, P., & Ziegler, M. (2019). Four personality types may be neither robust nor exhaustive. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1045–1046. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0721-4.

Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z.

Gerlach, M., Revelle, W., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2019). Reply to: Four personality types may be neither robust nor exhaustive. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 1047–1048. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0722-3.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.

Haslam, N., McGrath, M. J., Viechtbauer, W., & Kuppens, P. (2020). Dimensions over categories: A meta-analysis of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 50(9), 1418–1432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172000183X.

Longley, S. L., Miller, S. A., Broman-Fulks, J. J., Calamari, J. E., Holm-Denoma, J. M., & Meyers, K. (2017). Taxometric analyses of higher-order personality domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.018.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096.

Psychological Encyclopedia