Big Five Personality Traits and Relationships: What Research Shows

6 days ago

19 min read

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

The Big Five personality traits are associated with how people experience, maintain, and evaluate close relationships. Across many studies, lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated, on average, with greater romantic relationship satisfaction. Extraversion sometimes shows a smaller positive association; openness has a less consistent pattern. These are statistical associations in studied populations. A trait score cannot determine whether a particular relationship will be happy, whether two people belong together, or whether someone is a good partner. The foundational Malouff and colleagues meta-analysis and an updated 2025 research review provide useful starting points.

Relationship science measures different outcomes: satisfaction, observed interactions, intimacy, communication, conflict, trust, stability, dissolution, and experiences in families or friendships. The evidence for one outcome does not automatically establish the same conclusion about another. This guide concentrates on romantic relationships, where the research base is strongest, and examines nonromantic bonds, interpretation, practical use, measurement, and limits of prediction.

What does the Big Five tell us about relationships?

The Big Five personality model, also called the Five-Factor Model in many contexts, describes individual differences along five continuous domains: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The familiar OCEAN acronym abbreviates their names. These dimensions summarize patterns of thinking, feeling, and behavior across situations and time. They do not assign everyone to five discrete types, and they do not create a rigid hierarchy of human worth.

Relationships repeatedly involve coordination, stress, reassurance, mutual expectations, emotional expression, responsiveness, and disagreement. A person's typical habits can matter in those situations. Someone inclined toward cooperation may approach disputes differently from someone who enjoys vigorous debate. A person who plans carefully may experience uncertainty differently from a spontaneous partner. Yet habits occur in context. Skills, stress, resources, social norms, previous experiences, safety, and both partners' behavior all shape the interaction.

Each broad domain can be divided into more specific components, although instruments use different aspect and facet arrangements. The Big Five hierarchy guide explains this instrument-specific organization. This article uses domain evidence when studies actually measured domains and treats examples of everyday behavior as explanatory illustrations rather than universal facets.

What major studies and reviews show

A 2010 meta-analysis pooled 19 samples involving 3,848 participants to study associations between one person's Five-Factor Model scores and an intimate partner's reported relationship satisfaction. Lower neuroticism and higher agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion were significantly associated with greater satisfaction as evaluated by the partner. This was important evidence of average links, although the included studies focused on heterosexual couples and differed in their measures.

A study using large, nationally representative married-couple samples from three countries separately examined one's own personality, the partner's personality, and similarity between partners. Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, and Lucas (2010) demonstrated the value of distinguishing these explanations instead of speaking vaguely of a person's personality as though each association represented the same process.

A 2025 nine-year longitudinal study analyzed 972 partners from several birth cohorts. Lower neuroticism and higher conscientiousness were associated with one's own relationship satisfaction across the examined period. The authors found significant actor effects but no significant partner effects in their main long-term analyses. This does not invalidate partner associations found elsewhere; it shows that results differ with the sample, time horizon, and method.

The 2025 review by Visser and Bedard surveys evidence on intimacy, partner preferences, similarity, satisfaction, and dissolution. Kindness and dependability feature prominently in ideal-partner preferences, and several Big Five traits have recurring average associations with satisfaction. The review also identifies important gaps concerning LGBTQ+ relationships, consensual nonmonogamy, long-distance partnerships, and other diverse relationship arrangements.

Agreeableness: cooperation and consideration

Agreeableness captures broad tendencies toward cooperation, consideration, trust, and concern for others. These qualities may be expressed when someone listens carefully, takes another person's welfare seriously, and seeks a workable solution in disagreement. In an investigation of more than 400 married couples using questionnaires and observation, agreeableness was generally associated with more favorable evaluations of marriage and fewer negative interactions. Donnellan, Conger, and Bryant (2004).

An association does not make a high score proof of kindness, or a low score proof of cruelty. A more skeptical or challenging person may be caring and reliable. A highly agreeable person may need help asserting boundaries. Respectful disagreement is compatible with empathy, and a healthy relationship can require a firm refusal. For the complete construct, see Agreeableness in the Big Five and high versus low agreeableness, cooperation, and assertiveness.

Agreement gained through fear, pressure, or coercion has a fundamentally different meaning from voluntary cooperation. A personality scale cannot adjudicate whether an interaction was consensual, fair, or safe.

Conscientiousness: dependability and responsibility

Conscientiousness includes tendencies toward planning, self-regulation, responsibility, and follow-through. Romantic partners may depend on one another to keep promises, share household tasks, coordinate finances, support caregiving, and act predictably under competing demands. It is plausible that these habits contribute to relationship functioning, and studies repeatedly report positive associations between conscientiousness and satisfaction. The nine-year analysis found conscientiousness relevant to long-term satisfaction in its sample.

The relationship meaning of conscientiousness depends on how the trait is expressed. Rigidity, unilateral planning, or pressure to follow exact routines may create friction, even when a person is highly responsible in other settings. A couple may benefit from clear agreements about responsibilities without requiring identical planning styles. The Conscientiousness guide covers the domain in more depth.

Conscientiousness should not be equated with faithfulness, moral responsibility, or the ability to recognize a partner's emotional needs. Specific behaviors require direct evidence.

Extraversion: social energy, positive affect, and stimulation

Extraversion encompasses sociability, assertiveness, energy, and positive emotionality in many Big Five traditions. People may express it through enjoyment of social gatherings, initiation of conversations, and an active approach to shared experiences. Some relationship studies report a modest positive association with satisfaction. The 2010 meta-analysis detected a positive association with partner satisfaction.

However, extraversion's relationship associations are variable. The 2025 longitudinal study reported a negative association between women's extraversion and their own satisfaction in that dataset, illustrating why the literature does not support a universal direction in every context. Extraversion is also broader than talkativeness. See the Extraversion domain guide.

Introverted and extraverted partners can enjoy fulfilling relationships with similar or different partners. Differences in social preferences may call for agreements about parties, time alone, and social boundaries, but they cannot be turned into a fixed compatibility verdict.

Openness to experience: curiosity, novelty, and values

Openness to experience concerns engagement with ideas, imagination, aesthetic interests, and receptiveness to novel experiences. In close relationships it may relate to shared exploration, interesting conversation, or flexibility about activities. Nonetheless, its statistical relation to relationship satisfaction is less consistent across studies and designs than some other domains. A broadly high openness score is not an established guarantee of happiness in love.

Differences in novelty-seeking can be managed through joint planning and respect. Some disagreements concern specific values, money, parenting, fidelity agreements, or religion, and a generic openness score does not accurately summarize those commitments. The Openness to Experience guide explains how the trait is defined within the model.

Neither creativity nor adventurousness establishes relational trust. The actionable issue is how partners negotiate meaningful differences.

Neuroticism: distress and relationship experience

Neuroticism describes relatively stable individual differences in the frequency and intensity of unpleasant emotional experiences and sensitivity to stress. Many studies link higher neuroticism to lower relationship satisfaction, more negative evaluations, or more negative interactions. Relevant primary work includes Donnellan and colleagues' marital study, the Malouff meta-analysis, and the 2025 nine-year study.

It is essential to distinguish individual tendencies from actual relationship conditions. A person may feel distressed because their partner is behaving badly, their circumstances are threatening, or the relationship is unsafe. Emotional distress can be informative. A broad score does not show whether a person's concerns are accurate or why suffering occurs.

The existing Neuroticism Master Cluster owns neuroticism-specific definitions, measurement, facets, development, and clinical associations. Here the domain appears only as one component of the comparative Big Five relationships evidence. Neither neuroticism nor another personality score constitutes a diagnosis.

Actor effects, partner effects, and similarity effects

Because romantic relationships involve two people, researchers often study how their results are interdependent. An actor effect links a person's own personality score with that same person's satisfaction. A partner effect links a person's personality to their partner's satisfaction. A similarity effect asks whether resemblance between partners adds explanatory information beyond the levels of their individual traits.

Imagine a couple in which one person scores relatively higher on conscientiousness. If that individual's score correlates with their own satisfaction, researchers call it an actor association. If it correlates with the other person's satisfaction, that is a partner association. If similarity between the two scores matters after both score levels have been accounted for, it would represent an additional similarity association.

Dyrenforth and colleagues' three-country study and Weidmann and colleagues' 2023 analysis demonstrate why these hypotheses must be tested separately. In a later nine-year analysis, significant actor associations were found without corresponding significant long-term partner associations. The design-specific distinction prevents turning one correlation into a universal story about how couples function.

Does personality similarity predict a better relationship?

Similarity may bring shared activities, compatible routines, or overlapping preferences. But being alike in broad Big Five scores has not consistently predicted greater relationship satisfaction. In Weidmann and colleagues' 2023 study of 1,294 female–male couples, similarity at both domain and facet levels was not robustly associated with satisfaction or life satisfaction after appropriate analysis. Individual trait scores and some partner characteristics were more informative.

People can resemble one another because of where they meet, shared social environments, selection preferences, or life history. This population-level resemblance is distinct from demonstrating that similarity causes enduring relationship satisfaction. Likewise, opposite scores do not establish complementarity as a universal rule.

There is no validated Big Five compatibility chart specifying that two trait profiles must match or differ in order for a relationship to succeed. Compatibility is a distinct forthcoming article owner in the registry, so this article confines itself to the evidence on similarity as part of broader relationship research.

How do traits relate to communication and conflict?

Communication is a pattern of interaction between people. Personality can be associated with habits of emotional expression, disagreement, interpretation, and repair, but a trait scale does not directly measure the quality of a couple's dialogue. A person's report of satisfaction, an observer's rating of a conflict discussion, and a physiological reading capture different phenomena.

Holland and Roisman (2008) studied dating, engaged, and married couples using self-reports, observed emotional tone, and physiological responses during a disagreement. This multimethod design shows why subjective relationship experience should not be assumed equivalent to visible behavior or bodily reactivity. Donnellan and colleagues (2004) likewise included observations as well as questionnaires in their study of enduring marriages.

Practical indicators involve behavior that can be discussed or observed: whether both partners are heard, whether conflict escalates into contempt or intimidation, whether repair occurs after hurtful exchanges, and whether disagreements can take place without fear. These outcomes are relational, and neither partner's score determines them in isolation.

Personality, intimacy, attachment, and trust

Intimacy includes the experience of being understood, respected, and emotionally connected. Personality tendencies may affect self-disclosure or response to a partner's needs, but attachment experiences, expectations, interpersonal learning, and the specific relationship are also relevant.

A study of 196 participants in committed relationships reported associations between Big Five scores and relationship satisfaction and intimacy, including negative associations involving neuroticism and some positive associations involving agreeableness and extraversion. White, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2004). Its findings describe the sample and do not establish universal rules about intimacy.

Adult attachment measures focus more directly on anxiety and avoidance within close relationships. Comparative studies find theoretically meaningful overlap with Big Five measures, while attachment dimensions can show stronger prediction for certain measures of relationship quality. Attachment dimensions and Big Five comparison. Attachment is a separate construct and must not be mechanically reduced to neuroticism or extraversion.

Can a Big Five test predict relationship satisfaction?

A correlation between a measured trait and satisfaction in one sample is a statement about a statistical relationship. Prediction of an individual's outcome requires a validated model, a defined endpoint, data from an appropriate population, and evaluation on new observations. Even when an average association is reliable, it can leave most individual variation unexplained.

In one major benchmark, Joel and colleagues (2020) pooled 43 longitudinal couples datasets involving 11,196 couples. Participants' relationship-specific judgments, including appreciation, perceived commitment, sexual satisfaction, and conflict, were more informative about their current relationship quality than broad individual differences within the studied predictive models. Trait measures and partner reports did not add meaningful predictive information once the strongest relationship-specific measures were considered in those models.

Importantly, the models also failed to predict reliably which relationships would improve or deteriorate over time. This does not establish that personality never matters. It shows how a trait can have an association with present satisfaction without providing sufficient information for useful individual forecasting, especially when current perceptions of the relationship are known.

Are personality traits connected with separation and divorce?

Some Big Five domains have been linked with dissolution-related outcomes in observational studies and reviews. The 2025 review by Visser and Bedard summarizes literature concerning relationship dissatisfaction and separation alongside studies of partner traits. But satisfaction, perceived commitment, intention to leave, actual breakup, and divorce are different outcomes.

A defensible estimate of an individual's risk would need a specified population, follow-up period, established prediction model, calibration, and out-of-sample evaluation. No single Big Five score supplies those requirements. Economic constraints, family responsibilities, institutional context, safety, relationships with other people, and changes in circumstances can all influence whether a partnership continues.

Staying in a relationship does not automatically mean it is healthy. Leaving an unsafe or controlling relationship can be protective. A trait-based argument should never be used to pressure someone to stay, excuse harmful conduct, or describe a breakup as evidence of a personality defect.

Partner preferences, first impressions, and dating

People often say they want a kind, dependable partner. The 2025 intimate-relationships review reports that kindness and dependability are commonly valued in ideal-partner rankings. These qualities overlap imperfectly with agreeableness and conscientiousness. A stated ideal, an actual dating choice, and experienced satisfaction years later remain different outcomes.

Dating introduces selection processes that cannot be reduced to five numbers: who people meet, social opportunity, attraction, trust-building, and mutual interest. Early impressions may change as partners learn how the other person behaves under stress, shares responsibilities, and responds to a firm boundary.

Personality tests embedded in dating websites should therefore be interpreted cautiously. A score match is not proof of honesty, fidelity, kindness, sexual compatibility, or long-term safety. Profiles can start conversations about preferences, but evidence of behavior grows through experience.

Long-term relationships and marriage

The demands of a relationship change over time. Caregiving, employment, financial strain, moves, illness, and parenthood may alter the relevance of particular habits. A person who finds planning easy under ordinary circumstances may struggle when resources become scarce; a generally energetic partner may need quiet while recovering from illness.

The nine-year longitudinal study provides evidence that some own-personality associations persist across extended periods, notably for neuroticism and conscientiousness. Such findings are stronger than a one-time snapshot for temporal interpretation, although they remain observational.

Research also examines whether relationship experience and personal tendencies develop together. A two-year study of 237 couples modeled associations among personality, self-esteem, and satisfaction, with findings consistent with several temporally ordered links. Statistical mediation and temporal ordering contribute to theory; they do not by themselves prove a single causal mechanism.

Do Big Five traits matter for friendships?

Friendships involve companionship, reciprocal support, enjoyment, boundaries, trust, and social opportunity. Broad tendencies toward sociability, warmth, or reliability may influence how people approach these experiences, but different friendships can satisfy different preferences.

The best-known romantic-couple effect sizes should not be applied directly to friendships. Many friendships involve less shared financial or household responsibility than marriage; others are deep, long-standing sources of practical care. Friendships also vary across culture, life stage, distance, and online environments. Specific research is needed before asserting that a correlation obtained among married couples is the same among friends.

In practice, the number of friends, the frequency of socializing, and the quality of friendship are distinct. An introverted person can maintain close and fulfilling friendships. The relevant features of an individual friendship include mutual responsiveness and the actual history of supportive behavior.

Parent–child relationships and parenting

The parent–child relationship has a separate research literature. A 2009 meta-analysis examined 30 studies involving 5,853 parent–child dyads and found generally small associations between parents' Big Five traits and parenting behaviors such as warmth, behavioral control, and autonomy support.

A 2025 meta-analysis and narrative review synthesized 39 studies on parent–child relationship quality, with smaller bodies of evidence for teacher–child relationships and personality similarity. Several child and parent traits were associated with indicators of warmth and conflict, although associations tended to be small to medium and not every domain was significant for every person or outcome.

These findings do not create a personality test for parenting fitness. Children's development, developmental needs, family resources, and safety are essential. Researchers also need to distinguish parent reports, child reports, and independent observation; each can capture different aspects of relationship quality.

How can relationships affect personality over time?

Personality traits describe comparatively enduring tendencies, while states describe experiences or behaviors expressed in a particular situation. A habitually calm person may become distressed during grief, exhaustion, or repeated conflict. This momentary response does not automatically signal a broad trait change. The traits versus states guide explains that distinction.

At the same time, habits, experience, development, and deliberate practice can change some patterns of behavior and personality. Relationships may contribute to these processes, but observational associations cannot identify the direction of influence without further evidence. Relationship satisfaction may shift even when personality scores stay comparatively stable.

The Big Five stability guide and personality change review address long-term development. A couple can often work on specific communication routines without waiting for wholesale changes in broad trait scores.

Measuring personality and relationship quality accurately

Different instruments measure the Big Five through different items and scoring conventions. The BFI-2, for example, assesses five domains and 15 facets. That does not mean the Big Five universally has 15 facets or that all inventories use interchangeable terminology. Soto and John (2017) describe the BFI-2's structure. Other instruments, including NEO inventories and aspect scales, organize lower-level characteristics differently.

Relationship outcomes also require precise measurement. A participant's global rating of satisfaction, a multi-item intimacy scale, partner reports, observed conflict, and actual dissolution cannot be treated as synonyms. Findings can differ depending on whether researchers use a single perspective or collect data from both partners.

For a specific personality score, interpretation depends on the actual instrument and an appropriate normative sample. No universal raw-score cutoff defines 'high' or 'low' for every Big Five test. Percentiles can change across norms. Read what Big Five tests measure, how to understand scores and percentiles, how accurate Big Five tests are, and self-report versus observer ratings.

Why do studies disagree about the same trait?

Research findings may differ because investigators ask distinct questions. An actor effect is not a partner effect; a one-time correlation is not a change trajectory; and satisfaction is not the same as lasting commitment. Studies also differ in national context, life stage, instruments, recruitment, and the amount of statistical information available.

Methods shape the answers. Questionnaires capture personal perceptions, observational coding captures behaviors under a particular task, and longitudinal methods capture change across measured occasions. Even a large sample does not transform an imperfectly measured construct into a different one.

Statistical controls also matter. A Big Five domain can correlate with satisfaction in a simple analysis yet add little prediction when current relationship-specific experiences are already included. Joel and colleagues (2020) illustrate that distinction particularly clearly.

Culture, gender, and relationship diversity

Much canonical couple research uses married heterosexual or female–male samples. Those findings deserve attention on their merits, and their generalizability must be investigated rather than assumed. Visser and Bedard (2025) identify important evidence gaps for LGBTQ+ couples, nonmonogamous partnerships, and long-distance relationships.

Cultural and historical settings shape expectations about marriage, emotional expression, household labor, independence, and the meaning of satisfaction. Big Five instruments translated into different languages also require appropriate validation. Considerable cross-cultural support for the Big Five does not entail that every lexical study reproduces an identical five-factor structure or that relationship effect sizes are universal.

A gender-specific association in one cohort cannot be converted into a general rule about men or women. Groups contain substantial individual variation. Moreover, averages for groups do not predict an individual couple's future.

Personality versus attachment, compatibility, and popular labels

The Big Five measures broad tendencies across settings. Attachment measures focus on relationship-related expectations, security, anxiety, and avoidance. They overlap but are conceptually and operationally distinct. Research directly comparing them has found that attachment dimensions can predict some relationship-quality measures more strongly. Comparative research on attachment and the Big Five.

Compatibility is a practical, multidimensional issue involving choices, expectations, values, boundaries, affection, and circumstances. The Big Five does not supply a validated yes/no compatibility score. Popular shorthand such as 'love languages' is not a substitute for a Big Five inventory, and internet labels must not be treated as clinical diagnoses.

A profile may suggest discussion topics, but the content of the discussion matters: what people need, which agreements are possible, and whether mutual conduct changes.

Can Big Five scores reveal an unsafe or abusive partner?

A personality scale does not determine whether someone will threaten, coerce, intimidate, or harm another person. Group-level correlations between traits and harmful behavior have been reported in some research, but they do not constitute an individually validated violence risk assessment. The 2025 review discusses associations involving harmful relationship outcomes without implying that a Big Five inventory diagnoses abusive conduct.

A person can score high on agreeableness yet act coercively; another may score relatively low yet consistently respect boundaries. The relevant evidence is actual behavior and the effects of that behavior, not a moral interpretation of trait labels.

If intimidation, threats, monitoring, isolation, or disregard for consent is happening, those behaviors require direct attention and potentially specialist support. A trait interpretation must never be used to excuse them.

Using Big Five insights constructively

One practical use of the Big Five is to make recurring differences easier to discuss. A couple might ask how each person feels about spontaneous plans, household obligations, emotional reassurance, private time, public social activity, and disagreement. The goal is shared understanding and concrete adjustments rather than agreement on which score is better.

For example, people with different social preferences may decide which events they attend together and when independent time is welcome. People with different approaches to organization may choose clear responsibilities and regular check-ins. These are illustrative applications, not techniques proven effective specifically because of Big Five testing.

Scores should be interpreted as estimates, with awareness of instrument limitations. If two people's self-reports differ sharply from each other's perceptions, it may be helpful to ask for concrete examples instead of declaring one score 'true.' An individual's profile can inform reflection while observable kindness, consistency, and respect provide essential relationship-specific information.

Frequently asked questions

Which Big Five trait has the strongest link with relationship satisfaction?

Neuroticism often has a comparatively strong negative association with satisfaction; agreeableness and conscientiousness commonly have positive associations. Magnitudes differ between samples and actor or partner analyses. Malouff et al. (2010) and Bach et al. (2025) illustrate the evidence and variation.

Are highly agreeable people always better partners?

No. Agreeableness is an average trait tendency. Respect, care, honesty, behavior during conflict, and commitment to boundaries must be evaluated in the actual relationship. A lower score does not determine someone's moral character.

Can high neuroticism ruin a relationship?

No score has that deterministic meaning. Higher neuroticism is associated, on average, with lower satisfaction in several samples, but context, treatment by a partner, coping strategies, and mutual behaviors matter. A difficult relationship may itself produce justified distress.

Should introverts date other introverts?

There is no validated pairing rule. Differences or similarities in preferred social stimulation can be negotiated. Relationship quality is not equivalent to an extraversion match.

Are opposites more compatible than similar partners?

Neither universal complementarity nor universal similarity is supported as a general Big Five rule. A 2023 study of 1,294 couples did not find robust satisfaction benefits from broad trait or facet similarity.

Do traits predict whether a relationship will last?

Some traits have associations with dissolution-related outcomes in observational research, but an individual outcome cannot be inferred from a trait score. Relationship stability, subjective quality, and safety are separate dimensions.

Does personality matter more than communication?

They are different constructs, and the answer depends on the defined outcome and analysis. Large-scale prediction research found relationship-specific perceptions especially informative about current satisfaction. Trait associations can still be genuine.

Can someone change their personality for a relationship?

Personality can develop over time, while specific habits and behavior may change without major domain-score movement. Such changes should be voluntary and support mutual well-being. See whether Big Five traits can change.

How do I compare my partner's Big Five results with mine?

Use the same validated instrument and appropriate norms, and recognize measurement uncertainty. Differences do not directly imply incompatibility. Discuss recurring behaviors and preferences rather than labeling one score superior.

Does a high or low Big Five score indicate a mental disorder?

No. Personality dimensions are continuous constructs, and a screening result is not a diagnosis. Clinical questions require condition-specific assessment. Universal high/low score thresholds must not be invented across different inventories.

Are Big Five relationship findings valid for LGBTQ+ or nonmonogamous couples?

Some general hypotheses may be relevant, but many classic datasets predominantly concern heterosexual couples. A recent review identifies a need for more direct research covering these populations and relationship arrangements.

Can relationship personality findings be applied to parenting?

Parent–child bonds have their own research base and measures. A 2025 meta-analysis finds modest associations in that context, which should be interpreted separately from romantic couples.

Overall conclusion

Big Five research demonstrates meaningful average associations between broad personality tendencies and how people experience relationships. In romantic partnerships, the most recurring links involve neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, while results for other traits depend more on the sample and measure. A person's own traits and the partner's traits can contribute differently. Similarity between partners is a weak and unreliable shortcut for relationship satisfaction, and longitudinal forecasting remains much harder than describing current satisfaction.

A useful understanding of relationships joins personality with direct evidence of reciprocity, communication, responsiveness, safety, contextual pressures, and shared choices. The five dimensions are tools for describing individual differences, not types, diagnoses, moral verdicts, or predetermined romantic destinies.

References

Bach, K., Koch, M., & Spinath, F. M. (2025). Relationship satisfaction and the Big Five—Utilizing longitudinal data covering 9 years. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, 112887. DOI.

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. DOI.

Du, Q., Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Jak, S., & Zee, M. (2025). When personal becomes relational: A meta-analysis and narrative review on personality traits and children's affective relationships with adults. Educational Research Review, 48, 100688. DOI.

Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702. DOI.

Holland, A. S., & Roisman, G. I. (2008). Big Five personality traits and relationship quality: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5). DOI.

Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J., et al. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071. DOI.

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. DOI.

Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Deković, M., Reijntjes, A. H. A., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents' Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351–362. DOI.

Righetti, F., Faure, R., Zoppolat, G., Meltzer, A., & McNulty, J. (2022). Factors that contribute to the maintenance or decline of relationship satisfaction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 161–173. DOI.

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. DOI.

Visser, B. A., & Bedard, T. (2025). Traits and mates: The role of personality in intimate relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102053. DOI.

Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2017). Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 102–109. DOI.

Weidmann, R., Purol, M. F., Alabdullah, A., Ryan, S. M., Wright, E. G., Oh, J., & Chopik, W. J. (2023). Trait and facet personality similarity and relationship and life satisfaction in romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, 104378. DOI.

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big Five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519–1530. DOI.

Psychological Encyclopedia