Openness to Experience: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model

7 days ago

18 min read

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

Ukrainian Psychological Hub · October 9, 2026

Openness to experience is the Big Five personality dimension concerned with a person's characteristic engagement with unfamiliar ideas, imagination, aesthetic experiences, intellectual exploration, and complexity. It describes an enduring tendency across situations and time, expressed differently according to a person's interests, culture, opportunities, and immediate circumstances. The domain is commonly called Openness, and some research traditions use Openness/Intellect. A personality score places a person along a continuum; it does not assign a fixed personality type.

In the Five-Factor Model, Openness is one of five broad domains alongside Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Researchers identify the domain through patterns of covariation among many more specific characteristics. Its conceptual history includes a continuing discussion of the fifth factor's label, especially 'Intellect' in adjective-based studies and 'Openness to Experience' in questionnaire research. Robert McCrae's foundational 1994 analysis explains why the domain reaches beyond measured intellectual ability.

The central question is how a person typically relates to ideas, sensory impressions, imagination, and unfamiliar possibilities. Openness helps describe that relationship. A person's capacity to reason, creativity, values, emotional well-being, and real-world achievements require separate evidence and assessment.

What Does Openness to Experience Mean?

Openness to experience refers to individual differences in attraction to exploring and engaging with mentally, aesthetically, and experientially varied material. A person who tends toward greater openness may enjoy speculative questions, unfamiliar art, alternative interpretations, or imaginative work. Another may prefer concrete examples, familiar traditions, established practices, and directly useful explanations. Both patterns are normal variations in personality.

This broad definition matters because popular accounts often reduce openness to 'trying new things.' The domain includes intellectual curiosity and inner imaginative activity that may never be visible as adventurous travel or lifestyle experimentation. Someone can love abstract mathematics and dislike changes in daily routine; another can enjoy art and novel places while having little interest in abstract arguments.

McCrae's 1993 study of openness as a basic personality dimension described a broad configuration of imagination, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values within a specific NEO measurement tradition. Those features illustrate the construct's scope while showing why any brief everyday description of openness leaves out something important.

How Openness Fits Into the Big Five Personality Model

The Big Five provides a descriptive map of major, relatively broad patterns in personality. Openness occupies one coordinate on that map. Conscientiousness primarily concerns organization, responsibility, and goal-directed behavior; Extraversion concerns sociability, assertive engagement, and energetic positive involvement; Agreeableness concerns cooperation and interpersonal regard; Neuroticism concerns characteristic negative emotionality. A person's Openness score can combine with many possible positions on the other domains.

The term OCEAN is a mnemonic for the five-domain model, with the first letter standing for Openness. Researchers frequently use 'Big Five' and 'Five-Factor Model' for closely overlapping trait structures, though their intellectual histories and instruments are not identical. A domain is a statistical and psychological summary of correlated tendencies rather than a single behavior or a causal force that acts independently of circumstances.

For a separately owned explanation of the fifth trait's emotional-reactivity dimension, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. The two domains can be discussed together in a person's profile, while each retains its own definition and measures.

Common Expressions of Openness in Everyday Life

Intellectual curiosity and engagement with ideas

Intellectual curiosity can show up as pleasure in asking why something works, enjoyment of conceptual debate, and a willingness to investigate explanations beyond immediate practical need. It may appear in independent reading, technical problem-solving, philosophy, scientific exploration, or questioning a familiar assumption. This quality concerns motivation and interest in ideas; it is not a direct measure of the accuracy of someone's conclusions or their performance on an intelligence test.

Imagination and creative thinking

Some people habitually elaborate imaginary scenarios, explore alternative outcomes, tell stories, or combine concepts that are usually considered separately. Imaginative engagement may support creative activity, yet having a vivid imagination does not by itself establish artistic skill, originality, or recognized achievement. Opportunities to practice, domain knowledge, persistence, training, and the standards of a particular creative field also matter.

Aesthetic awareness and appreciation

Aesthetic openness involves sensitivity to and interest in beauty, form, expressive experiences, music, visual art, literature, and sensory meaning. Its manifestation differs across cultural settings and interests. An intellectually curious person may be relatively indifferent to art, while a deeply aesthetic person may prefer concrete rather than theoretical subjects.

Novelty and variety

Openness can involve willingness to entertain unfamiliar activities or methods, explore a new perspective, or vary an established routine. This dimension is easy to confuse with sensation seeking, impulsivity, or extraversion. Openness to unfamiliar experience need not mean extreme risk-taking, and preference for variety does not automatically imply disregard for safety. The meaningful distinction is whether interest in exploration is characteristic across relevant contexts.

Emotional experience and reflection

In the NEO tradition, one facet concerns attention to and receptivity toward one's inner emotional experience. Interest in nuanced feelings differs from neuroticism, which describes the tendency to experience negative affect. A person may be emotionally reflective without being chronically distressed, and emotionally reactive without expressing high aesthetic or intellectual openness.

Questioning and considering alternatives

Openness often has associations with willingness to consider unconventional ideas. That tendency can facilitate revision of beliefs or experimentation with interpretations. Yet endorsing a particular political position, rejecting a tradition, or accepting an unusual claim is not sufficient to establish openness. The trait describes broader habitual engagement; accuracy, ethics, political ideology, and values require distinct conceptual treatment.

What Are the Facets and Aspects of Openness?

Openness is a broad domain. Researchers often examine narrower aspects and facets to understand the varied characteristics that contribute to a domain score. The number and names of these components depend on the measurement instrument. There is no single universally obligatory list of openness facets and no rule that every Big Five questionnaire captures the same experiences with equal precision.

The six Openness facets in the NEO tradition

Within the NEO-PI-R conceptualization, the domain includes Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, and Values. These represent imaginative involvement, engagement with beauty, receptivity to emotional experiences, interest in novel activities, intellectual curiosity, and willingness to reconsider established values. McCrae's 1993 primary research specifically examined these six related facets. They belong to that instrument family and should be identified as such, including when explaining the NEO's broader 30-facet arrangement across five domains.

A person might score relatively high on NEO Ideas and comparatively lower on Actions. That combination would invite examination of the person's different responses to intellectual novelty and activity-based novelty. The domain average alone can conceal this distinction, and the reliability of particular facet contrasts depends on the inventory and score quality.

The two Openness/Intellect aspects in the Big Five Aspect Scales

The Big Five Aspect Scales research by DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson identified two correlated intermediate-level aspects of the fifth domain: Openness, emphasizing engagement with perceptual, imaginative, and aesthetic information, and Intellect, emphasizing engagement with abstract and semantic information. This two-aspect organization is an empirical model situated between the broad domain and finer-grained traits. Intellect as an aspect refers to a personality disposition, not an IQ score.

The two-aspect approach helps explain why a person might have intense artistic curiosity and less interest in conceptual puzzles, or vice versa. It is a useful research framework rather than proof that every individual's responses can be cleanly partitioned into exactly two psychological systems.

The three Open-Mindedness facets in the BFI-2

The Big Five Inventory–2 uses the domain label Open-Mindedness and specifies Intellectual Curiosity, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Creative Imagination as its three facets. The full BFI-2 has 60 items and measures 15 facets across five domains. It also uses Negative Emotionality as a domain label where older Big Five presentations commonly use Neuroticism. The precise language of a questionnaire matters when reporting scores.

These BFI-2 facets are not interchangeable with the six NEO facets or the two BFAS aspects. A writer who claims that Openness always has exactly six facets, or always has only two aspects, confuses an instrument-specific operationalization with the broader personality domain. Soto and John's research on shortened BFI-2 forms also shows why finer-grained interpretation becomes less dependable as questionnaires are shortened.

What Does High, Moderate, or Low Openness Look Like?

Higher and lower Openness scores describe relative positions on a measured continuum. A higher score on a particular validated questionnaire may be consistent with frequent curiosity about ideas, imaginative engagement, and attraction to aesthetic or novel material. A lower score may suggest a stronger orientation toward familiar frameworks, applied reasoning, established approaches, or continuity. Many people fall between these relative positions and show different patterns across facets.

There are no universal score thresholds that separate everyone into 'high,' 'average,' and 'low' openness. Labels and percentile interpretations depend on the questionnaire, scoring method, reference population, language version, and available norms. The numerical value 70 on one personality website may have no comparable meaning on another. A domain score should never be treated as a permanent psychological identity.

Consider two colleagues faced with an unfamiliar software system. One may enjoy experimenting with functions and imagining novel uses; the other may want documentation, examples, and a tested migration plan. Both can learn the system well. Their approaches may reflect openness, conscientiousness, previous experience, occupational demands, and the consequences of making an error. A single scenario cannot isolate the trait.

Another person may read experimental fiction while keeping a highly predictable schedule, or may enjoy frequent travel while remaining skeptical of abstract speculation. These combinations are ordinary examples of the broad domain containing distinct manifestations. Individual profiles cannot be inferred from a single hobby, profession, clothing style, or preference.

Openness, Intelligence, Creativity, and Imagination

Is openness the same as intelligence?

Openness and cognitive ability are conceptually different. Intelligence tests evaluate performance on reasoning and other cognitive tasks; personality measures assess characteristic patterns of interest, motivation, feeling, and behavior. Some facets associated with intellectual engagement correlate positively with ability measures, but this relationship is statistical, not an identity between constructs. McCrae's 1994 conceptual analysis specifically explains why naming the entire fifth factor 'Intellect' risks conflating personality with ability.

An individual can reason very effectively while preferring familiar intellectual problems, and can strongly enjoy abstract inquiry without performing unusually well on standardized ability tests. A personality questionnaire alone cannot establish intelligence, educational attainment, or expertise.

How is openness associated with creativity?

Across research, openness is among the Big Five traits most consistently associated with creativity, but effect sizes and measurement definitions vary. An integration of prior meta-analyses reported a positive pooled association between openness to experience and creativity, while distinguishing many other contributing psychological characteristics. Creativity can refer to divergent thinking, judged products, self-reported activities, or achievements; those outcomes should not be collapsed into one number.

In four samples totaling 1,035 participants, Kaufman and colleagues reported differential associations: the Openness aspect related more to creative achievement in the arts, and the Intellect aspect related more to creative achievement in the sciences. These results clarify a group-level association in particular samples and measurements. They do not imply that artists necessarily score high on one aspect or that scientific ability can be read directly from personality scores.

Creative imagination and creative accomplishment also differ. Generating an unusual idea is one component of creative work; making it useful, expressive, skillful, or influential requires additional processes. The full Big Five–creativity research question belongs to a separate outcome article in this cluster; this trait-hub overview establishes the relationship without duplicating that specialized search intent.

How Is Openness Measured?

Researchers typically measure Openness by asking respondents how accurately carefully selected descriptions fit them, then aggregating and scoring responses according to a published instrument. Another method uses reports from people who know the respondent. These approaches estimate a psychological construct through observed answers, not direct access to an individual's entire personality.

Common instrument families include the NEO personality inventories, which use their established Openness facet structure; the BFI and BFI-2, with instrument-specific labels and coverage; International Personality Item Pool measures, whose exact scales depend on the selected inventory; and the Big Five Aspect Scales, which distinguish Openness and Intellect. Tools vary in length, item wording, response format, validation samples, permitted uses, and reporting conventions.

Before interpreting any score, establish five things: the exact inventory and version; whether the reported number is raw, averaged, standardized, or percentile-based; the appropriate norm group if one is provided; the reliability and validity of this measure in the relevant population; and which aspects of openness its items actually sample. The Berkeley Personality Lab's BFI-2 materials identify Open-Mindedness and its instrument-specific measurement framework.

A five-item or ten-item online scale may capture a broad tendency for educational purposes, yet it cannot be assumed to support detailed facet analysis or individual decisions. The BFI-2 short-form study illustrates the tradeoff between questionnaire brevity and interpretive specificity.

How should you interpret an Openness score?

Start with the scale's formal label and operational definition. Inspect what the score compares you with, what uncertainty surrounds it, and whether it conceals contrasting facets. Then compare the interpretation with patterns you recognize across time and contexts. A score is more informative when embedded in a wider profile and a legitimate assessment purpose.

A person who scores relatively high on BFI-2 Open-Mindedness may endorse intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, or creative imagination in that instrument's sense. It would be inaccurate to convert that numerical score directly into a NEO Values score, assume it establishes political opinions, or equate it with the BFAS Intellect aspect. Score conversion requires proper empirical linking.

Self-reports, observer ratings, and response bias

Self-reports can be influenced by limited self-insight, a current reference frame, response styles, desired self-image, and cultural interpretations of items. Observer ratings offer another perspective but depend on what the observer sees and the relationship context. Agreement between observers and self-ratings can be informative when the instruments and assessment conditions are appropriate.

For high-stakes evaluation, consider evidence of response validity, fairness, cultural fit, and whether using a personality score is justified for the particular decision. Broad trait scores are unsuitable as clinical diagnoses and should not be used as unreviewed shortcuts to judge someone's intelligence, trustworthiness, or occupational potential.

Trait Openness Versus State Openness

A trait summarizes someone's characteristic level across situations and time. A state describes what is happening in a particular moment or episode. A person whose trait openness is relatively moderate may act especially exploratory during a stimulating seminar and prefer familiar routines during an exhausting week. Conversely, a usually curious person can become cautious in a dangerous or consequential situation.

This distinction matters for questionnaires and for everyday interpretations. Momentary variation does not invalidate a trait tendency, while an overall trait tendency does not predetermine a momentary action. The experimental study of trait–state openness explored how openness-related states can be manipulated and evaluated, underscoring that momentary behavior and enduring traits warrant separate designs.

Does Openness Change With Age or Experience?

Personality traits display both relative stability and meaningful change. People may retain some ordering relative to peers across time while their average levels or narrower characteristics shift over the life course. A change in what a person endorses on a questionnaire also requires interpretation in light of measurement stability, maturation, changing roles, and current circumstances.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions identified changes in measured personality traits across interventions, with the most prominent changes involving emotional stability and extraversion. It should not be presented as proof that a generic creativity exercise or an online challenge reliably produces permanent changes in Openness. Specific intervention evidence, comparison groups, follow-up periods, and outcomes remain essential.

Opportunities to encounter unfamiliar ideas, cultures, artistic forms, and educational experiences may shape behavior and preferences, but causal claims about increasing trait openness require research that distinguishes selection into those experiences from effects of the experiences themselves. People who are already curious may be more likely to seek them out.

Openness Across Cultures and Languages

The Big Five has substantial empirical support across numerous populations and language versions of major questionnaires. Nevertheless, recovering a similar structure from translated inventories is not the same research exercise as extracting personality factors from the vocabulary of an indigenous language. A specific study's sample, translation quality, item selection, and factor-analytic method affect its conclusions.

A prominent cross-cultural NEO study by McCrae and Costa found similar factor structures in six translated-inventory samples. Other work on indigenous personality descriptions has identified differences in the number or salience of factors, including alternative structures in some lexical traditions. It is consequently accurate to describe broad cross-cultural support and ongoing questions about measurement equivalence and locally salient characteristics, rather than claiming perfect reproduction of an identical openness factor in every language.

People also express curiosity and aesthetic interest through culturally available activities. A questionnaire that treats one educational style, hobby, or cultural practice as the universal sign of openness can confuse contextual access with personality. Translation alone does not guarantee that items carry identical meanings across groups.

What Does Openness Predict—and What Can It Not Predict?

Broad personality domains show reproducible statistical associations with numerous outcomes, but personality–outcome research is sensitive to outcome definitions, covariates, populations, study design, and reporting bias. A preregistered replication program reproduced many previously reported Big Five associations while finding that replication effects were generally smaller than original estimates. The appropriate reading is probabilistic and outcome-specific.

Openness may be relevant when studying artistic and intellectual interests, some dimensions of creative behavior, willingness to explore, and engagement with novelty. Yet its usefulness for predicting any particular person's academic performance, career suitability, relationship functioning, or health depends on the complete model, the domain and facet scores, measurement error, and the setting. A correlation observed in a group does not identify the fate of an individual.

Research testing generalizability across demographic groups and analytic approaches found that many personality–outcome associations were robust, while statistical controls weakened a substantial number. It is therefore important to describe what was measured, how predictive accuracy was estimated, and what covariates were considered, rather than converting a modest association into a causal explanation.

At school and in learning

Curiosity about abstract ideas may support some forms of academic engagement, but grades and accomplishments also depend on knowledge, conscientiousness, educational resources, instruction, cognitive abilities, motivation, and context. Openness should not be treated as a test of intelligence or as proof of academic promise. Its relevant association must be assessed separately from achievement and school selection effects.

At work and in choosing a career

Interest in novelty and conceptual exploration may suit some work tasks and environments, while stable routines may suit others. Neither implies competence or lack of competence. Occupational success is multidetermined; broad personality results alone cannot justify specific hiring decisions or personal career prescriptions. This page does not own leadership-specific Big Five search intent.

In relationships

Openness can influence preferences for shared activities, ideas, and experiences, yet relationships also depend on communication, commitments, compatibility across many dimensions, life circumstances, and mutual care. A difference in openness is not a diagnosis of incompatibility. A person's complete trait configuration and actual behavior are more useful than attaching a high- or low-openness label to a relationship.

Is Openness a Mental Health or Personality Disorder Diagnosis?

Openness to experience is a normal-range personality dimension. A high or low score is not a mental disorder, a symptom checklist, or a clinical diagnosis. Mental disorders require appropriate diagnostic criteria and clinical evaluation in their own domains. The five-domain model can be useful in personality research, but broad trait descriptions must not be turned into medical or moral judgments.

Experiencing unusual ideas, vivid imagination, or deep involvement in art does not establish mania, psychosis, autism, ADHD, or any other condition. Likewise, preference for familiar routines is not evidence of a disorder. Clinical concerns should be assessed through relevant symptoms, duration, distress, impairment, context, and professional standards rather than an Openness score.

Some statistical relationships between normal-range traits and psychiatric symptoms are studied in clinical personality science. They are population-level findings requiring careful distinction among trait correlations, risk markers, diagnostic criteria, and causal mechanisms. This article explains the Openness construct and routes clinical questions to their appropriate evidence and care pathways.

Five Common Misunderstandings About Openness

Myth: Being open means being extroverted

Extraversion describes a different domain. A quiet person may be deeply interested in poetry, theoretical physics, unusual music, and imaginative worlds. Someone who enjoys many social events may strongly prefer familiar topics, traditions, and established routines.

Myth: High openness means being more intelligent

The fifth domain includes interest in intellectual ideas, and parts of it correlate with cognitive performance. Its score does not measure IQ, memory capacity, intellectual rigor, or the correctness of beliefs. Curiosity and tested ability are related but distinguishable constructs.

Myth: Low openness means a lack of creativity or tolerance

Lower scores do not determine the presence or absence of creativity, ethical regard, tolerance, or adaptability. They can reflect a preference for concrete and familiar experiences in the instrument being used. Specific values and behaviors require their own evidence.

Myth: Openness always has six facets

The six-facet description belongs to the NEO tradition. The BFI-2 assesses three specific Open-Mindedness facets, and the Big Five Aspect Scales distinguish two correlated aspects within the broader fifth domain. Other valid instruments operationalize the trait differently.

Myth: Personality scores determine future behavior

Traits describe typical tendencies and improve some probabilistic group-level predictions. They do not eliminate situational influences, learning, opportunity, personal choice, or measurement uncertainty. Making an individual prediction requires an explicitly validated predictive model for that use case.

Practical Ways to Understand Your Own Openness

Think about your characteristic responses to different kinds of experience over months or years, rather than a single exciting week. Do you enjoy trying new conceptual frameworks? Do you seek novel artistic experiences? Are you drawn to speculative questions, creative imagery, or unfamiliar activities? Your answers may differ across domains, and those differences are informative.

When reviewing a scientifically developed questionnaire, read its named scale descriptions, look for suitable normative interpretation if provided, and notice whether scores come from your own ratings, other people's ratings, or both. Consider how access to education, disability accommodations, socioeconomic resources, and culture shape opportunities to express interests. Interpretation becomes more precise when scores are discussed with these contextual constraints.

A constructive use of the concept is to choose learning environments, hobbies, or collaboration styles with a clearer understanding of personal preferences. You can enjoy experimenting while building structure for reliable execution, or prefer familiar methods while deliberately sampling new ideas. Personality tendencies are inputs to reflection and planning rather than fixed instructions about what to become.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is openness to experience in simple terms?

Openness is the Big Five personality dimension that describes a person's usual interest in ideas, imagination, beauty, intellectual exploration, and unfamiliar experiences. It is a continuum measured by research questionnaires, and it can look different across aspects of a person's life.

What is a high Openness score?

A relatively high score indicates that a person endorsed more openness-related descriptions compared with an appropriate reference or scoring standard. The exact meaning depends on the instrument, its facet coverage, and its norms. There is no universal number that defines high openness for all tests.

What is a low Openness score?

A relatively lower score often indicates greater preference for familiarity, concrete ideas, or established approaches on the specific questionnaire. It does not indicate a cognitive deficit, moral failing, social intolerance, or personality disorder.

Is Openness the same as open-mindedness?

In everyday language, the phrases overlap. In personality measurement, 'Open-Mindedness' is specifically the BFI-2 domain label, which covers Intellectual Curiosity, Aesthetic Sensitivity, and Creative Imagination. The everyday meaning of fair-mindedness or willingness to update beliefs should not automatically be assumed from the test label.

Is Openness the same as Intellect?

Not exactly. The label Intellect has been used historically for the fifth lexical factor, and the Big Five Aspect Scales identify Intellect as one of two correlated aspects within Openness/Intellect. It measures engagement with abstract and semantic ideas as a personality characteristic, not intelligence-test performance.

Does openness make someone creative?

Openness has a positive statistical relationship with several measures of creativity, but creative accomplishments depend on knowledge, skill, time, opportunities, discipline, and the relevant field. Research does not support treating the trait as a sufficient condition for talent.

Can a person be open to ideas but dislike travel?

Yes. Intellectual engagement, aesthetic experience, imagination, and willingness to change everyday activities are distinct features that may not align perfectly in an individual. The available facets depend on the instrument used.

Can openness change?

Personality traits can change with development and sometimes with interventions or experiences. Evidence of change in particular openness components depends on time frame, measurement, study design, and outcomes. Deliberately trying something new is a state or activity; it does not by itself prove lasting trait change.

What is the difference between Openness and Neuroticism?

Openness concerns typical engagement with ideas and experiences, while Neuroticism concerns susceptibility to negative emotional reactions. The domains can coexist at many different levels in the same person. For a focused discussion of both in a trait profile, read Neuroticism and Openness: Creativity, Sensitivity, and Personality Profiles.

Is openness used to diagnose mental illness?

No. A normal-range Big Five score can contribute to scientific description or research, but it is not a diagnostic result. Mental health assessment uses the criteria and evaluation procedures relevant to the condition.

Conclusion

Openness to experience is the Big Five domain of characteristic engagement with ideas, imagination, aesthetic experience, and forms of novelty. Its scientific value comes from representing a broad and measurable dimension with narrower instrument-specific components. A careful interpretation identifies the measure, separates personality interest from tested ability, distinguishes group-level relationships from individual forecasts, and respects the many ways openness can be expressed.

Within the English Psychology Hub knowledge network, this Openness trait hub connects conceptually to the Big Five model hub, domain–aspect–facet hierarchy, high-versus-low interpretation, instruments and scores, profile research, creativity, intelligence, stability and change, and scientific prediction limits. Those dedicated pages will be linked here as their canonical English URLs become live.

References

da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.

Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to experience and Intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156.

McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.2190/H8H6-QYKR-KEU8-GAQ0.

McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080404.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9145021/.

Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088.

Soto, C. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project. Psychological Science, 30(5), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831612.

Soto, C. J. (2021). Do links between personality and life outcomes generalize? Testing the robustness of trait–outcome associations across gender, age, ethnicity, and analytic approaches. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619900572.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017a). 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.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017b). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004.

University of California, Berkeley, Personality Lab. (n.d.). Big Five Inventory–2: Research and instrument information. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bfi.html.

Psychological Encyclopedia