Big Five personality traits

{{Short description|Personality model consisting of five broad dimensions}} thumb|The Big Five personality traits {{Psychology sidebar}}  In psychology and psychometrics, the '''Big Five personality trait model''' or '''five-factor model''' ('''FFM'''), sometimes called by the mnemonic acronym '''OCEAN''' or '''CANOE''', is a scientific model for measuring and describing human personality traits. The framework groups variation in personality into five separate factors, all measured on a continuous scale:<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202289008 |doi=10.1177/0146167202289008 |title=The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values |year=2002 |last1=Roccas |first1=Sonia |last2=Sagiv |first2=Lilach |last3=Schwartz |first3=Shalom H. |last4=Knafo |first4=Ariel |journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin |volume=28 |issue=6 |pages=789–801 |s2cid=144611052|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  * ''openness'' (''O'') measures creativity, curiosity, and willingness to entertain new ideas. * ''conscientiousness'' (''C'') measures self-control, diligence, and attention to detail. * ''extraversion'' (''E'') measures boldness, energy, and social interactivity. * ''agreeableness'' (''A'') measures kindness, helpfulness, and willingness to cooperate. * ''neuroticism'' (''N'') measures depression, irritability, and proneness to anxiety.

The five-factor model was developed using empirical research into the language people used to describe themselves, which found patterns and relationships between the words people use to describe themselves. For example, because someone described as "hard-working" is more likely to be described as "prepared" and less likely to be described as "messy", all three traits are grouped under conscientiousness. Using dimensionality reduction techniques, psychologists showed that most (though not all) of the variance in human personality can be explained using only these five factors.

Research into personality inventories found five broad dimensions could explain most variation in human personality and temperament,<ref name="Goldberg, L. R. (1993).">{{cite journal |vauthors=Goldberg LR |title=The structure of phenotypic personality traits |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_american-psychologist_1993-01_48_1/page/26 |journal=American Psychologist |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=26–34 |date=January 1993 |pmid=8427480 |doi=10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26|bibcode=1993AmPsy..48...26G |s2cid=20595956}}</ref><ref name="Costa1992">{{cite book |vauthors=Costa PT, McCrae RR |date=1992 |title=Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual |location=Odessa, Florida |publisher=Psychological Assessment Resources}}</ref> with more-detailed analyses typically dividing the traits into more specific subfactors. For example, extraversion is typically associated with qualities such as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.<ref>{{cite book |title=Personality Traits |last1=Matthews |first1=Gerald |last2=Deary |first2=Ian J. |last3=Whiteman |first3=Martha C. |name-list-style=vanc |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-521-83107-9 |edition=2nd |url=http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits,%202nd%20Ed.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205103724/http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits%2C%202nd%20Ed.pdf |archive-date=2014-12-05}}</ref> Other models, like HEXACO, supplement the Big 5 traits with additional variables.

==History==

The Big Five model originated from the lexical hypothesis, which suggests that the most important personality traits are encoded in language.<ref name="Shrout-1995">{{cite book |last1=Shrout |first1=Patrick E. |title=Personality research, methods, and theory |last2=Fiske |first2=Susan T. |date=1995 |publisher=Psychology Press |name-list-style=vanc}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Allport GW, Odbert HS |year=1936 |title=Trait names: A psycholexical study |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-monographs_1936_47_212/page/211 |journal=Psychological Monographs |volume=47 |page=211 |doi=10.1037/h0093360}}</ref><ref name="Tupes-1961">{{cite journal |vauthors=Tupes EC, Christal RE |date=1961 |title=Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. |journal=USAF ASD Tech. Rep. |volume=60 |issue=61–97 |pages=225–51 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x |pmid=1635043}}</ref><ref name="Norman-1963">{{cite journal |vauthors=Norman WT |date=June 1963 |title=Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=66 |issue=6 |pages=574–83 |doi=10.1037/h0040291 |pmid=13938947}}</ref> Raymond Cattell built upon earlier lexical work by reducing thousands of descriptors to 16 personality factors,<ref name="Cattell 1957">{{cite journal |vauthors=Bagby RM, Marshall MB, Georgiades S |date=February 2005 |title=Dimensional personality traits and the prediction of DSM-IV personality disorder symptom counts in a nonclinical sample |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-disorders_2005-02_19_1/page/53 |journal=Journal of Personality Disorders |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=53–67 |doi=10.1521/pedi.19.1.53.62180 |pmid=15899720}}</ref><ref>{{cite report |title=A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF |date=1976 |publisher=Institute for Personality & Ability Testing |location=Champaign, IL |vauthors=Karson S, O'Dell JW}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Krug SE, Johns EF |year=1986 |title=A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF |journal=Psychological Reports |volume=59 |issue=2 |pages=683–93 |doi=10.2466/pr0.1986.59.2.683 |s2cid=145610003}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook of personality theory and testing, Volume 2: Personality measurement and assessment. |vauthors=Cattell HE, Mead AD |date=2007 |publisher=Sage |veditors=Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH |location=London |chapter=The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)}}{{page needed|date=November 2014}}</ref> later clustered into five global traits, which some consider the "original Big Five".<ref name="OriginalBig5">{{Cite journal |last=Cattell |first=H. E. P. |year=1996 |title=The original big five: A historical perspective |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-11586-001 |journal=European Review of Applied Psychology |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=5–14}}</ref> Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal then analyzed peer ratings of U.S. Air Force officers and derived five core dimensions: Surgency, Agreeableness, Dependability, Emotional Stability, and Culture—an approach later popularized by Warren Norman. In the 1980s, John M. Digman and colleagues consolidated evidence from previous studies and reaffirmed five major traits,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Digman JM |date=June 1989 |title=Five robust trait dimensions: development, stability, and utility |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=195–214 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x |pmid=2671337}}</ref> while Paul Costa Jr and Robert R. McCrae developed the NEO model, starting with three factors and expanding it into the widely accepted Five Factor Model (FFM).<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Costa PT, McCrae RR |date=September 1976 |title=Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-gerontology_1976-09_31_5/page/564 |journal=Journal of Gerontology |volume=31 |issue=5 |pages=564–70 |doi=10.1093/geronj/31.5.564 |pmid=950450}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The NEO Personality Inventory manual. |vauthors=Costa PT, McCrae RR |date=1985 |publisher=Psychological Assessment Resources |location=Odessa, FL}}</ref><ref name="pmid3820081">{{cite journal |vauthors=McCrae RR, Costa PT |date=January 1987 |title=Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_1987-01_52_1/page/81 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=81–90 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 |pmid=3820081 |bibcode=1987JPSP...52...81M |s2cid=7893185}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=McCrae RR, John OP |date=June 1992 |title=An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=175–215 |citeseerx=10.1.1.470.4858 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x |pmid=1635039 |s2cid=10596836}}</ref> These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, making the sets of five factors have varying names and meanings. However, all have been found to be strongly correlated with their corresponding factors.<ref>{{cite web |title=International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) |url=http://sjdm.org/dmidi/International_Personality_Item_Pool.html |work=The Society for Judgment and Decision Making}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HG |date=February 2006 |title=The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=84–96 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 |s2cid=13274640}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. |vauthors=Conn S, Rieke M |date=1994 |publisher=Institute for Personality & Ability Testing |location=Champaign, IL}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Cattell HE |year=1996 |title=The original big five: A historical perspective |journal=European Review of Applied Psychology |volume=46 |pages=5–14}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Grucza RA, Goldberg LR |date=October 2007 |title=The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-assessment_2007-10_89_2/page/167 |journal=Journal of Personality Assessment |volume=89 |issue=2 |pages=167–87 |doi=10.1080/00223890701468568 |pmid=17764394 |s2cid=42394327}}</ref>

In 1884, British scientist Sir Francis Galton became the first person known to consider deriving a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits by sampling language.<ref name="Shrout-1995" /> The idea that this may be possible is known as the lexical hypothesis.

British-American psychologist William McDougall of Duke University proposed five factors in 1929.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McDougall |first=W. |date=October 1929 |title=The chemical theory of temperament applied to introversion and extroversion. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0075883 |journal=The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=293–309 |doi=10.1037/h0075883 |issn=0096-851X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In 1932, these "five distinguishable but inseparable factors" were listed as "intellect, character, temperament, disposition and temper", and have been seen as "anticipating" the adoption of the Big Five model in subsequent years.<ref name="Digman">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Digman JM |year=1990 |title=Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_annual-review-of-psychology_1990_41/page/417 |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |volume=41 |pages=417–40 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=McDOUGALL |first=William |date=September 1932 |title=OF THE WORDS CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1932.tb02209.x |journal=Journal of Personality |language=en |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=3–16 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1932.tb02209.x |issn=0022-3506|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Swiss psychologist Franziska Baumgarten of the University of Bern implemented the lexical hypothesis, publishing the first psycholexical classification of personality-descriptive terms in 1933. Using dictionaries and characterology publications, she identified 1093 separate terms in the German language used for the description of personality and mental states.<ref name="allport and odbert">{{cite book |title=Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.|publisher=Psychological Review Company|author1=Allport, G. W.|author2=Odbert, H. S.|year=1936|location=Albany, NY}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Baumgarten |first=Franziska |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Die_Charaktereigenschaften.html?id=kCZRNQAACAAJ |title=Die Charaktereigenschaften |date=1933 |publisher=A. Francke |language=de}}</ref>

In 1936, American psychologists Gordon Allport of Harvard University and Henry Odbert of Dartmouth College implemented the lexical hypothesis using the English language. They organised for three anonymous people to categorise adjectives from Webster's New International Dictionary and a list of common slang words. The result was a list of 4504 adjectives they believed were descriptive of observable and relatively permanent traits.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Allport GW, Odbert HS |year=1936 |title=Trait names: A psycholexical study |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-monographs_1936_47_1 |journal=Psychological Monographs |volume=47 |page=211 |doi=10.1037/h0093360}}</ref>

In 1943, British-American psychologist Raymond Cattell of Harvard University took Allport and Odbert's list and reduced this to a list of roughly 160 terms by eliminating words with very similar meanings. To these, he added terms from 22 other psychological categories, and additional "interest" and "abilities" terms. This resulted in a list of 171 traits. From this he used factor analysis to derive 60 "personality clusters or syndromes" and an additional 7 minor clusters.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cattell |first=Raymond B. |date=October 1943 |title=The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0054116 |journal=The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=476–506 |doi=10.1037/h0054116 |issn=0096-851X |url-access=subscription}}</ref> Cattell then narrowed this down to 35 terms, and later added a 36th factor in the form of an IQ measure. Through factor analysis from 1945 to 1948, he created 11 or 12 factor solutions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cattell |first1=Raymond B. |date=1945 |title=The Description of Personality: Principles and Findings in a Factor Analysis |journal=The American Journal of Psychology |volume=58 |issue=1 |pages=69–90 |doi=10.2307/1417576 |jstor=1417576}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cattell |first=Raymond B. |date=1947-09-01 |title=Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors |journal=Psychometrika |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=197–220 |doi=10.1007/BF02289253 |issn=1860-0980 |pmid=20260610 |s2cid=28667497}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cattell |first1=Raymond B. |date=July 1948 |title=The primary personality factors in women compared with those in men |journal=British Journal of Statistical Psychology |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=114–130 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8317.1948.tb00231.x}}</ref>

In 1947, German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck of University College London published his book ''Dimensions of Personality''. He posited that the two most important personality dimensions were "Extraversion" and "Neuroticism", a term that he coined.<ref>{{Cite book |first=H.J. |last=Eysenck |url=http://archive.org/details/dimensionsofpers0000hjey_e0a7 |title=Dimensions of Personality |date=1950 |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited |via=Internet Archive}}</ref>

In July 1949, American psychologist Donald Fiske of the University of Chicago used 22 terms either directly taken or adapted from Cattell's 1947 study, and through surveys of male university students and statistics derived five factors: "Social Adaptability", "Emotional Control", "Conformity", "Inquiring Intellect", and "Confident Self-expression".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fiske |first=Donald W. |date=July 1949 |title=Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0057198 |journal=The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=329–344 |doi=10.1037/h0057198 |issn=0096-851X |pmid=18146776|hdl=2027.42/179031 |hdl-access=free|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In the same year, Cattell, (with Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber), found 4 factors in addition to those they had found before, which they believed consisted of information that could only be provided through self-rating. With this understanding, they created and published the sixteen factor 16PF Questionnaire.<ref>Cattell, R.B. (1949): ''The sixteen personality factor questionnaire'', Institute for Personality and Ability Testing</ref><ref name="Cattell, R.B. 1973">Cattell, R.B. (1973). ''Personality and mood by questionnaire.'' San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.{{page needed|date=November 2020}}</ref><ref>Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York: World Book</ref><ref>Cattell, H. B. (1989). "The 16PF: Personality In Depth." Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Linn |first=Robert L. |date=1996 |title=In Memoriam: Maurice M. Tatsuoka (1922-1996) |journal=Journal of Educational Measurement |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=125–127 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-3984.1996.tb00484.x |issn=0022-0655 |jstor=1435178}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20152016/161898|title=House Resolution 1925|website=legis.ga.gov}}</ref>

In 1953, John W French of Educational Testing Service published an extensive meta-analysis of personality trait factor studies.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=French |first=John W. |date=March 1953 |title=The Description of Personality Measurements in Terms of Rotated Factors |journal=Eric |language=en |publisher=Institute of Educational Sciences |id={{ERIC|ED079418|url-access=free}}}}</ref>

In 1957, Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal, research psychologists at the Lackland Air Force Base, undertook a personality trait study of US Air Force officers. Each was rated by their peers using Cattell's 35 terms (or in some cases, the 30 most reliable terms).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tupes |first=Ernest C. |date=1957 |title=Relationships between behavior trait ratings by peers and later officer performance of USAF Officer Candidate School graduates |url=https://doi.apa.org/get-pe-doi.cfm?doi=10.1037/e522552009-001 |language=en |doi=10.1037/e522552009-001 |access-date=2023-02-10 |website=PsycEXTRA Dataset|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Wd6dpewPPkMC |title=AFPTRC-TN. |date=1957 |publisher=Air Force Personnel & Training Research Center, Lackland Air Force Base |language=en}}</ref> In 1958, Tupes and Christal began a US Air Force study by taking 37 personality factors and other data found in Cattell's 1947 paper, Fiske's 1949 paper, and Tupes' 1957 paper.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1995 |title=A Memorium to Raymond E. Christal |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/get-pe-doi.cfm?doi=10.1037/e568692011-006 |language=en |doi=10.1037/e568692011-006 |website=PsycEXTRA Dataset}}</ref> Through statistical analysis, they derived five factors they labeled "Surgency", "Agreeableness", "Dependability", "Emotional Stability", and "Culture".<ref name="Tupes-1958">{{Cite book |last1=Tupes |first1=Ernest C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S4Ul-sQV7_AC |title=Stability of Personality Trait Rating Factors Obtained Under Diverse Conditions |last2=Christal |first2=Raymond C. |date=1958 |publisher=Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center, Air Research and Development Command, United States Air Force |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Christal |first=Raymond E. |date=June 1992 |title=Author's Note on "Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings" |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00972.x |journal=Journal of Personality |language=en |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=221–224 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00972.x |issn=0022-3506 |pmid=1635042|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In addition to the influence of Cattell and Fiske's work, they strongly noted the influence of French's 1953 study.<ref name="Tupes-1958" /> Tupes and Christal further tested and explained their 1958 work in a 1961 paper.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tupes |first1=Ernest C. |last2=Christal |first2=Raymond E. |date=May 1961 |title=Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HlGIjgEACAAJ |journal=Aeronautical Systems Division Technical Reports and Technical Notes |volume=26 |issue=2}}</ref><ref name="Tupes-1961" />

Warren Norman<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Goldberg |first=Lewis R. |date=1998-12-01 |title=Warren T. Norman (1930–1998): An Appreciation |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656698922243 |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |language=en |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=391–396 |doi=10.1006/jrpe.1998.2224 |issn=0092-6566|url-access=subscription }}</ref> of the University of Michigan replicated Tupes and Christal's work in 1963. He relabeled "Surgency" as "Extroversion or Surgency", and "Dependability" as "Conscientiousness". He also found four subordinate scales for each factor.<ref name="Norman-1963" /> Norman's paper was much more read than Tupes and Christal's papers had been. Norman's later Oregon Research Institute colleague Lewis Goldberg continued this work.<ref name="ipip.ori.org">{{Cite web |title=Finding Scales to Measure Particular Personality Constructs |url=https://ipip.ori.org/Finding_Scales_to_Measure_Particular_Constructs.htm |access-date=2023-02-11 |website=ipip.ori.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Advances in personality assessment |vauthors=Goldberg LR |publisher=Erlbaum |year=1982 |veditors=Spielberger CD, Butcher JN |volume=1 |location=Hillsdale, NJ |pages=201–34 |chapter=From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Norman WT, Goldberg LR |year=1966 |title=Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_1966-12_4_6/page/681 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=4 |issue=6 |pages=681–91 |doi=10.1037/h0024002}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Peabody D, Goldberg LR |date=September 1989 |title=Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_1989-09_57_3/page/552 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=552–67 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552 |pmid=2778639}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. |vauthors=Saucier G, Goldberg LR |publisher=Guilford |year=1996 |veditors=Wiggins JS |location=New York |chapter=The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model}}{{page needed|date=November 2014}}</ref>

In the 4th edition of the 16PF Questionnaire released in 1968, 5 "global factors" derived from the 16 factors were identified: "Extraversion", "Independence", "Anxiety", "Self-control" and "Tough-mindedness".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Richard Miller |url=https://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/520%2016PF%20Cattell%20and%20Mead.pdf}}</ref> 16PF advocates have since called these "the original big five".<ref name="OriginalBig5" />

Six factors were found to be present in Finnish people by {{Interlanguage link|Jorma Kuusinen|fi|Jorma Kuusinen (professori)}} of the University of Jyvaskyla in 1969, "Trustworthiness", "Self-confidence", "Rationality", "Uniqueness", "Tolerance", and "Sociability".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kuusinen |first=Jorma |date=1969 |title=Affective and denotative structures of personality ratings. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027713 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=181–188 |doi=10.1037/h0027713 |issn=1939-1315|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last=Goldman |first=Lewis |title=Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Volume 2 |year=1981 |editor-last=Wheeler |editor-first=L |chapter=Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons |chapter-url=https://projects.ori.org/lrg/PDFs_papers/universals.lexicon.81.pdf}}</ref>

In 1978, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae of the National Institutes of Health published a book chapter describing their Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness (NEO) model. The model was based on the three factors in its name.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Costa |first1=Paul T. |title=The Clinical Psychology of Aging |last2=McCrae |first2=Robert R. |date=1978 |publisher=Springer US |isbn=978-1-4684-3342-5 |editor-last=Storandt |editor-first=Martha |place=Boston, MA |pages=119–143 |language=en |chapter=Objective Personality Assessment |doi=10.1007/978-1-4684-3342-5_5 |editor2-last=Siegler |editor2-first=Ilene C. |editor3-last=Elias |editor3-first=Merrill F.}}</ref> They used Eysenck's concept of "Extraversion" rather than Carl Jung's.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McCrae |first1=Robert R. |last2=Costa |first2=Paul T. |date=December 1980 |title=Openness to experience and ego level in Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test: Dispositional contributions to developmental models of personality. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0077727 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |language=en |volume=39 |issue=6 |pages=1179–1190 |doi=10.1037/h0077727 |issn=1939-1315|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Each factor had six facets. The authors expanded their explanation of the model in subsequent papers.

Also in 1978, British psychologist Peter Saville of Brunel University applied statistical analysis to 16PF results, and determined that the model could be reduced to five factors, "Anxiety", "Extraversion", "Warmth", "Imagination" and "Conscientiousness".<ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Saville |first=Peter |title=A critical analysis of Cattell's model of personality |date=1978 |degree=Thesis |publisher=Brunel University School of Sport and Education PhD Theses |url=http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7732 |language=en}}</ref>

At a 1980 symposium in Honolulu, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available personality instruments of the day.<ref>{{cite report |title=Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality |date=May 1980 |location=Honolulu, HI |page= |vauthors=Goldberg LR |work=Symposium presentation at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}</ref> In 1981, Digman and Takemoto-Chock of the University of Hawaiʻi reanalysed data from Cattell, Tupes, Norman, Fiske and Digman. They re-affirmed the validity of the five factors, naming them "Friendly Compliance vs. Hostile Non-compliance", "Extraversion vs. Introversion", "Ego Strength vs. Emotional Disorganization", "Will to Achieve" and "Intellect". They also found weak evidence for the existence of a sixth factor, "Culture".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Digman |first1=John M. |last2=Takemoto-Chock |first2=Naomi K. |date=1981-04-01 |title=Factors In The Natural Language Of Personality: Re-Analysis, Comparison, And Interpretation Of Six Major Studies |journal=Multivariate Behavioral Research |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=149–170 |doi=10.1207/s15327906mbr1602_2 |issn=0027-3171 |pmid=26825420}}</ref>

1981 also saw Lewis Goldberg coin the term "Big Five" for the factors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Novikova |first=Irina A. |last2=Vorobyeva |first2=Alexandra A. |date=2019-03-25 |title=The Five‐Factor Model |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119519348.ch33 |journal=Cross‐Cultural Psychology |language=en |pages=685–706 |doi=10.1002/9781119519348.ch33 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250614144857/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119519348.ch33 |archive-date=2025-06-14|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":3" />

Peter Saville and his team included a five-factor "Pentagon" model as part of the Occupational Personality Questionnaires (OPQ) in 1984. This was the first commercially available Big Five test.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Society, August 2012 |url=https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/society-august-2012 |access-date=2023-02-11 |website=BPS |language=en}}</ref> Its factors are "Extroversion", "Vigorous", "Methodical", "Emotional Stability", and "Abstract".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Stanton |first1=N.A. |last2=Mathews |first2=G. |last3=Graham |first3=N.C. |last4=Brimelow |first4=C. |date=1991-01-01 |title=The Opq and the Big Five |journal=Journal of Managerial Psychology |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=25–27 |doi=10.1108/02683949110140750 |issn=0268-3946}}</ref>

This was closely followed by another commercial test, the NEO PI three-factor personality inventory, published by Costa and McCrae in 1985. It used the three NEO factors. The methodology employed in constructing the NEO instruments has since been subject to critical scrutiny.<ref name="Boyle_1995">{{cite book |title=International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence |vauthors=Boyle GJ, Stankov L, Cattell RB |date=1995 |isbn=|veditors=Saklofske DH, Zeidner M |pages=417–46 |chapter=Measurement and statistical models in the study of personality and intelligence}}{{ISBN?}}</ref>{{rp|431–33}}

In 1990, J.M. Digman of the University of Hawaii further advanced his five-factor model of personality,<ref name="Digman" /> which Goldberg put at the highest organised level,<ref name="Goldberg, L. R. (1993)." /> and was highly cited.<ref>{{Cite book |last=McCrae |first=Robert |url=https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Cambridge_Handbook_of_Personality_Ps/KP8EEAAAQBAJ |title=The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology |date=2020-09-03 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-27122-6 |editor-last=Corr |editor-first=Phillip |language=en |chapter=The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Consensus and Controversy}}</ref>

In 1992, the NEO PI evolved into the NEO PI-R, adding the factors "Agreeableness" and "Conscientiousness",<ref name="ipip.ori.org" /> and becoming a Big Five instrument. This set the names for the factors that are now most commonly used. The NEO maintainers called their model the "Five Factor Model" (FFM). Each NEO personality dimension has six subordinate facets.

Wim Hofstee at the University of Groningen used a lexical hypothesis approach with the Dutch language to develop what became the International Personality Item Pool in the 1990s. Further development in Germany and the United States saw the pool based on three languages. Its questions and results have been mapped to various Big Five personality typing models.<ref>{{Cite web |title=History of the IPIP |url=https://ipip.ori.org/HistoryOfTheIPIP.htm |access-date=2023-02-11 |website=ipip.ori.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Lewis R. |last2=Johnson |first2=John A. |last3=Eber |first3=Herbert W. |last4=Hogan |first4=Robert |last5=Ashton |first5=Michael C. |last6=Cloninger |first6=C. Robert |last7=Gough |first7=Harrison G. |year=2006 |title=The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures |url=https://ipip.ori.org/Goldberg_etal_2006_IPIP_JRP.pdf |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=40 |pages=84–96 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 |s2cid=13274640 |via=Elsevier}}</ref>

Kibeom Lee and Michael Ashton released a book describing their HEXACO model in 2004.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised |url=https://hexaco.org/history |access-date=2023-02-11 |website=HEXACO}}</ref> It adds a sixth factor, "Honesty-Humility" to the five (which it calls "Emotionality", "Extraversion", "Agreeableness", "Conscientiousness", and "Openness to Experience"). Each of these factors has four facets.

In 2007, Colin DeYoung, Lena C. Quilty and Jordan Peterson concluded that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates.<ref name="DeYoung" /> This was derived through factor analyses of two data samples with the International Personality Item Pool, followed by cross-correlation with scores derived from 10 genetic factors identified as underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets.<ref>{{cite book |last=Jang |first=KL |date=2002 |chapter=The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285086638 |title=The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment |volume=2 |pages=223–257 |via=ResearchGate}}</ref>

By 2009, personality and social psychologists generally agreed that both personal and situational variables are needed to account for human behavior.<ref name="negative affect">{{Cite journal |last1=Lucas |first1=Richard E. |last2=Donnellan |first2=M. Brent |author-link2=M. Brent Donnellan |name-list-style=vanc |year=2009 |title=If the person-situation debate is really over, why does it still generate so much negative affect? |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=43 |issue=3 |pages=146–49 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.009}}</ref>

An FFM-associated test was used by Cambridge Analytica, and was part of the "psychographic profiling"<ref>{{Cite web |last=Alexander |first=Nix |date=2017-03-03 |title=From Mad Men to Math Men |url=https://freud.online/articles/from-mad-men-to-math-men |access-date=2022-10-23 |website=Freud Online |language=en}}</ref> controversy during the 2016 US presidential election.<ref name="ca">{{cite web |title=About Us |url=https://cambridgeanalytica.org/about |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216023554/https://cambridgeanalytica.org/about |archive-date=16 February 2016 |access-date=27 December 2015 |publisher=Cambridge Analytica |df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="wpost">{{cite news |last=Sellers |first=Frances Stead |name-list-style=vanc |date=19 October 2015 |title=Cruz campaign paid $750,000 to 'psychographic profiling' company |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-campaign-paid-750000-to-psychographic-profiling-company/2015/10/19/6c83e508-743f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html |access-date=7 February 2016 |newspaper=The Washington Post |df=dmy-all}}</ref>

==Descriptions of the particular personality traits==

When factor analysis is applied to personality survey data, semantic associations between aspects of personality and specific terms are often applied to the same person. For example, someone described as conscientious is more likely to be described as "always prepared" rather than "messy". These associations use terms from common language to describe the human personality, temperament, and psyche.<ref name="Goldberg, L. R. (1993)." /><ref name="Costa1992" /> These traits are not black and white; each one is a spectrum, with personality varying continuously across each of these dimensions (unlike in the MBTI inventory).<ref name="De Bolle-2012" />

Beneath each proposed global factor, there are a number of correlated and more specific primary factors. For example, extraversion is typically associated with qualities such as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.<ref>{{cite book |title=Personality Traits |last1=Matthews |first1=Gerald |last2=Deary |first2=Ian J. |last3=Whiteman |first3=Martha C. |name-list-style=vanc |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-521-83107-9 |edition=2nd |url=http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits,%202nd%20Ed.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205103724/http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits%2C%202nd%20Ed.pdf |archive-date=2014-12-05}}</ref>

===Openness to experience===

Openness to experience is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, open to emotion, sensitive to beauty, and willing to try new things. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are also more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. Open people can be perceived as unpredictable or lacking focus, and more likely to engage in risky behaviour or drug-taking.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZT2eAwAAQBAJ|title=Psy-Q: You know your IQ – now test your psychological intelligence|last=Ambridge|first=Ben|year=2014|publisher=Profile|isbn=978-1-78283-023-8|page=11|name-list-style=vanc|via=Google Books}}</ref> Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualisation specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness want to be fulfilled by persevering and are characterised as pragmatic and data-driven{{snd}}sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualise the openness factor as there is a lack of biological support for this particular trait. Openness has not shown a significant association with any brain regions as opposed to the other four traits which did when using brain imaging to detect changes in volume associated with each trait.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=DeYoung|first1=Colin G.|last2=Hirsh|first2=Jacob B.|last3=Shane|first3=Matthew S.|last4=Papademetris|first4=Xenophon|last5=Rajeevan|first5=Nallakkandi|last6=Gray|first6=Jeremy R.|date=2010|title=Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five|journal=Psychological Science|volume=21|issue=6|pages=820–828 |doi=10.1177/0956797610370159 |jstor=41062296 |pmid=20435951 |pmc=3049165 |issn=0956-7976}}</ref>

====Sample items====

*I have a rich vocabulary. *I have a vivid imagination. *I have excellent ideas. *I am quick to understand things. *I use difficult words. *I spend time reflecting on things. *I am full of ideas. *I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (''Reversed'') *I am not interested in abstract ideas. (''Reversed'') *I do not have a good imagination. (''Reversed'')<ref name="The 50">The 50-item IPIP representation of the Goldberg (1992) markers for the Big-Five structure at [https://ipip.ori.org/newBigFive5broadKey.htm ipip.ori.org].</ref>

===Conscientiousness=== Conscientiousness is a tendency to be self-disciplined, act dutifully, and strive for achievement against measures or outside expectations. It is related to people's level of impulse control, regulation, and direction. High conscientiousness is often perceived as being stubborn and focused. Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability.<ref name="sloanreview.mit.edu">{{cite journal|vauthors=Toegel G, Barsoux JL|year=2012|title=How to become a better leader|url=http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-become-a-better-leader|journal=MIT Sloan Management Review|volume=53|issue=3|pages=51–60}}</ref> High conscientiousness indicates a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Costa PT, McCrae RR |date=1992 |title=Neo PI-R professional manual. |location=Odessa, FL |publisher=Psychological Assessment Resources|page=|isbn=}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}{{ISBN?}}</ref>

==== Sample items ==== * I am always prepared. *I pay attention to details. *I get chores done right away. *I like order. *I follow a schedule. *I am exacting in my work. *I leave my belongings around. (''Reversed'') *I make a mess of things. (''Reversed'') *I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (''Reversed'') *I shirk my duties. (''Reversed'')<ref name="The 50" />

===Extraversion=== Extraversion is characterised by breadth of activities (as opposed to depth), surgency from external activities/situations, and energy creation from external means.<ref>{{cite book |first=Marti Olsen |last=Laney |name-list-style=vanc |title=The Introvert Advantage |year=2002 |publisher=Thomas Allen & Son Limited |location=Canada |pages=[https://archive.org/details/introvertadvanta00mart/page/28 28], 35 |isbn=978-0-7611-2369-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/introvertadvanta00mart}}</ref> The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy interacting with people, and are often perceived as energetic. They tend to be enthusiastic and action-oriented. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and assert themselves. Extraverts may appear more dominant in social settings, as opposed to introverts in that setting.<ref name="Friedman_2016">{{cite book|title=Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research|last1=Friedman|first1=Howard|last2=Schustack|first2=Miriam|date=2016|publisher=Pearson Education Inc|isbn=978-0-205-99793-0|edition=Sixth|name-list-style=vanc|page=}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}</ref>

Introverts have lower social engagement and energy levels than extraverts. They tend to seem quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression, but as greater independence of their social world than extraverts. Introverts need less stimulation and more time alone than extraverts. This does not mean that they are unfriendly or antisocial; rather, they are aloof and reserved in social situations.<ref name="Rothmann">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rothmann S, Coetzer EP |title=The big five personality dimensions and job performance |journal=SA Journal of Industrial Psychology |date=24 October 2003 |volume=29 |doi=10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Generally, people are a combination of extraversion and introversion, with personality psychologist Hans Eysenck suggesting a model by which differences in their brains produce these traits.<ref name="Friedman_2016" />{{rp|106}}

==== Sample items ==== * I am the life of the party. * I feel comfortable around people. * I start conversations. * I talk to a lot of different people at parties. *I do not mind being the center of attention. * I do not talk a lot. (''Reversed'') *I keep in the background. (''Reversed'') *I have little to say. (''Reversed'') * I do not like to draw attention to myself. (''Reversed'') * I am quiet around strangers. (''Reversed'')<ref name="The 50" />

===Agreeableness=== Agreeableness is the general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, kind, generous, trusting and trustworthy, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others.<ref name="Rothmann" /> Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. Being agreeable helps us cope with stress.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bai |first1=Qiyu |last2=Bai |first2=Shiguo |last3=Dan |first3=Qi |last4=Lei |first4=Li |last5=Wang |first5=Pengcheng |date=2020-03-01 |title=Mother phubbing and adolescent academic burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism: Personality and Individual Differences|journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=155 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2019.109622 |issn=0191-8869}}</ref>

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.<ref>{{cite web |title="Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!" switching off a robot|pages=217–22|url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6251692 |vauthors=Bartneck C, Van der Hoek M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A |publisher=Dept. of Ind. Design, Eindhoven Univ. of Technol. |location=Eindhoven, Netherlands|access-date=6 February 2013|date=March 2007}}</ref> Disagreeable people are often competitive or challenging, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy.<ref name="sloanreview.mit.edu" />

Because agreeableness is a social trait, research has shown that one's agreeableness positively correlates with the quality of relationships with one's team members. Agreeableness also positively predicts transformational leadership skills. In a study conducted among 169 participants in leadership positions in a variety of professions, individuals were asked to take a personality test and be directly evaluated by supervised subordinates. Very agreeable leaders were more likely to be considered transformational rather than transactional. Although the relationship was not strong (''r''=0.32, ''β''=0.28, ''p''<0.01), it was the strongest of the Big Five traits. However, the same study could not predict leadership effectiveness as evaluated by the leader's direct supervisor.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Judge TA, Bono JE |title=Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-applied-psychology_2000-10_85_5/page/751 |journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=85 |issue=5 |pages=751–65 |date=October 2000 |pmid=11055147 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751}}</ref>

Conversely, agreeableness has been found to be negatively related to transactional leadership in the military. A study of Asian military units showed that agreeable people are more likely to be poor transactional leaders.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lim BC, Ployhart RE |title=Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-applied-psychology_2004-08_89_4/page/610 |journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=89 |issue=4 |pages=610–21 |date=August 2004 |pmid=15327348 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610}}</ref> Therefore, with further research, organisations may be able to determine an individual's potential for performance based on their personality traits. For instance,<ref name="Sackett-2014">{{cite journal |vauthors=Sackett PR, Walmsley PT |year=2014 |title=Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace? |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |volume=9 |issue=5 |pages=538–51 |doi=10.1177/1745691614543972 |pmid=26186756 |s2cid=21245818}}</ref> in their journal article "Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace?" Paul Sackett and Philip Walmsley claim that conscientiousness and agreeableness are "important to success across many different jobs."

==== Sample items ==== * I am interested in people. * I sympathise with others' feelings. * I have a soft heart. * I take time out for others. * I feel others' emotions. * I make people feel at ease. * I am not really interested in others. (''Reversed'') * I insult people. (''Reversed'') * I am not interested in other people's problems. (''Reversed'') * I feel little concern for others. (''Reversed'')<ref name="The 50" />

=== Neuroticism=== Neuroticism is the tendency to have strong negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression.<ref name="Jeronimus2014">{{cite journal |vauthors=Jeronimus BF, Riese H, Sanderman R, Ormel J |title=Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2014-10_107_4/page/751 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=107 |issue=4 |pages=751–64 |date=October 2014 |pmid=25111305 |doi=10.1037/a0037009}}</ref> It is sometimes called emotional instability, or is reversed and referred to as emotional stability.

Neuroticism is a classic temperament trait that has been studied in temperament research for decades, even before it was adapted by the Five Factor Model.<ref name="Kagan">{{cite book |vauthors=Kagan J, Snidman N |year=2009 |title=The Long Shadow of Temperament. |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge, MA|page=|isbn=}}{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}</ref> For example, in Hans Eysenck's (1967) theory of personality, neuroticism is associated with low tolerance for stress (N+ in the FFM) or a strong dislike of change (O- in the FFM).<ref name="Norris, Larsen 2007">{{cite journal |vauthors=Norris CJ, Larsen JT, Cacioppo JT |title=Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures |journal=Psychophysiology |volume=44 |issue=5 |pages=823–26 |date=September 2007 |pmid=17596178 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00551.x |url=http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/jjbareprints/psyc501a/readings/Norris%20Larsen%20Cacioppo%202007%20Psychophysiology%20(SC%20Neuroticism).pdf }}{{Dead link|date=January 2026 |bot=InternetArchiveBot }}</ref> Neuroticism in the FFM is similar but not identical to being neurotic in the Freudian sense (i.e., neurosis). Some psychologists{{who|date=March 2022}} prefer to call neuroticism by the term emotional instability to differentiate it from the term neurotic in a career test.

Neurotic people are emotionally volatile, emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to spontaneously experience negative emotions (see sample items below) and their negative emotional reactions tend to stay for longer periods of time, which means they are more often in a bad mood. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening. They can perceive minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. For instance, neuroticism is connected to pessimism toward work, to certainty that work hinders personal relationships, and to higher levels of anxiety from the pressures at work.<ref name="neuro1">{{cite book |vauthors=Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G |year=2009 |title=Handbook of Social Psychology |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=Wiley|page=|isbn=}}{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}</ref> Furthermore, highly neurotic people may display more skin-conductance reactivity than less neurotic people.<ref name="Norris, Larsen 2007" /><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Reynaud E, El Khoury-Malhame M, Rossier J, Blin O, Khalfa S |title=Neuroticism modifies psycho physiological responses to fearful films |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=7 |issue=3 |article-number=e32413 |year=2012 |pmid=22479326 |pmc=3316522 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0032413 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...732413R |doi-access=free}}</ref> These problems in emotional regulation can make a highly neurotic person think less clearly, make worse decisions, and cope less effectively with stress. Being disappointed with one's life achievements can make one more neurotic and increase one's chances of falling into clinical depression. Moreover, neurotic individuals tend to experience more negative life events,<ref name="Jeronimus2014" /><ref name="Jeronimus2013">{{cite journal |vauthors=Jeronimus BF, Ormel J, Aleman A, Penninx BW, Riese H |title=Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-medicine_2013-11_43_11/page/2403 |journal=Psychological Medicine |volume=43 |issue=11 |pages=2403–15 |date=November 2013 |pmid=23410535 |doi=10.1017/s0033291713000159 |s2cid=43717734}}</ref> but neuroticism also changes in response to positive and negative life experiences.<ref name="Jeronimus2014" /><ref name="Jeronimus2013" /> Also, neurotic people tend to have worse psychological well-being.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Dwan T, Ownsworth T|title=The Big Five personality factors and psychological well-being following stroke: a systematic review|journal=Disability and Rehabilitation|volume=41|issue=10|pages=1119–30|doi=10.1080/09638288.2017.1419382|pmid=29272953|year=2019|s2cid=7300458}}</ref>

At the other end of the scale, less neurotic individuals are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; that is related to extraversion instead.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Dolan SL |date=2006 |title=Stress, Self-Esteem, Health and Work |page=76|isbn=}}{{ISBN?}}</ref>

==== Sample items ====

*I get stressed out easily. *I worry about things. *I am easily disturbed. *I get upset easily. *I change my mood a lot. *I have frequent mood swings. *I get irritated easily. *I often feel blue. *I am relaxed most of the time. (''Reversed'') *I seldom feel blue. (''Reversed'')<ref name="The 50" />

== Measurement and methodology ==

=== Versions === Several measures of the Big Five exist:

* International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ipip.ori.org/|title=IPIP Home|website=ipip.ori.org|access-date=2017-07-01}}</ref> * NEO-PI-R * The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and the Five Item Personality Inventory (FIPI) are very abbreviated rating forms of the Big Five personality traits.<ref name="GoslingRentfrow2003">{{cite journal|last1=Gosling|first1=Samuel D|last2=Rentfrow|first2=Peter J|last3=Swann|first3=William B |name-list-style=vanc |title=A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|volume=37|issue=6|year=2003|pages=504–28|issn=0092-6566|doi=10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1|citeseerx=10.1.1.1013.6925|s2cid=7147133}}</ref> * Self-descriptive sentence questionnaires<ref name="De_Fruyt_2004" /> * Lexical questionnaires<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |doi=10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 |vauthors=Goldberg LR |year=1992 |title=The development of markers for the Big-five factor structure |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-assessment_1992-03_4_1/page/26 |journal=Psychological Assessment |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=26–42 |s2cid=144709415}}</ref> * Self-report questionnaires<ref name="Stewart I.D.,&Elisa J. G., 2002">{{Cite journal |first1=Stewart I. |last1=Donaldson |first2=Elisa J. |last2=Grant-Vallone |name-list-style=vanc |year=2002|title=Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research|journal=Journal of Business and Psychology |volume=17|issue=2 |jstor=25092818 |doi=10.1023/A:1019637632584 |pages=245–60|s2cid=10464760}}</ref> * Relative-scored big five measure<ref name="Hirsh, J. B. 2008">{{cite journal |vauthors=Hirsh JB, Peterson JB |date=October 2008 |title=Predicting creativity and academic success with a 'Fake-Proof' measure of the Big Five |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=42 |issue=5 |pages=1323–33 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.006|s2cid=18849547}}</ref>

The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are self-descriptive sentences<ref name="De_Fruyt_2004" /> or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single adjectives.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item balanced ''International English Big-Five Mini-Markers''<ref name="Thompson" /> or a very brief (10 item) measure of the Big Five domains.<ref name="GoslingRentfrow2003" /> Research has suggested that some methodologies in administering personality tests are inadequate in length and provide insufficient detail to truly evaluate personality. Usually, longer, more detailed questions will give a more accurate portrayal of personality.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Credé M, Harms P, Niehorster S, Gaye-Valentine A |title=An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=102 |issue=4 |pages=874–88 |date=April 2012 |pmid=22352328 |doi=10.1037/a0027403 |url=http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=managementfacpub}}</ref> The five factor structure has been replicated in peer reports.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Goldberg LR |title=An alternative "description of personality": the big-five factor structure |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_1990-12_59_6/page/1216 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=59 |issue=6 |pages=1216–29 |date=December 1990 |pmid=2283588 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 |bibcode=1990JPSP...59.1216G |s2cid=9034636}}</ref> However, many of the substantive findings rely on self-reports.

==== Limitations of self-report ==== Much of the evidence on the measures of the big five relies on self-report questionnaires, which makes self-report bias and falsification of responses difficult to deal with and account for.<ref name="Stewart I.D.,&Elisa J. G., 2002" /> It has been argued that the Big Five tests do not create an accurate personality profile because the responses given on these tests are not true in all cases and can be falsified.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McFarland|first1=Lynn A.|last2=Ryan|first2=Ann Marie|date=2000|title=Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=85|issue=5|pages=812–21|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812|pmid=11055152|issn=1939-1854}}</ref> For example, questionnaires are answered by potential employees who might choose answers that paint them in the best light.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.personality-and-aptitude-career-tests.com/big-five-personality-tests.html|title=Big Five Personality Tests, traits and background|work=Personality and Aptitude Career Tests|access-date=2017-07-01}}</ref>

Research suggests that a relative-scored Big Five measure in which respondents had to make repeated choices between equally desirable personality descriptors may be a potential alternative to traditional Big Five measures in accurately assessing personality traits, especially when lying or biased responding is present.<ref name="Hirsh, J. B. 2008" /> When compared with a traditional Big Five measure for its ability to predict GPA and creative achievement under both normal and "fake good"-bias response conditions, the relative-scored measure significantly and consistently predicted these outcomes under both conditions; however, the Likert questionnaire lost its predictive ability in the faking condition. Thus, the relative-scored measure proved to be less affected by biased responding than the Likert measure of the Big Five.

==== Labels and dimensionality ==== The five overarching domains of the big five model have been found to contain most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic structure behind them all.<ref name="O">{{cite journal |vauthors=O'Connor BP |date=June 2002 |title=A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_assessment_2002-06_9_2/page/188 |journal=Assessment |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=188–203 |doi=10.1177/1073191102092010 |pmid=12066834 |s2cid=145580837}}</ref> Research into personality inventories found five broad dimensions could explain most variation in human personality and temperament,<ref name="Goldberg, L. R. (1993)."/><ref name="Costa1992"/> with more-detailed analyses typically dividing the traits into more specific subfactors. For example, extraversion is typically associated with qualities such as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions.<ref>{{cite book |title=Personality Traits |last1=Matthews |first1=Gerald |last2=Deary |first2=Ian J. |last3=Whiteman |first3=Martha C. |name-list-style=vanc |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-521-83107-9 |edition=2nd |url=http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits,%202nd%20Ed.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205103724/http://elib.fk.uwks.ac.id/asset/archieve/e-book/PSYCHIATRIC-%20ILMU%20PENYAKIT%20JIWA/Personality%20Traits%2C%202nd%20Ed.pdf |archive-date=2014-12-05}}</ref> Other models, like HEXACO, supplement the big five traits with additional variables.

Factor analysis, the statistical method used to identify the dimensional structure of observed variables, lacks a universally recognized basis for choosing among solutions with different numbers of factors.<ref name="notbasic">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Eysenck HJ |year=1992|title=Four ways five factors are not basic|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|volume=13|issue=8|pages=667–73|url=http://web.sls.hw.ac.uk/teaching/level2/A42SO2/reading/Eysenck%20Four%20ways%20five%20factors%20are%20not%20basic.pdf|doi=10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j|access-date=2012-06-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107113908/http://web.sls.hw.ac.uk/teaching/level2/A42SO2/reading/Eysenck%20Four%20ways%20five%20factors%20are%20not%20basic.pdf|archive-date=2012-11-07}}</ref> A five factor solution depends on some degree of interpretation by the analyst. A larger number of factors may underlie these five factors. This has led to disputes about the "true" number of factors. Big Five proponents have responded that although other solutions may be viable in a single data set, only the five-factor structure consistently replicates across different studies.<ref name="reply">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Costa PT, McCrae RR |year=1992|title=Reply to Eysenck |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_1992-08_13_8/page/861 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences|volume=13|issue=8|pages=861–65|doi=10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7}}</ref> Block argues that the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality is too limited.<ref name="Block">{{cite journal | last1 = Block | first1 = Jack | name-list-style = vanc | year = 2010 | title = The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations | journal = Psychological Inquiry | volume = 21 | issue = 1| pages = 2–25 | doi=10.1080/10478401003596626| s2cid = 26355524 }}</ref>

Some research suggests that the Big Five should not be conceived of as dichotomies (such as extraversion vs. introversion) but as continua. Each individual has the capacity to move along each dimension as circumstances (social or temporal) change. Someone is therefore not simply on one end of each trait dichotomy but is a blend of both, exhibiting some characteristics more often than others:<ref>{{cite journal|author1-link=William Fleeson |vauthors=Fleeson W |year=2001 |title=Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2001-06_80_6/page/1011 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=80 |issue=6 |pages=1011–27 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011 |pmid=11414368 |s2cid=13805210}}</ref> DeYoung proposed a model where each of the Big Five personality traits contains two separate, but correlated, aspects reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet scales also making up part of the Big Five.<ref name="DeYoung">{{Cite journal |last1=Deyoung |first1=C. G. |last2=Quilty |first2=L. C. |last3=Peterson |first3=J. B. |year=2007 |title=Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=93 |issue=5 |pages=880–896 |citeseerx=10.1.1.513.2517 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880 |pmid=17983306 |bibcode=2007JPSP...93..880D |s2cid=8261816}}</ref> The aspects are labelled as follows: Volatility and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness for Extraversion; Intellect and Openness for Openness to Experience; Industriousness and Orderliness for Conscientiousness; and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness.<ref name="DeYoung" />

In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent.<ref name="Musek">{{cite journal |last=Musek |first=Janet |name-list-style=vanc |title=A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|year=2007|volume=41 |issue=6 |pages=1213–33|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Van der Linden D, te Nijenhuis J, Bakker AB |year=2010|title=The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|volume=44|issue=3|pages=315–27|url=http://www.beanmanaged.eu/pdf/articles/arnoldbakker/article_arnold_bakker_218.pdf|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003|access-date=2012-06-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120711004026/http://www.beanmanaged.eu/pdf/articles/arnoldbakker/article_arnold_bakker_218.pdf|archive-date=2012-07-11}}</ref> Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with as few variables as possible. Cheung, van de Vijver, and Leong (2011) suggest that the Openness factor is particularly unsupported in Asian countries and that a different fifth factor is identified.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Cheung FM, van de Vijver FJ, Leong FT |title=Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture |journal=The American Psychologist |volume=66 |issue=7 |pages=593–603 |date=October 2011 |pmid=21261408 |doi=10.1037/a0022389 |s2cid=615860 |url=http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=120612 |access-date=2013-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518090148/http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=120612 |archive-date=2013-05-18}}</ref> Attempts to replicate the Big Five have succeeded in some countries but not in others. Some research suggests, for instance, that Hungarians do not have a single agreeableness factor.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1002/per.2410080203 |vauthors=Szirmak Z, De Raad B |year=1994 |title=Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_european-journal-of-personality_1994-06_8_2/page/95 |journal=European Journal of Personality |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=95–117 |s2cid=145275826}}</ref> Other researchers have found evidence for agreeableness but not for other factors.<ref name="De_Fruyt_2004">{{cite journal |vauthors=De Fruyt F, McCrae RR, Szirmák Z, Nagy J |title=The Five-factor Personality Inventory as a measure of the Five-factor Model: Belgian, American, and Hungarian comparisons with the NEO-PI-R |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_assessment_2004-09_11_3/page/207 |journal=Assessment |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=207–15 |date=September 2004 |pmid=15358876 |doi=10.1177/1073191104265800 |s2cid=29733250}}</ref> There may be debate as to what counts as personality and what does not and the nature of the questions in the survey greatly influence outcome. Multiple particularly broad question databases have failed to produce the Big Five as the top five traits.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Saucier |first1=Gerard |last2=Srivastava |first2=Sanjay |chapter=What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the big five and alternatives |date=2015 |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/14343-013 |series=APA handbook of personality and social psychology |title=Personality processes and individual differences |pages=283–305 |location=Washington |publisher=American Psychological Association |doi=10.1037/14343-013 |isbn=978-1-4338-1704-5 |access-date=2021-01-03}}</ref>

The structure, manifestations, and development of the Big Five in childhood and adolescence have been studied using a variety of methods, including parent- and teacher-ratings,<ref name="Goldberg, L.R. 2001">{{cite journal |vauthors=Goldberg LR |year=2001 |title=Analyses of Digman's child- personality data: Derivation of Big Five Factor Scores from each of six samples |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality_2001-10_69_5/page/709 |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=69 |issue=5 |pages=709–43 |doi=10.1111/1467-6494.695161 |pmid=11575511 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Mervielde I, De Fruyt F |date=1999 |chapter=Construction of the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (Hi- PIC). |veditors=Mervielde ID, De Fruyt F, Ostendorf F |title=Personality psychology in Europe: Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Personality |pages=107–27 |publisher=Tilburg University Press}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Resing WC, Bleichrodt N, Dekker PH |year=1999 |title=Measuring personality traits in the classroom |journal=European Journal of Personality |volume=13 |issue=6 |pages=493–509 |doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199911/12)13:6<493::aid-per355>3.0.co;2-v |hdl=1871/18675 |s2cid=56322465 |url=https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/1318382/resing%20European%20Journal%20of%20Personality,%2013(12).pdf}}</ref> preadolescent and adolescent self- and peer-ratings,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Markey PM, Markey CN, Ericksen AJ, Tinsley BJ |year=2002 |title=A preliminary validation of preadolescents' self-reports using the Five-Factor Model of personality |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=173–81 |doi=10.1006/jrpe.2001.2341}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Scholte RH, van Aken MA, van Lieshout CF |title=Adolescent personality factors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-assessment_1997-12_69_3/page/534 |journal=Journal of Personality Assessment |volume=69 |issue=3 |pages=534–54 |date=December 1997 |pmid=9501483 |doi=10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_8}}</ref><ref name="Halverson, C.F. 1994" /> and observations of parent-child interactions.<ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /> Results from these studies support the relative stability of personality traits across the human lifespan, at least from preschool age through adulthood.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /><ref name="Halverson, C.F. 1994">{{cite book |veditors=Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP |date=1994 |title=The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. |url=https://archive.org/details/developingstruct0000unse |location=Hillsdale, NJ |publisher=Erlbaum}}</ref><ref name="Kohnstamm, G.A. 1998">{{cite book |veditors=Kohnstamm GA, Halverson Jr CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL |title=Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? |publisher=Psychology Press |date=1998 |isbn=|page=}}{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}</ref> More specifically, research suggests that four of the Big Five – namely Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness – reliably describe personality differences in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /><ref name="Halverson, C.F. 1994" /><ref name="Kohnstamm, G.A. 1998" /> However, some evidence suggests that Openness may not be a fundamental, stable part of childhood personality. Although some researchers have found that Openness in children and adolescents relates to attributes such as creativity, curiosity, imagination, and intellect,<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Mervielde I, De Fruyt F, Jarmuz S |chapter=Linking openness and intellect in childhood and adulthood. |veditors=Kohnstamm GA, Halverson CF, Mervielde I, Havill VL |title=Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five. |url=https://archive.org/details/parentaldescript00kohn |url-access=limited |date=May 1998 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/parentaldescript00kohn/page/n169 105]–26 |location=Mahway, NJ |publisher=Erlbaum |isbn=978-0-8058-2301-1}}</ref> many researchers have failed to find distinct individual differences in Openness in childhood and early adolescence.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /> Potentially, Openness may (a) manifest in unique, currently unknown ways in childhood or (b) may only manifest as children develop socially and cognitively.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /> Other studies have found evidence for all of the Big Five traits in childhood and adolescence as well as two other child-specific traits: Irritability and Activity.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=John OP, Srivastava S |date=1999 |chapter-url=http://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf |chapter=The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives |veditors=Pervin LA, John OP |title=Handbook of personality: Theory and research |volume=2 |pages=102–38 |location=New York |publisher=Guilford Press}}</ref> Despite these specific differences, the majority of findings suggest that personality traits – particularly Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness – are evident in childhood and adolescence and are associated with distinct social-emotional patterns of behavior that are largely consistent with adult manifestations of those same personality traits.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /><ref name="Halverson, C.F. 1994" /><ref name="Kohnstamm, G.A. 1998" /> Some researchers have proposed the youth personality trait is best described by six trait dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and activity.<ref name="Soto-2015">{{Cite journal|last1=Soto|first1=Christopher|last2=Tackett|first2=Jennifer |name-list-style=vanc |date=2015|title=Personality Traits in Childhood and Adolescence: Structure, Development, and Outcomes|url=http://www.colby.edu/psych/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2013/08/Soto_Tackett_2015.pdf|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=24|pages=358–62 |doi=10.1177/0963721415589345|s2cid=29475747}}</ref> Despite some preliminary evidence for this "Little Six" model,<ref name="Soto-2016" /><ref name="Soto-2015" /> research in this area has been delayed by a lack of available measures.

====Gender differences==== Some cross-cultural research has shown some patterns of gender differences on responses to the NEO-PI-R and the Big Five Inventory.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.693 |vauthors=Cavallera G, Passerini A, Pepe A |year=2013 |title=Personality and gender in swimmers in indoor practice at leisure level. |journal=Social Behavior and Personality |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=693–704|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Falk |first1=Armin |last2=Hermle |first2=Johannes |date=2018-10-19 |title=Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality |journal=Science |language=en |volume=362 |issue=6412 |article-number=eaas9899 |doi=10.1126/science.aas9899 |pmid=30337384 |issn=0036-8075|doi-access=free |hdl=10419/193353 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> For example, women consistently report higher Neuroticism, Agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet) and openness to feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness (a facet of extraversion) and openness to ideas as assessed by the NEO-PI-R.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite journal |vauthors=Costa PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR |title=Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2001-08_81_2/page/322 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=322–31 |date=August 2001 |pmid=11519935 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 |bibcode=2001JPSP...81..322C }}</ref>

A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed.<ref name="55nations">{{cite journal |vauthors=Schmitt DP, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J |title=Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2008-01_94_1/page/168 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=94 |issue=1 |pages=168–82 |date=January 2008 |pmid=18179326 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168}}</ref>

Gender differences in personality traits are largest in prosperous, healthy, and more gender-egalitarian nations. The explanation for this, as stated by the researchers of a 2001 paper, is that actions by women in individualistic, egalitarian countries are more likely to be attributed to their personality, rather than being attributed to ascribed gender roles within collectivist, traditional countries.<ref name="ReferenceB" />

Measured differences in the magnitude of sex differences between more or less developed world regions were caused by the changes in the measured personalities of men, not women, in these respective regions. That is, men in highly developed world regions were less neurotic, less extraverted, less conscientious and less agreeable compared to men in less developed world regions. Women, on the other hand tended not to differ in personality traits across regions.<ref name="55nations" />

====Birth-order differences==== {{main|Birth order}} Frank Sulloway argues that firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to siblings that were born later. Large-scale studies using random samples and self-report personality tests, however, have found milder effects than Sulloway claimed, or no significant effects of birth order on personality.<ref>Harris, J. R. (2006). ''No two alike: Human nature and human individuality''. WW Norton & Company.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233 |vauthors=Jefferson T, Herbst JH, McCrae RR |year=1998 |title=Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=498–509 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1229908}}</ref> A study using the Project Talent data, which is a large-scale representative survey of American high school students, with 272,003 eligible participants, found statistically significant but very small effects (the average absolute correlation between birth order and personality was .02) of birth order on personality, such that firstborns were slightly more conscientious, dominant, and agreeable, while also being less neurotic and less sociable.<ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Damian RI, Roberts BW |date=October 2015|title=The associations of birth order with personality and intelligence in a representative sample of U.S. high school students |journal=Journal of Research in Personality|volume=58|pages=96–105|doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.005}}</ref> Parental socioeconomic status and participant gender had much larger correlations with personality.

In 2002, the Journal of Psychology posted a Big Five Personality Trait Difference; where researchers explored the relationship between the five-factor model and the Universal-Diverse Orientation (UDO) in counselor trainees. (Thompson, R., Brossart, D., and Mivielle, A., 2002). UDO is known as one social attitude that produces a strong awareness and/or acceptance towards the similarities and differences among individuals. (Miville, M., Romas, J., Johnson, J., and Lon, R. 2002) The study found that the counselor trainees that are more open to the idea of creative expression (a facet of Openness to Experience, Openness to Aesthetics) among individuals are more likely to work with a diverse group of clients, and feel comfortable in their role.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Thompson RL, Brossart DF, Carlozzi AF, Miville ML |title=Five-factor model (Big Five) personality traits and universal-diverse orientation in counselor trainees |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-psychology_2002-09_136_5/page/561 |journal=The Journal of Psychology |volume=136 |issue=5 |pages=561–72 |date=September 2002 |pmid=12431039 |doi=10.1080/00223980209605551 |s2cid=22076221}}</ref>

====Heritability====

[[File:Retos-twins.jpg|thumb|Personality research often uses twin studies to determine how much heritable and environmental factors contribute to the Big Five personality traits.]]

A 1996 behavioural genetics study of twins suggested that heritability (the degree of ''variation'' in a trait within a population that is due to genetic variation in that population) and environmental factors both influence all five factors to the same degree.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Jang KL, Livesley WJ, Vernon PA |title=Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: a twin study |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality_1996-09_64_3/page/577 |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=64 |issue=3 |pages=577–91 |date=September 1996 |pmid=8776880 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x |s2cid=35488176}}</ref> Among four twin studies examined in 2003, the mean percentage for heritability was calculated for each personality and it was concluded that heritability influenced the five factors broadly. The self-report measures were as follows: openness to experience was estimated to have a 57% genetic influence, extraversion 54%, conscientiousness 49%, neuroticism 48%, and agreeableness 42%.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bouchard TJ, McGue M |title=Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences |journal=Journal of Neurobiology |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=4–45 |date=January 2003 |pmid=12486697 |doi=10.1002/neu.10160 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

====Non-humans==== thumb|left|The Big Five personality traits can be seen in chimpanzees.

The Big Five personality traits have been assessed in some non-human species but methodology is debatable. In one series of studies, human ratings of chimpanzees using a scale designed for non-human apes, revealed factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness– as well as an additional factor of dominance–across hundreds of chimpanzees in zoological parks, a large naturalistic sanctuary, and a research laboratory. Neuroticism and openness factors were found in an original zoo sample, but were not replicated in a new zoo sample or in other settings (perhaps reflecting the design of the assessment scale).<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Weiss A, King JE, Hopkins WD |title=A cross-setting study of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality structure and development: zoological parks and Yerkes National Primate Research Center |journal=American Journal of Primatology |volume=69 |issue=11 |pages=1264–77 |date=November 2007 |pmid=17397036 |pmc=2654334 |doi=10.1002/ajp.20428}}</ref> A study review found that markers for the three dimensions extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness were found most consistently across different species, followed by openness; only chimpanzees showed markers for conscientious behavior.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/jc/animals/gosling_and_john_1999PersonalityInAnimals_curr_dir_psychol_sci.pdf |title=Personality Dimensions in Nonhuman Animals: A Cross-Species Review |vauthors=Gosling SD, John OP |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |year=1999 |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=69–75 |doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00017 |s2cid=145716504 |access-date=2016-12-05 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928211900/http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y5_ID/jc/animals/gosling_and_john_1999PersonalityInAnimals_curr_dir_psychol_sci.pdf |archive-date=2018-09-28}}</ref>

A study completed in 2020 concluded that dolphins have some similar personality traits to humans. Both are large brained intelligent animals but have evolved separately for millions of years.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Morton FB, Robinson LM, Brando S, Weiss A |year=2021 |title=Personality structure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)|url=https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/3649436 |journal=Journal of Comparative Psychology|volume=135 |issue=2 |pages=219–231 |doi=10.1037/com0000259|pmid=33464108|s2cid=231642036 |hdl=20.500.11820/1d4cef3b-b78b-46b3-b31c-2d1f4339cd9f |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

== Applications and uses ==

The Big Five model has become a dominant framework in contemporary personality psychology. Its wide acceptance stems from strong empirical support and its practical utility in both research and applied settings. However, its applicability is not universal, and several methodological and conceptual criticisms limit its effectiveness in certain contexts.

=== Clinical psychology and psychopathology ===

==== Dementia ====

Some diseases cause changes in personality. For example, although gradual memory impairment is the hallmark feature of Alzheimer's disease, a systematic review of personality changes in Alzheimer's disease by Robins Wahlin and Byrne, published in 2011, found systematic and consistent trait changes mapped to the Big Five. The largest change observed was a decrease in conscientiousness. The next most significant changes were an increase in Neuroticism and decrease in Extraversion, but Openness and Agreeableness were also decreased. These changes in personality could assist with early diagnosis.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Robins Wahlin TB, Byrne GJ|date=October 2011|title=Personality changes in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review|journal=International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry|volume=26|issue=10|pages=1019–29|doi=10.1002/gps.2655|pmid=21905097|s2cid=40949990}}</ref>

A study published in 2023 found that the Big Five personality traits may also influence the quality of life experienced by people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, post diagnosis. In this study people with dementia with lower levels of Neuroticism self-reported higher quality of life than those with higher levels of Neuroticism while those with higher levels of the other four traits self-reported higher quality of life than those with lower levels of these traits. This suggests that as well as assisting with early diagnosis, the Big Five personality traits could help identify people with dementia potentially more vulnerable to adverse outcomes and inform personalized care planning and interventions.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Hunt A, Martyr A, Gamble LD, Morris RG, Thom JM, Pentecost C, Clare L|date=June 2023|title=The associations between personality traits and quality of life, satisfaction with life, and well-being over time in people with dementia and their caregivers: findings from the IDEAL programme|journal=BMC Geriatrics|volume=23|issue=1|article-number=354|doi=10.1186/s12877-023-04075-x|pmid=37280511|pmc=10242791 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

==== Personality disorders ==== {{Main|Personality disorders}}

{{as of|2002}}, there were over fifty published studies relating the FFM to personality disorders.<ref>Widiger TA, Costa PT. Jr. "Five-Factor model personality disorder research". In: Costa Paul T Jr, Widiger Thomas A., editors. ''Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality''. 2nd. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 59–87. 2002. {{ISBN?}}</ref> Since that time, quite a number of additional studies have expanded on this research base and provided further empirical support for understanding the DSM personality disorders in terms of the FFM domains.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Mullins-Sweatt SN, Widiger TA |chapter=The five-factor model of personality disorder: A translation across science and practice. |veditors=Krueger R, Tackett J |title=Personality and psychopathology: Building bridges. |location=New York |publisher=Guilford |date=2006 |pages=39–70|isbn=}}{{ISBN?}}</ref> Beyond simply predicting symptoms, the Five-Factor Model has been formally proposed as a foundational framework for the classification of personality disorders within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), offering a dimensional approach to diagnosis alongside traditional categorical models. This proposal underscores its growing acceptance and utility in clinical psychology for understanding and assessing personality pathology.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Widiger |first1=Thomas A. |last2=Mullins-Sweatt |first2=Stephanie N. |date=2009-04-27 |title=Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder: A Proposal for DSM-V |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153542 |journal=Annual Review of Clinical Psychology |language=en |volume=5 |pages=197–220 |doi=10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153542 |pmid=19046124 |issn=1548-5943|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In her review of the personality disorder literature published in 2007, Lee Anna Clark asserted that "the five-factor model of personality is widely accepted as representing the higher-order structure of both normal and abnormal personality traits".<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Clark LA |title=Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |volume=58 |pages=227–57 |year=2007 |pmid=16903806 |doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190200 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1134186}}</ref> However, other researchers disagree that this model is widely accepted (see the section Critique below) and suggest that it simply replicates early temperament research.<ref name="FET" /><ref name="TroRob">{{cite journal |vauthors=Trofimova I, Robbins TW |title=Temperament and arousal systems: A new synthesis of differential psychology and functional neurochemistry |journal=Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews |volume=64 |pages=382–402 |date=May 2016 |pmid=26969100 |doi=10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.008 |hdl=11375/26202 |s2cid=13937324 |url=https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/274784 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> Noticeably, FFM publications never compare their findings to temperament models even though temperament and mental disorders (especially personality disorders) are thought to be based on the same neurotransmitter imbalances, just to varying degrees.<ref name="FET" /><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Trofimova I, Sulis W |title=Benefits of Distinguishing between Physical and Social-Verbal Aspects of Behavior: An Example of Generalized Anxiety |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=7 |page=338 |year=2016 |pmid=27014146 |pmc=4789559 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00338 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Trofimova I, Christiansen J |title=Coupling of Temperament with Mental Illness in Four Age Groups |journal=Psychological Reports |volume=118 |issue=2 |pages=387–412 |date=April 2016 |pmid=27154370 |doi=10.1177/0033294116639430 |s2cid=24465522}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Depue R, Fu Y |date=2012 |chapter=Neurobiology and neurochemistry of temperament in adults |veditors=Zentner M, Shiner R |title=Handbook of Temperament |location=New York |publisher=Guilford Publications |pages=368–99}}</ref>

The five-factor model was claimed to significantly predict all ten personality disorder symptoms and outperform the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in the prediction of borderline, avoidant, and dependent personality disorder symptoms.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Bagby |first1=R. Michael |last2=Sellbom |first2=Martin |last3=Costa |first3=Paul T. |last4=Widiger |first4=Thomas A. |name-list-style=vanc |title=PredictingDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality and the personality psychopathology five |journal=Personality and Mental Health |date=April 2008 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=55–69 |doi=10.1002/pmh.33}}</ref> However, most predictions related to an increase in Neuroticism and a decrease in Agreeableness, and therefore did not differentiate between the disorders very well.<ref>"The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review." LM Saulsman, AC Page, ''Clinical Psychology Review'', 2004 – Elsevier Science {{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}</ref>

====Common mental disorders==== thumb|upright=1.5|Average deviation of five factor personality profile of heroin users from the population mean.<ref name="Fehrman2015">{{cite arXiv |vauthors=Fehrman E, Muhammad AK, Mirkes EM, Egan V, Gorban AN |eprint=1506.06297 |title=The Five Factor Model of personality and evaluation of drug consumption risk |class=stat.AP|date=2015}}</ref> N stands for Neuroticism, E for Extraversion, O for Openness to experience, A for Agreeableness and C for Conscientiousness.

Converging evidence from several nationally representative studies has established three classes of mental disorders which are especially common in the general population: Depressive disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder (MDD), dysthymic disorder),<ref name="Kessler-2005">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Merikangas KR, Walters EE |title=Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication |journal=Archives of General Psychiatry |volume=62 |issue=6 |pages=617–27 |date=June 2005 |pmid=15939839 |pmc=2847357 |doi=10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617}}</ref> anxiety disorders (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, agoraphobia, specific phobia, and social phobia),<ref name="Kessler-2005" /> and substance use disorders (SUDs).<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Compton WM, Conway KP, Stinson FS, Colliver JD, Grant BF |title=Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of DSM-IV antisocial personality syndromes and alcohol and specific drug use disorders in the United States: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions |journal=The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry |volume=66 |issue=6 |pages=677–85 |date=June 2005 |pmid=15960559 |doi=10.4088/jcp.v66n0602}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hasin DS, Goodwin RD, Stinson FS, Grant BF |title=Epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions |journal=Archives of General Psychiatry |volume=62 |issue=10 |pages=1097–106 |date=October 2005 |pmid=16203955 |doi=10.1001/archpsyc.62.10.1097 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The Five Factor personality profiles of users of different drugs may be different.<ref name="FehrmanGorban2019">{{cite book |last1=Fehrman|first1=Elaine|last2= Egan|first2=Vincent |last3=Gorban|first3=Alexander N. |last4=Levesley|first4=Jeremy |last5=Mirkes|first5=Evgeny M. |last6=Muhammad|first6=Awaz K. |date=2019|title=Personality Traits and Drug Consumption. A Story Told by Data|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-10442-9|publisher=Springer, Cham|isbn=978-3-030-10441-2 |arxiv=2001.06520|s2cid=151160405}}</ref> For example, the typical profile for heroin users is <math>{\rm N}\Uparrow, {\rm O}\Uparrow, {\rm A}\Downarrow, {\rm C}\Downarrow</math>, whereas for ecstasy users the high level of N is not expected but E is higher: <math>{\rm E}\Uparrow, {\rm O}\Uparrow, {\rm A}\Downarrow, {\rm C}\Downarrow</math>.<ref name="FehrmanGorban2019" />

These common mental disorders (CMDs) have been empirically linked to the Big Five personality traits, neuroticism in particular. Numerous studies have found that having high scores of neuroticism significantly increases one's risk for developing a common mental disorder.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Khan AA, Jacobson KC, Gardner CO, Prescott CA, Kendler KS |title=Personality and comorbidity of common psychiatric disorders |journal=The British Journal of Psychiatry |volume=186 |issue=3 |pages=190–96 |date=March 2005 |pmid=15738498 |doi=10.1192/bjp.186.3.190 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Cuijpers P, Smit F, Penninx BW, de Graaf R, ten Have M, Beekman AT |title=Economic costs of neuroticism: a population-based study |journal=Archives of General Psychiatry |volume=67 |issue=10 |pages=1086–93 |date=October 2010 |pmid=20921124 |doi=10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.130 |doi-access=free|hdl=1871.1/33201f3b-0449-4c40-9063-0deaf4cc0f76 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> A large-scale meta-analysis (n > 75,000) examining the relationship between all of the Big Five personality traits and common mental disorders found that low conscientiousness yielded consistently strong effects for each common mental disorder examined (i.e., MDD, dysthymic disorder, GAD, PTSD, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, specific phobia, and SUD).<ref name="Kotov-2010">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kotov R, Gamez W, Schmidt F, Watson D |title=Linking "big" personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=136 |issue=5 |pages=768–821 |date=September 2010 |pmid=20804236 |doi=10.1037/a0020327 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46094267}}</ref> This finding parallels research on physical health, which has established that conscientiousness is the strongest personality predictor of reduced mortality, and is highly negatively correlated with making poor health choices.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bogg T, Roberts BW |title=Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-bulletin_2004-11_130_6/page/887 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=130 |issue=6 |pages=887–919 |date=November 2004 |pmid=15535742 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887 |bibcode=2004PsycB.130..887B }}</ref><ref name="Roberts2004">{{cite journal |vauthors=Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR |title=The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=313–45 |date=December 2007 |pmid=26151971 |pmc=4499872 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x |url=http://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/Representative%20Papers/Roberts%20et%20al,%202007%20PPS%20power%20of%20personality.pdf}}</ref> In regards to the other personality domains, the meta-analysis found that all common mental disorders examined were defined by high neuroticism, most exhibited low extraversion, only SUD was linked to agreeableness (negatively), and no disorders were associated with Openness.<ref name="Kotov-2010" /> A meta-analysis of 59 longitudinal studies showed that high neuroticism predicted the development of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, psychosis, schizophrenia, and non-specific mental distress, also after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history.<ref name="NeuroticismMA">{{cite journal |vauthors=Jeronimus BF, Kotov R, Riese H, Ormel J |title=Neuroticism's prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: a meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443 313 participants |journal=Psychological Medicine |volume=46 |issue=14 |pages=2883–906 |date=October 2016 |pmid=27523506 |doi=10.1017/S0033291716001653 |s2cid=23548727 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/895885}}</ref>

Five major models have been posed to explain the nature of the relationship between personality and mental illness. There is currently no single "best model", as each of them has received at least some empirical support. These models are not mutually exclusive – more than one may be operating for a particular individual and various mental disorders may be explained by different models.<ref name="NeuroticismMA" /><ref>{{Cite book|title=Handbook of Personality Disorders |url=https://archive.org/details/handbookpersonal00mdwj_893 |url-access=limited |first=W John |last=Livesley |name-list-style=vanc |year=2001 |location=New York |publisher=The Guildford Press |pages=[https://archive.org/details/handbookpersonal00mdwj_893/page/n98 84]–104 |isbn=978-1-57230-629-5 |oclc=783011161}}</ref> * '''The Vulnerability/Risk Model:''' According to this model, personality contributes to the onset or etiology of various common mental disorders. In other words, pre-existing personality traits either cause the development of CMDs directly or enhance the impact of causal risk factors.<ref name="Kotov-2010" /><ref name="Ormel-2013">{{cite journal |vauthors=Ormel J, Jeronimus BF, Kotov R, Riese H, Bos EH, Hankin B, Rosmalen JG, Oldehinkel AJ |title=Neuroticism and common mental disorders: meaning and utility of a complex relationship |journal=Clinical Psychology Review |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=686–97 |date=July 2013 |pmid=23702592 |pmc=4382368 |doi=10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003}}</ref><ref name="Millon-2011">{{Cite book|title=Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology: Scientific Foundations of the DSM-IV and ICD-11 |vauthors=Millon T, Krueger R, Simonsen E |publisher=Guilford Press|year=2011}}</ref><ref name="Krueger-2006">{{Cite book|title=Personality and Psychopathology |vauthors=Krueger R, Tackett L |publisher=Guilford Press|year=2006|isbn=|page=}}{{page needed|date=June 2021}}{{ISBN?}}</ref> There is strong support for neuroticism being a robust vulnerability factor.<ref name="NeuroticismMA" /> * '''The Pathoplasty Model:''' This model proposes that premorbid personality traits impact the expression, course, severity, and/or treatment response of a mental disorder.<ref name="Kotov-2010" /><ref name="Millon-2011" /><ref name="De Bolle-2012">{{cite journal |vauthors=De Bolle M, Beyers W, De Clercq B, De Fruyt F |title=General personality and psychopathology in referred and nonreferred children and adolescents: an investigation of continuity, pathoplasty, and complication models |journal=Journal of Abnormal Psychology |volume=121 |issue=4 |pages=958–70 |date=November 2012 |pmid=22448741 |doi=10.1037/a0027742 |s2cid=33228527 |url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2117776/file/6770996}}</ref> An example of this relationship would be a heightened likelihood of committing suicide in a depressed individual who also has low levels of constraint.<ref name="Millon-2011" /> * '''The Common Cause Model:''' According to the common cause model, personality traits are predictive of CMDs because personality and psychopathology have shared genetic and environmental determinants which result in non-causal associations between the two constructs.<ref name="Kotov-2010" /><ref name="Ormel-2013" /> * '''The Spectrum Model:''' This model proposes that associations between personality and psychopathology are found because these two constructs both occupy a single domain or spectrum and psychopathology is simply a display of the extremes of normal personality function.<ref name="Kotov-2010" /><ref name="Ormel-2013" /><ref name="Millon-2011" /><ref name="Krueger-2006" /> Support for this model is provided by an issue of criterion overlap. For instance, two of the primary facet scales of neuroticism in the NEO-PI-R are "depression" and "anxiety". Thus the fact that diagnostic criteria for depression, anxiety, and neuroticism assess the same content increases the correlations between these domains.<ref name="Krueger-2006" /> * '''The Scar Model:''' According to the scar model, episodes of a mental disorder 'scar' an individual's personality, changing it in significant ways from premorbid functioning.<ref name="Kotov-2010" /><ref name="Ormel-2013" /><ref name="Millon-2011" /><ref name="Krueger-2006" /> An example of a scar effect would be a decrease in openness to experience following an episode of PTSD.<ref name="Millon-2011" />

The predictive effects of the Big Five personality traits relate mostly to social functioning and rules-driven behavior and are not very specific for prediction of particular aspects of behavior. For example, it was noted by all temperament researchers that high neuroticism precedes the development of all common mental disorders<ref name="NeuroticismMA" /> and is not associated with personality.<ref name="PTRS-B" /> Further evidence is required to fully uncover the nature and differences between personality traits, temperament and life outcomes. Social and contextual parameters also play a role in outcomes and the interaction between the two is not yet fully understood.<ref>Roberts, p. 338</ref> The dimensional trait models of the ICD‐11 and DSM‐5 Section III were explicitly made consistent with the FFM. The FFM is also the personality and temperament foundation for the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Widiger |first1=Thomas A. |last2=Crego |first2=Cristina |date=2019 |title=The Five Factor Model of personality structure: an update |journal=World Psychiatry |language=en |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=271–272 |doi=10.1002/wps.20658 |pmid=31496109 |issn=2051-5545 |pmc=6732674}}</ref>

=== Career, education, and life transitions ===

Personality can sometimes be flexible and measuring the big five personality for individuals as they enter certain stages of life may predict their educational identity. Recent studies have suggested the likelihood of an individual's personality affecting their educational identity.<ref name="Klimstra 2011" /> It is also believed that the Big Five traits are predictors of future performance outcomes to varying degrees. Specific facets of the Big Five traits are also thought to be indicators of success in the workplace, and each individual facet can give a more precise indication as to the nature of a person. Different traits' facets are needed for different occupations. Various facets of the Big Five traits can predict the success of people in different environments. The estimated levels of an individual's success in jobs that require public speaking versus one-on-one interactions will differ according to whether that person has particular traits' facets.<ref name="ReferenceC">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Paunonen SV, Ashton MS |year=2001 |title=Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior |journal=Journal of Personality & Social Psychology |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=524–39 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524 |pmid=11554651}}</ref>

====Academic achievement====

Personality plays an important role in academic achievement. A study of Israeli high-school students found that those in the gifted program systematically scored higher on openness and lower on neuroticism than those not in the gifted program. While not a measure of the Big Five, gifted students also reported less state anxiety than students not in the gifted program.<ref name="Zeidner">{{cite journal |vauthors=Zeidner M, Shani-Zinovich I |title=Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_2011-10_51_5/page/566 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=11 October 2011 |volume=51 |issue=5 |pages=566–70 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007}}</ref> Another study found that GPA and exam performance are both predicted by conscientiousness while neuroticism is negatively related to academic success.<ref name="Komarraju_2011" />

==== Vocational and educational transitions ==== In a study, conscientiousness predicted success in the transition from secondary school to vocational education and training (VET). Extraversion predicted the final VET grade and obtaining a VET position; agreeableness was linked to a higher risk of dropout. Effect sizes were small but comparable to established predictors such as cognitive ability and parental socioeconomic status.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nießen |first1=Désirée |last2=Danner |first2=Daniel |last3=Spengler |first3=Marion |last4=Lechner |first4=Clemens M. |date=2020-07-31 |title=Big Five Personality Traits Predict Successful Transitions From School to Vocational Education and Training: A Large-Scale Study |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |language=English |volume=11 |article-number=1827 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01827 |doi-access=free |pmid=32903700 |pmc=7438771 |issn=1664-1078}}</ref>

====Learning styles==== Learning styles have been described as "enduring ways of thinking and processing information".<ref name="Komarraju_2011" /> In 2008, the Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissioned a report that concludes that no significant evidence exists that learning-style assessments should be included in the education system.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R |title=Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence |journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=105–19 |date=December 2008 |pmid=26162104 |doi=10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x |doi-access=free}}</ref> Thus it is premature, at best, to conclude that the evidence links the Big Five to "learning styles", or "learning styles" to learning itself. However, the APS report also suggested that all existing learning styles have not been exhausted and that there could exist learning styles worthy of being included in educational practices. There are studies that conclude that personality and thinking styles may be intertwined in ways that link thinking styles to the Big Five personality traits.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Zhang|first=Li-fang |name-list-style=vanc |title=Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality traits?|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=6 September 2001|volume=33|issue=3 |pages=445–58|doi=10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00166-0}}</ref> There is no general consensus on the number or specifications of particular learning styles, but there have been many different proposals.

As one example, Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah (1997) defined four types of learning styles:<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Schmeck RR, Ribich F, Ramainah N |title=Development of a Self-Report inventory for assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes |journal=Applied Psychological Measurement|volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=413–31 |date=1997 |doi=10.1177/014662167700100310 |s2cid=143890188 |url=http://purl.umn.edu/98563}}</ref>

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

When all four facets are implicated within the classroom, they will each likely improve academic achievement. A study of 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory Processes and reported their GPA suggested that conscientiousness and agreeableness have a positive relationship with all types of learning styles (synthesis-analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism shows an inverse relationship. Moreover, extraversion and openness were proportional to elaborative processing. The Big Five personality traits accounted for 14% of the variance in GPA, suggesting that personality traits make some contributions to academic performance. Furthermore, reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing) were able to mediate the relationship between openness and GPA. These results indicate that intellectual curiosity significantly enhances academic performance if students combine their scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing.<ref name="Komarraju_2011">{{cite journal |vauthors=Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, Avdic A |title=The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_2011-09_51_4/page/472 |journal =Personality and Individual Differences |volume=51 |issue=4 |pages=472–77 |date=September 2011 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019}}</ref>

By identifying learning strategies in individuals, learning and academic achievement can be improved, and a deeper understanding of information processing can be gained.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Komarraju |first1=Meera |last2=Karau |first2=Steven J. |last3=Schmeck |first3=Ronald R. |last4=Avdic |first4=Alen |date=2011-09-01 |title=The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886911002194 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |series=Digit Ratio (2D:4D) and Individual Differences Research |volume=51 |issue=4 |pages=472–477 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019 |issn=0191-8869|url-access=subscription }}</ref> This model asserts that students develop either agentic/shallow processing or reflective/deep processing. Deep processors are more often found to be more conscientious, intellectually open, and extraverted than shallow processors. Deep processing is associated with appropriate study methods (methodical study) and a stronger ability to analyze information (synthesis analysis), whereas shallow processors prefer structured fact retention learning styles and are better suited for elaborative processing.<ref name="Komarraju_2011" /> The main functions of these four specific learning styles are as follows:

{| class="wikitable" |- ! Name !! Function |- | Synthesis analysis || processing information, forming categories, and organizing them into hierarchies. This is the only one of the learning styles that has explained a significant impact on academic performance.<ref name="Komarraju_2011" /> |- | Methodical study || methodical behavior while completing academic assignments |- | Fact retention || focusing on the result instead of understanding the logic behind something |- | Elaborative processing || connecting and applying new ideas to existing knowledge |}

Openness has been linked to learning styles that often lead to academic success and higher grades like synthesis analysis and methodical study. Because conscientiousness and openness have been shown to predict all four learning styles, it suggests that individuals who possess characteristics like discipline, determination, and curiosity are more likely to engage in all of the above learning styles.<ref name="Komarraju_2011" />

According to the research carried out by Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck & Avdic (2011), conscientiousness and agreeableness are positively related with all four learning styles, whereas neuroticism was negatively related with those four. Furthermore, extraversion and openness were only positively related to elaborative processing, and openness itself correlated with higher academic achievement.<ref name="Komarraju_2011" />

In addition, a previous study by psychologist Mikael Jensen has shown relationships between the Big Five personality traits, learning, and academic achievement. According to Jensen, all personality traits, except neuroticism, are associated with learning goals and motivation. Openness and conscientiousness influence individuals to learn to a high degree unrecognized, while extraversion and agreeableness have similar effects.<ref name="Jensen-2015">{{cite journal|last1=Jensen|first1=Mikael|year=2015|title=Personality Traits, Learning and Academic Achievements|journal=Journal of Education and Learning|volume=4|issue=4|page=91|doi=10.5539/jel.v4n4p91|doi-access=free}}</ref> Conscientiousness and neuroticism also influence individuals to perform well in front of others for a sense of credit and reward, while agreeableness forces individuals to avoid this strategy of learning.<ref name="Jensen-2015" /> Jensen's study concludes that individuals who score high on the agreeableness trait will likely learn just to perform well in front of others.<ref name="Jensen-2015" />

Besides openness, all Big Five personality traits helped predict the educational identity of students. Based on these findings, scientists are beginning to see that the Big Five traits might have a large influence of on academic motivation that leads to predicting a student's academic performance.<ref name="Klimstra 2011">{{cite journal |vauthors=Klimstra TA, Luyckx K, Germeijs V, Meeus WH, Goossens L |title=Personality traits and educational identity formation in late adolescents: longitudinal associations and academic progress |journal=Journal of Youth and Adolescence |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=346–61 |date=March 2012 |pmid=22147120 |doi=10.1007/s10964-011-9734-7 |s2cid=33747401 |url=https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/1461188/OntwikPsy_Klimstra_personality__JoYaA_2012.pdf}}</ref>

Some authors suggested that Big Five personality traits combined with learning styles can help predict some variations in the academic performance and the academic motivation of an individual which can then influence their academic achievements.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=De Feyter|first1=Tim |first2=Ralf |last2=Caers |first3=Claudia |last3=Vigna |first4=Dries |last4=Berings |name-list-style=vanc |title=Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation|journal=Learning and Individual Differences|date=22 March 2012|volume=22|issue=4|pages=439–48 |doi=10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013|url=https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/409065}}</ref> This may be seen because individual differences in personality represent stable approaches to information processing. For instance, conscientiousness has consistently emerged as a stable predictor of success in exam performance, largely because conscientious students experience fewer study delays.<ref name="Klimstra 2011" /> Conscientiousness shows a positive association with the four learning styles because students with high levels of conscientiousness develop focused learning strategies and appear to be more disciplined and achievement-oriented.

{{Blockquote|Personality and learning styles are both likely to play significant roles in influencing academic achievement. College students (308 undergraduates) completed the Five Factor Inventory and the Inventory of Learning Processes and reported their grade point average. Two of the Big Five traits, conscientiousness and agreeableness, were positively related with all four learning styles (synthesis analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism was negatively related with all four learning styles. In addition, extraversion and openness were positively related with elaborative processing. The Big Five together explained 14% of the variance in grade point average (GPA), and learning styles explained an additional 3%, suggesting that both personality traits and learning styles contribute to academic performance. Further, the relationship between openness and GPA was mediated by reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing). These latter results suggest that being intellectually curious fully enhances academic performance when students combine this scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of teaching techniques and curriculum design.|M Komarraju<ref name="Komarraju_2011" />}}

====Distance learning==== When the relationship between the five-factor personality traits and academic achievement in distance education settings was examined in brief, the openness personality trait was found to be the most important variable that has a positive relationship with academic achievement in distance education environments. In addition, it was found that self-discipline, extraversion, and adaptability personality traits are generally in a positive relationship with academic achievement. The most important personality trait that has a negative relationship with academic achievement has emerged as neuroticism. The results generally show that individuals who are organized, planned, determined, who are oriented to new ideas and independent thinking have increased success in distance education environments. On the other hand, it can be said that individuals with anxiety and stress tendencies generally have lower academic success.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Vedel A |year=2014 |title=The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis |url=https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/112928639/The_Big_Five_and_tertiary_academic_performance_Postprint_2014.pdf |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=71 |issue=|pages=66–76 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011}}</ref><ref>Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W. ve Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–51.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bartolic-Zlomislic, Bates A |year=1999 |title=Investing in On-line Learning: Potential Benefits and Limitations |url=|journal=Canadian Journal of Communication |volume=24 |issue=3 |article-number=cjc.1999v24n3a1111 |doi=10.22230/CJC.1999V24N3A1111}}</ref>

====Occupation and personality fit==== thumb|left|upright=1.5|alt=The Vocations Map - many people in the same role share similar personality traits|The Vocations Map - clustering of the social media presence of users in different professions

Researchers have long suggested that work is more likely to be fulfilling to the individual and beneficial to society when there is alignment between the person and their occupation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Holland |first1=J. L. |title=The Psychology of Vocational Choice: A Theory of Personality Types and Model Environments |publisher=Blaisdell |location=Oxford |date=1966}}</ref> For instance, software programmers and scientists often rank high on Openness to experience and tend to be intellectually curious, think in symbols and abstractions, and find repetition boring.<ref>{{cite web |last=Armitage |first=Catherine |title=Scientists are curious and passionate and ready to argue |date=12 February 2020 |url=https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/scientists-are-curious-and-idealistic-but-not-very-agreeable-compared-to-other-professions |access-date=9 June 2021}}</ref> Psychologists and sociologists rank higher on Agreeableness and Openness than economists and jurists.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Vedel |first=Anna |year=2016 |title=Big Five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=92 |pages=1–10 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011 |issn=0191-8869}}</ref>

====Work success==== thumb|The relationship between Big Five traits and workplace success remains somewhat controversial.

Research has demonstrated that the big five personality traits correlate with important work outcomes such as job performance, training proficiency, and turnover.<ref name="MountBarrick1998">{{cite journal |vauthors=Mount MK, Barrick MR |year=1998 |title=Five reasons why the "big five" article has been frequently cited |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personnel-psychology_winter-1998_51_4/page/849 |journal=Personnel Psychology |volume=51 |issue=4 |pages=849–57 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00743.x}}</ref> For example, an early meta-analysis found an estimated population correlation of 0.26 between conscientiousness and supervisory ratings of job performance.<ref name="Barrick1991">{{Cite journal |last1=Barrick |first1=M. R. |last2=Mount |first2=M. K. |year=1991 |title=The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis |journal=Personnel Psychology |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=1–26 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x}}</ref> These results are consistent with research suggesting that personality traits predict a broad range of important life outcomes.<ref name="Roberts2004"/>

However, these criterion-related validity results have been criticized, in part because of the apparently weak correlations: "The problem with personality tests is ... that the validity of personality measures as predictors of job performance is often disappointingly low. The argument for using personality tests to predict performance does not strike me as convincing in the first place."<ref name="MorgensonEtal2007">{{cite journal |vauthors=Morgeson FP, Campion MA, Dipboye RL, Hollenbeck JR, Murphy K, Schmitt N |year=2007 |title=Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personnel-psychology_autumn-2007_60_3/page/683 |journal=Personnel Psychology |volume=60 |issue=3 |pages=683–729 |citeseerx=10.1.1.493.5981 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x}}</ref>

Subsequent literature has suggested that correlations obtained by psychometric personality researchers were actually very respectable by comparative standards,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Rosenthal R |year=1990 |title=How are we doing in soft psychology? |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_american-psychologist_1990-06_45_6/page/775 |journal=American Psychologist |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=775–77 |doi=10.1037/0003-066x.45.6.775}}</ref> and that the economic value of even incremental increases in prediction accuracy was exceptionally large, given the vast difference in performance by those who occupy complex job positions.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Judiesch MK |s2cid=144507523 |year=1990 |title=Individual differences in output variability as a function of job complexity |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-applied-psychology_1990-02_75_1/page/28 |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=75 |pages=28–42 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.28}}</ref>

One way to explain this controversy is that there is little doubt that personality predicts a broad array of important outcomes<ref name="Roberts2004"/><ref name="MountBarrick1998"/> but it is also clear that other selection methods have higher validity as compared to personality.<ref name="MorgensonEtal2007"/><ref name="Schmidt1998">{{Cite journal |last1=Schmidt |first1=F. L. |last2=Hunter |first2=J. E. |year=1998 |title=The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=124 |issue=2 |pages=262–274 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262}}</ref>

Research has suggested that individuals who are considered leaders typically exhibit lower amounts of neurotic traits, maintain higher levels of openness, balanced levels of conscientiousness, and balanced levels of extraversion.<ref name="pmid12184579">{{cite journal |vauthors=Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW |date=August 2002 |title=Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-applied-psychology_2002-08_87_4/page/765 |journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=87 |issue=4 |pages=765–80 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 |pmid=12184579}}</ref><ref name="Spurk">{{cite journal |last1=Spurk |first1=Daniel |last2=Abele |first2=Andrea E. |name-list-style=vanc |date=16 June 2010 |title=Who Earns More and Why? A Multiple Mediation Model from Personality to Salary |url=https://boris.unibe.ch/65687/ |journal=Journal of Business and Psychology |volume=26 |pages=87–103 |doi=10.1007/s10869-010-9184-3 |s2cid=144290202}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McLean |first1=Dawson |last2=Bouaissa |first2=Mohsen |last3=Rainville |first3=Bruno |last4=Auger |first4=Ludovic |date=2019-12-04 |title=Non-Cognitive Skills: How Much Do They Matter for Earnings in Canada? |url=https://articlegateway.com/index.php/AJM/article/view/2392 |journal=American Journal of Management |language=en |volume=19 |issue=4 |doi=10.33423/ajm.v19i4.2392 |issn=2165-7998 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Further studies have linked professional burnout to neuroticism, and extraversion to enduring positive work experience.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mehta |first1=Penkak |name-list-style=vanc |year=2012 |title=Personality as a predictor of burnout among managers of manufacturing industries.. |journal=Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology |volume=32 |pages=321–28}}</ref> Studies have linked national innovation, leadership, and ideation to openness to experience and conscientiousness.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Fairweather J |year=2012 |title=Personality, nations, and innovation: Relationships between personality traits and national innovation scores |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_cross-cultural-research_2012-02_46_1/page/3 |journal=Cross-Cultural Research |volume=46 |pages=3–30 |doi=10.1177/1069397111409124 |s2cid=144015495}}</ref> Occupational self-efficacy has also been shown to be positively correlated with conscientiousness and negatively correlated with neuroticism.<ref name="Spurk" /> Some research has also suggested that the conscientiousness of a supervisor is positively associated with an employee's perception of abusive supervision.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Camps J, Stouten J, Euwema M |date=February 2016 |title=The relation between supervisors' big five personality traits and employees' experiences of abusive supervision |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=10 |issue=7 |page=112 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00112 |pmc=4748047 |pmid=26903919 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Others have suggested that low agreeableness and high neuroticism are traits more related to abusive supervision.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Tepper BJ |date=June 2007 |title=Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. |journal=Journal of Management |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=261–89 |doi=10.1177/0149206307300812 |s2cid=143934380}}</ref>

Openness is positively related to proactivity at the individual and the organizational levels and is negatively related to team and organizational proficiency. These effects were found to be completely independent of one another. This is also counter-conscientious and has a negative correlation to Conscientiousness.<ref name="Judge">Judge & LePine, "Bright and Dark Sides..." ''Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace'', 2007 pp. 332–355.</ref>

Agreeableness is negatively related to individual task proactivity. Typically this is associated with lower career success and being less able to cope with conflict. However there are benefits to the Agreeableness personality trait including higher subjective well-being; more positive interpersonal interactions and helping behavior; lower conflict; lower deviance and turnover.<ref name="Judge" /> Furthermore, attributes related to Agreeableness are important for workforce readiness for a variety of occupations and performance criteria.<ref name="Sackett-2014" /> Research has suggested that those who are high in agreeableness are not as successful in accumulating income.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Judge TA, Livingston BA, Hurst C |date=February 2012 |title=Do nice guys--and gals--really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2012-02_102_2/page/390 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=102 |issue=2 |pages=390–407 |doi=10.1037/a0026021 |pmid=22121889}}</ref>

Extraversion results in greater leadership emergence and effectiveness; as well as higher job and life satisfaction. However extraversion can lead to more impulsive behaviors, more accidents and lower performance in certain jobs.<ref name="Judge" />

Conscientiousness is highly predictive of job performance in general,<ref name="Sackett-2014" /> and is positively related to all forms of work role performance, including job performance and job satisfaction, greater leadership effectiveness, lower turnover and deviant behaviors. However this personality trait is associated with reduced adaptability, lower learning in initial stages of skill acquisition and more interpersonally abrasiveness, when also low in agreeableness.<ref name="Judge" /> It is also not the case that more or extreme conscientiousness is always necessarily better as there does appear to be a link between conscientiousness and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). Selecting employees for a moderate level of conscientiousness may actually provide the best occupational outcome.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carter |first1=Nathan T. |last2=Miller |first2=Joshua D. |last3=Widiger |first3=Thomas A. |date=2018-12-01 |title=Extreme Personalities at Work and in Life |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418793134 |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |language=en |volume=27 |issue=6 |pages=429–436 |doi=10.1177/0963721418793134 |issn=0963-7214|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Neuroticism is negatively related to all forms of work role performance. This increases the chance of engaging in risky behaviors.<ref name="Neal">{{cite journal |vauthors=Neal A, Yeo G, Koy A, Xiao T |date=26 January 2011 |title=Predicting the Form and Direction of Work Role Performance From the Big 5 Model of Personality Traits |journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=175–92 |doi=10.1002/job.742}}</ref><ref name="Judge" />

Two theories have been integrated in an attempt to account for these differences in work role performance. Trait activation theory posits that within a person trait levels predict future behavior, that trait levels differ between people, and that work-related cues activate traits which leads to work relevant behaviors. Role theory suggests that role senders provide cues to elicit desired behaviors. In this context, role senders provide workers with cues for expected behaviors, which in turn activates personality traits and work relevant behaviors. In essence, expectations of the role sender lead to different behavioral outcomes depending on the trait levels of individual workers, and because people differ in trait levels, responses to these cues will not be universal.<ref name="Neal" />

==== Remote work/telework ==== As of 2020, remote work has become more and more prevalent as brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, research has shown that the Big Five personality traits still influence remote work. Gavoille and Hazans have found that conscientiousness (β=0.06) and openness to experience are both positively correlated with willingness to work and worker productivity within a remote setting, with openness to experience being less significant (β=0.021). This is then contrasted with extraversion (β=-0.038), which negatively correlates with Willingness to work and openness. Another conclusion that was found is that gender did not play a role in the difference between conscientiousness and extraversion, and willingness to work from home.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gavoille |first1=Nicolas |last2=Hazans |first2=Mihails |date=2022 |title=Personality Traits, Remote Work and Productivity |url=https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4188297 |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |language=en |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4188297 |hdl=10419/265707 |issn=1556-5068|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Similarly, Wright investigated the influence of Big Five on the soft skills in the remote workplace, such as effort and cooperation. She delineated soft skills into two different groups, Task Performance and Contextual Performance, with each having three subgroups. Task Performance was more aligned with specific job responsibilities and handling cognitive tasks associated with their job, and the three subgroups were Job Knowledge, Organizational Skills, and Efficiency. Wright found that Job Knowledge did not correlate with any Big Five traits, Organizational Skill is only significantly correlated with Conscientiousness (T=7.952, P=.001), and Efficiency is significantly correlated with Conscientiousness (T=3.8, P=.001), and Neuroticism(T=-2.6, P=.008), which it is a negative correlation. Contextual Performance is concerned with non-job core requirements, such as perceived effort and job cooperation, with the subgroups being Persistent Effort, Cooperation, and Organizational Conscientiousness. Wright found that Persistent Effort is positively correlated with Openness(t=2.4, P=.014) and Conscientiousness (T=3.1, P=.002), and negatively correlated with Neuroticism (T=-3.2, P=.001). Cooperation was positively correlated with Extraversion (t=2.6, P=.009) and Conscientiousness (t=2.82, P=.005), as well as Organizational Conscientiousness was positively correlated with Agreeableness (t=4.059, P<.001) and Conscientiousness (t=4.511, P<.001)<ref>{{Cite thesis |last=Wright |first=Sandra |title=Personality as a Predictor Of Job Performance in an All-Remote Workforce: A Study of Workers Within the Canada Pension Centre for the Federal Public Service |date=2023 |degree=Doctor of Philosophy |publisher=Carleton University |url=https://repository.library.carleton.ca/concern/etds/jd472x515 |hdl=20.500.14718/42842 |doi=10.22215/etd/2023-15519}}</ref>

On another tack, scientists wanted to discover if the Big Five has any effect on remote worker burnout, and the effect that different Big Five traits have on worker health and engagement. Olsen et al found that when remote work days are increased, individuals high in extraversion start to struggle with work engagement (β=-.094, P<.03), and individuals with higher neuroticism are more likely to have poorer health (p=-.23), work engagement (p=-.18), and an increase in sick leaves(p=.38).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Olsen |first1=Espen |last2=Fu |first2=Yusheng |last3=Jensen |first3=Maria |date=2024-07-05 |title=The Influence of Remote Work on Personality Trait–Performance Linkages: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Study |journal=Administrative Sciences |language=en |volume=14 |issue=7 |page=144 |doi=10.3390/admsci14070144 |doi-access=free |issn=2076-3387|hdl=10419/320958 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> However, Olsen found that conscientiousness, coupled with an increase in remote work days, can lead to a decrease in general health, contrary to all of the benefits it has listed above. Similarly, Para et al. found that individuals with higher Neuroticism (β=.138, p<.05) also tend to have higher Remote Work Exhaustion (RWE). They also found that conscientiousness(β=-.336, p<.001) and agreeableness (β=-.267, p<.001) were negatively correlated with RWE, meaning that they were more resilient against RWE over large spans of remote work days.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Parra |first1=Carlos M. |last2=Gupta |first2=Manjul |last3=Cadden |first3=Trevor |date=November 2022 |title=Towards an understanding of remote work exhaustion: A study on the effects of individuals' big five personality traits |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296322005422 |journal=Journal of Business Research |language=en |volume=150 |pages=653–662 |doi=10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.009|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The author attributed conscientious individuals to being hard workers and dependable, while agreeableness was attributed to the situation the study was completed under, which was the at-home quarantine due to COVID-19, stating individuals with high agreeableness did well with the forced contact due to quarantine, which transferred over to their work.

=== Cross-cultural and international research === {{main|Big Five personality traits and culture}}

Research into the Big Five has been pursued in a variety of languages and cultures, such as German,<ref>Ostendorf, F. (1990). ''Sprache und Persoenlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validitaet des Funf-Factoren-Modells der Persoenlichkeit''. Regensburg, Germany: S. Roderer Verlag.{{page needed|date=November 2014}}</ref> Chinese,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Trull TJ, Geary DC |title=Comparison of the big-five factor structure across samples of Chinese and American adults |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-assessment_1997-10_69_2/page/324 |journal=Journal of Personality Assessment |volume=69 |issue=2 |pages=324–41 |date=October 1997 |pmid=9392894 |doi=10.1207/s15327752jpa6902_6}}</ref> and South Asian.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Lodhi PH, Deo S, Belhekar VM |date=2002 |chapter=The Five-Factor model of personality in Indian context: measurement and correlates. |veditors=McCrae RR, Allik J |title=The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures |pages=227–48 |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publisher}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |vauthors=McCrae RR |date=2002 |chapter=NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further Intercultural comparisons. |veditors=McCrae RR, Allik J |title=The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures |pages=105–25 |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publisher}}</ref> For example, Thompson has claimed to find the Big Five structure across several cultures using an international English language scale.<ref name="Thompson">{{Cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013 |vauthors=Thompson ER |year=2008 |title=Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_2008-10_45_6/page/542 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=542–48}}</ref> Studies of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, which has been translated into more than forty languages and dialects, have found an approximation to the five-factor structure in more than thirty cultures examined. These findings do not rule out additional personality traits specific to individual cultures, and the factors may not be equally important in every culture. For example, Openness to Experience might be less important in traditional cultures.<ref name=":2"/> Individual differences in personality traits are widely understood to be conditioned by cultural context.<ref name="Friedman_2016" />{{rp|189}} Measures of the Big Five constructs appear to show some consistency in interviews, self-descriptions and observations, and this static five-factor structure seems to be found across a wide range of participants of different ages and cultures.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Daniel L |last1=Schacter |first2=Daniel Todd |last2=Gilbert |first3=Daniel M |last3=Wegner |name-list-style=vanc |title=Psychology |url=https://archive.org/details/psychology0000scha |url-access=registration |edition=2nd|year=2011|publisher=Worth|pages=[https://archive.org/details/psychology0000scha/page/474 474–75] |isbn=978-1-4292-3719-2}}</ref> However, while genotypic temperament trait dimensions might appear across different cultures, the phenotypic expression of personality traits differs profoundly across different cultures as a function of the different socio-cultural conditioning and experiential learning that takes place within different cultural settings.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors =Piekkola B|year=2011 |title=Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective |journal=Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology |volume=31 |pages=2–24 |doi=10.1037/a0022478}}</ref> Surveys in studies are often online surveys of college students (compare WEIRD bias). Results do not always replicate when run on other populations or in other languages.<ref>{{Cite journal|title= How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=2013|doi=10.1037/a0030841|pmc=4104167|pmid=23245291|last1=Gurven|first1=M.|last2=von Rueden|first2=C.|last3=Massenkoff|first3=M.|last4=Kaplan|first4=H.|last5=Lero Vie|first5=M.|volume=104|issue=2|pages=354–370}}</ref> Different surveys do not always measure the same 5 factors.<ref name="Block" />

Sopagna Eap et al. (2008) found that European-American men scored higher than Asian-American men on extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness, while Asian-American men scored higher than European-American men on neuroticism.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Eap |first1=Sopagna |last2=DeGarmo |first2=David S. |last3=Kawakami |first3=Ayaka |last4=Hara |first4=Shelley N. |last5=Hall |first5=Gordon C.N. |last6=Teten |first6=Andra L. |date=September 2008 |title=Culture and Personality Among European American and Asian American Men |journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=630–643 |doi=10.1177/0022022108321310 |issn=0022-0221 |pmc=2630227 |pmid=19169434}}</ref> Benet-Martínez and Karakitapoglu-Aygün (2003) arrived at similar results.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Benet-Martínez |first1=Verónica |last2=Karakitapoglu-Aygün |first2=Zahide |date=January 2003 |title=The Interplay Of Cultural Syndromes And Personality In Predicting Life Satisfaction: Comparing Asian Americans and European Americans |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022022102239154 |journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=38–60 |doi=10.1177/0022022102239154 |issn=0022-0221|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Recent work has found relationships between Geert Hofstede's cultural factors, Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with the average Big Five scores in a country.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=McCrae RR, Terracciano A |title=Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=89 |issue=3 |pages=407–25 |date=September 2005 |pmid=16248722 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407 |author3=Personality Profiles of Cultures Project |url=http://idiprints.knjiznica.idi.hr/649/1/JoPaSP%202005_3%20Mccrae%20et%20al..pdf}}</ref> For instance, the degree to which a country values individualism correlates with its average extraversion, whereas people living in cultures which are accepting of large inequalities in their power structures tend to score somewhat higher on conscientiousness.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hofstede |first1=Geert |last2=Bond |first2=Michael H. |date=1984 |title=Hofstede's Culture Dimensions: An Independent Validation Using Rokeach's Value Survey |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002184015004003 |journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology |language=en |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=417–433 |doi=10.1177/0022002184015004003 |s2cid=145651845 |issn=0022-0221|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mooradian |first1=Todd A. |last2=Swan |first2=K. Scott |date=2006-06-01 |title=Personality-and-culture: The case of national extraversion and word-of-mouth |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296306000312 |journal=Journal of Business Research |series=Special Section - The 2005 La Londe Seminar |language=en |volume=59 |issue=6 |pages=778–785 |doi=10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.015 |issn=0148-2963|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

A 2017 study has found that countries' average personality trait levels are correlated with their political systems. Countries with higher average trait Openness tended to have more democratic institutions, an association that held even after factoring out other relevant influences such as economic development.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barceló|first=Joan |name-list-style=vanc |date=2017 |title=National Personality Traits and Regime Type: A Cross-National Study of 47 Countries |journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=195–216 |doi=10.1177/0022022116678324 |s2cid=151607260}}</ref>

One limitation highlighted by cross-cultural research is that studies supporting the universality of the Five-Factor Model are often from 2002 or older, which can influence current results.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=McCrae |first=Robert |date=2002-08-01 |title=Cross-Cultural Research on the Five-Factor Model of Personality |url=https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/1 |journal=Online Readings in Psychology and Culture |volume=4 |issue=4 |doi=10.9707/2307-0919.1038 |issn=2307-0919|doi-access=free }}</ref> Methodological concerns may also arise from the reliance on Western-Developed instruments in some cross-cultural studies, affecting the validity of findings in diverse cultural contexts.<ref name=":2" />

=== Political identification, religiosity, and language ===

The Big Five Personality Model also has applications in the study of political psychology. Studies have been finding links between the big five personality traits and political identification. It has been found by several studies in the West that individuals who score high in Conscientiousness are more likely to possess a right-wing political identification.<ref name="Gerber-2010">{{cite journal |vauthors=Gerber AS |display-authors=etal |year=2010 |title=Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts |url=|journal=The American Political Science Review |volume=104 |issue=|pages=111–133 |doi=10.1017/S0003055410000031 |s2cid=6208090}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Sweetser KD |year=2014 |title=Partisan Personality: The Psychological Differences Between Democrats and Republicans, and Independents Somewhere in Between |url=|journal=American Behavioral Scientist |volume=58 |issue=9 |pages=1183–94 |doi=10.1177/0002764213506215 |s2cid=145674720}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Fatke M |year=2017 |title=Personality Traits and Political Ideology: A First Global Assessment |url=|journal=Political Psychology |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=881–99 |doi=10.1111/pops.12347}}</ref> On the opposite end of the spectrum, a strong correlation was identified between high scores in Openness to Experience and a left-leaning ideology.<ref name="Gerber-2010" /><ref name="Bakker-2015">{{cite journal |vauthors=Bakker BN |display-authors=etal |year=2015 |title=Personality Traits and Party Identification over Time |url=https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/personality-traits-and-party-identification-over-time(7d835c89-e58f-4be4-bb01-621610c77f97).html |journal=European Journal of Political Research |volume=54 |issue=2 |pages=197–215 |doi=10.1111/1475-6765.12070}}</ref><ref name="Gerber-2012">{{cite journal |vauthors=Gerber AS |display-authors=etal |year=2012 |title=Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification |url=|journal=Political Behavior |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=653–688 |doi=10.1007/s11109-011-9178-5 |s2cid=144317734}}</ref> While the traits of agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism have not been consistently linked to either conservative or liberal ideology, with studies producing mixed results, such traits are promising when analyzing the strength of an individual's party identification.<ref name="Bakker-2015" /><ref name="Gerber-2012" /> However, correlations between the Big Five and political beliefs, while present, tend to be small, with one study finding correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.24.<ref>Löwe, Konstantin Felix. "Is Politics Downstream from Personality? The Five Factor Model's Effect on Political Orientation in Sweden." (2019). http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8992021 Thesis</ref>

Though the effect sizes are small: Of the Big Five personality traits high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion relate to general religiosity, while Openness relate negatively to religious fundamentalism and positively to spirituality. High Neuroticism may be related to extrinsic religiosity, whereas intrinsic religiosity and spirituality reflect Emotional Stability.<ref name="Saroglou">{{cite journal|last=Saroglou|first=Vassilis|title=Religion and the five-factors of personality: A meta-analytic review.|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|volume=32|year=2002|pages=15–25|doi=10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00233-6}}</ref>

Andrew H. Schwartz analyzed 700 million words, phrases, and topic instances collected from the Facebook messages of 75,000 volunteers, who also took standard personality tests, and found striking variations in language with personality, gender, and age.<ref name="Schwartz, Andrew H 2013">{{cite journal |vauthors=Schwartz HA, Eichstaedt JC, Kern ML, Dziurzynski L, Ramones SM, Agrawal M, Shah A, Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Seligman ME, Ungar LH |title=Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: the open-vocabulary approach |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=8 |issue=9 |article-number=e73791 |year=2013 |pmid=24086296 |pmc=3783449 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0073791 |bibcode=2013PLoSO...873791S |doi-access=free}}</ref>

==== China ==== A 2021 analysis by Princeton University academic Rory Truex of survey results showed that in China, high neuroticism and low conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience correlated with discontent with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), while CCP members on average had very high levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Truex |first=Rory |date=2022 |title=Political Discontent in China Is Associated with Isolating Personality Traits |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719273 |journal=The Journal of Politics |volume=84 |issue=4 |pages=2172–2187 |doi=10.1086/719273 |issn=0022-3816 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

==== Russia ==== According to a 2017 research, higher agreeableness and conscientiousness and lower neuroticism in Russia is correlated with higher support for President Vladimir Putin, while lower agreeableness and conscientiousness and higher neuroticism is correlated with discontent with him; the study did not find major differences in openness to experience and extraversion.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Greene |first=Samuel |last2=Robertson |first2=Graeme |date=2017-01-16 |title=Agreeable Authoritarians: Personality and Politics in Contemporary Russia |url=https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/agreeable-authoritarians-personality-and-politics-in-contemporary |journal=Comparative Political Studies |language=English |volume=50 |issue=13 |pages=1802–1834 |doi=10.1177/0010414016688005 |issn=0010-4140 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241111080950/https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/agreeable-authoritarians-personality-and-politics-in-contemporary |archive-date=2024-11-11 |access-date=2026-01-17 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Lifespan development ===

====Temperament and personality in children====

Some consider the big five model as inappropriate for studying early childhood, as language is not yet developed.<ref name="Block" /> There are debates between temperament researchers and personality researchers as to whether or not biologically based differences define a concept of temperament or a part of personality. The presence of such differences in pre-cultural individuals (such as animals or young infants) suggests that they belong to temperament since personality is a socio-cultural concept. For this reason developmental psychologists generally interpret individual differences in children as an expression of temperament rather than personality.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /> Some researchers argue that temperaments and personality traits are age-specific demonstrations of virtually the same internal qualities.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="McCrae-2000">{{cite journal |vauthors=McCrae RR, Costa PT, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Hrebícková M, Avia MD, Sanz J, Sánchez-Bernardos ML, Kusdil ME, Woodfield R, Saunders PR, Smith PB |title=Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2000-01_78_1/page/173 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=78 |issue=1 |pages=173–86 |date=January 2000 |pmid=10653513 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173}}</ref> Some believe that early childhood temperaments may become adolescent and adult personality traits as individuals' basic genetic characteristics interact with their changing environments to various degrees.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /><ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" />

Researchers of adult temperament point out that, similarly to sex, age, and mental illness, temperament is based on biochemical systems whereas personality is a product of socialisation of an individual possessing these four types of features. Temperament interacts with socio-cultural factors, but, similar to sex and age, still cannot be controlled or easily changed by these factors.<ref name="Rusal89">{{cite journal|year=1989|vauthors=Rusalov VM|title=Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament. |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_1989_10_8/page/817|journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=10|issue=8 |pages=817–27|doi=10.1016/0191-8869(89)90017-2}}</ref><ref name="Strelau">{{cite book|year=1998|vauthors=Strelau J|title=Temperament: A Psychological Perspective. |location=New York |publisher=Plenum}}</ref><ref name="Manual">{{cite book|year=2007 |vauthors=Rusalov VM, Trofimova IN |title=Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement |location=Toronto, Canada |publisher=Psychological Services Press}}{{page needed|date=December 2017}}</ref><ref name="FET">{{cite book|year=2016|vauthors=Trofimova IN |chapter=The interlocking between functional aspects of activities and a neurochemical model of temperament|veditors=Arnold, MC|title=Temperaments: Individual Differences, Social and Environmental Influences and Impact on Quality of Life |location=New York |publisher=Nova Science Publishers |pages=77–147}}</ref> Therefore, it is suggested that temperament (neurochemically based individual differences) should be kept as an independent concept for further studies and not be confused with personality (culturally based individual differences, reflected in the origin of the word "persona" (Lat) as a "social mask").<ref name="PTRS-B">{{cite journal |vauthors=Trofimova I, Robbins TW, Sulis WH, Uher J |title=Taxonomies of psychological individual differences: biological perspectives on millennia-long challenges |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences |volume=373 |issue=1744 |article-number=20170152 |date=April 2018 |pmid=29483338 |pmc=5832678 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2017.0152}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|year=2022|vauthors=Trofimova I, etal |title=What's next for the neurobiology of temperament, personality and psychopathology?|journal=Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences|volume=45|article-number=101143 |doi=10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101143|s2cid=248817462 |url=https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/26462}}</ref>

Moreover, temperament refers to dynamic features of behaviour (energetic, tempo, sensitivity, and emotionality-related), whereas personality is to be considered a psycho-social construct comprising the content characteristics of human behaviour (such as values, attitudes, habits, preferences, personal history, self-image).<ref name="Strelau" /><ref name="Manual" /><ref name="FET" /> Temperament researchers point out that the lack of attention to surviving temperament research by the creators of the Big Five model led to an overlap between its dimensions and dimensions described in multiple temperament models much earlier. For example, neuroticism reflects the traditional temperament dimension of emotionality studied by Jerome Kagan's group since the 1960s. Extraversion was first introduced by Jung in the 1920s.<ref name="FET" /><ref name="TroAmP">{{cite journal|year=2010 |vauthors=Trofimova IN |title=An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_american-journal-of-psychology_winter-2010_123_4/page/467|journal=American Journal of Psychology |volume=123 |issue=4 |pages=467–80|doi=10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.4.0467 |pmid=21291163}}</ref>

====Child extraversion/positive emotionality====

In Big Five studies, extraversion has been associated with surgency.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /> Children with high Extraversion are energetic, talkative, social, and dominant with children and adults, whereas children with low extraversion tend to be quiet, calm, inhibited, and submissive to other children and adults.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /> Individual differences in extraversion first manifest in infancy as varying levels of positive emotionality.<ref name="pmid9923474">{{cite journal |vauthors=Lemery KS, Goldsmith HH, Klinnert MD, Mrazek DA |title=Developmental models of infant and childhood temperament |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_developmental-psychology_1999-01_35_1/page/189 |journal=Developmental Psychology |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=189–204 |date=January 1999 |pmid=9923474 |doi=10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.189}}</ref> These differences in turn predict social and physical activity during later childhood and may represent, or be associated with, the behavioral activation system.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /><ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /> In children, Extraversion/Positive Emotionality includes four sub-traits: three of these (''activity'', ''sociability'', and ''shyness'') are similar to the previously described traits of temperament;<ref name="Plomin">{{cite book |vauthors=Buss A, Plomin R |date=1984 |title=Temperament: early developing personality trait |location=Hillsdale |publisher=Erlbaum}}</ref><ref name="Kagan" /> the other is ''dominance''.

*'''Activity:''' Similarly to findings in temperament research, children with high activity tend to have high energy levels and more intense and frequent motor activity compared to their peers.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Goldberg, L.R. 2001" /><ref name="pmid11699677">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey KL, Fisher P |title=Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: the Children's Behavior Questionnaire |journal=Child Development |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=1394–408 |date=2001 |pmid=11699677 |doi=10.1111/1467-8624.00355 |citeseerx=10.1.1.398.8830}}</ref> Salient differences in activity reliably manifest in infancy, persist through adolescence, and fade as motor activity decreases in adulthood<ref name="pmid8131645">{{cite journal |vauthors=John OP, Caspi A, Robins RW, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M |title=The "little five": exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_child-development_1994-02_65_1/page/160 |journal=Child Development |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=160–78 |date=February 1994 |pmid=8131645 |doi=10.2307/1131373 |jstor=1131373}}</ref> or potentially develops into talkativeness.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Eaton WO |date=1994 |chapter=Temperament, development, and the Five-Factor Model: Lessons from activity level |veditors=Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP |title=The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood |pages=173–87 |location=Hillsdale, NJ |publisher=Erlbaum}}</ref> *'''Dominance:''' Children with high dominance tend to influence the behavior of others, particularly their peers, to obtain desirable rewards or outcomes.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hawley PH |year=1999 |title=The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective |journal=Developmental Review |volume=19 |pages=97–132 |doi=10.1006/drev.1998.0470 |citeseerx=10.1.1.459.4755}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hawley PH, Little TD |year=1999 |title=On winning some and losing some: A social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_merrill-palmer-quarterly_1999-01_45_1/page/n188 |journal=Merrill Palmer Quarterly |volume=45 |pages=185–214}}</ref> Such children are generally skilled at organizing activities and games<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Sherif M, Harvey O, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif C |year=1961 |title=Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers' cave experiment. |location=Norman, OK |publisher=University of Oklahoma Press |oclc=953442127 |url=https://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Intergroup-Conflict-and-Cooperation-The-Robbers-Cave-Experiment/pdf?dl&preview}}</ref> and deceiving others by controlling their nonverbal behavior.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Keating CF, Heltman KR |s2cid=19252480 |year=1994 |title=Dominance and deception in children and adults: Are leaders the best misleaders? |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-social-psychology-bulletin_1994-06_20_3/page/312 |journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=312–21 |doi=10.1177/0146167294203009}}</ref> *'''Shyness:''' Children with high shyness are generally socially withdrawn, nervous, and inhibited around strangers.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /> In time, such children may become fearful even around "known others", especially if their peers reject them.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Asendorpf JB |year=1990 |title=Development of inhibition during childhood: Evidence for situational specificity and a two-factor model |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_developmental-psychology_1990-09_26_5/page/721 |journal=Developmental Psychology |volume=26 |issue=5 |pages=721–30 |doi=10.1037/0012-1649.26.5.721}}</ref> Similar pattern was described in temperament longitudinal studies of shyness<ref name="Kagan" /> *'''Sociability:''' Children with high sociability generally prefer to be with others rather than alone.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Asendorpf JB, Meier GH |year=1993 |title=Personality effects on children's speech in everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated re-activity to social situations |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_1993-06_64_6/page/1072 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=64 |issue=6 |pages=1072–83 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1072 |pmid=8326470}}</ref> During middle childhood, the distinction between low sociability and high shyness becomes more pronounced, particularly as children gain greater control over how and where they spend their time.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="pmid9180002">{{cite journal |vauthors=Harrist AW, Zaia AF, Bates JE, Dodge KA, Pettit GS |title=Subtypes of social withdrawal in early childhood: sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across four years |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_child-development_1997-04_68_2/page/278 |journal=Child Development |volume=68 |issue=2 |pages=278–94 |date=April 1997 |pmid=9180002 |doi=10.2307/1131850 |jstor=1131850}}</ref><ref name="pmid10190344">{{cite journal |vauthors=Mathiesen KS, Tambs K |title=The EAS temperament questionnaire – factor structure, age trends, reliability, and stability in a Norwegian sample |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=431–39 |date=March 1999 |pmid=10190344 |doi=10.1111/1469-7610.00460}}</ref>

====Development during childhood and adolescence====

Research on the Big Five, and personality in general, has focused primarily on individual differences in adulthood, rather than in childhood and adolescence, and often include temperament traits.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000">{{cite journal |vauthors=Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE |year=2000 |title=Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2000-01_78_1/page/122 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=78 |issue=1 |pages=122–35 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122 |pmid=10653510}}</ref><ref name="Shiner, R. 2003">{{cite journal |vauthors=Shiner R, Caspi A |title=Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences |journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=2–32 |date=January 2003 |pmid=12553411 |doi=10.1111/1469-7610.00101}}</ref><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004">{{cite journal |vauthors=Markey PM, Markey CN, Tinsley BJ |title=Children's behavioral manifestations of the five-factor model of personality |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-social-psychology-bulletin_2004-04_30_4/page/423 |journal=Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=423–32 |date=April 2004 |pmid=15070472 |doi=10.1177/0146167203261886 |s2cid=33684001}}</ref> Recently, there has been growing recognition of the need to study child and adolescent personality trait development in order to understand how traits develop and change throughout the lifespan.<ref name="Soto-2011" />

Recent studies have begun to explore the developmental origins and trajectories of the Big Five among children and adolescents, especially those that relate to temperament.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /><ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" /> Many researchers have sought to distinguish between personality and temperament.<ref name="Soto-2016">{{cite journal |vauthors=Soto CJ |title=The Little Six Personality Dimensions From Early Childhood to Early Adulthood: Mean-Level Age and Gender Differences in Parents' Reports |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=84 |issue=4 |pages=409–22 |date=August 2016 |pmid=25728032 |doi=10.1111/jopy.12168}}</ref> Temperament often refers to early behavioral and affective characteristics that are thought to be driven primarily by genes.<ref name="Soto-2016" /> Models of temperament often include four trait dimensions: surgency/sociability, negative emotionality, persistence/effortful control, and activity level.<ref name="Soto-2016" /> Some of these differences in temperament are evident at, if not before, birth.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /><ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /> For example, both parents and researchers recognize that some newborn infants are peaceful and easily soothed while others are comparatively fussy and hard to calm.<ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /> Unlike temperament, however, many researchers view the development of personality as gradually occurring throughout childhood.<ref name="Soto-2016" /> Contrary to some researchers who question whether children have stable personality traits, Big Five or otherwise,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lewis M |year=2001 |title=Issues in the study of personality development |journal=Psychological Inquiry |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=67–83 |doi=10.1207/s15327965pli1202_02 |s2cid=144557981}}</ref> most researchers contend that there are significant psychological differences between children that are associated with relatively stable, distinct, and salient behavior patterns.<ref name="Rothbart, M. K. 2000" /><ref name="Shiner, R. 2003" /><ref name="Markley, P. M. 2004" />

Findings from studies indicate that, consistent with adult personality trends, youth personality becomes increasingly more stable in terms of rank-order throughout childhood.<ref name="Soto-2015" /> Unlike adult personality research, which indicates that people become agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable with age,<ref name="Roberts_2006" /> some findings in youth personality research have indicated that mean levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience decline from late childhood to late adolescence.<ref name="Soto-2015" /> The disruption hypothesis, which proposes that biological, social, and psychological changes experienced during youth result in temporary dips in maturity, has been proposed to explain these findings.<ref name="Soto-2016" /><ref name="Soto-2015" />

==== Aging ==== Many studies of longitudinal data, which correlate people's test scores over time, and cross-sectional data, which compare personality levels across different age groups, show a high degree of stability in personality traits during adulthood, especially Neuroticism that is often regarded as a temperament trait<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=McCrae RR, Costa PT |date=1990 |title=Personality in adulthood. |location=New York |publisher=The Guildford Press}}{{page needed|date=November 2014}}</ref> similarly to longitudinal research in temperament for the same traits.<ref name="Kagan" /> It is shown that the personality stabilizes for working-age individuals within about four years after starting working. There is also little evidence that adverse life events can have any significant impact on the personality of individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.015 |vauthors=Cobb-Clark DA, Schurer S |year=2012 |title=The stability of big-five personality traits |journal=Economics Letters |volume=115 |issue=2 |pages=11–15 |s2cid=12086995 |url=http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2011n21.pdf}}</ref> More recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, however, indicate that change occurs in all five traits at various points in the lifespan. The new research shows evidence for a maturation effect. On average, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas extraversion, neuroticism, and openness tend to decrease.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J |title=Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change? |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2003-05_84_5/page/1041 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=84 |issue=5 |pages=1041–53 |date=May 2003 |pmid=12757147 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041 |citeseerx=10.1.1.499.4124 |s2cid=14790757}}</ref> Research has also demonstrated that changes in Big Five personality traits depend on the individual's current stage of development. For example, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness demonstrate a negative trend during childhood and early adolescence before trending upwards during late adolescence and into adulthood.<ref name="Soto-2011">{{cite journal |vauthors=Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J |title=Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality-and-social-psychology_2011-02_100_2/page/330 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=100 |issue=2 |pages=330–48 |date=February 2011 |pmid=21171787 |doi=10.1037/a0021717}}</ref> In addition to these group effects, there are individual differences: different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all stages of life.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Roberts BW, Mroczek D |title=Personality Trait Change in Adulthood |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=31–35 |date=February 2008 |pmid=19756219 |pmc=2743415 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x}}</ref>

Previous research has found evidence that most adults become more agreeable and conscientious and less neurotic as they age.<ref name="Roberts_2006">{{cite journal |vauthors=Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W |title=Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=132 |issue=1 |pages=1–25 |date=January 2006 |pmid=16435954 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 |bibcode=2006PsycB.132....1R |s2cid=16606495}}</ref> This has been referred to as the maturation effect.<ref name="McCrae-2000" /> Many researchers have sought to investigate how trends in adult personality development compare to trends in youth personality development.<ref name="Soto-2015" /> Two main population-level indices have been important in this area of research: rank-order consistency and mean-level consistency. Rank-order consistency indicates the relative placement of individuals within a group.<ref name="pmid10668348">{{cite journal |vauthors=Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF |title=The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=126 |issue=1 |pages=3–25 |date=January 2000 |pmid=10668348 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3 |bibcode=2000PsycB.126....3R |s2cid=7484026 |url=http://jenni.uchicago.edu/Spencer_Conference/Representative%20Papers/Roberts%20&%20DelVecchio,%202000.pdf}}</ref> Mean-level consistency indicates whether groups increase or decrease on certain traits throughout the lifetime.<ref name="Roberts_2006" />

Research regarding personality with growing age has suggested that as individuals enter their elder years (79–86), those with lower IQ see a raise in extraversion, but a decline in conscientiousness and physical well-being.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=René |last1=Mõttus |first2=Wendy |last2=Johnson |first3=John M. |last3=Starr |first4=Ian J. |last4=Dearya |name-list-style=vanc |date=June 2012 |title=Correlates of personality trait levels and their changes in very old age: The Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=271–78 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2012.02.004|url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/15012527/Figure_1_without_legend.pdf |hdl=20.500.11820/b6b6961d-902f-48e0-bf25-f505a659a056 |s2cid=53117809 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

=== Well-being ===

====Physical health==== To examine how the Big Five personality traits are related to subjective health outcomes (positive and negative mood, physical symptoms, and general health concern) and objective health conditions (chronic illness, serious illness, and physical injuries), Jasna Hudek-Knezevic and Igor Kardum conducted a study from a sample of 822 healthy volunteers (438 women and 384 men).<ref name="Hudek-Knezević-2009">{{cite journal |vauthors=Hudek-Knezević J, Kardum I |title=Five-factor personality dimensions and 3 health-related personality constructs as predictors of health |journal=Croatian Medical Journal |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=394–402 |date=August 2009 |pmid=19673040 |pmc=2728392 |doi=10.3325/cmj.2009.50.394}}</ref> Out of the Big Five personality traits, they found neuroticism most related to worse subjective health outcomes and optimistic control to better subjective health outcomes. When relating to objective health conditions, connections drawn were presented weak, except that neuroticism significantly predicted chronic illness, whereas optimistic control was more closely related to physical injuries caused by accident.<ref name="Hudek-Knezević-2009" />

Being highly conscientious may add as much as five years to one's life.{{vague|date=September 2018}}<ref name="Roberts2004" /> The Big Five personality traits also predict positive health outcomes.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Jerram|first1=Kathryn L.|last2=Coleman|first2=Peter G.|date=1999|title=The big five personality traits and reporting of health problems and health behaviour in old age|url=https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/135910799168560|journal=British Journal of Health Psychology|language=en|volume=4|issue=2|pages=181–92|doi=10.1348/135910799168560|issn=2044-8287|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In an elderly Japanese sample, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness were related to lower risk of mortality.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Iwasa H, Masui Y, Gondo Y, Inagaki H, Kawaai C, Suzuki T |title=Personality and all-cause mortality among older adults dwelling in a Japanese community: a five-year population-based prospective cohort study |journal=The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry |volume=16 |issue=5 |pages=399–405 |date=May 2008 |pmid=18403571 |doi=10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181662ac9}}</ref>

Higher conscientiousness is associated with lower obesity risk. In already obese individuals, higher conscientiousness is associated with a higher likelihood of becoming non-obese over a five-year period.<ref>{{cite journal|author6-link=Archana Singh-Manoux |vauthors=Jokela M, Hintsanen M, Hakulinen C, Batty GD, Nabi H, Singh-Manoux A, Kivimäki M |title=Association of personality with the development and persistence of obesity: a meta-analysis based on individual-participant data |journal=Obesity Reviews |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=315–23 |date=April 2013 |pmid=23176713 |pmc=3717171 |doi=10.1111/obr.12007}}</ref>

==== Hope ==== Studies conducted on college students have concluded that hope, which is linked to agreeableness,<ref name="sciencedirect.com">{{Cite journal |last1=Mutlu |first1=Tansu |last2=Balbag |first2=Zafer |last3=Cemrek |first3=Fatih |date=2010-01-01 |title=The role of self-esteem, locus of control and big five personality traits in predicting hopelessness |journal=Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences |series=World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Administration Papers |language=en |volume=9 |pages=1788–1792 |doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.401 |issn=1877-0428|doi-access=free}}</ref> conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness,<ref name="sciencedirect.com" /> has a positive effect on psychological well-being. Individuals high in neurotic tendencies are less likely to display hopeful tendencies and are negatively associated with well-being.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Singh AK |year=2012 |title=Does trait predict psychological well-being among students of professional courses?. |journal=Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=234–41}}</ref>

==== Romantic relationships ====

Various researchers have explored the association of Big Five and romantic relationships in terms of relationship satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Weidmann |first1=Rebekka |last2=Ledermann |first2=Thomas |last3=Grob |first3=Alexander |date=August 2017 |title=Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: The mediating role of self-esteem |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |language=en |volume=69 |pages=102–109 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.001|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bach |first1=Kathrin |last2=Koch |first2=Marco |last3=Spinath |first3=Frank M. |date=February 2025 |title=Relationship satisfaction and The Big Five – Utilizing longitudinal data covering 9 years |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |language=en |volume=233 |article-number=112887 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2024.112887|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=O'Meara |first1=Madison S. |last2=South |first2=Susan C. |date=December 2019 |title=Big Five personality domains and relationship satisfaction: Direct effects and correlated change over time |journal=Journal of Personality |language=en |volume=87 |issue=6 |pages=1206–1220 |doi=10.1111/jopy.12468 |issn=0022-3506 |pmc=11239117 |pmid=30776092}}</ref> A meta-analysis showed that there was a higher level of marital satisfaction if their spouse showed lower levels in neuroticism (.22), but higher levels in agreeableness (.15) and conscientiousness(.12). There was only a weak correlation, but it was the same level of satisfaction for both genders. Much like the previous meta-analysis, a study on self-reported big five traits showed that those with higher levels of agreeableness, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and extraversion had higher levels of marital satisfaction(.20). That same study found that there was little to no difference in marital satisfaction if the two partners had similar or different levels of trait personality.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Malouff |first1=John M. |last2=Thorsteinsson |first2=Einar B. |last3=Schutte |first3=Nicola S. |last4=Bhullar |first4=Navjot |last5=Rooke |first5=Sally E. |date=February 2010 |title=The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092656609002001 |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |language=en |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=124–127 |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

O'Brien and colleagues<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Brien |first=Ruth |date=2008 |title=Big five personality characteristics and commitment levels in romantic relationships |url=https://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=mps}}</ref> examined the association of Big Five and romantic relationships by investigating participants' commitment levels. The three levels of commitment are affective commitment (emotional attachment), continuance commitment (financial considerations), and normative commitment (the ethical and moral responsibilities). The commitment levels were based on the taxonomy of organizational commitment<ref name="bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com">{{Cite journal |last1=Allen |first1=Natalie J. |last2=Meyer |first2=John P. |date=March 1990 |title=The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization |url=https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x |journal=Journal of Occupational Psychology |language=en |volume=63 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x |issn=0305-8107|url-access=subscription }}</ref> and the conceptual model of marital commitment of Johnson<ref>{{Cite book |last=Johnson |first=Michael P. |chapter=Personal, Moral, and Structural Commitment to Relationships |date=1999 |title=Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability |pages=73–87 |editor-last=Adams |editor-first=Jeffrey M. |chapter-url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4615-4773-0_4 |access-date=2025-05-07 |place=Boston, MA |publisher=Springer US |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-4615-4773-0_4 |isbn=978-1-4613-7161-8 |editor2-last=Jones |editor2-first=Warren H.}}</ref> and Johnson et al.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=Michael P. |last2=Caughlin |first2=John P. |last3=Huston |first3=Ted L. |date=February 1999 |title=The Tripartite Nature of Marital Commitment: Personal, Moral, and Structural Reasons to Stay Married |journal=Journal of Marriage and the Family |volume=61 |issue=1 |page=160 |doi=10.2307/353891|jstor=353891}}</ref> 122 Individuals currently in a committed relationship responded to a 50-item personality questionnaire from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP, 2006), and a questionnaire on commitment modified from Allen.<ref name="bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com" /> The key findings showed that participants high in Extraversion reported high levels of affective commitment; participants high on Extraversion were higher on Openness to Experience and affective commitment. Conscientiousness demonstrated a negative relationship with continuance commitment. While Extraversion and Agreeableness exhibited a positive correlation with each other, no significant relationships were found between Agreeableness and any of the commitment measures. The findings indicated gender differences in that women with lower levels of Openness to Experience were often paired with partners who scored higher in Extraversion. Men who exhibited strong affective commitment were more likely to be in relationships with women high in Conscientiousness. Additionally, women whose partners showed high affective commitment tended to be higher in both Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability.

Asselmann and Sprecht<ref name="doi.apa.org">{{Cite journal |last1=Asselmann |first1=Eva |last2=Specht |first2=Jule |date=September 2020 |title=Taking the ups and downs at the rollercoaster of love: Associations between major life events in the domain of romantic relationships and the Big Five personality traits. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0001047 |journal=Developmental Psychology |language=en |volume=56 |issue=9 |pages=1803–1816 |doi=10.1037/dev0001047 |pmid=32672996 |issn=1939-0599|url-access=subscription }}</ref> examined the association of Big Five (BFI-S) and romantic relationships through major life events across years in 2005, 2009, 2013, and 2017 with a sample of 49,932 participants in Germany. Those major life events are (1) moving in with a partner, (2) getting married, (3) getting separated, and (4) getting divorced. Researchers also examined whether the Big Five personality traits play a significant role in romantic relationships. Along the spectrum of a person's life satisfaction, marital satisfaction (one of romantic relationships) is shown to be stronger than job satisfaction, health satisfaction, and social satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Heller |first1=Daniel |last2=Watson |first2=David |last3=Ilies |first3=Remus |date=July 2004 |title=The Role of Person Versus Situation in Life Satisfaction: A Critical Examination. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.574 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |language=en |volume=130 |issue=4 |pages=574–600 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.574 |pmid=15250814 |bibcode=2004PsycB.130..574H |issn=1939-1455|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The key findings from Asselmann and Sprecht showed that more extraverted individuals were more likely to move in with a partner. Less agreeable and less emotionally stable women were more likely to move in with a partner. Men were more extraverted in the years before moving in and became gradually more open and more conscientious after moving in. Less agreeable men were more likely to get married. Individuals who got married became less open in the first three years after the marriage. Women became more extraverted after being separated. Men with lower emotional stability and women who were both less emotionally stable and more extraverted were more prone to experiencing relationship breakups. Individuals who got divorced were less agreeable in the years before the divorce. Personality may change after specific events. For example, both men and women who experienced separation or divorce became less emotionally stable in the following years. The results implicated that total agreeableness was not a guarantee for long-lasting romantic relationships, as less agreeable individuals were more likely to experience both positive and negative major romantic events.<ref name="doi.apa.org" /> Getting into a long-term romantic relationship can kick-start personality development in young adults ages 20–30 as they are faced with new social situations and expectations. For instance, high levels of trait neuroticism at the beginning of relationships can be seen decreasing over 8 years once the relationship has begun, as well as other Big Five personality traits, such as Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, can be seen increasing in long-term relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Neyer |first1=Franz J. |last2=Lehnart |first2=Judith |date=June 2007 |title=Relationships Matter in Personality Development: Evidence From an 8-Year Longitudinal Study Across Young Adulthood |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00448.x |journal=Journal of Personality |language=en |volume=75 |issue=3 |pages=535–568 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00448.x |pmid=17489891 |issn=0022-3506|url-access=subscription }}</ref> == Critique == The Big Five model has been subjected to considerable critical scrutiny in a number of published studies.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Block J |title=A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=117 |issue=2 |pages=187–215 |date=March 1995 |pmid=7724687 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Eysenck HJ |year=1991 |title=Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, 3? |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_1991_12_8/page/773 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=12 |issue=8 |pages=773–90 |doi=10.1016/0191-8869(91)90144-z}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Eysenck HJ |year=1992 |title=Four ways five factors are not basic |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_personality-and-individual-differences_1992-06_13_6/page/667 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=13 |issue=6 |pages=667–73 |doi=10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Cattell RB |date=May 1995 |title=The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere. |journal=The Psychologist |pages=207–08}}</ref><ref name="Plos">{{cite journal |vauthors=Trofimova I |title=Observer bias: an interaction of temperament traits with biases in the semantic perception of lexical material |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=1 |article-number=e85677 |year=2014 |pmid=24475048 |pmc=3903487 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0085677 |bibcode=2014PLoSO...985677T |doi-access=free}} 50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License].</ref><ref name="Paunonen" /><ref name="Boyle_1995" /><ref name="Boyle, G.J. (2008).">{{cite book |vauthors=Boyle GJ |date=2008 |chapter=Critique of Five-Factor Model (FFM). |veditors=Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH |title=The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 1 – Personality theories and models |location=Los Angeles, CA |publisher=Sage |isbn=978-1-4129-4651-3}}</ref><ref name="PTRS-B" /> One prominent critic of the model has been Jack Block at the University of California, Berkeley. In response to Block, the model was defended in a paper published by Costa and McCrae.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Costa PT, McCrae RR |year=1995 |title=Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-bulletin_1995-03_117_2/page/216 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=117 |issue=2 |pages=216–20 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.216 |pmid=7724688}}</ref> This was followed by a number of published critical replies from Block.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Block J |year=1995b |title=Going beyond the five factors given: Rejoinder to Costa and McCrae and Goldberg and Saucier |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=117 |issue=2 |pages=226–29 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.226}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Block J |s2cid=40747837 |year=2001 |title=Millennial contrarianism |journal=Journal of Research in Personality |volume=35 |pages=98–107 |doi=10.1006/jrpe.2000.2293}}</ref><ref name="Block" />

The main criticism of the Big Five traits is that they do not explain enough of human personality. Some psychologists feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as religiosity, manipulativeness/machiavellianism, honesty, sexiness/seductiveness, thrift, conservatism, masculinity/femininity, snobbishness, egotism, sense of humour, and risk-taking/thrill-seeking.<ref name="Paunonen">{{Cite journal |first1=Sampo V |last1=Paunonen |last2=Jackson |first2=Douglas N |name-list-style=vanc |year=2000 |title=What Is Beyond the Big Five? Plenty! |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=68 |issue=October 2000 |pages=821–35 |doi=10.1111/1467-6494.00117 |pmid=11001150 |url=http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y4person/1_intro/refs/whatsbeyondthebig-5.pdf |access-date=2012-01-15 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190214185354/http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y4person/1_intro/refs/whatsbeyondthebig-5.pdf |archive-date=2019-02-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Paunonen SV, Haddock G, Forsterling F, Keinonen M |title=Broad versus Narrow Personality Measures and the Prediction of Behaviour Across Cultures|journal=European Journal of Personality|year=2003|volume=17|issue=6|pages=413–33|doi=10.1002/per.496|s2cid=143671349}}</ref> Dan P. McAdams has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger", because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x |vauthors=McAdams DP |year=1995|title=What do we know when we know a person? |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-personality_1995-09_63_3/page/365 |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=365–96 |citeseerx=10.1.1.527.6832}}</ref> Block has pointed to several less-recognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the model.<ref name="Block" /> It has been argued the Big Five may account for as little as 56% of the normal personality trait sphere.<ref name="Boyle_1995" /> Studies indicate that the Big Five traits are not as powerful in predicting and explaining actual behaviour as the more fine-grained facets or primary traits.<ref>{{Cite journal |vauthors=Mershon B, Gorsuch RL |year=1988 |title=Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria? |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=55 |issue=4 |pages=675–80 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceC">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Paunonen SV, Ashton MS |year=2001 |title=Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior |journal=Journal of Personality & Social Psychology |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=524–39 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524 |pmid=11554651}}</ref>

In his 1968 book ''Personality and Assessment'', Walter Mischel asserted that personality instruments could not predict behavior with a correlation of more than 0.3. Social psychologists like Mischel argued that attitudes and behavior were not stable, but varied with the situation. Scientists such as Mischel claimed predicting behavior from personality instruments was impossible. However, during the 1980s, emerging methodologies increasingly confirmed personality theories. Though generally failing to predict single instances of behavior, researchers found that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large numbers of observations.<ref name="person-situation debate">{{cite journal |vauthors=Epstein S, O'Brien EJ |date=November 1985 |title=The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-bulletin_1985-11_98_3/page/513 |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=98 |issue=3 |pages=513–37 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.513 |pmid=4080897}}</ref> As a result, correlations between personality and behavior increased substantially, and it became clear that "personality" did in fact exist.<ref name="profiting">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kenrick DT, Funder DC |date=January 1988 |title=Profiting from controversy. Lessons from the person-situation debate |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_american-psychologist_1988-01_43_1/page/23 |journal=The American Psychologist |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=23–34 |doi=10.1037/0003-066x.43.1.23 |pmid=3279875}}</ref>

The Big Five<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Cattell RB, Boyle GJ, Chant D |year=2002 |title=The enriched behavioral prediction equation and its impact on structured learning and the dynamic calculus |url=http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/42 |journal=Psychological Review |type=Submitted manuscript |volume=109 |issue=1 |pages=202–05 |doi=10.1037/0033-295x.109.1.202 |pmid=11863038 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150123214003/http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/42/ |archive-date=2015-01-23 |access-date=2018-10-25}}</ref> is not theory-driven but a statistical investigation of certain descriptors that tend to cluster.<ref name="Boyle_1995" />{{rp|431–33}}<ref name="PTRS-B" />

Most measures of the FFM do not assess all of its maladaptive variants and therefore will not account for all of the components of a given personality disorder. Measures to assess maladaptive FFM traits have been developed, including the Five Factor Model Personality Disorder scales, the Personality Inventory for ICD‐11, and the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Widiger |first1=Thomas A. |last2=Crego |first2=Cristina |date=October 2019 |title=The Five Factor Model of personality structure: an update |journal=World Psychiatry |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=271–272 |doi=10.1002/wps.20658 |issn=1723-8617 |pmc=6732674 |pmid=31496109}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Novikova |first=Irina A. |last2=Vorobyeva |first2=Alexandra A. |date=2019-03-25 |title=The Five‐Factor Model |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119519348.ch33 |journal=Cross‐Cultural Psychology |language=en |pages=685–706 |doi=10.1002/9781119519348.ch33 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250614144857/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119519348.ch33 |archive-date=2025-06-14|url-access=subscription }}</ref> The model has been replicated in several languages, and the ICD and DSM models for personality disorders are shifting toward the FFM.<ref name=":1" /> The five-factor model was among the first personality models in psychology derived from empirical research into natural-language data which found consistent correlations between the adjectives people use to describe themselves.

Today, the five-factor model underlies most contemporary personality research, and the model has been described as one of the major breakthroughs of quantitative behavioural science. The five-factor structure has been confirmed by many subsequent studies across cultures and languages, which have replicated the original model and reported largely similar factors.<ref name="t840">{{cite journal |last1=McCrae |first1=RR |last2=John |first2=OP |date=June 1992 |title=An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. |url=https://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/5factor-theory.pdf |journal=Journal of Personality |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=175–215 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x |pmid=1635039 |access-date=2025-03-17}}</ref>

==References == {{Reflist|30em}}

==External links == *[http://ipip.ori.org/ International Personality Item Pool], public domain list of items keyed to the big five personality traits. *[http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bigfive.htm Selection from the "Handbook of personality: Theory and research"] for researchers * {{cite journal |vauthors=Rentfrow PJ, Jokela M, Lamb ME |title=Regional personality differences in Great Britain |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=10 |issue=3 |article-number=e0122245 |year=2015 |pmid=25803819 |pmc=4372610 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0122245 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1022245R |doi-access=free}} *[https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/regions-personalities U.S. Regions Exhibit Distinct Personalities, Research Reveals]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Big Five Personality Traits}} Category:Personality traits Category:1961 introductions Category:Personality psychology