The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
Abstract
This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In order to measure personality traits, we used a 25-item scale adopted from the international personality item pool [62] [40].”
From Watch, Share or Create: The Influence of Personality Traits and User Motivation on TikTok Mobile Video Usage (2020) · cites this paper as [40]
In the citing paper
“Following years of research, five stable and orthogonal factors (i.e., traits or dispositions) emerged from the data (Figure 1), which are now known as the Big-Five (Goldberg, 1990(Goldberg, , 1993)).”
From Beyond yellow flags: The Big‐Five personality traits and psychologically informed musculoskeletal rehabilitation. (2023) · cites this paper as Goldberg, 1993
In the citing paper
“FFM consists of five global factors or personality traits discovered due to lexical analysis rather than neuropsychological experimentation [33].”
From Interacting with a Chatbot-Based Advising System: Understanding the Effect of Chatbot Personality and User Gender on Behavior (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
Citations
Cites
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 · Cited by 6,404
The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · Cited by 5,530
Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936) · Psychological Monographs · doi:10.1037/h0093360 · Cited by 2,018
The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.
Cattell, R. B. (1943) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054116 · Cited by 987
Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.781 · Cited by 707
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 · Cited by 3,889
Steel, P. (2007) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 · Cited by 3,417
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Brown, T. A., Carpenter, W. T., Caspi, A., Clark, L. A., et al. (2017) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000258 · Cited by 3,335
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0020327 · Cited by 2,677
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160 · Cited by 2,356
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldberg, L. R.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goldberg, Lewis R.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 1993
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-34
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W1966732563
- Semantic Scholar
- c9e5ff2af5a184293feb8b5c4cdaf30d53694549
- Cited by
- 4,816
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 97 · 2025: 181 · 2024: 224 · 2023: 273 · 2022: 260 · 2021: 302 · 2020: 297 · 2019: 257 · 2018: 247 · 2017: 232 · 2016: 174 · 2015: 205 · 2014: 174 · 2013: 174 · 2012: 190
- FWCI
- 85.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01mh039077-08)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH-39077)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- Big Five personality traits, personality structure, lexical hypothesis, Francis Galton, individual differences, personality taxonomy, personnel selection, personality classification
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Individuality, Personality, Personality Tests, Temperament
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
