CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,682Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Block, Jack·1995·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The 5-factor approach (FFA) to personality description has been represented as a comprehensive and compelling rubric for assessment. In this article, various misgivings about the FFA are delineated. The algorithmic method of factor analysis may not provide dimensions that are incisive. The "discovery" of the five factors may be influenced by unrecognized constraints on the variable sets analyzed. Lexical analyses are based on questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions, and have achieved uncertain results. The questionnaire version of the FFA has not demonstrated the special merits and sufficiencies of the five factors settled upon. Serious uncertainties have arisen in regard to the claimed 5-factor structure and the substantive meanings of the factors. Some implications of these problems are drawn.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187

Cites

182 of 182 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • One of the most stinging criticisms of the Five-Factor model is that it is atheoretical.

    “One of the most stinging criticisms of the Five-Factor model is that it is atheoretical (Block [1995]).”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Block [1995]

  • The perceived distinction between formative assessment and AfL reflects a classic case of the jingle-jangle fallacy.

    “This reflects a classic case of the jingle-jangle fallacy [25,26], where different terms are used for the same construct or the same term is used for different ones.”

    From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Block, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Block, Jack
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995
Volume
117
Issue
2
Pages
187-215
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187
OpenAlex
W2042236540
Cited by
1,682
References
182
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 155 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 66
FWCI
75.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-16080, R01MH016080)
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, personality assessment, questionnaire validity
MeSH terms
Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Personality Assessment, Personality Development, Personality Disorders, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

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