The DOI matches its Crossref record; 181 of the 182 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
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.
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
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,559
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
Personality Structure: Emergence Of The 5-Factor Model
Digman, J. M. (1990) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 · Cited by 6,731
An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216 · Cited by 6,652
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
Harman, H. H. (1960) · Cited by 5,148
The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26 · Cited by 4,816
Handbook of Personality : Theory and Research
Pervin, L. A. (1992) · Cited by 4,543
Madison, P., & Mischel, W. (1968) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421067 · Cited by 4,395
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 999
Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030841 · Cited by 415
“The FFM and other structural approaches to personality variation are often criticized for a lack of theoretical justification (e.g., Block, 1995); conceptualizing personality dimensions as evolved motivational systems calibrated based on state-based cues from a particular socioecology has the…”
Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2005.04.004 · Cited by 412
Personality and Vocational Behavior: A Selective Review of the Literature, 1993–1997
Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Subich, L. M. (1998) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1660 · Cited by 408
The Handbook of Behavior Change
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318 · Cited by 446
Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions
Pfattheicher, S., Nielsen, Y. A., & Thielmann, I. (2022) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021 · Cited by 493
Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition
(2004) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410610515 · Cited by 408
A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements
Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416 · Cited by 389
Broad Dispositions, Broad Aspirations: The Intersection of Personality Traits and Major Life Goals
Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167200262009 · Cited by 494
“Although the FFM has been criticized (Block, 1995; Pervin, 1994), researchers have yet to develop a compelling alternative to the FFM. Authors’ Note: This research was funded by a grant from the Research Board from the University of Illinois; a Faculty Research Grant from the University of…”
MethodDispositional Affect and Job Satisfaction: A Review and Theoretical Extension
Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2973 · Cited by 385
“Historically, while physicists and chemists were searching for the basic physical elements, personality psychologists were searching for the basic units or building blocks of human nature. Many answers as to the number and nature of basic personality traits have been proposed, based on different criteria, resulting in…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.170 · Cited by 402
Handbook of Personality at Work
Christiansen, N. D., & Tett, R. P. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203526910 · Cited by 54
“By the early 1990s, the person-situation debate had essentially run its course (cf. Kenrick & Funder, 1988), and many appeared ready to accept the FFM taxonomy (cf. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987; but see Block, 1995, and Hough, 1992).”
BackgroundHierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior.
Paunonen, S. V. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.538 · Cited by 373
The Big Five and enduring marriages
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.001 · Cited by 372
“…advance our understanding of the factors that foster dissatisfying marriages and help further integrate the study of marital interactions with one of the major organizing frameworks in personality psychology, the Big Five (e.g., Funder, 2001; John & Srivastava, 1999; but see Block, 1995, 2001).”
BackgroundKrueger, J. I., & Funder, D. C. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000081 · Cited by 374
“7 Some of these refer to the same or a nearly identical phenomenon; others share the same label, although they refer to different phenomena (the " jingle-jangle " effect, Block 1995); and still others are contradictory.”
Conscientiousness and Integrity at Work
Hogan, J. C., & Öneş, D. S. (1997) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012134645-4/50033-0 · Cited by 376
The empirical structure of narrative identity: The initial Big Three
McLean, K. C., Syed, M., Pasupathi, M., Adler, J. M., Dunlop, W. L., Drustrup, D., Fivush, R., Graci, M. E., Lilgendahl, J. P., Lodi-Smith, J., et al. (2020) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000247 · Cited by 358
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & LARSSON, M. R. (2009) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013 · Cited by 366
“But many inventories designed to measure the model have revealed rather high correlations between factors (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundA Socioanalytic Perspective on Job Performance
Hogan, R. T., & Shelton, D. (1998) · Human Performance · doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668028 · Cited by 364
Personality, values, and motivation
Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002 · Cited by 409
Identity work in organizations and occupations: Definitions, theories, and pathways forward
Caza, B. B., Vough, H. C., & Puranik, H. G. (2018) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2318 · Cited by 416
“When a field of study stays in the theory building stage for too long, it can give rise to what Block (1995) refers to as the jangle fallacy wherein there is a proliferation of similar concepts masquerading under different names.”
BackgroundToward a taxonomy of trait adjectives in Filipino: comparing personality lexicons across cultures
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, J. A. S. (1996) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199603)10:1 · Cited by 97
Lee, K., Ashton, M., & de Vries, R. D. (2005) · Human Performance · doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1802_4 · Cited by 327
“The lexical approach to personality structure posits that important human personality traits are encoded in every natural language (i.e., the lexical hypothesis; see, e.g., Goldberg, 1993; see also Block, 1995, for a critique).”
BackgroundDispositional empathy with nature
Tam, K. (2013) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004 · Cited by 362
Investment management and personality type
Mayfield, C., Perdue, G., & Wooten, K. C. (2008) · Financial Services Review · doi:10.61190/fsr.v17i3.4919 · Cited by 340
“Even though the Big Five factors have come under criticism by some scholars (Block, 1995; Previn, 1994), the overall stability and validity of the method has more recently been greatly supported (Barbaranelli and Caprara, 2000; DeYoung, 2006; DeYoung, Quilty and Peterson, 2007).”
Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029392 · Cited by 340
Psychological Determinants of Financial Preparedness for Retirement
Hershey, D. A., & Mowen, J. C. (2000) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/40.6.687 · Cited by 339
“Although there has been debate over how many cardinal traits exist (e.g., Block, 1995; Allport, 1961), much of the recent work that has appeared in the psychological literature has focused on the five-factor, or Big Five model of personality (P. T. Costa & McCrae 1985; Goldberg, 1992, 1993;…”
BackgroundEysenck, H. J. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1224 · Cited by 337
Predicting Dimensions of Personality Disorder From Domains and Facets of the Five Factor Model
Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00142 · Cited by 334
“There is greater disagreement at lower-order levels, where Costa & McCrae’s selection and placement of the particular NEO-PI-R facet scales necessarily involved a number of subjective decisions (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundQuestionnaires in Second Language Research
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203864739-1 · Cited by 331
Understanding Compulsive Buying Among College Students: A Hierarchical Approach
Mowen, J. C., & Spears, N. E. (1999) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0804_03 · Cited by 330
Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the Big Five Personality Factors
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2225 · Cited by 353
“Although not all psychologists are enamored of the Big Five (e.g., Block, 1995 ), and many others prefer to work at different levels of detail or with other types of constructs than traits, there has been sufficient interest in the Big Five to justify looking at genetic and environmental contributions to their variati…”
BackgroundO’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2014) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12126 · Cited by 328
“and self-regulation (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundA Hierarchical Analysis of 1,710 English Personality-Descriptive Adjectives.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.707 · Cited by 352
“(For criticisms of the assumptions, methods, and results of the lexical strategy, see Block, 1995; for a defense, see Ashton & Lee, 2003; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995).”
MethodPredicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00536-6 · Cited by 332
Lubinski, D. (2000) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405 · Cited by 348
The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support?
Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.004 · Cited by 351
“The most comprehensive critique of the FFM has been provided by Block (1995), but many other critiques have been published in which alternative structures of personality have been proposed based on two factors (Wiggins, 1968), three factors (Eysenck, 1991), six factors (Hogan, 1986), seven factors…”
BackgroundThe long-term stability and predictive validity of trait measures of affect.
Watson, D., & Walker, L. M. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.567 · Cited by 331
Five-factor model of personality and employee absence.
Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.745 · Cited by 317
Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism.
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000341 · Cited by 350
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00112-3 · Cited by 316
HIGHER‐ORDER DIMENSIONS OF THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE BIG SIX VOCATIONAL INTEREST TYPES
MOUNT, M. K., BARRICK, M. R., SCULLEN, S. M., & ROUNDS, J. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00468.x · Cited by 463
“(See Block [1995] for a contrarian view.”
Measuring Trait Emotional Intelligence
Pérez-González, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. F. (2005) · Cited by 314
Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received
Bozionelos, N. (2003) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00033-2 · Cited by 315
“see Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992) and there has been debate over its validity (for a review see Merenda, 1999, pp. 920–924).”
Publishing in AMJ—Part 2: Research Design
Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.64869103 · Cited by 310
“…the definition and boundaries of the new construct , map its association with existing constructs, and avoid assumptions that scales with the same name reflect the same construct and that scales with different names reflect different constructs (i.e., jingle jangle fallacies [Block, 1995]).”
BackgroundDevelopment of a core confidence-higher order construct.
Stajković, A. D. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1208 · Cited by 310
““To the extent a variable correlates with other variables . . . it is said to be ‘explainable’ by these other variables and convey no unique information” (Block, 1995, p. 188) and may be considered empirically interchangeable (Lubinski & Dawis, 1992).”
BackgroundNeuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two stage (valuation–motivation) approach
Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.013 · Cited by 336
Naturalistic conceptions of moral maturity.
Walker, L. J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037//0012-1649.34.3.403 · Cited by 327
Personality traits and personal values: a conceptual and empirical integration
Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00145-9 · Cited by 319
The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w13810 · Cited by 328
Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions.
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.656 · Cited by 303
Bridging the Research–Practice Gap
Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O'Brien, J. G. (2012) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0140 · Cited by 296
The Five-Factor Framing of Personality and Beyond: Some Ruminations
Block, J. (2010) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478401003596626 · Cited by 319
““As scientific constructs [personality conceptions] should be formulated with no necessary regard for their usability and understandability by laypersons” (Block, 1995a, p. 188).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008) · The Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.3368/jhr.43.4.972 · Cited by 1,697
When clinical description becomes statistical prediction.
Westen, D., & Weinberger, J. L. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.7.595 · Cited by 300
“We note four ( Block, 1995; McAdams, 1992; Westen, 1995, 1996): 1. Understanding personality and psychopathology presumably requires training and experience (or so licensing boards believe, rightly or wrongly), just as does understanding of automobiles or infectious diseases.”
BackgroundFlora, D. B., & Flake, J. K. (2017) · Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · doi:10.1037/cbs0000069 · Cited by 304
The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model.
Anusic, I., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017159 · Cited by 290
“Although some researchers have questioned whether the Big Five provide a useful level in a hierarchical model of personality traits (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2007; Block, 1995), the Big Five dominate contemporary personality psychology and the present article assumes that these five dimensions of personality represent a me…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Five-Factor Model of Personality
Lodhi, P. H., Deo, S., & Belhekar, V. (2002) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_11 · Cited by 261
Psychometric development of the Problematic Pornography Use Scale
Kor, A., Zilcha‐Mano, S., Fogel, Y. A., Mikulincer, M., Reid, R. C., & Potenza, M. N. (2014) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.027 · Cited by 286
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K. R., & Schmitt, N. (2007) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00100.x · Cited by 295
“There is clear evidence that the Big Five factors are not as orthogonal as suggested by these low intercorrelations (Block, 1995; Funder, 2001). For example, the revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) reports domain–scale intercorrelations as high as .53 in self-ratings. The intercorrelations among t…”
BackgroundChanging Behavior Using the Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.002 · Cited by 346
The Economics and Psychology of Personality TraitsPreprint
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1135909 · Cited by 302
Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology
Barnett, T., Pearson, A. W., Pearson, R., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.10 · Cited by 281
“Further, the FFM, which despite criticism (Block, 1995; Epstein, 2010; Boag, 2011) is the dominant personality taxonomy in applied psychology (John et al , 2008; John & Naumann, 2010; Chang et al , 2012), was included in only three studies (McElroy et al , 2007; Devaraj et al , 2008; Svendsen et al…”
BackgroundBig five dimensions and ADHD symptoms: links between personality traits and clinical symptoms
Nigg, J. T., John, O. P., Blaskey, L. G., Huang-Pollock, C. L., Willcutt, E. G., Hinshaw, S. P., & Pennington, B. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.451 · Cited by 315
“Thus, although debate still continues about the number and nature of personality trait dimensions (Block, 1995), these five dimensions seem a good starting point for investigation of links between personality and ADHD.”
BackgroundEntrepreneurial Passion: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Moeller, J., & Chandan, G. G. (2019) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12236 · Cited by 278
“…to ascertain the validity of the sub-scales across different cultural contexts and the generalizability of findings from prior research, which may hamper the progress of research on entrepreneurial passion as a cumulative process (e.g., Block, 1995; Rauthmann, 2015; Roeser, Peck, & Nasir, 2006).”
BackgroundLeader-Member Exchange Quality and Effectiveness Ratings
Deluga, R. J. (1998) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601198232006 · Cited by 272
Personality and smoking: individual‐participant meta‐analysis of nine cohort studies
Hakulinen, C. A., Hintsanen, M., Munafo, M. R., Virtanen, M., Mika Kivimaki, B., Batty, G. D., & Jokela, M. M. (2015) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13079 · Cited by 285
“Although the five-factor model is one of the mostused conceptualizations of personality structure and has considerable empirical support [7], it has also been criticized; its structure and usefulness at the individual level has been questioned [44] and it has also been seen to be too broad to capture all the possible…”
BackgroundHow shall we speak of children's personalities in middle childhood? A preliminary taxonomy.
Shiner, R. L. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.308 · Cited by 272
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00171 · Cited by 429
Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis.
van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000078 · Cited by 295
“The advent of GFP research rekindled debate on personality structure and brought to the forefront dormant questions about structure that, despite a seeming consensus on a fivefactor solution, have long been lurking in the background (e.g., Block, 1995; Stankov, 2005).”
BackgroundAgreeableness: Dimension of Personality or Social Desirability Artifact?
Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05021 · Cited by 276
Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia
Ambrey, C. L., & Fleming, C. M. (2013) · Urban Studies · doi:10.1177/0042098013494417 · Cited by 276
Dimensions of Personality Pathology: An Alternative to the Five-Factor Model
Shedler, J., & Westen, D. (2004) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.161.10.1743 · Cited by 261
Personality Profiles and Political Parties
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1999) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00141 · Cited by 251
“However, we are aware that 2 Readers are referred to the following critiques for a fuller appreciation of the important conceptual and empirical issues they pose: Block (1995), McAdams (1992), Pervin (1994), and Tellegen (1993).”
Recurrent Personality Dimensions in Inclusive Lexical Studies: Indications for a Big Six Structure
Saucier, G. (2009) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00593.x · Cited by 271
Relationships among Internet use, personality, and social support
Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(01)00054-1 · Cited by 247
Personality: The Universal and the Culturally Specific
Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163655 · Cited by 417
“However, the typology that is by far the most widely accepted and researched is the Five-Factor Model (McCrae & Costa 1987; for criticisms of this model, see Block 1995, McAdams 1992).”
BackgroundA Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions
Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.720195 · Cited by 368
“…reason for such inconsistency may be attributed to studies coming from different methodological perspectives and using disparate terminology to label relevant student-, feedback- or contextlevel factors that link feedback to improved performance (i.e., the “jingle–jangle fallacy,” see Block, 1995).”
BackgroundMethodCaprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812767.006 · Cited by 244
Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.216 · Cited by 237
The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Smoking: A Meta-Analysis
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E., & Schutte, N. S. (2006) · Journal of Drug Education · doi:10.2190/9ep8-17p8-ekg7-66ad · Cited by 236
“…vary somewhat from theorist to theorist, that some theorists propose different numbers of factors, that the five factors are too broad for some purposes, the factor labels are unclear (Block, 1995), and that forces in addition to personality influence behavior on a day-to-day basis (Fleeson, 2001).”
BackgroundDispositional negativity: An integrative psychological and neurobiological perspective.
Shackman, A. J., Tromp, D., Stockbridge, M. D., Kaplan, C. M., Tillman, R. M., & Fox, A. S. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000073 · Cited by 249
“187 Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some”
Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., Waldrip, A. M., & Campbell, S. (2006) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.05.001 · Cited by 232
Zillig, L. M. P., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167202289013 · Cited by 348
Personality traits, individual innovativeness and satisfaction with life
Ali, İ. (2018) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2017.11.002 · Cited by 273
Agreeableness is related to social‐cognitive, but not social‐perceptual, theory of mind
Nettle, D., & Liddle, B. (2008) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.672 · Cited by 241
“…have a certain circularity, since factors are derived inductively from ratings of self-reported behaviour, and then used to explain further types of self-reported behaviour, with the psychological mechanisms underlying the extracted factors never being independently identified (Block, 1995).”
MethodMaking Learning Personally Meaningful: A New Framework for Relevance Research
Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589 · Cited by 229
Organizational Attractiveness for Prospective Applicants: A Person–Organisation Fit Perspective
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., & Geirnaert, J. (2001) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00047 · Cited by 228
“Block, 1995 ), there exists an emerging consensus among personality psychologists about the robustness of the Big Five factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993; Barrick & Mount, 1991).”
Carter, A. J., Marshall, H. H., Heinsohn, R., & Cowlishaw, G. (2012) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.015 · Cited by 227
The Role of Personality in Task and Relationship Conflict
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05007 · Cited by 237
“Although this taxonomy has not been universally accepted (see Block [1995] for a critique), the robustness of the FFM across measures and cultures has led to widespread acceptance of the model.”
BackgroundClashing diagnostic approaches: DSM-ICD versus RDoC
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Treadway, M. T. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093122 · Cited by 275
“Other authors (e.g., Maj 2005) go further, suggesting that such comorbidity reflects the propensity of the DSM to attach different names to slightly different manifestations of a shared predisposition, an error known as the jangle fallacy (Block 1995).”
BackgroundStrickland, J. C., & Johnson, M. W. (2020) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000263 · Cited by 241
“The jingle fallacy invokes use of a single term for two (or more) things that are quite different, but because of shared language, are considered identical (Block, 1995; Thorndike, 1904).”
BackgroundFrom Personality and Assessment (1968) to Personality Science, 2009
Mischel, W. (2009) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.037 · Cited by 240
Davis, K. L., & Panksepp, J. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.04.004 · Cited by 235
“The FFM has provided a personality assessment standard, which while not universally accepted (Block, 1995) has offered a robust personality model in general population and clinical research (Costa and Widiger, 2002).”
BackgroundIntellectual Competence and the Intelligent Personality: A Third Way in Differential Psychology
Chamorro‐Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. F. (2006) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.251 · Cited by 238
Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(97)10021-3 · Cited by 217
“Although a number of important conceptual and methodological di culties with the Big Five remain to be resolved (Block, 1995), this taxonomy has demonstrated impressive consistency in both self- and other-ratings across diverse samples and cultures.”
BackgroundMõttus, R., Wood, D., Condon, D. M., Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Costantini, G., Epskamp, S., Greiff, S., Johnson, W., Lukaszewski, A. W., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2311 · Cited by 264
“This implies labelling issues (or “jingle fallacies”; Block, 1995; Larsen & Bong, 2016), whereby investigators mean different things when invoking the same scale or construct name.”
BackgroundHooker, K. A., Monahan, D. J., Bowman, S. R., Frazier, L. D., & Shifren, K. (1998) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/53b.2.p73 · Cited by 217
A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2004) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.541 · Cited by 215
“…interested in finding the major dimensions of personality, there have been several criticisms of the lexical strategy, and of the structural models of personality that have resulted from that approach (e.g. Bandura, 1999; Block, 1995; Caprara & Cervone, 2000; Shadel & Cervone, 1993; Westen, 1996).”
BackgroundMaturity and change in personality: Developmental trends of temperament and character in adulthood
Josefsson, K., Jokela, M. M., Cloninger, C. R., Hintsanen, M., Salo, J., Hintsa, T., Pulkki-Råbäck, L., & Keltikangas‐Järvinen, L. (2013) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579413000126 · Cited by 227
“However, other researchers have argued that it is quite possible for two moderately correlated traits to represent psychologically distinct constructs (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundPersonality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii).
Weiß, A., King, J. E., & Perkins, L. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.501 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Block, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Block, Jack
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-215
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- 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
