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 201–300 of 999
A Tool for Addressing Construct Identity in Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses1
Larsen, K. R. T., & Bong, C. H. (2016) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2016/40.3.01 · Cited by 224
Stanley J., J. H., & Weisz, J. R. (1997) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.106.3.404 · Cited by 210
O’Connor, B. P. (2002) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191102092010 · Cited by 208
“Tests of the predictions will help gauge the seriousness of some problemswith past research on the FFM that were identified by Block (1995).”
BackgroundResultBirth Order, Sibling Competition, and Human Behavior
Sulloway, F. J. (2001) · Studies in cognitive systems · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0618-7_3 · Cited by 209
Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors.
Saucier, G. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1296 · Cited by 216
Marbach, J., Lages, C. R., & Nunan, D. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2015.1128472 · Cited by 223
“This study follows the contention that the five factors only provide a limited account of an individual’s personality (Block, 1995).”
Convergence of two systems for assessing specific traits of personality disorder.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., Schroeder, M. L., & Irish, S. L. (1996) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.3.294 · Cited by 205
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3802_3 · Cited by 213
“…the same construct) and jangle (assuming that scales with different names reflect different constructs) fallacies and to pursue construct validity studies more vigorously to test interpretations of the measures (for further discussion of the jingle-jangle fallacy, see Block, 1995; Kelley, 1927).”
BackgroundHomo Curious: Curious or Interested?
Shin, D. D., & Kim, S. (2019) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09497-x · Cited by 214
“More problematically, measures of curiosity and situational interest suffer from both jingle (i.e., scales with similar names may measure different constructs) and jangle (i.e., scales with different names may measure similar construct) fallacies (Block 1995; Marsh 1994).”
BackgroundBiesanz, J., & West, S. (2004) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00282.x · Cited by 207
“Block (1995) and John and Srivastava (1999) have noted that the major Big Five inventories each assess a slightly different conception of each of the Big Five traits.”
BackgroundInfluentialPERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF JOB APPLICANTS AND SUCCESS IN SCREENING INTERVIEWS
Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00718.x · Cited by 203
RIASEC TYPES AND BIG FIVE TRAITS AS PREDICTORS OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT
Fruyt, F. D., & Mervielde, I. (1999) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00177.x · Cited by 201
Müller, K. W., Beutel, M. E., Egloff, B., & Wölfling, K. (2013) · European Addiction Research · doi:10.1159/000355832 · Cited by 221
Licata, J. W., Mowen, J. C., Harris, E. G., & Brown, T. J. (2003) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070303031003004 · Cited by 198
“These results buttress the arguments of Block (1995a, 1995b) and others that the 5-Factor Model has limitations.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialChang, L., Connelly, B. S., & Geeza, A. A. (2011) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025559 · Cited by 217
“Stability’s emphasis on impulse control and anxiety avoidance has strong conceptual links to Tellegen and Waller’s (2008) Constraint superfactor, Eysenck’s (1970) Psychoticism (with the addition of Neuroticism), Block and Block’s (1980) Ego Control, and Gray’s (1991) behavioral inhibition system.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Tale of Two Visions: Can a New View of Personality Help Integrate Psychology?
Mayer, J. D. (2005) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.4.294 · Cited by 206
“Trait theorists employ the Big Five traits (although some regard this as more a structure of traits than of personality) (Block, 1995; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994).”
Benet‐Martínez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.701 · Cited by 198
PERSONALITY: Individual Differences and Clinical Assessment
Butcher, J. N., & Rouse, S. V. (1996) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.87 · Cited by 193
Clinicians' Personality Descriptions of Prototypic Personality Disorders
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2004) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.18.3.286.35446 · Cited by 192
Toward an Empirically Based Classification of Personality Disorder
Livesley, W. J., & Jang, K. L. (2000) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.2000.14.2.137 · Cited by 193
Personality: a new positionality?
Moser, S. (2008) · Area · doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00815.x · Cited by 205
Affect, Behaviour, Cognition and Desire in the Big Five: An Analysis of Item Content and Structure
Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2015) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2002 · Cited by 187
“The current project was an effort to heed the advice of Deary (2009) and Block (1995).”
BackgroundMethodA lexical investigation of the lower-order structure of conscientiousness
Roberts, B. W., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. E. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00065-5 · Cited by 189
“This dimension of conscientiousness may not appear in the lexicon of trait adjectives because of the choices made in the adjective set development process, which often resulted in the elimination of strongly evaluative terms (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundRaad, B. D., Perugini, M., Hřebı́čková, M., & Szarota, P. (1998) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022198291011 · Cited by 191
Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006 · Cited by 276
“Third, the lexical approach to personality shares some of the same problems that come with any nomothetic self-report measure (for a review, see Block, 1995).”
BackgroundA Socioanalytic Model of Maturity
Hogan, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2004) · Journal of Career Assessment · doi:10.1177/1069072703255882 · Cited by 186
“For example, much of the criticism of the five-factor model (FFM) (Block, 1995) becomes moot if the FFM is seen as a taxonomy of observer descriptions and not as a theory of personality (R. Hogan, 1996; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).”
BackgroundSmall, B. J., Hertzog, C. K., Hultsch, D. F., & Dixon, R. A. (2003) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/58.3.p166 · Cited by 186
“Partly, the lack of attention to longitudinal factor invariance has been a function of the type of analytic techniques that have been traditionally applied to the analysis of this instrument (also see Block, 1995).”
MethodLapsley, D. K., & Lasky, B. (2001) · Identity · doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0104_03 · Cited by 185
“However, the validity of the classical trait approach to personality has been long disputed (Block, 1995; Cervone & Shoda, 1999a; Mischel, 1973, 1990; but see Funder, 1991; Kendrick & Funder, 1988) and would not seem to be a promising way to conceptualize the structure of moral character, identity, or virtue.”
BackgroundPoythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., Edens, J. F., Epstein, M. K., & Patrick, C. J. (2009) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191109351715 · Cited by 184
“Finally, the present results remind us of the hazards of the “jangle fallacy,” the error of assuming that measures that carry the same name are necessarily assessing the same construct (Block, 1995; Thorndike, 1903).”
ResultSexual Dimensions of Person Description: Beyond or Subsumed by the Big Five?
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2267 · Cited by 192
“For example, some have expressed concern over whether the Big Five are truly comprehensive when one considers the theoretical scope of all personality perspectives (Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1997; Loevinger, 1994), including the newly emerging perspective of evolutionary personality psychology (Buss, 1991; Buss & Greiling…”
BackgroundThe work-family interface: A retrospective look at 20 years of research in JOHP.
Allen, T. D., & Martin, A. J. (2017) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/ocp0000065 · Cited by 189
“Sensitivity to jingle-jangle fallacies is needed (e.g., Block, 1995).”
InfluentialLife Span Theory in Developmental Psychology
Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2007) · Handbook of Child Psychology · doi:10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0111 · Cited by 1,240
A Psychometric Examination of the French Translations of NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI
Rolland, J. P., Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1998) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_13 · Cited by 179
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Perugini, M., Gnisci, A., & Sergi, I. (2006) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.06.003 · Cited by 179
“By the 1990s, the Big Five factor structure was well established in English-language lexical research (but see Block, 1995; Pervin, 1994, for criticisms of the Big Five and its underlying assumptions).”
BackgroundSalgado, J. F. (1998) · Human Performance · doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668034 · Cited by 178
Pauw, S. S. W. D., Mervielde, I., & Leeuwen, K. G. V. (2009) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9290-0 · Cited by 188
“This phenomenon, which has been called in the literature as the “jingle–jangle” fallacy (see Block 1995 ), reminds researchers that they sometimes study the same trait under different names (jingle) or use the same label to describe different traits (jangle).”
BackgroundAnalysis of the big-five personality factors in terms of the pad temperament model
Mehrabian, A. (1996) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00049539608259510 · Cited by 174
The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology
Llewellyn, D. J., & Wilson, K. M. (2003) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/00400910310495996 · Cited by 173
Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance
Bartone, P. T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., & Snook, S. A. (2009) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/01437730910981908 · Cited by 174
“For example, Block (1995) has criticized the Five Factor approach as being too global to be of much use in understanding actual behavior.”
MethodThe hard science of Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go?
Meyer, G. J., & Archer, R. P. (2001) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.13.4.486 · Cited by 181
Dubois, J., Galdi, P., Han, Y., Paul, L. K., & Adolphs, R. (2018) · Personality Neuroscience · doi:10.1017/pen.2018.8 · Cited by 170
“Even though there remain critiques of the Big Five (Block, 1995; Uher, 2015), its proponents argue that its five factors “are both necessary and reasonably sufficient for describing at a global level the major features of personality” (McCrae & Costa, 1986).”
InfluentialOrthogonal Markers for Orthogonal Factors: The Case of the Big Five
Saucier, G. (2002) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2335 · Cited by 171
An Empirical Examination of the Construct Validity of Two Alternative Self-Control Measures
Marcus, B. (2003) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164403251329 · Cited by 170
“The NEO-PI-R is currently the most widely used and the most well-researched marker for the FFM, and it has been demonstrated to outperform alternative instruments in comparative analyses (Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1994; for critical remarks, see Block, 1995).”
MethodPersonality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Reflections, Progress, and Prospects
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00048.x · Cited by 181
“Several highly respected personality psychologists (e.g., Block, 1995; Loevinger, 1994;McAdams,1992;Pervin,1994;Tellegen, 1993) criticize the FFM as theoretically inadequate.”
BackgroundNeed for Cognition in the Big-Five Factor Structure
Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223989709603517 · Cited by 168
Known knowns and known unknowns on behavior change interventions and mechanisms of action
Hagger, M. S., Moyers, S. A., McAnally, K., & McKinley, L. E. (2020) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2020.1719184 · Cited by 175
“The large number of theories mean that there aremany theory based constructs with similar content but named differently (a ‘jangle’ fallacy, or déjà-variable problem), and also constructs with different content that have the same label (a ‘jingle’ fallacy), both of which impede scientific progress by masking potential…”
BackgroundForgiveness within the Big Five personality model
Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2002) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00185-9 · Cited by 167
Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2015) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.003 · Cited by 163
“This finding also supports one of the main tenets of Deci and Ryan's (2000) SDT that the relationship between social factors such as perceived teacher's controlling behaviour and students' affective and behavioural outcomes such as feelings of anger and aggressive behaviour will be mediated by the satisfaction or diss…”
MethodResultSeparation of performance-approach and performance-avoidance achievement goals: A broader analysis.
Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Yamagata, S. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021948 · Cited by 166
Comparative personality research: methodological approaches
Uher, J. (2008) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.680 · Cited by 171
Impulsivity: Four Ways Five Factors are Not Basic to Addiction
Gullo, M. J., Loxton, N. J., & Dawe, S. (2014) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.002 · Cited by 167
“While factor analysis is an extraordinarily useful method of data reduction, it possesses significant shortcomings that limit its value in theory construction (Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992).”
BackgroundMethodUnderstanding extraverts' enjoyment of social situations: The importance of pleasantness.
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.343 · Cited by 273
Evidence for a Heritable General Factor of Personality in Two Studies
Veselka, L., Schermer, J. A., Petrides, K. V., & Vernon, P. A. (2009) · Twin Research and Human Genetics · doi:10.1375/twin.12.3.254 · Cited by 162
“Researchers who have noted significant correlations between the model’s five dimensions, however, have challenged its irreducibility and its position at the top of the personality hierarchy (e.g., Becker, 1999; Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992).”
BackgroundMount, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2000) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00203.x · Cited by 161
Leary, M., Terry, M. L., Allen, A. B., & Tate, E. (2009) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868309342595 · Cited by 123
“The problems that we have discussed with the term ego threat and the disparate manipulations of ego threat reflect what Block (1995) called a jingle fallacy.”
BackgroundMusic Preference and the Five-Factor Model of the NEO Personality Inventory
Rawlings, D., & Ciancarelli, V. (1997) · Psychology of Music · doi:10.1177/0305735697252003 · Cited by 160
“While influential writers such as Eysenck (1992), Block (1995), Tellegen (1993) and Jackson (Jackson et al.”
BackgroundWalker, M., & Vetter, T. R. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000064 · Cited by 160
`Nomothetic' and `Idiographic'
Lamiell, J. T. (1998) · Theory & Psychology · doi:10.1177/0959354398081002 · Cited by 166
Skeem, J., & Cooke, D. (2010) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0014862 · Cited by 175
Linking Personality to Helping Behaviors at Work: An Interactional Perspective
King, E. B., George, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2005) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00322.x · Cited by 158
“Though not without its critics (see Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992), the Five-Factor Model of personality is the most widely accepted and robust taxonomy of personality traits.”
BackgroundPolychronicity, Big Five Personality Dimensions, and Sales Performance
Conte, J. M., & Gintoft, J. N. (2005) · Human Performance · doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_8 · Cited by 157
“Some researchers have argued against the idea that the Big Five model of personality captures all aspects of personality (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundInfluentialBrand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models
Sweeney, J., & Brandon, C. (2006) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20122 · Cited by 170
Hart, D. A., Hofmann, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.195 · Cited by 157
Benet‐Martínez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00327.x · Cited by 159
Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S. B., & Langley, R. (2005) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164404272493 · Cited by 157
“This is sometimes referred to as the “jangle” fallacy (Block, 1995), in which the same construct bears different names.”
BackgroundHealy, M. G., Hammer, S. J., & McIlveen, P. (2020) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1804851 · Cited by 172
“We also note the risk for the ‘jingle-jangle’ fallacy to take hold, where-in scholars in their disciplinary silos apply the same label to different concepts or different labels to the same concept (Block 1995).”
BackgroundCognitive, affective attributes and conative, behavioural responses in retail corporate branding
da Silva, R. V., & Alwi, S. F. S. (2006) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/10610420610685703 · Cited by 155
Uher, J. (2013) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6 · Cited by 166
“Various researchers have carefully crafted serious concerns about the established five factor models of personality (e.g., Block 1995, 2001, 2010; Eysenck 1992; McAdams 1992; Westen 1996), about assessment data and their interpretation (e.g., Brower 1949; Michell 1997, 2003; Omi 2012; Rosenbaum and…”
BackgroundSociability as a personality trait in animals: methods, causes and consequences
Gartland, L. A., Firth, J. A., Laskowski, K. L., Jeanson, R., & Ioannou, C. C. (2021) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12823 · Cited by 158
“Other authors (Carter et al., 2013) have already highlighted extensive ‘jingle-jangle’ fallacies (Block, 1995) in animal personality research whereby different researchers either use different behaviours as measures of the same trait (e.g. boldness), or the same behaviour as measures of different…”
BackgroundThe Effect of Information on Consensus and Accuracy in Personality Judgment
Blackman, M. C., & Funder, D. C. (1998) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1347 · Cited by 153
The Anatomy of Motivation: An Evolutionary-Ecological Approach
Aunger, R. V., & Curtis, V. A. (2013) · Biological Theory · doi:10.1007/s13752-013-0101-7 · Cited by 163
The Study of Character Development: Towards Tests of a Relational Developmental Systems Model
Lerner, R. M., & Callina, K. S. (2014) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000368784 · Cited by 163
“That is, these attributes reflect relations between individuals and contexts as they occur at particular times and places [Ardelt, 2000; Block, 1995, 2010; Elder, 1998; Elder et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2006].”
BackgroundINTRA‐ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORK RESOURCES: RELATION TO CAREER SUCCESS AND PERSONALITY
Bozionelos, N. (2003) · The International Journal of Organizational Analysis · doi:10.1108/eb028962 · Cited by 151
Toward a Theory of the Big Five
DeYoung, C. (2010) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478401003648674 · Cited by 151
On the Integration of Personality Assessment Methods: The Rorschach and MMPI
Meyer, G. J. (1997) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6802_5 · Cited by 149
A Social-Cognitive Perspective on Social Support
Lakey, B., & Drew, J. B. (1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1843-7_6 · Cited by 149
Gnambs, T. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106533 · Cited by 156
Individual Differences in Posttraumatic Distress: Problems with the DSM-IV Model
Bowman, M. L. (1999) · The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/070674379904400103 · Cited by 149
“Emotional response styles show considerable longitudinal stability (73,74).”
BackgroundDuberstein, P. R., Chapman, B. P., Tindle, H. A., Sink, K. M., Bamonti, P., Robbins, J., Jerant, A. F., & Franks, P. (2011) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0021377 · Cited by 146
“We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that the FFT has its detractors (Kagan, 1994; McAdams, 1994; Block, 1995).”
BackgroundKoole, S. L., Jager, W., den Berg, A. E. V., Vlek, C. A. J., & HOFSTEE, W. K. B. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167201273003 · Cited by 157
Changing Behavior Using the Model of Action Phases
Keller, L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.006 · Cited by 147
Player Typology in Theory and Practice
Bateman, C., Lowenhaupt, R., & Nacke, L. (2011) · DiGRA Digital Library · doi:10.26503/dl.v2011i1.562 · Cited by 146
“This model enjoys the advantage of having been confirmed by four research groups (Tupes and Christal 1992)(Krug and Johns 1986)(Saucier and Goldberg 1996)(McCrae and John 1992) although it has been criticized by others (McAdams 1995)(Block 1995).”
Explaining individual differences in scholastic behaviour and achievement
Petrides, K. V., Chamorro‐Premuzic, T., Frederickson, N. L., & Furnham, A. F. (2005) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1348/000709904x24735 · Cited by 145
“There exist hundreds of such constructs, many of which are virtually identical in every aspect except their labels (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundThe puzzle of personality types
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.446 · Cited by 144
“However, empirical research over the last 50 years has treated personality nearly exclusively from a variable-centred perspective that culminated (or dead-ended, as critics such as J. Block, 1995, put it) in the Five-Factor Model of personality description.”
BackgroundThe Interactive Effects of Extraversion and Conscientiousness on Performance
Witt, L. A. (2002) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630202800607 · Cited by 151
Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality Assessment
Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., & Jencius, S. T. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0501_3 · Cited by 151
“Assessing individual differences cannot substitute for assessing individuals, as many theorists have explained (e.g., Block, 1995; Lamiell, 1997; Rorer, 1990).”
BackgroundLiao, Z., Huang, Q., Huang, S., Tan, L., Shao, T., Fang, T., Chen, X., Lin, S., Qi, J., Cai, Y., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.598585 · Cited by 142
“Despite some controversies (22), the Five-Factor model is the most common classification of personality characteristics (23).”
BackgroundLenzenweger, M. F., Clarkin, J. F., Fertuck, E. A., & Kernberg, O. F. (2004) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.18.5.421.51323 · Cited by 142
Beijer, S. E., Peccei, R., van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., & Paauwe, J. (2019) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12229 · Cited by 141
“Jingle fallacies occur when two potentially different constructs are labelled and treated equivalently (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundBecker, P. (1999) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00168-8 · Cited by 141
“…Five, critics remain sceptical and point to weaknesses and open questions (John, 1990; Ostendorf, 1990; Costa and McCrae, 1992a; Eysenck, 1992; Deary and Matthews, 1993; Brand, 1994; Goldberg and Rosolack, 1994; Becker, 1995, 1996a; Block, 1995; McCrae and Costa, 1997; Wiggins and Trapnell, 1997).”
BackgroundClarification of Factor Five with the help of the AB5C Model
Johnson, J. A. (1994) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2410080408 · Cited by 141
“Both McCrae (1990) and Block (1994) urge us to take personality psychology beyond the realm of folk psychology and common-sense. I agree, and will end with a hypothesis that attempts to link the domain of Factor V with evolutionary biology and neurophysiology. Psychologists, who are Investigative-Artistic types someti…”
BackgroundMorey, L. C., Gunderson, J. G., Quigley, B. D., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., McGlashan, T. H., Stout, R. L., & Zanarini, M. C. (2002) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.16.3.215.22541 · Cited by 141
Blas, L. D., & Forzi, M. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.76.3.451 · Cited by 143
Looking beyond the Big Five: A selective review of alternatives to the Big Five model of personality
Feher, A., & Vernon, P. A. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110002 · Cited by 175
Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2005) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105283193 · Cited by 150
“…the five-factor model of personality (FFM), which is composed of Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience, to be a sufficient categorization of individual differences in personal disposition (for dissenting views, see Block, 1995; Hough, 1992).”
BackgroundLamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang, C. P. (2002) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00487 · Cited by 139
Conceptual Complexity and Construct Validity
McGrath, R. E. (2005) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8502_02 · Cited by 138
“Several authors (e.g., Block, 1995 ) have pointed out the marked differences across test developers in assumptions about the composition of extraversion.”
Millennial Contrarianism: The Five-Factor Approach to Personality Description 5 Years Later
Block, J. (2001) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2293 · Cited by 137
“A less favorable telling of the history and logic of the five-factor approach was presented some years ago in Block (1995). A chapter by Butcher and Rouse (1996) considers insufficiencies of the five-factor model when used in clinical assessment.”
Self-citationSelf-Control in the General Theory of Crime:
Marcus, B. (2004) · Theoretical Criminology · doi:10.1177/1362480604039740 · Cited by 138
“For a general discussion of the controversies around the FFM, see the Block (1995) vs Costa and McCrae (1995)/Goldberg and Saucier (1995) debate.”
BackgroundEgan, V., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2000) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00242-1 · Cited by 136
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
