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 601–700 of 999
Predicting turnover of police officers using the sixteen personality factor questionnaire
Drew, J., Carless, S., & Thompson, B. M. (2008) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.06.003 · Cited by 52
Trait mechanisms in youth with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Martel, M. M., Nigg, J. T., & Lucas, R. E. (2007) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.004 · Cited by 49
“To operationalize personality, we selected the Five Factor Model (McCrae & Costa, 1987), one of the most widely-validated summaries of human personality traits (Eysenck, 1992; Goldberg, 1993), though it is not without its critics (Block, 1995).”
MethodBogat, G. A., von Eye, A., & Bergman, L. R. (2016) · doi:10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy118 · Cited by 43
John, O. P., & Naumann, L. P. (2010) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478401003648732 · Cited by 42
“These three studies also examined factors beyond the Big Five and again found no evidence in favor of the dimensions expressly favored by Block (1995) even when more than five factors were rotated.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPersonality psychology as the integrative study of traits and worldviews
Nilsson, A. (2013) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.04.008 · Cited by 49
Boldness: are open field and startle tests measuring the same personality trait?
Yuen, C. H., Schoepf, I., Carsten Schradin, A., & Pillay, N. (2017) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.009 · Cited by 42
Gupta, K. P. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-01-2020-0042 · Cited by 44
Westen, D. (1996) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0028 · Cited by 42
“Implicit in the arguments of this article is a critique of the FFM on a number of grounds, some of which have been covered elsewhere ( Block, 1995; McAdams, 1992; Pervin, 1994; Westen, 1995a).”
BackgroundTrait Perception in the Employment Interview: A Five–Factor Model Perspective
van Dam, K. (2003) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00225 · Cited by 42
Good computing: a pedagogically focused model of virtue in the practice of computing (part 1)
Huff, C., Barnard, L. K., & Frey, W. J. (2008) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/14779960810916246 · Cited by 43
“There is of course, continuing conversation about their comprehensiveness, their causal and ontological status, and their structure ( John and Srivastava, 1999; Block, 1995).”
BackgroundValidation de l’adaptation française de l’échelle neuro-affective de personnalité
Pahlavan, F., Mouchiroud, C., Zenasni, F., & Panksepp, J. (2007) · European Review of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.erap.2007.08.004 · Cited by 43
Hurley, J. R. (1998) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223989809599172 · Cited by 42
Assessing Personality and Psychopathology With Self‐Report Inventories
Ben‐Porath, Y. S. (2003) · Handbook of Psychology · doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei1024 · Cited by 42
Silvia, P. J. (2006) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195158557.003.0003 · Cited by 42
Adolescent Health Development: A Relational Developmental Systems Perspective
Lerner, R. M., Brindis, C. D., Batanova, M., & Blum, R. W. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_6 · Cited by 58
“…there is abundant evidence that purported traits are in fact not “trait-like” at all, 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).”
BackgroundBig five personality traits and problematic mobile phone use: A meta-analytic review
Gao, L., Zhai, S., Xie, H., Liu, Q., Niu, G., & Zhou, Z. (2020) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-020-00817-x · Cited by 48
Impulsivity and Substance Use in Young Adulthood
Shin, S. H., Chung, Y., & Jeon, S. (2013) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2013.00324.x · Cited by 41
The Genetic Links Between the Big Five Personality Traits and General Interest Domains
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167211414275 · Cited by 45
“Block (1995) mentioned that the FFM personality dimensions are too descriptive and include motivations to a lesser extent.”
BackgroundThe higher-order factors of the Big Five as predictors of job performance
Alessandri, G., & Vecchione, M. (2012) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.037 · Cited by 41
“…Openness/Intellect) as one of the most influential description of personality structure (Goldberg, 1993) has bolstered the interest of practitioners and researchers in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology for personality assessment (but see Block, 1995 for a different perspective).”
BackgroundReeve, C. L. L., Meyer, R. D., & Bonaccio, S. (2006) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.11.001 · Cited by 41
“Block, 1995; Brand, 1994; Pervin, 1994), there does appear to be converging consensus concerning its basic structure. Specifically, there appears to be general consensus that personality traits can be organized into a hierarchical structure consisting of a small number of broad factors (i.e., 3 to 6) below which resid…”
BackgroundThe five factor model of personality: Openness a distinct but related construct
Ferguson, E., & Patterson, F. (1998) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00241-9 · Cited by 41
How Neurotic are Scam Victims, Really? The Big Five and Internet ScamsPreprint
Modic, D., & Lea, S. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2448130 · Cited by 49
Personality Neuroscience and the Five Factor Model
Allen, T. A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016) · Oxford Handbooks Online · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199352487.013.26 · Cited by 143
Szostek, D., Balcerzak, A. P., Rogalska, E., & Pelikánová, R. M. (2022) · Economics & Sociology · doi:10.14254/2071-789x.2022/15-4/12 · Cited by 40
“However, FFM has also critics (see Block, 1995).”
Cross-Cultural Construct Validity of the Five-Factor Model of Personality among Korean Employees
Yoon, K., Schmidt, F., & Ilies, R. (2002) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022102033003001 · Cited by 40
“Although some debate still exists regarding the correct number, appropriate level of measurement, and precise nature of the personality factors (Block, 1995), there is now a broad consensus in the scientific community that the FFM represents the most robust model of personality (Digman, 1990).”
BackgroundMeasures of Mental Health and a Five Factor Theory of Personality
Compton, W. C. (1998) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1998.83.1.371 · Cited by 40
Personality and the creativity of frontline service employees: linear and curvilinear effects
Coelho, F., Lages, C. R., & Sousa, C. M. P. (2016) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1255982 · Cited by 40
“Accordingly, given the limited role of the Five Factor model in accounting for human personality (e.g. Block, 1995; Brown et al., 2002; Paunonen & Jackson, 2000), this study includes additional personality traits recently investigated in the services literature as influencers of frontline employee…”
InfluentialDoes choice of measure matter? Assessing the similarities and differences among self-control scales
Jones, S. (2017) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.04.005 · Cited by 40
“To the extent that different measures are not tapping into the same construct, scientific advancement is compromised (Block, 1995; Carlson &Herdman, 2012; Duckworth & Kern, 2011; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001).”
BackgroundPlanning and Implementation Intention Interventions
Rhodes, R. E., Grant, S. J., & de Bruijn, G. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.039 · Cited by 46
Attitudes and Persuasive Communication Interventions
Hamilton, K., & Johnson, B. T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.031 · Cited by 44
Changing Behavior Using Habit Theory
Orbell, S., & Verplanken, B. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.013 · Cited by 50
John, O. P., & Benet‐Martínez, V. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511996481.023 · Cited by 39
Temperament Factors as Longitudinal Predictors of Young Adult Personality
Deal, J. E., Halverson, C. F., Havill, V. L., & Martin, R. P. (2005) · Merrill-palmer Quarterly · doi:10.1353/mpq.2005.0015 · Cited by 39
“The confusion of concepts and names described by John and Srivastava, historically referred to as the jingle and jangle fallacies (see Block, 1995 ), have also plagued the temperament literature.”
BackgroundThe Role of Negative Affectivity in Self assessment of Health
Vassend, O. M., & Skrondal, A. (1999) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/135910539900400402 · Cited by 42
“Although there are dissenting views (e.g. Block, 1995), as maintained by Saucier and Goldberg (1996) the Big Five factors seem to provide a set of personality dimensions that parsimoniously and comprehensively describe most individual differences.”
BackgroundThe rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology.
Katzko, M. W. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.4.262 · Cited by 39
Dietrich, J., Schmiedek, F., & Moeller, J. (2022) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101623 · Cited by 46
Self-management, self-care, and self-help in adolescents with emotional problems: a scoping review
Town, R., Hayes, D., March, A., Fonagy, P., & Stapley, E. (2023) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-022-02134-z · Cited by 52
“…or involving others in management (e.g., friends, parents, or mainstream authorities) [33–35] Playing games online [33] Reading [33] Self-harm [34] Sleep [33] Sports [33] Watching TV [33] Writing [33] Specific digital interventions: FACE IT (CBT, social skills training) [36] MEMO (CBT) [22]…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFor whom does prison-based drug treatment work? Results from a randomized experiment
Welsh, W. N., Zajac, G., & Bucklen, K. B. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-013-9194-z · Cited by 38
“Psychological research suggests that the many dimensions of personality identified by different studies over the years tend to empirically cluster together into a small number of master traits (Block 1995; Caspi 1998; Lilienfeld 1999; Prior 1992; Rothbart and Bates 1998; Watson et al. 1994).”
BackgroundUher, J. (2014) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4 · Cited by 41
“These serious limitations were already recognised by many scholars (e.g., Block 1995, 2010; Eysenck 1992; McAdams 1992; Shweder & D’Andrade 1980, Westen 1996), among them the founder of American „personality“ psychology, Gordon Allport, who wrote half a century ago: “As for factors, I regard them…”
BackgroundChanging Behavior: A Theory- and Evidence-Based Approach
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.001 · Cited by 47
Mroczek, D. K., Spiro, A., & Griffin, P. W. (2006) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012101264-9/50019-7 · Cited by 45
Westmaas, J. L., Moeller, S. J., & Woicik, P. B. (2007) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.3200/jach.55.4.227-237 · Cited by 38
Measuring personality: a comparison of three personality questionnaires in the Netherlands
Barelds, D. P. H., & Luteijn, F. (2002) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00169-6 · Cited by 38
Idiographic Self-Evaluation and Bias
Sinha, R. R., & Krueger, J. I. (1998) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2211 · Cited by 38
“Whereas the Big Five personality dimensions may not represent an exhaustive map of individual differences (Block, 1995), they are widely regarded as an adequate taxonomy (Goldberg, 1993; John, 1990).”
BackgroundDimensions Underlying Sixteen Models of Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Walker, D. F., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2004) · Journal of Psychology and Theology · doi:10.1177/009164710403200102 · Cited by 45
Schoen, J. L. B., Bowler, J. L., & Schilpzand, M. C. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315618012 · Cited by 42
“…concern, and resulting response biases along with the limited theoretical basis for current explicit measures of creative personality (cf. Block, 1995) are likely culprits of the modest correlations between explicit measures of creative personality and creative performance (Schoen, 2015).”
BackgroundTarrant, M., Haslam, C., Carter, M., Calitri, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.044 · Cited by 38
How Sensation Seeking provides a common basis for functional and dysfunctional outcomes
Jackson, C. J. (2010) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.005 · Cited by 44
“The Big Five is useful in all these respects but is also limited by its descriptive nature in which mechanisms of learning and change are not specified (see also Block, 1995, for a larger list of limitations). In contrast the Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality is a process model of learning in which motivation an…”
BackgroundInteracting personality traits? Smoking as a test case
Glicksohn, J., & Nahari, G. (2006) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.609 · Cited by 41
Hope and General Self-efficacy: Two Measures of the Same Construct?
Zhou, M., & Kam, C. C. S. (2016) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.2015.1113495 · Cited by 37
“achieve a greater level of unity and integration than has been possible in the past (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002) and to avoid the Tower of Babel problem noted by Block (1995),”
BackgroundHill, K. E., Samuel, D. B., & Foti, D. (2016) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12671 · Cited by 38
Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189
Lipnevich, A. A., Mattern, K., & Feddock, C. (2026) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2025.2569623 · Cited by 37
“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.”
Genetic and Environmental Multidimensionality of Well- and Ill-Being in Middle Aged Twin Men
Franz, C. E., Panizzon, M. S., Eaves, L. J., Thompson, W., Lyons, M. J., Jacobson, K. C., Tsuang, M., Glatt, S. J., & Kremen, W. S. (2012) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-012-9538-x · Cited by 36
“The current state of affairs raises concerns about the ‘‘jingle’’ and ‘‘jangle’’ fallacies; that is, when characteristics labeled similarly are actually different or when constructs with different names turn out to be essentially the same (Block 1995; Kelley 1927).”
An Overview of Reviews: Organizational Change Management Architecture
Ros, A. D., Vainieri, M., & Bellè, N. (2023) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/14697017.2023.2197451 · Cited by 46
“In some cases, we merged similar variables that Arazmjoo and Rahmanseresht and Milella and colleagues split into several variables, and in other cases, they did (Block, 1995; Oreg et al., 2011).”
ResultBriley, D. A., & Tucker–Drob, E. M. (2012) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-012-9548-8 · Cited by 42
“For instance, a measurement crisis occurred when several competing models (Block 1995; Costa and McCrae 1992b; Eysenck 1992b; Zuckerman 1992) were put forward as representing the only basic or fundamental factors.”
BackgroundDocherty, A. R., Moscati, A., Peterson, R. E., Edwards, A. C., Adkins, D. E., Bacanu, S., Bigdeli, T. B., Webb, B. T., Flint, J., & Kendler, K. S. (2016) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/tp.2016.177 · Cited by 35
Emotional (Non-)Expression and Health: Data, Questions, and Challenges
ek, I. N., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Denollet, J. (2002) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870440290025740 · Cited by 39
Editorial: The Puzzle of Personality Types
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002) · Cited by 36
Martin, J. S., Jaeggi, A. V., & Koski, S. E. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104980 · Cited by 38
“The use of rating methods in comparative studies can also lead to so-called jingle fallacies in theoretical models, where the same trait term is used to describe two mechanistically and functionally distinct phenotypes (Block, 1995).”
MethodA typology of business usage center members
Huber, M., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2018) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.014 · Cited by 37
Lipnevich, A. A., Gjicali, K., Asıl, M., & Smith, J. K. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110086 · Cited by 35
Changing Behavior Using Integrated Theories
Hagger, M. S., & Hamilton, K. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.015 · Cited by 44
The General Factor of Personality as Ego-Resiliency
Dunkel, C. S., van der Linden, D., Kawamoto, T., & Oshio, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741462 · Cited by 35
“The jangle fallacy is when two nearly identical concepts are referred to by different names (Kelley, 1927; Block, 1995).”
BackgroundCausal Unity of Broader Traits is an Illusion
Asendorpf, J. B. (2016) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2060 · Cited by 35
The Nonverbal Assessment of Personality in Five Cultures
Paunonen, S. V., Zeidner, M., Engvik, H. A., Oosterveld, P., & Maliphant, R. (2000) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022100031002005 · Cited by 35
“The problem with much of those data is that, as noted by Block (1995) and Paunonen (1993), most personality questionnaires of today have been constructed under the influence of the Five-Factor Model of personality, or have been instrumental in determining that model.”
BackgroundJackson, S. S., Fung, M.-C., Moore, M.-A. C., & Jackson, C. J. (2016) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.020 · Cited by 35
“Although the Big Five has many advantages such as excellent psychometric properties, satisfactory understanding of its neurobiological basis remains elusive (Block, 1995) despite some enthusiasm (DeYoung, 2010).”
BackgroundKatzko, M. W. (2003) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00004 · Cited by 35
“…behavior, or report on childhood experiences, is any less introspective—and thereby scientifically more objective and acceptable—simply because the subjects are untrained and their responses are aggregated into group averages (cf. Block, 1995, who makes a similar argument regarding trait research).”
BackgroundNew Frontiers for Crowdsourcing: The Extended Mind
Whitaker, R. M., Chorley, M. J., & Allen, S. M. (2015) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2015.197 · Cited by 32
“While not without significant ongoing debate [42], the five-factor Personality characterisation [43] has become very popular.”
BackgroundFrequency of the use of English personality adjectives: Implications for personality theory
Roivainen, E. (2013) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.004 · Cited by 39
Implizite und explizite Motive
Brunstein, J. C. (2010) · Springer-Lehrbuch · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12693-2_9 · Cited by 33
La personnalité de la marque: bilan et perspectives
Ferrandi, J., Merunka, D. R., & Valette‐Florence, P. (2003) · Revue française de gestion · doi:10.3166/rfg.145.145-162 · Cited by 34
Personality tests in accounting research
Taggar, S., & Parkinson, J. (2007) · Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting · doi:10.1108/14013380710778776 · Cited by 35
Personality and Psychopathology: a Theory-Based Revision of Eysenck’s PEN Model
van Kampen, D. (2009) · Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health · doi:10.2174/1745017900905010009 · Cited by 36
“) cannot convey crucial features of personality [and] its dynamic functioning’ [39].”
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2014) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1960 · Cited by 33
“So although the model seems to suggest that a specific test item should load on just one personality factor and not the others, this is not what is found in the data (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundMoon, H. K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Marinova, S. V., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00419.x · Cited by 34
“An over reliance on the tools of constitutive research such as factor analysis (Block, 1995) over theory generation (McAdams, 1992) captures the sentiment of those who have concerns that we may be artificially limiting the potential explanatory ability of personality constructs by blindly accepting…”
MethodHyatt, C. S., Crowe, M. L., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191119860903 · Cited by 34
“We believe parsimony is a critically important attribute to scientific theory; conceiving of triarchic model of psychopathy and FFM traits as unique is a likely example of the “jangle” fallacy, wherein extremely similar constructs are erroneously given different names and studied as separate entities (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundIdiographic Microgenesis: Re-Visiting the Experimental Tradition of Aktualgenese
Diriwächter, R. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-95922-1_15 · Cited by 33
“However, the purpose of this present chapter is not to provide a critique on these various standardized measures, since in many cases this has already been done elsewhere (e.g., for the above mentioned cases, see Block, 1995 for a critique on NEO-PI; see Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979 for a critique on the BSRI; or see Ga…”
BackgroundBen‐Eliyahu, A., & Zeidner, M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108264822.041 · Cited by 33
Individual characteristics and personal relationships
Auhagen, A. E., & Hinde, R. A. (1997) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00131.x · Cited by 33
Fyffe, S., Lee, P., & Kaplan, S. A. (2023) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/10944281231155771 · Cited by 40
Las cinco grandes dimensiones de la personalidad
ter Laak, J. J. F. (1969) · Revista de Psicología · doi:10.18800/psico.199602.002 · Cited by 34
Managerial Personality and Performance: A Semi-idiographic Approach
Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1999) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2263 · Cited by 32
“For example, Block (1995) argues that the Big Five dimensions may mask potentially important differences among individuals.”
BackgroundMethod of predicting human mobility patterns using deep learning
Kim, D. Y., & Song, H. Y. (2017) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2017.07.069 · Cited by 31
A Temperament-Attachment-Mentalization-Based (TAM) Theory of Personality and Its Disorders
Karterud, S., & Kongerslev, M. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00518 · Cited by 37
“FFM is derived from statistical calculations based on the original idea of a “lexical hypothesis,” espousing that language will invent words and expressions that correspond to personality differences between people (Block, 1995).”
MethodKnight, E. L., Morales, P. J., Christian, C. B., Prasad, S., Harbaugh, W. T., Mehta, P. H., & Mayr, U. (2022) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000305 · Cited by 38
“This possible “jingle fallacy” – in which separate psychological constructs are given the same name despite inherent differences (Block, 1995) – could lead to inconsistent findings in the field.”
Personality Organization, Five-Factor Model, and Mental Health
Laverdière, O., Gamache, D., Diguer, L., Hébert, É., Larochelle, S., & Descôteaux, J. (2007) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e318156815d · Cited by 32
“It was elsewhere reported that the five-factor structure of the NEO is uncertain (Digman, 1997) and Block (1995) considers the factor structure “impressively nonorthogonal.””
BackgroundA Review and Extension of Current Models of Dynamic Criteria
Steele‐Johnson, D., Osburn, H. G., & Pieper, K. F. (2000) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00141 · Cited by 31
“…involving other personality factors (see Barrick and Mount 1991, Digman 1990; Fiske 1949; Goldberg 1993; Hogan 1991; John, Angleitner and Ostendorf 1988; Norman 1963; Tupes and Christal 1961, 1992 for discussions of personality factors and the Big Five model; see Block 1995 for a contrarian view).”
BackgroundExploring the role of personality traits in followee recommendation
Tommasel, A., Corbellini, A., Godoy, D. L., & Schiaffino, S. (2015) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-04-2015-0107 · Cited by 33
“Although its theoretical foundations have been questioned (Waller and Ben-Porath, 1987; Block, 1995), the model is acknowledged to define some of the essential aspects of personality.”
Belief in a just world and adolescents’ vocational and social goals.
Dette-Hagenmeyer, D. E., & Stöber, J. (2004) · Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) · doi:10.4324/9780203575802-24 · Cited by 32
If It Were Only That Easy: The Use of Meta-Analytic Research by Organizational Scholars
DeSimone, J. A., Köhler, T., & Schoen, J. L. B. (2018) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428118756743 · Cited by 33
“Personality (especially as conceptualized by the FFM; see Block, 1995; Digman, 1990) comprises multiple constructs.”
BackgroundAn Exploratory Study of the Relationship between the Big Five and Inmate Recidivism
Clower, C. E., & Bothwell, R. K. (2001) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2312 · Cited by 32
Pincus, A. L., & Ruiz, M. A. (1997) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6802_12 · Cited by 32
Marcus, B., Höft, S., & Riediger, M. (2006) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00338.x · Cited by 32
“Its comprehensiveness, however, has been questioned from different perspectives (e.g., Andresen, 1995; Block, 1995; Hough, 1992).”
Jackson, C. J., Hobman, E. V., Jimmieson, N. L., & Martin, R. (2008) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712608x322900 · Cited by 36
Olson, B. D., & Suls, J. M. (2000) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00105-1 · Cited by 32
Changing Behavior Using the Transtheoretical Model
DiClemente, C. C., & Graydon, M. M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.010 · Cited by 35
Hartmann, E., & Gr⊘nner⊘d, C. (2009) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223890902794309 · Cited by 31
“…(McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005; McCrae, Terracciano, & 79 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005; McCrae & Terracciano, 2006), although the model is not without its critics (Block, 1995; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).”
BackgroundConscientiousness and public health: Synthesizing current research to promote healthy aging.
Reiss, D., Eccles, J. S., & Nielsen, L. O. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0036473 · Cited by 32
“…may provide a profile of attributes distinctive for each individual, but they do not delineate motivations, goals, fears, and skills that, because they are structured within individuals, may help us explain both their actions and how they perceive the consequences of those actions (Block, 1995).”
BackgroundMendoza‐Denton, R., Ayduk, Ö. N., Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1997) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00035 · Cited by 31
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
