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
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307
“The Big-Five framework enjoys considerable support and has become the most widely used and extensively researched model of personality (for reviews, see John & Srivastava, 1999, and McCrae & Costa, 1999), although it has not been accepted universally (Block, 1995). The Big-Five framework is a hierarchical model of per…”
MethodInfluential(1999) · Cited by 7,995
The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 · Cited by 4,760
“S. (1985). Differences between new and established industrial”
BackgroundInfluentialRammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001 · Cited by 4,244
“There has been concern about the intercorrelations among the Big Five dimensions (e.g., Block, 1995); the highest intercorrelations among the NEO-PI-R domain scales exceed .40 (Costa & McCrae, 1992), as do those among Goldberg’s (1992) Big Five adjective scales.”
BackgroundWhiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00064-7 · Cited by 4,123
“Unfortunately, impulsivity su ers from both the ``jingle'' and ``jangle'' fallacies (Block, 1995).”
Background
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
