research work on personality traits

• Open access
• Published: 19 February 2023

Big five model personality traits and job burnout: a systematic literature review

• Giacomo Angelini 1  

BMC Psychology volume  11 , Article number:  49 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

28k Accesses

16 Citations

54 Altmetric

Metrics details

Job burnout negatively contributes to individual well-being, enhancing public health costs due to turnover, absenteeism, and reduced job performance. Personality traits mainly explain why workers differ in experiencing burnout under the same stressful work conditions. The current systematic review was conducted with the PRISMA method and focused on the five-factor model to explain workers' burnout risk.

The databases used were Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and PsycINFO. Keywords used were: “Burnout,” “Job burnout,” “Work burnout,” “Personality,” and “Personality traits”.

The initial search identified 3320 papers, from which double and non-focused studies were excluded. From the 207 full texts reviewed, the studies included in this review were 83 papers. The findings show that higher levels of neuroticism (r from 0.10** to 0.642***; β from 0.16** to 0.587***) and lower agreeableness (r from − 0.12* to − 0.353***; β from − 0.08*** to − 0.523*), conscientiousness (r from -0.12* to -0.355***; β from − 0.09*** to − 0.300*), extraversion (r from − 0.034** to − 0.33***; β from − 0.06*** to − 0.31***), and openness (r from − 0.18*** to − 0.237**; β from − 0.092* to − 0.45*) are associated with higher levels of burnout.

Conclusions

The present review highlighted the relationship between personality traits and job burnout. Results showed that personality traits were closely related to workers’ burnout risk. There is still much to explore and how future research on job burnout should account for the personality factors.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Burnout: origin, evolution, and definition.

Since the 1970s, when most research in occupational health psychology was focused on industrial workers, studies on burnout have seen a substantial increase. Initially considered a syndrome exclusively linked to helping professions [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ], burnout has been adopted by a broader range of human services professionals [ 5 , 6 ]. Job burnout’s construct has undergone considerable conceptual and methodological attention in the last fifty years. Nowadays, job burnout is considered a multidimensional construct closely referred to as repeated exposure to work-related stress (e.g., [ 7 ]). According to the original theoretical framework, job burnout is defined chiefly as referring to feelings of exhaustion and emotional fatigue, cynicism, negative attitudes toward work, and reduced professional efficacy [ 6 ].

While the relationship between socio-demographic, organizational, and occupational factors and burnout syndrome have received significant attention, the relationship between burnout and individual factors, such as personality, is less explored (for a meta-analysis, see [ 8 ]).

Therefore, it is interesting to investigate whether there is sufficiently convincing evidence to indicate that personality factors play a role in predictors of job burnout. Investigating to what extent personality factors predict job burnout could include a measure of these factors in the selection processes of workers. At the same time, it could also allow preventive actions to support all those at risk of job burnout. This literature review involved a search for cohort studies published since 1993, which used self-report measures of personality traits and job burnout and investigated the relationships between these variables.

Personality and job burnout

In the past, research on this issue has been chiefly haphazard and scattered ([ 9 , 10 ] for a meta-analysis; [ 11 ]). Indeed, personality has often been evaluated in terms of positive or negative affectivity (respectively, e.g., [ 12 , 13 ]), adopting the type A personality model (e.g., [ 14 ]), or the concept of psychological hardiness [ 15 ]. More recently, burnout research focused on the relationship between workers’ personalities measured by the Big Five personality model and their burnout syndrome [ 16 , 17 ]. More specifically, neuroticism (e.g., [ 18 , 19 ]) and extraversion personalities (e.g., [ 20 ]) were abundantly investigated in the scientific panorama (for review; [ 21 ]).

Personality traits according to the five-factor model (FFM)

Since the twentieth century, scholars and researchers have increasingly dedicated themselves to studying this topic, given the importance assumed by personality in the psychological panorama. One of the most famous and relevant approaches to the study of character is the five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits (often referred to as the “Big Five”) proposed by McCrae & Costa [ 22 , 23 ]. As a multidimensional set, personality traits include individuals’ emotions, cognition, and behavior patterns [ 23 – 26 ]. Furthermore, the FFM is the most robust and parsimonious model adopted to understand personality traits and behavior reciprocal relationships [ 27 ] due to two main reasons: its reliability across ages and cultures [ 28 , 29 ] and its stability over the years [ 30 ]. According to several scholars, the FFM consists of five personality traits: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness [ 23 , 25 , 26 , 31 ]. Agreeableness refers to being cooperative, sympathetic, tolerant, and forgiving towards others, avoiding competition, conflict, pressuring, and using force [ 32 ]. Conscientiousness is reflected in being precise, organized, disciplined, abiding by principles and rules, and working hard to achieve success [ 33 ]. Extraversion is related to the quantity and intensity of individual social interaction characteristics. It is displayed through higher degrees of sociability, assertiveness, talkativeness, and self-confidence [ 32 ]. Neuroticism reflects people’s loss of emotional balance and impulse control. It is characterized by a prevalence of negative feelings and anxiety that are attempted to cope with through maladaptive coping strategies, such as delay or denial [ 29 , 34 ]. Openness is reflected in intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, untraditionality and creativity, the preference for independence, novelty, and differences [ 33 , 35 ]. In the last thirty years, the Big Five model has been recognized as a primary representation of salient and non-pathological aspects of personality, the alteration of which contributes to the development of personality disorders [ 36 – 40 ], such as antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic personality disorders [ 41 ].

Although the role of the work environment as a predictor of burnout has been broadly documented (e.g., [ 5 , 6 , 11 ]), it cannot be neglected the effect that personality has on the development of this syndrome. Even reducing or eliminating stressors related to the work environment, some people may still experience high levels of burnout (e.g., [ 42 ]). For this reason, it is necessary to know the associations between personality traits and job burnout to identify the workers most prone to burnout and implement more risk-protection activities. Consequently, based on the literature presented above, this PRISMA review aimed to shed some light on the role that personality traits according to the Five Factors Model—Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness—play in the development of job burnout.

Protocol and registration

The systematic analysis of the relevant literature for this review followed procedures based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) process [ 43 – 45 ], a checklist of 27 items which together with a flow-chart (see Fig.  1 ) constitute the most rigorous guide to systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. The systematic analysis of the relevant literature for this review followed procedures based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) process [ 43 – 45 ].

Diagram flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review

The PRISMA method intends to provide a checklist tool for creating systematic reviews of quality literature.

Eligibility criteria

The study was conducted by extensively searching articles published before June 30th, 2021 (time of research), limited to papers in journals published in English. Review articles, meta-analyses, book chapters, and conference proceedings were excluded. Articles investigating the relationship between personality traits and job burnout in any field of employment, except athletic and ecclesiastical, were included.

Information sources

The databases PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, were used for the systematic search of relevant studies applying the following keywords:

* Burnout * AND * Personality *

* Burnout * AND * Personality traits *

* Job burnout * AND * Personality *

* Work burnout * AND * Personality *

* Job burnout * AND * Personality traits *

* Work burnout * AND * Personality traits *

The initial search identified 3320 papers. The details (title; author/s; year of publication; journal) of the documents identified for inclusion across all inquiries were placed in a separate excel document. After removing duplicates, reviewing titles, and reading abstracts (see Fig.  1 ), the papers were reduced to 207, of which full-text records were read. Studies selected in total for inclusion in this review were limited to the five dimensions of the Big Five Factor model [ 46 ] and were 83 papers.

Study selection

As shown by the Prisma Diagram flow (Fig.  1 ), a total of 83 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Via the initial search process have been identified total of 3320 studies (Scopus, n = 1339; PubMed, n = 515; ScienceDirect, n = 181; PsycInfo, n = 1285). After excluding duplicates, the remaining studies were 1455 of these 1421 records analyzed, and 1195 were discarded. After reviewing the abstracts, these papers did not meet the criteria. Of the remaining 226 full texts, the 207 papers available were examined in more detail, and it emerged that 112 studies did not meet the inclusion criteria as described. Furthermore, to ensure that only studies that had received peer review and met certain quality indicators were included, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) was inspected. SCImago considers the reputation and quality of a journal on citations, based on four quartiles used to classify journals from the highest (Q1) to the lowest (Q4). As suggested by Peters and colleagues [ 47 ], SCImago represents a widely accepted measure of the quality of journals and reduces the possibility of including in systematic reviews papers that do not meet certain quality indices. Based on this, 12 papers were excluded. Finally, 83 studies were included in the systematic review that met the inclusion criteria. Of the articles included in the review, more than half (60%) are published in journals indexed as Q1. The others were in Q2 (28%), Q3 (5%), and finally Q4 (7%).

Study characteristics

Participants.

The included studies have involved 36,627 participants. Based on the inclusion criteria, all reviewed studies included (1) adult samples (18 years or older), (2) workers from the general population rather than clinical samples, (3) regardless of the type of work, and for most studies (4) more female participants than male (female, 57.79%; male, 42.21%). Six studies did not include participants’ demographic information [ 48 – 53 ]. The above percentages refer to the available data (n = 33,299).

The sample consisted of about 26% Teachers or Professors, 22% Nurses, 11% Physicians with various specializations, 10% Policemen, 10% Health professionals, 8% Clerks, of which about 5% worked with IT. Furthermore, the sample was made up of almost 3% Drivers, and less than 2% ICT Manager and Firefighters. Finally, about 9% of the sample carried out different types of jobs.

Countries of collecting data

The 83 articles included in this review have been published between 1993 and 2021 (see Fig.  2 ). In terms of geographic dispersion, more than half of the studies (n = 45; 54.21%) were conducted in Europe (France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK). In contrast, the others were conducted either in America (n = 18; Canada, Jamaica, and the USA), Asia (n = 13; China, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, and Singapore), Africa (n = 6; Nigeria, South Africa, and Turkey) and Oceania (n = 1; Australia).

Research records achieving the inclusion criteria from 1993 to June 30th, 2021

A summary of information about the general characteristics and main methodological properties of all included 83 studies is reported in Table 1 .

Concerning the key methodological features of studies, all studies reviewed involved empirical and quantitative research design. Most of the papers included (n = 73; 88%) in this review were cross-sectional and descriptive studies, except nine (11%) papers presenting longitudinal studies [ 50 , 54 – 61 ]. Furthermore, one paper (1%; [ 62 ]) presented two different studies within it, one cross-sectional and the other longitudinal.

Most of the studies, 84% (n = 70), assessed job burnout via the Maslach Burnout Inventory, both in the original version (MBI; [ 3 , 63 ]), and in the subsequent versions [ 64 , 65 ], or its adaptation [ 66 ]. The other studies, 16% (n = 13), used tools other than MBI, but which share with it the theoretical approach to job burnout and the dimensions of (emotional) exhaustion, depersonalization or cynicism, and reduced personal or professional accomplishment (see Table 1 ). Five papers used the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (SMBM; [ 67 ]), four the Oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI; [ 68 , 69 ]), one the Bergen Burnout Indicator (BBI; [ 70 ]), one the Brief Burnout Questionnaire (CBB; [ 71 ]), one the Burnout Measure [ 72 ] and one the Short Burnout Measure (SBM; [ 73 ]).

According to the Big Five model, the outcome of the analyzed studies was the correlational and regressive between work burnout and personality traits. The data of the models in which the personality traits mediated or moderated the relationships with other variables, which were not the study’s object, were not considered in this review. Concerning personality, all included studies were compatible with the "Big Five" model [ 74 , 75 ] and investigated traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness.

In detail, about 28% (n = 23) of the studies used the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; [ 33 , 76 – 79 ]), 17% (n = 14) have used the Big Five Inventory (BFI; [ 31 , 75 , 80 – 83 ]), one of which is the 10-item version [ 84 ]. Yet, 10% (n = 8) used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; [ 85 , 86 ]), with one study with the revised version [ 87 ], and four studies with the revised and short version [ 88 ]. Furthermore, 7% (n = 6) involved the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; [ 89 , 90 ]), with two studies adopting the mini version [ 91 ], while another 7% (n = 6) involved the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; [ 81 ]), with five studies adopting the revised version. About 5% (n = 4) has used the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; [ 92 ]), 4% (n = 3) has used the Big Five mini markers scale [ 93 ], and 4% (n = 3) involved the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; [ 94 ]) Finally, about 2% (n = 2) has submitted the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI; [ 95 ]), and 2% (n = 2) used the Mini Markers Inventory [ 93 ].

The remaining studies, about 14% (n = 12), used the following tools: the Basic Character Inventory (BCI; [ 96 ]), the Big Five factor markers [ 90 ], the Big Five measure-Short version [ 32 , 97 ], the Big Five Plus Two questionnaire-Short version [ 98 ], the Brief Big five Personality Scale [ 92 ], the Basic Traits Inventory (BTI; [ 99 ]), the Comprehensive Personality and Affect Scales (COPAS; [ 100 ]), the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; [ 101 ]), the Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI; [ 102 ]), the M5-120 Questionnaire [ 103 ], the Minimal Redundant Scales (MRS-30; [ 104 ][ 104 ]), and the Personality Characteristics Inventory (PCI; [ 105 , 106 ]).

All instruments included in the studies were in line with the “Big Five” domains [ 26 ], such as e.g., the NEO-FFI and the NEO-PI, widely used measures of the Big Five [ 81 ], the dimensions of the TIPI and the IPIP [ 89 , 92 ], or the factors of the EPQ and the EPI, compatible with the Big Five model [ 107 , 108 ].

Risk of bias in individual studies

Study design, sampling, and measurement bias were assessed regarding the evaluation risk of bias in each study. Table 2 summarizes the limits reported in each study. Where not registered, no limitations related to the study were referred by the authors of the original studies.

Study design bias

Although most of the studies (89%) have a cross-sectional design, this review reported in the table (see Table 2 ) this bias only on the studies that highlighted this as a weakness (50%). Cross-sectional methods are cheap to conduct, agile for both the researcher and the participant, and can give answers to many research questions [ 109 ]. At the same time, however, since it is a one-time measurement, it does not allow us to test dynamic and progressive effects to conclude the causal relationships among variables.

Three longitudinal studies reported a shortness [ 56 , 58 ] or longness [ 55 ] time-lag between the first and successive administrations. The time length between the study’s waves is an essential issue in longitudinal research methodology. The time interval between the first and following measurements should correspond with the underlying causal lag (e.g., [ 110 ]). If the time lag is too short, probably the antecedent variable does not affect the outcome variable. If, on the contrary, the time lag is too long, the effect of the antecedent variable may already have disappeared. In both cases, the possibility of detecting the impact of the antecedent variable on the outcome variable may decrease.

Furthermore, it is possible that in the period between the first and subsequent measurements, several events may occur affecting the outcome. Finally, the same participant in the sample could change the condition under study (to know more, [ 177 ]). Especially in work-related studies, employees may be subject to changes in context, needs, and working hours [ 178 ]. Despite this, longitudinal designs offer substantial advantages over cross-sectional methods in examining the causal links between the variables [ 177 ].

Sampling bias

About 29% of the studies (n = 24) reported the small samples as limitation. Among these, one study that had two different samples reported a small sample only in second one [ 62 ], while another study, in investigating differences, highlighted that certain groups have a relatively small sample size and reported this as a limitation [ 140 ]. Additionally, about 10% of the studies reported having received an inadequate response rate. About 18% of the studies reported a non-probabilistic sampling as a limitation, and 6% of studies examined reported having a gender-biased sample (male/female). Other studies (13%) reported collecting data in a single organization, country, or an imbalance among workers’ categories. Finally, three studies [ 154 , 168 , 170 ] reported a cultural or geographical bias. To sum up, studies’ limitations regarding the sample characteristics may significantly impact scores’ reliability [ 179 , 180 ]. Specifically, this research’s limits prevent to generalize the findings.

Measurement and response bias

Since inclusion evaluated burnout and personality traits through self-reports that respected the previously illustrated models, all the studies examined used self-report measures. Again, only 40% report this as a limitation. Using perceptual measures, one could be subject to the Common Method Bias (CMB; [ 181 ]). The CMB occurs when the estimated relationships among variables are biased due to a unique-measure method [ 182 ]. This bias may be due to several factors, including response trends due to social desirability, similar responses of respondents due to proximity and wording of items, and similarity in the conditions of time, medium, and place of measurements [ 183 – 185 ]. These variations in responses are artificially attributed to the instrument rather than to the basic predispositions of the participants [ 181 , 186 , 187 ]. Suppose the systematic method variance is not contained. In that case, it can result in an incorrect evaluation of the scale's reliability and convergent validity, inflating the reliability estimates of correlations [ 188 ] and distorting the estimates of the effects of the predictors in the regressions [ 184 ].

Furthermore, about 5% of studies reported using single-item measures. Personality characteristics were often measured through self-reports with single items and assessed through a Likert scale [ 189 ]. This type of assessment is susceptible to social desirability (SDR; [ 184 , 185 ]), i.e., the tendency to respond coherently with what others perceive as desirable [ 190 ]. Furthermore, this type of assessment is also susceptible to acquiescent responding (ACQ; [ 191 ]), i.e., the tendency to prefer positive scores on the Likert scale, regardless of the meaning of the item [ 192 ]. Response-style-induced errors can influence reliability estimates (e.g., [ 193 , 194 ]) and overestimate or underestimate the relationships between the variables examined [ 195 ]. Despite these response biases, widely documented in the literature [ 184 – 186 , 196 – 198 ], it appears that this bias is overstated in psychological research [ 185 ]. Indeed, self-reports would seem to be the most valid measurement method for evaluating personality factors because the same participant is the most suitable person to report their personality and level of burnout [ 42 ]. Other studies (10%) reported using a poor reliability scale: employing imprecise psychometric procedures in a study is likely to distort the outcome, therefore not allowing to make inferences about an individual and creating a response bias [ 199 ]. Finally, about 16% of the studies examined reported that the study did not review all the variables relating to the constructs investigated. Table 2 also identifies some specific limitations of the studies examined, such as, e.g., the comparison between non-numerically equivalent samples [ 174 ], the long compilation time required [ 165 ], and the lack of a control group [ 57 , 138 ]. Furthermore, some studies have used tools that evaluate only a total score of burnout [ 17 ] or personality [ 54 ] Finally, other studies have focused only on individual factors, leaving out job-related and organizational factors [ 147 ].

This systematic review was conducted to identify, categorize, and evaluate the studies investigating the relationship between job burnout and personality traits addressed to date. Specifically, the interest of this review was to explore the role of personality traits as individual factors related to job burnout. To do this, only studies that analyzed the direct relationship between personality traits and job burnout were included, leaving out all those studies that investigated additional variables that could in any way mediate or moderate this relationship.

Results of the studies included

Table 3 summarizes the results, the correlation and regression indices, and the power of significance of the studies included in this review.

The results of the included studies based on the five personality traits and the association with a dimension of job burnout are discussed below. The correlations between the personality trait and the size of the job burnout report first, while subsequently those of the regressions, presenting the cross-sectional studies first, which are most of them, and then also the longitudinal ones.

As seen previously, job burnout is a multidimensional construct that consists of the individual response to stressors at work [ 3 , 9 ]. The literature has long investigated the association between organizational and occupational factors and burnout. However, a recent meta-analysis shows that there is a bidirectional relationship between occupational stressors and burnout [ 200 ]. Because the research on individual factors has been less systematic, partial, and contradictory [ 113 ], this review aimed to synthesize research evidence about the role that FFM personality traits play in the development of job burnout. To do this, 83 independent studies that used different tools to assess both job burnout and personality traits while maintaining the same reference theory were identified. The most investigated personality traits were, in order, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.

The present review extracted data from the reviewed studies, including (1) main characteristics of participants (including job type), (2) data collected country, (3) personality traits related to job burnout, (4) risk of bias in individual studies, and (5) methodological features of studies. As for the participants, all reviewed studies included (1) adult samples, (2) workers from the general population rather than clinical samples, (3) regardless of the type of work, and for most studies (4) more female participants than male. Based on these observations, future studies examining personality traits and work burnout should employ other samples (e.g., clinical samples) to enhance external validity.

This systematic review focused exclusively on personality traits and the relationship between them and job burnout. Results of the included studies confirmed a relationship between job burnout and the five distinct personality traits of the Big Five model [ 46 ] and that some of these were risk factors for job burnout (although not always in the same direction). A descriptive picture of the relationship between the five personality traits and job burnout will be discussed.

Agreeableness

A negative association between Agreeableness and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.12* to − 0.353***; β from − 0.08*** to − 0.523*). Longitudinal studies also suggest a role of Agreeableness as a protective factor of dimensions of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and reduced Professional Accomplishment (EE; β, − 0.83*; β, − 0.48*; D; β, − 0.31*; PA; β, − 0.22*; rPA; β, − 0.28**). As seen previously, the Agreeableness trait has been described as a sense of cooperation, tolerance, and avoidance of conflict on problematic issues [ 32 ]. Agreeable individuals are warm, supportive, and good-natured [ 201 , 202 ], protecting them from feelings of frustration and emotional exhaustion [ 113 ]. Indeed, their tendency towards a positive understanding of others, coupled with interpersonal relationships based on feelings of affection and warmth [ 201 ], could protect them from developing job burnout and greater depersonalization [ 8 , 203 ]. Although most of the studies found a negative relationship between Agreeableness and job burnout, in some studies Agreeableness was positively correlated with Emotional exhaustion [ 159 ], and reduced Professional Accomplishment [ 50 , 62 ].

Conscientiousness

A negative association between Conscientiousness and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.12* to − 0.355***; β from − 0.09*** to − 0.300*). Longitudinal studies also suggest the role of Conscientiousness as a protective factor against Burnout (B; β, -0.21*). As seen previously, the Conscientiousness trait is reflected in precise, organized, and disciplined individuals who respect the rules and work hard to achieve success [ 33 ]. Their perseverance in work and success orientation would protect these people from developing emotional exhaustion [ 76 , 204 ] and poor personal accomplishment, as they are unlikely to perceive themselves as unproductive. Although most studies found a negative relationship between Conscientiousness and job burnout dimensions, some studies pointed out an unexpected inverse correlation between Conscientiousness and reduced Professional Accomplishment [ 60 , 62 , 143 , 159 , 166 ]. Furthermore, Conscientiousness was positively associated with Emotional exhaustion and Depersonalization [ 131 ]. This result would be due to the greater commitment and effort employed in their work, which would have greater levels of exhaustion and depersonalization [ 131 ]. Finally, another longitudinal study [ 56 ] attributes Conscientiousness as a negative predictor role for the dimensions of Personal/Professional Accomplishment. However, the authors do not provide reasons for this discordant result from the literature.

Extraversion

A negative association between Extraversion and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.034** to − 0.33***; β from − 0.06*** to − 0.31***). Longitudinal studies also suggest the role of Extraversion as a protective factor against burnout and its dimension of Exhaustion (B; β, − 0.16*; EE; β, − 0.26*). As seen previously, the Extraversion trait has been identified as the intensity of social interaction and the level of self-esteem of individuals [ 32 ]. People with higher levels of extraversion appear positive, cheerful, optimistic, and have more likely to experience positive emotions [ 206 ]. This positive view of their level of job-related self-efficacy [ 207 ], often associated with the interpersonal bonds they tend to create [ 208 ] can protect outgoing individuals from experiencing high levels of emotional exhaustion. On the contrary, introverted individuals tend to experience greater feelings of helplessness and lower levels of ambition [ 204 ], which instead results in a risk factor for job burnout. Although the negative association is the most frequent, some studies have found a directly proportional association between Burnout and Extraversion [ 54 ], Cynicism [ 127 , 173 ], and reduced Professional Accomplishment [ 50 , 60 , 62 , 143 , 146 , 159 ]. Again, the authors do not provide reasons for this discordant result from the literature.

Neuroticism

A positive association between Neuroticism and job burnout was reported (range, r from 0.10** to 0.642***; β from 0.16** to 0.587***). Longitudinal studies also suggest a role of Neuroticism as a predictor of Burnout and its extent of Exhaustion, while predicting a decrease in Professional Accomplishment (B; β, 0.21*; EE; β, 0.31***; β, 0.15**; β, 0.19**; PA; β, − 0.23**). As seen previously, it is possible to define Neuroticism as the inability of people to control their impulses and manage their emotional balance. Neurotic people experience a series of feelings of insecurity, anxiety, anger, and depression [ 25 , 76 , 204 ] that they try to manage through maladaptive coping strategies, such as delay or denial [ 29 , 34 ]. These characteristics of the personality trait of Neuroticism would interfere with job functioning and satisfaction, operating a negative "filter" that magnifies the impact of adverse events (see [ 209 ]) and constitutes a significant risk factor for job burnout [ 8 , 174 ]. Feelings of anxiety and nervousness could lead them more easily to experience higher levels of emotional exhaustion, and by focusing on more aspects of their work, they are more likely to manifest depersonalization. Although most studies report a positive association between Neuroticism and Burnout [ 164 ], Burnout [ 159 , 169 ], Depersonalization [ 133 , 159 ], and reduced Professional Accomplishment [ 60 , 62 , 126 ]. Ye and colleagues [ 164 ] tie this result to the Chinese cultural situation, whereby the observed greater sense of responsibility and discipline could reduce the effects of extroversion on job burnout. Farfán and colleagues [ 169 ], on the contrary, link this result to the tendency of the neurotic personality trait to use rationalization as a defense against job burnout. Unlike most of the studies included in this review, some results show a negative association between Neuroticism and Burnout [ 159 , 164 ], Emotional exhaustion, and Depersonalization [ 155 ]. Furthermore, a study indicates that Neuroticism is positively associated with reduced Personal/Professional Accomplishment [ 131 ]. Finally, in the longitudinal study by Armon and colleagues [ 54 ], Neuroticism even seems to protect against Emotional exhaustion. The authors explain the association over time of Neuroticism with job burnout as due to an underrepresentation in the measurement scales used or the moderating effect of gender on these associations [ 159 ].

A negative association between Openness and job burnout was reported (range, r from − 0.18*** to − 0.237**; β from − 0.092* to − 0.45*). Longitudinal studies have suggested the role of Openness as a protective factor of reduced Professional Accomplishment (rPA; β, 0.10*). As seen previously, individuals with high levels of Openness tend to be more intellectually curious about novelty and open-minded and have a predisposition to independence [ 35 , 76 , 202 ]. These characteristics protect individuals from experiencing discomfort, experiencing novelty and failures as opportunities [ 203 ], and protecting them from job burnout from emotional exhaustion. Conversely, when faced with stressors at work, less open individuals can adopt quick but suboptimal strategies, such as depersonalization [ 8 ]. Although most of the studies found a negative relationship between Openness and job burnout, five studies found a positive correlation between Openness and Emotional exhaustion [ 54 , 122 ] and Depersonalization [ 159 ], while negative with Personal/Professional Accomplishment [ 62 , 131 , 159 ]. The authors do not provide reasons for this discordant result from the literature. Other studies instead have found a positive association between Openness and all dimensions of Burnout [ 116 ]: Exhaustion [ 131 , 173 ], Depersonalization [ 131 ], and reduced Personal/Professional Accomplishment [ 142 ]. Finally, the longitudinal study by Ghorpade and colleagues [ 120 ] attributes Openness to the role of the positive predictor of Emotional exhaustion. According to the authors, this result could be attributed to the work of the professors (Professors) which, requiring a greater openness to listening to students' different problems and encouraging different positions in them, could increase emotional exhaustion.

The findings of most of the studies reviewed indicate that individuals who have higher levels of neuroticism and lower agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness to experience are more prone to experiencing job burnout. However, the few studies that show other results than this theoretical line cannot explain the conflicting results. Some authors adduce these results to a measurement bias (e.g., [ 159 ]) or sample characteristics (e.g., [ 120 ]) but fail to explain the reason for this relationship and believe that it is due to further variables to be explored.

Limitations

Although the literature review was conducted as rigorously as possible, the search strategy was limited to four scientific search engines. Furthermore, it was impossible to find all the relevant studies if the search terms were not mentioned in the articles' titles, abstracts, or keywords. Therefore, some related papers might be missed due to the selected terms. Furthermore, the search included only studies published in English, thus excluding relevant studies in other languages. Additionally, gray literature was not included in the study, and therefore, it may not have been considered essential data contained in non-peer-reviewed studies, unpublished theses, and dissertation studies. Furthermore, one of the exclusion criteria was the journal ranking of SCImago. Although this is a widely accepted and recognized measure to reduce the possibility of including in systematic reviews papers that do not meet certain quality indices [ 47 ], they may not have been considered relevant data. In addition, the Big Five model [ 46 ] was used as a conceptual model of reference to compare the results of the studies on job burnout. Studies that did not include the Big Five models or that explored the relationship between Burnout and personality disorders (e.g., Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, etc.) were therefore not examined in this study. Restricting studies to a single conceptual model of personality was necessary to focus the review, but at the same time, it limited our investigation. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the study samples' work type, burnout measurement tools, and personality traits prevented comparing results across studies. Finally, despite precautions to reduce selection bias, confounding, and measurement bias, no studies have addressed reverse causality problems in the relationship between personality traits and burnout. Although the cross-sectional research design does not allow us to investigate the causal links between personality and burnout, an answer to the existence of this link is offered by the longitudinal studies included in the review. This type of study demonstrates that personality traits play a role in the development of burnout, but future research must investigate this relationship, especially with the help of longitudinal studies that can reduce the problems related to reverse causality.

The findings obtained in the present review highlight the importance of examining the role of personality traits in the development of job burnout syndrome. At the same time, it is possible to observe how scientific evidence places us in front of a picture that is not fully defined. In line with Guthier's meta-analysis [ 200 ], the findings of this review highlight the need for expanding job stress theories focusing more on the role that personality plays in burnout.

I am convinced of the value of this review in directing future empirical research on job burnout, especially in the light of new approaches to burnout as a multi-component factor (see [ 210 , 211 ]). Even more future research will have the task of encouraging the use of methodologies that evaluate personality traits in work contexts. An assessment of personality traits and continuous monitoring of occupational stress levels (e.g., [ 212 ]) could help identify the people who are most likely to develop burnout syndrome to prevent or limit its damage. Future research should improve understanding and intervention on burnout, too often limited by universal approaches that have neglected the uniqueness of the antecedents of burnout [ 213 ]. Some traits related to burnout predict work outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and turnover [ 203 , 214 – 218 ]. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate the antecedents of Burnout to provide implications practices for jobs and organizations.

Availability of data and materials

As this is a systematic review of the literature, this study indicates the information to obtain all data analyzed in the databases used. However, the datasets used during the current study remain available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Freudenberger HJ. Staff burn-out. J Soc Issues. 1974;30:159–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Freudenberger HJ. The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions. Psychother Theory Res Pract. 1975;12:73–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086411 .

Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav. 1981;2:99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205 .

Schaufeli WB, Maslach C, Marek T. Professional burnout: recent developments in theory and research. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203741825

Maslach C, Leiter MP. The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. 1997.

Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Demerouti E, Bakker A, Nachreiner F, Ebbinghaus M. From mental strain to burnout. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2002;11:423–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320244000274 .

Swider BW, Zimmerman RD. Born to burnout: a meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. J Vocat Behav. 2010;76:487–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.003 .

Cordes CL, Dougherty TW. A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Acad Manag Rev. 1993;18:621–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.9402210153 .

Kahill S. Symptoms of professional burnout: a review of the empirical evidence. Can Psychol. 1988;29:284–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079772 .

Lee RT, Ashforth BE. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81:123–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123 .

Iverson RD, Olekalns M, Erwin PJ. Affectivity, organizational stressors, and absenteeism: a causal model of burnout and its consequences. J Vocat Behav. 1998;52:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.1556 .

Bellani ML, Furlani F, Gnecchi M, Pezzotta P, Trotti EM, Bellotti GG. Burnout and related factors among HIV/AIDS health care workers. AIDS Care. 1996;8:207–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540129650125885 .

Ganster DC, Type A. Behavior and occupational stress. J Organ Behav Manage. 1987;8:61–84. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v08n02_05 .

Rush MC, Schoel WA, Barnard SM. Psychological resiliency in the public sector: “hardiness” and pressure for change. J Vocat Behav. 1995;46:17–39. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1002 .

Ruggieri RA, Crescenzo P, Iervolino A, Mossi PG, Boccia G. Predictability of big five traits in high school teacher burnout. Detailed study through the disillusionment dimension. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2427/12923 .

Pérez-Fuentes M, Molero Jurado M, Martos Martínez Á, Gázquez LJ. Burnout and engagement: personality profiles in nursing professionals. J Clin Med. 2019;8:286. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8030286 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Azeem SM. Conscientiousness, neuroticism and burnout among healthcare employees. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2013. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i7/68 .

Bianchi R. Burnout is more strongly linked to neuroticism than to work-contextualized factors. Psychiatry Res. 2018;270:901–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.11.015 .

Sulea C, van Beek I, Sarbescu P, Virga D, Schaufeli WB. Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits. Learn Individ Differ. 2015;42:132–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018 .

Hartmann É, Mathieu C. The relationship between workaholism, burnout and personality: a literature review. Sante Ment Que. 2017;42:197–218.

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR facet scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1992;52:229–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316449205200128 .

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality in adulthood: a five-factor theory perspective. 2003.

Barrick MR, Mount MK. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 1991;44:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x .

Digman JM. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu Rev Psychol. 1990;41:417–40. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 .

Goldberg LR. An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59:1216–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 .

Poropat AE. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:322–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996 .

Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1246–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246 .

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am Psychol. 1997;52:509–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509 .

Costa PT, McCrae RR. Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:853–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.853 .

John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA. Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York; 2008.

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 .

Costa PT, McCrae RR. Neo personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R). Odessa; 1992.

Carver CS, Connor-Smith J. Personality and coping. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:679–704. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352 .

Johnson JA, Ostendorf F. Clarification of the five-factor model with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:563–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.563 .

Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med. 2012;42:1879–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674 .

Trull TJ, Widiger TA. Dimensional models of personality: the five-factor model and the DSM-5 . Dialog Clin Neurosci. 2013;15:135–46. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2013.15.2/ttrull .

Widiger TA, Costa PT. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: rationale for the third edition. In: Widiger TA, Costa PT, editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. 3rd ed. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2013. p. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/13939-001 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Widiger TA, Simonsen E. Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. J Pers Disord. 2005;19:110–30. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.19.2.110.62628 .

Watson D, Clark LA, Chmielewski M. Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: ii. Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. J Pers. 2008;76:1545–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00531.x .

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). Arlington; 2013.

Alarcon G, Eschleman KJ, Bowling NA. Relationships between personality variables and burnout: a meta-analysis. Work Stress. 2009;23:244–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903282600 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 .

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 .

McCrae RR, Costa PT, Wiggins JS. The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press; 1996.

Google Scholar  

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2119–26. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 .

Deary IJ, Blenkin H, Agius RM, Endler NS, Zealley H, Wood R. Models of job-related stress and personal achievement among consultant doctors. Br J Psychol. 1996;87:3–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02574.x .

Harizanova S, Stoyanova R, Mateva N. Do personality characteristics constitute the profile of burnout-prone correctional officers? Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6:1912–7. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.328 .

McManus I, Keeling A, Paice E. Stress, burnout and doctors’ attitudes to work are determined by personality and learning style: a twelve year longitudinal study of UK medical graduates. BMC Med. 2004;2:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-2-29 .

Perry SJ, Witt LA, Penney LM, Atwater L. The downside of goal-focused leadership: the role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:1145–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020538 .

Zellars KL, Hochwarter WA, Perrewe PL, Hoffman N, Ford EW. Experiencing job burnout: the roles of positive and negative traits and states. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2004;34:887–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02576.x .

Zellars KL, Perrewé PL. Affective personality and the content of emotional social support: coping in organizations. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:459–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.459 .

Armon G, Shirom A, Melamed S. The big five personality factors as predictors of changes across time in burnout and its facets. J Pers. 2012;80:403–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00731.x .

de Looff P, Didden R, Embregts P, Nijman H. Burnout symptoms in forensic mental health nurses: results from a longitudinal study. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28:306–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12536 .

Gan T, Gan Y. Sequential development among dimensions of job burnout and engagement among IT employees. Stress Health. 2014;30:122–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2502 .

Goddard R, O’Brien P, Goddard M. Work environment predictors of beginning teacher burnout. Br Educ Res J. 2006;32:857–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600989511 .

Hildenbrand K, Sacramento CA, Binnewies C. Transformational leadership and burnout: the role of thriving and followers’ openness to experience. J Occup Health Psychol. 2018;23:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000051 .

Hudek-Knežević J, Kalebić Maglica B, Krapić N. Personality, organizational stress, and attitudes toward work as prospective predictors of professional burnout in hospital nurses. Croat Med J. 2011;52:538–49. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2011.52.538 .

Mills LB, Huebner ES. A prospective study of personality characteristics, occupational stressors, and burnout among school psychology practitioners. J Sch Psychol. 1998;36:103–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00053-8 .

Sterud T, Hem E, Lau B, Ekeberg Ø. A comparison of general and ambulance specific stressors: predictors of job satisfaction and health problems in a nationwide one-year follow-up study of Norwegian ambulance personnel. Jo Occup Med Toxicol. 2011;6:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-6-10 .

Castillo-Gualda R, Herrero M, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Brackett MA, Fernández-Berrocal P. The role of emotional regulation ability, personality, and burnout among Spanish teachers. Int J Stress Manag. 2019;26:146–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000098 .

Maslach C, Jackson SE. MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory; manual. research. Palo Alto: University of California; 1986.

Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. MBI: Maslach burnout inventory. Sunnyvale: Scarecrow Education; 1996.

Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Jackson SE. The Maslach burnout inventory-general survey. In: Consulting psychologists, editor. MBI manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto; 1996.

Friedman IA. Turning our schools into a healthier workplace: bridging between professional self-efficacy and professional demands. In: Understanding and preventing teacher burnout. Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 166–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527784.010

Shirom A, Melamed S. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. Int J Stress Manag. 2006;13:176–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176 .

Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Vardakou I, Kantas A. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: a multitrait-multimethod analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2003;19:12. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.19.1.12 .

Demerouti E, Mostert K, Bakker AB. Burnout and work engagement: a thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010;15:209–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019408 .

Matthiesen SB, Dyregrov A. Empirical validation of the Bergen burnout indicator. Int J Psychol. 1992;27:497–497.

Jiménez BM, Rodríguez RB, Alvarez AM, Caballero TM. La evaluación del burnout: problemas y alternativas: el CBB como evaluación de los elementos del proceso. 1997.

Pines A, Aronson E. Career burnout: causes and cures. 1988.

Malach-Pines A. The burnout measure, short version. Int J Stress Manag. 2005;12:78–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78 .

Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol. 1993;48:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 .

John OP, Srivastava S. The Big-Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. (1999).

Costa PT, McCrae RR. The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa; 1985.

Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI/FFI manual supplement for use with the NEO Personality Inventory and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. 1989.

Costa PT, McCrae RR. The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa; 1992.

Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO PI-R manual: klinisk. København; 2004.

John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. Big five inventory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000 .

Costa PT, McCrae RR. The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. J Pers Disord. 1992;6:343–59. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343 .

Benet-Martínez V, John OP. Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:729–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729 .

John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In: Handbook of personality: theory and research. The Guilford Press; 2008. p. 114–58.

Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five inventory in English and German. J Res Pers. 2007;41:203–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001 .

Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality inventory. London; 1964.

Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire (junior & adult). 1975.

Eysenck HJ. Creativity, personality and the convergent-divergent continuum. In: Critical creative processes. Hampton Press; 2003. p. 95–114.

Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality scales (EPS Adult). London; 1991.

Goldberg LR. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Pers psychol Eur. 1999;7:7–28.

Goldberg LR. International personality item pool. 2001.

Donnellan MB, Oswald FL, Baird BM, Lucas RE. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychol Assess. 2006;18:192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 .

Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers. 2003;37:504–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 .

Saucier G. Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. J Pers Assess. 1994;63:506–16. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8 .

Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Borgogni L, Perugini M. The, “big five questionnaire”: a new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. Pers Individ Dif. 1993;15:281–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R .

Hendriks AJ, Hofstee WKB, De Raad B. The five-factor personality inventory (FFPI). Pers Individ Dif. 1999;27:307–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00245-1 .

Torgersen S. Hereditary-environmental differentiation of general neurotic, obsessive, and impulsive hysterical personality traits. ACTA Genet Med et Gemellol Twin Res. 1980;29:193–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001566000007935 .

Sager KL, Gastil J. Exploring the psychological foundations of democratic group deliberation: personality factors, confirming interaction, and democratic decision making. Commun Res Rep. 2002;19:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384832 .

Benet V, Waller NG. The Big Seven factor model of personality description: evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69:701–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.701 .

Taylor N, de Bruin GP. Basic traits inventory. Johannesburg; 2006.

Lubin B, van Whitlock R. Development of a measure that integrates positive and negative affect and personality: the comprehensive personality and affect scales. J Clin Psychol. 2002;58:1135–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10042 .

Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. Manual of the eysenck personality inventory. San Diego; 1968.

Fahrenberg J, Hampel R, Selg H. Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar. Göttingen; 1970.

Johnson JA. Screening Massively Large Data Sets For Non-Responsiveness. In: Group University of Groningen, editor. Web-Based Personality Inventories Invited talk to the joint Bielefeld-Groningen Personality Research. Netherlands; (2001).

Ostendorf F. Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit. Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur [Language and structure of personality: The validity of the Five Factor Model of personality]. Regensburg; (1990).

Mount MK, Barrick MR. Manual for the personal characteristics inventory. Libertyville; 1995.

Mount MK, Barrick MR. The personal characteristics inventory manual. Libertyville; 2002.

Goldberg LR, Rosolack TK. The Big Five factor structure as an integrative framework: an empirical comparison with Eysenck’s PEN model. In: Halverson CF Jr, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, editors. The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. East Sussex: Psychology Press; 1994. p. 7–35.

Markon KE, Krueger RF, Watson D. Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;88:139–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139 .

Spector PE. Do Not cross me: optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34:125–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8 .

Ployhart RE, Vandenberg RJ. Longitudinal research: the theory, design, and analysis of change. J Manage. 2010;36:94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110 .

Manlove EE. Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Child Res Q. 1993;8:499–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80082-1 .

Deary IJ, Agius RM, Sadler A. Personality and stress in consultant psychiatrists. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1996;42:112–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409604200205 .

Zellars KL, Perrewe PL, Hochwarter WA. Burnout in health care: the role of the five factors of personality. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30:1570–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02456.x .

de Vries J, van Heck GL. Fatigue: relationships with basic personality and temperament dimensions. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;33:1311–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00015-6 .

Cano-García FJ, Padilla-Muñoz EM, Carrasco-Ortiz MÁ. Personality and contextual variables in teacher burnout. Pers Individ Dif. 2005;38:929–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.018 .

Burke RJ, Berge Matthiesen S, Pallesen S. Workaholism, organizational life and well-being of Norwegian nursing staff. Career Dev Int. 2006;11:463–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430610683070 .

Langelaan S, Bakker AB, van Doornen LJP, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Pers Individ Dif. 2006;40:521–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009 .

Mostert K, Rothmann S. Work-related well-being in the South African Police Service. J Crim Justice. 2006;34:479–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.003 .

Bahner AD, Berkel LA. Exploring burnout in batterer intervention programs. J Interpers Violence. 2007;22:994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507302995 .

Ghorpade J, Lackritz J, Singh G. Burnout and personality. J Career Assess. 2007;15:240–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706298156 .

Kim HJ, Shin KH, Umbreit WT. Hotel job burnout: the role of personality characteristics. Int J Hosp Manag. 2007;26:421–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.006 .

Teven JJ. Teacher temperament: correlates with teacher caring, burnout, and organizational outcomes. Commun Educ. 2007;56:382–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701361912 .

Leon SC, Visscher L, Sugimura N, Lakin BL. Person-job match among frontline staff working in residential treatment centers: the impact of personality and child psychopathology on burnout experiences. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2008;78:240–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013946 .

Chung MC, Harding C. Investigating burnout and psychological well-being of staff working with people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour: the role of personality. J Appl Res Intell Disabil. 2009;22:549–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00507.x .

de Hoogh AHB, den Hartog DN. Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94:1058–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016253 .

Gandoy-Crego M, Clemente M, Mayán-Santos JM, Espinosa P. Personal determinants of burnout in nursing staff at geriatric centers. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;48:246–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2008.01.016 .

Kim HJ, Shin KH, Swanger N. Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. Int J Hosp Manag. 2009;28:96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001 .

Taormina RJ, Kuok ACH. Factors related to casino dealer burnout and turnover intention in Macau: implications for casino management. Int Gambl Stud. 2009;9:275–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459790903359886 .

Barford SW, Whelton WJ. Understanding burnout in child and youth care workers. Child Youth Care Forum. 2010;39:271–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9104-8 .

Ghorpade J, Lackritz J, Singh G. Personality as a moderator of the relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2011;41:1275–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00763.x .

Salami SO. Job stress and burnout among lecturers: personality and social support as moderators. Asian Soc Sci. 2011. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n5p110 .

Zimmerman RD, Boswell WR, Shipp AJ, Dunford BB, Boudreau JW. Explaining the pathways between approach-avoidance personality traits and employees’ job search behavior. J Manage. 2012;38:1450–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310396376 .

de la Fuente-Solana EI, Extremera RA, Pecino CV, de La Fuente GRC. Prevalence and risk factors of burnout syndrome among Spanish police officers. Psicothema. 2013;25:488–93. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.81 .

Garbarino S, Cuomo G, Chiorri C, Magnavita N. Association of work-related stress with mental health problems in a special police force unit. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002791. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002791 .

Hurt AA, Grist CL, Malesky LA, McCord DM. Personality traits associated with occupational ‘burnout’ in ABA therapists. J Appl Res Intell Disabil. 2013;26:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12043 .

Lin Q, Jiang C, Lam TH. The relationship between occupational stress, burnout, and turnover intention among managerial staff from a Sino-Japanese joint venture in Guangzhou, China. J Occup Health. 2013;55:458–67. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.12-0287-OA .

Reinke K, Chamorro-Premuzic T. When email use gets out of control: Understanding the relationship between personality and email overload and their impact on burnout and work engagement. Comput Human Behav. 2014;36:502–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.075 .

Taycan O, Taycan SE, Çelik C. Relationship of burnout with personality, alexithymia, and coping behaviors among physicians in a semiurban and rural area in Turkey. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014;69:159–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2013.763758 .

Yilmaz K. The relationship between the teachers’ personality characteristics and burnout levels. Anthropologist. 2014;18:783–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2014.11891610 .

Cañadas-De la Fuente GA, Vargas C, San Luis C, García I, Cañadas GR, de la Fuente EI. Risk factors and prevalence of burnout syndrome in the nursing profession. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:240–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.07.001 .

Srivastava SC, Chandra S, Shirish A. Technostress creators and job outcomes: theorising the moderating influence of personality traits. Inf Syst J. 2015;25:355–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12067 .

Ang SY, Dhaliwal SS, Ayre TC, Uthaman T, Fong KY, Tien CE, et al. Demographics and personality factors associated with burnout among nurses in a Singapore tertiary hospital. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6960184 .

Iorga M, Soponaru C, Hanganu B, Ioan B-G. The burnout syndrome of forensic pathologists. The influences of personality traits, job satisfaction and environmental factors. Rom J Legal Med. 2016;24:325–32. https://doi.org/10.4323/rjlm.2016.325 .

Vaulerin J, Colson SS, Emile M, Scoffier-Mériaux S, d’Arripe-Longueville F. The big five personality traits and french firefighter burnout. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58:e128–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000679 .

Zhou J, Yang Y, Qiu X, Yang X, Pan H, Ban B, et al. Relationship between anxiety and burnout among Chinese physicians: a moderated mediation model. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0157013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157013 .

de la Fuente-Solana EI, Gómez-Urquiza JL, Cañadas GR, Albendín-García L, Ortega-Campos E, Cañadas-De la Fuente GA. Burnout and its relationship with personality factors in oncology nurses. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017;30:91–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2017.08.004 .

Geuens N, van Bogaert P, Franck E. Vulnerability to burnout within the nursing workforce—the role of personality and interpersonal behaviour. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26:4622–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13808 .

Iorga M, Socolov V, Muraru D, Dirtu C, Soponaru C, Ilea C, et al. Factors influencing burnout syndrome in obstetrics and gynecology physicians. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9318534 .

Lovell B, Brown R. Burnout in U.K. prison officers: the role of personality. Prison J. 2017;97:713–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517734504 .

Ntantana A, Matamis D, Savvidou S, Giannakou M, Gouva M, Nakos G, et al. Burnout and job satisfaction of intensive care personnel and the relationship with personality and religious traits: an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2017;41:11–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2017.02.009 .

al Shbail M, Salleh Z, Mohd Nor MN. Antecedents of burnout and its relationship to internal audit quality. Bus Econ Horiz. 2018;14:789–817. https://doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.55 .

Bergmueller A, Zavgorodnii I, Zavgorodnia N, Kapustnik W, Boeckelmann I. Relationship between burnout syndrome and personality characteristics in emergency ambulance crew. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2018;48:404–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-018-0578-4 .

Bianchi R, Mayor E, Schonfeld IS, Laurent E. Burnout and depressive symptoms are not primarily linked to perceived organizational problems. Psychol Health Med. 2018;23:1094–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2018.1476725 .

Iorga M, Dondas C, Sztankovszky L-Z, Antofie I. Burnout syndrome among hospital pharmacists in Romania. Farmacia. 2018;66:181–6.

Tang L, Pang Y, He Y, Chen Z, Leng J. Burnout among early-career oncology professionals and the risk factors. Psychooncology. 2018;27:2436–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4847 .

Tatalovic Vorkapic S, Skocic Mihic S, Josipovic M. Early childhood educators’ personality and competencies for teaching children with disabilities as predictors of their professional burnout. Socijal Psihijatr. 2018;46:390–405. https://doi.org/10.24869/spsih.2018.390 .

Yao Y, Zhao S, Gao X, An Z, Wang S, Li H, et al. General self-efficacy modifies the effect of stress on burnout in nurses with different personality types. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:667. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3478-y .

Zaninotto L, Rossi G, Danieli A, Frasson A, Meneghetti L, Zordan M, et al. Exploring the relationships among personality traits, burnout dimensions and stigma in a sample of mental health professionals. Psychiatry Res. 2018;264:327–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.076 .

Bahadori M, Ravangard R, Raadabadi M, Hosseini-Shokouh SM, Behzadnia MJ. Job stress and job burnout based on personality traits among emergency medical technicians. Trauma Mon. 2019;24:24–31. https://doi.org/10.30491/TM.2019.104270 .

Brown PA, Slater M, Lofters A. Personality and burnout among primary care physicians: an international study. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:169–77. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S195633 .

de la Fuente-Solana E, Cañadas G, Ramirez-Baena L, Gómez-Urquiza J, Ariza T, Cañadas-De la Fuente G. An explanatory model of potential changes in burnout diagnosis according to personality factors in oncology nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030312 .

Farfán J, Peña M, Topa G. Lack of group support and burnout syndrome in workers of the state security forces and corps: moderating role of neuroticism. Medicina (B Aires). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55090536 .

Khedhaouria A, Cucchi A. Technostress creators, personality traits, and job burnout: a fuzzy-set configurational analysis. J Bus Res. 2019;101:349–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.029 .

Ye L, Liu S, Chu F, Zhang Q, Guo M. Effects of personality on job burnout and safety performance of high-speed rail drivers in China: the mediator of organizational identification. J Transp Saf Secur. 2021;13:695–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2019.1667931 .

Banasiewicz J, Zaręba K, Rozenek H, Ciebiera M, Jakiel G, Chylińska J, et al. Adaptive capacity of midwives participating in pregnancy termination procedures: polish experience. Health Psychol Open. 2020;7:205510292097322. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102920973229 .

Bhowmick S, Mulla Z. Who gets burnout and when? the role of personality, job control, and organizational identification in predicting burnout among police officers. J Police Crim Psychol. 2021;36:243–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09407-w .

de Vine JB, Morgan B. The relationship between personality facets and burnout. SA J Ind Psychol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1786 .

Dionigi A. The relationship between, burnout, personality, and emotional intelligence in clown doctors. Humor. 2020;33:157–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2018-0018 .

Farfán J, Peña M, Fernández-Salinero S, Topa G. The moderating role of extroversion and neuroticism in the relationship between autonomy at work, burnout, and job satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:8166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218166 .

Liu X-Y, Kwan HK, Zhang X. Introverts maintain creativity: a resource depletion model of negative workplace gossip. Asia Pac J Manag. 2020;37:325–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9595-7 .

Mahoney CB, Lea J, Schumann PL, Jillson IA. Turnover, burnout, and job satisfaction of certified registered nurse anesthetists in the United States: role of job characteristics and personality. AANA J. 2020;88:39–48.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Malka M, Kaspi-Baruch O, Segev E. Predictors of job burnout among fieldwork supervisors of social work students. J Soc Work. 2021;21:1553–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017320957896 .

Tasic R, Rajovic N, Pavlovic V, Djikanovic B, Masic S, Velickovic I, et al. Nursery teachers in preschool institutions facing burnout: are personality traits attributing to its development? PLoS One. 2020;15:e0242562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242562 .

Bianchi R, Manzano-García G, Rolland J-P. Is burnout primarily linked to work-situated factors? A relative weight analytic study. Front Psychol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.623912 .

de la Fuente-Solana EI, Pradas-Hernández L, González-Fernández CT, Velando-Soriano A, Martos-Cabrera MB, Gómez-Urquiza JL, et al. Burnout syndrome in paediatric nurses: a multi-centre study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031324 .

de la Fuente-Solana EI, Suleiman-Martos N, Velando-Soriano A, Cañadas-De la Fuente GR, Herrera-Cabrerizo B, Albendín-García L. Predictors of burnout of health professionals in the departments of maternity and gynaecology, and its association with personality factors: a multicentre study. J Clin Nurs. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15541 .

Taris TW, Kompier MAJ. Cause and effect: optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupational health psychology. Work Stress. 2014;28:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.878494 .

Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26:179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011 .

Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Psychology press; 1983.

Henson RK, Kogan LR, Vacha-Haase T. A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001;61:404–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971284 .

Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56:81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016 .

Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manage. 1986;12:531–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408 .

Edwards JR. To prosper, organizational psychology should … overcome methodological barriers to progress. J Organ Behav. 2008;29:469–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.529 .

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 .

Spector PE. Method variance in organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2006;9:221–32.

Doty DH, Glick WH. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organ Res Methods. 1998;1:374–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955 .

Jakobsen M, Jensen R. Common method bias in public management studies. Int Public Manag J. 2015;18:3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.997906 .

Le H, Schmidt FL, Putka DJ. The multifaceted nature of measurement artifacts and its implications for estimating construct-level relationships. Organ Res Methods. 2009;12:165–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107302900 .

Kreitchmann RS, Abad FJ, Ponsoda V, Nieto MD, Morillo D. Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of likert items. Front Psychol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309 .

Kuncel NR, Tellegen A. A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: implications for detecting desirable response style and sale development. Pers Psychol. 2009;62:201–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x .

Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1991. p. 17–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X .

Weijters B, Baumgartner H, Schillewaert N. Reversed item bias: an integrative model. Psychol Methods. 2013;18:320–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032121 .

Navarro-González D, Lorenzo-Seva U, Vigil-Colet A. How response bias affects the factorial structure of personality self-reports. Psicothema. 2016;28:465–70. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.113 .

Abad FJ, Sorrel MA, Garcia LF, Aluja A. Modeling general, specific, and method variance in personality measures: results for ZKA-PQ and NEO-PI-R. Assessment. 2018;25:959–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116667547 .

Soto CJ, John OP. Optimizing the length, width, and balance of a personality scale: How do internal characteristics affect external validity? Psychol Assess. 2019;31:444–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000586 .

Antonakis J. On doing better science: from thrill of discovery to policy implications. Leadersh Q. 2017;28:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006 .

Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res. 2016;69:3192–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008 .

Spector PE, Brannick MT. Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In: Buchanan D, Bryman A, editors. The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication; 2009. p. 346–62.

Furr M. Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. 2011.

Guthier C, Dormann C, Voelkle MC. Reciprocal effects between job stressors and burnout: a continuous time meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2020;146:1146–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000304 .

Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol Assess. 1992;4:26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 .

Peabody D, Goldberg LR. Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57:552–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552 .

Zimmerman RD. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decision: a meta-analytic path model. Pers Psychol. 2008;61:309–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x .

Saucier G, Ostendorf F. Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: a cross-language replication. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76:613–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.613 .

Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. 1996.

Clark LA, Watson D. Temperament: a new paradigm for trait psychology. 1999.

Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:797–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797 .

Lucas RE, Diener E, Grob A, Suh EM, Shao L. Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:452–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.452 .

Semmer NK. Personality, stress, and coping. In: Vollrath ME, editor. Handbook of personality and health. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006. p. 73–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713860.ch4 .

Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)—development, validity, and reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249495 .

Angelini G, Buonomo I, Benevene P, Consiglio P, Romano L, Fiorilli C. The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT): A contribution to Italian validation with teachers’. Sustainability. 2021;13(16):9065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169065 .

Voelkle MC, Oud JHL. Continuous time modelling with individually varying time intervals for oscillating and non-oscillating processes. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2013;66:103–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02043.x .

Halbesleben JR, Osburn HK, Mumford MD. Action research as a burnout intervention: reducing burnout in the Federal Fire Service. J Appl Behav Sci. 2006;42:244–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188630528503 .

Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Int J Sel Assess. 2001;9:9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160 .

Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:530–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530 .

Salgado JF. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. J Appl Psychol. 1997;82:30–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30 .

Salgado JF. The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. Int J Sel Assess. 2002;10:117–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00198 .

Salgado JF. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2003;76:323–46. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647201 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Human Sciences, LUMSA University of Rome, 00193, Rome, Italy

Giacomo Angelini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GA contributed to the conception and design of the study, and the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. The author read and approved the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring integrity and accuracy. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Angelini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Angelini, G. Big five model personality traits and job burnout: a systematic literature review. BMC Psychol 11 , 49 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01056-y

Download citation

Received : 23 June 2022

Accepted : 18 January 2023

Published : 19 February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01056-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Personality
• Personality traits

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Personality articles from across Nature Portfolio

Personality refers to individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving. It can also refer to how the patterns in different domains combine in each individual.

Latest Research and Reviews

The process and mechanisms of personality change

Personality is relatively stable over long timescales but remains malleable to some degree. In this Review, Jackson and Wright examine the mechanisms responsible for intentional and naturally occurring change as well as mechanisms that promote stability, thereby limiting potential change.

• Joshua J. Jackson
• Amanda J. Wright

Diverse adolescents’ transcendent thinking predicts young adult psychosocial outcomes via brain network development

• Rebecca J. M. Gotlieb
• Xiao-Fei Yang
• Mary Helen Immordino-Yang

Detecting cognitive traits and occupational proficiency using EEG and statistical inference

• Ilya Mikheev
• Helen Steiner
• Olga Martynova

Digital media exposure and cognitive functioning in European children and adolescents of the I.Family study

• Christoph Buck
• Antje Hebestreit

Relevance of the anterior cingulate cortex volume and personality in motivated physical activity behaviors

In a cohort of right-handed young adults, the volume of the right anterior cingulate cortex positively correlates with self-reported physical activity.

• Anna Miró-Padilla
• Jesús Adrián-Ventura
• César Ávila

Narcissism predicts noise perception but not signal decoding in emotion

• Anna Z. Czarna
• Heidi Mauersberger
• Ursula Hess

News and Comment

Traits and states in mindfulness meditation.

• Yi-Yuan Tang
• Britta K. Hölzel
• Michael I. Posner

Placebo and personality

• Rachel Jones

Leadership theory: implications for developing dental surgeons in primary care?

• S. Willcocks

A risk marker for alcohol dependence on chromosome 2q35 is related to neuroticism in the general population

• M Rietschel

Variation in DISC1 is associated with anxiety, depression and emotional stability in elderly women

Amongst equals.

• Charvy Narain

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

METHODS article

Enhancing personality assessment in the selection context: a study protocol on alternative measures and an extended bandwidth of criteria.

• Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Personality traits describe dispositions influencing individuals' behavior and performance at work. However, in the context of personnel selection, the use of personality measures has continuously been questioned. To date, research in selection settings has focused uniquely on predicting task performance, missing the opportunity to exploit the potential of personality traits to predict non-task performance. Further, personality is often measured with self-report inventories, which are susceptible to self-distortion. Addressing these gaps, the planned study seeks to design new personality measures to be used in the selection context to predict a wide range of performance criteria. Specifically, we will develop a situational judgment test and a behavior description interview, both assessing Big Five personality traits and Honesty-Humility to systematically compare these new measures with traditional self-report inventories regarding their criterion-related validity to predict four performance criteria: task performance, adaptive performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. Data will be collected in a simulated selection procedure. Based on power analyses, we aim for 200 employed study participants, who will allow us to contact their supervisors to gather criterion data. The results of this study will shed light on the suitability of different personality measures (i.e., situational judgment tests and behavior description interviews) to predict an expanded range of performance criteria.

Introduction

In today's fast-moving world, the demands placed on employees are constantly changing, as is the definition of job performance ( Organ, 1988 ; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993 ; Spector and Fox, 2005 ; Griffin et al., 2007 ; Koopmans et al., 2011 ). For selection procedures in organizations, the constant change of demands placed on employees may pose a challenge, especially when it comes to choosing appropriate predictor constructs to predict a wide range of job performance criteria. In this regard, assessing broad personality traits in selection seems promising given that personality traits are relatively stable in the working-age population ( Cobb-Clark and Schurer, 2012 ; Elkins et al., 2017 ) and—outside of the scope of selection research—personality traits (such as the Big Five; Goldberg, 1992 ) have been found to relate to diverse performance criteria (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991 ; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000 ; Judge et al., 2013 ).

However, personality traits have often been questioned as valid predictors of performance in the selection context, as past research found “that the validity of personality measures as predictors of job performance is often disappointingly low” ( Morgeson et al., 2007 , p. 693). Looking at current practice, selection research on personality traits has neglected two important points that might explain these findings. First, selection research usually focuses on the prediction of task performance, but personality traits have been shown to be better at predicting non-task performance ( Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2014 ). Second, current practice in personnel selection often relies on self-report inventories as personality measures, which come with several limitations, especially in selection settings ( Morgeson et al., 2007 ). Specifically, personality inventories are often not job-specific and they rely on self-reports, which can be distorted ( Connelly and Ones, 2010 ; Shaffer and Postlethwaite, 2012 ; Lievens and Sackett, 2017 ).

There exist alternative measurement methods in personnel selection that do not have the same limitations as (personality) self-report inventories, but their suitability to measure personality has not yet been sufficiently studied ( Christian et al., 2010 ). Two established measurement methods in personnel selection are situational judgment tests (SJTs; Christian et al., 2010 ) and behavior description interviews (BDIs; Janz, 1982 ; Huffcutt et al., 2001 ). In contrast to personality self-report inventories, SJTs and BDIs have the advantage that they are job-related, because they ask for applicants' behavior in specific situations on the job. Moreover, BDIs incorporate interviewers' evaluations of applicants. To date, few studies have developed personality SJTs or BDIs and even fewer have measured established personality traits such as the Big Five ( Goldberg, 1992 ). The few studies that exist, however, suggest that SJTs and BDIs might be useful for measuring personality ( Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ; Oostrom et al., 2019 ; Heimann et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, more research on complementary measurements of personality is needed to foster this initial evidence and to systematically compare these new measures with each other.

The aim of this study is twofold: (1) expand the range of criteria predicted in selection contexts, shifting the focus to non-task performance, and (2) help to identify suitable approaches to assess personality in selection by systematically comparing different measurement methods that assess identical personality traits. To this end, we will develop SJTs and BDIs to measure the same personality traits (i.e., the Big Five personality traits, including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness/Intellect and in addition Honesty-Humility; Goldberg, 1990 ; Ashton and Lee, 2009 ) and compare them with self-report inventories assessing the same traits regarding their prediction of task performance, adaptive performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior (CWB; Koopmans et al., 2011 ). Simultaneously investigating several performance criteria will allow us to examine which outcomes are best predicted by personality constructs. Assessing the same traits with each measurement method will allow us to directly compare these methods and their suitability to measure each trait.

Personality and Performance

Conceptually, personality is thought to drive individual job performance by influencing (a) what individuals consider to be effective behavior in work-related situations (knowledge), (b) to what extent they have learned to effectively engage in this behavior (skills), and (c) to what extent they routinely demonstrate this behavior at work (habits; Motowidlo et al., 1997 ). For example, individuals high in Agreeableness might strive to cooperate with others in everyday life. Thus, they are more likely to know which behaviors are effective at enabling cooperation (e.g., actively listening to others and asking questions to better understand them) and how to effectively display these behaviors ( Motowidlo et al., 1997 ; Hung, 2020 ). When it comes to working in a team, agreeable individuals are thus more likely to cooperate successfully with others, based on their knowledge, skills and habits ( Tasa et al., 2011 ).

Although personality predicts job performance, it does not seem to be the best predictor of the aspect personnel selection usually focuses on. The most common aspect of job performance is task performance, which is defined as the competency to fulfill central job tasks ( Campbell, 1990 ). Personality traits can predict task performance, with Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability being the strongest predictors among the Big Five traits ( Barrick et al., 2001 ; He et al., 2019 ). Yet, the fulfillment of job tasks seems to depend largely on mental processes, as recent meta-analytic evidence found that cognitive ability predicts task performance better than personality ( Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2014 ).

Personnel selection could particularly benefit from personality traits as predictors when expanding the range of criteria to include non-task performance. Non-task performance consists of behaviors that do not directly contribute to the main goal of the organization ( Rotundo and Sackett, 2002 ) and can be specified into three aspects: adaptive performance, OCB, and CWB ( Koopmans et al., 2011 ). In contrast to task performance, non-task performance might depend largely on motivation or personality and less on general mental ability. In line with this, numerous personality traits have been linked to the three forms of non-task performance ( Barrick and Mount, 1991 ; Dalal, 2005 ; Judge et al., 2013 ; Huang et al., 2014 ; He et al., 2019 ; Lee et al., 2019 ; Pletzer et al., 2019 ). Yet, only a few of the studies linking personality to non-task performance have been conducted in personnel selection research [i.e., empirical studies that either simulate a selection procedure or use actual applicants as a sample; see for example Dilchert et al. (2007) , Lievens et al. (2003) , Swider et al. (2016) , and Van Iddekinge et al. (2005) ]. Yet, the studies conducted so far suggest that different personality traits predict different types of non-task performance.

Adaptive performance can be described as “behaviors individuals enact in the response to or anticipation of changes relevant to job-related tasks” ( Jundt et al., 2015 , p. 55). In contrast to task-based performance, adaptive performance implies that employees adapt to changes beyond the regular fulfillment of work tasks ( Lang and Bliese, 2009 ; Jundt et al., 2015 ). In accordance with this, adaptive performance can describe reactive behaviors such as coping with changes in core tasks ( Griffin et al., 2007 ) and relearning how to perform changed tasks ( Lang and Bliese, 2009 ). Going beyond reactive behavior, some researchers also highlight the relevance of proactive behaviors for adaptive performance such as producing new ideas or taking initiative ( Griffin et al., 2007 ). 1 Research outside of personnel selection has shown that reactive adaptive performance is related to Emotional Stability (e.g., being unenvious, relaxed, unexcitable; Huang et al., 2014 ), whereas proactive adaptive performance is thought to relate to Openness/Intellect (e.g., being creative, imaginative, innovative) as well as Extraversion (e.g., being talkative, assertive, bold; Marinova et al., 2015 ). Empirical findings for Conscientiousness (e.g., being organized, efficient, goal-oriented) are mixed ( Jundt et al., 2015 ). Yet, conceptually, conscientious individuals strive for success and are thus likely to show proactive behavior ( Roberts et al., 2005 ). Even though the rapid changes in the work environment today require individuals to show adaptive performance ( Griffin and Hesketh, 2003 ) personnel selection research has rarely considered this form of non-task performance as a criterion ( Lievens et al., 2003 ).

OCB describes individual behavior outside the formally prescribed work goals ( Borman and Motowidlo, 1993 ) and has been shown to contribute to an organization's performance ( Podsakoff et al., 2009 ). Research distinguishes between OCB directed at other individuals (e.g., helping newcomers; OCB-I) and OCB directed at the organization (e.g., taking extra tasks or working overtime; OCB-O). Research outside of personnel selection has shown that personality is particularly suited to predict this type of non-task performance. Whereas, some studies have found that OCB-I and OCB-O are predicted equally well by Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness (being kind, sympathetic, warm; Chiaburu et al., 2011 ; Judge et al., 2013 ), other results suggest that OCB-I is best predicted by Agreeableness and OCB-O is best predicted by Conscientiousness ( Ilies et al., 2009 ). Despite the relevance of OCB for organizations, there exist only a few studies on its relationship with personality in selection research ( Anglim et al., 2018 ; Heimann et al., 2020 ).

CWB is defined as actions that harm the legitimate interests of an organization ( Bennett and Robinson, 2000 ) and either damage other members of the organization (CWB directed at other individuals such as bullying co-workers; CWB-I) or the organization itself (CWB directed at the organization such as theft or absenteeism; CWB-O). Research outside of personnel selection has found some evidence that, overall, CWB is best predicted by Conscientiousness, Agreeableness ( He et al., 2019 ), Honesty-Humility (e.g., being sincere, fair, and modest; de Vries and van Gelder, 2015 ; Lee et al., 2019 ), and Emotional Stability ( Berry et al., 2007 ). Going beyond the traditional Big Five personality traits, Honesty-Humility has been shown to explain a significant proportion of variance in CWB over and above the other personality traits ( Pletzer et al., 2019 ). Despite its harm to organizational success ( Berry et al., 2007 ), CWB has rarely been considered as a criterion in selection research ( Dilchert et al., 2007 ; Anglim et al., 2018 ).

Assessing Personality in the Selection Context

Personality is typically assessed via self-report inventories, which face three major limitations in the selection context: (1) a lack of contextualization, (2) relying on applicants as the only source of information, and (3) a close-ended response format ( Connelly and Ones, 2010 ; Oh et al., 2011 ; Shaffer and Postlethwaite, 2012 ; Lievens and Sackett, 2017 ; Lievens et al., 2019 ). Contextualization describes the degree to which a measurement method refers to a specific situation or context, such as the work context. The problem of generic (i.e., non-contextualized) personality inventories is that people do not necessarily behave consistently across different contexts ( Mischel and Shoda, 1995 ). The same person might show different behavior at work compared to in their free time. In generic personality inventories, the same applicant might apply a different frame-of-reference when replying to different items, causing within-person inconsistency. Within-person inconsistency has been shown to affect the reliability and validity of personality inventories ( Lievens et al., 2008 ). Further, different applicants might think of very different situations when replying to the same generic item, thereby increasing the between-person variability. Between-person variability has been shown to affect the validity of personality inventories ( Lievens et al., 2008 ). In addition, when applicants complete a personality measure without referring to the context of work, there will be a mismatch with the criteria that we want to predict in selection contexts (i.e., performance and behavior at work ). A simple way to address this problem is to contextualize inventories by adding the term “at work” to every generic item. Although the change is minor, adding this frame-of-reference increases the validity of personality inventories ( Lievens et al., 2008 ; Shaffer and Postlethwaite, 2012 ).

The source of information refers to the person who responds to the personality inventory ( Lievens and Sackett, 2017 ). Personality inventories rely only on one information source, namely the self-report of applicants. The use of one-sided information can lead to inaccurate assessments because the target group of applicants has a specific interest to present themselves most favorably and to potentially distort their answers ( Ellingson and McFarland, 2011 ). Research has shown that assessing personality in applicant samples leads to different factor structures compared to non-applicant samples ( Schmit and Ryan, 1993 ). Furthermore, one's own self-perception can differ from the perception of others ( McAbee and Connelly, 2016 ). Thus, answers can be distorted not only through intentional self-distortion but also through self-evaluations, which might not completely represent a person. It is therefore not surprising that personality traits are better predictors when they are assessed via other-reports compared to self-reports ( Oh et al., 2011 ).

The response format describes whether a measurement method provides predefined response options ( Lievens and Sackett, 2017 ). Personality inventories use a close-ended response format. Close-ended response formats do not allow applicants to generate their answer freely. Thus, they provide a smaller information base to assess the applicant's personality compared to open-ended response formats, in which applicants can generate detailed answers and get the opportunity to share additional information about themselves. Furthermore, close-ended response formats may facilitate response distortion, because a limited number of presented response options makes them more transparent than open-ended formats. In a closed-ended response format, applicants might identify or guess the “right” or most desired response option and can thus more easily direct their response in the intended direction.

SJTs and BDIs could be used as alternative or complementary measurement methods to help overcome the limitations of personality measurement in personnel selection. SJTs and BDIs are established instruments in personnel selection and have been shown to predict job performance ( Christian et al., 2010 ; Culbertson et al., 2017 ). Both measurement methods provide a precise frame-of-reference and thus have a high contextualization.

In SJTs, short work-related situations are presented to applicants along with several response options, describing possible behaviors in this situation. Applicants are asked to choose the response option that most likely describes their own behavior in this situation ( Mussel et al., 2018 ). In comparison to contextualized self-report personality inventories, SJTs are more contextualized because they present a clear frame-of-reference for behavior by describing a specific work-related situation. Yet, like personality inventories, they rely on only self-reports and have a close-ended response format.

In BDIs, applicants receive descriptions of situations that employees have typically experienced within the context of work ( Janz, 1982 ). Interviewers present the description and ask applicants to describe a corresponding or similar situation in their past working experience, and to report their personal feelings and behavior in this situation. Responses are rated on behaviorally anchored rating scales ( Klehe and Latham, 2006 ). BDIs are a popular method in personnel selection and can predict performance across different domains ( Culbertson et al., 2017 ). BDIs have three advantages over SJTs. First, interviewers serve as an additional information source, because they can specify, interpret, and evaluate the information provided by the applicant. Second, BDIs use an open-ended response format, which allows applicants to share more information of themselves and thereby provide a richer information base ( Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ; Raymark and Van Iddekinge, 2013 ). As interviewees' answers are rated directly after the interview on behaviorally anchored rating scales, this results in a quantitative data format. Third, the cognitive demand of BDIs should make them the least prone to self-distortion. Both BDIs and SJTs place higher cognitive demands on applicants than personality inventories and should thus reduce response distortion ( Sweller, 1988 ; Sackett et al., 2017 ) because they require the applicant to process more information. In BDIs, applicants simultaneously describe situations and interact with interviewers, causing high cognitive demand. To distort their answers, applicants would need to fabricate past situations in a short time-frame while monitoring their own behavior to appear truthful and also preparing to answer follow-up questions ( Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ). Table 1 presents an overview of different features of self-report inventories, SJTs, and BDIs regarding contextualization, information source (self- vs. other-rating), and response format.

Table 1 . Characteristics of personality measures adapted from Heimann and Ingold (2017) and Lievens and Sackett (2017) .

Aims and Hypotheses

The overall objective of this study is twofold: (1) to widen and shift the focus of selection research from solely predicting task performance to predicting other relevant performance criteria; and (2) to identify suitable measurement methods assessing personality to predict these criteria. Therefore, we will develop an SJT and BDI to measure the Big Five personality traits and Honesty-Humility. As depicted in Figure 1 , we will use the Big Five traits and Honesty-Humility measured by a contextualized personality inventory, an SJT, and a BDI to predict different performance criteria. We assume that personality traits will predict both task- and non-task performance criteria (task performance, adaptive performance, OCB, CWB) within a personnel selection setting. Specifically, we expect the same pattern of relationships between specific sets of personality traits with specific performance criteria as they have been found outside of personnel selection research ( Barrick and Mount, 1991 ; Dalal, 2005 ; Judge et al., 2013 ; Huang et al., 2014 ; He et al., 2019 ; Lee et al., 2019 ; Pletzer et al., 2019 ). Regarding the comparison of personality measures, we predict that the criterion-related validity of personality measures will depend on (1) the contextualization of methods, such that more contextualization should lead to higher validity, (2) the source of information, such that other ratings (i.e., interviewer ratings) should be superior to self-reports, and (3) the response format, such that open-ended formats should be superior to close-ended formats. As a result, both the SJT and BDI should explain incremental validity in performance criteria over the contextualized personality inventory. BDIs should be superior to both the personality inventory and SJT.

Figure 1 . Overview of constructs and measures.

Methods and Analyses

Participants.

Participants will be employed individuals who are willing to participate in a simulated selection procedure to prepare and practice for their future job applications. We will recruit individuals who plan to apply for a new job and will contact them through universities and career services. Participants must be employed to participate, and they must name their supervisor so that we can collect supervisor performance ratings. Within the simulated selection procedure, participants can gain experience with established selection instruments and they will receive extensive feedback on their performance. A power analysis was conducted in G * Power ( Faul et al., 2007 ) for hierarchical regression analyses with the conventional alpha level of α = 0.05 and power of 80. Based on previous results ( Chiaburu et al., 2011 ; Heimann et al., 2020 ) we assume a mean correlation of 0.13 between personality predictors (measured with self-report inventories) and performance criteria and predict that measures of personality by alternative methods can explain between 4 and 5% of additional variance compared to traditional personality inventories. Further, we expect a participant dropout of 10%, based on experiences in previous studies. Accounting for dropout, the power analysis resulted in a total sample size of N = 200.

Data will be collected in a simulated selection procedure, allowing us to administer personality measures under controlled conditions and collect various performance data. Similar study designs have been successfully used in previous selection research ( Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ; Klehe et al., 2008 ; Kleinmann and Klehe, 2011 ; Ingold et al., 2016 ; Swider et al., 2016 ). The simulated one-day selection procedure will consist of different personality measures to assess personality predictors (i.e., a contextualized personality inventory, an SJT, a BDI), behavioral observations rated in work simulations and standardized situations during the day to assess performance criteria, and other measures. All participants will complete all measures. Measures will be presented in randomized order to control for order effects.

A panel of interviewers will evaluate participants' personality (i.e., Big Five traits and Honesty-Humility) in the BDI and an independent panel of assessors will evaluate performance dimensions (i.e., task performance, OCB, adaptive performance, and CWB) in proxy criteria (work simulations; e.g., group discussion, presentation exercise). Interviewers will only rate predictors (i.e., personality) and assessors will only rate criteria (i.e., job performance) to avoid rater-based common method variance between predictor and criteria. Interviewers and assessors will be industrial-organizational psychology graduate students who will receive rater training prior to participating in this study.

The simulated selection procedure will be designed as realistically as possible so that participants' behavior is as close as possible to their behavior in a real selection process. For example, participants will be asked to dress as they would for a job interview. To further motivate participants to perform well, the best participant of the day will receive a cash prize (CHF 100). Participants will fill out a manipulation check at the end of the simulated selection procedure. Similar to previous studies using this type of design, the manipulation check will contain questions asking how realistic participants perceived the selection procedure to be and whether they felt and acted like they would in a real selection procedure ( Klehe et al., 2008 ; Jansen et al., 2013 ; Heimann et al., 2020 ). Participants will give their informed consent prior to participating in the simulated selection procedure. Their participation will be voluntary, and they will be allowed to quit at any time during the procedure.

Personality

We will measure the broad Big Five personality traits (including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness/Intellect) and Honesty-Humility as predictors in this study. The broad personality predictors will be assessed with three different measures: a contextualized self-report inventory, an SJT, and a BDI. In addition, given that former research suggests that narrow facets are useful for predicting specific behavior ( Paunonen and Ashton, 2001 ), we will measure selected facets relevant for our criteria in the personality inventory (e.g., achievement striving, ingenuity).

For the contextualized personality inventory, we will use the 50-item IPIP representation of the Goldberg (1992) makers for the Big Five factor structure and the subscale “Honesty-Humility” from the HEXACO scale ( Ashton and Lee, 2009 ) with all items adapted to the context of work [similar to Lievens et al. (2008) and Heimann et al. (2020) ]. Items will be contextualized by adding the term “at work” at the beginning of each item (e.g., “At work, I am always prepared”). Internal consistencies for the original scales ranged between α = 0.76 (for Openness/Intellect) and α = 0.89 (for Emotional Stability) for the Big Five scale ( Lievens et al., 2008 ) and between α = 0.74 and α = 0.79 for the Honesty-Humility Subscale ( Ashton and Lee, 2009 ).

The SJT and BDI will be newly developed for this study. To allow for valid comparisons of personality measures, the SJT and BDI will be designed in parallel and they will be based and closely aligned with established personality self-report items. Thus, the SJT and BDI will contain similar, but not identical situations. Given that theory assumes that personality is only expressed if a situation contains certain situational cues that activate a trait (trait activation; Tett and Guterman, 2000 ), we will design situations to be equivalent in terms of the trait-activating cues.

The development of the SJT and BDI will proceed in four steps in line with previous studies that developed situation-based personality measures ( Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ; Mussel et al., 2018 ; Heimann et al., 2020 ). First, we will select items from the 100 item IPIP Big Five scale ( Goldberg et al., 2006 ) and the Honesty-Humility subscale of the HEXACO model ( Ashton and Lee, 2009 ) from different facets of each personality dimension to serve as the basis for SJT items and BDI questions. In case of the Big Five traits, we will ensure that the selected items cover both aspects of the model by DeYoung et al. (2007) . The model indicates that each Big Five trait encompasses two distinct aspects, based on factor analytical results. For example, the personality dimension Conscientiousness encompasses the aspects Industriousness and Orderliness. By covering both aspects, we will ensure that the corresponding personality dimensions will be comprehensively measured. We will select items that (a) could be related to the criterion on the basis of conceptual and/or empirical arguments, (b) could be adapted to the working context, and (c) express an observable behavior.

Second, for each selected item, the first author of this study will generate situations that typically occur in working life and in which the respective traits would influence behavior; that is, situations in which a person who scores high on the item would behave differently compared to someone who scores low. Given that research shows that situations can be clustered into different types of situations based on the perceptions they elicit (e.g., Sherman et al., 2013 ; Rauthmann et al., 2014 ; Funder, 2016 ), and that these clusters are tied to certain traits ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ), we will systematically design different situations in order to ensure fit between the situation described and the trait we aim to activate (trait activation; Tett and Guterman, 2000 ). To reduce transparency and socially desirable responding, every situation will be designed to contain a dilemma, meaning that more than one response to the given situation would be socially desirable. For example, participants will have to think of a situation in which they are under time pressure at work and a co-worker asks for help with a different task. Thus, both concentrating on their own tasks in order to meet the deadline and helping the co-worker would be socially acceptable behaviors in this situation. To make the situation more specific, we included different examples in each SJT item and BDI question. Each situation is constructed to measure a single trait. For each item, the first author will generate one hypothetical situation (for the SJT) and one past-behavior/typical situation (for the BDI).

Third, for each SJT item the first author of this study will further generate five response options. Response options will represent behavioral alternatives in this situation. Behavioral alternatives will express five different gradations of the item. The dilemma presented in the situation description will be mentioned in each response option. For example, in case of the aforementioned situation, a response option corresponding to a high expression of Agreeableness could be “I will help my co-worker, even if it means that I cannot meet the deadline for my own tasks.” For each BDI item, the first author will develop behaviorally anchored rating scales expressing high, medium, and low expressions of the respective trait.

Fourth, the co-authors of this study will thoroughly review SJT items and BDI questions and the response options several times, with regard to (a) the fit between the described situation and the trait ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ); (b) their trait activation, that is, the strength of the cues that are assumed to activate the relevant behavior in the situation ( Tett and Guterman, 2000 ); (c) the strength of the dilemma described in the situation, that is, whether the behavioral alternatives are equally socially desirable [see also Latham et al. (1980) ]; (d) similar phrasing of items across measures. The co-authors are researchers in the field of I/O psychology with a focus on personnel selection or interview research. Based on these reviews, the first author will carefully revise the items several times. If necessary, situations will be newly developed and again reviewed and revised. We aim to design SJT items and BDI questions to be as parallel as possible by ensuring that all situations meet the aforementioned criteria (i.e., items and questions should describe a dilemma situation, provide specific examples, and not be too transparent). At the same time, we aim to keep SJT items and BDI questions as short as possible. As a pretest, a sample of at least four students will complete all SJT items and BDI questions to check the extent that they are comprehensible and how much time will be required to complete them. The first author of this study will then check whether the provided answers show variability in the respective traits and whether answers for BDI items correspond with the intended rating scales. The first author will then revise the items again based on the evaluation and the feedback provided by the test sample.

Samples for the SJT items and BDI questions are shown in Table 2 . Past studies on personality-based SJTs have reported internal consistencies between α = 0.55 and α = 0.75 ( Mussel et al., 2018 ), and between α = 0.22 and α = 0.66 ( Oostrom et al., 2019 ). Past studies on personality-based BDIs reported ICCs (interrater reliability) of 0.78 ( Heimann et al., 2020 ) and 0.74 ( Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ).

Table 2 . Sample items of situational judgment test and behavior description interview based on the conscientiousness item “I am always prepared.”

Performance

All performance criteria (i.e., task performance, adaptive performance, OCB, and CWB) will be assessed with three different measurement approaches: self-reports, supervisor ratings, and proxy criteria. Self-reports and supervisor ratings will be assessed with established scales for all performance criteria. For task performance, we will use items by Bott et al. (2003) and Williams and Anderson (1991) . This composite scale has been used in previous studies and showed a reliability of α = 0.92 ( Jansen et al., 2013 ). For adaptive performance, we will use the individual task adaptivity and individual task proactivity scales from Griffin et al. (2007) . Reliability of the scales range from α = 0.88 to α = 0.89 for adaptivity and from α = 0.90 to α = 0.92 for proactivity ( Griffin et al., 2007 ). For OCB, we will use the OCB-I and OCB-O scales from Lee and Allen (2002) . Reliabilities of the scales were between α = 0.83 and α = 0.88. For CWB, we will use the workplace deviance scale from Bennett and Robinson (2000) with reliabilities ranging from α = 0.78 to α = 0.81. Example items for all measures can be found in Table 3 . We will use the same scales with small adaptations in items for both self-reports and supervisor ratings of performance criteria.

Table 3 . Main measures.

Proxy criteria will be behavioral observations rated in standardized situations during the selection procedure. More precisely, we will use (a) assessment center exercises, (b) standardized staged situations and, (c) compliance in the simulated selection procedure to assess participants' performance. For example, we will assess the performance of participants in a presentation exercise (i.e., whether the presentation is well-structured, whether it includes all relevant information) as a proxy criterion for task performance. As an example of a staged situation, interviewers will pick up each participant in a room for their interview, while carrying several items of material (e.g., folders). On the way to the interview room, interviewers will have difficulty opening the doors to the stairway due to the material they carry. Interviewers will observe whether participants help them to open the door as a proxy criterion for OCB. Behavior will be rated using behaviorally anchored rating scales. A more detailed description of proxy criteria for each performance dimension and an overview of all measures is presented in Table 3 . We will use proxy criteria in addition to self-reports and supervisor ratings of all performance criteria to add a behavioral observation and to ensure that one source of performance ratings is assessed in a standardized setting. Such proxy criteria have already been successfully employed in previous studies in selection research (e.g., Kleinmann and Klehe, 2011 ; Klehe et al., 2014 ).

Planned Analyses

Statistical analyses will be carried out using R. Data will be screened separately for each participant in order to identify spurious data. We will report all data exclusions (if any). We will first check whether applicants perceived the simulation setting as realistic. We will check plausibility of data with descriptive analysis using the psych -package for the R environment ( Revelle and Revelle, 2015 ). We will also check if variables are normally distributed (especially for data on proxy criteria) and transform non-normally distributed data. All measures will be designed as interval scales, and we will additionally check whether they can be analyzed accordingly, depending on the actual distribution of the data on the scales. Otherwise, we will adjust the analysis accordingly (i.e., evaluate them with methods for ordinal data).

To investigate the extent to which the SJT items and the BDI questions accurately measure personality traits, we will first examine the internal data structure (i.e., construct-related validity) of the newly developed SJT and BDI using multitrait-multimethod analyses within and across methods (similar to Van Iddekinge et al., 2005 ). First, to conduct correlative analyses of the data structure, we will use the psy -package ( Fallissard, 1996 ) and multicon -package ( Sherman, 2015 ). Regarding analyses within methods (i.e., examining the internal data structure of the SJT and BDI separately), we will investigate whether SJT items or BDI questions measuring the same traits show stronger intercorrelations than SJT items or interview questions measuring different traits. Regarding analyses across methods (i.e., examining the data structure across the personality inventory, SJT, and BDI), we will investigate whether the same traits measured with different methods correlate to test for convergent validity (average monotrait-heteromethod correlation). Further, we will calculate the correlation of different traits assessed with the same method (average heterotrait-monomethod correlation) to test for divergent validity. Thereby, we will verify whether the different traits can be distinguished when measured with the same method (personality inventory, SJT or BDI).

Second, to further examine the latent data structure within and across methods with confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), we will use the lavaan package ( Rosseel, 2012 ). Regarding analyses within methods, we will conduct separate CFAs for each method (personality inventory, SJT and BDI). Regarding analyses across methods, we will conduct multitrait-multimethod CFAs on data from all three methods. The personality traits (Big Five traits plus Honesty-Humility) will be specified as latent trait factors and the three methods (personality inventory, SJT, and BDI) will be specified as latent method factors. Thereby, we will examine to what extent the different methods (personality inventory, SJT, and BDI) measure the same constructs.

Second, to further examine the latent data structure within and across methods with confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), we will use the lavaan package ( Rosseel, 2012 ). Regarding analyses within methods, we will conduct separate CFAs for each method (personality inventory, SJT and BDI). Regarding analyses across methods, we will conduct multitrait-multimethod CFAs on data from all three methods. The personality traits (Big Five traits plus Honesty-Humility) will be specified as latent trait factors and the three methods (personality inventory, SJT, and BDI) will be specified as latent method factors. Thereby, we will examine to which extent the different methods (personality inventory, SJT, and BDI) measure the same constructs.

In order to test the assumption that BDIs and SJTs both explain incremental variance in performance criteria over and above personality inventories, we will conduct construct-driven comparisons [see for example Lievens and Sackett (2006) ] of personality measures predicting each criterion. To this end, we will conduct hierarchical regression analyses and relative weights analyses ( Johnson, 2000 ) using the relaimpo package for R ( Grömping, 2006 ). More precisely, we will conduct separate analyses for each performance criteria with the predictor constructs relevant for the specific performance criteria. As predictors, the respective personality constructs measured with different methods (i.e., personality inventory, SJT, and BDI) will be added to the model. Relative weights analyses will be used to test the hypothesis that personality traits assessed with the BDI are the strongest predictors of performance criteria (as compared to personality traits assessed with SJTs and personality inventories). Finally, we will test all hypotheses simultaneously in a path model using the lavaan package for R ( Rosseel, 2012 ). This allows us to test hypotheses while accounting for the interdependencies among criterion constructs. The first author has already programmed the R script, which will be used to analyze data.

The aim of this study is to identify suitable approaches to personality assessment in the context of personnel selection for predicting a wide range of performance criteria. Personality has faced an up and down history in personnel selection, resulting in the conclusion that “personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report personality measures” ( Morgeson et al., 2007 , p. 683). Critics of the use of personality assessment for selection purposes further point to their low validities when predicting job performance ( Morgeson et al., 2007 ). The proposed study is among the first to address this issue by systematically comparing different approaches to measure personality (personality inventory, SJT, BDI) to predict both task- and non-task performance dimensions. Specifically, we aim to enhance the criterion-related validity of personality constructs with two approaches. First, we develop measures with favorable features compared to personality inventories. We will vary different method characteristics, namely contextualization, source of information, and response-format. This modular approach was suggested in an earlier study because it allows for the systematic examination of the influence of measurement methods on criterion-related validity ( Lievens and Sackett, 2017 ). Second, we shift the focus to non-task performance, thereby aiming to enhance the conceptual fit between personality predictors and performance criteria. Thus, this study aims to provide important insights on how to optimize the use of personality measures in the context of selection research and practice.

Anticipated Results

We have three expectations regarding the results of this study. First, we expect different sets of personality constructs to predict task performance and especially different non-task performance criteria (i.e., adaptive performance, OCB, and CWB). Second, we expect that complementary measures of personality (i.e., SJTs and BDIs) will explain a significant proportion of performance criteria beyond personality inventories. Third, we expect BDIs to be superior to all other measurement methods in predicting all performance criteria. Specifically, we expect that personality constructs assessed with methods with a higher contextualization, which rely on self- and other-ratings and use an open-ended response format will be the strongest predictors of corresponding performance criteria. This implies that measuring personality with a BDI should lead to the strongest prediction, followed by SJTs and contextualized personality inventories.

Nevertheless, findings that are not in line with our assumptions could also generate valuable knowledge for research and practice. A different possible outcome of this study could be that SJTs and BDIs do not explain variance beyond personality inventories, or that the magnitude of difference in explained variance might be very small. If so, this could indicate that the respective method characteristics of SJTs and BDIs are not decisive for validity and selection research and practice would be advised to continue the use of personality self-report inventories (if assessing personality at all). Another different outcome could be that the variance explained by a measurement method depends on the traits that are measured (e.g., Extraversion might be better assessed with BDIs than with SJTs or personality inventories). This would imply that practitioners should base their choice of method based on the traits they aim to measure.

In each case, we hope that the findings of this study will encourage future research to examine alternative methods to measure personality in the context of personnel selection. If we find support for the assumption that specific method characteristics (e.g., open-ended vs. closed-ended response formats) affect the criterion-related validity of personality measures, future studies should further examine the mechanisms explaining why these method characteristics are particularly relevant. For example, the examined method characteristics could lead to differences in faking or applicant motivation, influencing the measurement of personality. Further, if SJTs and BDIs are suited to measure personality, an important next step will be to examine the fairness of different, but parallel designed measurement methods, for example by studying subgroup differences. This will help researchers investigate whether these measurement methods might have further favorable effects in personnel selection processes beyond their suitability to predict performance.

Anticipated Limitations

A relevant limitation of this study is that participants will not be actual applicants. Thus, it might be that effects are not generalizable to a real selection setting ( Culbertson et al., 2017 ; Powell et al., 2018 ). For example, participants in this study might feel less nervous compared to a real selection setting, because they are not applying for a real job. Further, they might behave less competitively in group-exercises, because they do not perceive other participants as their rivals. Yet, we chose this setting because it will allow us to compare a parallel personality inventory, SJT, and BDI all processed by each participant, with conditions close to a real selection setting. The setting further permits us to keep circumstances constant (e.g., interview rooms, schedule over the day of selection training, training of assessors and interviewers), thereby reducing error variance inherent to real selection settings. By creating an atmosphere close to reality (e.g., by asking both participants and assessors to wear professional clothes, by awarding a prize for the best participant) we will minimize the difference to a real selection process as much as possible. Yet, this limitation leads to a cautious estimation of criterion validity.

Even though we compare a number of important method characteristics, the comparisons in this study are not exhaustive. For example, we will compare open-ended and close-ended response formats (consent scales and single choice scales), but not other formats, such as forced-choice response formats, which are also used in personality testing ( Zuckerman, 1971 ; SHL, 1993 ) and can positively affect validity ( Bartram, 2007 ). Future studies using systematic comparisons of personality methods should consider further method characteristics, such as forced-choice formats.

Practical Implications

Depending on the results, this study will inform practitioners about which set of personality traits they can use for the prediction of specific performance outcomes (e.g., adaptive performance). This would help them to design selection procedures purposefully in order to collect the information that is most helpful to predict the outcome of interest.

Further, this study will provide insights on which measurement method is most useful for assessing personality and predicting related outcomes in the context of personnel selection. These insights could help to better exploit the potential of personality in applied contexts. Specifically, the systematic comparison of three different personality measures (with varying method characteristics) that are designed in parallel to assess the same traits will provide detailed guidance on how to develop more valid personality measures in the future.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Zurich. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

All authors have shaped the research idea and study protocol. MK and PI developed the initial ideas. VS, AH, and MK planned the study in detail. VS wrote the study protocol. AH, PI, and MK provided substantial feedback in writing the study protocol.

The study described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. 179198).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1. ^ We acknowledge that a relevant stream in the body of literature on adaptive performance examines employee performance before and directly after a task change and distinguishes transition adaptation and reacquisition adaptation ( Lang and Bliese, 2009 ; Jundt et al., 2015 ; Niessen and Lang, 2020 ). Given that we aim to predict more generic adaptive behavior across different jobs with limited control over the nature of their task changes, the current study focuses on reactive and proactive forms of adaptive behavior.

Anglim, J., Lievens, F., Everton, L., Grant, S. L., and Marty, A. (2018). HEXACO personality predicts counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior in low-stakes and job applicant contexts. J. Res. Pers. 77, 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ashton, M. C., and Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO−60: a short measure of the major dimensions of personality. J. Pers. Assess. 91, 340–345. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878

Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44, 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., and Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Int. J. Select. Assess. 9, 9–30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. Int. J. Select. Assess. 15, 263–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00386.x

Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 349–360. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., and Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 410–424. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance,” Personnel Selection in Organizations , in eds N. Schmitt and W. C. Borman (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 71.

Google Scholar

Bott, J. P., Svyantek, D. J., Goodman, S. A., and Bernal, D. S. (2003). Expanding the performance domain: who says nice guys finish last? Int. J. Organ. Anal. 11, 137–152. doi: 10.1108/eb028967

Campbell, J. P. (1990). “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2nd Edn., eds M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Consulting Psychologist Press), 687–732.

Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., and Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 1140–1166. doi: 10.1037/a0024004

Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., and Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Pers. Psychol. 63, 83–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01163.x

Cobb-Clark, D. A., and Schurer, S. (2012). The stability of big-five personality traits. Econ. Lett. 115, 11–15. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.015

Connelly, B. S., and Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychol. Bull. 136, 1092–1122. doi: 10.1037/a0021212

Culbertson, S., Weyhrauch, W., and Huffcutt, A. (2017). A tale of two formats: direct comparison of matching situational and behavior description interview questions. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 27, 167–177. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.009

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1241–1255. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241

de Vries, R. E., and van Gelder, J. L. (2015). Explaining workplace delinquency: the role of Honesty–Humility, ethical culture, and employee surveillance. Pers. Individ. Diff. 86, 112–116. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.008

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., and Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 93, 880–896. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880

Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., and Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 616–627. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.616

Elkins, R. K., Kassenboehmer, S. C., and Schurer, S. (2017). The stability of personality traits in adolescence and young adulthood. J. Econ. Psychol. 60, 37–52. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.005

Ellingson, J. E., and McFarland, L. A. (2011). Understanding faking behavior through the lens of motivation: an application of VIE theory. Hum. Perform. 24, 322–337. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2011.597477

Fallissard, B. (1996). A spherical representation of a correlation matrix. J. Classif. 13, 267–280. doi: 10.1007/BF01246102

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G * Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

Funder, D. C. (2016). Taking situations seriously: the situation construal model and the riverside situational Q-Sort. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 203–208. doi: 10.1177/0963721416635552

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 1216. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4, 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J. Res. Pers. 40, 84–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Gonzalez-Mulé, E., Mount, M. K., and Oh, I. S. (2014). A meta-analysis of the relationship between general mental ability and nontask performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 1222–1243. doi: 10.1037/a0037547

Griffin, B., and Hesketh, B. (2003). Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment. Aust. J. Psychol. 55, 65–73. doi: 10.1080/00049530412331312914

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., and Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 327–347. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438

Grömping, U. (2006). Relative importance for linear regression in R: the package relaimpo. J. Stat. Softw. 17, 1–27. doi: 10.18637/jss.v017.i01

He, Y. M., Donnellan, M. B., and Mendoza, A. M. (2019). Five-factor personality domains and job performance: a second order meta-analysis. J. Res. Pers. 82:103848. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103848

Heimann, A. L., and Ingold, P. V. (2017). Broadening the scope: Situation-specific personality assessment with behaviour description interviews [Peer commentary on the paper “Assessing personality-situation interplay in personnel selection: towards more Integration into personality research” by F. Lievens]. Euro. J. Pers. 31, 457–459. doi: 10.1002/per.2119

Heimann, A. L., Ingold, P. V., Debus, M., and Kleinmann, M. (2020). Who will go the extra mile? Selecting organizational citizens with a personality-based structured job interview. J. Bus. Psychol . doi: 10.1007/s10869-020-09716-1. [Epub ahead of print].

Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., and Palmer, A. (2014). Personality and adaptive performance at work: a meta-analytic investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 162–179. doi: 10.1037/a0034285

Huffcutt, A. I., Weekley, J. A., Wiesner, W. H., Degroot, T. G., and Jones, C. (2001). Comparison of situational and behavior description interview questions for higher-level positions. Pers. Psychol. 54, 619–644. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00225.x

Hung, W. T. (2020). Revisiting relationships between personality and job performance: working hard and working smart. Tot. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 31, 907–927. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1458608

Hurtz, G. M., and Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the big five revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 869–879. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869

Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., and Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: the mediating role of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 945–959. doi: 10.1037/a0013329

Ingold, P. V., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., and Melchers, K. G. (2016). Transparency of assessment centers: lower criterion-related validity but greater opportunity to perform? Pers. Psychol. 69, 467–497. doi: 10.1111/peps.12105

Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brandli, M., Fraefel, L., et al. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 98, 326–341. doi: 10.1037/a0031257

Janz, T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews. J. Appl. Psychol. 67:577. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.577

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behav. Res. 35, 1–19. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., and Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. J. Appl. Psychol. 98, 875–925. doi: 10.1037/a0033901

Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., and Huang, J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in organizations: a review. J. Organ. Behav. 36, S53–S71. doi: 10.1002/job.1955

Klehe, U. C., Kleinmann, M., Nieß, C., and Grazi, J. (2014). Impression management behavior in assessment centers: artificial behavior or much ado about nothing? Hum. Perform. 27, 1–24. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.854365

Klehe, U. C., König, C. J., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., and Melchers, K. G. (2008). Transparency in structured interviews: consequences for construct and criterion-related validity. Hum. Perform. 21, 107–137. doi: 10.1080/08959280801917636

Klehe, U. C., and Latham, G. (2006). What would you do—really or ideally? Constructs underlying the behavior description interview and the situational interview in predicting typical versus maximum performance. Hum. Perform. 19, 357–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1904_3

Kleinmann, M., and Klehe, U. C. (2011). Selling oneself: construct and criterion-related validity of impression management in structured interviews. Hum. Perform. 24, 29–46. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2010.530634

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet Henrica, C. W., and van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: a systematic review. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 53, 856–866. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763

Lang, J. W. B., and Bliese, P. D. (2009). General mental ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen change: applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 411–428. doi: 10.1037/a0013803

Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., and Campion, M. A. (1980). The situational interview. J. Appl. Psychol. 65, 422–427. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.422

Lee, K., and Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 131–142. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131

Lee, Y., Berry, C. M., and Gonzalez-Mule, E. (2019). The importance of being humble: a meta-analysis and incremental validity analysis of the relationship between honesty-humility and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 1535–1546. doi: 10.1037/apl0000421

Lievens, F., De Corte, W., and Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 268–279. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.268

Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., and Bisqueret, C. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 476–489. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.476

Lievens, F., and Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: a comparison in terms of predictive validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1181–1188. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1181

Lievens, F., and Sackett, P. R. (2017). The effects of predictor method factors on selection outcomes: a modular approach to personnel selection procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 43–66. doi: 10.1037/apl0000160

Lievens, F., Sackett, P. R., Dahlke, J. A., Oostrom, J. K., and De Soete, B. (2019). Constructed response formats and their effects on minority–majority differences and validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 715–726. doi: 10.1037/apl0000367

Marinova, S. V., Peng, C., Lorinkova, N., Van Dyne, L., and Chiaburu, D. (2015). Change-oriented behavior: a meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors. J. Vocat. Behav. 88, 104–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.006

McAbee, S. T., and Connelly, B. S. (2016). A multi-rater framework for studying personality: the trait-reputation-identity model. Psychol. Rev. 123, 569–591. doi: 10.1037/rev0000035

Mischel, W., and Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102, 246–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., and Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Pers. Psychol. 60, 683–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., and Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Hum. Perform. 10, 71–83. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1

CrossRef Full Text

Mussel, P., Gatzka, T., and Hewig, J. (2018). Situational judgment tests as an alternative measure for personality assessment. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 34, 328–335. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000346

Niessen, C., and Lang, J. W. B. (2020). Cognitive control strategies and adaptive performance in a complex work task. J. Appl. Psychol. doi: 10.1037/apl0000830. [Epub ahead of print].

Oh, I. S., Wang, G., and Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 762–773. doi: 10.1037/a0021832

Oostrom, J. K., de Vries, R. E., and de Wit, M. (2019). Development and validation of a HEXACO situational judgment test. Hum. Perform. 32, 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2018.1539856

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome . Lexington: Lexington Books.

Paunonen, S. V., and Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 524–539. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., and de Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: big five versus HEXACO. J. Vocat. Behav. 112, 369–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.004

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 122–141. doi: 10.1037/a0013079

Powell, D., Stanley, D., and Brown, K. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relation between interview anxiety and interview performance. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 50, 195–207. doi: 10.1037/cbs0000108

Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., et al. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: a taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 677–718. doi: 10.1037/a0037250

Raymark, P. H., and Van Iddekinge, C. H. (2013). “Assessing personality in selection interviews,” in Handbook of Personality at Work , eds N. Christiansen and R. Tett (New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis), 419–438.

Revelle, W., and Revelle, M. W. (2015). Package ‘psych’. The Comprehensive R Archive Network.

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., and Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: an empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Pers. Psychol. 58, 103–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Rotundo, M., and Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 66–80. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Van Iddekinge, C. H., and Kuncel, N. R. (2017). Individual differences and their measurement: a review of 100 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 254–273. doi: 10.1037/apl0000151

Schmit, M. J., and Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 966–974. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.966

Shaffer, J. A., and Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: a meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Pers. Psychol. 65, 445–494. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01250.x

Sherman, R. A. (2015). Multicon: An R Package for the Analysis of Multivariate Constructs (version 1.6) .

Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., and Funder, D. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to personality and gender. J. Res. Pers. 47, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.008

SHL (1993). OPQ Concept Model: Manual and User's Guide . Thames Ditton: SHL Group plc.

Spector, P. E., and Fox, S. (2005). “The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior,” in Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets , eds S. Fox and P. E. Spector (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 151–174. doi: 10.1037/10893-007

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257–285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Swider, B. W., Barrick, M. R., and Harris, T. B. (2016). Initial impressions: what they are, what they are not, and how they influence structured interview outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 625–638. doi: 10.1037/apl0000077

Tasa, K., Sears, G. J., and Schat, A. C. H. (2011). Personality and teamwork behavior in context: the cross-level moderating role of collective efficacy. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 65–85. doi: 10.1002/job.680

Tett, R. P., and Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. J. Res. Pers. 34, 397–423. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Raymark, P. H., and Roth, P. L. (2005). Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 536–552. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.536

Williams, L. J., and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manage. 17, 601–617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305

Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 36, 45–52. doi: 10.1037/h0030478

Keywords: personality, criterion-related validity, behavior description interview, situational judgment test, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, adaptive performance, performance

Citation: Schröder VS, Heimann AL, Ingold PV and Kleinmann M (2021) Enhancing Personality Assessment in the Selection Context: A Study Protocol on Alternative Measures and an Extended Bandwidth of Criteria. Front. Psychol. 12:643690. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643690

Received: 18 December 2020; Accepted: 15 February 2021; Published: 10 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Schröder, Heimann, Ingold and Kleinmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Valerie S. Schröder, v.schroeder@psychologie.uzh.ch

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained

“Who are you?”

It’s a simple enough question, but it’s one of the hardest ones to answer.

There are many ways to interpret that question. An answer could include your name, your job title, your role in your family, your hobbies or passions, and your place of residence or birth. A more comprehensive answer might include a description of your beliefs and values.

Every one of us has a different answer to this question, and each answer tells a story about who we are. While we may have a lot in common with our fellow humans, like race, religion, sexual orientation, skills, and eye color, there is one thing that makes us each unique: personality.

You can meet hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of people, but no two will be exactly the same. Which raises the question: how do we categorize and classify something as widely varied as personality?

In this article, we’ll define what personality is, explore the different ways personalities can be classified (and how those classifications have evolved), and explain the OCEAN model, one of the most ubiquitous personality inventories in modern psychology.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Strengths Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help your clients realize their unique potential and create a life that feels energizing and authentic.

This Article Contains

What is personality, personality research: a brief review, ocean: the five factors, the trait network, assessing the big five, a take-home message, frequently asked questions.

Personality is an easy concept for most of us to grasp. It’s what makes you, you. It encompasses all the traits, characteristics, and quirks that set you apart from everyone else.

In the world of psychology research, personality is a little more complicated. The definition of personality can be complex, and the way it is defined can influence how it is understood and measured.

According to the researchers at the Personality Project, personality is “the coherent pattern of affect, cognition, and desires (goals) as they lead to behavior” (Revelle, 2013).

Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association (APA) defines personality as “individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving” (2017).

However you define personality, it’s an important part of who you are. In fact, personality shows a positive correlation with life satisfaction (Boyce, Wood, & Powdthavee, 2013). With personality having such a large impact on our lives, it’s important to have a reliable way to conceptualize and measure it.

The most prevalent personality framework is the Big Five, also known as the five-factor model of personality. Not only does this theory of personality apply to people in many countries and cultures around the world (Schmitt et al., 2007), it provides a reliable assessment scale for measuring personality.

To understand how we got to the Big Five, we have to go back to the beginning of personality research.

Ancient Greece

It seems that for as long as there have been humans with personalities, there have been personality theories and classification systems.

The ancient Greek physician Hippocrates hypothesized that two binaries define temperament: hot versus cold and moist versus dry. This theory resulted in four possible temperaments (hot/moist, hot/dry, cold/moist, cold/dry) called humors , which were thought to be key factors in both physical health issues and personality peculiarities.

Later, the philosopher Plato suggested a classification of four personality types or factors: artistic (iconic), sensible (pistic), intuitive (noetic), and reasoning (dianoetic).

Plato’s renowned student Aristotle mused on a possible connection between the physical body and personality, but this connection was not a widespread belief until the rise of phrenology and the shocking case of Phineas Gage.

Phrenology and Phineas Gage

Phrenology, a pseudoscience that is not based on any verifiable evidence, was promoted by a neuroanatomist named Franz Gall in the late 18th century. Phrenology hypothesizes a direct relationship between the physical properties of different areas of the brain (such as size, shape, and density) and opinions, attitudes, and behaviors.

While phrenology was debunked relatively quickly, it marked one of the first attempts to tether an individual’s traits and characteristics to the physical brain. And it wasn’t long before actual evidence of this connection presented itself.

In 1848, one man’s unfortunate accident forever changed mainstream views on the interconnectivity of the brain and personality.

A railroad construction worker named Phineas Gage was on the job when a premature detonation of explosive powder launched a 3.6 foot (1.1 m), 13.25 pound (6 kg) iron rod into Gage’s left cheek, through his head, and out the other side.

Gage, astonishingly, survived the incident, and his only physical ailments (at first) were blindness in his left eye and a wound where the rod penetrated his head.

However, his friends reported that his personality had completely changed after the accident—suddenly he could not keep appointments, showed little respect or compassion for others, and uttered “the grossest profanity.” He died in 1860 after suffering from a series of seizures (Twomey, 2010).

This was the first case that was widely recognized as clear evidence of a link between the physical brain and personality, and it gained national attention. Interest in the psychological conception of personality spiked, leading to the next phase in personality research.

Sigmund Freud

The Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud is best known as the father of psychoanalysis , an intensive form of therapy that digs deep into an individual’s life—especially childhood—to understand and treat psychological ailments.

However, Freud also focused on personality, and some of his ideas are familiar to many people. One of his most fleshed-out theories held that the human mind consists of three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego.

The id is the primal part of the human mind that runs on instinct and aims for survival at all costs. The ego bridges the gap between the id and our day-to-day experiences, providing realistic ways to achieve the wants and needs of the id and coming up with justifications for these desires.

The superego is the part of the mind that represents humans’ higher qualities, providing the moral framework that humans use to regulate their baser behavior.

While scientific studies have largely not supported Freud’s idea of a three-part mind, this theory did bring awareness to the fact that at least some thoughts, behaviors, and motivations are unconscious. After Freud, people began to believe that behavior was truly the tip of the iceberg when assessing a person’s attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and unique personality.

Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung was influenced by Freud, his mentor, but ultimately came up with his own system of personality. Jung believed that there were some overarching types of personality that each person could be classified into based on dichotomous variables.

For example, Jung believed that individuals were firmly within one of two camps:

• Introverts , who gain energy from the “internal world” or from solitude with the self;
• Extroverts, who gain energy from the “external world” or from interactions with others.

This idea is still prevalent today, and research has shown that this is a useful differentiator between two relatively distinct types of people. Today, most psychologists see introversion and extroversion as existing on a spectrum rather than a binary. It can also be situational, as some situations exhaust our energy one day and on other days, fuel us to be more social.

Jung also identified what he found to be four essential psychological functions:

He believed that each of these functions could be experienced in an introverted or extroverted fashion and that one of these functions is more dominant than the others in each person.

Jung’s work on personality had a huge impact on the field of personality research that’s still felt today. In fact, the popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® test is based in part on Jung’s theories of personality.

Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers

American psychologist Abraham Maslow furthered an idea that Freud brought into the mainstream: At least some aspects or drivers of personality are buried deep within the unconscious mind.

Maslow hypothesized that personality is driven by a set of needs that each human has. He organized these needs into a hierarchy, with each level requiring fulfillment before a higher level can be fulfilled.

The pyramid is organized from bottom to top (pictured to the right), beginning with the most basic need (McLeod, 2007):

• Physiological needs (food, water, warmth, rest);
• Safety needs (security, safety);
• Belongingness and love needs (intimate relationships, friends);
• Esteem needs (prestige and feelings of accomplishment);
• Self-actualization needs (achieving one’s full potential, self-fulfillment).

Maslow believed that all humans aim to fulfill these needs, usually in order from the most basic to the most transcendent, and that these motivations result in the behaviors that make up a personality.

Carl Rogers , another American psychologist, built upon Maslow’s work, agreeing that all humans strive to fulfill needs, but Rogers disagreed that there is a one-way relationship between striving toward need fulfillment and personality. Rogers believed that the many different methods humans use to meet these needs spring from personality, rather than the other way around.

Rogers’ contributions to the field of personality research signaled a shift in thinking about personality. Personality was starting to be seen as a collection of traits and characteristics that were not necessarily permanent rather than a single, succinct construct that can be easily described.

Multiple Personality Traits

In the 1940s, German-born psychologist Hans Eysenck built off of Jung’s dichotomy of introversion versus extroversion, hypothesizing that there were only two defining personality traits : extroversion and neuroticism. Individuals could be high or low on each of these traits, leading to four key types of personalities.

Eysenck also connected personality to the physical body in a greater way than most earlier psychology researchers and philosophers. He posited that differences in the limbic system resulted in varying hormones and hormonal activation. Those who were already highly stimulated (introverts) would naturally seek out less stimulation while those who were naturally less stimulated (extroverts) would search for greater stimulation.

Eysenck’s thoroughness in connecting the body to the mind and personality pushed the field toward a more scientific exploration of personality based on objective evidence rather than solely philosophical musings.

American psychologist Lewis Goldberg may be the most prominent researcher in the field of personality psychology. His groundbreaking work whittled down Raymond Cattell’s 16 “fundamental factors” of personality into five primary factors, similar to the five factors found by fellow psychology researchers in the 1960s.

The five factors Goldberg identified as primary factors of personality are:

Extroversion

Agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism.

• Openness to experience

This five-factor model caught the attention of two other renowned personality researchers, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae, who confirmed the validity of this model. This model was named the “Big Five” and launched thousands of explorations of personality within its framework, across multiple continents and cultures and with a wide variety of populations.

The Big Five brings us right up to the current era in personality research. The Big Five theory still holds sway as the prevailing theory of personality, but some salient aspects of current personality research include:

• Conceptualizing traits on a spectrum instead of as dichotomous variables;
• Contextualizing personality traits (exploring how personality shifts based on environment and time);
• Emphasizing the biological bases of personality and behavior.

Since the Big Five is still the most mainstream and widely accepted framework for personality, the rest of this piece will focus exclusively on this framework.

As noted above, the five factors grew out of decades of personality research, growing from the foundations of Cattell’s 16 factors and eventually becoming the most accepted model of personality to date. This model has been translated into several languages and applied in dozens of cultures, resulting in research that not only confirms its validity as a theory of personality but also establishes its validity on an international level.

These five factors do not provide completely exhaustive explanations of personality, but they are known as the Big Five because they encompass a large portion of personality-related terms. The five factors are not necessarily traits in and of themselves, but factors in which many related traits and characteristics fit.

For example, the factor agreeableness encompasses terms like generosity, amiability, and warmth on the positive side and aggressiveness and temper on the negative side. All of these traits and characteristics (and many more) make up the broader factor of agreeableness.

Below, we’ll explain each factor in more detail and provide examples and related terms to help you get a sense of what aspects and quirks of personality these factors cover.

A popular acronym for the Big Five is OCEAN. The five factors are laid out in that order here.

1. Openness to Experience

Openness to experience has been described as the depth and complexity of an individual’s mental life and experiences (John & Srivastava, 1999). It is also sometimes called intellect or imagination.

Openness to experience concerns people’s willingness to try to new things, their ability to be vulnerable, and their capability to think outside the box.

Common traits related to openness to experience include:

• Imagination;
• Insightfulness;
• Varied interests;
• Originality;
• Daringness;
• Preference for variety;
• Cleverness;
• Creativity;
• Perceptiveness;
• Complexity/depth.

An individual who is high in openness to experience is likely someone who has a love of learning, enjoys the arts, engages in a creative career or hobby, and likes meeting new people (Lebowitz, 2016a).

An individual who is low in openness to experience probably prefers routine over variety, sticks to what he or she knows, and prefers less abstract arts and entertainment.

2. Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is a trait that can be described as the tendency to control impulses and act in socially acceptable ways, behaviors that facilitate goal-directed behavior (John & Srivastava, 1999). Conscientious people excel in their ability to delay gratification, work within the rules, and plan and organize effectively.

Traits within the conscientiousness factor include:

• Persistence;
• Thoroughness;
• Self-discipline ;
• Consistency;
• Predictability;
• Reliability;
• Resourcefulness;
• Perseverance;

People high in conscientiousness are likely to be successful in school and in their careers, to excel in leadership positions , and to doggedly pursue their goals with determination and forethought (Lebowitz, 2016a).

People low in conscientiousness are much more likely to procrastinate and to be flighty, impetuous, and impulsive.

3. Extroversion

It concerns where an individual draws their energy from and how they interact with others. In general, extroverts draw energy from or recharge by interacting with others, while introverts get tired from interacting with others and replenish their energy with solitude.

• Sociableness;
• Assertiveness ;
• Outgoing nature;
• Talkativeness;
• Ability to be articulate;
• Fun-loving nature;
• Tendency for affection;
• Friendliness;
• Social confidence.

The traits associated with extroversion are:

People high in extroversion tend to seek out opportunities for social interaction, where they are often the “life of the party.” They are comfortable with others, are gregarious, and are prone to action rather than contemplation (Lebowitz, 2016a).

People low in extroversion are more likely to be people “of few words who are quiet, introspective, reserved, and thoughtful.

Download 3 Free Strengths Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover and harness their unique strengths.

Download 3 Free Strengths Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

4. Agreeableness

This factor concerns how well people get along with others. While extroversion concerns sources of energy and the pursuit of interactions with others, agreeableness concerns one’s orientation to others. It is a construct that rests on how an individual generally interacts with others.

The following traits fall under the umbrella of agreeableness:

• Humbleness;
• Moderation;
• Politeness;
• Unselfishness;
• Helpfulness;
• Sensitivity;
• Amiability;
• Cheerfulness;
• Consideration.

People high in agreeableness tend to be well-liked, respected, and sensitive to the needs of others. They likely have few enemies and are affectionate to their friends and loved ones, as well as sympathetic to the plights of strangers (Lebowitz, 2016a).

People on the low end of the agreeableness spectrum are less likely to be trusted and liked by others. They tend to be callous, blunt, rude, ill-tempered, antagonistic, and sarcastic. Although not all people who are low in agreeableness are cruel or abrasive, they are not likely to leave others with a warm fuzzy feeling.

5. Neuroticism

These traits are commonly associated with neuroticism:

• Awkwardness;
• Pessimism ;
• Nervousness;
• Self-criticism;
• Lack of confidence ;
• Insecurity;
• Instability;
• Oversensitivity.

Those high in neuroticism are generally prone to anxiety, sadness, worry, and low self-esteem. They may be temperamental or easily angered, and they tend to be self-conscious and unsure of themselves (Lebowitz, 2016a).

Individuals who score on the low end of neuroticism are more likely to feel confident, sure of themselves, and adventurous. They may also be brave and unencumbered by worry or self-doubt.

Because the Big Five are so big, they encompass many other traits and bundle related characteristics into one cohesive factor.

Openness to Experience

Openness to experience has been found to contribute to one’s likelihood of obtaining a leadership position , likely due to the ability to entertain new ideas and think outside the box (Lebowitz, 2016a). Openness is also connected to universalism values, which include promoting peace and tolerance and seeing all people as equally deserving of justice and equality (Douglas, Bore, & Munro, 2016).

Further, research has linked openness to experience with broad intellectual skills and knowledge, and it may increase with age (Schretlen, van der Hulst, Pearlson, & Gordon, 2010). This indicates that openness to experience leads to gains in knowledge and skills, and it naturally increases as a person ages and has more experiences to learn from.

Not only has openness been linked to knowledge and skills, but it was also found to correlate positively with creativity, originality, and a tendency to explore their inner selves with a therapist or psychiatrist, and to correlate negatively with conservative political attitudes (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).

Not only has openness been found to correlate with many traits, but it has also been found to be extremely stable over time—one study explored trait stability over 45 years and found participants’ openness to experience (along with extroversion and neuroticism) remained relatively stable over that period (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999)

Concerning the other Big Five factors, openness to experience is weakly related to neuroticism and extroversion and is mostly unrelated to agreeableness and conscientiousness (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996).

Openness to experience is perhaps the trait that is least likely to change over time, and perhaps most likely to help an individual grow . Those high in openness to experience should capitalize on their advantage and explore the world, themselves, and their passions. These individuals make strong and creative leaders and are most likely to come up with the next big innovation.

This factor has been linked to achievement, conformity, and seeking out security, as well as being negatively correlated to placing a premium on stimulation and excitement (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Those high in conscientiousness are also likely to value order, duty, achievement, and self-discipline, and they consciously practice deliberation and work toward increased competence (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002).

In light of these correlations, it’s not surprising that conscientiousness is also strongly related to post-training learning (Woods, Patterson, Koczwara, & Sofat, 2016), effective job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and intrinsic and extrinsic career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).

The long-term study by Soldz and Vaillant (1999) found that conscientiousness was positively correlated with adjustment to life’s challenges and mature defensive responses, indicating that those high in conscientiousness are often well-prepared to tackle any obstacles that come their way.

Conscientiousness is negatively correlated with depression, smoking, substance abuse, and engagement in psychiatric treatment. The trait was also found to correlate somewhat negatively with neuroticism and somewhat positively with agreeableness, but it had no discernible relation to the other factors (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996).

From these results, it’s clear that those gifted with high conscientiousness have a distinct advantage over those who are not. Those with high conscientiousness should attempt to use their strengths to the best of their abilities, including organization, planning, perseverance, and tendency towards high achievement.

As long as the highly conscientious do not fall prey to exaggerated perfectionism, they are likely to achieve many of the traditional markers of success.

Extroverts are often assertive, active, and sociable, shunning self-denial in favor of excitement and pleasure.

Considering these findings, it follows that high extroversion is a strong predictor of  leadership , and contributes to the success of managers and salespeople as well as the success of all job levels in training proficiency (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Over a lifetime, high extroversion correlates positively with a high income, conservative political attitudes, early life adjustment to challenges, and social relationships (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).

The same long-term study also found that extroversion was fairly stable across the years, indicating that extroverts and introverts do not often shift into the opposite state (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).

Because of its ease of measurement and general stability over time, extroversion is an excellent predictor of effective functioning and general well-being (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), positive emotions (Verduyn & Brans, 2012), and overconfidence in task performance (Schaefer, Williams, Goodie, & Campbell, 2004).

When analyzed in relation to the other Big Five factors, extroversion correlated weakly and negatively with neuroticism and was somewhat positively related to openness to experience (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996).

Those who score high in extroversion are likely to make friends easily and enjoy interacting with others, but they may want to pay extra attention to making well-thought-out decisions and considering the needs and sensitivities of others.

Agreeableness may be motivated by the desire to fulfill social obligations or follow established norms, or it may spring from a genuine concern for the welfare of others. Whatever the motivation, it is rarely accompanied by cruelty, ruthlessness, or selfishness (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002).

Those high in agreeableness are also more likely to have positive peer and family relationships, model  gratitude  and forgiveness , attain desired jobs, live long lives, experience relationship satisfaction, and volunteer in their communities (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006).

Agreeableness affects many life outcomes because it influences any arena in which interactions with others are important—and that includes almost everything. In the long-term, high agreeableness is related to strong social support and healthy midlife adjustment but is slightly negatively correlated to creativity (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).

Those who are friendly and endearing to others may find themselves without the motivation to achieve a traditional measure of success, and they might choose to focus on family and friends instead.

Agreeableness correlates weakly with extroversion and is somewhat negatively related to neuroticism and somewhat positively correlated to conscientiousness (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996).

Individuals high in agreeableness are likely to have many close friends and a good relationship with family members, but there is a slight risk of consistently putting others before themselves and missing out on opportunities for success, learning, and development.

Those who are friendly and agreeable to others can leverage their strengths by turning to their social support networks for help when needed and finding fulfillment in positive engagement with their communities.

Neuroticism has been found to correlate negatively with self-esteem and general self-efficacy , as well as with an internal locus of control (feeling like one has control over his or her own life) (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). In fact, these four traits are so closely related that they may fall under one umbrella construct.

In addition, neuroticism has been linked to poorer job performance and lower motivation, including motivation related to goal-setting and self-efficacy (Judge & Ilies, 2002). It likely comes as no surprise that instability and vulnerability to stress and anxiety do not support one’s best work.

The anxiety and self-consciousness components of neuroticism are also positively linked to more traditional values and are negatively correlated with achievement values.

The hostility and impulsiveness components of neuroticism relate positively to hedonism (or seeking pleasure without regards to the long-term and a disregard for right and wrong) and negatively relate to benevolence, tradition, and conformity (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002).

The 45-year-long study from researchers Soldz and Vaillant showed that neuroticism, over the course of the study, was negatively correlated with smoking cessation and healthy adjustment to life and correlated positively with drug usage, alcohol abuse, and mental health issues (1999).

Neuroticism was found to correlate somewhat negatively with agreeableness and conscientiousness, in addition to a weak, negative relationship with extroversion and openness to experience (Ones, Viswevaran, & Reiss, 1996).

Overall, high neuroticism is related to added difficulties in life, including addiction, poor job performance, and unhealthy adjustment to life’s changes. Scoring high on neuroticism is not an immediate sentence to a miserable life, but those in this group would benefit from investing in improvements to their self-confidence, building resources to draw on in times of difficulty, and avoiding any substances with addictive properties.

Big Five Inventory

This inventory was developed by Goldberg in 1993 to measure the five dimensions of the Big Five personality framework. It contains 44 items and measures each factor through its corresponding facets:

• Extroversion;
• Gregariousness;
• Assertiveness;
• Excitement-seeking;
• Positive emotions ;
• Agreeableness;
• Straightforwardness;
• Compliance;
• Tender-mindedness;
• Conscientiousness;
• Competence;
• Dutifulness;
• Achievement striving;
• Self-discipline;
• Deliberation;
• Neuroticism;
• Angry hostility;
• Depression;
• Self-consciousness;
• Impulsiveness;
• Vulnerability;
• Openness to experience;
• Aesthetics;

The responses to items concerning these facets are combined and summarized to produce a score on each factor. This inventory has been widely used in psychology research and is still quite popular, although the Revised NEO Personality Inventory has also gained much attention in recent years.

To learn more about the BFI or to see the items, click  here to find a PDF with more information.

Revised NEO Personality Inventory

The original NEO Personality Inventory was created by personality researchers Paul Costa Jr. and Robert McCrae in 1978. It was later revised several times to keep up with advancements (in 1990, 2005, and 2010). Initially, the NEO Personality Inventory was named for the three main domains as the researchers understood them at the time: neuroticism, extroversion, and openness.

This scale is also based on the six facets of each factor and includes 240 items rated on a 5-point scale. For a shorter scale, Costa and McCrae also offer the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, which contains only 60 items and measures just the overall domains instead of all facets.

The NEO PI-R requires only a 6th-grade reading level and can be self-administered without a scoring professional.

Access to the NEO PI-R isn’t as widely available as the BFI, so you will have to dig around to obtain it.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Personality is a complex topic of research in psychology, and it has a long history of shifting philosophies and theories. While it’s easy to conceptualize personality on a day-to-day level, conducting valid scientific research on personality can be much more complex.

The Big Five can help you to learn more about your own personality and where to focus your energy and attention. The first step in effectively leveraging your strengths is to learn what your strengths are.

Whether you use the Big Five Inventory, the NEO PI-R, or something else entirely, we hope you’re able to learn where you fall on the OCEAN spectrums.

What do you think about the OCEAN model? Do you think the traits it describes apply to your personality? Let us know in the comments below.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Strengths Exercises for free .

The most widely used Big Five personality test is the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), which contains a total of 240 questions (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Yes, the Big Five personality test is generally considered to be reliable, with research indicating that the five dimensions of personality are consistent across different cultures and can reliably predict a range of behaviors and outcomes (Costa & McCrae, 2008).

A quick example of a few personality questions includes:

• Do you prefer spending time alone or with a large group of people?
• How often do you take risks or try new things?
• When faced with a problem, do you rely more on your intuition or your logical thinking?
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Personality. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44 (1), 1-26.
• Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Powdthavee, N. (2013). Is personality fixed? Personality changes as much as “variable” economic factors and more strongly predicts changes to life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 111, 287-305.
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual . Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2 . Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179-198). Sage Publications.
• Douglas, H. E., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2016). Openness and intellect: An analysis of the motivational constructs underlying two aspects of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 99 , 242-253.
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
• Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52 , 621-652.
• Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.
• Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
• Lebowitz, S. (2016a). The ‘Big 5’ personality traits could predict who will and won’t become a leader. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/big-five-personality-traits-predict-leadership-2016-12
• Lebowitz, S. (2016b). Scientists say your personality can be deconstructed into 5 basic traits. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/big-five-personality-traits-2016-12
• McLeod, S. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
• Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 , 660-679.
• Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57 , 401-421.
• Revelle, W. (2013). Personality theory and research. Personality Project. Retrieved from https://www.personality-project.org/index.html
• Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 789-801.
• Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38 , 473-480.
• Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., Benet-Martinez, V., Alcalay, L., Ault, L., …, &  Zupanèiè, A. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations.  Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38 , 173-212.
• Schretlen, D. J., van der Hulst, E., Pearlson, G. D., & Gordon, B. (2010). A neuropsychological study of personality: Trait openness in relation to intelligence, fluency, and executive functioning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 1068-1073.
• Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33 , 208-232.
• Twomey, S. (2010, January). Phineas Gage: Neuroscience’s most famous patient. Smithsonian. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/phineas-gage-neurosciences-most-famous-patient-11390067/
• Verduyn, P., & Brans, K. (2012). The relationship between extroversion, neuroticism, and aspects of trait affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 664-669.
• Woods, S. A., Patterson, F. C., Koczwara, A., & Sofat, J. A. (2016). The value of being a conscientious learner: Examining the effects of the big five personality traits on self-reported learning from training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28 , 424-434.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

To me the problem with the OCEAN model is that the Big Five have long lists of “positive” traits while the opposite has short “negative” traits. (See for example extroversion compared to introversion). I have noticed this in books on the topic as well. This seems biased to me as if some traits are preferred more than others.

This overview of the Big Five is the easiest to follow and comprehend for the not-so-psychology-educated psychology-interested person… Love it…

I agree with Mr. Bakker. This article leads me to questions I didn’t know I had! Thanks very much indeed.

There seem to be areas of the brain that become inactive, or drugged or damaged. It seems to me this topic is still trying to address mind/consciousness/soul? from a collection of factors that may intersect, have unions that are not exclusive. (not well expressed, sorry).

What part of the big five or the big five inventory can’t be attributed to genetics? How much of our personalities are inherited?

Interesting question! Research on the heritability of Big Five traits has shown genetic influence varying from 41-61% for each respective facet. This article outlines these findings nicely. If you are interested to read about the role of genetics in the manifestation of Big Five traits and the Dark Triad traits, then this article is also quite interesting.

I hope this helps!

Kind regards, -Caroline | Community Manager

After nearly twenty years of reading blogs, this is the only one I continue to read (and I do it without fail each and every day).

What a wonderful experience it has been to “get to know” about this platform and all of the excellent stuff that you guys are providing.

You all are such a ray of sunshine in this world; I always come here to read your arguments, and after I do, I can’t help but grin because not many people have taken the time to write something that is interesting to the people who are reading it.

Thank you for all the love, positive thoughts, and best wishes that are being sent your way.

After nearly twenty years of reading blogs, this is the only one I continue to read (and I do it without fail each and every day). What a wonderful experience it has been to “get to know” about this platform and all of the excellent stuff that you guys are providing. Thank you. Weldon and I want to encourage you to keep up the fantastic effort.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Jungian Psychology: Unraveling the Unconscious Mind

Alongside Sigmund Freud, the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) is one of the most important innovators in the field of modern depth [...]

12 Jungian Archetypes: The Foundation of Personality

In the vast tapestry of human existence, woven with the threads of individual experiences and collective consciousness, lies a profound understanding of the human psyche. [...]

Personality Assessments: 10 Best Inventories, Tests, & Methods

Do you coach or manage a group of vastly different people? Perhaps they respond differently to news, or react differently to your feedback. They voice [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (53)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (22)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (45)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

Big Five Personality Traits: The 5-Factor Model of Personality

Annabelle G.Y. Lim

Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons), Psychology, Harvard University

Annabelle G.Y. Lim is a graduate in psychology from Harvard University. She has served as a research assistant at the Harvard Adolescent Stress & Development Lab.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

The Big Five Personality Traits, also known as OCEAN or CANOE, are a psychological model that describes five broad dimensions of personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These traits are believed to be relatively stable throughout an individual’s lifetime.

• Conscientiousness – impulsive, disorganized vs. disciplined, careful
• Agreeableness – suspicious, uncooperative vs. trusting, helpful
• Neuroticism – calm, confident vs. anxious, pessimistic
• Openness to Experience – prefers routine, practical vs. imaginative, spontaneous
• Extraversion – reserved, thoughtful vs. sociable, fun-loving

The Big Five remain relatively stable throughout most of one’s lifetime. They are influenced significantly by genes and the environment, with an estimated heritability of 50%. They also predict certain important life outcomes such as education and health.

Each trait represents a continuum. Individuals can fall anywhere on the continuum for each trait.

Unlike other trait theories that sort individuals into binary categories (i.e. introvert or extrovert ), the Big Five Model asserts that each personality trait is a spectrum.

Therefore, individuals are ranked on a scale between the two extreme ends of five broad dimensions:

For instance, when measuring Extraversion, one would not be classified as purely extroverted or introverted, but placed on a scale determining their level of extraversion.

By ranking individuals on each of these traits, it is possible to effectively measure individual differences in personality.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness describes a person’s ability to regulate impulse control to engage in goal-directed behaviors (Grohol, 2019). It measures elements such as control, inhibition, and persistence of behavior.

Facets of conscientiousness include the following (John & Srivastava, 1999):

• Dutifulness
• Achievement striving
• Self-disciplined
• Deliberation
• Incompetent
• Disorganized
• Procrastinates
• Indiscipline

Conscientiousness vs. Lack of Direction

Those who score high on conscientiousness can be described as organized, disciplined, detail-oriented, thoughtful, and careful. They also have good impulse control, which allows them to complete tasks and achieve goals.

Those who score low on conscientiousness may struggle with impulse control, leading to difficulty in completing tasks and fulfilling goals.

They tend to be more disorganized and may dislike too much structure. They may also engage in more impulsive and careless behavior.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness refers to how people tend to treat relationships with others. Unlike extraversion which consists of the pursuit of relationships, agreeableness focuses on people’s orientation and interactions with others (Ackerman, 2017).

Facets of agreeableness include the following (John & Srivastava, 1999):

• Trust (forgiving)
• Straightforwardness
• Altruism (enjoys helping)
• Sympathetic
• Insults and belittles others
• Unsympathetic
• Doesn’t care about how other people feel

Agreeableness vs. Antagonism

Those high in agreeableness can be described as soft-hearted, trusting, and well-liked. They are sensitive to the needs of others and are helpful and cooperative. People regard them as trustworthy and altruistic.

Those low in agreeableness may be perceived as suspicious, manipulative, and uncooperative. They may be antagonistic when interacting with others, making them less likely to be well-liked and trusted.

Extraversion

Extraversion reflects the tendency and intensity to which someone seeks interaction with their environment, particularly socially. It encompasses the comfort and assertiveness levels of people in social situations.

Additionally, it also reflects the sources from which someone draws energy.

Facets of extraversion include the following (John & Srivastava, 1999):

• Energized by social interaction
• Excitement-seeking
• Enjoys being the center of attention
• Prefers solitude
• Fatigued by too much social interaction
• Dislikes being the center of attention

Extraversion vs. Introversion

Those high on extraversion are generally assertive, sociable, fun-loving, and outgoing. They thrive in social situations and feel comfortable voicing their opinions. They tend to gain energy and become excited from being around others.

Those who score low in extraversion are often referred to as introverts . These people tend to be more reserved and quieter. They prefer listening to others rather than needing to be heard.

Introverts often need periods of solitude in order to regain energy as attending social events can be very tiring for them.

Of importance to note is that introverts do not necessarily dislike social events, but instead find them tiring.

Openness to Experience

Openness to experience refers to one’s willingness to try new things as well as engage in imaginative and intellectual activities. It includes the ability to “think outside of the box.”

Facets of openness include the following (John & Srivastava, 1999):

• Imaginative
• Open to trying new things
• Unconventional
• Predictable
• Not very imaginative
• Dislikes change
• Prefer routine
• Traditional

Openness vs. Closedness to Experience

Those who score high on openness to experience are perceived as creative and artistic. They prefer variety and value independence. They are curious about their surroundings and enjoy traveling and learning new things.

People who score low on openness to experience prefer routine. They are uncomfortable with change and trying new things, so they prefer the familiar over the unknown.

As they are practical people, they often find it difficult to think creatively or abstractly.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism describes the overall emotional stability of an individual through how they perceive the world. It takes into account how likely a person is to interpret events as threatening or difficult.

It also includes one’s propensity to experience negative emotions.

Facets of neuroticism include the following (John & Srivastava, 1999):

• Angry hostility (irritable)
• Experiences a lot of stress
• Self-consciousness (shy)
• Vulnerability
• Experiences dramatic shifts in mood
• Doesn”t worry much
• Emotionally stable
• Rarely feels sad or depressed

Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability

Those who score high on neuroticism often feel anxious, insecure and self-pitying. They are often perceived as moody and irritable. They are prone to excessive sadness and low self-esteem.

Those who score low on neuroticism are more likely to calm, secure and self-satisfied. They are less likely to be perceived as anxious or moody. They are more likely to have high self-esteem and remain resilient.

Behavioral Outcomes

Relationships.

In marriages where one partner scores lower than the other on agreeableness, stability, and openness, there is likely to be marital dissatisfaction (Myers, 2011).

Neuroticism seems to be a risk factor for many health problems, including depression, schizophrenia, diabetes, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, and heart disease (Lahey, 2009).

People high in neuroticism are particularly vulnerable to mood disorders such as depression . Low agreeableness has also been linked to higher chances of health problems (John & Srivastava, 1999).

There is evidence to suggest that conscientiousness is a protective factor against health diseases. People who score high in conscientiousness have been observed to have better health outcomes and longevity (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Researchers believe that such is due to conscientious people having regular and well-structured lives, as well as the impulse control to follow diets, treatment plans, etc.

A high score on conscientiousness predicts better high school and university grades (Myers, 2011). Contrarily, low agreeableness and low conscientiousness predict juvenile delinquency (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of all five traits for job performance (John & Srivastava, 1999). A high score of conscientiousness has been shown to relate to high work performance across all dimensions.

The other traits have been shown to predict more specific aspects of job performance. For instance, agreeableness and neuroticism predict better performance in jobs where teamwork is involved.

However, agreeableness is negatively related to individual proactivity. Openness to experience is positively related to individual proactivity but negatively related to team efficiency (Neal et al., 2012).

Extraversion is a predictor of leadership, as well as success in sales and management positions (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Media Preference

Manolika (2023) examined how the Big Five personality traits relate to preferences for different genres of movies and books. The study surveyed 386 university students on their Big Five traits and preferences for 21 movie and 27 book types.

Results showed openness to experience predicted liking complex movies like documentaries and unconventional books like philosophy. This aligns with past research showing open people like cognitively challenging art (Swami & Furnham, 2019).

Conscientiousness predicted preferring informational books, while agreeableness predicted conventional genres like family movies and romance books.

Neuroticism only predicted preferring light books, not movies. Extraversion did not predict preferences, contrary to hypotheses.

Overall, the Big Five traits differentially predicted media preferences, suggesting people select entertainment that satisfies psychological needs and reflects aspects of their personalities (Rentfrow et al., 2011).

Open people prefer complex stimulation, conscientious people prefer practical content, agreeable people prefer conventional genres, and neurotic people use light books for mood regulation. Extraversion may relate more to social motivations for media use.

Critical Evaluation

Descriptor rather than a theory.

The Big Five was developed to organize personality traits rather than as a comprehensive theory of personality. Therefore, it is more descriptive than explanatory and does not fully account for differences between individuals (John & Srivastava, 1999). It also does not sufficiently provide a causal reason for human behavior.

Cross-Cultural Validity

Although the Big Five has been tested in many countries and its existence is generally supported by findings (McCrae, 2002), there have been some studies that do not support its model. Most previous studies have tested the presence of the Big Five in urbanized, literate populations.

A study by Gurven et al. (2013) was the first to test the validity of the Big Five model in a largely illiterate, indigenous population in Bolivia. They administered a 44-item Big Five Inventory but found that the participants did not sort the items in consistency with the Big Five traits.

More research on illiterate and non-industrialized populations is needed to clarify such discrepancies.

Gender Differences

Differences in the Big Five personality traits between genders have been observed, but these differences are small compared to differences between individuals within the same gender.

Costa et al. (2001) gathered data from over 23,000 men and women in 26 countries. They found that “gender differences are modest in magnitude, consistent with gender stereotypes, and replicable across cultures” (p. 328). Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth (a facet of Extraversion), and Openness to Feelings compared to men. Men reported themselves to be higher in Assertiveness (a facet of Extraversion) and Openness to Ideas.

Another interesting finding was that bigger gender differences were reported in Western, industrialized countries. Researchers proposed that the most plausible reason for this finding was attribution processes.

They surmised that the actions of women in individualistic countries would be more likely to be attributed to their personality, whereas actions of women in collectivistic countries would be more likely to be attributed to their compliance with gender role norms.

Factors that Influence the Big 5

Like with all theories of personality , the Big Five is influenced by both nature and nurture . Twin studies have found that the heritability (the amount of variance that can be attributed to genes) of the Big Five traits is 40-60%.

Jang et al. (1996) conducted a study with 123 pairs of identical twins and 127 pairs of fraternal twins. They estimated the heritability of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion to be 44%, 41%, 41%, 61%, and 53%, respectively. This finding was similar to the findings of another study, where the heritability of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience and extraversion were estimated to be 49%, 48%, 49%, 48%, and 50%, respectively (Jang et al., 1998).

Such twin studies demonstrate that the Big Five personality traits are significantly influenced by genes and that all five traits are equally heritable. Heritability for males and females does not seem to differ significantly (Leohlin et al., 1998).

Studies from different countries also support the idea of a strong genetic basis for the Big Five personality traits (Riemann et al., 1997; Yamagata et al., 2006).

Roehrick et al. (2023) examined how Big Five traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness) and context relate to smartphone use. The study used surveys, experience sampling, and smartphone sensing to track college students’ personality, context, and hourly smartphone behaviors over one week.

They found extraverts used their phones more frequently once checked, but conscientious people were less likely to use their phone and used them for shorter durations. Smartphones were used in public, with weaker social ties, and during class/work activities. They were used less with close ties. Perceived situations didn’t relate much to use.

Most variability in use was within-person, suggesting context matters more than personality for smartphone behaviors. Comparisons showed context-explained duration of use over traits and demographics, but not frequency.

The key implication is that both personality and context are important to understanding digital behavior. Extraversion and conscientiousness were the most relevant of the Big Five for smartphone use versus non-use and degree of use. Contextual factors like location, social ties, and activities provided additional explanatory power, especially for the duration of smartphone use.

Stability of the Traits

People’s scores of the Big Five remain relatively stable for most of their life with some slight changes from childhood to adulthood. A study by Soto & John (2012) attempted to track the developmental trends of the Big Five traits.

They found that overall agreeableness and conscientiousness increased with age. There was no significant trend for extraversion overall although gregariousness decreased and assertiveness increased.

Openness to experience and neuroticism decreased slightly from adolescence to middle adulthood. The researchers concluded that there were more significant trends in specific facets (i.e. adventurousness and depression) rather than in the Big Five traits overall.

History and Background

The Big Five model resulted from the contributions of many independent researchers. Gordon Allport and Henry Odbert first formed a list of 4,500 terms relating to personality traits in 1936 (Vinney, 2018). Their work provided the foundation for other psychologists to begin determining the basic dimensions of personality.

In the 1940s, Raymond Cattell and his colleagues used factor analysis (a statistical method) to narrow down Allport’s list to sixteen traits.

However, numerous psychologists examined Cattell’s list and found that it could be further reduced to five traits. Among these psychologists were Donald Fiske, Norman, Smith, Goldberg, and McCrae & Costa (Cherry, 2019).

In particular, Lewis Goldberg advocated heavily for five primary factors of personality (Ackerman, 2017). His work was expanded upon by McCrae & Costa, who confirmed the model’s validity and provided the model used today: conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion.

The model became known as the “Big Five” and has seen received much attention. It has been researched across many populations and cultures and continues to be the most widely accepted theory of personality today.

Each of the Big Five personality traits represents extremely broad categories which cover many personality-related terms. Each trait encompasses a multitude of other facets.

For example, the trait of Extraversion is a category that contains labels such as Gregariousness (sociable), Assertiveness (forceful), Activity (energetic), Excitement-seeking (adventurous), Positive emotions (enthusiastic), and Warmth (outgoing) (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Therefore, the Big Five, while not completely exhaustive, cover virtually all personality-related terms.

Another important aspect of the Big Five Model is its approach to measuring personality. It focuses on conceptualizing traits as a spectrum rather than black-and-white categories (see Figure 1). It recognizes that most individuals are not on the polar ends of the spectrum but rather somewhere in between.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is 5 really the magic number.

A common criticism of the Big Five is that each trait is too broad. Although the Big Five is useful in terms of providing a rough overview of personality, more specific traits are required to be of use for predicting outcomes (John & Srivastava, 1999).

There is also an argument from psychologists that more than five traits are required to encompass the entirety of personality.

A new model, HEXACO, was developed by Kibeom Lee and Michael Ashton, and expands upon the Big Five Model. HEXACO retains the original traits from the Big Five Model but contains one additional trait: Honesty-Humility, which they describe as the extent to which one places others’ interests above their own.

What are the differences between the Big Five and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?

The Big Five personality traits and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are both popular models used to understand personality. However, they differ in several ways.

The Big Five traits represent five broad dimensions of personality. Each trait is measured along a continuum, and individuals can fall anywhere along that spectrum.

In contrast, the MBTI categorizes individuals into one of 16 personality types based on their preferences for four dichotomies: extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving. This model assumes that people are either one type or another rather than being on a continuum.

Overall, while both models aim to describe and categorize personality, the Big Five is thought to have more empirical research and more scientific support, while the MBTI is more of a theory and often lacks strong empirical evidence.

Is it possible to improve certain Big Five traits through therapy or other interventions?

It can be possible to improve certain Big Five traits through therapy or other interventions.

For example, individuals who score low in conscientiousness may benefit from therapy that focuses on developing planning, organizational, and time-management skills. Those with high neuroticism may benefit from cognitive-behavioral therapy, which helps individuals manage negative thoughts and emotions.

Additionally, therapy such as mindfulness-based interventions may increase scores in traits such as openness and agreeableness. However, the extent to which these interventions can change personality traits long-term is still a topic of debate among psychologists.

Is it possible to have a high score in more than one Big Five trait?

Yes, it is possible to have a high score in more than one Big Five trait. Each trait is independent of the others, meaning that an individual can score high on openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness, for example, all at the same time.

Similarly, an individual can also score low on one trait and high on another. The Big Five traits are measured along a continuum, so individuals can fall anywhere along that spectrum for each trait.

Therefore, it is common for individuals to have a unique combination of high and low scores across the Big Five personality traits.

Ackerman, C. (2017, June 23). Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained . PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/big-five-personality-theory

Cherry, K. (2019, October 14). What Are the Big 5 Personality Traits? Verywell Mind . Retrieved 12 June 2020, from https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422

Costa, P., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. (2001). Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44 (3), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198

Grohol, J. M. (2019, May 30). The Big Five Personality Traits . PsychCentral. Retrieved 10 June 2020, from https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-big-five-personality-traits

Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon . Journal of personality and social psychology, 104 (2), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vemon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study . Journal of Personality, 64 (3), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x

Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1556–1565.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Lahey B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. The American psychologist, 64 (4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309

Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the Big Five Personality Factors . Journal of Research in Personality, 32 (4), 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2225

Manolika, M. (2023). The Big Five and beyond: Which personality traits do predict movie and reading preferences?  Psychology of Popular Media, 12 (2), 197–206

McCrae, R. R. (2002). Cross-Cultural Research on the Five-Factor Model of Personality . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1038

Myers, David G. (2011). Psychology (10th ed.) . Worth Publishers.

Neal, A., Yeo, G., Koy, A., & Xiao, T. (2012). Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.742

Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Personality: A Study of Twins Reared Together Using the Self‐ and Peer Report NEO‐FFI Scales . Journal of Personality, 65 (3), 449-475.

Roehrick, K. C., Vaid, S. S., & Harari, G. M. (2023). Situating smartphones in daily life: Big Five traits and contexts associated with young adults’ smartphone use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125 (5), 1096–1118.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of Big Five Domains and Facets in Adulthood: Mean-Level Age Trends and Broadly Versus Narrowly Acting Mechanism . Journal of Personality, 80 (4), 881–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00752.x

Vinney, C. (2018, September 27). Understanding the Big Five Personality Traits . ThoughtCo. Retrieved 12 June 2020, from https://www.thoughtco.com/big-five-personality-traits-4176097

Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., . . . Jang, K. (2006). Is the Genetic Structure of Human Personality Universal? A Cross-Cultural Twin Study From North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (6), 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.987

Keep Learning

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (3), 547.
• Cobb-Clark, DA & Schurer, S. The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics Letters. 2012; 115 (2): 11–15.
• Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental psychology, 49 (6), 1194.
• Power RA, Pluess M. Heritability estimates of the Big Five personality traits based on common genetic variants. Transl Psychiatry. 2015;5 :e604.
• Personality Theories Book Chapter
• The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology

Related Articles

Personality

Exploring the MMPI-3 in a Transgender and Gender Diverse Sample

Are Developmental Trajectories of Personality and Socioeconomic Factors Related to Later Cognitive Function

Do Life Events Lead to Enduring Changes in Adult Attachment Styles?

Thin-Slicing Judgments In Psychology

Authoritarian Personality

Soft Determinism In Psychology

Building Better Mental Health

Cultivating happiness, attachment styles and how they affect adult relationships.

• How to Break Bad Habits and Change Negative Behaviors
• Imposter Syndrome: Causes, Types, and Coping Tips

Gratitude: The Benefits and How to Practice It

Prayers for anxiety, healing, and coping with life’s challenges, finding joy during difficult times.

• Online Therapy: Is it Right for You?
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness
• Children & Family
• Relationships

Are you or someone you know in crisis?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Eating Disorders
• Grief & Loss
• Personality Disorders
• PTSD & Trauma
• Schizophrenia
• Therapy & Medication
• Exercise & Fitness
• Healthy Eating
• Well-being & Happiness
• Weight Loss
• Work & Career
• Illness & Disability
• Heart Health
• Childhood Issues
• Learning Disabilities
• Family Caregiving
• Teen Issues
• Communication
• Emotional Intelligence
• Love & Friendship
• Domestic Abuse
• Healthy Aging
• Aging Issues
• Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
• Senior Housing
• End of Life
• Meet Our Team

What is personality?

Personality types, personality traits, how your personality develops, how your personality can impact your mental health, how different personality traits impact your mental health #1: neuroticism, 2: openness, 3: extraversion, 4: agreeableness, 5: conscientiousness, personality and personality disorders, personality tests, personality types, traits, and how it affects mental health.

Your personality can impact your health, mood, and relationships. Here's what you need to know about the psychology of personality, different personality traits and types, and what you can learn from personality tests.

Your personality describes how you think, feel, and behave as you interact with the world. Your unique approach to life forms a fairly consistent pattern that’s recognizable to others. You may have heard someone refer to you as “reserved” or “talkative”, perhaps, or say that you’re “passionate” or “calm.” They’re describing how they perceive your personality—your typical demeanor and actions.

Personality affects both thinking and behavior. Some people are dutiful, so they take their responsibilities in life seriously, and always show up prepared and on time. Others are more spontaneous and willing to “go with the flow.” They have a carefree approach to life, but sometimes that involves taking unnecessary risks or neglecting obligations.

Personality can also have a significant impact on your social life. You probably know a few people who are stubborn or argumentative, the type you may avoid because they always make you feel like you’re walking on eggshells. Then there are people who are just the opposite. They’re patient, understanding, and eager to help—the type of people you turn to for support.

Think about how your own personality plays into your social relationships. Are you the type of person to strike up a conversation with a stranger? Or do you take a more passive approach to interactions? The answer could have broad implications for your overall well-being.

To understand the many different ways personality affects your life, mental health, and relationships, it’s helpful to know the difference between personality types and personality traits.

Personality type models categorize people into different groups based on common behavioral patterns. One popular model lays out four personality types:

• Type A : highly motivated and organized, but competitive and perfectionistic.
• Type B : relaxed and flexible, but not as ambitious.
• Type C : very conscientious, but has difficulty with emotional expression.
• Type D : pessimistic, anxious , and prone to isolation and distress.

Myers-Briggs Personality Types

Another popular personality type model is the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI). It measures how you fall into several different categories:

• Introversion (I) or extraversion (E)
• Sensing (S) or intuition (N)
• Thinking (T) or feeling (F)
• Judging (J) or perceiving (P)

These results combine in multiple ways to form 16 personality types.

For example, if you’re an ENFJ personality type, you:

• Tend to be friendly and collaborative.
• Are creative and like to think about the “big picture”.
• Prioritize feelings and values in your decision-making.
• Prefer to follow a plan and be organized.

If you’re an ISTP personality type, you:

• Tend to be reserved and calm.
• Focus on concrete facts and actions.
• Prioritize objective information and logic in decision-making.
• Are flexible and enjoy spontaneity.

Some personality theories focus on individual traits rather than broad personality types. Each characteristic—such as extroversion or agreeableness—exists on a spectrum, and they come together to form a more complete picture of your personality.

The Five Factor Model (or Big Five) focuses on five personality traits:

• Openness to experience. People with high openness are more curious and look for novel experiences. People who are low on openness are more routine-oriented and conventional.
• Conscientiousness. Highly conscientious people are more organized, self-controlled, and focused on goals. People with low conscientiousness tend to be disorganized, laidback, and unpredictable.
• Extraversion. Highly extraverted people are outgoing, assertive, and expressive. Introverts are more reserved and private. However, people who are introverts are not necessarily shy .
• Agreeableness. People who are highly agreeable are altruistic, trusting, and cooperative. People on the other end of this spectrum are more critical and less trusting of others.
• Neuroticism. Highly neurotic people are more likely to experience negative emotions and are easily upset. People who have low neuroticism are more emotionally stable and secure.

Each of these five factors can be further broken down into more specific facets. For example, aspects of neuroticism include anxiety and self-consciousness, while aspects of agreeableness include modesty and compliance.

Speak to a Licensed Therapist

BetterHelp is an online therapy service that matches you to licensed, accredited therapists who can help with depression, anxiety, relationships, and more. Take the assessment and get matched with a therapist in as little as 48 hours.

There are many different theories on how personality develops. Some of them focus on the importance of early social interactions, environment, and experiences.

For example, according to attachment theory , your bonding experience with your primary caregiver during infancy affects your attachment style later in life. This concept can also relate to personality development. For example, if your caregiver made you feel safe and loved, you might be more self-confident and trusting of others. If your caregiver was neglectful, you might be anxious and clingy or withdrawn and untrusting.

[ Read: How Attachment Affects Adult Relationships ]

People other than your primary caregiver can also influence your personality. Peers, friends, family members, and even strangers can shape your outlook and behavior.

Social learning theory

Social learning theory suggests that you’re influenced by your observations of other people’s behavior and how you perceive the consequences of their attitudes and actions. If you see someone successfully use bullying to get their way, for example, you might feel encouraged to imitate their aggressive behavior. However, if you notice the bully being ostracized by his peers, you might decide that aggressive personality traits are punished, not rewarded. Similarly, you may model your behavior after a sibling who uses humor to gain attention and popularity.

Even people you only see on television, film, or social media, can also serve as personality role models. You may have adopted the bold but serious traits of a superhero you saw on a TV show as a kid. It all comes down to whether you believe the person you’re observing is being rewarded or punished for their behavior.

Flexibility of personality

Certain personality traits can seem stable over time. You might have always had a mild temperament, even as a baby, for example, or maybe you have friends who have always been outgoing.

However, studies have shown that some aspects of personality can change throughout life. Many people become more trusting later in life, for example. And we also tend to grow more emotionally stable, agreeable, and conscientious with age.

Big life events, such as having a child, moving away from home, or forming a serious relationship, can also lead to changes in personality traits. Getting a high-paying job could lead you to be more emotionally stable, for example, while moving to a new city could push you to become more extraverted.

The role of nature in personality development

Personality isn’t completely the result of the way you were raised or what you experienced throughout life. Somewhere between 20 and 60 percent of your temperament may be determined by genetic factors. Studies of identical twins raised in different environments show that both individuals end up with many similar personality traits.

Similarly, your genes may put you more at risk of developing certain personality disorders or conditions such as anxiety and depression .

Your personality type can have many cascading effects on both your mental and physical health. For example, while most people experience anxiety from time to time, some people experience it more often and more intensely than others. If you’re a worrier by nature, you’re more likely to fall into a cycle in which anxiety creates further problems, such as insomnia and mood swings.

If you have a type A personality, your ambitious traits may encourage you to regularly go to the gym. While this is healthy, if you’re too much of a perfectionist, you may overdo the workouts and cause injuries or burnout. With a relaxed, type B personality, on the other hand, you’re more likely to disregard your physical health altogether.

Specific personality traits can also work in tandem to affect your health. For instance, some researchers refer to the combination of high neuroticism, low extraversion, and low conscientiousness as the “vulnerable personality” or “Misery Triad.” People with these three traits tend to be easily stressed , and more likely to socially withdraw or turn to unhealthy coping mechanisms , such as alcohol abuse.

On the other hand, a very resilient person might have low neuroticism with high extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. They tend to take things in their stride and can readily turn to loved ones for support. Additionally, a problem-solving approach to life helps them set and meet goals for self-improvement.

[ Read: Surviving Tough Times by Building Resilience ]

Certain traits can also balance out others. Neuroticism might increase your risk of burnout , but if you’re also a friendly, ongoing person, you can find the social support you need to weather life’s storms.

Concerned that your personality is affecting your well-being?

Although some characteristics are more fixed than others, you do have the power to change the way you think and behave. By understanding how specific personality traits can affect your well-being, you can explore ways to find greater balance in your life.

Research links high levels of neuroticism with an increased risk of certain mental health issues. If you’re highly neurotic—meaning you tend to experience a lot of negative feelings like fear, depression , and anger —you’re more likely to feel overwhelmed by stressful situations. While another person might take a parking ticket in their stride, for example, you may see it as a catastrophe that ruins your day. You’re also more likely to belittle yourself for minor mistakes that other people simply shrug off.

This emotional instability and the tendency to focus on the negative puts you at greater risk for mood disorders such as depression and anxiety , and even psychotic experiences such as delusions and hallucinations.

Neuroticism can also affect your relationships. You might feel upset and either withdraw or lash out at those around you for any perceived slights. This can create a downward spiral, as loved ones become frustrated with your negative attitude, leading to rifts in your relationships. As relationships deteriorate, you lose social support and become more vulnerable to stress , anxiety, and depression.

Coping with neuroticism

There are a variety of ways to manage neurotic tendencies.

Explore stress management practices. Making time for meditation , exercising regularly, and connecting with loved ones are just a few easy ways to manage stress levels . Findings from a 2019 study of young adults suggest that mindfulness training may also be an effective way to reduce neuroticism.

Shift from ruminating to active problem-solving. If you’re feeling pessimistic about an upcoming exam, for example, plan extra study sessions. If you’re feeling insecure about your partner, instead of internalizing your feelings, start an open dialogue .

Practice gratitude. When your mind tends to drift towards negative thoughts, it can help to cultivate gratefulness . Keep a daily gratitude journal and write about positive experiences, no matter how small they seem. Consider writing notes of appreciation to loved ones, even if you never send them.

Approaching the world with an openness to new experiences can be seen as a positive personality trait, unless that openness crosses over into excessive risk-taking. Acquiring knowledge, meeting new people, and trying out new hobbies are also great ways to keep your brain active and maintain healthy cognitive functioning as you age.

People who remain open to new experiences may also benefit from higher social well-being. If you’re closed-minded, you might shy away from making new friends , or overlook opportunities to bond with your loved ones in new ways, such as traveling together.

Cultivating healthy levels of openness

Challenge yourself to learn a new skill. Try out a new recipe, practice a new language, or learn a new musical instrument. Don’t worry about mastering the craft. Focus on experimenting, being creative, and enjoying yourself.

Mix it up. If you tend to stick to a rigid daily schedule, leave room for small changes. Take an unfamiliar route to work, or invite a friend to a new restaurant for lunch.

Weigh the risks. If you’re already a naturally curious person, remember the importance of looking before you leap. For example, some research connects high openness with illicit drug use . As you seek out and enjoy novel experiences, consider the physical, mental, and legal consequences of your actions.

Being a social butterfly can come with many benefits. If you’re an extravert, you likely have higher self-esteem, find it easier to adapt to life’s changes, and enjoy a greater overall sense of well-being. Part of this may be because extraverts often have more social support and are more likely to seek help from others.

There’s nothing wrong with being an introvert, though. In fact, introverts are often considered more introspective, empathetic , and better listeners. Additionally, both extraverts and introverts can suffer from conditions like social anxiety and depression, although the latter may be harder to notice in outgoing individuals.

Still, it’s important to recognize that too much solitude can leave you more vulnerable to loneliness and mental health problems. Staying silent on your needs can also make it hard for loved ones to know how to help you.

Finding balance

If you’re an extravert: Be sure to surround yourself with people who reflect your values. You might feel pressure to engage in unhealthy behavior, such as heavy drinking, in order to stay social . Check-in with yourself internally. Spend a little time alone, journaling, meditating , or going for walks. Take time to be reflective and cultivate self-awareness. This is especially important when you’re feeling isolated and unable to confide in others.

If you’re an introvert: When you’re feeling down, try behaving like an extravert, even just for a short period of time, to help boost your mood and self-esteem. Start a conversation with a stranger, be proactive in reaching out to friends. Don’t burn yourself out though. Recognize when you’re feeling socially fatigued and need alone time.

As with extraversion, people with high agreeableness tend to enjoy a greater sense of social well-being. If you’re agreeable, friends may gravitate toward your generous and trusting personality. Those very friends form a social support network that helps you navigate life’s challenges and better cope with stress.

Research from 2022 connects agreeableness with general life success. Cooperative people tend to be more tolerant of others’ shortcomings and feel motivated to nurture positive relationships. It’s a useful trait to build on, whether you need to improve a romantic relationship or get on better with coworkers.

Of course, an affable nature can come with its downsides. To avoid conflict, you might not stand up for yourself during disagreements, or hold back on voicing an opinion that could ruffle feathers.

Finding healthy levels of agreeableness

Aim to balance your desire for harmony with a healthy level of assertiveness.

Practice empathy. Some people seem naturally more empathic than others. However, empathy is like a muscle that can be strengthened by developing listening skills, becoming more aware of body language , and allowing yourself to be more vulnerable.

[ Read: Empathy: How to Feel and Respond to the Emotions of Others ]

Practice setting boundaries and being assertive. If you’re too agreeable, some people may take advantage of you. Learning to assert boundaries is important, but remember that assertiveness isn’t about being rude to others. You can be direct about what you want while still being respectful.

The more conscientious you are, the more likely you are to take a responsible approach to life. This can have implications for mental and physical health, as well as overall success. You’re more likely to take your physical health seriously, by regularly exercising and seeing your doctor. And you’re likely a diligent employee or student, with an achievement-oriented mindset.

Research links higher levels of conscientiousness with better health, including a reduced risk of conditions like heart disease and Alzheimer’s . Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who are self-disciplined tend to live longer.

If you have high conscientiousness, you’re also more likely to cope with stress by problem-solving and challenging negative thought patterns.

If you have lower conscientiousness, there’s more chance you’ll neglect your health, make impulsive decisions, or pick up risky habits, such as substance abuse , which can impact both your physical and mental health.

Increasing conscientiousness

Focus on one thing at a time. Put your phone on silent and turn off the TV when you’re reading, studying, or talking to others. This allows you to be present and handle whatever you’re doing with more care.

Use tools to organize your day and set goals. Use daily planners and calendars to stay on top of responsibilities like bill payments or work meetings. To avoid procrastination and stay focused, try setting a 40-minute timer before a study or work session. When the timer goes off, set a new timer to give yourself a 10-minute break.

Slow down to tame impulsiveness. See an expensive item you want to buy? Or feel unsure about ordering another drink in the bar? Rather than feel rushed to act, delay your decision. Weigh your other options and give yourself time to reflect on the consequences.

Distinguishing conscientiousness from perfectionism

Although being organized, ambitious, and self-controlled are generally positive traits, it’s possible to go to an extreme. While conscientious people desire success, perfectionists are motivated by fear of failure. People who are perfectionists set unrealistic expectations for themselves and others. And because their goals are unattainable, they may struggle with depression and anxiety.

To curb perfectionism:

Allow room for imperfections and failure. Expose yourself to activities that you’re not good at. Play games with friends even if you know you’ll lose. Sketch or paint, even if you don’t have an eye for details. Learn to find lessons within failures.

Ask yourself if a goal is reasonable. Aiming to learn a new language within days? Hoping to see workout results within a week? Try to recognize unrealistic goals, be patient with yourself, and acknowledge your limitations.

Focus on the bigger picture. If you missed a deadline at work, for example, or didn’t score the highest grade on an exam, ask yourself how much these perceived failures will matter in the long run. Sometimes, it’s more important to learn from a mistake.

Remember to celebrate your successes. There’s always room for improvement, but don’t forget to acknowledge progress and victories. Even if you didn’t come in first place during that 5K, you can still be proud of your effort.

Personality disorders involve unhealthy ways of acting, thinking, and feeling. People with personality disorders often struggle with extreme personality traits, such as intense mistrust, lack of empathy, poor self-control, or social avoidance. In each case, these personality traits can impact your well-being and relationships.

Emotional instability. High neuroticism is associated with personality disorders that involve impulsive behavior, intense negative emotions, and difficulty maintaining relationships with others. These include paranoid , antisocial, and borderline personality disorders.

Conscientiousness. Some researchers consider obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) an unhealthy variation of conscientiousness, where you obsess about order, tidiness, and perfection. Similarly, having low conscientiousness, unpredictability, and impulsiveness are associated with antisocial and borderline personality disorders .

Empathy and agreeableness. Low agreeableness involves a great mistrust of others, so it’s linked with paranoid personality disorder. However, people with conditions like narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders also tend to be less cooperative and compassionate towards others. Conversely, high agreeableness can be a trait in people with dependent personality disorder.

Sociability. People with histrionic personality disorder have a constant desire for attention, so are often outgoing. Grandiose narcissists can appear highly assertive and socially confident, while avoidant and schizoid personality disorders are characterized by more reclusive habits.

Personality tests can be a fun way to get to know yourself or your loved ones. Sometimes they’re used in workplace settings as screening tools or to assess the strengths and weaknesses of employees. As well as the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Big Five Personality Test, other popular assessments include:

The Eysenck Personality Inventory. This focuses on three core personality traits: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.

The HEXACO Personality Inventory assesses six personality dimensions: honesty/humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.

The DiSC personality test lets you discover which of the four behavioral styles you lean toward most: dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness.

The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) measures a wide range of traits from warmth, reasoning, and emotional stability to dominance, liveliness, and perfectionism.

Taking a personality test

When taking any of these tests, it’s important to remember that human personalities are complex and personality tests may not be able to capture the sheer diversity of characteristics. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Consider taking the same test multiple times. Are the results inconsistent? If not, the test may be unreliable. You can also ask someone you know if the results seem to match their perception of you.

Take different types of tests. If two tests claim to measure emotional stability, for example, but return wildly different results, one of them may not be measuring what it claims. Taking different tests may give you a greater insight.

Be honest and self-aware. Many tests require you to self-report. You can skew the results by answering in a way that doesn’t truly reflect your thoughts or behavior.

Personality tests are not perfect tools, and you shouldn’t take their results as the absolute truth. However, they can sometimes help you reflect on the complexities of personality and perhaps even gain a better understanding of yourself or others.

More Information

• APA Dictionary of Psychology . (n.d.). Retrieved January 9, 2023. Link
• Abdullahi, A. M., Orji, R., Rabiu, A. M., & Kawu, A. A. (2020). Personality and Subjective Well-Being: Towards Personalized Persuasive Interventions for Health and Well-Being.  Online Journal of Public Health Informatics, 12 (1). Link
• Alcohol Alert Number 85. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023, Link
• Allen, M. S., & Laborde, S. (2020). A prospective study of personality and illicit drug use in Australian adults.  Personality and Individual Differences, 163 , 110048. Link
• Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis.  Psychological Bulletin, 146 (4), 279–323. Link
• Babcock, S. E., & Wilson, C. A. (2020). Big Five Model of Personality. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, A. Fabio, D. H. Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.),  The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences  (1st ed., pp. 55–60). Wiley. Link
• Bachner-Melman, R., & Zohar, A. (2014).  Addressing the imbalance: The downside of extraversion and the upside of introversion  (pp. 158–165). Barańczuk, U. (2019). The five factor model of personality and emotion regulation: A meta-analysis.  Personality and Individual Differences, 139 , 217–227. Link
• Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2013). The Case for Conscientiousness: Evidence and Implications for a Personality Trait Marker of Health and Longevity.  Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45 (3), 278–288. Link
• Can You Trust Personality Tests? | Psychology Today.  (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske,  The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2—Personality Measurement and Testing  (pp. 135–159). SAGE Publications Ltd. Link
• Chapman, B., Duberstein, P., Tindle, H. A., Sink, K. M., Robbins, J., Tancredi, D. J., & Franks, P. (2012). Personality Predicts Cognitive Function Over 7 Years in Older Persons.  The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20 (7), 612–621. Link
• Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (6), 1080–1107. Link
• Costache, M. E., Frick, A., Månsson, K., Engman, J., Faria, V., Hjorth, O., Hoppe, J. M., Gingnell, M., Frans, Ö., Björkstrand, J., Rosén, J., Alaie, I., Åhs, F., Linnman, C., Wahlstedt, K., Tillfors, M., Marteinsdottir, I., Fredrikson, M., & Furmark, T. (2020). Higher- and lower-order personality traits and cluster subtypes in social anxiety disorder.  PLOS ONE, 15 (4), e0232187. Link
• Damian, R. I., Spengler, M., Sutu, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2019). Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117 (3), 674–695. Link
• De Vries, J. H., Spengler, M., Frintrup, A., & Mussel, P. (2021). Personality Development in Emerging Adulthood—How the Perception of Life Events and Mindset Affect Personality Trait Change.  Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 671421. Link
• Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2015). Obsessive-compulsive disorder and its relationship with disgust vulnerability and conscientiousness.  Psicothema, 27.3 , 254–260. Link
• Divinakumar, K., Bhat, P., Prakash, J., & Srivastava, K. (2019). Personality traits and its correlation to burnout in female nurses.  Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 28 (1), 24. Link
• Duberstein, P. R., Ma, Y., Chapman, B. P., Conwell, Y., McGriff, J., Coyne, J. C., Franus, N., Heisel, M. J., Kaukeinen, K. A., Sörensen, S., Tu, X. M., & Lyness, J. M. (2011). Detection of depression in older adults by family and friends: Distinguishing mood disorder signals from the noise of personality and everyday life.  International Psychogeriatrics, 23 (4), 634–643. Link
• ENFJ Personality profile – Myers Briggs (MBTI) personality types.  (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• Fatimah, H., Wiernik, B. M., Gorey, C., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., & Bornovalova, M. A. (2020). Familial factors and the risk of borderline personality pathology: Genetic and environmental transmission.  Psychological Medicine, 50 (8), 1327–1337. Link
• Fernandez-Pujals, A. M., Adams, M. J., Thomson, P., McKechanie, A. G., Blackwood, D. H. R., Smith, B. H., Dominiczak, A. F., Morris, A. D., Matthews, K., Campbell, A., Linksted, P., Haley, C. S., Deary, I. J., Porteous, D. J., MacIntyre, D. J., & McIntosh, A. M. (2015). Epidemiology and Heritability of Major Depressive Disorder, Stratified by Age of Onset, Sex, and Illness Course in Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS:SFHS).  PLOS ONE, 10 (11), e0142197. Link
• Gottschalk, M. G., & Domschke, K. (2017). Genetics of generalized anxiety disorder and related traits.  Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 19 (2), 159–168. Link
• Hakulinen, C., Elovainio, M., Batty, G. D., Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., & Jokela, M. (2015). Personality and alcohol consumption: Pooled analysis of 72,949 adults from eight cohort studies.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 151 , 110–114. Link
• Hanley, A. W., de Vibe, M., Solhaug, I., Gonzalez-Pons, K., & Garland, E. L. (2019). Mindfulness training reduces neuroticism over a 6-year longitudinal randomized control trial in Norwegian medical and psychology students.  Journal of Research in Personality, 82 , 103859. Link
• Hewitt, P., & Flett, G. L. (2007). When does conscientiousness become perfectionism?  Current Psychiatry, 6 , 49–60.
• Is temperament determined by genetics?: MedlinePlus Genetics.  (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• ISTP personality profile – Myers Briggs (MBTI) personality types. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• Kolla, N. J., Boileau, I., & Bagby, R. M. (2022). Higher trait neuroticism is associated with greater fatty acid amide hydrolase binding in borderline and antisocial personality disorders.  Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 1126. Link
• Lee, R. J. (2017). Mistrustful and Misunderstood: A Review of Paranoid Personality Disorder.  Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, 4 (2), 151–165. Link
• Margolis, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2020). Experimental manipulation of extraverted and introverted behavior and its effects on well-being.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149 , 719–731. Link
• Miller, J. R., Cheung, A., Novilla, L. K., & Crandall, A. (2020). Childhood experiences and adult health: The moderating effects of temperament.  Heliyon, 6 (5), e03927. Link
• Morgan, S., Cooper, B., Paul, S., Hammer, M. J., Conley, Y. P., Levine, J. D., Miaskowski, C., & Dunn, L. B. (2017). Association of personality profiles with depressive, anxiety, and cancer-related symptoms in patients undergoing chemotherapy.  Personality and Individual Differences, 117 , 130–138. Link
• Pelinkanten, Kanten, S., & Gümüştekin, G. (2017).  Exploring the Role of A, B, C and D Personality Types on IndividualsWork-Related Behaviors and Health Problems: A Theoretical Model.  29–37. Poulin, M. J., & Haase, C. M. (2015). Growing to Trust: Evidence That Trust Increases and Sustains Well-Being Across the Life Span.  Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6 (6), 614–621. Link
• Rymarczyk, K., Turbacz, A., Strus, W., & Cieciuch, J. (2020). Type C Personality: Conceptual Refinement and Preliminary Operationalization.  Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 552740. Link
• Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review.  Clinical Psychology Review, 23 (8), 1055–1085. Link
• Shi, J., Yao, Y., Zhan, C., Mao, Z., Yin, F., & Zhao, X. (2018). The Relationship Between Big Five Personality Traits and Psychotic Experience in a Large Non-clinical Youth Sample: The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation.  Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9 , 648. Link
• Shokrkon, A., & Nicoladis, E. (2021). How personality traits of neuroticism and extroversion predict the effects of the COVID-19 on the mental health of Canadians.  PLOS ONE, 16 (5), e0251097. Link
• Skodol, A. E. (2018). Can Personality Disorders Be Redefined in Personality Trait Terms?  American Journal of Psychiatry, 175 (7), 590–592. Link
• Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., Bayard, S., Križan, Z., & Terracciano, A. (2018). Personality and sleep quality: Evidence from four prospective studies.  Health Psychology, 37 (3), 271–281. Link
• Suicide and Personality | Psychology Today. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• Tan, C.-S., Krishnan, S. A., & Lee, Q.-W. (2017). The Role of Self-Esteem and Social Support in the Relationship between Extraversion and Happiness: A Serial Mediation Model.  Current Psychology, 36 (3), 556–564. Link
• The DiSC Styles—DiSC Profile.  (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• The HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised.  (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2023. Link
• Tohver, G. C. (2020). Eysenck Giant Three. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, & C. S. Nave (Eds.),  The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences  (1st ed., pp. 155–159). Wiley. Link
• Tuovinen, S., Tang, X., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2020). Introversion and Social Engagement: Scale Validation, Their Interaction, and Positive Association With Self-Esteem.  Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 590748. Link
• Wardenaar, K. J., Conradi, H. J., Bos, E. H., & de Jonge, P. (2014). Personality Modulates the Efficacy of Treatment in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.  The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75 (09), e916–e923. Link
• Watson, D., Stanton, K., Khoo, S., Ellickson-Larew, S., & Stasik-O’Brien, S. M. (2019). Extraversion and psychopathology: A multilevel hierarchical review.  Journal of Research in Personality, 81 , 1–10. Link
• Widiger, T. A., & Gore, W. L. (2016). Personality Disorders. In  Encyclopedia of Mental Health  (pp. 270–277). Elsevier. Link
• Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2022). Agreeableness and Its Consequences: A Quantitative Review of Meta-Analytic Findings.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26 (3), 242–280. Link
• Woods, R. A., & Hill, P. B. (2022). Myers Brigg. In  StatPearls.  StatPearls Publishing. Link
• Yu, Y., Zhao, Y., Li, D., Zhang, J., & Li, J. (2021). The Relationship Between Big Five Personality and Social Well-Being of Chinese Residents: The Mediating Effect of Social Support.  Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 613659. Link
• Zinbarg, R. E., Mineka, S., Bobova, L., Craske, M. G., Vrshek-Schallhorn, S., Griffith, J. W., Wolitzky-Taylor, K., Waters, A. M., Sumner, J. A., & Anand, D. (2016). Testing a Hierarchical Model of Neuroticism and Its Cognitive Facets: Latent Structure and Prospective Prediction of First Onsets of Anxiety and Unipolar Mood Disorders During 3 Years in Late Adolescence.  Clinical Psychological Science, 4 (5), 805–824. Link
• Zwir, I., Arnedo, J., Del-Val, C., Pulkki-Råback, L., Konte, B., Yang, S. S., Romero-Zaliz, R., Hintsanen, M., Cloninger, K. M., Garcia, D., Svrakic, D. M., Rozsa, S., Martinez, M., Lyytikäinen, L.-P., Giegling, I., Kähönen, M., Hernandez-Cuervo, H., Seppälä, I., Raitoharju, E., … Cloninger, C. R. (2020). Uncovering the complex genetics of human character.  Molecular Psychiatry, 25 (10), 2295–2312. Link

More in Well-being & Happiness

Six strategies to boost your mood and build resilience

Five tips to get more satisfaction and joy out of life

How the bonds you had as an infant influence your relationships now

How to Break Bad Habits

Change negative or addictive behaviors

Imposter Syndrome

What to do when you feel like a fraud at work, school, or in relationships

Reaping the mood-boosting effects

Find strength, healing, and support

Daily practices to lift your spirits

Professional therapy, done online

BetterHelp makes starting therapy easy. Take the assessment and get matched with a professional, licensed therapist.

Help us help others

Millions of readers rely on HelpGuide.org for free, evidence-based resources to understand and navigate mental health challenges. Please donate today to help us save, support, and change lives.

• Newsletters
• Best Industries
• Business Plans
• Home-Based Business
• The UPS Store
• Customer Service
• Black in Business
• Your Next Move
• Female Founders
• Best Workplaces
• Company Culture
• Public Speaking
• HR/Benefits
• Productivity
• All the Hats
• Digital Transformation
• Artificial Intelligence
• Bringing Innovation to Market
• Cloud Computing
• Social Media
• Data Detectives
• Exit Interview
• Bootstrapping
• Crowdfunding
• Venture Capital
• Business Models
• Personal Finance
• Founder-Friendly Investors
• Upcoming Events
• Inc. 5000 Vision Conference
• Become a Sponsor
• Cox Business
• Verizon Business
• Branded Content
• Apply Inc. 5000 US

Inc. Premium

Why Aren't More Smart People Rich? A Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Says These 3 Personality Traits Predict Financial Success

And if the research on success and achievement isn't enough, mark cuban also agrees..

If you had to pick one attribute that contributes the most to success , what would you choose? Education, maybe. Opportunities. Wealthy parents ( which research shows can make a huge difference). 

Or maybe you'd choose intelligence. Makes sense: Just about any highly successful businessperson you can name is really, really smart.

But that's correlation, not causation. When Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman asked people how great a role innate intelligence plays in financial success -- like how much the difference between my income and yours, for example, is based on our relative IQs -- most people said 25 percent. Some went as high as 50 percent.

But they're wrong. 

Heckman's research revealed  that innate intelligence plays, at best, a 1 to 2 percent role in a child's future success. Instead, financial success is correlated with personality traits that make up conscientiousness: self-discipline, perseverance, and diligence.

The study's findings mesh nicely with Mark Cuban's position on what contributes most to success. According to Cuban:

It's not about money or connections. It's the willingness to outwork and outlearn everyone.

Granted,  luck also plays a major role  in success. As the authors of a Cornell study wrote, "The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice versa. Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck."

But you can't control luck.

And you can only partly control IQ. While you can certainly become more educated, fluid intelligence -- the ability to think logically and solve problems independent of acquired knowledge -- is  definitely trainable . 

But what you  can  control is how conscientious you are. How diligent you are. How persistent you are.

How hard you work -- and how hard you work to learn.

Everyone  defines success differently , as well they should. But if you happen to define success by traditional measures, like professional achievement or fortune or fame, hard work is the great equalizer. 

On the other hand, if your definition of success leans heavily toward the quality of personal relationships, maintaining a positive work-life balance , or making a meaningful difference in the lives of others, hard work is still the great equalizer. Great relationships require significant effort. Work-life balance requires significant effort. Making a meaningful difference in other people's lives requires significant effort. 

People who make the most of their lifetime work hard to improve the quality of the life hours they carve out. People who stand out for serving others work harder to leverage their skills and experiences; that's how they're able to make such a meaningful difference. 

We can't control whether we possess certain inherent advantages. But we can control our level of persistence, self-discipline, and diligence. You control how wise we work to become. We can choose to out-work and out-learn.

Those things you can control.

Which is great, because science says those things will have the biggest impact on your success.

The Daily Digest for Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders

Privacy Policy

Understanding and Boosting Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy, a concept introduced by psychologist Albert Bandura, plays a crucial role in determining an individual's motivation and performance. This blog post explores the essence of self-efficacy, its impact on workplace motivation and performance, and practical ways to boost it.

What is Self-Efficacy?

Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to organize and execute the actions required to manage prospective situations. In simpler terms, it’s the confidence people have in their ability to achieve specific tasks. According to Bandura's social cognitive theory, self-efficacy influences how people think, feel, and act.

The Impact of Self-Efficacy on Motivation and Performance

Research shows that self-efficacy has a significant impact on various aspects of life, including workplace performance and motivation. High self-efficacy can lead to:

• Increased Motivation : Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to take on challenging tasks and stay committed to them. They view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than avoided.
• Enhanced Performance : High self-efficacy often results in better job performance. Confident employees are more likely to set higher goals and strive to achieve them, leading to higher productivity and job satisfaction.
• Better Emotional Regulation : People with strong self-efficacy are better at managing stress and anxiety. They are more resilient and less likely to be overwhelmed by setbacks.

Boosting Self-Efficacy in the Workplace

Given its importance, enhancing self-efficacy among employees should be a priority for organizations. Here are some effective strategies:

• Provide Clear Instructions and Expectations : Clearly define tasks and the expected outcomes. When employees understand what is required, they are more likely to feel confident in their ability to meet those expectations.
• Offer Training and Development Opportunities : Equip employees with the necessary skills through regular training programs. This not only improves their competency but also boosts their confidence in handling tasks.
• Set Achievable Goals : Start with smaller, manageable goals and gradually increase the difficulty level. Achieving initial success helps build confidence and sets the stage for tackling more challenging tasks.
• Encourage and Provide Feedback : Constructive feedback helps employees understand their strengths and areas for improvement. Positive reinforcement can significantly boost their confidence and motivation.
• Foster a Supportive Work Environment : A supportive work environment where employees feel valued and respected enhances their self-efficacy. Encourage teamwork and create a culture where employees feel comfortable seeking help and sharing ideas.
• Model Positive Behavior : Leaders and managers should model the behavior they want to see. Demonstrating confidence, resilience, and a positive attitude can inspire employees to develop similar traits.

Additional Tips for Boosting Self-Efficacy

According to Psychology Today, here are five more tips to enhance self-efficacy:

• Practice Regularly : The more you practice a task, the more confident you become in your ability to perform it.
• Embrace Novelty : Trying new things can reduce the fear of the unknown and expand your skill set.
• Find Role Models : Observing others who succeed can inspire confidence in your own abilities.
• Build a Support Network : Surround yourself with supportive individuals who provide positive feedback.
• Maintain Positivity : Focus on past successes and maintain a positive attitude to counter self-doubt.

Insights from Research on Self-Control and Personality Traits

A study published in Frontiers in Psychology explored the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and self-control among boxers, highlighting the mediating role of self-efficacy. The research found that personality traits such as conscientiousness and extraversion positively influenced self-control through enhanced self-efficacy. Neuroticism, on the other hand, negatively impacted self-control. This study underscores the importance of self-efficacy in mediating the effects of personality on self-control, further demonstrating its critical role in achieving optimal performane.

Self-efficacy is a powerful predictor of motivation and performance in the workplace. By understanding its importance and implementing strategies to boost it, organizations can create a more motivated, productive, and resilient workforce. Investing in self-efficacy is investing in the overall success and well-being of both employees and the organization.

By fostering an environment that supports and enhances self-efficacy, companies can ensure that their employees are not only performing at their best but are also engaged, motivated, and ready to take on new challenges with confidence.

• Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self-efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80-95.
• Wang, Y., Zhao, X., Liu, L., & Chen, Q. (2019). The relationship between Big Five and self-control in boxers: A mediating model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1690.

Connection Between Personality and Job Performance

This article explores the impact of the Big Five personality traits on job performance, highlighting their significance in employee productivity and organizational psychology.

Scientists Say You Can Change Your Personality

This article explores recent scientific findings that suggest personality traits are not fixed, but can change throughout our lives due to experiences and targeted interventions.

Unlocking the Power of Emotional Intelligence

Discover the transformative power of emotional intelligence and learn how it can enhance your mental health, relationships, and overall life success.

• Create new account

Career Aptitude Test

Find the right career for you with the career personality profiler™ test.

Test your career aptitude, job interests, and personality traits to find the right job for you. This free career assessment takes only 15 minutes and measures key interests and personality traits to show you the exact careers that suit your strengths. Based on the powerful Holland Code and Big Five systems, this career test is suitable for adults and students age 16 and up.

To take the career test, mark your interest in each activity shown.

Do not worry about whether you have the skills or training to do an activity, or how much money you might make. Simply think about whether you would enjoy doing it or not.

Career Test FAQ

Q. how does the career personality profiler™ aptitude test determine what career is right for me.

A. The Career Personality Profiler test measures your personality traits, strengths, values, and interests, and uses those scores to match you with a list of ideal careers. The career assessment is based on two scientifically validated models for career planning: The Big Five model of personality traits, and the Holland Code model of career interest assessment. Using a unique combination of these two powerful career matching systems, the career test will determine which jobs are most likely to match your aptitude and satisfy your individual personality and motivational factors.

Q. Is this a free career test?

A. Yes, this career test is free to take and to receive your basic results. You do not need to provide your email address. If you choose, you can purchase a comprehensive full report after viewing your free results.

Q. What is the best career test?

The best career test is one that has been professionally developed and validated, based on sound principles of career planning. Truity's Career Aptitude Test is based on the gold standard Holland Code methodology and has been extensively validated with a global sample. The career test combines interests and personality to provide the best recommendations for your career path.

When looking to decide what career is best for you, there are various types of career tests you can choose, each with their own benefits. These include:

• Personality assessments. This type of test can help you find a career that suits your core personality traits and innate talents. A personality career test will measure your personality traits, and then show you what careers people with similar personality traits have chosen. Common career tests of this type include the MBTI® assessment and Keirsey Temperament Sorter.
• Interest assessments. This type of career test can help you find a job where the day-to-day requirements are a good match for the tasks and activities you enjoy doing. A career interests test will measure how much you like various categories of work tasks, and match you to jobs that are a good fit for those tasks. Career tests of this type include the Strong Interest Inventory and Self-Directed Search.
• Career aptitude tests. An aptitude test can measure a variety of determinants of job aptitude, including personality and interests, as well as skills like reasoning ability, reading comprehension, or intelligence. Skills-based aptitude tests are more often found when being evaluated for a particular job role, while more general aptitude tests can help you figure out what careers suit your natural inclinations.

If you are planning a new career or making a career change, the best career test is one that will give you a comprehensive assessment of your personality, interests, aptitude, and strengths. A multi-dimensional career assessment will help you to consider all the important factors that drive career satisfaction, and plan your career path in a holistic way. Truity's career aptitude test evaluates both your personality and interests, so that you can choose a career that suits your natural talents as well as your real-world experiences.

Q. How long does the career test take to complete?

A. The career aptitude assessment consists of 94 questions. It takes about 10-15 minutes to complete.

Q. What will my career test results look like?

A. When you complete the Career Personality Profiler test, you will first be shown a brief, free summary of your results and career recommendations. Then, you may choose to unlock your full report for a small fee. To see what you can expect from your full report, check out this career test sample report .

Q. Is this career test appropriate for adults making a career change?

A. Yes, the Career Personality Profiler job aptitude test is ideal for adults who may be changing careers or planning their next step. This career test will allow you to reference your past career experiences, as well as your knowledge of what you have liked and disliked on the job, to better understand how to plan a career move that suits you. In addition, the personality assessment included in this career test will ensure that your career recommendations are tailored to who you truly are, not just where you've been so far.

Q. Is this career test appropriate for students?

A. This career aptitude test can provide useful career guidance for students over the age of 14, with parental guidance and support. Students who are mature, self-aware, and have had experience with a variety of activities and hobbies will experience the best results from this career assessment.

This career assessment is not recommended for children under the age of 14.

Q. Is this career test printable?

A . Yes. If you purchase your full career test report, this can be downloaded to PDF for easy printing and sharing.

Q. Is the career test accurate?

A. The Career Personality Profiler aptitude test has been researched extensively to ensure it is valid and reliable, using a variety of statistical methods. It is based on two established theories which have conclusively been shown to impact job fit and satisfaction: psychologist John Holland's theory of career interest assessment, and the Big Five personality model. While no career test can perfectly predict which career will suit you, an accurate career test like the Career Personality Profiler can show you how your innate talents and individual interests can map to your ideal career.

Q. How can I access my career test results?

A. After you take a test, you will have the option to create an account by entering your email address. If you create an account, you can view your test results at any time by returning to Truity.com and logging into your account. We do not email your results to you.

Q. Do I need to complete this career assessment all at once?

A. If you’ve created an account and are logged in when you take the test, your responses will be saved as you go through the test. If you do not log in to a Truity account before starting the test, your progress will not be saved and you will need to complete the test all at once.

Q. Are you going to sell my data?

A. . We do not sell your email or other personal data to any third parties, and we have a zero-spam policy. We carefully comply with applicable privacy laws in handling your personal information. You can read more in our privacy policy .

Get Our Newsletter

• Patient Care & Health Information
• Diseases & Conditions
• Narcissistic personality disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.

A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial matters. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration that they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships troubled and unfulfilling, and other people may not enjoy being around them.

Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder centers around talk therapy, also called psychotherapy.

Narcissistic personality disorder affects more males than females, and it often begins in the teens or early adulthood. Some children may show traits of narcissism, but this is often typical for their age and doesn't mean they'll go on to develop narcissistic personality disorder.

Products & Services

• A Book: Mayo Clinic Family Health Book
• Newsletter: Mayo Clinic Health Letter — Digital Edition

Symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and how severe they are can vary. People with the disorder can:

• Have an unreasonably high sense of self-importance and require constant, excessive admiration.
• Feel that they deserve privileges and special treatment.
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements.
• Make achievements and talents seem bigger than they are.
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
• Believe they are superior to others and can only spend time with or be understood by equally special people.
• Be critical of and look down on people they feel are not important.
• Expect special favors and expect other people to do what they want without questioning them.
• Take advantage of others to get what they want.
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them.
• Behave in an arrogant way, brag a lot and come across as conceited.
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office.

At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they view as criticism. They can:

• Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special recognition or treatment.
• Have major problems interacting with others and easily feel slighted.
• React with rage or contempt and try to belittle other people to make themselves appear superior.
• Have difficulty managing their emotions and behavior.
• Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change.
• Withdraw from or avoid situations in which they might fail.
• Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection.
• Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, humiliation and fear of being exposed as a failure.

When to see a doctor

People with narcissistic personality disorder may not want to think that anything could be wrong, so they usually don't seek treatment. If they do seek treatment, it's more likely to be for symptoms of depression, drug or alcohol misuse, or another mental health problem. What they view as insults to self-esteem may make it difficult to accept and follow through with treatment.

If you recognize aspects of your personality that are common to narcissistic personality disorder or you're feeling overwhelmed by sadness, consider reaching out to a trusted health care provider or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.

There is a problem with information submitted for this request. Review/update the information highlighted below and resubmit the form.

From Mayo Clinic to your inbox

Sign up for free and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips, current health topics, and expertise on managing health. Click here for an email preview.

Error Email field is required

Error Include a valid email address

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.

Thank you for subscribing!

You'll soon start receiving the latest Mayo Clinic health information you requested in your inbox.

Sorry something went wrong with your subscription

Please, try again in a couple of minutes

It's not known what causes narcissistic personality disorder. The cause is likely complex. Narcissistic personality disorder may be linked to:

• Environment — parent-child relationships with either too much adoration or too much criticism that don't match the child's actual experiences and achievements.
• Genetics — inherited characteristics, such as certain personality traits.
• Neurobiology — the connection between the brain and behavior and thinking.

Risk factors

Although the cause of narcissistic personality disorder isn't known, some researchers think that overprotective or neglectful parenting may have an impact on children who are born with a tendency to develop the disorder. Genetics and other factors also may play a role in the development of narcissistic personality disorder.

Complications

Complications of narcissistic personality disorder, and other conditions that can occur along with it include:

• Relationship difficulties
• Problems at work or school
• Depression and anxiety
• Other personality disorders
• An eating disorder called anorexia
• Physical health problems
• Drug or alcohol misuse
• Suicidal thoughts or behavior

Because the cause of narcissistic personality disorder is unknown, there's no known way to prevent the condition. But it may help to:

• Get treatment as soon as possible for childhood mental health problems.
• Participate in family therapy to learn healthy ways to communicate or to cope with conflicts or emotional distress.
• Attend parenting classes and seek guidance from a therapist or social worker if needed.
• Narcissistic personality disorder. In: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5-TR. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2022. https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org. Accessed Sept. 9, 2022.
• Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Merck Manual Professional Version. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/personality-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd. Accessed Sept. 8, 2022.
• Overview of personality disorders. Merck Manual Professional Version. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/personality-disorders/overview-of-personality-disorders#v25246292. Accessed Sept. 9, 2022.
• What are personality disorders. American Psychiatric Association. https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/personality-disorders/what-are-personality-disorders. Accessed Sept. 8, 2022.
• Lee RJ, et al. Narcissistic and borderline personality disorders: Relationship with oxidative stress. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2020; doi:10.1521/pedi.2020.34.supp.6.
• Fjermestad-Noll J, et al. Perfectionism, shame, and aggression in depressive patients with narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorder. 2020; doi:10.1521/pedi.2020.34.supp.25.
• Maillard P, et al. Process of change in psychotherapy for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2020; doi:10.1521/pedi.2020.34.supp.63.
• Scrandis DA. Narcissistic personality disorder: Challenges and therapeutic alliance in primary care. The Nurse Practitioner. 2020; doi:10.1097/01.NPR.0000653968.96547.e7.
• Caligor E, et al. Narcissistic personality disorder: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, course, assessment, and diagnosis. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed Sept. 9, 2022.
• Caligor E, et al. Treatment of narcissistic personality disorder. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed Sept. 9, 2022.
• Allen ND (expert opinion). Mayo Clinic. Sept. 27, 2022.

Associated Procedures

• Cognitive behavioral therapy
• Symptoms & causes
• Diagnosis & treatment

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

• Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

• Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
• The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
• Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
• FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
• Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book

We’re transforming healthcare

Make a gift now and help create new and better solutions for more than 1.3 million patients who turn to Mayo Clinic each year.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(5); 2021 May

Analysis of personality traits and academic performance in higher education at a Colombian university

Cirit mateus.

a Universidad Metropolitana, Barranquilla, Colombia

b Colciencias, Universidad del Norte Scholar, Colombia

Rodrigo Campis

c Departamento de Posgrados, Universidad Metropolitana, Barranquilla, Colombia

Ignacio Aguaded

d Departamento de Educación, Universidad de Huelva, Huelva, Spain

Alexander Parody

Federico ruiz, associated data.

Data will be made available on request.

This paper arises from the question of the correlation between specific personality traits and academic performance, since it is of crucial importance to consider variables other to students’ grades that also affect this phenomenon. The objective was to correlate personality traits with the academic performance of students in a higher education institution. This is a quantitative, correlational research, with a final sample of 214 students. Results confirmed that there is a positive correlation between those variables. Personality traits of abstractedness and perfectionism correlate with academic performance. Results show that perfectionism and abstractedness traits and sex, affect academic performance. It is still important to notice that there are other factors (beyond the scope of this research) that could possibly have a significant impact on academic performance.

Educational psychology, Personality traits, Academic performance, Higher education, Education Research

1. Introduction

Current evaluation processes generally aim at examining students' abilities when interpreting, analyzing, discussing and solving problems in science. The results of this evaluation are generally expressed in terms of grades or –at least–of a description that ends up in expert opinion (teachers) decreeing whether students have acquired the necessary skills or not ( Song, 2021 ; Yang et al., 2020 ). This is what is roughly called academic performance. It turns into an important variable that allows a partial evaluation of quality in the development of teaching-learning processes.

However, it is necessary to also put the evaluation process in context; it is not only supposed to indicate if students are generally doing well or not in any given subject or area, but it also should indicate, for instance, in which subjects or areas they are particularly skilled or not. Thus it draws some light on how to develop better strategies to expand their skills where they are able at, and/or to help them to get a better understanding where they underperform. At any rate, it should end in the improvement of actual performance as students. Performing this kind of work will provide tools for planning based on needs detected through research processes, which in turns will provide a refined data to carry out relevant and effective pedagogical interventions.

Variable “personality” is specifically considered in this study as defined in the 5 th edition of 16 PF questionnaire standardized by Cattell et al. (1995) . It is the basis for determining personality characteristics, -which means the acceptance of all sixteen items identified and proposed by Cattell-. The hypothesis is that it is possible to establish correlations between specific personality traits and academic performance to develop accurate devices for psycho-educational intervention.

It is important to remind that there is already a considerable number of studies with a similar direction, although non if them being conclusive. At this point, it seems convenient to stressed the point that present study showed a significant bond between personality traits such as perfectionism and abstractedness, sex, and academic performance.

“What personality traits correlate with the academic performance of university students?” is the research question-based upon the above-mentioned consideration. Finally, the present research is aimed to stablish that correlation. Sample is composed by students of a Colombian higher education institution.

2. Theoretical framework

The quality of academic performance has been analyzed based upon different variables ( Gladius Jennifer et al., 2018 ; Mahmoodi et al., 2019 ; Belsare et al., 2020 ), but the spotlight usually stays on sociological ones, such as environmental or family dynamics; psycho-pedagogical, such as study habits or attitude towards the university; and purely psychological, such as cognitive processes or personality. Some studies suggest that the academic performance not only is associated with intellectual factors ( Cáceres-Landaburu, 2017 ), but is an effect of multiple adaptative, behavioural and psychopathological variables, including some personality traits ( Cuadra-Peralta et al., 2015 ).

This statement follows a long-standing line of thought proposed by RB Cattell in which he assured that intelligence, personality and motivation, each one by itself, make a great contribution when making measurements and predictions about school performance. Also results are obtained that do not defer significantly in statistical terms between the possible combinations when combining the contributions to the variance in the measurement of two of the three of them. ( Cattell et al., 1966 , p. 36). It is worth adding that Cattell continued his study mostly with children between ages of 12 and 14. This leaves out the evaluation of adults and university students, opposed to the case of the present study.

The theory of types and traits has been fundamental to studies trying to establish the connexions between personality and academic performance ( Chagas and Freitas, 2017 ), especially in those which take Extraversion/Introversion and Neuroticism Emotional Stability as factors. So far, these connexions have been established primarily via correlational studies, which define the factors that affect cognitive aspects.

In terms of behaviour or psychic equilibrium, for instance, an altered person usually presents consequently alterations in all dimensions of his being, including basic and superior psychological functions ( Boeker and Northoff, 2018 ). In the case of depression, for example, diagnostic manuals define that disorder encompasses alterations in cognitive functioning following states that are semiologically called abulia and anhedonia -apathy and disinterest in activities of daily life, and in academic activities, also- ( Husain, and Roiser, 2018 ). In psychotic disorders, disturbances tend to be more acute, causing in many cases the absolute breakdown of the subject's bond to social context and external reality. Sometimes – even absolute - deterioration of educational or employment potential follows ( Bortolon et al., 2018 ). Currently it is quite common to find students with various diagnoses, including attention and depression disorders and even suicidal ideas ( Coentre, and Góis, 2018 ; Sedgwick, 2018 ; Mattos et al., 2018 ).

For researchers, addressing the issue this way implies at first to assume a position regarding the identification of factors which affect cognitive aspects or not. But given the complexity of personality, it could be hard to define the effects those factors exert each one by itself. Thus, the identification said factors commonly becomes hard to handle and usually turn into a considerable obstacle for research tasks.

Literature of the last century and up to date has stressed the importance of personality traits to understand individuals during the development of their life cycle. Consequently, some progresses have been made regarding this matter. In this sense, Schermer and Goffin (2018) took a sample of candidates for a certain job and calculated four general factors of personality (GFP) for them and computed those factors analyzing and using two different personality measures and extraction methods. At the end, two separate GFP were extracted. They found that generally, each personality GFP's score measure had only moderate correlations with each other. They also examined intelligence measures correlations and found that lower-order scales had slightly higher correlations with the intelligence measures than GFPs for both personality measures did.

Studies on academic performance have become increasingly frequent to the point of not only covering basic education, but also spreading over the field of higher education ( Ramírez, 2014 ). One reason that explains the growing interest in these studies has to do with student drop-out rates. In the Latin American context, coverage in educational services has increased significantly, but the permanence of students until graduation does not correspond to the admission records of higher education institutions. of education ( Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD, 2016 ). In fact, the difference is substantial. Consequently, there is a need to impact, at governmental and institutional level, the phenomena associated with academic performance, such as high drop-out rates and student impermanence.

Theoretical conceptualizations converge in defining academic performance as the level of knowledge demonstrated in a certain area or subject in relation to the student's age and academic level. Following Cupani et al. (2013) for the assessment of learning processes, educational systems use different methodologies allowing the evaluation of academic performance, usually through a quantitative estimate. In this sense, it can be added that, at best, if the aim is to conceptualize the academic performance from its evaluation, it is not only necessary to consider the individual performance of students, but also the way in which peers, the classroom or the educational context itself have an influence on it ( Navarro, 2003 , p.4).

Regardless the choice of the explanatory model, it is necessary to understand academic performance as a dynamic and procedural phenomenon, which integrates several variables as Erazo points it out by stating that it is not a phenomenon resulting exclusively from the conditions of students, tutors and/or their interaction. It is also the product of a tangled group of multicausal variables and conditions that predispose students and their achievement in terms of grades ( Erazo, 2012 . p.150). Therefore, it is of great importance to consider other types of variables, regardless of student grades, which apparently also affect academic performance and that would be worth mentioning.

Some previous research showed evidence of relations between personality, sex, and intelligence for the prediction of academic performance. Furnham and Monsen (2009) made a study in England with a sample of 250 students. Although they admitted results were quite different when elected participants were considered referring to academic performance, they also assured that intelligence, personality, and sex combined accounted for around a quarter of the variance in core participants.

Along these lines, a lot of research that has explored the way in which personality factors and academic performance are positively associated has emerged ( O‟Connor and Paunonen, 2007 ; Erazo, 2012 ; Zhang and Ziegler, 2018 ; Stajkovic et al., 2018 ). The intersection of personality and academic performance have been examined from a variety of perspectives, according to the different interests and research questions.

For more than two decades there has been a certain consensus in highlighting responsibility as the most appropriate feature when looking for associations with academic qualifications ( Blickle, 1996 ; Bravidor et al., 2018 ). Research also that significant correlations between the factor of openness to change and analyzed scores in the final grade average of students' sample ( Blickle, 1996 ; Farsides and Woodfield, 2002 ; Stajkovic et al., 2018 ; Sobowale et al., 2018 ; Von-Stumm, 2018 ). Multiple studies have shown that academic performance is strongly related to various measures of personality traits; many of the studies that have analyzed the relationships between personality traits and academic performance take as a conceptual reference 16PF questionnaire ( Schermer and Goffin, 2018 ).

Another example is the research carried out in Malaysia ( Ariff et al., 2020 ). Psychometric scores of 3167 students at a local university from 70 academic programs were used to correlate those scores with personality traits, vocational interests, and academic performance.

The above-mentioned considerations gave rise to statements such as those made by Simkin and Becerra (2013 , p.47), who suggest that “if responsibility implies the ability to plan and be systematic in pursuing a goal, extroverts tend to have high social effectiveness.” People with a greater tendency to kindness– despite finding some difficulty in promoting themselves– often find some social support by virtue of their tendency to cooperation. On the other hand, other studies showed how openness to change and anxiety could be negatively associated with self-esteem ( Matrángolo et al., 2015 ).

Sano et al. (2015) found a positive association between personality, academic performance, stress levels and sleep cycle, in a study among 66 undergraduate students for 30 days. In this work, the authors highlighted that the worst scores relate to neuroticism, which negatively influences stress levels, generates difficulties with sleep and academic performance.

Green et al. (1991) asked 140 students at a medical school to complete the 16PF questionnaire. They took a final sample of 129 useable forms and found neither evidence of relations between Cattell's personality scores and academic performance, nor between sex or even age and academic performance.

In general terms, most authors agree that not all personality factors contribute to effectively predicting student performance. However, the findings include a broader spectrum of them.

Regarding to variable sex, Steinmayr and Spinath (2008) took a sample of 342 participants (138 male and 204 female adolescents). Research aimed to study sex differences related to school achievement and some personality and motivational constructs. Results show no specific associations between sex, grades, and predictors, but authors suggest that personality and motivation are important to explain sex differences in school attainment anyway.

Due to the characteristics of the sample and the research problem, a correlational study was made.

“Correlational designs offer the opportunity to predict scores and explain the relationship between variables. In correlational research designs, researchers use statistical correlation tests to describe and measure the degree of association between two or more variables or sets of scores. In these designs, researchers do not attempt to control or manipulate the variables as in an experiment; instead, they relate, using statistical correlation, two or more scores for each individual” ( Creswell, 2003 , p. 325).

Likewise, these designs do not allow to determine the direction of causality, although they do have greater external validity ( Igartua Perosanz, 2014 ).

First, it is important to point out that this project was carried out with the approval of the University's Academic and Bioethics Committees, both entities attached to the Institutional Research Direction, so the study complies with all regulations. It is also important to notice that completing the 16PF questionnaire used to be one of this institution admissions' requests for students. It means that it is not mandatory for higher education institutions to applied this or any other personality questionnaire, and this university does not apply it anymore. Participants in this study completed a digital version. They all were informed about the questionnaire instructions and the confidential uses of their information. That was an informed consent they agreed to by clicking the start button on the screen. Names were substituted by codes, to keep track and cross data from academic records and 16PF results. Confidentiality was guaranteed and only main researchers got access to the data base and names were not exposed anywhere in anyway. Finally, the complete resulting data base is carefully guarded by only one of main researchers.

3.1. Participants

The sample's selection considered the whole population of new students of the institution (that were starting their first semester 1 in the first half of 2017) in each one of the 11 undergraduate programs. At first, 310 students were considered as the whole population. In the second phase of research (second semester of 2018), the sample was cut down to 211 students from 8 programs, being it the final sample (some students dropped out of the university or were left behind in previous semesters, and researchers could not access their records at the time the data was collected).

The first semester students of the Medicine, Nursing, Nutrition & Dietetics, Psychology, Dentistry, Phonoaudiology, Optometry and Social Work programs were selected for the sample, as shown in Table 1 .

Table 1

Academic programs vs. initial and final sample.

3.2. Instruments

16 pf personality questionnaire.

The Factorial Personality Questionnaire was originally created by Raymond Cattell at the University of Illinois in 1943 and theoretically based on the theory of personality traits of Allport and Odbert (1936) . This questionnaire assumes personality as composed of 16 factors or traits as follows: warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule-consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity, vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self-reliance, perfectionism, and tension. The five global dimensions or factors of the second order are: extraversion, anxiety, tough-mindedness, independence, and self-control; it also contains four scales to evaluate the honesty and verifiability of the data obtained.

16 PF questionnaire is a psychometric battery consisting of 185 closed questions. In turns, each question consists of three response options, among which the evaluated must choose one and only one. The administration takes 15–30 min –in this case, the automated version of the 16PF questionnaire (2015)–. Results are presented with bipolar factors, which implies that they move from one end to the other of the spectrum of each trait, i.e., the score is determined in the continuum of one of those two ends. The measurement indicators are high, medium, and low pole for each factor. The dimensions of the variable are obtained through “decatypes” from the Personality Inventory 16 PF.

3.3. Procedure

16 PF questionnaire was applied in the first stage of research to the participants in a proportion of 236 females and 74 males. The research was conducted at a Colombian higher education institution of professional programs, the choice being made because the institution uses the 16 PF questionnaire.

After settling the sample, a statistical analysis was made It allowed establishing personality profiles according to the groups of each program and a general profile with the predominant features of the global sample, which was statistically calculated.

In the second stage, the characterization of the personality of the students of first term of the first period of 2017 was carried out. A second instance involved statistical analysis of the academic performance of the students after two years of entering the university (studying 4 th semester of the corresponding program). The result was calculated using statistical means (medium, mode, etc.). A third analysis was carried out six months later, to establish the correlation between personality and academic performance with an Anova technique and Fisher's exact test.

Personality and sex were taken as independent variables and academic performance as dependent variable. Personality is considered a quantitative variable, via Personality Inventory 16 PF. Sex is considered a qualitative variable with two dimensions, categorized M for men and F for women.

For the quantitative academic performance variable, a measure was established according to the evaluation scale used by the university, i.e., one-five; being one the worst and five the highest. Students' grades, (depending on each curse's academic credits), do have a percentual weight for the calculation of the average at the end of each semester. A weighted average was also consolidated from the academic results of the first four semesters. Descriptive statistics were applied on this consolidated record, so the indicator for this variable is the weighted average of each student after completing four semesters of their academic training. The work began with the hypothesis that states that there is a positive relationship between personality traits and cognitive aspects of students that affects their academic performance. Statistical analysis was performed with Statgraphics Centurion XVI software.

Results have three sections that correspond to the designed phases; It consists of a statistical analysis of the personality traits of the final sample, an analysis segmented by programs and sex. The second part of the study shows results of the academic performance of each student, according to sex, program and the entire sample. The correlation was made through Anova, but Fisher's F test is added, in order to refine the results according to the sex variable.

A correlation of the students' average academic performance was made by comparing them with personality traits and comparing them with the mean, to determine if there were significant differences. At the beginning, the correlation was made with the overall sample, finding a statistically significant relationship between personality traits and academic performance regarding to perfectionism trait, with a P value of 0,0043. However, when the sample was separated by sex, only the group of male participants showed statistically significant correlation regarding to perfectionism trait, with a P value of 0,0064 and abstractedness trait with a P Value of 0,0464. Female participants group showed no correlation when it was analysed separately.

Figure 1 shows the degree of correlation between personality traits and the score of the group of male and female participants, corresponding to the abstractedness trait (see Figures  2 , ​ ,3, 3 , ​ ,4, 4 , ​ ,5 5 ).

Results of Fisher test application in the group of male participants – abstractedness trait. Source: Self made.

Results of Fisher test application in the group of male participants – perfectionism trait. Source: Self made.

LSD intervals and scores.

LSD intervals and sex.

Interaction graphic.

4.1. Generalized linear models

Number of categoric factors: 17

Sex, warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule-consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity, vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self-reliance, perfectionism and tension.

Number of quantitative factors: 0.

Once the factors that were not statistically significant (p value greater than 0.05) were removed, the multifactorial sum of squares type III ANOVA the results showed a P value of 0,0000.

Once the variables that are not statistically significant were removed, the following result was obtained: a model with a R-squared equal to 12,11628 %, which includes the variables sex with a P value of 0,0002, M.- abstractedness with a P value of 0,0184, and Q3.- perfectionism with a P value of 0,0017.

P-value of the analysis of variance yielded a value less than 0.05 indicating that the model is significant to explain the relationship between the statistically significant factors in the model: abstractedness , sex and perfectionism , and academic performance .

Given that the R squared value is less than 80%, it is understood that the above-mentioned variables, as statistically significant (Abstractedness, Sex and Perfectionism), do have an influence on academic performance, but there are other factors outside the scope of this research that would also have a significant impact on academic performance .

On one hand, the correlation found explains the incidence of perfectionism as a personality trait on the response to academic evaluation, because this trait compels participants to self-scrutiny and constant a severe self-evaluation. Therefore, those people are usually very judging towards their own academic performance.

On the other hand, abstractedness incidence on academic performance is also especially important, given its facilitating role in educative processes. This role derives from the fact that abstractedness is involved at every level of learning. Moreover, it is important to notice that perfectionism could be a desired trait for higher education students, but not indispensable, though a certain high degree of abstractedness skills is. Higher education, especially in professional areas, implies the learning of concepts to explain other concepts, usually related to non-physical objects. Thus, abstractedness is necessary to develop skills and knowledge in any given professional career.

In this sense, results illustrate that there is a higher tendency to abstractedness in male participants, which is remarkable, because there were more female participants in the sample. Bearing that on mind, the importance of the findings of this research drives to the construction of a mathematical model that does not only explain the correlation between those personality traits and sex variable among the sample, but also allows predictions on academic performance in a rate of 56,8 % (when those variables are considered altogether).

The effect of perfectionism and abstractedness coincides with that which bivariate analysis evidenced. Regarding sex, it is evident that female participants have on average a higher academic performance than male participants due. For this reason, the possibility of sex/abstractedness and sex/perfectionism interaction was probed to find out if it is by virtue of this interaction that sex is statistically significant, as evidenced by bivariate analysis.

Analysis of variance for mean had a P value of 0,0000. Interactions were statistically significant regarding Sex with a P value of 0,0090; M.- abstractedness with a P value of 0,0362; Q3.- perfectionism with a P value 0,0003, Sex∗M.- abstractedness with a P value of 0,2641; Sex∗Q3.- perfectionism with a P value of 0,0760.

Interactions were not statistically significant although the sex/perfectionism interaction presented a p-value close to 0,05 (0,0760) when interaction graph was analyzed.

It can be noted that there is not a big difference between male and female participants (classified as organized or average), but among flexible classified participants, women tend to have a much better academic performance than men.

5. Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to correlate the personality structure and academic performance of students of a higher education institution. It can be argued that understanding and predicting the incidence of personality traits in cognitive and behavioural processes could be of great help for possible educational interventions.

Although the model shows a positive correlation between variables, specifically with personality traits related to cognitive aspects, it is necessary to continue investigating and clarifying the specific relationships between personality traits and academic performance. It is also necessary to incorporate other research designs that allow the addition of other types of analysis and mediating and/or moderating variables for greater control of results.

As a starting point for the discussion, it is important to underline a marked tendency to approach cognitive functioning from a biological perspective ( Ziegler et al., 2015 ; Mahajan and Nadkarni, 2019 ; Zhang et al., 2019 ; Kudryashova, 2019 ; Dorgans et al., 2019 ). This raises the acceptance of some specific principles. For example, the potentiation of synaptic connections at the neuronal level that, in turn, carry implicit series of biochemical processes. These processes combine varied elements such as quantity of calcium, hippocampal activity, and sensory stimulation. All of this implies that brain activity and the construction of neuronal wiring or a central set of canonical neural calculations ( Hui and Dawei, 2018 ) is displayed according to the demands that people make of their cognitive functions, in interaction with a suitable learning environment. While all this is undeniable, it is also true that none of it by itself considers factors such as personality.

Nevertheless, this is not a new approach. According to Hassan (2017) there are several attempts to relate personality and academic aptitude and achievement, such as Noftle & Robins (2007) , Blechner and Carter (1956) , Osborne and Sanders (1949) , Shoemaker and Rothrer (1948) , Sopchak (1958) or Thompson (1947 , 1948a , 1948b , 1951) . However, a review of the literature showed that there is a variation on the results about which traits correlate (and which do not), even to the point of arriving to divergent conclusions.

The present research did not find any correlation between openness to change and academic performance, an issue that has been found as a positive correlation by other researchers as can be seen in the references of this paper. The reasons for these results may be related to multiple factors, such as the type of test used to measure, which vary from the 16 PF Inventory to the Big Five Traits, among others. Also, studied variables and control of foreign and mediating variables-as correlated in the work of Stajkovic et al. (2018) - do affect the diversity of results obtained in different investigations.

Results in this research demonstrate -related to the sample-the relationship between personality factors and academic performance, and that the model is useful to explain the correlation between statistically significant traits in it: abstractedness, perfectionism, sex, and academic performance among participants in the final sample. At this point it is important to underline that although the correlation was found in the whole sample, when divided by sex, only male participants showed that correlation. This is very striking since it was not possible to identify theoretical background in the literature review of this investigation or coincident results in previous investigations. This finding opens new questions about the incidence of the sex variable in the personality and academic performance relationship.

These results allow establishing correlations for the construction of theoretical models regarding the intersection of personality and academic performance among the sample, specifically regarding to personality traits associated to cognitive functioning such as abstractedness and perfectionism. With respect to the variable academic success, an index composed of average grades was used. It would be important for future research to control specific components of academic performance, in order to analyze its dimensions. Likewise, other analyzes could be included such as the correlation of ages, personality and academic performance.

In general terms, the work meets the objective of generating empirical evidence, which in turn allows to generate new knowledge about complex human cognitive and psychic processes and the results of the academic activity.

Academic performance of students in the first-year cohort of eight undergraduate programs is at the middle level, corresponding to a regular academic performance with an average of 3.48 on a scale of one-five; 13% achieved satisfactory academic performance after completing half of their career; The standard deviation of 0.62% with a low level of academic performance.

According to the results of the application of the Cattell 16 PF Personality questionnaire, most of the personality traits of the group studied are at a medium level. However, the predominance of traits is observed: social boldness (factor H.); abstractedness (factor M.); and openness to change (Factor Q1.). The prevalence of traits is particularly important for a deeper and more extensive statistical analysis while, according to the literature on the subject, these personality traits are good predisposes for good academic performance.

In the analysis with the Fisher test, two significant differences were found:(i) in the abstractedness factor (0.0464), which makes possible to clearly determine that those who had an abstractedness classification have a higher academic performance than those who were in the average; and (ii) in the perfectionism factor (0.0064), which implies that those who are classified as organized have higher scores than those who are classified as flexible, which had lower scores.

This finding is the most relevant finding of the work, because positive correlation results were found between the personality variable and academic performance in the sample corresponding to male participants. There are differences between grade averages in male participants' sample according to their abstractedness level. Those who have a high score tend to have better academic achievement. Those classified as organized or with average scores have a better grade averages than those classified as flexible.

This allows affirming that there is a positive correlation between dominant personality traits and sex. Sex differences in cognitive abilities found and their correlation with academic performance indicate the importance of taking these differences into account when planning pedagogical strategies, especially if it is intended to potentiate learning possibilities and performance levels.

Each sex has different tools to solve complex problems, which has already been documented by other researchers. Echavarri et al. (2007) suggest that men use spatial and abstract reasoning more, while women use verbal strategies more frequently. If these differences are considered, more accurate knowledge transfer/acquisition methods can be designed to address curricular content according to the potential of each sex. Beyond this, the assessment would have a direction from the perspective of the differential evaluation according to sex.

Likewise, the work reveals the importance of knowing the personality characteristics of university students, in such a way that this allows for a follow-up of each one, in order to promote what has been called integral training what brings many difficulties by the t time of implementing it in universities. Designing wellness programs that taking into account these individual and sex differences, becomes a support to implement pedagogical innovation from a more accurate perspective, which would make the difference between the mere transmission of knowledge –that can be done even in a virtual modality– and a training for the integral development of students.

Finally, it is necessary to point out among the limitations of this research, namely, the loss of 96 participants of the predetermined sample. This issue was due to the withdrawal of these persons from the institution, as a result of factors not only directly related to academic performance, but also to economic difficulties and, to a lesser extent, family situations.

Another limitation refers to the fact that from the outset of the project, the sample had a greater number of female participants (236 women and 74 men) regarding the whole starting population and 152 women and 59 men in the final sample). This did not allow finding concordant results in the first statistical analysis performed with Anova. In this same sense, the authors pointed, to control the age variable based on the relationship between it and the development of the personality. As an important aspect for the eventual continuity of the project. It is also important to be able to carry out an analysis of another population with the objective of being able to generalize results. Therefore, comparative analysis in other cities or countries would be highly relevant for the results of the present study.

Regarding the difference of results according to sex, it makes reasonable to infer the importance of conducting future research problematizing the sex and personality related differences in academic performance. A methodological strategy should be designed that facilitates establishing causal relationships among these variables.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Cirit Mateus, Rodrigo Campis: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Federico Ruiz: Performed the experiments.

Alexander Parody: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Ignacio Aguaded: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Universidad Metropolitana (Barranquilla, Colombia).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Judith García, psychologist of the Counselling Department at the Universidad Metropolitana (Barranquilla, Colombia) for the application and assessment of the 16 PF Questionnaire to all new students for admission purposes. This information was taken to build the raw database with which the researchers began this investigation.

In this same order of ideas, to Universidad Metropolitana. That Institution provided access to the sample, data and granted the application and assessment of the 16PF Questionnaire.

1 Universities in Colombia use to keep records of academic performance not by years, but by semesters (two per years).

• Allport G.W., Odbert H.S. Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychol. Monogr. 1936; 47 :211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ariff N.M., Bakar M.A.A., Zamzuri Z.H. Academic preference based on students’ personality analysis through k-means clustering. Malaysian J. Fundam. Appl. Sci. 2020; 16 (3):328–333. https://bit.ly/35VyhtB [ Google Scholar ]
• Belsare V.H., Munghate S.C., Agrawal S., Belsare H. To determine the effect of sleep on anxiety, depression and its correlation with academic performance in first MBBS students. J. Adv. Med. Med. Res. 2020:70–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blechner J.E., Carter H.D. Rorschach personality factor and college achievement. J. Educ. Res. 1956; 7 :72–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blickle G. Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. Eur. J. Pers. 1996; 10 :337–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boeker H., Northoff G. Three-dimensional neuropsychodynamic model of mental disorders and their defence mechanisms. In: En H., Boeker P., Hartwich y G., Northoff, editors. Neuropsychodynamic Psychiatry. Springer; 2018. pp. 65–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bortolon C., Macgregor A., Capdevielle D., Raffard S. Apathy in schizophrenia: a review of neuropsychological and neuroanatomical studies. Neuropsychologia. 2018; 118 (Part B.):22–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bravidor M., Loy T.R., Krüger J., Scharf C. 2018. German Business Students’ Career Aspirations in Accounting, Taxation & Finance and Their Relation to Personality Traits. VHB/IAAER Annual Accounting Conference 2018. Universität. https://bit.ly/2EnNDbC [ Google Scholar ]
• Cáceres-Landaburu S.F. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; 2017. Relación entre factores de personalidad y depresión con el rendimiento académico en estudiantes de una facultad en una universidad privada de Lima Metropolitana. (Tesis de maestría) https://bit.ly/38J1KpV [ Google Scholar ]
• Cattell R.B., P, Cattell H.E. Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16 PF. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1995; 55 (6):926–937. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cattell R.B., Sealy A.P., Sweney A.B. What can personality and motivation source trait measurements add to the prediction of school achievement? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1966; 36 (3):280–295. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chagas D., Freitas M.I. Universidad de León; 2017. Personalidad, inteligencia emocional y diferencias de género en el rendimiento académico de estudiantes de educación secundaria pública (12º año) de la provincia de Setúbal (Portugal) https://bit.ly/35qSyVd [ Google Scholar ]
• Coentre R., Góis C. Suicidal ideation in medical students: recent insights. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2018; 9 :873. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J.W. 2da ed. Sage Publications; 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuadra-Peralta A., Veloso-Besio C., Marambio-Guzmán K., Tapia-Henríquez C. Relación entre rasgos de personalidad y rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios. Interciencia. 2015; 40 (10):690–695. https://bit.ly/2PUq938 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cupani M., Garrido S., Tavella J. El Modelo de los Cinco Factores de Personalidad: contribución predictiva al rendimiento académico [en línea] Revista de Psicología. 2013; 9 (17) https://bit.ly/38GwMic [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorgans K., Demais V., Bailly Y., Poulain B., Isope P., Doussau F. Short-term plasticity at cerebellar granule cell to molecular layer interneuron synapses expands information processing. eLife. 2019; 8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Echavarri M., Godoy J.C., Olaz F. Gender differences in cognitive skills and academic performance in college students. Univ. Psychol. 2007; 6 (2):319–329. https://bit.ly/2PsFuJw [ Google Scholar ]
• Erazo O. El Rendimiento Académico, un fenómeno de múltiples relaciones y complejidades. Revista Vanguardia Psicológica, Clínica, Teoría y Práctica. 2012; 2 (2):144–173. https://bit.ly/35BwgQR [ Google Scholar ]
• Farsides T., Woodfield R. Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: the roles of personality, intelligence and application. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2002; 1225–1243 :150–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furnham A., Monsen J. Personality traits and intelligence predict academic school grades. Learn. Indiv Differ. 2009; 19 (1):28–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladius Jennifer H., Sowmiya K., Vidya D.C., Archana Lakshmi P.A., William R.F. A study of mobile phone usage on sleep disturbance, stress and academic performance among medical students in Tamil Nadu. Int. J. Commun.Med. Publ. Health. 2018; 5 (1):365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Green A., Peters T., Webster D. An assessment of academic performance and personality. Med. Educ. 1991; 25 (4):343–348. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassan H. 2017. Personality Traits and Academic Achievement Among College Students. https://bit.ly/2IYCJ1T [ Google Scholar ]
• Hui W., Dawei D. A plausible method for assembling a neural circuit for decision-making. Biol. Insp. Cogn. Arch. 2018; 25 :72–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husain M., Roiser J.P. Neuroscience of apathy and anhedonia: a transdiagnostic approach. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2018; 19 (8):470. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Igartua Perosanz J.J. La infancia construida: efectos prosociales y antisociales de los contenidos televisivos. Doxa Comunic. 2014; 6 :179–206. https://bit.ly/34qk8R9 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kudryashova I.V. Relationship between long-term potentiation and the initial properties of CA3–CA1 synapses: importance of the effects of external factors on hippocampal synaptic plasticity for studies. Neurosci. Behav. Physiol. 2019:1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahajan G., Nadkarni S. Intracellular calcium stores mediate metaplasticity at hippocampal dendritic spines. J. Physiol. 2019 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmoodi S.A., Moslemi Z., Ghomi M., Jafaripoor H., Tavan B., Moslemi A. Relationship between sleep quality with academic motivation and academic vitality in students of arak university of medical sciences. Educ. Dev. Judishapur. 2019; 10 (3):164–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matrángolo G., Paz G., Simkin H. Factores de la personalidad y su relación con la autoestima, la espiritualidad y la centralidad de los eventos traumáticos. {PSOCIAL} 2015; 1 (2):78–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mattos P., Nazar B.P., Tannock R. By the book: ADHD prevalence in medical students varies with analogous methods of addressing DSM items. Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 2018; 40 (4):382–387. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Navarro E. El rendimiento académico: concepto, investigación y desarrollo. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación. 2003; 1 (2) https://bit.ly/2YR2LI0 [ Google Scholar ]
• Noftle E.E., Robins R.W. Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2007; 93 (1):116–130. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O‟Connor M.C., Paunonen S.V. Big Five personality predictors of postsecondary academic performance. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2007; 43 :971–990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD . 2016. Reviews of National Policies for Education in Colombia. https://bit.ly/2EohrFa [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne R.T., Sanders W.B. Multiple-choice rorschach responses of college achievers and non-achievers. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1949; 9 (4):685–692. https://bit.ly/396uknT [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramírez C. Factores asociados al desempeño académico según nivel de formación pregrado y género de los estudiantes de educación superior Colombia. Revista Colombiana De Educación. 2014; 66 :201–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sano A., Phillips A.J., Amy Z.Y., McHill A.W., Taylor S., Jaques N., Picard R.W. 2015 IEEE 12th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (BSN). Cambridge. 2015. Recognizing academic performance, sleep quality, stress level, and mental health using personality traits, wearable sensors and mobile phones. https://bit.ly/36Eznr5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schermer J.A., Goffin R.D. A tale of two general factors of personality in relation to intelligence and validity measures. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2018; 124 :111–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedgwick J.A. University students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a literature review. Ir. J. Psychol. Med. 2018; 35 (3):221–235. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shoemaker H.A., Rohner J.H. Relationship between success the study of medicine and certain psychological and personal data. J.Ass Amer. Med. 1948; 23 :1–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simkin H., Becerra G. El proceso de socialización. Apuntes para su exploración en el campo psicosocial. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología. 2013; XXIV (47):119–142. https://bit.ly/2Ej3Ejd [ Google Scholar ]
• Sobowale K., Ham S.A., Curlin F.A., Yoon J.D. Personality traits are associated with academic achievement in medical school: a nationally representative study. Acad. Psychiatr. 2018; 42 (3):338–345. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sopchak A.L. Prediction of college performance by commonly used tests. J. Clin. Psychol. 1958; 14 (2):194–197. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stajkovic A.D., Bandura A., Locke E.A., Lee D., Sergent K. Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: a meta-analytic path-analysis. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2018; 120 :238–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Song B.K. E-portfolio implementation: examining learners’ perception of usefulness, self-directed learning process and value of learning. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021:68–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinmayr R., Spinath B. Sex differences in school achievement: what are the roles of personality and achievement motivation? Eur. J. Pers.: Publ. Eur. Assoc. Pers. Psychol. 2008; 22 (3):185–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Grace M. Non-intellective factors and grades: the group Rorschach. Am. Psychol. 1947; 2 :415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Grace M. Non-intellective personality factors related to academic achievement in college. Doctor's thesis; University of California cited by Jonet E. Blechner and Harold D. Carter, Rorschach personality factor and college achievement. Calif. J. Educ. Res. 1948; 7 :72–75. 1956. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Grace M. College grades and the group Rorschach. J. Appl. Psychol. 1948; 32 :398–407. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Grace M. College grades and the group Rorschach: a follow-up study. J. Genet. Psychol. 1951; 78 :39–46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Stumm S. Better open than intellectual: the benefits of investment personality traits for learning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2018; 44 (4):562–573. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang H., Su J., Bradley K. Applying the rasch model to evaluate the self-directed online learning scale (SDOLS) for graduate students. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distr. Learn. 2020; 21 (3):99–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J., Ziegler M. Why do personality traits predict scholastic performance? A three-wave longitudinal study. J. Res. Pers. 2018; 74 :182–193. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang W., Chuang Y.A., Na Y., Ye Z., Yang L., Lin R., Leahy D.J. Arc oligomerization is regulated by CaMKII phosphorylation of the GAG domain: an essential mechanism for plasticity and memory formation. Mol. Cell. 2019 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler L., Zenke F., Kastner D.B., Gerstner W. Synaptic consolidation: from synapses to behavioral modeling. J. Neurosci. 2015; 35 (3):1319–1334. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]