Personality Theories in Psychology

Key Takeaways

• Multiple Theory Perspectives: Personality psychology encompasses diverse approaches including psychodynamic, trait, humanistic, social-cognitive, and biological theories, each offering unique insights into human behavior.
• The Big Five model: Research consistently supports five major personality dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.
• Nature and Nurture: Modern personality research shows that both genetic factors and environmental influences shape personality development.
• Practical Applications: Personality theories inform clinical treatment, workplace team-building, educational strategies, relationship counseling, and personal growth interventions across diverse contexts.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Introduction to Personality Theories

Definition of Personality and Why It Matters

Personality refers to the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that make a person unique, along with the psychological mechanisms behind those patterns. It encompasses the enduring qualities that emerge in people’s actions across time and different situations (Funder, 2019).

Understanding personality matters significantly for several reasons:

• Self-awareness enables better decision-making about careers, relationships, and lifestyle choices
• Interpersonal relationships benefit from recognizing how different personality styles interact
• Professional development is enhanced when individuals leverage personality strengths and manage potential weaknesses
• Mental health interventions can be tailored to individual personality structures

The concept has practical applications across diverse contexts—from clinical assessment to workplace team-building. As Costa and McCrae (2017) note, personality traits predict important life outcomes including educational achievement, occupational success, health behaviors, and longevity.

Brief History of Personality Studies in Psychology

The study of personality has roots stretching back thousands of years, evolving from philosophical inquiry to empirical science:

• Early philosophical foundations
  • Ancient Greek physicians like Hippocrates proposed the four humors theory (sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic)
  • Medieval and Renaissance thinkers expanded these typologies, connecting bodily fluids to temperament
  • Philosophers including Kant and Hume debated human nature’s consistency versus malleability
• Development as a scientific discipline
  • William James and Wilhelm Wundt established early psychological approaches to studying individual differences in the late 19th century
  • Gordon Allport formalized personality psychology as a discipline in the 1930s (Allport, 1937)
  • Modern personality psychology emerged through the mid-20th century with increasingly sophisticated research methods and statistical techniques

This evolution from philosophical speculation to rigorous science has produced diverse theoretical perspectives, each offering unique insights into human nature.

The Role of Personality Theories in Understanding Human Behavior

Personality theories provide frameworks for understanding why people behave as they do, offering explanations for both consistency and variability in human conduct:

• Explaining individual differences by identifying core psychological structures and processes
• Predicting behavior across situations and over time
• Organizing observations into coherent conceptual systems
• Guiding research by generating testable hypotheses

Different theories emphasize various aspects of human functioning—from unconscious drives (psychoanalytic) to learned behavior patterns (behavioral) to inherent traits (dispositional). As McAdams and Pals (2006) argue, comprehensive understanding requires multiple levels of analysis, from broad dispositional traits to situational adaptations to personal narratives.

How This Guide Helps Navigate Different Theoretical Approaches

This comprehensive guide provides a roadmap through the complex landscape of personality theories by:

• Clarifying the core assumptions of each major theoretical tradition
• Highlighting strengths and limitations of different approaches
• Connecting theories to practical applications in clinical, organizational, and educational settings
• Examining empirical support for key theoretical claims
• Showing how different perspectives complement each other to provide a more complete understanding

By understanding these diverse frameworks, readers can develop a more nuanced view of personality and apply these insights to personal development, professional practice, or academic study.

Major Personality Theories

A. Psychoanalytic Theory (Sigmund Freud)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) developed the first comprehensive theory of personality, establishing the foundation for modern personality psychology. His psychoanalytic theory proposed that human behavior is driven by unconscious forces, particularly sexual and aggressive impulses, and that personality development unfolds through a series of psychosexual stages.

Key Concepts: Id, Ego, Superego

Freud conceptualized the mind as having three distinct but interacting components:

• The Id operates according to the pleasure principle, seeking immediate gratification of basic biological drives and impulses without regard for reality or social norms
• The Ego functions according to the reality principle, mediating between the id’s demands and external constraints by developing rational thinking and perception
• The Superego incorporates societal values and moral standards, consisting of the conscience (punishing unacceptable thoughts with guilt) and the ego-ideal (rewarding approved behaviors with pride)

This structural model explains psychological conflict as tension between these three components. As Freud (1923/1961) explained in “The Ego and the Id,” personality functioning depends on maintaining a balance between primitive drives, rational self-interest, and moral restraint.

Freud also distinguished between three levels of awareness:

• Conscious mind: Thoughts and perceptions we’re currently aware of
• Preconscious mind: Material that can be readily brought into consciousness
• Unconscious mind: Repressed thoughts, feelings, and memories that influence behavior but remain inaccessible to awareness

According to Freud, the unconscious mind contains the most powerful influences on personality and behavior, yet remains largely hidden from our conscious understanding.

Psychosexual Stages of Development

Freud proposed that personality forms through a series of psychosexual stages, each focused on a particular erogenous zone:

• Oral stage (0-18 months): Pleasure centers on the mouth; activities include sucking, biting, and chewing
• Anal stage (18-36 months): Focus shifts to bowel control; toilet training becomes a significant developmental task
• Phallic stage (3-6 years): Genital awareness emerges; the Oedipus/Electra complex develops as children form attachments to the opposite-sex parent
• Latency stage (6 years-puberty): Sexual impulses are repressed as children develop social and intellectual skills
• Genital stage (puberty onward): Mature sexuality develops with a focus on relationships with others

Freud argued that fixation at any stage due to excessive gratification or frustration produces enduring personality traits. For example, oral fixation might lead to dependency, pessimism, or sarcasm, while anal fixation could result in orderliness, stubbornness, or miserliness (Gay, 1988).

Defense Mechanisms

Freud and his daughter Anna Freud (1936/1966) identified various defense mechanisms that protect the ego from anxiety when dealing with unacceptable impulses:

• Repression: Pushing threatening thoughts into the unconscious
• Projection: Attributing one’s unacceptable feelings to others
• Denial: Refusing to acknowledge painful realities
• Displacement: Redirecting emotions toward a safer target
• Rationalization: Creating acceptable but false explanations for behavior
• Sublimation: Transforming unacceptable impulses into socially valuable achievements

These mechanisms operate unconsciously to maintain psychological stability but can become problematic when used excessively or inappropriately. Cramer (2015) notes that certain defense mechanisms are more prevalent at different developmental stages and that their adaptive or maladaptive nature depends on context and frequency of use.

Modern Relevance and Criticisms

While psychoanalytic theory has significantly influenced psychology, psychiatry, and popular culture, it faces substantial criticisms:

• Scientific validity concerns: Many Freudian concepts are difficult to test empirically, leading to questions about falsifiability
• Limited empirical support: Research has not consistently validated psychosexual stages or the causal role of unconscious conflicts
• Gender and cultural bias: Critics argue that Freud’s theory reflects the patriarchal values of his era and lacks cross-cultural applicability

Despite these criticisms, modern psychodynamic approaches have evolved from Freudian foundations, retaining concepts like unconscious processes and defense mechanisms while abandoning more controversial elements. Contemporary applications include:

• Brief psychodynamic therapy focusing on core relational patterns
• Attachment theory exploring how early relationships shape personality
• Neuropsychoanalysis integrating psychoanalytic concepts with neuroscience

As Westen (1998) observes, empirical research has provided support for many psychodynamic processes even as specific Freudian formulations have been revised or rejected.

B. Neo-Freudian Theories

Several of Freud’s colleagues and students developed alternative psychodynamic theories that retained the importance of unconscious processes while rejecting elements of Freud’s sexual theory. These theorists generally placed greater emphasis on social and cultural factors in personality development.

Carl Jung – Collective Unconscious & Archetypes

Carl Jung (1875-1961) expanded Freud’s concept of the unconscious to include both:

• Personal unconscious: Similar to Freud’s unconscious, containing repressed or forgotten experiences
• Collective unconscious: A deeper level of unconscious containing archetypes—universal symbolic patterns shared by all humans across cultures and time

Jung identified numerous archetypes, including:

• The persona: The “mask” we present to others in social situations
• The shadow: Containing repressed, often darker aspects of personality
• The anima/animus: The feminine aspect in men (anima) and masculine aspect in women (animus)
• The self: Representing wholeness and integration of personality

Jung’s theory emphasizes individuation—the process of integrating unconscious contents into consciousness to achieve psychological wholeness. This journey toward self-realization involves confronting and integrating shadow elements and achieving balance between opposing aspects of personality (Jung, 1933/1964).

Jung also developed a typology of personality that became the foundation for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), distinguishing between:

• Extraversion vs. Introversion: Whether psychic energy flows outward toward people and objects or inward toward subjective experience
• Sensing vs. Intuition: Preference for focusing on concrete sensory information or abstract patterns and possibilities
• Thinking vs. Feeling: Making decisions based on logical analysis or value-based considerations
• Judging vs. Perceiving: (Added later by Myers and Briggs) Preference for structure and closure or flexibility and openness

Alfred Adler – Individual Psychology & Inferiority Complex

Alfred Adler (1870-1937) rejected Freud’s emphasis on sexual drives, focusing instead on social interests and the striving for superiority or competence. Key elements of his Individual Psychology include:

• Inferiority feelings as the universal motivator of human behavior, stemming from the helplessness of childhood
• Compensation as the process of overcoming real or perceived deficiencies through development of strengths
• Striving for superiority (not domination but self-improvement) as the fundamental human motivation
• Social interest (Gemeinschaftsgefühl) as the measure of psychological health—the capacity to cooperate with others for social good

Adler (1927/1992) also emphasized the importance of birth order in personality development:

• Firstborns often develop leadership qualities but may struggle with dethronement when siblings arrive
• Middle children typically develop strong negotiation skills and competitiveness
• Youngest children may be more creative and independent but risk becoming spoiled
• Only children might develop self-sufficiency but struggle with sharing and cooperation

His focus on social factors and goal-directed behavior anticipated many later developments in cognitive and humanistic psychology.

Karen Horney – Social & Cultural Influences on Personality

Karen Horney (1885-1952) challenged Freud’s biological determinism and emphasized the impact of cultural factors on personality. She argued that basic anxiety—feelings of helplessness and isolation in a potentially hostile world—emerges from disturbed human relationships, particularly between parent and child.

Horney (1945) identified three neurotic coping strategies for managing basic anxiety:

• Moving toward people: Becoming compliant and seeking approval and affection (the “compliant type”)
• Moving against people: Becoming aggressive and seeking power and control (the “aggressive type”)
• Moving away from people: Becoming detached and seeking self-sufficiency and independence (the “detached type”)

Healthy individuals can flexibly employ all three strategies as appropriate to the situation, while neurotic individuals rigidly rely on just one approach.

Horney also made significant contributions to feminist psychology by challenging Freud’s view of women as deficient men, arguing instead that cultural factors rather than anatomy shape gender differences in personality.

Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Development Theory

Erik Erikson (1902-1994) extended psychoanalytic theory across the entire lifespan, emphasizing social and cultural influences. His psychosocial theory describes eight stages, each presenting a developmental crisis that must be resolved:

• Trust vs. Mistrust (infancy): Developing a sense that the world is safe and reliable
• Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (toddlerhood): Establishing a sense of independence and self-control
• Initiative vs. Guilt (preschool): Developing purpose and the ability to initiate activities
• Industry vs. Inferiority (school age): Developing competence and mastery
• Identity vs. Role Confusion (adolescence): Establishing a coherent sense of self
• Intimacy vs. Isolation (young adulthood): Forming deep, meaningful relationships
• Generativity vs. Stagnation (middle adulthood): Contributing to society and future generations
• Integrity vs. Despair (late adulthood): Finding meaning and acceptance in one’s life

Unlike Freud’s theory, Erikson’s (1963) model recognizes development throughout adulthood and emphasizes the positive potential at each stage. The successful resolution of each crisis leads to the development of specific virtues or strengths, while failure to resolve crises may lead to ongoing difficulties.

Erikson’s concept of identity formation has been particularly influential, describing how adolescents explore different roles and values before making commitments that define their adult identity. Marcia (1966) expanded this work by identifying four identity statuses: identity achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and identity diffusion.

C. Trait Theories

Trait theories focus on identifying and measuring stable characteristics that predict behavior across situations. Unlike psychodynamic approaches, trait theories are primarily descriptive rather than explanatory, seeking to map the major dimensions of personality.

Gordon Allport’s Trait Theory – Cardinal, Central, and Secondary Traits

Gordon Allport (1897-1967), often considered the founder of personality psychology, defined traits as “neuropsychic structures having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent forms of adaptive and expressive behavior” (Allport, 1937, p. 295).

Allport distinguished between three levels of traits:

• Cardinal traits: Dominant characteristics that shape nearly all aspects of behavior (rare)
• Central traits: Major characteristics that are highly visible in a person’s behavior
• Secondary traits: Characteristics that appear only in specific situations

Allport believed in the uniqueness of individual personality, advocating an idiographic approach (studying individuals intensively) to complement the nomothetic approach (studying traits across populations). He also developed the concept of functional autonomy, suggesting that motivations can become independent of their original purposes—activities initially pursued for external rewards may later be valued for their own sake.

Raymond Cattell’s 16 Personality Factors

Raymond Cattell (1905-1998) applied factor analysis to identify the fundamental dimensions of personality. Beginning with Allport’s list of 4,500 trait-descriptive terms, Cattell used statistical methods to reduce these to 16 primary factors (Cattell et al., 1970).

Cattell distinguished between:

• Surface traits: Clusters of observable behaviors that appear to go together
• Source traits: Underlying factors that cause the observed correlations among surface traits

The 16 primary factors identified by Cattell include warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule-consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity, vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self-reliance, perfectionism, and tension.

Cattell’s 16PF Questionnaire, measuring these factors, remains an important personality assessment tool, especially in organizational settings where its multidimensional approach provides detailed insights for selection and development.

Big Five Personality Traits (OCEAN Model)

The Five-Factor Model, or “Big Five,” represents the most widely accepted trait theory in contemporary personality psychology. Through decades of factor-analytic research, five broad dimensions have consistently emerged (Costa & McCrae, 1992):

• Openness to Experience: Curiosity, creativity, and appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, and unusual ideas
• Conscientiousness: Organization, dependability, self-discipline, achievement-striving, and deliberation
• Extraversion: Sociability, assertiveness, warmth, activity level, and positive emotionality
• Agreeableness: Compassion, cooperation, trust, modesty, and concern for others
• Neuroticism: Anxiety, irritability, depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability

These dimensions have demonstrated:

• Cross-cultural validity: The same five factors emerge across diverse languages and cultures
• Temporal stability: Relative consistency throughout adulthood, with gradual changes
• Heritability: Substantial genetic influence (approximately 40-60%)
• Predictive utility: Correlations with important life outcomes including health, occupational success, and relationship quality

Popular assessments based on the Big Five include the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Meta-analyses by Roberts et al. (2007) have shown that these traits predict a wide range of important life outcomes, from academic achievement to longevity.

Hans Eysenck’s Three-Factor Model (PEN: Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism)

Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) proposed a hierarchical model of personality featuring three major dimensions (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985):

• Extraversion-Introversion: Sociability, assertiveness, and excitement-seeking versus reserve and independence
• Neuroticism-Emotional Stability: Anxiety, moodiness, and emotional reactivity versus calmness and even-temperedness
• Psychoticism: Aggressiveness, antisocial tendencies, and creativity versus empathy and convention

Unlike other trait theorists, Eysenck developed a biological theory to explain these dimensions:

• Extraversion reflects differences in cortical arousal—introverts have higher baseline arousal levels, requiring less external stimulation for optimal functioning
• Neuroticism relates to activation thresholds in the limbic system and autonomic nervous system—neurotic individuals have lower thresholds for emotional arousal
• Psychoticism involves variations in testosterone and monoamine oxidase levels affecting impulsivity and sensation-seeking

The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) measures these dimensions and has been widely used in research linking personality to various outcomes, particularly in the areas of criminality, risk-taking behavior, and mental health vulnerabilities.

D. Humanistic Theories

Humanistic theories emerged in the mid-20th century as a “third force” in psychology, rejecting both psychoanalytic determinism and behaviorist reductionism in favor of an emphasis on human potential, subjective experience, and self-actualization.

Carl Rogers’ Self-Concept & Unconditional Positive Regard

Carl Rogers (1902-1987) developed person-centered theory, focusing on how individuals perceive themselves and their experiences. Central to his theory is the concept of the self-concept—the organized, consistent set of perceptions and beliefs about oneself.

Rogers (1951) distinguished between:

• Real self: Who we actually are
• Ideal self: Who we want to be

Psychological health depends on congruence between the real and ideal self, while incongruence leads to psychological distress.

Rogers identified several conditions necessary for healthy personality development:

• Unconditional positive regard: Being valued and accepted without conditions
• Empathic understanding: Having one’s subjective experience accurately perceived and communicated
• Genuineness: Experiencing authentic, non-defensive interaction with others

When these conditions are absent, people develop conditions of worth—beliefs that they are worthy only when meeting certain standards. These conditions lead to incongruence as individuals deny or distort experiences that threaten their self-concept.

The goal of person-centered therapy is to provide a growth-promoting climate characterized by the core conditions, enabling clients to move toward becoming fully functioning persons who are:

• Open to experience rather than defensive
• Living existentially in the present moment
• Trusting their organismic valuing process (inner wisdom)
• Experiencing freedom of choice
• Creative and adaptable

Rogers’ emphasis on subjective experience and the therapeutic relationship has influenced not only psychotherapy but education, conflict resolution, and organizational development.

Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs & Self-Actualization

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) focused on human motivation and potential, developing a hierarchy of needs that must be satisfied in sequence (Maslow, 1954):

• Physiological needs: Basic requirements for survival (food, water, shelter, sleep)
• Safety needs: Security, stability, and freedom from fear
• Love and belonging needs: Affiliation, connection, and intimacy
• Esteem needs: Achievement, recognition, and self-respect
• Self-actualization needs: Fulfilling one’s unique potential

Maslow later added self-transcendence at the top of the hierarchy, referring to spiritual experiences and service to others beyond self-interest.

While lower needs dominate motivation when unsatisfied, growth toward self-actualization becomes possible when basic needs are reasonably fulfilled. Through studying exceptional individuals (including Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, and Eleanor Roosevelt), Maslow identified characteristics of self-actualized people:

• Accurate perception of reality
• Acceptance of self and others
• Spontaneity and naturalness
• Problem-centering rather than self-centering
• Autonomy and independence
• Fresh appreciation and peak experiences
• Deep interpersonal relationships
• Democratic character structure
• Creativity
• Philosophical sense of humor

Critics note that Maslow’s research methods lacked scientific rigor and that the hierarchy may not apply universally across cultures. Nevertheless, his emphasis on positive aspects of human nature has been influential in both psychology and popular culture.

Existential Psychology

Existential psychology emphasizes the human search for meaning and authenticity in the face of existential givens—ultimate concerns including death, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness. Key contributors include:

• Rollo May (1909-1994), who explored anxiety as an inevitable aspect of freedom and emphasized the importance of courage in facing existential dilemmas
• Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), who developed logotherapy (meaning-centered therapy) based on his experiences in Nazi concentration camps

Frankl (1959/2006) proposed that the primary human motivation is the “will to meaning”—the drive to find purpose and significance in life. When this drive is frustrated, people experience an “existential vacuum” that can lead to depression, addiction, and aggression.

Existential approaches emphasize:

• Authenticity: Living in accordance with one’s true self rather than conforming to external expectations
• Responsibility: Accepting that we create ourselves through our choices
• Meaning-making: Actively constructing purpose through commitment to values, creative work, and attitude toward suffering

Despite limited empirical research compared to other theoretical approaches, existential psychology has influenced various therapeutic modalities and resonates with contemporary concerns about meaning and purpose in an increasingly materialistic society.

E. Social-Cognitive Theory

Social-cognitive theories integrate behavioral and cognitive approaches, emphasizing how people’s thoughts about themselves and their social environment influence behavior. These theories reject both psychodynamic determinism and trait stability in favor of a more dynamic, situational view of personality.

Albert Bandura’s Reciprocal Determinism & Self-Efficacy

Albert Bandura (b. 1925) developed social cognitive theory, proposing that personality emerges from continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors. This reciprocal determinism means that:

• People influence their environment through their behavior
• The environment influences people’s behavior
• People’s thoughts and feelings influence their behavior

Bandura (1986) emphasized several cognitive mechanisms that enable people to regulate their behavior:

• Observational learning: Acquiring new behaviors by watching others’ actions and consequences
• Self-regulation: Setting standards for behavior and evaluating performance against those standards
• Self-reflection: Analyzing experiences to gain understanding and modify thoughts and actions

Central to Bandura’s theory is the concept of self-efficacy—people’s beliefs about their capacity to perform behaviors needed to produce specific outcomes. Self-efficacy influences:

• Choice of activities: People select tasks where they expect success
• Effort and persistence: Higher self-efficacy leads to greater effort and perseverance
• Thought patterns: Low self-efficacy promotes anxiety and self-doubt
• Emotional reactions: Efficacy beliefs influence stress responses

Self-efficacy develops through four sources of information:

• Mastery experiences (successful performance)
• Vicarious experiences (observing others succeed)
• Verbal persuasion (encouragement from others)
• Physiological and affective states (interpreting bodily sensations)

Bandura’s research on self-efficacy has been applied extensively in education, health psychology, organizational behavior, and clinical interventions.

Walter Mischel’s Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS)

Walter Mischel (1930-2018) challenged trait theory with his observation that behavior often varies considerably across situations—the “personality paradox” of consistency and variability. His research led to the development of the Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) theory (Mischel & Shoda, 1995).

CAPS theory proposes that people’s behavior reflects characteristic patterns of situation-behavior relationships rather than global traits. It identifies several cognitive-affective units that interact with situations:

• Encodings: How people categorize and interpret situations
• Expectancies and beliefs: Predictions about outcomes and self-efficacy
• Affects: Emotions and feelings associated with stimuli
• Goals and values: Desired outcomes and principles
• Competencies and self-regulatory plans: Skills and strategies for behavior

These units form a network that leads to characteristic “if-then” behavioral signatures—distinctive patterns of behavior variation across situations that remain stable for individuals.

Mischel is perhaps best known for the “marshmallow test,” a study of delay of gratification in children. This research demonstrated that the ability to postpone immediate rewards for later, larger rewards in early childhood predicted numerous positive outcomes in adolescence and adulthood, including academic success, social competence, and psychological adjustment (Mischel et al., 1989).

CAPS theory reconciles trait and situational approaches by suggesting that personality consists of stable patterns of situation-behavior relationships rather than situation-independent traits.

F. Biological and Evolutionary Theories

Biological approaches to personality focus on genetic, neurophysiological, and evolutionary factors that influence individual differences in behavior, emotion, and cognition.

Hans Eysenck’s Biological Approach to Personality

As mentioned earlier, Eysenck pioneered the biological approach to personality by proposing specific neurophysiological mechanisms underlying his three personality dimensions:

• Extraversion-Introversion relates to differences in cortical arousal mediated by the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS). Introverts have higher baseline arousal levels and thus require less external stimulation for optimal functioning, while extraverts have lower arousal and seek additional stimulation.
• Neuroticism involves differences in limbic system reactivity, particularly the sympathetic nervous system’s “fight-or-flight” response. Individuals high in neuroticism have more reactive nervous systems that respond more intensely to stressors.
• Psychoticism was later linked to hormonal factors, particularly testosterone, and neurotransmitter systems involving serotonin and dopamine that influence impulsivity and sensation-seeking.

Eysenck’s approach established a framework for investigating the biological foundations of personality, leading to the development of psychophysiological research methods that continue to expand our understanding of personality-biology relationships.

The Role of Genetics & Heritability in Personality

Behavioral genetics research has demonstrated substantial genetic influence on personality traits. Multiple methodologies provide evidence for heritability:

• Twin studies comparing monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins show that identical twins are more similar in personality despite shared environmental influences
• Adoption studies reveal that adopted children often resemble their biological parents in personality more than their adoptive parents
• Family studies show patterns of personality similarity corresponding to genetic relatedness

Meta-analyses of twin studies typically estimate heritability coefficients of approximately 40-60% for major personality traits (Bouchard & McGue, 2003). This indicates that genetic factors account for about half the variance in personality traits, with the remainder attributed to environmental influences and measurement error.

Important findings from behavioral genetics research include:

• Non-shared environment (experiences unique to individuals) appears more influential than shared environment (family-wide experiences) on personality development
• Gene-environment interactions occur when genetic predispositions modify sensitivity to environmental influences
• Gene-environment correlations arise when genetic tendencies lead individuals to select or create environments that reinforce those tendencies

Modern molecular genetic research is beginning to identify specific genetic variants associated with personality traits, though individual genes typically have very small effects, suggesting complex polygenic influence.

Neurobiological Approaches

Advances in neuroscience have enabled researchers to investigate the brain structures and neurotransmitter systems associated with personality traits:

• Brain structures: Neuroimaging studies have linked extraversion to activation in reward-processing regions (nucleus accumbens, orbitofrontal cortex), while neuroticism correlates with reactivity in threat-detection systems (amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex)
• Neurotransmitters: Several neurotransmitter systems influence personality, including:
  • Dopamine (associated with reward sensitivity, novelty seeking, and extraversion)
  • Serotonin (linked to neuroticism, harm avoidance, and aggression regulation)
  • Norepinephrine (related to arousal, vigilance, and stress reactivity)
• Hormones: Testosterone has been associated with dominance and aggression, while cortisol relates to stress reactivity and neuroticism

DeYoung and Gray (2009) proposed the influential Cybernetic Big Five Theory, linking each of the Big Five traits to specific neurobiological systems:

• Extraversion: reward sensitivity (dopaminergic system)
• Neuroticism: threat sensitivity (serotonergic and noradrenergic systems)
• Agreeableness: affiliative systems (oxytocin and endorphins)
• Conscientiousness: constraint and goal pursuit (prefrontal cortical systems)
• Openness: cognitive flexibility and exploration (dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems)

Evolutionary Psychology Perspectives

Evolutionary psychology examines personality from the perspective of natural selection, asking how individual differences might have emerged and persisted because they conferred adaptive advantages in ancestral environments.

Buss (2009) suggests several possible evolutionary explanations for personality variation:

• Frequency-dependent selection: Some traits are adaptive when rare but disadvantageous when common (e.g., different mating strategies)
• Environmental heterogeneity: Different traits are adaptive in different environments (e.g., caution vs. risk-taking)
• Trade-offs: Traits beneficial in one domain may have costs in another (e.g., high extraversion may increase mating opportunities but also predation risk)
• Balancing selection: Heterozygote advantage may maintain genetic variation underlying personality differences

Evolutionary psychologists have investigated sex differences in personality traits, finding relatively consistent patterns across cultures:

• Men tend to score higher on assertiveness and sensation-seeking
• Women typically score higher on nurturing, warmth, and anxiety

These differences are hypothesized to reflect different adaptive challenges faced by males and females in ancestral environments, particularly related to mating strategies and parental investment (Schmitt et al., 2008).

Critics of evolutionary psychology argue that its explanations are often speculative and difficult to test rigorously. However, the field continues to generate testable hypotheses and has contributed to understanding personality in the broader context of human evolution.

Integrative and Contemporary Approaches

As personality psychology has matured, newer approaches have emerged that integrate multiple perspectives, recognizing that no single theory can fully capture the complexity of human personality. These integrative frameworks attempt to synthesize insights from traditional approaches while incorporating emerging research from positive psychology and cross-cultural studies.

Daniel McAdams’ Three Levels of Personality

Dan McAdams has developed one of the most comprehensive integrative frameworks for understanding personality across three distinct but interrelated levels (McAdams & Pals, 2006):

Level 1: Dispositional Traits

The first level consists of broad, decontextualized dispositional traits—the familiar dimensions of personality identified by trait theorists such as those in the Five-Factor Model. These traits:

• Provide a general sketch of personality using comparative dimensions
• Show considerable stability across adulthood
• Predict general behavioral trends across situations
• Offer limited insight into individual uniqueness or personal meaning

While dispositional traits provide an essential foundation for understanding personality, McAdams argues they represent just the beginning of a complete personality assessment.

Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations

The second level encompasses motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental constructs that are contextualized in time, place, and social role. These include:

• Personal strivings and life goals: What people want to accomplish or avoid
• Values and beliefs: What matters most to people and how they make sense of the world
• Defense mechanisms and coping strategies: How people manage challenges and threats
• Developmental concerns: Issues related to different life stages
• Relational patterns: Typical ways of interacting with others in various contexts

Unlike dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations are more influenced by culture, context, and life experience. They explain how the same dispositional traits might manifest differently based on a person’s specific circumstances and developmental stage.

Level 3: Narrative Identity

The third level consists of the integrative life story—an internalized and evolving narrative of self that provides meaning, purpose, and identity. According to McAdams (2001), in modern societies adults construct narrative identities that:

• Integrate disparate elements of the self into a coherent whole
• Explain stability and change in the self over time
• Provide life with a sense of unity and purpose
• Connect individual experience to cultural master narratives

This narrative level of personality addresses the uniqueness of individual lives, capturing aspects of personality that traits and adaptations alone cannot explain. Research has demonstrated that features of life narratives—such as themes of agency, communion, redemption, and contamination—predict well-being and psychosocial adaptation independent of traits (Adler et al., 2016).

McAdams’ framework efficiently bridges multiple theoretical traditions:

• Level 1 aligns with trait approaches
• Level 2 incorporates social-cognitive and developmental perspectives
• Level 3 connects to humanistic and existential concerns with meaning and purpose

By organizing these different aspects of personality into complementary levels, McAdams offers a way to appreciate the contributions of different theoretical traditions without requiring that one approach be chosen over others.

Positive Psychology and Character Strengths

Positive psychology, pioneered by Martin Seligman and colleagues, shifted focus from psychopathology to positive human functioning, introducing new frameworks for understanding personality in terms of strengths, virtues, and well-being rather than just traits or disorders.

Martin Seligman’s PERMA Model

Seligman (2011) proposed the PERMA model of flourishing, suggesting that well-being consists of five measurable elements:

• Positive emotions: Experiencing joy, contentment, and positive feelings
• Engagement: Being completely absorbed in activities (flow states)
• Relationships: Building positive connections with others
• Meaning: Belonging to and serving something beyond oneself
• Accomplishment: Pursuing mastery and achievement for their own sake

While not a personality theory per se, the PERMA model offers a framework for understanding individual differences in the pursuit and experience of well-being. Each component can be assessed, developed, and influenced by both dispositional tendencies and deliberate practices.

Research suggests that these elements are somewhat independent—individuals may flourish in some domains but not others—and that a comprehensive approach to well-being requires attention to all five components (Butler & Kern, 2016).

VIA Classification of Character Strengths

A major contribution of positive psychology to personality theory is the Values in Action (VIA) Classification of Character Strengths, developed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). This framework identifies 24 character strengths organized under six broad virtues:

• Wisdom and Knowledge: Creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning, perspective
• Courage: Bravery, perseverance, honesty, zest
• Humanity: Love, kindness, social intelligence
• Justice: Teamwork, fairness, leadership
• Temperance: Forgiveness, humility, prudence, self-regulation
• Transcendence: Appreciation of beauty, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality

Unlike traditional trait theories focused on describing typical behavior, the VIA Classification emphasizes morally valued aspects of personality that contribute to individual and collective flourishing. Key findings from this research program include:

• Character strengths are widely recognized across cultures, though their expression may vary
• Most individuals have 4-5 “signature strengths” that they express most naturally
• Using signature strengths in new ways consistently increases well-being and decreases depression
• Different profiles of character strengths predict various positive outcomes, from leadership effectiveness to satisfaction in relationships

Applications in Well-being and Personal Development

Positive psychology approaches to personality have generated numerous evidence-based applications:

• Strength-based interventions focus on identifying and leveraging character strengths rather than remediating weaknesses
• Positive psychotherapy targets well-being directly by building positive emotions, engagement, and meaning
• Resilience training develops specific character strengths associated with overcoming adversity
• Institutional applications in education, healthcare, and organizations create environments that foster character development and well-being

Meta-analyses confirm that positive psychology interventions produce significant improvements in well-being and reductions in depressive symptoms (Bolier et al., 2013). These applications demonstrate how personality theory can inform practical approaches to enhancing human flourishing beyond merely describing or explaining behavior.

Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Personality

Cross-cultural research has both challenged and enriched personality psychology by examining how culture shapes the development, expression, and understanding of personality.

Cultural Influences on Personality Development

Culture influences personality development through multiple mechanisms:

• Socialization practices directly shape personality through parenting and educational approaches
• Cultural values establish which traits and behaviors are encouraged or discouraged
• Identity formation processes vary based on cultural concepts of selfhood
• Life pathways and opportunities differ across cultures, affecting how traits are expressed and developed

Markus and Kitayama (1991) distinguished between independent and interdependent self-construals, which fundamentally shape personality:

• Independent self-construal (more common in Western cultures) emphasizes uniqueness, self-expression, and personal achievement
• Interdependent self-construal (more common in East Asian cultures) emphasizes social harmony, fulfilling obligations, and group belonging

These different conceptions of selfhood influence how personality is expressed and experienced. For example, Chentsova-Dutton and Tsai (2010) found that the relationship between extraversion and positive emotional expression depends on cultural context—extraversion predicts emotional expressivity more strongly in cultures that value independence.

Universal vs. Culture-Specific Traits

A central question in cross-cultural personality research concerns the universality of personality structures versus culture-specific aspects:

• Evidence for universality: The Big Five structure has been replicated across numerous cultures and languages, suggesting some universality in personality organization (McCrae & Costa, 1997)
• Evidence for cultural specificity:
  • Lexical studies reveal personality dimensions beyond the Big Five in some cultures
  • The relative importance of traits varies across cultures
  • Trait correlations with outcomes differ by cultural context

Cheung et al. (2001) identified a personality dimension called “interpersonal relatedness” (including harmony, face, relationship orientation) in Chinese populations that is not fully captured by Western personality models, demonstrating the importance of indigenous approaches.

Recent research by Saucier et al. (2014) suggests a cross-culturally replicable six-factor structure that includes the traditional Big Five plus Honesty-Humility, resembling the HEXACO model. This suggests that while basic personality structures may be universal, the optimal number and nature of dimensions may require refinement based on cross-cultural evidence.

Indigenous Personality Concepts

Indigenous approaches to personality focus on concepts derived from within specific cultural traditions rather than imposing external frameworks. Notable examples include:

• Chinese personality concepts like ren (benevolence), yi (righteousness), and li (propriety) from Confucian traditions
• South African ubuntu philosophy emphasizing personhood through relationships with others
• Filipino kapwa concept highlighting shared identity between self and others
• Japanese amae describing dependence on another’s benevolence

These indigenous concepts often emphasize aspects of personality that receive less attention in Western models, particularly relational dimensions and moral virtues. For example, Kim et al. (2006) developed the Indigenous Personality Inventory for Filipinos, which includes dimensions such as “social acceptance” and “pagkamadaldal” (talkativeness) that reflect culturally specific personality features.

Church (2010) argues for an integrative approach that recognizes both universal aspects of personality and culture-specific manifestations. This “cultural-psychology approach” to personality acknowledges biological bases of traits while emphasizing how cultural context shapes trait development, expression, and significance.

Cross-cultural perspectives remind us that personality theory must avoid ethnocentrism by:

• Incorporating diverse cultural viewpoints in theory development
• Examining how culture moderates personality processes
• Recognizing indigenous concepts that capture culturally valued aspects of personality
• Developing assessment tools validated across cultural contexts

As psychology becomes increasingly global, these cross-cultural considerations will continue to enrich our understanding of both the universal and culturally specific aspects of human personality.

Popular Personality Assessment Tools

Personality assessment instruments translate theoretical concepts into practical tools for measuring individual differences. These assessments serve diverse purposes across clinical, occupational, and research settings. Understanding the different types of personality assessments, their theoretical foundations, and their psychometric properties is essential for their appropriate use and interpretation.

Clinical and Research Assessments

Clinical personality assessments are primarily designed to aid in diagnosis and treatment planning, while research assessments help advance our understanding of personality structure and development. These instruments typically undergo rigorous development and validation procedures to ensure they meet high scientific standards.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely used and researched clinical personality assessment instrument. Originally developed in the 1940s, the current version (MMPI-2-RF) contains 338 true-false items organized into various scales (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008).

The MMPI was developed using an empirical criterion keying approach, comparing responses of different clinical groups to identify items that differentiated them from non-clinical populations. Key features include:

• Validity scales that detect inconsistent responding, defensiveness, malingering, and other response biases
• Clinical scales measuring various aspects of psychopathology (depression, anxiety, antisocial tendencies, etc.)
• Content scales assessing specific problem areas (health concerns, anger, family problems)
• PSY-5 scales measuring major personality dimensions (aggressiveness, psychoticism, disconstraint, negative emotionality, introversion)

The MMPI is particularly valuable because:

• It can identify patterns of symptoms and psychological functioning that may not be evident in clinical interviews
• Its extensive research base allows for comparison of individuals’ profiles with various clinical and non-clinical reference groups
• The validity scales help clinicians interpret results with appropriate caution when response biases are detected

The MMPI requires specialized training to administer and interpret, and is primarily used in clinical, forensic, and healthcare settings where assessment of psychopathology is required.

California Psychological Inventory (CPI)

The California Psychological Inventory (CPI), developed by Harrison Gough, measures normal personality characteristics rather than psychopathology. The current version contains 434 true-false items organized into 20 folk scales and 13 vector scales (Gough & Bradley, 1996).

Unlike the MMPI, the CPI focuses on everyday interpersonal behaviors and dispositions relevant to social living. Its scales measure traits such as:

• Dominance, capacity for status, and sociability
• Responsibility, socialization, and self-control
• Achievement via conformance or independence
• Intellectual efficiency and psychological-mindedness

The CPI is particularly useful for:

• Understanding how individuals interact with others in everyday settings
• Predicting success in various occupational fields
• Assessing leadership potential and interpersonal effectiveness

The CPI shares some items with the MMPI but interprets them differently to focus on normal-range personality characteristics rather than clinical syndromes. It has been extensively validated across various cultures and occupational groups.

Validity and Reliability Considerations

Scientific assessment of personality requires instruments with demonstrated psychometric properties, particularly reliability and validity:

• Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement, including:
  • Test-retest reliability: stability of scores over time
  • Internal consistency: how well items measuring the same construct correlate with each other
  • Inter-rater reliability: agreement between different scorers or administrators
• Validity concerns whether a test measures what it claims to measure, including:
  • Content validity: adequate representation of the domain being measured
  • Construct validity: relationship to other measures of the same or related constructs
  • Criterion-related validity: ability to predict relevant outcomes
  • Discriminant validity: differentiation from unrelated constructs

Comprehensive assessment instruments like the MMPI-2-RF and CPI have demonstrated strong reliability coefficients (typically 0.70-0.90) and extensive validity evidence accumulated over decades of research (Meyer et al., 2001). This extensive validation differentiates clinical and research instruments from many popular assessments lacking such empirical support.

Other important considerations in personality assessment include:

• Cultural fairness: Whether items function similarly across different cultural groups
• Response bias: How susceptible the instrument is to social desirability, acquiescence, or other response styles
• Normative samples: Whether appropriate comparison groups are available
• Theoretical grounding: How well the instrument relates to established personality theories

McCrae and Costa (2010) emphasize that robust personality assessment requires multiple methods, including self-reports, observer ratings, and behavioral measures, to overcome the limitations inherent in any single approach.

Career and Organizational Assessments

Personality assessments are widely used in organizational settings for selection, development, team building, and career guidance. These instruments typically focus on work-relevant traits and behavioral tendencies rather than psychopathology.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs, is based on Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types. The MBTI categorizes individuals along four dichotomies (Myers et al., 1998):

• Extraversion (E) – Introversion (I): Where individuals focus their attention and derive energy
• Sensing (S) – Intuition (N): How individuals gather information
• Thinking (T) – Feeling (F): How individuals make decisions
• Judging (J) – Perceiving (P): How individuals orient themselves to the external world

These preferences combine to form 16 distinct personality types, each described by a four-letter code (e.g., ENFJ, ISTP).

The MBTI is one of the most widely used personality assessments in organizational settings, particularly for:

• Team building and improving communication
• Leadership development
• Career counseling and vocational guidance
• Conflict resolution and understanding different work styles

Despite its popularity, the MBTI has been criticized by many academic researchers for:

• Limited evidence of the dichotomous nature of the preferences (most people score near the middle)
• Modest test-retest reliability (people often get different results when retaking the test)
• Limited predictive validity for job performance and other important outcomes

Proponents counter that the MBTI is intended for development rather than selection and that its value lies in creating a positive, non-judgmental language for discussing individual differences (Bayne, 2005).

DiSC Assessment

The DiSC model, based on William Marston’s emotions theory, measures four behavioral tendencies (Sugerman et al., 2011):

• Dominance (D): Direct, results-oriented, strong-willed, forceful
• Influence (i): Outgoing, enthusiastic, optimistic, high-spirited
• Steadiness (S): Even-tempered, accommodating, patient
• Conscientiousness (C): Analytical, reserved, precise, systematic

Unlike the MBTI, which focuses on psychological preferences, DiSC centers on observable behavior patterns in different situations, particularly workplace environments. The assessment measures the relative intensity of each tendency rather than placing individuals into distinct types.

DiSC is frequently used for:

• Improving workplace communication and reducing conflict
• Sales training and customer service enhancement
• Management and leadership development
• Team building and understanding work styles

Research on DiSC suggests moderate to good internal reliability but less published peer-reviewed evidence regarding its validity compared to instruments like the Big Five measures (Inscape Publishing, 2008).

Strengths-Based Assessments (CliftonStrengths)

The CliftonStrengths assessment (formerly StrengthsFinder), developed by Donald Clifton and Gallup, identifies an individual’s top talent themes from 34 possibilities grouped into four domains (Rath, 2007):

• Executing: Achiever, Arranger, Belief, Consistency, Deliberative, Discipline, Focus, Responsibility, Restorative
• Influencing: Activator, Command, Communication, Competition, Maximizer, Self-Assurance, Significance, Woo
• Relationship Building: Adaptability, Developer, Connectedness, Empathy, Harmony, Includer, Individualization, Positivity, Relator
• Strategic Thinking: Analytical, Context, Futuristic, Ideation, Input, Intellection, Learner, Strategic

The strengths-based approach represents a departure from traditional personality assessment by:

• Focusing on talents that can be developed into strengths rather than fixed traits
• Emphasizing what individuals naturally do well rather than areas for improvement
• Providing specific strategies for applying strengths in work and life contexts

Gallup research suggests that strengths-based development approaches lead to higher employee engagement and productivity (Harter & Adkins, 2015). Critics note that most published research on CliftonStrengths comes from Gallup itself rather than independent sources, though peer-reviewed studies have begun to appear in recent years.

Online and Popular Assessments

With the rise of the internet, personality assessments have become widely accessible to the general public. While some online assessments are based on sound science, others lack rigorous development and validation.

Enneagram

The Enneagram describes nine interconnected personality types, each with distinctive motivations, fears, and coping strategies (Riso & Hudson, 2000):

• Type 1: The Reformer – principled, purposeful, self-controlled
• Type 2: The Helper – generous, people-pleasing, possessive
• Type 3: The Achiever – adaptable, excelling, image-conscious
• Type 4: The Individualist – expressive, dramatic, self-absorbed
• Type 5: The Investigator – perceptive, innovative, secretive
• Type 6: The Loyalist – engaging, responsible, anxious
• Type 7: The Enthusiast – spontaneous, versatile, scattered
• Type 8: The Challenger – self-confident, decisive, confrontational
• Type 9: The Peacemaker – receptive, reassuring, complacent

The system also describes:

• Wings: Influence from adjacent types
• Stress and security points: How types behave under pressure or when secure
• Levels of development: Healthy, average, and unhealthy expressions of each type

The Enneagram has ancient and diverse origins, drawing from mystical traditions, but has been adapted for modern psychological use. While initially lacking scientific research, empirical studies have increased in recent years. Sutton et al. (2013) found correlations between Enneagram types and established personality measures, suggesting some convergent validity.

The Enneagram is popular in:

• Spiritual development and self-understanding
• Relationship counseling
• Executive coaching
• Personal growth workshops

While lacking the extensive validation of clinical measures, the Enneagram offers rich descriptions that many find meaningful for self-exploration.

Big Five Online Tests

Many websites offer free assessments based on the Five-Factor Model (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism). These vary substantially in quality:

• Research-based versions: Some are derived from established measures like the NEO-PI-R or BFI with permission
• Public domain adaptations: Others use items from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)
• Proprietary versions: Some create entirely new items attempting to measure the Big Five

The quality of online Big Five assessments depends on factors such as:

• Item quality: Whether questions effectively capture the intended constructs
• Normative data: Whether appropriate comparison samples are available
• Length: Very brief measures (under 20 items) generally sacrifice reliability
• Feedback quality: Whether interpretations are evidence-based and appropriately nuanced

Gosling et al. (2003) developed a Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) that shows acceptable psychometric properties for very brief research purposes, though it sacrifices reliability for brevity and is not ideal for individual assessment.

How to Evaluate the Scientific Merit of Personality Tests

Consumers of personality assessments can evaluate their scientific merit using several criteria (Rudner, 1994):

• Theoretical foundation: Is the assessment based on a coherent, well-researched theory of personality?
• Reliability evidence:
  • Are reliability statistics published and acceptable (generally 0.70 or higher)?
  • Is test-retest reliability demonstrated over appropriate time intervals?
• Validity evidence:
  • Does the test correlate with other established measures of similar constructs?
  • Does it predict relevant real-world outcomes?
  • Has research been published in peer-reviewed journals?
• Test development process:
  • Were items developed using appropriate methods (factor analysis, item response theory)?
  • Were adequate and representative samples used in development?
• Documentation:
  • Is a technical manual available with detailed psychometric information?
  • Are the limitations of the test clearly stated?
• Publisher qualifications:
  • Do the test developers have appropriate credentials and expertise?
  • Is the publisher recognized in the psychological assessment field?

When evaluating popular assessments, it’s important to distinguish between tests with established scientific merit (like the NEO-PI-R) and those primarily valued for their intuitive appeal or practical utility despite limited empirical support (like the MBTI or Enneagram). Meyer and Kurtz (2006) suggest that consumers should match the level of confidence they place in assessment results to the quality of evidence supporting the instrument’s use for specific purposes.

Applications of Personality Theories

Personality theories extend far beyond academic interest, offering practical applications across numerous domains of human activity. From clinical interventions to workplace dynamics, educational strategies to relationship counseling, personality frameworks provide valuable tools for understanding and improving human functioning. This section explores how personality theories translate into real-world applications across six major domains.

Clinical Psychology and Therapy

Perhaps the most direct application of personality theories occurs in clinical psychology and psychotherapy, where understanding individual differences forms the foundation for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.

Personality Disorders and Diagnostic Criteria

Personality disorders represent enduring patterns of inner experience and behavior that deviate markedly from cultural expectations, causing significant distress or impairment. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) organizes personality disorders into three clusters:

• Cluster A (odd/eccentric): Paranoid, Schizoid, and Schizotypal Personality Disorders
• Cluster B (dramatic/emotional/erratic): Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic, and Narcissistic Personality Disorders
• Cluster C (anxious/fearful): Avoidant, Dependent, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorders

Each disorder involves specific patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect maladaptive extremes of normal personality traits. For example, Borderline Personality Disorder features emotional instability, identity disturbances, impulsivity, and troubled relationships—representing maladaptive extremes of traits like neuroticism and antagonism.

The dimensional approach to personality pathology, introduced in the DSM-5’s Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), explicitly links personality disorders to maladaptive variants of the Five-Factor Model traits. As Widiger and Trull (2007) note, this approach reduces diagnostic overlap and arbitrary cutoffs by viewing personality disorders as extreme or maladaptive configurations of normal personality dimensions.

Therapeutic Approaches Based on Different Theories

Different personality theories have spawned distinctive therapeutic approaches:

• Psychodynamic therapies derived from Freudian and Neo-Freudian theories focus on uncovering unconscious conflicts, working through developmental fixations, and strengthening the ego. Modern brief psychodynamic therapies target core relational themes and defense mechanisms (Leichsenring et al., 2015).
• Humanistic therapies based on Rogers’ and Maslow’s theories emphasize unconditional positive regard, empathic understanding, and self-actualization. Person-centered therapy creates conditions for clients to access their organismic valuing process and move toward greater congruence between real and ideal selves (Rogers, 1957).
• Cognitive-behavioral therapies draw from social-cognitive personality theories to identify and modify maladaptive thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. Schema therapy, developed by Young et al. (2003), targets early maladaptive schemas—enduring negative patterns established in childhood that continue to influence adult functioning.
• Trait-informed approaches use knowledge of personality traits to tailor interventions to individual needs. For instance, treatment for anxiety disorders may differ for highly neurotic, introverted clients versus those with different trait profiles (Zinbarg et al., 2008).
• Integrative therapies like Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) combine elements from multiple theoretical traditions, addressing both trait vulnerabilities (emotional sensitivity) and skill deficits (emotion regulation) (Linehan, 1993).

The effectiveness of these approaches varies depending on the specific clinical issues and client characteristics. Meta-analyses by Beutler et al. (2016) suggest that matching therapeutic approaches to client personality features improves outcomes, supporting a personalized approach to treatment selection.

Case Studies Illustrating Theoretical Applications

Case studies demonstrate how personality theories guide clinical understanding and intervention:

Case 1: Psychodynamic Approach A 35-year-old man presents with recurrent relationship difficulties, consistently choosing partners who are emotionally unavailable. Psychodynamic formulation identifies a repetition compulsion stemming from childhood attachment disruption with his mother. Treatment focuses on making unconscious patterns conscious, working through transference reactions, and developing more adaptive object relations.

Case 2: Trait and Cognitive-Behavioral Approach A 28-year-old woman with high neuroticism, low extraversion, and moderate conscientiousness experiences social anxiety and perfectionism. Cognitive-behavioral therapy targets catastrophic thinking about social situations while gradually increasing exposure to social interactions. Treatment incorporates awareness of how trait tendencies influence cognitive biases and behavioral avoidance.

Case 3: Humanistic and Narrative Approach A 42-year-old man struggles with midlife dissatisfaction despite career success. With high conscientiousness and achievement orientation but low openness to experience, he has prioritized external expectations over personal values. A humanistic approach explores his thwarted self-actualization needs, while narrative techniques help him construct a more authentic life story aligned with his deeper values.

These cases illustrate how personality theories not only explain psychological difficulties but guide the focus and methods of therapeutic intervention, allowing clinicians to move beyond symptom-focused approaches to address underlying patterns of adaptation and functioning.

Organizational and Work Settings

Personality psychology has numerous applications in the workplace, from personnel selection to team composition to leadership development. Understanding personality differences can enhance organizational effectiveness at individual, group, and organizational levels.

Team Dynamics and Personality Diversity

Teams benefit from personality diversity when members understand and leverage their differences productively. Research on team composition has found that:

• Teams with a mix of personality types often outperform homogeneous teams on complex tasks requiring diverse perspectives (Neuman et al., 1999)
• The optimal personality composition depends on task requirements—creative tasks benefit from members high in openness, while detail-oriented implementation benefits from conscientious team members (Mathieu et al., 2014)
• Too many similar personalities can create blind spots (all big-picture thinkers may miss details) or conflicts (multiple dominant personalities may struggle for control)

Team-building interventions based on personality assessments help members:

• Recognize and appreciate different work styles
• Adapt communication approaches to colleagues’ preferences
• Allocate responsibilities based on natural strengths
• Develop strategies to bridge potential gaps or conflicts

However, Driskell et al. (2006) caution that personality-based team building must avoid stereotyping and recognize that individuals are complex and adaptable, not limited to fixed types.

Leadership Development

Leadership development programs increasingly incorporate personality assessment to enhance self-awareness and interpersonal effectiveness. Research by Judge et al. (2002) identified traits consistently associated with leadership emergence and effectiveness:

• Extraversion correlates most strongly with leadership across contexts
• Conscientiousness predicts leadership through responsibility and goal-setting
• Emotional stability (low neuroticism) enables stress management and decisiveness
• Openness to experience facilitates adaptability and vision
• Agreeableness shows mixed relationships, potentially helping or hindering leadership depending on context

Leaders can use personality insights to:

• Recognize their natural leadership tendencies and potential blind spots
• Develop complementary skills to balance their personality predispositions
• Adapt their leadership style to different team members and situations
• Build more diverse leadership teams with complementary strengths

Hogan and Kaiser (2005) emphasize that personality assessment can identify both leadership potential and derailment risks—those personality tendencies that may emerge under stress and undermine effectiveness.

Employee Selection and Development

Organizations use personality assessment in selection and development processes based on research showing that certain traits predict job performance in specific roles:

• Conscientiousness consistently predicts performance across almost all job types (Barrick & Mount, 1991)
• Emotional stability relates to performance in high-stress occupations
• Extraversion predicts success in sales and leadership positions
• Agreeableness correlates with performance in helping professions and teamwork
• Openness predicts training proficiency and creativity

However, ethical selection practices require:

• Using validated assessments with demonstrated job relevance
• Avoiding discrimination against protected groups
• Recognizing that personality is just one factor among many relevant to job success

For employee development, personality insights help identify individual growth paths and targeted development activities. For example, a highly analytical employee with lower interpersonal skills might benefit from communication training, while a creative but disorganized employee might need structure and planning tools.

Education and Learning

Personality theory offers educators frameworks for understanding student differences and adapting teaching approaches accordingly, potentially enhancing learning outcomes through personalized education.

Learning Styles and Personality

The relationship between personality and learning approaches has been extensively studied, with consistent patterns emerging:

• Openness to experience correlates with deep learning approaches—seeking conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009)
• Conscientiousness predicts academic achievement through organization, persistence, and achievement motivation (Poropat, 2009)
• Extraversion shows complex relationships with learning—extraverts may learn better through discussion and group activities but may also be more distractible in traditional classroom settings
• Neuroticism can impair learning through test anxiety and negative self-evaluations, though moderate anxiety sometimes enhances performance
• Agreeableness relates to cooperative learning and positive classroom behavior

While the concept of fixed “learning styles” (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) has been criticized for lacking empirical support, personality-based preferences for different learning contexts and approaches are well-established. Students may benefit not from being taught exclusively in their “preferred style” but from awareness of their natural tendencies and strategic adaptation when necessary.

Educational Interventions Based on Personality

Understanding personality differences allows educators to diversify teaching approaches and create more inclusive learning environments:

• For highly conscientious students: Providing clear structures, rubrics, and evaluation criteria
• For students high in openness: Offering creative projects and interdisciplinary connections
• For extraverted students: Incorporating discussion, group work, and interactive activities
• For introverted students: Including reflection time and individual projects
• For students high in neuroticism: Reducing evaluation anxiety through formative assessment

Interventions can also target specific personality-related challenges. For example, Duckworth et al. (2007) developed programs to enhance grit (perseverance and passion for long-term goals), a characteristic related to conscientiousness that predicts academic success beyond IQ.

Supporting Student Development

Beyond academic achievement, educational institutions increasingly recognize their role in supporting overall student development, including personality development. Programs targeting socio-emotional learning, character education, and “non-cognitive skills” often address personality-related competencies:

• Self-awareness activities help students recognize their personality tendencies
• Self-regulation training assists with emotional management and impulse control
• Growth mindset interventions (Dweck, 2006) counter fixed beliefs about traits
• Strength-based approaches help students leverage their natural tendencies while developing complementary capacities

Hamre and Pianta (2005) emphasize that teacher-student relationships mediate the impact of personality on educational outcomes—supportive relationships can help students overcome personality-based vulnerabilities that might otherwise impede learning.

Impact on Relationships

Personality significantly influences relationship formation, satisfaction, and longevity across friendship, romantic partnerships, and family dynamics.

Compatibility and Complementarity

Research on personality and relationship satisfaction reveals complex patterns of both similarity and complementarity:

• Similarity effects: Partners tend to be similar in age, education, values, political attitudes, and religion—factors related to but distinct from core personality traits (Luo & Klohnen, 2005)
• Assortative mating: Moderate similarity in major personality traits, particularly agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, predicts relationship satisfaction (Gonzaga et al., 2007)
• Complementarity: In some domains, differences may be beneficial when they allow partners to complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses
• Deal-breakers: Extreme scores on neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and low agreeableness consistently predict relationship problems regardless of partner similarity (Kelly & Conley, 1987)

Rather than a simple formula for compatibility, research suggests that personality influences relationships through interaction patterns over time. Karney and Bradbury’s (1995) vulnerability-stress-adaptation model proposes that personality traits create vulnerabilities or strengths that influence how couples adapt to stressors, ultimately affecting relationship satisfaction and stability.

Communication Styles and Conflict Resolution

Personality shapes communication patterns and conflict management approaches:

• Neuroticism influences emotional reactivity during conflicts, with highly neurotic individuals more likely to escalate negative affect and engage in criticism or defensiveness
• Agreeableness relates to motivation to maintain harmony and willingness to accommodate during conflicts
• Extraversion affects communication volume and assertiveness, with extraverts more likely to directly address issues
• Openness correlates with willingness to consider alternative perspectives during disagreements
• Conscientiousness influences reliability in following through on agreements made during conflict resolution

Gottman’s research (1994) identified communication patterns that predict relationship success or failure, many of which relate to personality traits. His “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling—often reflect maladaptive expressions of personality tendencies under relationship stress.

Personal Growth Within Relationships

Relationships provide contexts for personality development and growth throughout adulthood:

• Regulatory partner effects: Partners can help regulate each other’s trait-related behaviors, providing feedback and consequences that shape expression of personality tendencies (Rusbult et al., 2005)
• Corrective emotional experiences: Relationships can heal earlier wounds by providing experiences that contradict negative expectations based on past relationships
• Identity development: Close relationships influence self-concept and identity, particularly during significant transitions (becoming parents, career changes)
• Perspective expansion: Relationships with dissimilar others can increase flexibility and openness through exposure to different worldviews

As Hudson et al. (2014) note, personality change in adulthood often occurs in response to relationship experiences, with secure attachments providing a foundation for positive development while relationship distress can exacerbate maladaptive traits.

Career Choices and Development

Personality influences vocational interests, career decision-making, job satisfaction, and occupational performance throughout the lifespan.

Personality-Career Fit Models

Several frameworks link personality to career preferences and satisfaction:

• Holland’s RIASEC model (Holland, 1997) classifies both individuals and work environments into six types—Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Research shows meaningful correlations between Big Five traits and RIASEC interests (e.g., openness correlates with artistic and investigative interests; extraversion with social and enterprising interests).
• The Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) emphasizes correspondence between individual needs/abilities and environmental requirements/rewards. Personality influences both ability patterns and reinforcement preferences.
• Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994) examines how personality influences self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations, which in turn shape career interests and choices.

These models suggest that optimal career development involves finding environments that fit one’s personality, while recognizing that both people and environments are adaptable.

Career Counseling Applications

Career counselors use personality assessment to help clients:

• Identify occupations aligned with their traits and preferences
• Understand potential strengths and challenges in different work environments
• Develop self-awareness about how personality influences work behavior
• Craft career narratives that integrate personality, values, and abilities

Savickas’ (2005) Career Construction Theory emphasizes how individuals use work to implement their self-concepts. From this perspective, personality assessment in career counseling helps clients articulate their identity narratives and identify congruent career paths.

Modern approaches avoid deterministic “matching” of personalities to careers, instead helping clients understand how their traits might express themselves across various occupations and how to leverage strengths while managing limitations.

Workplace Adaptation Strategies

Even when personality-environment fit isn’t optimal, individuals can develop strategies to adapt:

• Highly introverted individuals in customer service roles might develop recovery rituals for after work
• Detail-oriented people in big-picture leadership roles can partner with complementary team members
• Creative individuals in highly structured environments might negotiate for innovation spaces
• Those high in neuroticism might develop emotional regulation techniques for high-pressure situations

Bell and Staw (1989) describe how individuals actively shape their work environments through job crafting—modifying tasks, relationships, and cognitive framing to better align with their personalities and preferences.

Career development professionals increasingly focus on adaptability rather than static fit, helping clients develop the flexibility to thrive across changing work contexts while remaining authentic to core aspects of their personalities.

Mental Health and Well-being

Personality traits influence vulnerability to psychological disorders, resilience in the face of adversity, and subjective well-being across the lifespan.

Personality Risk Factors for Mental Disorders

Substantial research documents associations between personality traits and psychopathology:

• Neuroticism shows the strongest and most consistent relationships with psychological disorders, predicting both internalizing disorders (anxiety, depression) and many externalizing conditions (Lahey, 2009)
• Low conscientiousness relates to substance use disorders, antisocial behavior, and poor health behaviors
• Introversion (low extraversion) correlates with social anxiety and certain depressive presentations
• Low agreeableness associates with conduct problems, aggression, and relationship difficulties
• Openness shows complex relationships—high openness correlates with certain creative psychopathologies while very low openness may limit psychological flexibility

These relationships operate through various mechanisms:

• Shared genetic influences on both personality and psychopathology
• Stress generation (personality influences exposure to stressful events)
• Coping responses (traits affect how individuals respond to challenges)
• Cognitive-affective processing (traits shape interpretation of and reactions to experiences)

Importantly, these relationships are probabilistic rather than deterministic—many people with “high-risk” personality profiles never develop clinical disorders due to protective factors and resilience resources.

Resilience and Protective Factors

While certain personality traits increase vulnerability to mental health problems, others promote resilience—the capacity to maintain or regain psychological well-being despite adversity:

• Specific resilience-promoting traits include:
  • Positive emotionality (facet of extraversion)
  • Emotional stability (low neuroticism)
  • Conscientiousness (particularly persistence and self-discipline)
  • Openness (cognitive flexibility and ability to consider alternative perspectives)
  • Agreeableness (capacity to seek and maintain social support)
• Character strengths (from positive psychology) associated with resilience include:
  • Hope and optimism
  • Purpose and meaning
  • Gratitude
  • Self-regulation
  • Social intelligence

Masten’s (2001) research on resilience highlights that protective factors operate at multiple levels—individual personality traits interact with family support systems, community resources, and cultural contexts to determine outcomes following adversity.

Personality-Informed Interventions

Understanding personality contributions to well-being has spawned targeted interventions:

• Mindfulness-based interventions help individuals high in neuroticism observe thoughts and feelings without overidentification (Keng et al., 2011)
• Positive psychology interventions leverage character strengths and positive emotional tendencies to counter depressive symptoms (Seligman et al., 2006)
• Acceptance and Commitment Therapy helps individuals clarify values and commit to meaningful action regardless of personality-related emotional or cognitive tendencies (Hayes et al., 2006)
• Physical activity interventions may have particular benefit for individuals high in neuroticism, potentially through emotional regulation pathways (De Moor et al., 2006)
• Social skills training assists individuals low in extraversion or agreeableness to develop interpersonal competencies that don’t come naturally

Personality-informed approaches to well-being recognize individual differences in vulnerability, resilience, and response to interventions. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, effective promotion of mental health requires tailoring strategies to individuals’ unique personality profiles.

Wood and Denissen (2015) advocate personality-aware positive psychology that helps people work with rather than against their basic tendencies—finding well-being pathways compatible with their traits rather than attempting to fundamentally change who they are.

Comparing and Evaluating Personality Theories

With numerous theoretical perspectives on personality, how do we determine which ones provide the most accurate and useful understanding of human behavior? This section examines criteria for evaluating personality theories, considers their practical applications, and explores ongoing debates that shape the field.

Scientific Criteria for Evaluation

The scientific merit of personality theories can be assessed through several key criteria that determine their validity and reliability as explanatory frameworks.

Empirical Support

At its core, a scientific theory must be supported by evidence. For personality theories, empirical support comes in various forms:

• Research methodologies: Strong theories are testable through diverse methods, including experiments, longitudinal studies, cross-sectional surveys, and behavioral observations (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)
• Replication: Findings supporting the theory should be replicable across different researchers, samples, and contexts
• Convergent evidence: Support should come from multiple methodological approaches, not just a single paradigm
• Addressing counterevidence: Good theories account for apparently contradictory findings rather than ignoring them

When evaluated by this criterion, trait theories—particularly the Five-Factor Model—have accumulated the most extensive empirical support. The structure of the Big Five has been replicated across cultures, measurement methods, and languages (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Psychodynamic theories, while historically lacking strong empirical foundations, have gained increasing support for key concepts like unconscious processing and defense mechanisms through cognitive and neuroimaging research (Westen, 1998).

Humanistic theories have faced greater challenges in empirical validation due to their emphasis on subjective experience and holistic concepts that resist operational definition. However, as Sheldon (2009) notes, concepts like self-actualization and intrinsic motivation have received support through research in positive psychology and self-determination theory.

Predictive Validity

A good theory not only explains existing data but enables predictions about future behavior or outcomes. Predictive validity involves:

• Prospective studies: The theory should predict outcomes measured at later time points
• Out-of-sample prediction: Findings should generalize beyond the samples used to develop the theory
• Specificity: Predictions should be precise rather than so general they could explain any outcome
• Incremental validity: The theory should predict outcomes beyond what could be predicted by simpler or previously established explanations

Trait theories have demonstrated considerable predictive validity—the Big Five traits predict important life outcomes including academic achievement, occupational success, relationship quality, health behaviors, and longevity (Roberts et al., 2007). Social-cognitive theories also show strong predictive validity for specific behaviors in context, with constructs like self-efficacy predicting performance across domains (Bandura, 1997).

Psychodynamic theories have shown more limited predictive validity, though attachment theory (a psychodynamic derivative) has established predictive relationships between early attachment patterns and later relationship functioning (Fraley, 2002). Evolutionary personality theories make specific predictions about sex differences and mating strategies that have been supported across cultures (Buss, 2009).

Comprehensiveness and Parsimony

Scientific theories should balance comprehensiveness (explaining a wide range of phenomena) with parsimony (doing so with the fewest necessary assumptions). This balance involves:

• Scope: How much of the domain of personality the theory addresses
• Integration: How well the theory connects with other established knowledge
• Explanatory mechanisms: Whether the theory offers clear causal explanations
• Theoretical economy: Whether the theory avoids unnecessary complexity

The major theoretical traditions vary considerably on this criterion. Trait theories offer parsimony but sometimes at the expense of explanatory depth—they describe stable patterns well but may not fully explain their origins or mechanisms. Psychodynamic theories provide rich, comprehensive explanations but have been criticized for unfalsifiable concepts and excessive complexity. Social-cognitive approaches offer detailed accounts of specific processes but may lack integration into a comprehensive framework of personality.

McAdams’ three-level model (McAdams & Pals, 2006) represents an attempt to address this challenge by integrating different theoretical approaches into a comprehensive yet economical framework. By organizing personality into dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, and life narratives, this model accommodates insights from trait, social-cognitive, psychodynamic, and humanistic approaches without unnecessary redundancy.

Practical Usefulness

Beyond scientific criteria, personality theories can be evaluated based on their practical utility across various applications.

Applications Across Different Domains

A practically useful theory generates applications in multiple domains:

• Clinical utility: Does the theory inform effective assessment and treatment of psychological problems?
• Organizational applications: Does the theory enhance workplace functioning through selection, development, or team building?
• Educational relevance: Does the theory improve teaching or learning processes?
• Personal growth: Does the theory provide insights individuals can use for self-development?
• Social policy: Does the theory inform interventions at community or societal levels?

Diverse theoretical perspectives have demonstrated practical value in different domains. Psychodynamic theories have primarily influenced clinical practice, with concepts like defense mechanisms and transference guiding psychotherapy. Humanistic theories have shaped educational approaches, counseling, and personal growth movements. Trait theories have found extensive applications in personnel selection, career counseling, and clinical assessment. Social-cognitive theories have informed behavioral interventions across health, education, and organizational contexts.

Emmons (1995) argues that the most useful theories bridge the gap between basic science and application, generating intervention principles that can be translated into specific practices. By this standard, theories like Bandura’s social cognitive theory and modern trait approaches have demonstrated particular utility through evidence-based applications.

Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptability

As psychology has become increasingly global, the cultural sensitivity of personality theories has become an important evaluation criterion:

• Cross-cultural validity: Do the theory’s constructs apply across diverse cultural contexts?
• Indigenous concepts: Does the theory accommodate culture-specific personality constructs?
• Cultural assumptions: Does the theory recognize its own cultural foundations and limitations?
• Practical relevance: Can the theory be meaningfully applied in different cultural settings?

Traditional personality theories emerged primarily from Western contexts and often reflect individualistic cultural assumptions. However, cross-cultural personality research has expanded considerably, examining both universal and culture-specific aspects of personality.

The Five-Factor Model has demonstrated structural validity across cultures, though the relative importance and behavioral expression of traits vary across cultural contexts (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). Social-cognitive approaches have incorporated cultural influences through concepts like collective efficacy and cultural learning. Psychodynamic theories have been adapted to different cultural contexts, though core assumptions about individuation may reflect Western values.

As Cheung et al. (2011) argue, truly culturally sensitive personality psychology requires a “combined emic-etic approach” that integrates universal dimensions with culture-specific concepts and measures. Theories that accommodate both universality and cultural variation offer the greatest practical utility in our diverse global context.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical implications of personality theories constitute another important evaluation criterion:

• Potential for misuse: Can the theory be applied in ways that harm individuals or groups?
• Deterministic implications: Does the theory unduly limit perceptions of human agency and potential?
• Labeling effects: Does the theory lead to stigmatizing categorizations?
• Values transparency: Does the theory acknowledge its underlying value assumptions?
• Accessibility and inclusivity: Who can benefit from applications of the theory?

Early trait theories were sometimes misused to justify discriminatory practices based on simplistic typologies. Psychodynamic theories have been criticized for pathologizing normal variations and blaming parents (particularly mothers) for psychological problems. More recently, biological and evolutionary approaches to personality have raised concerns about genetic determinism and potential misuse to justify social inequalities.

Ethical personality theories and applications recognize their limitations, explicitly state their values, emphasize probabilistic rather than deterministic relationships, and acknowledge the complexity of human development. Modern trait psychology, for example, recognizes both genetic influences and environmental malleability, avoiding the nature-nurture false dichotomy that characterized earlier approaches (Johnson, 2007).

Lilienfeld et al. (2015) emphasize that ethical personality assessment requires appropriate qualification of practitioners, transparent communication of limitations, attention to diversity issues, and protection of confidentiality. Theories that facilitate such ethical practice demonstrate greater practical utility than those lending themselves to overinterpretation or misapplication.

Ongoing Debates in Personality Psychology

Several fundamental debates continue to animate personality psychology, reflecting different assumptions about human nature and methodological approaches.

Person-Situation Debate

A fundamental question in personality psychology concerns the relative importance of stable personal characteristics versus situational factors in determining behavior. This debate emerged prominently with Mischel’s (1968) critique of personality traits, arguing that situational factors explained more behavioral variance than stable personal dispositions.

Key positions in this debate include:

• Dispositionism: Emphasizes the primacy of stable traits in determining behavior across situations
• Situationism: Emphasizes the power of immediate contextual factors in shaping behavior
• Interactionism: Proposes that behavior results from the interaction between personal dispositions and situational characteristics
• Process approaches: Focus on cognitive-affective processes that mediate between traits and situations

Contemporary perspectives generally recognize that both personal dispositions and situations matter, with interactions between them often proving most predictive. Fleeson and Noftle (2008) distinguish between consistency in aggregate behaviors (which is substantial) and consistency in single behaviors (which is more limited), helping resolve apparent contradictions in the evidence.

The CAPS (Cognitive-Affective Processing System) theory proposed by Mischel and Shoda (1995) represents a sophisticated integration, suggesting that personality consists of stable if-then contingencies—characteristic patterns of responding to particular situational features. This perspective accommodates both stability in personality signatures and variability across different contexts.

Stability vs. Change Across the Lifespan

Another central debate concerns the degree to which personality remains stable or changes throughout development:

• Stability perspectives: Emphasize genetic foundations, early crystallization, and rank-order consistency of traits
• Change perspectives: Highlight developmental processes, contextual influences, and normative and individual patterns of change
• Life-span developmental views: Recognize both continuity and systematic change throughout life

Research supports elements of both stability and change. Longitudinal studies demonstrate substantial rank-order stability of personality traits, particularly after age 30 (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). At the same time, meaningful mean-level changes occur in specific traits across the lifespan, with a general trend toward greater conscientiousness, emotional stability, and social dominance in early and middle adulthood—a pattern Roberts et al. (2006) termed the “maturity principle.”

Contemporary perspectives recognize multiple forms of personality stability and change, including:

• Rank-order stability: Consistency in relative standing compared to peers
• Mean-level change: Normative increases or decreases in traits with age
• Individual differences in change: Variations in developmental trajectories
• Ipsative stability: Consistency in the relative salience of different traits within an individual

Recent research suggests that personality change can occur through multiple mechanisms, including intrinsic maturation, life experiences (particularly role transitions), deliberate intervention, and historical-cultural influences (Bleidorn et al., 2019). This nuanced understanding recognizes both the biological foundations of personality and its continued plasticity throughout development.

Dimensional vs. Categorical Approaches

A third significant debate concerns whether personality attributes are best conceptualized as continuous dimensions or discrete categories:

• Dimensional approaches: View personality traits as continua on which individuals vary by degree
• Categorical approaches: Identify distinct personality types or classes
• Mixed models: Recognize both dimensions and emergent types

This debate has particular relevance for understanding personality disorders. Traditional psychiatric classification systems like the DSM have used categorical approaches, assigning individuals to specific personality disorder diagnoses based on symptom criteria. However, this approach has been criticized for problems including excessive diagnostic co-occurrence, heterogeneity within categories, and arbitrary diagnostic thresholds.

Empirical evidence strongly supports dimensional models of both normal and abnormal personality. Taxometric analyses by Haslam et al. (2012) found little support for discrete personality types. Factor analyses consistently yield continuous dimensions rather than discrete clusters. Even when typological approaches like resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled types emerge in research, these represent prototypes along continuous dimensions rather than qualitatively distinct categories (Asendorpf et al., 2001).

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders represents a shift toward a dimensional perspective, conceptualizing personality disorders as maladaptive variants of normal personality traits. As Krueger and Markon (2014) argue, dimensional approaches offer greater reliability, validity, and clinical utility by capturing the full range of personality variation rather than forcing complex patterns into oversimplified categories.

This debate intersects with discussions about the appropriate statistical methods for personality assessment, the nature of psychopathology, and philosophical questions about natural kinds versus human constructs. While the evidence increasingly supports dimensional approaches, categorical thinking remains influential in clinical practice and popular understanding.

In evaluating these ongoing debates, it’s important to recognize that they often reflect not simply empirical disagreements but different priorities and values. A comprehensive understanding of personality may require multiple perspectives, each capturing important aspects of human individuality and development. As Cervone and Mischel (2002) argue, integrative approaches that acknowledge both the strengths and limitations of different theoretical traditions offer the most promising path forward for personality psychology.

Future Directions in Personality Psychology

Personality psychology continues to evolve through methodological innovations, interdisciplinary collaborations, and technological advances. This section explores emerging research areas and new approaches to personality assessment that are likely to shape the field in coming years.

Emerging Research Areas

Recent developments in neuroscience, computational modeling, and genetics are opening new frontiers in personality research, promising deeper insights into the biological underpinnings and dynamic nature of personality.

Personality Neuroscience

The integration of neuroscience methods with personality theory has created the burgeoning field of personality neuroscience, which examines the neural correlates of individual differences. Key developments include:

• Neuroimaging studies linking Big Five traits to specific brain structures and functions—for example, extraversion correlates with activation in reward-processing regions while neuroticism relates to activity in threat-detection systems (DeYoung & Gray, 2009)
• Connectivity analyses exploring how personality relates to patterns of communication between brain networks rather than just isolated regions
• Neurodevelopmental approaches investigating how brain development shapes personality trajectories from childhood through adulthood

Allen and DeYoung (2017) propose that personality neuroscience can bridge the gap between broad trait descriptions and specific biological mechanisms, potentially resolving longstanding debates about the biological bases of personality. This research may eventually enable the development of more targeted interventions for personality-related difficulties based on neurobiological profiles.

Computational Personality Modeling

Computational approaches apply mathematical models and computer simulations to understand personality dynamics:

• Network models conceptualize personality as dynamic systems of interacting thoughts, feelings, and behaviors rather than static traits (Cramer et al., 2012)
• Agent-based simulations model how personality emerges from interactions between basic psychological processes and environmental influences
• Time-series analyses of experience sampling data reveal within-person personality dynamics across situations and time

These approaches address limitations of traditional trait models by capturing the complex, dynamic nature of personality. As Revelle and Condon (2015) note, computational models can integrate insights from multiple theoretical traditions while making explicit the mechanisms through which stable patterns emerge from moment-to-moment processes.

Genetics and Epigenetics

Advances in genetic research are transforming our understanding of personality heritability:

• Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have moved beyond candidate gene approaches to identify multiple genetic variants associated with personality traits, confirming the highly polygenic nature of personality (Lo et al., 2017)
• Epigenetic research explores how environmental factors influence gene expression related to personality development, providing mechanisms for gene-environment interactions
• Developmental behavioral genetics examines how genetic influences on personality change throughout the lifespan, with some traits showing increasing heritability with age

These approaches promise to resolve simplistic nature-versus-nurture debates by illuminating the complex interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental experiences. As Penke and Jokela (2016) argue, modern genetic research supports an evolutionary framework where personality variation represents different adaptive strategies rather than simply reflecting random genetic variation.

Technology and Personality Assessment

Digital technologies are revolutionizing how personality is assessed, offering both opportunities and challenges for personality psychology.

Digital Footprints and Personality Prediction

The vast amounts of data people generate through social media, smartphones, and other digital technologies create new opportunities for personality assessment:

• Social media analysis can predict personality traits from Facebook likes, Twitter language, or Instagram photos, sometimes with accuracy exceeding traditional self-report measures (Kosinski et al., 2013)
• Smartphone sensing measures behaviors like movement patterns, app usage, and communication habits that correlate with personality traits
• Natural language processing of emails, text messages, and online reviews reveals personality characteristics through word choice and linguistic styles

These passive, behavioral measures overcome some limitations of self-report, including social desirability bias and limited self-awareness. However, as Stachl et al. (2020) caution, the ecological validity of digital personality predictions requires further validation against real-world outcomes.

AI and Automated Personality Analysis

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being applied to personality assessment:

• Machine learning algorithms can identify subtle patterns in behavioral data that predict personality more accurately than traditional linear models
• Automated interview analysis systems evaluate facial expressions, voice characteristics, and language use to infer personality traits during employment screening
• Recommender systems use personality profiles to personalize content, products, and services

While promising greater efficiency and potentially reduced bias compared to human judgment, AI-based personality assessment raises concerns about transparency, validity, and ethical use. Kröger et al. (2021) emphasize the importance of explainable AI systems that allow users to understand how personality judgments are made.

Privacy and Ethical Concerns

The expansion of digital personality assessment raises significant ethical issues:

• Privacy implications of collecting and analyzing personal data without explicit consent or awareness
• Discrimination risks when personality predictions affect access to opportunities, services, or resources
• Psychological autonomy concerns when personality insights are used to influence behavior through targeted persuasion
• Validity questions about automated systems that may perpetuate biases or make judgments based on spurious correlations

As Bleidorn et al. (2022) argue, personality psychologists must engage with these ethical challenges proactively, developing professional guidelines and advocating for responsible regulation of personality analytics in commercial applications.

The future of personality psychology likely involves integrating these emerging approaches with established research traditions. Technological advances offer unprecedented opportunities to study personality in naturalistic contexts, across cultures, and with greater precision than ever before. However, meaningful progress requires not just methodological innovation but thoughtful consideration of the ethical, social, and philosophical implications of these new approaches to understanding human individuality.

Conclusion

The study of personality—what makes each person unique yet recognizably consistent over time—remains one of psychology’s most fascinating domains. By examining human individuality through multiple theoretical lenses, we gain a richer understanding of the complexity and diversity of human nature.

Summary of the Major Theories

Each theoretical tradition in personality psychology has contributed valuable insights while demonstrating particular strengths and limitations:

• Psychodynamic theories originated with Freud’s emphasis on unconscious processes and early childhood experiences. While these approaches provide rich clinical insights and depth of explanation, they have been criticized for limited empirical testability. Modern psychodynamic approaches have retained core insights about unconscious processing and defense mechanisms while developing more empirically grounded formulations (Westen, 1998).
• Trait theories offer compelling evidence for stable individual differences organized into broad dimensions like the Big Five. These approaches excel at description and prediction but sometimes provide limited explanation of underlying mechanisms. Contemporary trait psychology increasingly integrates with biological and developmental perspectives to address these limitations (McCrae & Costa, 2008).
• Humanistic theories emphasize human potential, subjective experience, and the drive toward self-actualization. While these approaches have faced challenges in empirical validation, they contribute vital perspectives on meaning, values, and positive human functioning that inform positive psychology and existential approaches (Sheldon, 2009).
• Social-cognitive theories focus on how individuals interact with their environments through cognitive processes, learning, and self-regulation. These approaches excel at explaining situational variability but sometimes provide less insight into broad patterns of consistency across situations (Bandura, 2001).
• Biological and evolutionary approaches examine genetic, neurophysiological, and evolutionary foundations of personality. These theories provide important insights into biological mechanisms but risk oversimplifying the complexity of environmental influences and cultural context (Penke et al., 2007).

As McAdams and Pals (2006) argue, a comprehensive understanding of personality requires integrating these perspectives rather than treating them as competing alternatives. Their integrative framework organizes personality across three levels—dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, and life narratives—providing a structure that accommodates insights from multiple theoretical traditions.

Ongoing Debates and Future Research in Personality Psychology

Despite significant advances, several key questions remain at the forefront of personality research:

• How stable is personality across the lifespan? While substantial evidence supports both continuity and change, researchers continue to investigate the mechanisms of personality development and the potential for intentional personality change (Bleidorn et al., 2019).
• How do genes and environment interact in personality development? Modern behavioral genetics explores complex pathways from genes to behavior, including gene-environment interactions and correlations, epigenetic processes, and developmental cascades (Johnson et al., 2011).
• How do personality processes operate in daily life? Experience sampling and ambulatory assessment methods are revealing how traits manifest in momentary behaviors, thoughts, and feelings across different situations (Wrzus & Roberts, 2017).
• How does culture shape personality? Cross-cultural research continues to examine both universal and culture-specific aspects of personality, moving beyond simple comparisons to understand deeper mechanisms of cultural influence (Cheung et al., 2011).

Promising directions for future research include:

• Integration of multiple methods beyond self-report, including behavioral observation, informant reports, implicit measures, and physiological assessments
• Applications of network analysis to understand personality as dynamic systems of interacting components rather than static traits
• Investigation of personality development across the entire lifespan, from childhood temperament through older adulthood
• Development of more sophisticated interventions to promote positive personality development in educational, clinical, and organizational contexts

As Baumert et al. (2017) note, addressing these questions requires not just new data but conceptual innovations that bridge levels of analysis from genes and neurons to conscious experience and social behavior.

Practical Implications in Everyday Life

Beyond its scientific interest, personality psychology offers practical insights that can enhance everyday functioning across multiple domains:

• Self-understanding and personal growth: Knowledge of personality processes helps individuals recognize their characteristic patterns, leverage strengths, and develop compensatory strategies for potential challenges. The self-awareness fostered by personality concepts can support intentional development and greater congruence between values and behavior (Hudson & Fraley, 2015).
• Improving relationships and communication: Understanding personality differences reduces conflict and increases empathy in personal and professional relationships. Rather than judging differences as flaws, personality frameworks provide language for appreciating diverse perspectives and adapting communication approaches to different interaction styles (Tett & Murphy, 2002).
• Navigating career and life decisions: Personality insights inform choices that align with individual aptitudes, values, and preferences. While personality should never be used deterministically to limit options, awareness of one’s tendencies can guide development of environments and activities that promote thriving (Holland, 1997).

As King (2016) observes, the most valuable contribution of personality psychology may be its recognition of both human commonality and individuality—we share basic psychological processes and needs while expressing them through unique patterns that deserve understanding and respect.

The continuing evolution of personality psychology promises not only deeper scientific understanding but richer applications that enhance human potential, improve relationships, and create social structures that accommodate human diversity. By recognizing the complex, multifaceted nature of personality, we gain a more nuanced appreciation of what makes each person uniquely themselves.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Are the Main Personality Theories?

The main personality theories include psychoanalytic theory (Freud’s id, ego, superego), trait theories (like the Big Five model), humanistic theories (Rogers’ and Maslow’s approaches), social-cognitive theories (Bandura’s and Mischel’s work), biological theories, and evolutionary perspectives. Each offers a different lens for understanding personality: psychoanalytic theories emphasize unconscious processes; trait theories focus on stable characteristics; humanistic theories highlight growth potential; social-cognitive theories examine thought patterns and environmental interactions; and biological theories explore genetic and neurophysiological bases. Modern approaches often integrate elements from multiple theories, recognizing that personality encompasses dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations to specific contexts, and personal narratives that provide meaning and coherence to individual lives.

What Are the Big Five Personality Traits?

The Big Five personality traits (also known as the Five-Factor Model or OCEAN model) are the most widely accepted framework for describing personality dimensions. The traits include:

1. Openness to Experience: Curiosity, creativity, and appreciation for novelty and diversity
2. Conscientiousness: Organization, responsibility, self-discipline, and achievement-orientation
3. Extraversion: Sociability, assertiveness, and positive emotionality
4. Agreeableness: Compassion, cooperation, and concern for social harmony
5. Neuroticism: Emotional instability, anxiety, and vulnerability to stress (sometimes called Emotional Stability when reversed)

These dimensions have been validated across cultures and show substantial heritability, stability across adulthood, and predictive relationships with important life outcomes including health, career success, and relationship quality.

Can Personality Change Over Time?

Yes, personality can and does change over time, though it also shows considerable stability. Research reveals both rank-order stability (people maintain their relative position compared to others) and meaningful mean-level changes throughout life. Longitudinal studies show that people typically become more conscientious, emotionally stable, and socially dominant as they mature—a pattern called the “maturity principle” (Roberts et al., 2006). Personality change occurs through multiple mechanisms including intrinsic maturation, significant life experiences, deliberate self-improvement efforts, and environmental influences. Major life transitions like starting careers, entering relationships, or becoming parents can accelerate personality development. While core tendencies often remain recognizable, the expression and intensity of personality traits can evolve substantially across the lifespan.

How Is Personality Measured?

Personality is measured through various assessment methods, each with distinct advantages and limitations:

1. Self-report questionnaires (like the NEO-PI-R for the Big Five) where individuals rate themselves on standardized items
2. Observer ratings from people who know the individual well
3. Behavioral observations in natural or laboratory settings
4. Projective tests (such as the Rorschach inkblot test) that elicit responses to ambiguous stimuli
5. Implicit measures that assess automatic or unconscious associations
6. Digital footprints from social media and online behavior
7. Experience sampling methods tracking behaviors and feelings in real-time

Comprehensive assessment typically combines multiple methods to overcome limitations of any single approach. Modern assessment increasingly incorporates digital technologies while maintaining psychometric standards of reliability and validity.

Are Personality Types Real?

Personality types (like those in the Myers-Briggs system) have intuitive appeal but limited scientific support. Research strongly favors dimensional approaches over categorical types—most personality attributes exist on continua rather than as discrete categories. Statistical analyses rarely support the existence of distinct personality types where people cluster into separate groups. The Big Five and other trait models conceptualize personality as profiles across continuous dimensions, avoiding artificial either/or classifications. While some person-centered research identifies prototypical configurations (like resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled types), these represent common patterns along continuous dimensions rather than qualitatively distinct categories. Most psychologists now view personality as varying by degree rather than kind, though typologies remain popular in applied settings.

How Much of Personality Is Genetic vs. Environmental?

Research from behavioral genetics indicates that both genes and environment substantially influence personality. Twin and adoption studies typically attribute about 40-60% of personality trait variance to genetic factors (Vukasović & Bratko, 2015). The remaining variance involves both shared environmental influences (affecting all family members similarly) and non-shared environmental factors (unique to individuals). Importantly, genes and environment interact rather than operating independently—genetic tendencies may be expressed differently in various environments, and genetic predispositions can lead people to select or create environments that reinforce those tendencies. Epigenetic processes further complicate this relationship, as environmental factors can influence gene expression. Modern perspectives recognize that the nature-nurture question isn’t about which matters more, but rather how these factors interact throughout development.

How Do Personality Disorders Differ from Normal Personality Traits?

Personality disorders represent extreme, inflexible, and maladaptive manifestations of personality traits that cause significant distress or functional impairment. Rather than being qualitatively different from normal personality, personality disorders exist on a continuum with normal variation. The key differences include:

1. Extremity: Traits are expressed at problematic levels
2. Inflexibility: Limited ability to adapt across different situations
3. Pervasiveness: Affecting multiple domains of functioning
4. Stability: Enduring patterns established by early adulthood
5. Impairment: Causing distress or interfering with functioning

Contemporary approaches like the DSM-5 Alternative Model conceptualize personality disorders dimensionally, as maladaptive configurations of the same basic traits that constitute normal personality, aligning with research showing continuous distribution rather than discrete categories of personality functioning.

How Does Culture Influence Personality?

Culture influences personality through multiple pathways including socialization practices, values transmission, language, and social institutions. While research supports the universality of basic personality structures like the Big Five across cultures, cultural context affects:

1. The relative importance and expression of different traits
2. Developmental pathways of personality formation
3. The social consequences of particular traits
4. Self-concept and identity formation
5. The presence of culture-specific personality dimensions

Some personality dimensions appear more salient in specific cultural contexts, such as “interpersonal relatedness” in East Asian cultures. Cultural differences in independent versus interdependent self-construals particularly influence how personality is experienced and expressed. A comprehensive understanding of personality requires recognizing both universal human tendencies and the profound ways cultural context shapes their manifestation and meaning.

References

• Adler, A. (1927/1992). Understanding human nature. Oneworld Publications.
• Adler, J. M., Lodi-Smith, J., Philippe, F. L., & Houle, I. (2016). The incremental validity of narrative identity in predicting well-being: A review of the field and recommendations for the future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(2), 142-175.
• Allen, T. A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Personality neuroscience and the five factor model. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 319-352). Oxford University Press.
• Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
• Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15(3), 169-198.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
• Baumert, A., Schmitt, M., Perugini, M., Johnson, W., Blum, G., Borkenau, P., Costantini, G., Denissen, J. J. A., Fleeson, W., Grafton, B., Jayawickreme, E., Kurzius, E., MacLeod, C., Miller, L. C., Read, S. J., Roberts, B., Robinson, M. D., Wood, D., & Wrzus, C. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 503-528.
• Bayne, R. (2005). Ideas and evidence: Critical reflections on MBTI theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
• Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 232-251). Cambridge University Press.
• Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
• Beutler, L. E., Kimpara, S., Edwards, C. J., & Miller, K. S. (2016). Fitting psychotherapy to patient coping style: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(11), 1197-1205.
• Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Hopwood, C. J., Jokela, M., Kandler, C., Lucas, R. E., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., Zimmermann, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1056-1067.
• Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2022). Personality assessment in a digital world: Opportunities, challenges, and implications for psychometrics. European Journal of Personality.
• Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119.
• Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54(1), 4-45.
• Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 359-366.
• Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1-48.
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
• Cervone, D., & Mischel, W. (2002). Advances in personality science. Guilford Press.
• Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Mainly openness: The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 524-529.
• Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., & Tsai, J. L. (2010). Self-focused attention and emotional reactivity: The role of culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 507-519.
• Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the five-factor model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 407-433.
• Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7), 593-603.
• Church, A. T. (2010). Current perspectives in the study of personality across cultures. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 441-449.
• 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. (2017). The NEO inventories as instruments of psychological theory. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 11-37). Oxford University Press.
• Cramer, A. O. J., van der Sluis, S., Noordhof, A., Wichers, M., Geschwind, N., Aggen, S. H., Kendler, K. S., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can’t like parties if you don’t like people. European Journal of Personality, 26(4), 414-431.
• Cramer, P. (2015). Defense mechanisms: 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(2), 114-122.
• Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
• Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. University of Minnesota Press.
• De Moor, M. H. M., Beem, A. L., Stubbe, J. H., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. C. (2006). Regular exercise, anxiety, depression and personality: A population-based study. Preventive Medicine, 42(4), 273-279.
• DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual differences in affect, behavior, and cognition. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 323-346). Cambridge University Press.
• Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(4), 249-271.
• Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
• Emmons, R. A. (1995). Levels and domains in personality: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 341-364.
• Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Plenum Press.
• Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. E. (2008). The end of the person-situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667-1684.
• Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151.
• Frankl, V. E. (1959/2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
• Freud, A. (1936/1966). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. International Universities Press.
• Freud, S. (1923/1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 3-66). Hogarth Press.
• Funder, D. C. (2019). The personality puzzle (8th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A life for our time. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34-48.
• Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949-967.
• Harter, J. K., & Adkins, A. (2015). What great managers do to engage employees. Harvard Business Review.
• Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: A quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42(5), 903-920.
• Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1-25.
• Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180.
• Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490-507.
• Hudson, N. W., Roberts, B. W., & Lodi-Smith, J. (2014). Personality trait development and social investment in work. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 82-89.
• Inscape Publishing. (2008). Research report: DiSC validation. Inscape Publishing.
• Johnson, W. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: Capturing all the interplay. Psychological Review, 114(2), 423-440.
• Johnson, W., Penke, L., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). Heritability in the era of molecular genetics: Some thoughts for understanding genetic influences on behavioural traits. European Journal of Personality, 25(4), 254-266.
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
• Jung, C. G. (1933/1964). Modern man in search of a soul. Harcourt Brace.
• Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34.
• Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 27-40.
• Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1041-1056.
• Kim, U., Yang, K. S., & Hwang, K. K. (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context. Springer.
• King, L. A. (2016). The science of psychology: An appreciative view (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802-5805.
• Kröger, J. L., Lutz, O. H. M., & Müller, F. (2021). What does your gaze reveal about you? On the privacy implications of eye tracking. In M. Friedewald, M. Önen, E. Lievens, S. Krenn, & S. Fricker (Eds.), Privacy and identity management (pp. 226-241). Springer.
• Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477-501.
• Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241-256.
• Leichsenring, F., Luyten, P., Falk, E., & Abbass, A. (2015). Psychodynamic therapy meets evidence-based medicine: A systematic review using updated criteria. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(7), 648-660.
• Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122.
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2015). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66.
• Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.
• Lo, M. T., Hinds, D. A., Tung, J. Y., Franz, C., Fan, C. C., Wang, Y., Smeland, O. B., Schork, A., Holland, D., Kauppi, K., Sanyal, N., Escott-Price, V., Smith, D. J., O’Donovan, M., Stefansson, H., Bjornsdottir, G., Thorgeirsson, T. E., Stefansson, K., McEvoy, L. K., Dale, A. M., … & Chen, C. H. (2017). Genome-wide analyses for personality traits identify six genomic loci and show correlations with psychiatric disorders. Nature Genetics, 49(1), 152-156.
• Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326.
• Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
• Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.
• Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
• Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130-160.
• McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100-122.
• McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204-217.
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159-181). Guilford Press.
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• 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), 547-561.
• Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 223-225.
• Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56(2), 128-165.
• Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. Wiley.
• Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246-268.
• Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933-938.
• Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 28-45.
• Penke, L., & Jokela, M. (2016). The evolutionary genetics of personality revisited. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 104-109.
• Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of personality. European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 549-587.
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.
• Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338.
• Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder 2.0. Gallup Press.
• Revelle, W., & Condon, D. M. (2015). A model for personality at three levels. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 70-81.
• Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (2000). Understanding the Enneagram: The practical guide to personality types. Houghton Mifflin.
• Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3-25.
• Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313-345.
• Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1-25.
• Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin.
• Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.
• Rudner, L. M. (1994). Questions to ask when evaluating tests. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 4, Article 2.
• Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Kubacka, K. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2005). The Michelangelo phenomenon in close relationships. In A. Tesser, J. Wood, & D. Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending, and regulating the self: A psychological perspective (pp. 1-29). Psychology Press.
• Saucier, G., Thalmayer, A. G., Payne, D. L., Carlson, R., Sanogo, L., Ole-Kotikash, L., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Somer, O., Szarota, P., Szirmák, Z., & Zhou, X. (2014). A basic bivariate structure of personality attributes evident across nine languages. Journal of Personality, 82(1), 1-14.
• Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42-70). John Wiley & Sons.
• Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
• Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61(8), 774-788.
• Sheldon, K. M. (2009). Providing the scientific backbone for positive psychology: A multi-level conception of human thriving. Psychological Topics, 18(2), 267-284.
• Stachl, C., Au, Q., Schoedel, R., Gosling, S. D., Harari, G. M., Buschek, D., Völkel, S. T., Schuwerk, T., Oldemeier, M., Ullmann, T., Hussmann, H., Bischl, B., & Bühner, M. (2020). Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(30), 17680-17687.
• Sugerman, J., Scullard, M., & Wilhelm, E. (2011). The 8 dimensions of leadership: DiSC strategies for becoming a better leader. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Sutton, A., Allinson, C., & Williams, H. (2013). Personality type and work-related outcomes: An exploratory application of the Enneagram model. European Management Journal, 31(3), 234-249.
• Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in co-worker preference: Similarity and complementarity in worker compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 223-243.
• Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769-785.
• Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 333-371.
• Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62(2), 71-83.
• Wood, D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2015). A functional perspective on personality trait development. In N. R. Branscombe & K. Reynolds (Eds.), Psychology of change: Life contexts, experiences, and identities (pp. 97-115). Psychology Press.
• Wrzus, C., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The TESSERA framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 253-277.
• Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press.
• Zinbarg, R. E., Uliaszek, A. A., & Adler, J. M. (2008). The role of personality in psychotherapy for anxiety and depression. Journal of Personality, 76(6), 1649-1688.

Further Reading and Research

Recommended Articles

• Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C. J., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., Hennecke, M., Jokela, M., Kandler, C., Lucas, R. E., Luhmann, M., Orth, U., Roberts, B. W., Wagner, J., Wrzus, C., & Zimmermann, J. (2022). Personality trait stability and change. Personality Science, 3, 1-16.
• Mõttus, R., Wood, D., Condon, D. M., Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Costantini, G., Epskamp, S., Greiff, S., Johnson, W., Lukaszewski, A., Murray, A., Revelle, W., Wright, A. G. C., Yarkoni, T., Ziegler, M., & Zimmermann, J. (2020). Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the Big Few traits. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1175-1201.
• Rauthmann, J. F. (2021). Capturing interactions, correlations, fits, and transactions: A person-environment relations model. In J. F. Rauthmann (Ed.), The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 427-510). Academic Press.

Suggested Books

• Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2021). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • A comprehensive textbook covering all major approaches to personality psychology with balanced coverage of classic and contemporary theories, empirical findings, and applications.
• McAdams, D. P. (2015). The art and science of personality development. Guilford Press.
  • Presents a lifespan developmental framework for personality incorporating elements from traits, social-cognitive, and narrative approaches with clear applications for understanding how personality develops.
• Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of personality psychology. Academic Press.
  • A definitive reference work containing contributions from leading personality researchers covering historical perspectives, theoretical approaches, assessment methods, and applications across various contexts.

Recommended Websites

• The American Psychological Association
• International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID)
  • Provides information about conferences, journals, and current research in personality psychology and individual differences, including access to newsletters and membership information.
• Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)
  • Offers resources including webinars, teaching materials, publication opportunities, and conference information focused on personality and social psychology research.
• Personality Project by William Revelle at Northwestern University
  • Contains comprehensive educational resources on personality theory, assessment techniques, data analysis methods, and links to personality measures and research tools for students and researchers.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV Personality Theories in Psychology. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/personality-theories-in-psychology (Accessed: 17 April 2025).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile