Personality Psychology: How the Big Five Traits Shape Our Lives

Written By Dr Harry

Why Understanding Personality Matters

‘Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.’

Understanding personality extends beyond academic or clinical settings — it carries profound personal significance for each of us. This likely accounts for our deep and persistent interest in both our own personalities and those of others. Such curiosity is clearly reflected in popular culture. For example, many of the most enduring and commercially successful film genres often explore extreme or distinctive personality traits. Whether at the level of the individual — as seen in crime, horror, or psychological thrillers — the interpersonal — as in romance or drama — or the societal — through dystopian or disaster narratives — these stories often centre on fundamental questions of personality and human behaviour.

It should come as no surprise that personality influences well-being, physical health, behavioural tendencies, career choices, performance at work, and the ways in which we relate to others — both socially and romantically [1][2]. Crucially, understanding our own personality traits enables us to better align with environments, roles, and pursuits that are congruent with our own unique dispositions and capabilities, thereby providing a foundation for more considered and authentic decision-making. This insight becomes particularly important during periods of dissatisfaction or internal conflict — whether in a job, relationship, or daily routine. In such moments, a clearer grasp of personality can help explain why certain environments may feel restrictive rather than supportive. In this way, understanding personality not only underscores the significant influence traits exert on life outcomes, but also serves as a valuable tool for identifying where we are most likely to thrive [1].

Interpersonally, personality plays a pivotal role in shaping the quality and stability of our relationships — informing how we communicate, empathise, and cultivate trust. Yet beyond influencing relational dynamics, a more refined understanding of personality can guide the kinds of relationships we choose to pursue [3]. It allows us to better assess compatibility, identify sources of friction, and anticipate how certain temperaments may interact over time [4]. Whether forming new connections or making sense of existing ones, insight into personality offers a powerful lens through which to understand both ourselves and others — explaining why we may experience tension, ease, or emotional distance in specific relational contexts — based on the natural alignment, or misalignment, of different personality dispositions [3][4].

On a broader social and institutional level, personality also influences how we engage with wider cultural narratives, worldviews, and political landscapes [1]. While traits may not rigidly determine ideological beliefs, they often shape the way we interpret and respond to societal trends [5][6]. Depending on an individual’s personality profile, certain sociopolitical movements, cultural shifts, or dominant media narratives may feel either deeply affirming or markedly alienating [6]. In a period defined by rapid technological and ideological change, developing a clearer understanding of our own dispositions can help us recognise why we respond to particular messages, environments, or collective experiences in the way that we do — and, in turn, enable us to make more informed decisions about what to engage with, what to avoid, and how to remain grounded amid the constant influx of information now available to us.

In essence, personality provides a framework through which we interpret experience, navigate relationships, and engage with the wider world. Developing a deeper understanding of it offers a foundation for greater self-awareness, more deliberate decision-making, and a stronger sense of existential clarity. Personality is not a deterministic script, but a significant influence on the trajectory and quality of our lives — shaping how we connect with others, respond to challenges, and, ultimately, who we become.

The Study of Personality

Personality refers to the enduring characteristics and patterns of behaviour that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life [7]. It is an active, internal system that influences how we consistently respond to the world. Research into personality primarily investigates how it can be broken down into individual, separable components, and how these components can be reliably measured. This is achieved by identifying specific traits that give rise to consistent behavioural patterns across a variety of contexts — traits that remain relatively stable over time and, crucially, can be assessed with a degree of reliability.

Over the 20th century, multiple frameworks emerged to explain personality. Early psychoanalytic theories emphasised unconscious motives, whereas humanistic theories stressed conscious choice and self-actualisation. Social-cognitive approaches highlighted the dynamic interaction between situational factors, cognitive processes, and personal dispositions. Within this theoretical landscape, trait theory rose to prominence by empirically identifying stable dimensions of personality [8].

So, where are we today, and which theory is primarily used to assess personality? Decades of research generally point to trait theory as the prevailing gold standard. While it is true that situational factors can influence behaviour in the moment (i.e., our state) — and that psychoanalytic theories rightly highlight the role of unconscious or subconscious drives — findings across multiple decades consistently demonstrate that enduring patterns of behaviour tend to reflect stable, underlying personality traits. This accumulating body of evidence has led to a strong consensus around trait theory as the most reliable and widely accepted framework for understanding personality — a model that has not only remained consistently robust, but has also evolved over time [9].

There are a number of models within trait theory. Two of the most established are the Big Five — also known as the Five Factor Model — and the Dark Tetrad, which evolved from the earlier concept of the Dark Triad.

The Big Five outlines five broad dimensions of personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism [9].

The Dark Tetrad, by contrast, focuses on darker social traits: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sadism [10].

Both models fall under the broader umbrella of trait theory, and together they offer a comprehensive lens through which we can examine both the adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of human personality. To achieve a thorough assessment of an individual's personality, both frameworks should be utilised in conjunction.

The Big Five’s strengths lie in its deliberately neutral stance on each included trait, eschewing ethical or moral judgements. It thereby functions as a measure of both internal dispositions and external behavioural styles — pointing not to why behaviours occur, but rather how they tend to manifest. However, this purposeful exclusion of morality or motivational predispositions leaves a significant gap in the assessment of personality.

For example, the Big Five might predict that an individual low in Agreeableness is more assertive, critical, and competitive than someone high in Agreeableness, who may lean towards being socially considerate, cooperative, and attentive — but it cannot tell us who is more deceitful, manipulative, or cruel. This is because it does not account for the individual’s ethical or moral orientation. As such, it is entirely possible for a highly agreeable person to act in a way they perceive as considerate, while society at large may judge the same act as cruel — for instance, in cases where the individual holds an obscure moral compass or radical ideological beliefs, and genuinely believes that inflicting suffering on another constitutes an act of kindness, whether towards the individual or society as a whole.

This limitation applies across all of the Big Five traits, as they are intentionally not morally defined and do not concern themselves with what is ethically right or wrong. Yet this omission creates a significant gap in personality assessment, as what motivates us — our incentive structures, interpersonal conduct, and ethical orientation — is central to what we think and feel, why we do so, and how we choose to behave in our environment. The Dark Tetrad addresses this gap by directly engaging with these dimensions. Therefore, assessing both the Dark Tetrad traits and the Big Five personality traits offers the most robust framework for achieving a more comprehensive understanding of an individual’s personality.

The remainder of this section will focus on the Big Five model — examining each trait in detail, exploring how they interact, and how they can be measured. A link to two freely available personality assessments will be provided at the end of the article. Both tests are entirely free to use, require no registration, and do not request any personal information.

The Big Five: Psychology’s Leading Trait Model

The Big Five — also known as the Five Factor Model — is named after the five core traits that comprise it, represented by the acronym OCEAN. Each of these traits is necessarily broad in scope and is composed of various sub-traits, allowing for more precise measurement and assessment [11]. The five core traits are:

1. Openness to Experience: A tendency towards curiosity, imagination, and open-mindedness. High Openness is associated with intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, creativity, and a preference for novelty and variety. Low Openness, by contrast, reflects a more conventional and pragmatic orientation, with a preference for familiarity and routine over new experiences [12].

Let’s ground this in reality — what does Openness actually look like in someone’s life? Think of someone high in Openness: they’re the kind of person who is constantly learning something obscure, travelling to remote places not just for leisure but to understand the culture. They may spend their free time reading poetry or philosophy, and might even change careers mid-life in pursuit of something more meaningful. Conversations with them often drift into abstract topics — existence, aesthetics, ethics — and they genuinely enjoy inhabiting that kind of mental space. Emotionally, they experience life intensely, but with this comes a certain restlessness. Routine can feel suffocating. They may idealise novelty, continually chasing ‘what’s next’, and sometimes feel out of step with the practical world.

Now picture someone low in Openness. Their life is grounded in reliability. They value tradition, adhere to routines, and place trust in what is tried and tested. They might have remained in the same job for decades, frequent the same restaurants, and prefer conversations rooted in the tangible — work, family, current events. Abstract or speculative discussions — on topics like metaphysics or moral theory — can seem unnecessary or even indulgent. Emotionally, they favour calm and clarity, and may struggle with ambiguity or unconventional perspectives. This stability can be a strength, particularly in times of uncertainty. However, when taken to the extreme, it may lead to rigidity, closed-mindedness, or discomfort with difference and change.

2. Conscientiousness: A tendency to be self-disciplined, dutiful, and strive for achievement against measures or outside expectations. It is related to an individual’s capacity for impulse control, self-regulation, and goal-directed behaviour. High Conscientiousness is often perceived as driven and reflects a preference for structure and planned activity over spontaneity. Low Conscientiousness is associated with greater flexibility and spontaneity, but may also be perceived as careless or unreliable [12].

Let’s look at how Conscientiousness actually manifests in day-to-day life. High in Conscientiousness? Think of someone who is always early, keeps everything organised, and thrives on structure. Their calendar is meticulously planned, their goals are tracked, and their desk is spotless. They follow through on commitments, even at personal cost, and take pride in being reliable. But when taken to an extreme, they can also become rigid, perfectionistic, or overly cautious. Rest may feel like laziness; they might struggle to delegate tasks, and spontaneity is often sacrificed for control.

At the other end of the spectrum, low Conscientiousness looks markedly different. These are individuals who are frequently late, misplace belongings, and find it difficult to adhere to plans. They may begin tasks with enthusiasm but rarely finish them, shifting between jobs or goals with minimal follow-through. There’s a laid-back spontaneity to their disposition, but also a tendency to procrastinate and avoid responsibility. Without external structure, their lives can become disorganised, and they are more prone to impulsive or risky behaviour.

One way to frame this difference is to see the highly conscientious individual as prone to future-oriented thinking — characterised by a preoccupation with long-term goals and an inherent awareness of consequences. Their actions are often shaped by a sense of what ‘ought’ to be done, with a strong preference for delayed gratification. In contrast, individuals low in Conscientiousness tend to be more present-oriented. They are less inclined to engage in tasks requiring sustained effort without immediate payoff. Instead, they prioritise short-term rewards and often make decisions based on mood or convenience, rather than overarching goals.

3. Extraversion: A tendency towards sociability, external stimulation, and engagement with a breadth — as opposed to a depth — of activities. Extraverted individuals are energised by interaction with the external world and, in social settings, typically appear outgoing, energetic, and talkative [12]. Introverts (i.e., those low in Extraversion) tend to be more reserved, quiet, and inclined towards solitude. Unlike extraverts, introverts often find that social interactions deplete rather than replenish their energy [13]. Some psychologists — including Carl Jung, who originally introduced the term — have argued that it is not only that the introvert’s energy diminishes through external interaction, but also that it is replenished through internal reflection [14]. Consequently, individuals low in trait Extraversion may appear less socially dominant, less overtly enthusiastic, and more measured or deliberate in their speech and behaviour.

Of all the traits, Extraversion is arguably the most frequently misunderstood. A common misconception is that Extraversion equates to confidence or sociability in all contexts, and that Introversion implies shyness or social anxiety. While this is an understandable confusion, it is ultimately inaccurate. The essential distinction between the two lies in preference: Extraversion reflects a preference for stimulation through social interaction and external activity, and it is this preference that shapes their behaviour in social settings. Introversion, by contrast, reflects a preference for solitude, as it aligns more naturally with their temperament.

Shyness, on the other hand, involves an avoidance of social situations due to the anxiety they provoke, and does not necessarily reflect a preference for solitude. This distinction is critical: an extravert may lack confidence in some social settings, and an introvert may be entirely free from social anxiety. The two constructs — extraversion-introversion and confidence-shyness — should therefore not be conflated.

4. Agreeableness: This trait is characterised by a general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others and typically hold an optimistic view of human nature. They are often perceived by those around them as attentive, cooperative, considerate, and compassionate. Low Agreeableness, by contrast, reflects a more antagonistic or sceptical orientation, which may come across as critical, competitive, and less concerned with social cohesion [12].

As with all traits, difficulties emerge when individuals lean towards the extreme ends of the spectrum. The problems associated with very low levels of Agreeableness are relatively self-evident: this is where antisocial tendencies may begin to surface — including a disregard for the well-being of others, difficulty with cooperation, and strained interpersonal relationships. It is a bit like being a bull in a china shop — forceful, disruptive, and socially unaware. Notably, very low levels of Agreeableness are strongly correlated with elevated scores on the Dark Tetrad traits [15].

On the other hand, those extremely high in Agreeableness — though perhaps less conspicuous — may also encounter pervasive difficulties. To be agreeable to everyone is, in effect, to be loyal to no one. Indiscriminate trust increases the risk of exploitation, both of the individual and, potentially, of those they are responsible for. Recent history suggests that excessive compliance — whether born of naivety or conflict avoidance — can have harmful consequences at both societal and individual levels. This may be explored in a future entry, by detailing the famously unethical ‘Milgram experiments’ [16], which highlight the darker side of uncritical obedience.

It is safe to conclude, however, that avoiding extremes and fostering a moderate level of Agreeableness — one that balances compassion with principled assertiveness — tends to result in fewer interpersonal difficulties and contributes positively to social cohesion.

5. Neuroticism: A tendency to experience negative emotions and emotional instability. High Neuroticism is characterised by frequent anxiety, emotional dysregulation, and heightened susceptibility to stress. Individuals high in this trait often perceive ordinary situations as threatening, and their negative emotional responses tend to persist for an extended period.

Low Neuroticism (i.e., high emotional stability) is associated with calmness, even-temperedness, and resilience under pressure. Although this may sometimes correlate with positive affect, by definition, low Neuroticism does not necessarily imply a greater frequency of positive emotions, but rather a reduced tendency to experience negative emotional states [12].

How Personality Traits Combine and Interact

Having detailed each of the Big Five traits individually, it’s important to emphasise — and this is crucial — that these traits do not operate in isolation. While examining them one by one aids conceptual understanding, in practice, it is the interaction and combination of traits that forms an individual’s unique psychological signature.

To illustrate just how vast this variability can be, consider the following: if we simplify matters by assuming only three levels for each trait — low, medium, and high — we already arrive at 243 distinct combinations. And this does not yet take into account deeper dimensions such as moral beliefs, motivational drives, personal values, or environmental influences. Even when constrained to just five traits and three levels each, the potential variation in personality expression is already substantial.

Certain combinations can compensate for or amplify one another, influencing behaviour in ways that would not be apparent when considering any single trait in isolation. Examples of these include:

Compensating or Exacerbating Trait Effects

Take Neuroticism and Extraversion — an individual high in both may crave social connection yet frequently feel emotionally overwhelmed or hurt within those same social environments. Interestingly, Extraversion’s association with positive emotionality can serve as a buffer against the emotional distress linked to Neuroticism — meaning that a sociable but neurotic person might be less vulnerable to depression than someone who is both neurotic and introverted. Indeed, high Neuroticism combined with low Extraversion is among the personality profiles most consistently linked to mood disorder vulnerability: such individuals experience intense emotions but lack the social stimulation or support systems needed to regulate them effectively [17].

Another illustrative case is the interaction between Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. High Conscientiousness may mitigate some of the impulsive or avoidant tendencies often seen in high Neuroticism. A person who is both highly conscientious and anxious might worry excessively — but will likely compensate through meticulous planning, strict adherence to medical advice, and avoidance of maladaptive coping mechanisms such as substance use [18].

By contrast, high Neuroticism coupled with low Conscientiousness is often associated with dysfunctional coping, chronic stress, disorganisation, and an increased likelihood of engaging in risky or self-defeating behaviours [19].

Reinforcing Trait Clusters

Some traits align naturally to form stable behavioural patterns. For instance, an individual who is low in Agreeableness, low in Conscientiousness, and low in Neuroticism may exhibit traits typically associated with Psychopathy [20] — emotionally cold, impulsive, fearless, and unconcerned with the well-being of others. None of these traits alone fully captures that profile; it is their combination that gives rise to what may present, at least on the surface, as an antisocial personality pattern.

In a more prosocial configuration, high Extraversion combined with high Agreeableness tends to produce someone who is not only outgoing but also warm and considerate — a classic “people person” [21]. Similarly, high Openness paired with high Extraversion is commonly seen in charismatic leaders or creative performers [21] — individuals who are imaginative and ambitious, and who possess the confidence and energy to pursue their ideas in public or expressive ways.

In contrast, high Openness alongside low Agreeableness may characterise the critical thinker or contrarian intellectual [21] — someone imaginative and independent-minded, but also inclined, or even drawn, to confrontation.

Trait Profiles and ‘Personality Types’

When describing how traits interact, it can be useful to articulate the resulting patterns in the kind of language typically used to describe people. While the Big Five traits are fundamentally dimensional, researchers have occasionally identified certain recurring profiles that resemble broader ‘Personality Types’. For example:

  • The Resilient Type: Low Neuroticism, High Conscientiousness, High Agreeableness — emotionally stable, dependable, and socially well-adjusted [22].

  • The Over-Controlled Type: High Neuroticism, High Conscientiousness, Low Extraversion — tense, disciplined, and potentially prone to internalising distress [21].

  • The Under-Controlled Type: Low Agreeableness, Low Conscientiousness, High Extraversion — disinhibited, impulsive, and inclined towards confrontation [22].

These are not rigid categories — most individuals will not fit neatly into one — but they serve to illustrate that certain combinations of traits do commonly co-occur and carry meaningful behavioural implications.

Unique Trait Synergies

Occasionally, an unusual combination of traits can produce unexpected outcomes or specific talents. For example, consider high Neuroticism combined with high Conscientiousness — individuals with this profile may present as perfectionistic, channelling their anxiety into meticulous, detail-oriented work. While high Neuroticism typically impairs performance, when paired with high Conscientiousness, it can drive an individual to over-prepare and compulsively check for errors, sometimes leading to exceptional achievement in precision-dependent tasks — albeit often at the cost of significant personal stress [23].

Another case involves high Agreeableness and high Extraversion. While agreeable individuals are generally conflict-averse, those who are also extraverted may possess the social assertiveness to address conflict and the empathy to navigate it diplomatically — making them particularly effective mediators or negotiators [24].

High Openness combined with high Neuroticism may seem counterintuitive, but it can foster what is often described as an “artist’s temperament”: Openness contributes imagination, emotional depth, and creativity, while Neuroticism introduces intensity and emotional sensitivity. Together, these traits may fuel poignant artistic expression — though often accompanied by emotional volatility or personal turmoil.

In contrast, low Openness paired with high Conscientiousness produces an individual who is highly traditional and rule-bound [22]. While exceptionally reliable in conventional, structured environments — such as bureaucratic institutions or regulatory settings — such individuals may struggle in contexts that demand adaptability, innovation, or creative problem-solving.

The Importance of Trait Interactions

The key point is that trait combinations can give rise to nuanced subtypes of personality. Some traits interact in complementary ways, while others may be in tension. Understanding these interactions offers deeper, more targeted insights into personality, and helps us make sense of internal psychological conflicts.

Although far from exhaustive, this approach does greater justice to the complexity of real individuals — moving beyond static trait labels to consider how traits combine, conflict, and reinforce one another within the broader personality structure.

Assessing Personality: Tools for Measuring the Big Five

To measure the Big Five traits reliably, three assessments stand out as particularly robust. The NEO Personality Inventory-3 — often regarded as the gold standard [25] — is a 240-item instrument that breaks each trait down into six specific facets. It is comprehensive, highly validated, and widely used in both clinical and research settings [26]. That said, it is a paid tool, typically administered by professionals such as clinicians, and is therefore not readily accessible to the general public.

The good news is that there are two freely available, research-backed alternatives, both of which have demonstrated strong validity for most purposes. Links to these are included below. As mentioned, these tests are completely free to use — no sign-up, registration, or personal information is required — just the questionnaire and your results.

First, the IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool – NEO), available in both 120-item and 300-item formats, is one of the most effective open-access assessments available. It closely mirrors the structure of the NEO, and in comparative studies, it performs equally well in measuring the Big Five traits [27]. The 120-item version takes approximately 15–20 minutes and provides detailed scores across both broad traits and their associated facets.

Second, for those with limited time, the Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2) offers a strong alternative. Comprising 60 items, it can be completed in approximately 10 minutes and yields scores on both the major traits and their key facets. While it is not as in-depth as longer instruments, it has demonstrated excellent reliability in empirical research [28], making it the most suitable option for those seeking a quick yet accurate assessment of their personality profile.

Key Takeaways

  • Personality refers to the enduring characteristics and patterns of behaviour that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life.

  • Trait theory is the most empirically supported and widely accepted framework for understanding personality.

  • The Big Five model — comprising Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism — is the most robust and extensively validated model within trait theory.

  • Traits interact in complex ways — it is the overall trait profile and the way traits interplay that shapes personality expression.

  • The Dark Tetrad traits complement the Big Five by addressing the moral, motivational, and interpersonal dimensions that the Big Five deliberately omits.

  • Trait expression does not determine outcomes, but it strongly informs behaviour, emotional tendencies, and compatibility with certain environments.

  • The most reliable and accessible personality assessments include the IPIP-NEO and the BFI-2 — both are freely available, research-validated tools suitable for personal or informal use. Links to both assessments are provided here:
    - IPIP-NEO (120-item and 300-item versions): https://psytests.org/big5/ineoBen.html
    - Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2): https://psytests.org/big5/bfiBen.html

References

1. Ozer, D. J., & Benet‑Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127 

2. Strickhouser, J. E., Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2017). Does personality predict health and well-being? A metasynthesis. Health Psychology, 36(8), 797–810. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28277701/

3. Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255908511

4. Sayehmiri, K., Kareem, K. I., Abdi, K., Dalvand, S., Azami, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2020). The relationship between personality traits and marital satisfaction: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. BMC Psychology, 8, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0383-z

5. Osborne, D., Satherley, N., & Sibley, C. G. (2020). Personality and ideology: A meta-analysis of the reliable, but non-causal association between Openness and conservatism. Political Psychology, 41(1), 23–48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353815831

6. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265–287. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659 

7.  APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). Personality. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/personality

8. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Guilford Press.

9. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.

10. Paulhus, D. L. (2016). The Dark Tetrad of Personality. In V. Zeigler‑Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1059-1    

11. Vedel, A., Wellnitz, K. B., Ludeke, S., Soto, C. J., John, O. P., & Andersen, S. C. (2021). Development and validation of the Danish Big Five Inventory‑2: Domain‑ and facet‑level structure, construct validity, and reliability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(1), 42–51. https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1015-5759/a000570  

12. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five‑Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x 

 13. Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an International English Big‑Five Mini‑Markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013 

14. Jung, C. G. (1995). Memories, dreams, reflections. London: Fontana Press. (pp. 414–415).

15. Furnham, A., & Cuppello, S. (2024). Correlates of the Dark Tetrad. Acta Psychologica, 245, Article 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104222

16. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525 

17. Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta‑analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327

18. Stieger, M., Robinson, S. A., Bisson, A. N., & Lachman, M. E. (2020). The relationship of personality and behavior change in a physical activity intervention: The role of conscientiousness and healthy neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, Article 110224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110224

19. Naragon‑Gainey, K., & Simms, L. J. (2017). Three‑way interaction of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness in the internalizing disorders: Evidence of disorder specificity in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.05.003  

20. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006

21. Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2018). A robust data‑driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 735–742. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0419-z   

22. Kerber, A., Roth, M., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2021). Personality types revisited – a literature-informed and data-driven approach to an integration of prototypical and dimensional constructs of personality description. PLOS ONE, 16(1), Article e0244849. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244849 

23. Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Vidovic, V., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Benoit, A. (2019). Perfectionism and the Five-Factor Model of personality: A meta‑analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318814973 

24. Sass, M. D., & Liao‑Troth, M. (2015). Personality and negotiation performance: The people matter. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2549992 

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

26. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2009). The Five‑Factor Model and the NEO inventories. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (pp. 299–322). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195366877.013.0016  

27. Gómez‑Fraguela, J. A., Villar‑Torres, P., González‑Iglesias, B., & Luengo, M. A. (2014). Development and initial validation of IPIP‑NEO (120) for measurement of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 60(Supplement), S54–S55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.227

28. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI‑2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096  

Dr Harry
Next

The Depraved Mind: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy and Sadism