This literature review examines the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality, commonly known as the "Big Five," which organizes human personality around five core dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The paper traces the historical development of the model through factor-analytic research, reviews its descriptive and predictive validity, and evaluates key measurement instruments including explicit and implicit assessment methods. It also surveys prominent critiques — from Eysenck's competing three-factor PEN model to concerns about taxonomic coarseness and theoretical depth raised by Block, McAdams, and others — ultimately affirming the FFM's ongoing relevance in personality psychology and therapeutic practice.
The paper demonstrates effective use of direct quotation integrated into analysis. Rather than simply listing what sources say, the author embeds quoted passages with contextual framing that explains their significance — for example, quoting Block's critique alongside the Costa and McCrae rebuttal to model how scholarly discourse operates through citation and counter-citation.
The paper opens with a brief introduction establishing the FFM's place among personality models. It then moves through four numbered subsections: a descriptive overview of the five factors, a historical account of the model's development, an analysis of measurement and predictive validity (including implicit methods), and a survey of major critiques. A concluding paragraph synthesizes these threads and reasserts the model's value despite ongoing debate. The reference list covers approximately fifteen sources in APA format.
A central aim in psychology has been the establishment of a comprehensive and applicable model that can adequately describe human personality as well as human personality disorders. To this end, a number of models are vying for prominence in the field. One of the most successful and widely accepted of these is the Five Factor Model of personality, or FFM. This theory posits five different variables that constitute a conceptual framework for describing human personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.
The theory has generated an intensive body of literature surrounding its applicability as well as its comparative value against other models, such as Eysenck's three-factor or PEN model (Digman, 1990). There is also heated debate in the literature about the applicability and the testing value of the "Big Five" model. The following literature review provides a concise but comprehensive overview of the most salient aspects of this model as represented in the research literature.
Ewen's work Personality: A Topical Approach (1998) provides a fundamental and insightful overview of the way that each element of the FFM describes personality traits. Ewen refers, for example, to the fact that extraversion is defined as "a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown" (Ewen, 1998, p. 289). Neuroticism carries negative connotations and is described in studies as being related to levels of anxiety and emotional volatility. Pervin (1989) offers the view that neuroticism is "a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end" (Pervin, 1989, p. G-7).
Numerous studies go further in describing these factors. Rogosch and Cicchetti (2004) emphasize the important view that the five factors are dimensions rather than types. From this perspective, "people vary continuously on them, with most people falling in between the extremes" (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). Their study also addresses the estimated stability of these traits over time and their heritability.
Another important characteristic is that these factors are considered universal and are not specific to any one nation or cultural area: "the factors are considered universal, having been recovered in languages as diverse as German and Chinese" (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). The same study also emphasizes the relevance of the five factors in therapeutic contexts, stressing that "the factors are useful for insight and improvement through therapy" (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004).
Rogosch and Cicchetti (2004) also trace the origins of the five-factor model and explore its description as a hierarchically organized personality taxonomy. They assert that the five dimensions of the FFM represent higher-order traits, or broad general dimensions of individual differences in personality. More specific, lower-order traits are hierarchically organized through their association with these higher-order traits (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004). The authors further note that the FFM is closely related to other contending models, most notably Eysenck's three-factor PEN model, as well as Tellegen's system of personality structure and Cloninger's temperament model (Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2004).
One of the most cogent descriptions of the FFM in terms of treating psychological abnormalities can be found in Pervin's Personality: Theory and Research (1989). Pervin outlines the clinical dimensions of the model as follows: people who exhibit a characteristic that falls at an extreme on one or more of the five variables are likely to have some form of psychological abnormality associated with that trait. Such individuals tend to select environments that perpetuate the trait. To interrupt this cycle, psychologists help patients come to terms with the problematic trait, enabling them to break the pattern (Pervin, 1989, p. 318).
An extensive article that also illuminates the development of the FFM within psychology is Behavioral Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology: Unified Perspective on Personality Research (Segal & MacDonald, 1998). The article explores the emergence of the FFM from factor-analytical studies of English-language trait descriptors, discusses the five factors in detail, and relates the understanding of personality to the process of evolutionary psychology.
Essentially, the development of the Five Factor Model resulted from factor analyses of a large number of self-reports and peer reports on personality-relevant adjectives and questionnaire items. A wide range of articles and studies expand on this history. A useful starting point is Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement and Theoretical Perspectives by John and Srivastava, published in the Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (1999). This work provides a clear and comprehensive overview of the history and development of the FFM.
Another insightful study in this regard is Digman's (1996) The Curious History of the Five-Factor Model. This article discusses, among other topics, the early precursors of the theory — including D. W. Fiske's analysis of 22 rating scales and L. L. Thurstone's study of temperament — as well as other historical antecedents of the "Big Five" framework.
The value of the Big Five model lies partly in its clinical applicability and its effectiveness in ascertaining personality states and conditions. As Pervin states in Personality: Theory and Research (1989), supporters of the five-factor model point to the fact that factor analysis "serves as a useful bridge between the more clinical theories…and the learning, behavioral theories" (Pervin, 1989, p. 326).
With regard to the validity of FFM measurement, various assessment techniques can be applied. Widiger and Trull's (1997) study Assessment of the Five-Factor Model of Personality provides an overview and evaluation of these measures. The authors state that the FFM provides constructive "validation, recognition, and practical consideration across a broad domain of fields, including clinical psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and health psychology" (Widiger & Trull, 1997, p. 228). Their article examines in depth the various instruments that have been developed, including the Goldberg Big Five Markers, the revised NEO Personality Inventory, the Interpersonal Adjective Scales, the Personality Psychopathology measure, and the Hogan Personality Inventory (Widiger & Trull, 1997, p. 228).
An important aspect of the measurement debate concerns the limitations of explicit measurement techniques. Grumm and von Collani's (2007) study Measuring Big-Five Personality Dimensions with the Implicit Association Test posits that explicit measures can easily be distorted by participants. In particular, self-presentational strategies and faking tendencies arising from socially desirable responding have proven to be critical problems; Borkenau and Ostendorf (1992), for example, demonstrated that socially desirable responding poses a significant challenge for Big Five measurement (Grumm & von Collani, 2007).
Grumm and von Collani suggest that implicit methods of measurement should be considered as an alternative. These implicit methodologies are characterized by automatic, intuitive, and uncontrolled responding (Grumm & von Collani, 2007), and can avoid many of the pitfalls associated with explicit measurement approaches.
In this regard, an informative article is Implicit Measures in Social Cognition Research: Their Meaning and Use by Fazio and Olson (2003). This work explores various implicit measurement methods that avoid the biases inherent in direct reports. The article reviews a range of implicit methods and their application across several domains, including attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes (Fazio & Olson, 2003). It also discusses the predictive validity of these methods, gives attention to various priming measures and the Implicit Association Test, and investigates the kinds of behavior each measure is likely to predict, their sensitivity to context, and the construct's potential for change (Fazio & Olson, 2003).
Acceptance of the five-factor model is by no means universal, and there are many competing voices and alternative theories that have been proposed in its place. One of the best-known critiques is Block's (1995) article A Contrarian View of the Five-Factor Approach to Personality Description. Block asserts that there are many inconsistencies and areas of contention within the FFM. He argues that while advocates claim factor analysis has "discovered" the basic dimensions of personality description (p. 187), the theory "may not permit us to reach higher or high enough into the psychological heavens to warrant acceptance of this conformity" (p. 214). Among the many empirical objections Block raises is the assertion that the breadth of the five factors introduces an indefiniteness and inconsistency, and he also criticizes what he calls the "descriptive coarseness" of the Big Five.
Block's article has generated considerable debate. A useful counter-argument can be found in Costa and McCrae's (1995) Solid Ground in the Wetlands of Personality: A Reply to Block, which contends that "the most impressive achievement of the FFM is its reduction of conceptual jangle, showing how constructs ostensibly as different as absorption, intuition, and need for change all reflect aspects of the single, broader construct of Openness" (Costa & McCrae, 1995).
The validity and ongoing debated aspects of the FFM are also addressed by DeYoung et al. (2007) in Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five. The article discusses levels of the hierarchy above the Big Five domains as well as the "facets" at a second level, arguing that insufficient attention has been paid to a level of trait organization located between facets and domains.
Segal, N., & MacDonald, K. (1998). Behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology: Unified perspective on personality research. Human Biology.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Assessment of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(2), 228–250.
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.