Five Factor Model of Personality: A Literature Review
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.
- Introduction: FFM introduced as leading personality model
- Describing the Five Factor Model: Definitions and characteristics of the five dimensions
- The Development of the FFM: Historical origins in factor-analytic personality research
- Predictive Validity and Measurement: Explicit and implicit measurement tools assessed
- Critiques of the FFM Approach: Block, Eysenck, McAdams, and others challenge the model
- Conclusion: FFM affirmed as valuable despite ongoing debate
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The review synthesizes a wide range of primary sources — including foundational texts, empirical studies, and direct rebuttals — to present a balanced, multi-perspectival account of the FFM.
- It moves logically from description and history to measurement validity and then to critique, giving the reader a coherent scaffolded understanding of the field.
- The inclusion of counter-arguments (e.g., Costa and McCrae responding to Block) demonstrates scholarly engagement with ongoing debates rather than one-sided advocacy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
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.
Structure breakdown
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.
Introduction
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.
Describing the Five Factor Model
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.
The Development of the FFM
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.
Conclusion
The above review of the key literature on this subject leads to the conclusion that while the FFM has attained a significant degree of acceptance and viability in psychological practice, many aspects of the model have also been subjected to criticism and scientific scrutiny. This does not diminish the model's value. On the contrary, the breadth and intensity of debate surrounding the FFM is a sign of the healthy discourse it has engendered — itself an indication of its ongoing relevance to the understanding of personality structure and its application to the therapeutic treatment of personality disorders. While claims of a "perfect" model are rightly questioned, there is little doubt that, as Digman states, the five variables that compose the FFM "provide a good answer to the question of personality structure" (Digman, 1990, p. 436).
References
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.
Clark, L. A. (1993). Personality disorder diagnosis: Limitations of the five-factor model. Psychological Inquiry, 4(2), 100–104.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 216–220.
Davis, R. D., & Millon, T. (1993). The five-factor model for personality disorders: Apt or misguided? Psychological Inquiry, 4(2), 104–109.
DeYoung, C., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5).
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Digman, J. M. (1996). The curious history of the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–20). Guilford.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790.
Ewen, R. B. (1998). Personality: A topical approach. Erlbaum.
Fazio, R., & Olson, M. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
Grumm, M., & von Collani, G. (2007). Measuring Big-Five personality dimensions with the implicit association test: Implicit personality traits or self-esteem? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2205–2217.
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. Guilford Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.
Pervin, L. A. (1989). Personality: Theory and research (5th ed.). Wiley.
Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). Child maltreatment and emergent personality organization: Perspectives from the five-factor model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 123+.
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.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.