Big Five Personality Statistics You Need to Know in 2026

Journalists, students and HR teams keep asking the same questions about personality tests. How many people take them? How much of personality is genetic? Does a score predict anything real? Is the MBTI as shaky as people say?

This page collects 65 statistics that answer those questions. Every number was checked against the original paper, report or vendor page, and every entry names its source and year so you can verify it yourself. Where reputable sources disagree, both figures are shown. Where a widely quoted number could not be verified, it was left out and we say so at the end.

Attribution is plain text on purpose. The sources list at the bottom carries the DOI or publisher for each study.

Key numbers at a glance

How big personality testing is

Reliable, audited numbers on the personality testing industry are rare. Most figures come from vendors or commercial market research firms that do not publish their methods. Treat the ones below as claims by the named source, not as independent measurements.

1. The Myers-Briggs Company says the MBTI has "over two million assessments administered annually." (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company product page, read September 2026)
2. The same company states the MBTI is used by "88% of Fortune 500 companies." (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company, read September 2026)
3. 56% of employers use pre-employment assessments to gauge applicants' knowledge, skills and abilities. This covers all assessment types, not personality tests alone. (Source: SHRM survey of 1,688 US HR professionals, February 2022)
4. 79% of HR professionals say scores on skills assessments are as important as, or more important than, traditional criteria such as years of experience. (Source: SHRM, 2022)
5. 36% of HR professionals say a candidate who scores high on an assessment but misses the minimum years of experience is very likely to make the final list. The parallel figure for a candidate missing the education requirement is 28%. (Source: SHRM, 2022)
6. Straits Research puts the global personality assessment solution market at USD 6.31 billion in 2025, rising to USD 17.92 billion by 2034 at a 12.3% compound annual growth rate. (Source: Straits Research, 2025. Commercial report, methodology not public)
7. Polaris Market Research values the broader candidate skills assessment market at USD 2.86 billion in 2024, projected to reach USD 8.35 billion by 2034 at 11.3% a year. (Source: Polaris Market Research, 2024. Commercial report, methodology not public)
8. The 16Personalities homepage counter reads "1.57B+ total tests taken" and "48K+ tests taken today." The counter tracks completions, not unique people, and is not audited. (Source: 16Personalities, read 3 September 2026)
9. Gallup's CliftonStrengths homepage counter shows more than 37.9 million people have taken that assessment. (Source: Gallup, read 3 September 2026)

The two market figures above describe different markets, so they do not contradict each other. Neither firm publishes its method. If you quote either, attribute it in the sentence.

How solid the Big Five is as a measurement

This is the section that separates the Big Five from most other personality frameworks. The numbers below describe heritability, stability over time, internal reliability and whether the five-factor structure shows up outside the United States.

Heritability

10. A meta-analysis of behaviour-genetic studies found an average effect of .40, meaning "40% of individual differences in personality were due to genetic, while 60% are due to environmental influences." The sample was 62 independent effect sizes covering more than 100,000 participants, and the conclusion held after correcting for publication bias. (Source: Vukasovic and Bratko, Psychological Bulletin, 2015)
11. Study design changed the answer. Twin studies produced a heritability estimate of .47; family and adoption studies produced .22. Personality model and gender did not moderate the result. (Source: Vukasovic and Bratko, 2015)

Any single "personality is X% genetic" claim should say which design produced it. The gap between twin and family designs is more than a factor of two.

Stability across the lifespan

12. Rank-order consistency of personality traits rises from .31 in childhood to .54 in the college years, .64 at age 30, and plateaus around .74 between ages 50 and 70, with the retest interval held constant at 6.7 years. (Source: Roberts and DelVecchio, Psychological Bulletin, 2000)
13. That estimate rests on 3,217 test-retest correlations from 152 longitudinal studies. (Source: Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000)

Rank-order stability answers the question "do people keep their position relative to others?" It is a different question from "does the average person change with age?", which is covered further down.

Reliability of the main instruments

14. In the BFI-2 validation studies, all five domain scales had alpha reliabilities of at least .83 in the internet sample (N = 1,000) and .85 in the student sample (N = 470), with eight-week retest reliabilities of at least .76. (Source: Soto and John, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2017)
15. The BFI-2's 15 facet scales, each four items long, had alphas from .66 to .85 and eight-week retest reliabilities from .66 to .83, averaging .73. (Source: Soto and John, 2017)
16. The public-domain IPIP-NEO-120 reports Cronbach's alpha of .90 for conscientiousness, .90 for neuroticism, .89 for extraversion, .86 for agreeableness and .81 for openness, with facet alphas from .63 to .88. (Source: Johnson, Journal of Research in Personality, 2014)
17. IPIP-NEO-120 facet scales correlate with the matching commercial NEO PI-R facets at an average of .66, or .91 after correcting for unreliability. (Source: Johnson, 2014)
18. In a sample of 320,128 IPIP-NEO-120 respondents, the mean facet reliability was alpha = .78, and five extracted factors accounted for 51% of variance (21%, 11%, 8%, 6% and 5%). (Source: Kajonius and Johnson, Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2019)

Facet reliabilities sit well below domain reliabilities because facet scales are short. That is the technical reason a facet score needs a wider uncertainty band than a domain score, and why a small facet difference between two people is usually noise.

Does the structure replicate across cultures?

19. College students in 50 cultures rated 11,985 people using the observer version of the NEO PI-R. "The normative American self-report structure was clearly replicated in most cultures and was recognizable in all." (Source: McCrae, Terracciano and 78 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005)
20. The Big Five Inventory was translated into 28 languages and given to 17,837 people in 56 nations. The five-dimensional structure was robust across major world regions. (Source: Schmitt, Allik, McCrae and Benet-Martinez, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2007)
21. The International Personality Item Pool, the public-domain source of the IPIP-NEO-120, lists 3,320 items and more than 250 scales built from them. The items carry no licence fee. (Source: International Personality Item Pool, Oregon Research Institute, read September 2026)

Personality and work

The honest summary: personality predicts job performance, but less than early meta-analyses claimed, and only conscientiousness generalizes across jobs. The most newsworthy change in this field came in 2022, when a re-analysis lowered the validity of nearly every selection method.

22. After correcting a systematic overcorrection for range restriction, the revised operational validities for predicting job performance are .42 for structured interviews, .38 for biodata, .31 for general mental ability tests, .31 for integrity tests and .19 for conscientiousness tests. (Source: Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2022, as reprinted in Sackett et al., 2024)
23. The revision cut the validity of cognitive ability tests from .52 to .31, so they "are no longer the strongest predictor of job performance." (Source: Sackett et al., 2024)
24. Under the revised estimates, the ranking of selection methods is structured interviews r = .42, job knowledge tests r = .40, empirically keyed biodata r = .38, work sample tests r = .33, cognitive ability r = .31. Vocational interests rose from .10 to .24 under the same corrections. (Source: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology summary, 2023)
25. A meta-analysis limited to explicit Big Five measures put the operational validity of conscientiousness for job performance at .20, across 45 coefficients and 8,083 people. The authors argued earlier estimates were too high. (Source: Hurtz and Donovan, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000)
26. In that same analysis, the other four traits predicted overall job performance at .13 for emotional stability, .11 for agreeableness, .09 for extraversion and .06 for openness. (Source: Hurtz and Donovan, 2000)
27. Across 222 correlations from 73 samples, the five traits together had a multiple correlation of .48 with leadership. (Source: Judge, Bono, Ilies and Gerhardt, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002)
28. Trait by trait, the correlations with leadership were extraversion .31, conscientiousness .28, openness .24, neuroticism -.24 and agreeableness .08. Extraversion was the most consistent correlate across both leader emergence and leader effectiveness. (Source: Judge et al., 2002)
29. Across 52 studies and 1,307 regression coefficients, a one standard deviation increase in openness went with a 1.92% rise in earnings, conscientiousness with 1.61% and extraversion with 0.30%, while agreeableness went with -1.69% and neuroticism with -1.78%. The author describes the effects as "modest to small" and notes they shrink after accounting for publication bias. (Source: Vella, Institute for Social and Economic Research working paper, 2023; later published in Bulletin of Economic Research, 2024)

Two things to keep straight when quoting this section. First, the often-cited conscientiousness validities of .22 to .31 come from the 1991 to 1997 generation of meta-analyses, which used correction methods that have since been revised. The current best estimate is .19 to .20. Second, a validity of .19 is not nothing. Used alongside a structured interview, it still adds information. It is simply not the dominant predictor that a lot of vendor marketing implies.

Personality, health and longevity

Conscientiousness is the trait with the most robust link to how long people live. The other four traits show small or inconsistent effects, and the two largest syntheses disagree about whether they matter at all.

30. People in the lowest third of conscientiousness had a 1.4 times higher risk of death (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58) than people in the top two thirds. The link held after adjusting for health behaviours, marital status and education. (Source: Jokela et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, 2013)
31. That analysis pooled 7 cohorts, 76,150 adults, 3,947 deaths and 444,770 person-years, with a mean baseline age of 50.9 and mean follow-up of 5.9 years. (Source: Jokela et al., 2013)
32. In the same analysis, "only conscientiousness appears to be related to mortality risk across populations." Extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness and openness showed no significant association. (Source: Jokela et al., 2013)
33. Across twenty independent samples, higher conscientiousness was positively related to longevity, r = .11 (95% CI .05 to .17). The strongest links were for the achievement and order facets. (Source: Kern and Friedman, Health Psychology, 2008)
34. A 2025 meta-analysis of longitudinal data put all-cause mortality hazard ratios at .90 for conscientiousness (95% CI .87 to .94), .96 for openness (.93 to .99), .97 for extraversion (.94 to .99), .98 for agreeableness (.95 to 1.02) and 1.03 for neuroticism (1.02 to 1.04). The openness effect did not survive adjustment for small-study bias. (Source: McGeehan et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2025)
35. That 2025 synthesis covered 28 studies, 158 effect sizes, 569,859 participants, 5,997,667 person-years and 43,851 deaths. (Source: McGeehan et al., 2025)

Where the two big syntheses disagree, the newer and larger one finds small but significant effects for extraversion and neuroticism that the 2013 analysis did not. The safe sentence is: conscientiousness is by far the largest and most reliable effect, and the others are small and depend on the analysis.

Personality and relationships

The surprising finding here is how little couples resemble each other on personality compared with values and habits.

36. Across 199 peer-reviewed studies, the three lowest partner-similarity estimates out of 22 traits were all Big Five traits: extraversion (r = 0.08), neuroticism (0.11) and agreeableness (0.11). Conscientiousness (0.16) and openness (0.21) were slightly higher. (Source: Horwitz, Balbona, Paulich and Keller, Nature Human Behaviour, 2023)
37. Partner correlations ranged from 0.08 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.13) for extraversion to 0.58 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.64) for political values. (Source: Horwitz et al., 2023)
38. That meta-analysis drew on 480 partner correlations from 199 studies of co-parents, engaged, married or cohabiting pairs, plus 133 trait correlations computed in up to 79,074 couples in the UK Biobank. (Source: Horwitz et al., 2023)
39. Across the 22 meta-analyses, the median I-squared statistic was 0.915, "reflecting very high rates of heterogeneity in partner correlations not due to sampling error." Any single assortative-mating number carries that caveat. (Source: Horwitz et al., 2023)
40. Across 19 samples and 3,848 participants, four of the five traits correlated significantly with an intimate partner's relationship satisfaction: low neuroticism, high agreeableness, high conscientiousness and high extraversion. Openness did not. The pattern did not differ between men and women or between married and unmarried people. (Source: Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar and Rooke, Journal of Research in Personality, 2010)

One widely circulated 2020 meta-analysis reports correlations near 0.9 between conscientiousness and marital satisfaction. Those values are an order of magnitude above every comparable study and the paper's own confidence intervals are internally inconsistent. It is deliberately excluded here.

Can personality change?

Yes, within limits, and the evidence has improved a lot since the "set like plaster by 30" era.

41. A systematic review of 207 studies that tracked personality during interventions found "marked changes in personality trait measures over an average time of 24 weeks (e.g., d = .37)." That is roughly a third of a standard deviation. (Source: Roberts, Luo, Briley, Chow, Su and Hill, Psychological Bulletin, 2017)
42. "Emotional stability was the primary trait domain showing changes as a result of therapy, followed by extraversion," and the changes persisted in follow-ups beyond the intervention. (Source: Roberts et al., 2017)
43. In a randomized trial of 1,523 people using a smartphone coaching app for three months, those aiming to increase a trait changed more than a waitlist control (d = 0.52), and those aiming to decrease a trait changed more in that direction (d = -0.58). (Source: Stieger et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021)
44. Friends and family of those participants detected the increases (d = 0.35) but not the decreases (d = -0.22). The changes were still present three months after the app was switched off. (Source: Stieger et al., 2021)
45. Across 92 longitudinal samples, "people increase in measures of social dominance (a facet of extraversion), conscientiousness, and emotional stability, especially in young adulthood (age 20 to 40)." (Source: Roberts, Walton and Viechtbauer, Psychological Bulletin, 2006)
46. In that same meta-analysis, social vitality and openness rose in adolescence and fell in old age. Four of six trait categories changed significantly in middle and old age, and agreeableness changed only in old age. (Source: Roberts, Walton and Viechtbauer, 2006)
47. In two 16-week randomized experiments, "people who expressed goals to increase with respect to any Big Five personality trait at Time 1 tended to experience actual increases in their self-reports of that trait, as well as trait-relevant daily behavior, over the subsequent 16 weeks." Only the implementation-intentions intervention worked. (Source: Hudson and Fraley, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015)
48. Among college students, at least 87% wanted to increase on each positively keyed Big Five dimension, and no more than 3% wanted to decrease on any. A replication with a shorter measure found at least 56% and no more than 7%. (Source: Hudson and Roberts, 2014, reported in Hudson and Fraley, 2017)

The observer gap in the app trial is the caveat worth repeating: self-reported change ran ahead of what other people noticed, and nobody around the participants noticed the decreases at all.

Big Five versus MBTI

The strongest evidence on MBTI reliability comes from its publisher, which is why this section quotes the vendor's own facts page.

49. "About 50 percent of people get the same four-letter or whole type on retest." (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company facts page, read September 2026)
50. The same page reports "90 percent of people getting the same results for three or four of the preference scales" on retest. (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company)
51. The company reports MBTI test-retest reliabilities "that ranged from .81 to .86 for intervals from 1 to 6 weeks and from 7 to 15 weeks." These are continuous-score reliabilities. (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company)
52. "In a sample of over 5 million people who completed the MBTI assessment, the internal consistency reliability measures of the four preference scales exceeded the value of acceptable reliability of .70." (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company)
53. Analysing self-reports and peer ratings from 267 men and 201 women aged 19 to 93, McCrae and Costa found "no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types." (Source: McCrae and Costa, Journal of Personality, 1989)
54. In the same study, "the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality." The fifth, neuroticism, is not measured by the MBTI. (Source: McCrae and Costa, 1989)
55. A published cross-inventory table maps MBTI extraversion to Big Five extraversion at .69 and lists no MBTI dimension at all under neuroticism. (Source: Furnham, 1996, as reproduced in a 2021 European Journal of Anaesthesiology supplement)
56. The Myers-Briggs Company cites a study of 178,087 people across 315 occupations and says a Google Scholar search returns more than 31,000 records for "MBTI." The record count includes any mention of the acronym, not 31,000 validation studies. (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company)
57. In a company sample of 1,500 people who received a professional interpretation, 96% said they would recommend the MBTI, 88% agreed they used their strengths more after learning their type and 73% felt more confident in their personal life. These are satisfaction measures, not validity evidence. (Source: The Myers-Briggs Company)

Points 49, 50 and 51 describe the same data. The gap between a .81 to .86 retest correlation and a 50% whole-type match is what happens when four continuous scores are cut into either/or categories. That is the core statistical argument against types, in the vendor's own numbers.

Gender, age and culture

Gender differences in personality are real, facet-specific and small relative to the spread within each gender. Several of these findings come from the same instrument Defaults uses.

58. In one of the largest samples to date (N = 320,128) on the IPIP-NEO-120, women scored higher than men on agreeableness (d = 0.58) and neuroticism (d = 0.40) across ages 19 to 69. (Source: Kajonius and Johnson, Personality and Individual Differences, 2018)
59. In that sample, women scored d > 0.50 higher on the facets anxiety, vulnerability, openness to emotions, altruism and sympathy, while men scored only slightly higher (d > 0.20) on excitement-seeking and openness to intellect. (Source: Kajonius and Johnson, 2018)
60. Secondary analyses of NEO PI-R data from 26 cultures (N = 23,031) found gender differences "small relative to individual variation within genders." Women reported higher neuroticism, agreeableness, warmth and openness to feelings; men reported higher assertiveness and openness to ideas. (Source: Costa, Terracciano and McCrae, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001)
61. Counter-intuitively, gender differences "were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized." (Source: Costa, Terracciano and McCrae, 2001)
62. In the BFI-2 validation samples, women described themselves as somewhat more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious and emotional than men. Inside extraversion, women reported more sociability and energy but not more assertiveness. Inside open-mindedness, women reported more aesthetic sensitivity while men reported more creative imagination and intellectual curiosity. (Source: Soto and John, 2017)
63. Across 50 cultures, observer-rated age differences for three factors "followed the pattern identified in self-reports, with moderate rates of change during college age and slower changes after age 40," and sex differences were again most pronounced in Western cultures. (Source: McCrae, Terracciano et al., 2005)
64. The five-dimensional structure was robust across major regions of the world in the 56-nation, 28-language Big Five Inventory study. (Source: Schmitt et al., 2007)
65. The IPIP-NEO-120 normative internet sample had a mean age of 28.1 (SD 10.1), ranged from 19 to 69, and was 40% male (N = 127,695) and 60% female (N = 192,433). Online Big Five norms skew young and female. (Source: Kajonius and Johnson, 2019)

Points 59 and 62 make the same case from two instruments: a domain-level gender difference can hide facet differences that run in opposite directions. A story that says "women are more extraverted" is technically true on the BFI-2 and misleading about assertiveness at the same time.

How these numbers were chosen

Each statistic had to pass six checks: a named source, a stated year, a specific number, a source page we fetched and read, faithful wording, and a source that still resolves. Where the publisher's page was paywalled, the figure was confirmed from an author-hosted PDF or an institutional repository abstract.

Some well-known numbers did not make it:

• Barrick and Mount (1991) is the most cited paper on personality and job performance. Its specific coefficients could not be confirmed from any page reachable during research, so the verified Hurtz and Donovan (2000) and Sackett et al. (2022) figures are used instead.
• The per-trait correlations from Malouff et al. (2010), often quoted as around -.22 for neuroticism, are behind a paywall. Only the sample size and the direction of the effects are reported here.
• 16Personalities displays a "91.2% accuracy rating" on its homepage. It is a satisfaction metric with no published method, not a validity figure, so it is excluded.
• No primary Pew or YouGov figure for "how many people have taken a personality test" could be located. If you have one, we would like to see it.

If you cite this page, please cite the original study named next to the statistic. A suggested citation for the page itself is: The Defaults Research Team (2026). Big Five personality statistics. Defaults, knowthydefaults.com.

Want your own numbers? The free one-trait screener takes three minutes, and the full Big Five test uses the same IPIP-NEO-120 the studies above describe.

Sources

Listed in the order the studies first appear. DOIs are given as plain text.

• Vukasovic, T., and Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769 to 785. doi:10.1037/bul0000017
• Roberts, B. W., and DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3 to 25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
• Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., and Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040 to 2068. doi:10.1037/apl0000994
• Jokela, M., et al. (2013). Personality and all-cause mortality: Individual-participant meta-analysis of 3,947 deaths in 76,150 adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 178(5), 667 to 675. doi:10.1093/aje/kwt170
• Horwitz, T. B., Balbona, J. V., Paulich, K. N., and Keller, M. C. (2023). Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of 22 traits and UK Biobank analysis of 133 traits. Nature Human Behaviour. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01672-z
• Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., and Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117 to 141. doi:10.1037/bul0000088
• The Myers-Briggs Company. MBTI facts and product pages, themyersbriggs.com. Read 3 September 2026.
• Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78 to 89. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
• 16Personalities (NERIS Analytics). Homepage counter, 16personalities.com. Read 3 September 2026.
• SHRM (2022). New SHRM research makes case for skills-based hiring. Survey of 1,688 US HR professionals, fielded 1 to 17 February 2022.
• Straits Research (2025). Personality assessment solution market report.
• Polaris Market Research (2024). Candidate skills assessment market report.
• Gallup. CliftonStrengths homepage, gallup.com. Read 3 September 2026.
• Soto, C. J., and John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117 to 143. doi:10.1037/pspp0000096
• Kajonius, P. J., and Johnson, J. A. (2019). Assessing the structure of the Five Factor Model of Personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the public domain. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 260 to 275. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i2.1671
• McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., and 78 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547 to 561. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547
• Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., and Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173 to 212. doi:10.1177/0022022106297299
• International Personality Item Pool. Oregon Research Institute, ipip.ori.org. Read 3 September 2026.
• Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Lievens, F., and Zhang, C. (2024). Insights from an updated personnel selection meta-analytic matrix: Revisiting general mental ability tests' role in the validity-diversity trade-off. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/apl0001203
• Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2023). Is cognitive ability the best predictor of job performance? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist.
• Hurtz, G. M., and Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869 to 879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., and Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765 to 780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
• Vella, M. (2023). The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and earnings: Evidence from a meta-analysis. CeMPA Working Paper 02/23, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex. Published in Bulletin of Economic Research (2024), doi:10.1111/boer.12437
• Kern, M. L., and Friedman, H. S. (2008). Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review. Health Psychology, 27(5), 505 to 512. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.505
• McGeehan, M., et al. (2025). Personality and mortality risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pspp0000577
• Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., and Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124 to 127. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.004
• Stieger, M., et al. (2021). Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(8), e2017548118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2017548118
• Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., and Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1 to 25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
• Hudson, N. W., and 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 to 507. doi:10.1037/pspp0000021
• Hudson, N. W., and Fraley, R. C. (2017). Volitional personality change. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality Development Across the Lifespan. Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-804674-6.00033-8
• McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17 to 40. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x
• Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303 to 307. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00033-5
• Kajonius, P. J., and Johnson, J. A. (2018). Sex differences in 30 facets of the Five Factor Model of personality in the large public (N = 320,128). Personality and Individual Differences, 129, 126 to 130. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.026
• Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., and McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322 to 331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322