PERSONALITY TYPES: FROM POPULAR LABELS TO SCIENTIFIC-BASED MODELS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/psy-visnyk/2026.1.1Keywords:
personality typology, popular psychology, scientifically based models, five-factor model of personality, temperament, integrative approach, psychodiagnostics, individual psychological differencesAbstract
The article provides a comprehensive theoretical and methodological analysis of personality typologies in the context of the correlation between popular psychological labels and scientifically based models. The relevance of the study is due to the significant spread of simplified typological schemes in mass psychology and practical discourse, which is often accompanied by the reduction of multidimensional mental reality to static categories. It is shown that popular typologies, despite their heuristic appeal and communicative convenience, are characterized by a low level of empirical validity, limited predictive value and a tendency to the formation of cognitive biases and stereotyping. The main scientifically based approaches to personality typology are analyzed, in particular, the five-factor model of personality, classical and modern theories of temperament, as well as integrative models that combine motivational, regulatory and trait components. It is substantiated that scientific models provide a more adequate description of individual psychological differences, since they consider personality as a multidimensional, hierarchically organized and dynamic system, sensitive to context and development throughout the life course. Through comparative analysis, partial conceptual overlaps between popular labels and scientific models were identified, while emphasizing the fundamental methodological differences between them. The feasibility of an integrative approach to the use of personality typologies is argued, in which popular classifications can perform an auxiliary, orientational function, while scientifically based models remain the methodological basis of psychodiagnostics, scientific research and professional psychological practice. The results obtained can be used in scientific research, educational programs and applied psychological practice.
References
Allport G. W., Odbert H. S. Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs. 1936. Vol. 47, No 1. P. 1–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360
Aschwanden D., et al. Longitudinal associations between personality traits and cognitive complaints in midlife and older age across 20 years. Educational Gerontology. 2025. No 39(4). P. 478-497. DOI: 10.1177/08902070241272247
Barrett L. F., Russell J. A. The psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review. 2015. Vol. 122, No 1. P. 145–170.
Cloninger C. R. Temperament and personality. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 1994. Vol. 4, No. 2. P. 266–273.
Costa P. T., McCrae R. R. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa (FL): Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992. 168 p.
Dweck C. S. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House, 2006. 276 p.
Eysenck H. J. The biological basis of personality. Springfield (IL): Charles C. Thomas, 1967. 366 p.
Funder D. C. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001. Vol. 52. P. 197–221.
John O. P., Naumann L. P., Soto C. J. Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. Handbook of personality: Theory and research / Eds. O. P. John, R. W. Robins, L. A. Pervin. New York: Guilford Press, 2008. P. 114–158.
Keirsey D. Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, 1998. 373 p.
Kerber A., Roth M., Herzberg P. Y. Personality types revisited–a literature‑informed and data‑driven approach to an integration of prototypical and dimensional constructs of personality description. PLoS ONE. 2021. Vol. 16, No. 1. e0244849. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244849.
Kerz E., Qiao Y., Zanwar S., Wiechmann D. Pushing on Personality Detection from Verbal Behavior: A Transformer Meets Text Contours of Psycholinguistic Features. Proc. of the 12th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis (WASSA), May 26, 2022, Dublin, Ireland. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. P. 182–194. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2022.wassa‑1.17.
Kurnaz A. The big five personality traits as antecedents of panic buying. Marketing and Management of Innovations. 2022. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 21–33. DOI: 10.21272/mmi.2022.3-02.
Lucas R. E., Diener E. Understanding extraverts’ enjoyment of social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001. Vol. 81, No 2. P. 343–356.
Matthews G., Deary I. J., Whiteman M. C. Personality traits. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 382 p.
Myers I. B. Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Davies‑Black, 1995. 352 p.
Roberts B. W., Walton K. E., Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course. Psychological Bulletin. 2006. Vol. 132, No 1. P. 1–25.
Stachl C., Hilpert J. C., Lester J., et al. Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021. Vol. 118, No. 29. e2110330118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2110330118.
Strelau J. Temperament: A psychological perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001. 370 p.
Yang Y., Ma L., Li A., Ma J., Lan Z. Predicting the Big Five personality traits in Chinese counselling dialogues using large language models. arXiv:2406.17287, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17287
