The replicability and utility of three personality types

By Paul T. Costa, Jeffrey H. Herbst, R. McCrae, J. Samuels, D. Ozer. 2002

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/68f7780a10023050af2c58215d80a867cfc0c6a5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Nazar Akrami
2. B. Ekehammar
3. Jaap J. A. Denissen
4. Daniel Spurk
5. A. Hirschi
6. Jens B. Asendorpf
7. Domingo Valero
8. Ivan Mervielde

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Jaap J. A. Denissen
2. Nazar Akrami
3. B. Ekehammar
4. Domingo Valero
5. Jens B. Asendorpf
6. Ivan Mervielde
7. Daniel Spurk
8. K. Van Leeuwen

In Genetics

1. Jens B. Asendorpf
2. Jaap J. A. Denissen
3. Nazar Akrami
4. B. Ekehammar

Citations in the corpus

• Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research (2020, background): “…and simplicity they provide (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000), classification schemes derived from categorical latent variable models are conceptually meaningful and methodologically useful for developing and incorporating typologies based on data (Costa, Herbst, McCrae, Samuels, & Ozer, 2002).”
• Head‐to‐head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions (2003, methodology): “Fairness of comparisons between dimensions and types Thus, studies such as that of Costa et al. (2002) that play three types obtained by variablecentred assessments against five uncorrelated traits in the cross-sectional prediction of continuous outcome dimensions can be considered unfair for…”
• Predictive Validity of Personality Types Versus Personality Dimensions From Early Childhood to Adulthood: Implications for the Distinction Between Core and Surface Traits (2006, background): “Such comparisons have generally favored the variable-centered approach (Costa et al., 2002; van Leeuwen, de Fruyt, and Mervielde, 2004), though one study reported mixed results (Huey & Weisz, 1997).”
• The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable‐ and a person‐centred approach (2003, methodology): “Further, a head-to-head comparison of the relative utility of types and traits in line with that presented by Costa et al. (2002) showed that when Big Five types were entered on the first step in a multiple regression analysis, the predictive power versus generalized prejudice was low and marginally”
• The consistency of personality type classification across samples and five‐factor measures (2002, result): “The inability to derive the prototypes—except for the resilient cluster—from NEO-domain scores in the present study is not an isolated finding, but parallels previous difficulties in deriving the types from NEO-adult samples (Barbaranelli, 2002; Costa et al., 2002; De Fruyt, in press).”