Enneagram vs. The Big Five
What is the Big Five?
The Big Five, also referred to as the five-factor model, is a widely-used framework in psychology research that categorizes personality traits along five broad dimensions:
Openness: the tendency to be open to new aesthetic, cultural, or intellectual experiences
High = inventive/curious/unpredictable <> Low = consistent/cautious/pragmaticConscientiousness: the tendency to be organized, responsible, and hardworking
High = efficient/organized/stubborn <> Low = flexible/spontaneous/carelessExtraversion: an orientation of one’s interests/energies toward the outer world
High = outgoing/energetic/dominant <> Low = independent/reserved/aloofAgreeableness: the tendency to act in a cooperative, unselfish manner
High = friendly/compassionate/optimistic <> Low = challenging/rational/self-interestedNeuroticism: a chronic level of emotional instability and proneness to psychological distress
High = sensitive/nervous/reactive <> Low = resilient/confident/calm
Enneagram vs. Big Five Research
At least nine studies have looked at the relationship between the Enneagram and the Big Five, as summarized by a systematic review by Hook et al. (2021). Note, however, that six of the nine studies were never published — gathered instead from doctoral dissertations, presentations, and white papers. A list of these studies can be found at the bottom of this page.
Research Findings
The review by Hook et al. (2021) compared results from all nine studies to derive the consensus findings for each Type. In general, the reliable patterns did appear to emerge for all nine Enneagram Types.
Type 1
9 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Conscientiousness, suggesting a One is more likely to be organized, responsible, and hardworking.
Type 2
9 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Extraversion, suggesting a Two is more likely to direct their interests and energies outward.
7 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Agreeableness, suggesting a Two is more likely to prioritize the needs of others over their own needs.
Type 3
5 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Conscientiousness, suggesting a Three is more likely to be organized, responsible, and hardworking.
6 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Extraversion, suggesting a Three is more likely to direct their interests and energies outward.
5 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Agreeableness, suggesting a Three is more likely to prioritize their needs over the needs of others.
Type 4
6 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Openness, suggesting a Four is more likely to welcome new ideas and experiences.
6 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Conscientiousness, suggesting a Four is more likely to be impulsive and easily side-tracked.
8 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Neuroticism, suggesting a Four is more likely to experience emotional instability.
Type 5
9 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Extraversion, suggesting a Five is more likely to direct their interests and energies inward.
Type 6
5 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Openness, suggesting a Six is more likely to be closed off to new ideas and experiences.
6 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Extraversion, suggesting a Six is more likely to direct their interests and energies inward.
8 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Neuroticism, suggesting a Six is more likely to experience emotional instability.
Type 7
9 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Openness, suggesting a Seven is more likely to welcome new ideas and experiences.
6 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Conscientiousness, suggesting a Seven is more likely to be impulsive and easily side-tracked.
9 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Extraversion, suggesting a Seven is more likely to direct their interests and energies outward.
Type 8
8 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Extraversion, suggesting an Eight is more likely direct their interests and energies outward.
9 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Agreeableness, suggesting an Eight is more likely to prioritize their needs over the needs of others.
6 of 9 studies found a significant negative correlation with Neuroticism, suggesting an Eight is more likely to be emotionally measured.
Type 9
9 of 9 studies found a significant positive correlation with Agreeableness, suggesting a Nine is more likely to prioritize the needs of others over their own needs.
The Fine Print
It's important to use a critical eye when reviewing research. Authors do their best to protect against biases and assess results objectively, but no study is perfect. Make sure to consider what research is (and isn't) actually telling you before taking it at face value.
Research Question
The Hook et al. (2021) systematic review explored a lot of Enneagram relationships — the Big Five was just one aspect. Their corresponding research question was essentially, “How do Enneagram Types correlate with Big Five personality traits?”
Sample
As previously mentioned, nine studies were found where Enneagram and the Big Five were compared. These were released between 2000-2016, and including published articles, doctoral dissertations, presentations, and white papers.
Methodology
While Hook et al. describe how they conducted their literature review, the methodologies of each of the nine Big Five studies weren't mentioned. Without going back to each original article (essentially replicating the systematic review), we have no information on aspects like which psychometric scales were used, how participants were chosen/assessed, or how the data was analyzed.
Strengths
Findings of a systematic review are typically more convincing than an one study alone.
The consensus correlations generally align with Enneagram theory.
Limitations
Data from unpublished studies are usually considered with caution. The rigor a study must undergo to be published — including a peer-review process — instills confidence that the study was conducted logically, ethically, and in good faith. As only 3 of the studies assessed by Hook et al. were published, the resulting takeaways will naturally earn skepticism.
Without information on the methodologies of each study, we’re left wondering how comparable the individual results actually were. (e.g. did they use similar data gather methods? were the demographics similar? how large were the sample sizes?)
Source List
Primary article:
Hook JN, Hall TW, Davis DE, Van Tongeren DR, Conner M. The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. J Clin Psychol. 2021;77:865–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23097
Nine studies summarized:
Bartram, D., & Brown, A. (2005). Putting the person into personality: SHL Short research report 2005. SHL White paper. Full white paper
Delobbe, N., Halin, P., Premont, J., & Wuidar, D. (n.d.). Measuring personality at work: Development and validation of a new instrument (HPEI) based on the Enneagram. Louvain School of Management, Belgium. Conference paper
Giordano, M. E. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the Riso‐Hudson Type Indicator (RHETI), version 2.5: Comparison of ipsative and non‐ipsative versions and correlations with spiritual outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loyola College in Maryland, Baltimore, MD. Request copy of dissertation
Newgent, R. A., Gueulette, C., Newman, I., & Parr, P. (2000). An investigation of the Riso‐Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator constructs of personality as a unique estimate of personality when considering the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and the five‐factor model of personality. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Educational Research and the National Academy for Educational Research, Ponte Verda Beach, FL. Preview and access options
Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. E., Newman, I., & Higgins, K. K. (2004). The Riso‐Hudson enneagram type indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 226–237. Preview and access options
Stevens, K. L. (2011). Comparisons of Enneagram types and five‐factor model traits of graduate psychology students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL. Preview and access options
Sutton, A. (2007). Implicit and explicit personality in work settings: An application of Enneagram theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds, United Kingdom. Full dissertation
Yilmaz, E. D., Unal, O., Palanci, M., Gencer, A. G., Orek, A., Tatar, A., Selcuk, Z., & Aydemir, O. (2016). The relation between the nine types temperament model and the five factor personality model in a Turkish sample group. British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research, 11(4), 1–11. Full article
Yilmaz, E. D., Unal, O., Palanci, M., Kandemir, M., Orek, A., Akkin, G., Demir, T., Ustundag, M. F., Gurcag, S. N., Aydemir, O., & Selcuk, Z. (2015). Validity‐reliability of nine types temperament scale adolescent form (NTTS‐A) and relationship between temperament types and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Education and Science, 40(179), 361–381. Article abstract
