type b personality essay

What Are The Differences Between "Type A" And "Type B" Personalities?

The terms "Type A" and "Type B" were first introduced by two cardiologists , Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, in the 1950s to describe two patterns of behavior associated with personality. The pair of cardiologists created the theory while researching the possible cause of coronary heart disease.  Despite criticism, the concept of Type A and Type B personalities has continued to be cited in popular psychology and public health studies. Although these personality types are considered a theory and not a fact, it may be beneficial to learn more if you relate to the ideas within the theory or are concerned about health conditions such as coronary disease.

What are the traits of the "Type A" individual?  

Type A individuals are often described as ambitious, highly driven, and in a hurry to complete tasks. They may be competitive and have a profound desire to succeed. Some Type A individuals might have a behavior pattern of being “perfectionists” or "workaholics." In addition, sometimes these personalities tend to take on more responsibilities and projects than they can handle to prove their ability. 

The personality characteristics of Type A individuals could include:

• A constant sense of urgency
• Highly competitive
• Perfectionism
• Workaholic tendencies
• A constant striving for success
• Difficulty relaxing
• High levels of stress and anxiety
• A desire for organization 
• A desire to take control of social situations 
• Leadership abilities 

The jenkins activity survey is the one of the most widely used methods of assessing Type A behaviour patterns in social psychology, in case you’d like to find out more about about where you fit in on the personality scale.

What are the traits of a "Type B" individual? 

Type B individuals are often called "relaxed" and "easy-going." They may be content in taking their time and enjoying life rather than striving for success. According to this personality theory, type b’s are not as driven as Type A individuals and may be less likely to experience chronic stress. 

The personality characteristics of Type B individuals could include: 

• Relaxation 
• An easy-going personality 
• A lack of drive or ambition 
• Less likelihood of experiencing stress or anxiety 
• Contentedness with life 
• A more relaxed approach to success
• A focus on enjoying how life passes by 
• A laid-back attitude
• People pleasing behaviors

Differences between Type A and Type B personalities

While some common traits may be associated with Type A and Type B personality types, there are individual differences between these two personality types, including the following.

The approach to success 

Type A individuals are considered detail orientated, driven, and may constantly strive for success and recognition. In contrast, a Type B personality tends to take a more relaxed approach and focus on enjoying life as it happens. Both approaches may come with benefits and drawbacks. For example, type a beahviour like high ambition can lead to a lack of empathy or social connection. Contrarily, avoidance of taking leadership might lead to complacent behavior,  or a lack of personal growth and academic achievement. 

Attitudes toward stress

Type A individuals often find themselves in stressful situations. Research suggests that they’re more likely to experience high stress and anxiety levels, which can lead to health concerns such as heart desease. while Type B individuals may focus more on social interaction, relaxation and avoiding high-stress situations. 

However, there is always a variety of factors to consider when it comes to physical health and well being. In the 1960’s Tobacco companies used the relationship between personality and coronary heart disease mortality to show smoking doesnt neccesarily cause heart disease, but that people with persoanlities who were predisposed to heart disease just happened to smoke. Today behavioural medicine and healthy psychology shows us that this isn’t the full picture, and smoking in in fact a risk factore for heart disease too.

Type B individuals are often even tempered. They may work steadily and be content with their pace of life. Type A individuals may work hard, remain hyper-vigilant, and avoid taking breaks. For example, instead of taking a lunch break a Type A individual’s may eat rapidly before rushing off to complete their important tasks. These behavior patterns may also have drawbacks for both individuals if occurring out of proportion. Type A people may struggle to take time for self-care and self-reflection in their personal lives. In contrast, Type B individuals lack of job involvement can lead to missed opportunities, especially if they can't motivate themselves to continue trying in the face of adversity. Sometimes these individuals may also struggle with time management, often arriving late to events.

Leadership abilities

Type A individuals might exceed in leadership positions, offering their advice and taking control when others aren't able to. Type B individuals might not feel comfortable with leadership and may step back to allow others to take the reins.

Personality and mental health

The differences between Type A and Type B personalities could significantly impact an individual's mental health. The high levels of stress and anxiety that Type A individuals might experience could lead to certain risk factors like burnout , depression, high blood pressure and anxiety disorders. 

Type B individuals' more relaxed and easy-going nature might help reduce stress and improve overall well-being and physical health. However, people-pleasing behaviors or difficulty with motivation and ambition could lead to an increased risk of missed opportunities, feeling depressed, or experiencing difficulties in relationships. 

How to cope with Type A personality traits

For those who exhibit Type A personality traits, it might be beneficial to find ways of managing stress and anxiety. Below are a few coping suggestions :

• Mindfulness and meditation: Focusing on the present moment and practicing mindfulness may reduce stress and anxiety. 
• Relaxation: It might benefit Type A individuals to find ways to relax and recharge, such as taking a break from work, engaging in leisure activities, or practicing yoga. 
• Realistic goals: Type A individuals might be perfectionists and set unrealistic goals for themselves. Consider setting achievable goals and practicing self-compassion when you make mistakes. 
• Self-care: Try to prioritize self-care and make time for self-reflection. 
• Social support: Talking to friends, family, or a mental health professional could help you reduce stress and improve overall well-being.

How to cope with Type B personality traits

Although many people may consider Type B "ideal," it can come with a few challenges. Consider the following coping suggestions: 

• Visualization: Visualizing your goals and cementing them in your mind may help you be more prepared to advocate for yourself and make a choice. 
• Pros and cons charts: If you're struggling to make a decision in a high-stakes situation, and it’s leading to mental stress, consider creating a pros and cons chart to weigh the options. 
• Public speaking classes: If you generally sit back and let others make the decisions, consider taking a public speaking class to become more comfortable with expressing control and speaking to others about your ideas. 
• Boundaries: Learning to set healthier boundaries could be beneficial if you often partake in people-pleasing behaviors to avoid conflict. 
• Healthy risk-taking: If you often do not take risks or apply for opportunities, consider taking one healthy risk per six months. This risk might be applying for a job you've dreamed of, reaching out to a social group, or imparting your ideas in front of a crowd in your own way.

Counseling options 

Although the "Type A" and "Type B" personality labels are theories, many individuals relate to them. If you think you might be experiencing adverse symptoms related to certain traits and personlality types, you might consider reaching out to a therapist. Regardless of whether you identify with this theory, pushing yourself too hard or partaking in complacent or people-pleasing behaviors can be symptoms of a mental health condition or concern.

If you struggle to reach out for help or don't have time in your schedule for in-person therapy, you might also benefit from online therapy through a platform like BetterHelp . A trained therapist in clinical psychology can help individuals identify and manage stress, set realistic goals, improve interpersonal relationships and develop coping strategies for anxiety and burnout. With an online platform, you may also have the option to set appointments outside of standard business hours or choose between phone, video, or chat sessions to personalize your experience. 

Peer reviewed studies have shown that online therapy can benefit individuals with Type A personalities. In one study, researchers conducted studies on 44 male insurance representatives; participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group or a delayed treatment control group. The treatment group participated in nine weekly sessions of rational-emotive behavior therapy (REBT) and showed improvements in Type-A-related behavior and time urgency compared to the control group. These improvements were maintained after follow-up and were accompanied by positive changes in self-reported behavior and limited beliefs.

While some general tendencies are associated with each personality type, not all individuals in the "Type A" and "Type B" personality models might fit into one category. There is also a personality model for a Type C personality. Understanding the differences between Type A, Type B and even Type C personalities could help individuals better to understand their tendencies and the tendencies of others. 

If you want to learn more, ‘simply psychology’, ‘the american journal’ or the ‘international journal’ are all credible and engaging resources. Also, therapy can be a valuable resource in helping individuals identify and manage stress, set realistic goals, and develop coping strategies for anxiety, burnout, or people-pleasing behaviors. Consider  contacting a therapist to get started and gain further insight into this process.

What is the difference between Type A and Type B?

During their original research, Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman defined the difference between Type A and Type B personalities in the 1950s. Type A personalities are typically outgoing, energized, rigid, proactive, and highly concerned with status. They tend to prefer structure and reject ambivalence. Type A personalities are often exemplified by the “workaholic” archetype. Ambitious go-getters with a lot of drive to achieve goals are typically Type A. 

Conversely, Type B personalities lack the behavior pattern common to Type As. They are less likely to be rigid in thoughts or behaviors, less likely to be cornered with status, and are generally less concerned with achievement. Type A personalities are commonly associated with higher productivity and performance than Type B personalities. 

While Type A personalities may seem to have significant benefits, certain traits can be harmful. Type A personalities are associated with several potentially harmful thoughts and behaviors, such as a tendency to be impatient, hostile, and angry. Type As are also likely to experience increased mental stress. The negative aspects of Type A behavior also significantly contribute to potential health risks , such as an increased likelihood of developing coronary heart disease and high blood pressure. 

It is important to note that the research linking Type A personalities to negative health effects is mixed. Contemporary research suggests that the hostility and anger dimensions of Type A personalities are responsible for most, if not all, of the health risks associated with Type A behavior patterns. Stress management and anger reduction strategies may significantly reduce the health risks of Type A personalities without impacting drive or performance. 

In addition, much of Friedman’s and Rosenman’s research was funded by tobacco companies, indicating a possible conflict of interest. Today, cigarette smoking is known to be an extremely significant risk factor for developing cardiovascular and respiratory disease. However, the impact of smoking was poorly understood when Friedman and Rosenman conducted their research, and it is possible their research was biased in favor of traits other than smoking habits that increased the risk of heart disease. 

What is Type A and B personality in sport?

Those who enjoy competing in highly-energetic sports are likely to demonstrate more Type A behaviors than Type B behaviors. Those with a Type A personality tend to be driven to succeed in competition and are willing to push themselves to win. Research into sport personality dimensions suggests that Type A traits are often present in athletes who play more intense roles in a sport, most notably perfectionism, drive, and aggression. 

Some sports psychologists suggest that Type A personalities are drawn to high-energy sports, such as football, while Type B personalities are drawn to low-energy sports, like golf. However, most experts agree that both Type A and Type B behaviors are necessary for competitive success, regardless of energy level. For example, while Type A behaviors like aggression and drive are likely helpful during sports, other Type A behaviors like impulsivity and rigidity may make it hard to adapt on the field. 

How do you know if you're Type A?

You may have a Type A personality if descriptions of Type A behavior resonate with you. If you’re competitive, driven, and ambitious, you may be a Type A. Similarly, you might feel that some of the negative features of Type A behaviors relate to you. You may have a Type A personality if you are prone to aggression, anger, or hostility. You may also find yourself disregarding other people’s emotions in favor of attaining your goals. 

It is important to note that Type A and Type B personalities are only one theoretical construct to describe personality. Modern conceptions of personality theory used in behavioral medicine generally adhere to trait-based personality models, such as the five-factor model . Personality traits, such as extraversion and agreeableness, differ from personality types, such as Type A or Type B. It is possible to have traits from both Type A and Type B personality types, potentially reducing the utility of organizing people into one of two categories. 

A quick web search will reveal online tools that may offer insight into whether you are Type A or Type B. However, the results of freely available personality assessments should always be interpreted with caution. Online, free-to-take personality measures do not often undergo the same rigorous testing as personality assessments used in clinical and research settings. Additionally, professional personality assessment is always conducted alongside other personality measures to ensure accuracy. 

Is Type B an introvert or an extrovert?

Type A and Type B personalities are not correlated with a presence or lack of extraversion. Type B personalities can be both introverted and extroverted . Type A introverts are typically confident, self-sufficient, and have good social skills. Type B introverts are often shy, lack communication skills, and are more withdrawn. Nevertheless, both Type A and Type B introverts will likely prefer isolation to social engagement. 

The existence of Type D personalities may also contribute to the association between Type B personalities and introversion. While Type B personalities can be extroverted and enjoy social contact, Type Ds rarely do . Type Ds are similar to Type B personalities but are significantly more negative and socially withdrawn. The social withdrawal characteristic of a Type D personality, often caused by mental illnesses like depression, may be mistaken for introversion. 

Why is it called a Type A personality?

Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman did not clarify why they chose “Type A” and “Type B” when conducting their original research. They likely chose “A” and “B” as a way to represent two distinct categories. Confusion may also be caused by the expansion of their original research. In years since, some have come to refer to “C” and “D” personality types in addition to A and B. Type Ds are often referred to as “distressed” or “depressed” personalities, which may lead some to believe that the letter representing a certain personality type has additional meaning. 

What is the best example of a Type A personality?

A common archetype used to represent the Type A personality is the aggressive office executive. They are often portrayed as aggressive go-getters and may hold little regard for those around them. In this context, Type As are usually presented as workaholics, perhaps spending long hours in the office beyond what is typical of most employees. They may also be described as ruthless, seeing those in their way as no more than barriers to success. 

Who has classified personality in Type A and Type B?

The earliest classification of personality into Type A and Type B was done by Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, two cardiologists who studied the effects of personality on physical health. Friedman and Rosenman’s research indicated that people with Type A personalities exhibited increased risk factors for cardiovascular disease. 

Type A people are typically driven, competitive, and motivated by success. They may also be aggressive, hostile, or angry if they cannot meet their goals on their terms. Type Bs are the opposite; Type B personalities are defined as the absence of Type A behaviors. While a two-category system worked well for Friedman and Rosenman’s research, today’s psychologists recognize that personality is likely too complex to be entirely contained within two categories. 

How do I know if I'm a Type A or Type B personality?

If you’re evaluating yourself for Type A vs. Type B indicators, it is likely best to start by considering if you relate to common traits of Type A personalities . Type B personalities are defined as those who do not exhibit the thoughts and behaviors of Type A personalities. Both positive and negative traits are associated with Type A personalities. Examine the traits listed below and note which ones might represent you.

Some typical positive traits might include:

• A drive to push your limits in the pursuit of success. 
• High levels of organization and adherence to protocol. 
• A dislike of ambivalence or delays. 

Some common negative traits might include: 

• Inflexibility in thought or behavior. 
• “Workaholic” behaviors, such as neglecting self-care or social interactions to achieve goals. 
• Highly aware of the success of those around you and a strong negative feeling associated with others succeeding. 

You may be a Type A personality if you identify with the above traits. A quick web search will also reveal freely-available personality assessments that may offer more insight into your personality type. However, online, free-to-take personality tests should always be interpreted with caution. They rarely undergo the rigorous testing of professional personality assessments, and their results should be used for entertainment purposes only. 

How do Type A people act?

Type A people tend to be driven, ambitious, and can sometimes be aggressive or indifferent to those around them. Generally, Type A people are motivated by success and prioritize achieving their goals above recreational or relaxing activities. They may be openly hostile when their goals are not met or if they perceive someone standing in the way of their success, although not everyone with a Type A personality is guaranteed to be hostile. 

• All About The ISTJ Personality Type Medically reviewed by April Justice , LICSW
• How To Use A Personality Quiz In Your Life Medically reviewed by Melissa Guarnaccia , LCSW
• Personality
• Relationships and Relations

Type A and Type B Personality Theory

Type C, Type D

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

You know the "type:" So-called “Type A” personalities are hard-charging, determined to compete and to win. Combining traits such as drive and impatience, Type A was once thought to be related to heart disease—an association that has since been challenged. “Type B” was proposed as the more easygoing, tolerant personality , in contrast to Type A.

More recently, the concept of “Type D” (for “distressed”) personality has been studied by psychologists, leading to new explorations of personality-health associations.

Despite the popularity of personality-type concepts, personality scientists say that thinking in terms of distinct types is an oversimplified approach to personality.

• Type A, Type B, and Type C

Type A personality (or Type A Behavior) was originally described not by personality psychologists but by cardiologists, who thought that people who showed such personalities were at greater risk of cardiovascular disease. Type B personality was conceived as a less-intense personality type . A “Type C” was later proposed as a predictor of cancer risk. There is now ample reason to doubt that these supposed personality types are in fact correlated with disease progression.

Type A has been described as a behavioral pattern involving impatience and a sense of time-related pressure, irritability, and a competitive drive.

Physicians Meyer Friedman and R.H. Rosenman originated the concept in the 1950s after reportedly observing a connection between heart disease in patients and certain personality characteristics.

Individuals whose personality traits resonate with the “Type A” description—including characteristics like hostility—could potentially experience interpersonal difficulties as a result. But the more striking claims about Type A personality, namely that it is linked to heart disease, have been undermined by subsequent research as well as revelations about the role of tobacco industry funding in research on Type A.

Recently, psychologists have argued that “Type A” does not actually appear to be a category of its own, distinct from other personalities. As with other proposed “types,” someone who might have been called “Type A” can instead be thought of as having a collection of various personality traits, such as competitiveness and impatience, on which they rate relatively high.

Type B personality was proposed as a complement to Type A: a personality that lacked Type A’s hard-driving, irritable features.

In the 1980s, researchers described a “Type C cancer-prone behavior pattern” involving the suppression of one’s needs and negative emotions, compliance, and unassertiveness. They defined it as the “polar opposite” of the Type A pattern (whereas Type B entailed a lack of Type A traits). Subsequent work challenged the hypothesis that characteristics such as negative emotion suppression play an important role in cancer survival.

Type D—the D stands for “distressed”—is described as a combination of being inhibited in social situations and tending to experience negative emotions. The concept of Type D is distinct from Types A, B, and C, which have been defined based on characteristics such as high or low assertiveness and hostility. But as with the other "types," researchers who have assessed traits associated with Type D are interested in their potential connections to physical health.

Type D personality is a term for the combination of negative affectivity and social inhibition. Negative affectivity involves a tendency to experience negative states such as worry, irritability, and unhappiness. Social inhibition is gauged based on a person's agreement with statements like "I find it hard to start a conversation" and "I am a closed kind of person."

Early research suggested a possible connection between Type D traits and poorer outcomes for those with coronary heart disease, but follow-up work by other scientists failed to find supportive evidence for that link. Some evidence suggests measures of Type D characteristics are associated with certain psychological difficulties, including symptoms of insomnia and depression .

The negative affectivity factor of Type D was found to be related to the Big Five trait of neuroticism , while the social inhibition factor was associated with lower extroversion .

A purely Biomedical model of health and disease may be inadequate, needing to be replaced by a Biopsychosocial model, but let's keep in mind that "Bio" appears in both.

Learning your A, B, and especially C's in relationships might help you have longer-lasting, healthier, and more balanced connections.

The greatest gift we can give anyone this holiday season is our best self.

Have you been under a lot of stress lately? There is a very important sense in which you do not know the answer to that question. This has some useful implications.

Lessons from a success story.

Is your partner preoccupied with orderliness, perfectionism, and control? They may have Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder.

How to identify and integrate our weaknesses into our strengths, both musically and in our lives.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Personality types revisited–a literature-informed and data-driven approach to an integration of prototypical and dimensional constructs of personality description

André kerber.

1 Department of Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Marcus Roth

2 Department of Psychology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg Germany

Philipp Yorck Herzberg

3 Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment Unit, Helmut Schmidt University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Associated Data

The data used in this article were made available by the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP, Data for years 1984-2015) at the German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, Germany. To ensure the confidentiality of respondents’ information, the SOEP adheres to strict security standards in the provision of SOEP data. The data are reserved exclusively for research use, that is, they are provided only to the scientific community. To require full access to the data used in this study, it is required to sign a data distribution contract. All contact informations and the procedure to request the data can be obtained at: https://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222829.en/access_and_ordering.html .

A new algorithmic approach to personality prototyping based on Big Five traits was applied to a large representative and longitudinal German dataset (N = 22,820) including behavior, personality and health correlates. We applied three different clustering techniques, latent profile analysis, the k-means method and spectral clustering algorithms. The resulting cluster centers, i.e. the personality prototypes, were evaluated using a large number of internal and external validity criteria including health, locus of control, self-esteem, impulsivity, risk-taking and wellbeing. The best-fitting prototypical personality profiles were labeled according to their Euclidean distances to averaged personality type profiles identified in a review of previous studies on personality types. This procedure yielded a five-cluster solution: resilient, overcontroller, undercontroller, reserved and vulnerable-resilient. Reliability and construct validity could be confirmed. We discuss wether personality types could comprise a bridge between personality and clinical psychology as well as between developmental psychology and resilience research.

Introduction

Although documented theories about personality types reach back more than 2000 years (i.e. Hippocrates’ humoral pathology), and stereotypes for describing human personality are also widely used in everyday psychology, the descriptive and variable-oriented assessment of personality, i.e. the description of personality on five or six trait domains, has nowadays consolidated its position in modern personality psychology.

In recent years, however, the person-oriented approach, i.e. the description of an individual personality by its similarity to frequently occurring prototypical expressions, has amended the variable-oriented approach with the addition of valuable insights into the description of personality and the prediction of behavior. Focusing on the trait configurations, the person-oriented approach aims to identify personality types that share the same typical personality profile [ 1 ].

Nevertheless, the direct comparison of the utility of person-oriented vs. variable-oriented approaches to personality description yielded mixed results. For example Costa, Herbst, McCrae, Samuels and Ozer [ 2 ] found a higher amount of explained variance in predicting global functioning, geriatric depression or personality disorders for the variable-centered approach using Big Five personality dimensions. But these results also reflect a methodological caveat of this approach, as the categorical simplification of dimensionally assessed variables logically explains less variance. Despite this, the person-centered approach was found to heighten the predictability of a person’s behavior [ 3 , 4 ] or the development of adolescents in terms of internalizing and externalizing symptoms or academic success [ 5 , 6 ], problem behavior, delinquency and depression [ 7 ] or anxiety symptoms [ 8 ], as well as stress responses [ 9 ] and social attitudes [ 10 ]. It has also led to new insights into the function of personality in the context of other constructs such as adjustment [ 2 ], coping behavior [ 11 ], behavioral activation and inhibition [ 12 ], subjective and objective health [ 13 ] or political orientation [ 14 ], and has greater predictive power in explaining longitudinally measured individual differences in more temperamental outcomes such as aggressiveness [ 15 ].

However, there is an ongoing debate about the appropriate number and characteristics of personality prototypes and whether they perhaps constitute an methodological artifact [ 16 ].

With the present paper, we would like to make a substantial contribution to this debate. In the following, we first provide a short review of the personality type literature to identify personality types that were frequently replicated and calculate averaged prototypical profiles based on these previous findings. We then apply multiple clustering algorithms on a large German dataset and use those prototypical profiles generated in the first step to match the results of our cluster analysis to previously found personality types by their Euclidean distance in the 5-dimensional space defined by the Big Five traits. This procedure allows us to reliably link the personality prototypes found in our study to previous empirical evidence, an important analysis step lacking in most previous studies on this topic.

The empirical ground of personality types

The early studies applying modern psychological statistics to investigate personality types worked with the Q-sort procedure [ 1 , 15 , 17 ], and differed in the number of Q-factors. With the Q-Sort method, statements about a target person must be brought in an order depending on how characteristic they are for this person. Based on this Q-Sort data, prototypes can be generated using Q-Factor Analysis, also called inverse factor analysis. As inverse factor analysis is basically interchanging variables and persons in the data matrix, the resulting factors of a Q-factor analysis are prototypical personality profiles and not hypothetical or latent variable dimensions. On this basis, personality types (groups of people with similar personalities) can be formed in a second step by assigning each person to the prototype with whose profile his or her profile correlates most closely. All of these early studies determined at least three prototypes, which were labeled resilient, overcontroler and undercontroler grounded in Block`s theory of ego-control and ego-resiliency [ 18 ]. According to Jack and Jeanne Block’s decade long research, individuals high in ego-control (i.e. the overcontroler type) tend to appear constrained and inhibited in their actions and emotional expressivity. They may have difficulty making decisions and thus be non-impulsive or unnecessarily deny themselves pleasure or gratification. Children classified with this type in the studies by Block tend towards internalizing behavior. Individuals low in ego-control (i.e. the undercontroler type), on the other hand, are characterized by higher expressivity, a limited ability to delay gratification, being relatively unattached to social standards or customs, and having a higher propensity to risky behavior. Children classified with this type in the studies by Block tend towards externalizing behavior.

Individuals high in Ego-resiliency (i.e. the resilient type) are postulated to be able to resourcefully adapt to changing situations and circumstances, to tend to show a diverse repertoire of behavioral reactions and to be able to have a good and objective representation of the “goodness of fit” of their behavior to the situations/people they encounter. This good adjustment may result in high levels of self-confidence and a higher possibility to experience positive affect.

Another widely used approach to find prototypes within a dataset is cluster analysis. In the field of personality type research, one of the first studies based on this method was conducted by Caspi and Silva [ 19 ], who applied the SPSS Quick Cluster algorithm to behavioral ratings of 3-year-olds, yielding five prototypes: undercontrolled, inhibited, confident, reserved, and well-adjusted.

While the inhibited type was quite similar to Block`s overcontrolled type [ 18 ] and the well-adjusted type was very similar to the resilient type, two further prototypes were added: confident and reserved. The confident type was described as easy and responsive in social interaction, eager to do exercises and as having no or few problems to be separated from the parents. The reserved type showed shyness and discomfort in test situations but without decreased reaction speed compared to the inhibited type. In a follow-up measurement as part of the Dunedin Study in 2003 [ 20 ], the children who were classified into one of the five types at age 3 were administered the MPQ at age 26, including the assessment of their individual Big Five profile. Well-adjusteds and confidents had almost the same profiles (below-average neuroticism and above average on all other scales except for extraversion, which was higher for the confident type); undercontrollers had low levels of openness, conscientiousness and openness to experience; reserveds and inhibiteds had below-average extraversion and openness to experience, whereas inhibiteds additionally had high levels of conscientiousness and above-average neuroticism.

Following these studies, a series of studies based on cluster analysis, using the Ward’s followed by K-means algorithm, according to Blashfield & Aldenderfer [ 21 ], on Big Five data were published. The majority of the studies examining samples with N < 1000 [ 5 , 7 , 22 – 26 ] found that three-cluster solutions, namely resilients, overcontrollers and undercontrollers, fitted the data the best. Based on internal and external fit indices, Barbaranelli [ 27 ] found that a three-cluster and a four-cluster solution were equally suitable, while Gramzow [ 28 ] found a four-cluster solution with the addition of the reserved type already published by Caspi et al. [ 19 , 20 ]. Roth and Collani [ 10 ] found that a five-cluster solution fitted the data the best. Using the method of latent profile analysis, Merz and Roesch [ 29 ] found a 3-cluster, Favini et al. [ 6 ] found a 4-cluster solution and Kinnunen et al. [ 13 ] found a 5-cluster solution to be most appropriate.

Studies examining larger samples of N > 1000 reveal a different picture. Several favor a five-cluster solution [ 30 – 34 ] while others favor three clusters [ 8 , 35 ]. Specht et al. [ 36 ] examined large German and Australian samples and found a three-cluster solution to be suitable for the German sample and a four-cluster solution to be suitable for the Australian sample. Four cluster solutions were also found to be most suitable to Australian [ 37 ] and Chinese [ 38 ] samples. In a recent publication, the authors cluster-analysed very large datasets on Big Five personality comprising more than 1,5 million online participants using Gaussian mixture models [ 39 ]. Albeit their results “provide compelling evidence, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for at least four distinct personality types”, two of the four personality types in their study had trait profiles not found previously and all four types were given labels unrelated to previous findings and theory. Another recent publication [ 40 ] cluster-analysing data of over 270,000 participants on HEXACO personality “provided evidence that a five-profile solution was optimal”. Despite limitations concerning the comparability of HEXACO trait profiles with FFM personality type profiles, the authors again decided to label their personality types unrelated to previous findings instead using agency-communion and attachment theories.

We did not include studies in this literature review, which had fewer than 199 participants or those which restricted the number of types a priori and did not use any method to compare different clustering solutions. We have made these decisions because a too low sample size increases the probability of the clustering results being artefacts. Further, a priori limitation of the clustering results to a certain number of personality types is not well reasonable on the base of previous empirical evidence and again may produce artefacts, if the a priori assumed number of clusters does not fit the data well.

To gain a better overview, we extracted all available z-scores from all samples of the above-described studies. Fig 1 shows the averaged z-scores extracted from the results of FFM clustering solutions for all personality prototypes that occurred in more than one study. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the distribution of the z-scores of the respective trait within the same personality type throughout the different studies. Taken together the resilient type was replicated in all 19 of the mentioned studies, the overcontroler type in 16, the undercontroler personality type in 17 studies, the reserved personality type was replicated in 6 different studies, the confident personality type in 4 and the non-desirable type was replicated twice.

Average Big Five z-scores of personality types based on clustering of FFM datasets with N ≥ 199 that were replicated at least once. Error bars indicate the standard deviation of the repective trait within the respective personality type found in the literature [ 5 , 6 , 10 , 22 – 25 , 27 – 31 , 33 – 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 ].

Three implications can be drawn from this figure. First, although the results of 19 studies on 26 samples with a total N of 1,560,418 were aggregated, the Big Five profiles for all types can still be clearly distinguished. In other words, personality types seem to be a phenomenon that survives the aggregation of data from different sources. Second, there are more than three replicable personality types, as there are other replicated personality types that seem to have a distinct Big Five profile, at least regarding the reserved and confident personality types. Third and lastly, the non-desirable type seems to constitute the opposite of the resilient type. Looking at two-cluster solutions on Big Five data personality types in the above-mentioned literature yields the resilient opposed to the non-desirable type. This and the fact that it was only replicated twice in the above mentioned studies points to the notion that it seems not to be a distinct type but rather a combined cluster of the over- and undercontroller personality types. Further, both studies with this type in the results did not find either the undercontroller or the overcontroller cluster or both. Taken together, five distinct personality types were consistently replicated in the literature, namely resilient, overcontroller, undercontroller, reserved and confident. However, inferring from the partly large error margin for some traits within some prototypes, not all personality traits seem to contribute evenly to the occurrence of the different prototypes. While for the overcontroler type, above average neuroticism, below average extraversion and openness seem to be distinctive, only below average conscientiousness and agreeableness seemed to be most characteristic for the undercontroler type. The reserved prototype was mostly characterized by below average openness and neuroticism with above average conscientiousness. Above average extraversion, openness and agreeableness seemed to be most distinctive for the confident type. Only for the resilient type, distinct expressions of all Big Five traits seemed to be equally significant, more precisely below average neuroticism and above average extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness.

Research gap and novelty of this study

The cluster methods used in most of the mentioned papers were the Ward’s followed by K-means method or latent profile analysis. With the exception of Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ], Herzberg [ 33 ], Barbaranelli [ 27 ] and Steca et. al. [ 25 ], none of the studies used internal or external validity indices other than those which their respective algorithm (in most cases the SPSS software package) had already included. Gerlach et al. [ 39 ] used Gaussian mixture models in combination with density measures and likelihood measures.

The bias towards a smaller amount of clusters resulting from the utilization of just one replication index, e.g. Cohen's Kappa calculated by split-half cross-validation, which was ascertained by Breckenridge [ 42 ] and Overall & Magee [ 43 ], is probably the reason why a three-cluster solution is preferred in most studies. Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ] pointed to the study by Milligan and Cooper [ 44 ], which proved the superiority of the Rand index over Cohen's Kappa and also suggested a variety of validity metrics for internal consistency to examine the construct validity of the cluster solutions.

Only a part of the cited studies had a large representative sample of N > 2000 and none of the studies used more than one clustering algorithm. Moreover, with the exception of Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ] and Herzberg [ 33 ], none of the studies used a large variety of metrics for assessing internal and external consistency other than those provided by the respective clustering program they used. This limitation further adds up to the above mentioned bias towards smaller amounts of clusters although the field of cluster analysis and algorithms has developed a vast amount of internal and external validity algorithms and criteria to tackle this issue. Further, most of the studies had few or no other assessments or constructs than the Big Five to assess construct validity of the resulting personality types. Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ] and Herzberg [ 33 ] as well, though using a diverse variety of validity criteria only used one clustering algorithm on a medium-sized dataset with N < 2000.

Most of these limitations also apply to the study by Specht et. al. [ 36 ], which investigated two measurement occasions of the Big Five traits in the SOEP data sample. They used only one clustering algorithm (latent profile analysis), no other algorithmic validity criteria than the Bayesian information criterion and did not utilize any of the external constructs also assessed in the SOEP sample, such as mental health, locus of control or risk propensity for construct validation.

The largest sample and most advanced clustering algorithm was used in the recent study by Gerlach et al. [ 39 ]. But they also used only one clustering algorithm, and had no other variables except Big Five trait data to assess construct validity of the resulting personality types.

The aim of the present study was therefore to combine different methodological approaches while rectifying the shortcomings in several of the studies mentioned above in order to answer the following exploratory research questions: Are there replicable personality types, and if so, how many types are appropriate and in which constellations are they more (or less) useful than simple Big Five dimensions in the prediction of related constructs?

Three conceptually different clustering algorithms were used on a large representative dataset. The different solutions of the different clustering algorithms were compared using methodologically different internal and external validity criteria, in addition to those already used by the respective clustering algorithm.

To further examine the construct validity of the resulting personality types, their predictive validity in relation to physical and mental health, wellbeing, locus of control, self-esteem, impulsivity, risk-taking and patience were assessed.

Mental health and wellbeing seem to be associated mostly with neuroticism on the variable-oriented level [ 45 ], but on a person-oriented level, there seem to be large differences between the resilient and the overcontrolled personality type concerning perceived health and well-being beyond mean differences in neuroticism [ 33 ]. This seems also to be the case for locus of control and self-esteem, which is associated with neuroticism [ 46 ] and significantly differs between resilient and overcontrolled personality type [ 33 ]. On the other hand, impulsivity and risk taking seem to be associated with all five personality traits [ 47 ] and e.g. risky driving or sexual behavior seem to occur more often in the undercontrolled personality type [ 33 , 48 ].

We chose these measures because of their empirically known differential associations to Big Five traits as well as to the above described personality types. So this both offers the opportunity to have an integrative comparison of the variable- and person-centered descriptions of personality and to assess construct validity of the personality types resulting from our analyses.

Materials and methods

The acquisition of the data this study bases on was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Basel Declaration and recommendations of the “Principles of Ethical Research and Procedures for Dealing with Scientific Misconduct at DIW Berlin”. The protocol was approved by the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW).

The data used in this study were provided by the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) of the German institute for economic research [ 49 ]. Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1 . The overall sample size of the SOEP data used in this study, comprising all individuals who answered at least one of the Big-Five personality items in 2005 and 2009, was 25,821. Excluding all members with more than one missing answers on the Big Five assessment or intradimensional answer variance more than four times higher than the sample average resulted in a total Big Five sample of N = 22,820, which was used for the cluster analyses. 14,048 of these individuals completed, in addition to the Big Five, items relevant to further constructs examined in this study that were assessed in other years. The 2013 SOEP data Big Five assessment was used as a test sample to examine stability and consistency of the final cluster solution.

Exclusion of participants in the derivation and test samples based on missing answers or intradimensional answer variance more than four times higher than the sample average on the Big Five assessment. Longitudinal construct validity sample consistent of participants with available data on assessments of patience, risk taking, impulsivity, affective and cognitive wellbeing, locus of control, self-esteem and health. SOEP = German Socio-Economic Panel, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Rg = Range, F = female.

The Big Five were assessed in 2005 2009 and 2013 using the short version of the Big Five inventory (BFI-S). It consists of 15 items, with internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) of the scales ranging from .5 for openness to .73 for openness [ 50 ]. Further explorations showed strong robustness across different assessment methods [ 51 ].

To measure the predictive validity, several other measures assessed in the SOEP were included in the analyses. In detail, these were:

Patience was assessed in 2008 with one item: “Are you generally an impatient person, or someone who always shows great patience?”

Risk taking

Risk-taking propensity was assessed in 2009 by six items asking about the willingness to take risks while driving, in financial matters, in leisure and sports, in one’s occupation (career), in trusting unknown people and the willingness to take health risks, using a scale from 0 (risk aversion) to 10 (fully prepared to take risks). Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for this scale in the current sample.

Impulsivity/Spontaneity

Impulsivity/spontaneity was assessed in 2008 with one item: Do you generally think things over for a long time before acting–in other words, are you not impulsive at all? Or do you generally act without thinking things over for long time–in other words, are you very impulsive?

Affective and cognitive wellbeing

Affect was assessed in 2008 by four items asking about the amount of anxiety, anger, happiness or sadness experienced in the last four weeks on a scale from 1 (very rare) to 5 (very often). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .66. The cognitive satisfaction with life was assessed by 10 items asking about satisfaction with work, health, sleep, income, leisure time, household income, household duties, family life, education and housing, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .67. The distinction between cognitive and affective wellbeing stems from sociological research based on constructs by Schimmack et al. [ 50 ].

Locus of control

The individual attitude concerning the locus of control, the degree to which people believe in having control over the outcome of events in their lives opposed to being exposed to external forces beyond their control, was assessed in 2010 with 10 items, comprising four positively worded items such as “My life’s course depends on me” and six negatively worded items such as “Others make the crucial decisions in my life”. Items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from “does not apply” to “does apply”. Cronbach’s alpha in the present sample for locus of control was .57.

Self-esteem

Global self-esteem–a person’s overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her worth–was measured in 2010 with one item: “To what degree does the following statement apply to you personally?: I have a positive attitude toward myself”.

To assess subjective health, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) was integrated into the SOEP questionnaire and assessed in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. In the present study, we used the data from 2008 and 2010. The SF-12 is a short form of the SF-36, a self-report questionnaire to assess the non-disease-specific health status [ 52 ]. Within the SF-12, items can be grouped onto two subscales, namely the physical component summary scale, with items asking about physical health correlates such as how exhausting it is to climb stairs, and the mental component summary scale, with items asking about mental health correlates such as feeling sad and blue. The literature on health measures often distinguishes between subjective and objective health measures (e.g., BMI, blood pressure). From this perspective, the SF-12 would count as a subjective health measure. In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the SF-12 items was .77.

Derivation of the prototypes

The first step was to administer three different clustering methods on the Big Five data of the SOEP sample: First, the conventional linear clustering method used by Asendorpf [ 15 , 35 , 53 ] and also Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ] combines the hierarchical clustering method of Ward [ 54 ] with the k-means algorithm [ 55 ]. This algorithm generates a first guess of personality types based on hierarchical clustering, and then uses this first guess as starting points for the k-means-method, which iteratively adjusts the personality profiles, i.e. the cluster means to minimize the error of allocation, i.e. participants with Big Five profiles that are allocated to two or more personality types. The second algorithm we used was latent profile analysis with Mclust in R [ 56 ], an algorithm based on probabilistic finite mixture modeling, which assumes that there are latent classes/profiles/mixture components underlying the manifest observed variables. This algorithm generates personality profiles and iteratively calculates the probability of every participant in the data to be allocated to one of the personality types and tries to minimize an error term using maximum likelihood method. The third algorithm was spectral clustering, an algorithm which initially computes eigenvectors of graph Laplacians of the similarity graph constructed on the input data to discover the number of connected components in the graph, and then uses the k-means algorithm on the eigenvectors transposed in a k-dimensional space to compute the desired k clusters [ 57 ]. As it is an approach similar to the kernel k-means algorithm [ 58 ], spectral clustering can discover non-linearly separable cluster formations. Thus, this algorithm is able, in contrast to the standard k-means procedure, to discover personality types having unequal or non-linear distributions within the Big-Five traits, e.g. having a small SD on neuroticism while having a larger SD on conscientiousness or a personality type having high extraversion and either high or low agreeableness.

Within the last 50 years, a large variety of clustering algorithms have been established, and several attempts have been made to group them. In their book about cluster analysis, Bacher et al. [ 59 ] group cluster algorithms into incomplete clustering algorithms, e.g. Q-Sort or multidimensional scaling, deterministic clustering, e.g. k-means or nearest-neighbor algorithms, and probabilistic clustering, e.g. latent class and latent profile analysis. According to Jain [ 60 ], cluster algorithms can be grouped by their objective function, probabilistic generative models and heuristics. In his overview of the current landscape of clustering, he begins with the group of density-based algorithms with linear similarity functions, e.g. DBSCAN, or probabilistic models of density functions, e.g. in the expectation-maximation (EM) algorithm. The EM algorithm itself also belongs to the large group of clustering algorithms with an information theoretic formulation. Another large group according to Jain is graph theoretic clustering, which includes several variants of spectral clustering. Despite the fact that it is now 50 years old, Jain states that k-means is still a good general-purpose algorithm that can provide reasonable clustering results.

The clustering algorithms chosen for the current study are therefore representatives of the deterministic vs. probabilistic grouping according to Bacher et. al. [ 59 ], as well as representatives of the density-based, information theoretic and graph theoretic grouping according to Jain [ 60 ].

Determining the number of clusters

There are two principle ways to determine cluster validity: external or relative criteria and internal validity indices.

External validity criteria

External validity criteria measure the extent to which cluster labels match externally supplied class labels. If these external class labels originate from another clustering algorithm used on the same data sample, the resulting value of the external cluster validity index is relative. Another method, which is used in the majority of the cited papers in section 1, is to randomly split the data in two halves, apply a clustering algorithm on both halves, calculate the cluster means and allocate members of one half to the calculated clusters of the opposite half by choosing the cluster mean with the shortest Euclidean distance to the data member in charge. If the cluster algorithm allocation of one half is then compared with the shortest Euclidean distance allocation of the same half by means of an external cluster validity index, this results in a value for the reliability of the clustering method on the data sample.

As allocating data points/members by Euclidean distances always yields spherical and evenly shaped clusters, it will favor clustering methods that also yield spherical and evenly shaped clusters, as it is the case with standard k-means. The cluster solutions obtained with spectral clustering as well as latent profile analysis (LPA) are not (necessarily) spherical or evenly shaped; thus, allocating members of a dataset by their Euclidean distances to cluster means found by LPA or spectral clustering does not reliably represent the structure of the found cluster solution. This is apparent in Cohen’s kappa values <1 if one uses the Euclidean external cluster assignment method comparing a spectral cluster solution with itself. Though by definition, Cohen’s kappa should be 1 if the two ratings/assignments compared are identical, which is the case when comparing a cluster solution (assigning every data point to a cluster) with itself. This problem can be bypassed by allocating the members of the test dataset to the respective clusters by training a support vector machine classifier for each cluster. Support vector machines (SVM) are algorithms to construct non-linear “hyperplanes” to classify data given their class membership [ 61 ]. They can be used very well to categorize members of a dataset by an SVM-classifier trained on a different dataset. Following the rationale not to disadvantage LPA and spectral clustering in the calculation of the external validity, we used an SVM classifier to calculate the external validity criteria for all clustering algorithms in this study.

To account for the above mentioned bias to smaller numbers of clusters we applied three external validity criteria: Cohen’s kappa, the Rand index [ 62 ] and the Hubert-Arabie adjusted Rand index [ 63 ].

Internal validity criteria

Again, to account for the bias to smaller numbers of clusters, we also applied multiple internal validity criteria selected in line with the the following reasoning: According to Lam and Yan [ 64 ], the internal validity criteria fall into three classes: Class one includes cost-function-based indices, e.g. AIC or BIC [ 65 ], whereas class two comprises cluster-density-based indices, e.g. the S_Dbw index [ 66 ]. Class three is grounded on geometric assumptions concerning the ratio of the distances within clusters compared to the distances between the clusters. This class has the most members, which differ in their underlying mathematics. One way of assessing geometric cluster properties is to calculate the within- and/or between-group scatter, which both rely on summing up distances of the data points to their barycenters (cluster means). As already explained in the section on external criteria, calculating distances to cluster means will always favor spherical and evenly shaped cluster solutions without noise, i.e. personality types with equal and linear distributions on the Big Five trait dimensions, which one will rarely encounter with natural data.

Another way not solely relying on distances to barycenters or cluster means is to calculate directly with the ratio of distances of the data points within-cluster and between-cluster. According to Desgraupes [ 67 ], this applies to the following indices: the C-index, the Baker & Hubert Gamma index, the G(+) index, Dunn and Generalized Dunn indices, the McClain-Rao index, the Point-Biserial index and the Silhouette index. As the Gamma and G(+) indices rely on the same mathematical construct, one can declare them as redundant. According to Bezdek [ 68 ], the Dunn index is very sensitive to noise, even if there are only very few outliers in the data. Instead, the authors propose several ways to compute a Generalized Dunn index, some of which also rely on the calculation of barycenters. The best-performing GDI algorithm outlined by Bezdek and Pal [ 68 ] which does not make use of cluster barycenters is a ratio of the mean distance of every point between clusters to the maximum distance between points within the cluster, henceforth called GDI31. According to Vendramin et al. [ 69 ], the Gamma, C-, and Silhouette indices are the best-performing (over 80% correct hit rate), while the worst-performing are the Point-Biserial and the McClain-Rao indices (73% and 51% correct hit rate, respectively).

Fig 2 shows a schematic overview of the procedure we used to determine the personality types Big Five profiles, i.e. the cluster centers. To determine the best fitting cluster solution, we adopted the two-step procedure proposed by Blashfield and Aldenfelder [ 21 ] and subsequently used by Asendorpf [ 15 , 35 , 53 ] Boehm [ 41 ], Schnabel [ 24 ], Gramzow [ 28 ], and Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ], with a few adjustments concerning the clustering algorithms and the validity criteria.

LPA = latent profile analysis, SVM = Support Vector Machine.

First, we drew 20 random samples of the full sample comprising all individuals who answered the Big-Five personality items in 2005 and 2009 with N = 22,820 and split every sample randomly into two halves. Second, all three clustering algorithms described above were performed on each half, saving the 3-, 4-,…,9- and 10-cluster solution. Third, participants of each half were reclassified based on the clustering of the other half of the same sample, again for every clustering algorithm and for all cluster solutions from three to 10 clusters. In contrast to Asendorpf [ 35 ], this was implemented not by calculating Euclidean distances, but by training a support vector machine classifier for every cluster of a cluster solution of one half-sample and reclassifying the members of the other half of the same sample by the SVM classifier. The advantages of this method are explained in the section on external criteria. This resulted in 20 samples x 2 halves per sample x 8 cluster solutions x 3 clustering algorithms, equaling 960 clustering solutions to be compared.

The fourth step was to compute the external criteria comparing each Ward followed by k-means, spectral, or probabilistic clustering solution of each half-sample to the clustering by the SVM classifier trained on the opposite half of the same sample, respectively. The external calculated in this step were Cohen's kappa, Rand’s index [ 62 ] and the Hubert & Arabie adjusted Rand index [ 63 ]. The fifth step consisted of averaging: We first averaged the external criteria values per sample (one value for each half), and then averaged the 20x4 external criteria values for each of the 3-,4-…, 10-cluster solutions for each algorithm.

The sixth step was to temporarily average the external criteria values for the 3-,4-,… 10-cluster solution over the three clustering algorithms and discard the cluster solutions that had a total average kappa below 0.6.

As proposed by Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ], we then calculated several internal cluster validity indices for all remaining cluster solutions. The internal validity indices which we used were, in particular, the C-index [ 70 ], the Baker-Hubert Gamma index [ 71 ], the G + index [ 72 ], the Generalized Dunn index 31 [ 68 ], the Point-Biserial index [ 44 ], the Silhouette index [ 73 ], AIC and BIC [ 65 ] and the S_Dbw index [ 66 ]. Using all of these criteria, it is possible to determine the best clustering solution in a mathematical/algorithmic manner.

The resulting clusters where then assigned names by calculating Euclidean distances to the clusters/personality types found in the literature, taking the nearest type within the 5-dimensional space defined by the respective Big Five values.

To examine the stability and consistency of the final cluster solution, in a last step, we then used the 2013 SOEP data sample to calculate a cluster solution using the algorithm and parameters which generated the solution with the best validity criteria for the 2005 and 2009 SOEP data sample. The 2013 personality prototypes were allocated to the personality types of the solution from the previous steps by their profile similarity measure D. Stability then was assessed by calculation of Rand-index, adjusted Rand-index and Cohen’s Kappa for the complete solution and for every single personality type. To generate the cluster allocations between the different cluster solutions, again we used SVM classifier as described above.

To assess the predictive and the construct validity of the resulting personality types, the inversed Euclidean distance for every participant to every personality prototype (averaged Big Five profile in one cluster) in the 5-dimensional Big-Five space was calculated and correlated with further personality, behavior and health measures mentioned above. To ensure that longitudinal reliability was assessed in this step, Big Five data assessed in 2005 were used to predict measures which where assessed three, four or five years later. The selection of participants with available data in 2005 and 2008 or later reduced the sample size in this step to N = 14,048.

Internal and external cluster fit indices

Table 2 shows the mean Cohen’s kappa values, averaged over all clustering algorithms and all 20 bootstrapped data permutations.

Each cell is an average value over 20 independent cluster computations on random data permutations; the mean value in the last row is the average over all cluster algorithms. LPA = latent profile analysis, k-Means = k-Means Clustering algorithm, Spectral = Spectral clustering algorithm.

Whereas the LPA and spectral cluster solutions seem to have better kappa values for fewer clusters, the kappa values of the k-means clustering solutions have a peak at five clusters, which is even higher than the kappa values of the three-cluster solutions of the other two algorithms.

Considering that these values are averaged over 20 independent computations, there is very low possibility that this result is an artefact. As the solutions with more than five clusters had an average kappa below .60, they were discarded in the following calculations.

Table 3 shows the calculated external and internal validity indices for the three- to five-cluster solutions, ordered by the clustering algorithm. Comparing the validity criterion values within the clustering algorithms reveals a clear preference for the five-cluster solution in the spectral as well as the Ward followed by k-means algorithm.

Best value across all solutions for each validity criterion is highlighted in yellow, best value within the respective algorithm in blue. GDI31 = Generalized Dunn Index 31, AIC = Akaike’s information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion, LPA = latent profile analysis, k-Means = k-Means Clustering algorithm, Spectral = Spectral clustering algorithm.

Looking solely at the cluster validity results of the latent profile models, they seem to favor the three-cluster model. Yet, in a global comparison, only the S_Dbw index continues to favor the three-cluster LPA model, whereas the results of all other 12 validity indices support five-cluster solutions. The best clustering solution in terms of the most cluster validity index votes is the five-cluster Ward followed by k-means solution, and second best is the five-cluster spectral solution. It is particularly noteworthy that the five-cluster K-means solution has higher values on all external validity criteria than all other solutions. As these values are averaged over 20 independent cluster computations on random data permutations, and still have better values than solutions with fewer clusters despite the fact that these indices have a bias towards solutions with fewer clusters [ 42 ], there seems to be a substantial, replicable five-component structure in the Big Five Data of the German SOEP sample.

Description of the prototypes

The mean z-scores on the Big Five factors of the five-cluster k-means as well as the spectral solution are depicted in Fig 2 . Also depicted is the five-cluster LPA solution, which is, despite having poor internal and external validity values compared to the other two solutions, more complicated to interpret. To find the appropriate label for the cluster partitions, the respective mean z-scores on the Big Five factors were compared with the mean z-scores found in the literature, both visually and by the Euclidean distance.

The spectral and the Ward followed by k-means solution overlap by 81.3%; the LPA solution only overlaps with the other two solutions by 21% and 23%, respectively. As the Ward followed by k-means solution has the best values both for external and internal validity criteria, we will focus on this solution in the following.

The first cluster has low neuroticism and high values on all other scales and includes on average 14.4% of the participants (53.2% female; mean age 53.3, SD = 17.3). Although the similarity to the often replicated resilient personality type is already very clear merely by looking at the z-scores, a very strong congruence is also revealed by computing the Euclidean distance (0.61). The second cluster is mainly characterized by high neuroticism, low extraversion and low openness and includes on average 17.3% of the participants (54.4% female; mean age 57.6, SD = 18.2). It clearly resembles the overcontroller type, to which it also has the shortest Euclidean distance (0.58). The fourth cluster shows below-average values on the factors neuroticism, extraversion and openness, as opposed to above-average values on openness and conscientiousness. It includes on average 22.5% of the participants (45% female; mean age 56.8, SD = 17.6). Its mean z-scores closely resemble the reserved personality type, to which it has the smallest Euclidean distance (0.36). The third cluster is mainly characterized by low conscientiousness and low openness, although in the spectral clustering solution, it also has above-average extraversion and openness values. Computing the Euclidean distance (0.86) yields the closest proximity to the undercontroller personality type. This cluster includes on average 24.6% of the participants (41.3% female; mean age 50.8, SD = 18.3). The fifth cluster exhibits high z-scores on every Big Five trait, including a high value for neuroticism. Computing the Euclidean distances to the previously found types summed up in Fig 1 reveals the closest resemblance with the confident type (Euclidean distance = 0.81). Considering the average scores of the Big Five traits, it resembles the confident type from Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ] and Collani and Roth [ 10 ] as well as the resilient type, with the exception of the high neuroticism score. Having above average values on the more adaptive traits while having also above average neuroticism values reminded a reviewer from a previous version of this paper of the vulnerable but invincible children of the Kauai-study [ 74 ]. Despite having been exposed to several risk factors in their childhood, they were well adapted in their adulthood except for low coping efficiency in specific stressful situations. Taken together with the lower percentage of participants in the resilient cluster in this study, compared to previous studies, we decided to name the 5 th cluster vulnerable-resilient. Consequently, only above or below average neuroticism values divided between resilient and vulnerable resilient. On average, 21.2% of the participants were allocated to this cluster (68.3% female; mean age 54.9, SD = 17.4).

Summarizing the descriptive statistics, undercontrollers were the “youngest” cluster whereas overcontrollers were the “oldest”. The mean age differed significantly between clusters ( F [4, 22820] = 116.485, p <0.001), although the effect size was small ( f = 0.14). The distribution of men and women between clusters differed significantly (c 2 [ 4 ] = 880.556, p <0.001). With regard to sex differences, it was particularly notable that the vulnerable-resilient cluster comprised only 31.7% men. This might be explained by general sex differences on the Big Five scales. According to Schmitt et al. [ 75 ], compared to men, European women show a general bias to higher neuroticism (d = 0.5), higher conscientiousness (d = 0.3) and higher extraversion and openness (d = 0.2). As the vulnerable-resilient personality type is mainly characterized by high neuroticism and above-average z-scores on the other scales, it is therefore more likely to include women. In turn, this implies that men are more likely to have a personality profile characterized mainly by low conscientiousness and low openness, which is also supported by our findings, as only 41.3% of the undercontrollers were female.

Concerning the prototypicality of the five-cluster solution compared to the mean values extracted from previous studies, it is apparent that the resilient, the reserved and the overcontroller type are merely exact replications. In contrast to previous findings, the undercontrollers differed from the previous findings cited above in terms of average neuroticism, whereas the vulnerable-resilient type differed from the previously found type (labeled confident) in terms of high neuroticism.

Stability and consistency

Inspecting the five cluster solution using the k-means algorithm on the Big Five data of the 2013 SOEP sample seemed to depict a replication of the above described personality types. This first impression was confirmed by the calculation of the profile similarity measure D between the 2005/2009 and 2013 SOEP sample cluster solutions, which yielded highest similarity for the undercontroler (D = 0.27) and reserved (D = 0.36) personality types, followed by the vulnerable-resilient (D = 0.37), overcontroler (D = 0.44) and resilient (D = 0.50) personality types. Substantial agreement was confirmed by the values of the Rand index (.84) and Cohen’ Kappa (.70) whereas the Hubert Arabie adjusted Rand Index (.58) indicated moderate agreement for the comparison between the kmeans cluster solution for the 2013 SOEP sample and the cluster allocation with an SVM classifier trained on the 2005 and 2009 kmeans cluster solution.

Predictive validity

In view of the aforementioned criticisms that (a) predicting dimensional variables will mathematically favor dimensional personality description models, and (b) using dichotomous predictors will necessarily provide less explanation of variance than a model using five continuous predictors, we used the profile similarity measure D [ 76 ] instead of dichotomous dummy variables accounting for the prototype membership. Correlations between the inversed Euclidean similarity measure D to the personality types and patience, risk-taking, spontaneity/impulsivity, locus of control, affective wellbeing, self-esteem and health are depicted in Table 4 .

N = 14048. Except the ones in brackets, only correlations with a significance level ≤ 0.001 are depicted. The highest and lowest correlation in each row are marked in bold. SF-12 = 12-Item Short Form Health Survey.

Patience had the highest association with the reserved personality type (r = .19, p < .001). The propensity to risky behavior, e.g. while driving (r = .17, p < .001), in financial matters (r = .17, p < .001) or in health decisions (r = .13, p < .001) was most highly correlated with the undercontroller personality type. This means that the more similar the Big-Five profile to the above-depicted undercontroller personality prototype, the higher the propensity for risky behavior. The average correlation across all three risk propensity scales with the undercontroller personality type is r = .21, with p < .001. This is in line with the postulations by Block and Block and subsequent replications by Caspi et al. [ 19 , 48 ], Robins et al. [ 1 ] and Herzberg [ 33 ] about the undercontroller personality type. Spontaneity/impulsivity showed the highest correlation with the overcontroller personality type (r = -.18, p<0.001). This is also in accordance with Block and Block, who described this type as being non-impulsive and appearing constrained and inhibited in actions and emotional expressivity.

Concerning locus of control, proximity to the resilient personality profile had the highest correlation with internal locus of control (r = .25, p < .001), and in contrast, the more similar the individual Big-Five profile was to the overcontroller personality type, the higher the propensity for external allocation of control (r = .22, p < .001). This is not only in line with Block and Block’s postulations that the resilient personality type has a good repertoire of coping behavior and therefore perceives most situations as “manageable” as well as with the findings by [ 33 ], but is also in accordance with findings regarding the construct and development of resilience [ 77 , 78 ].

Also in line with the predictions of Block and Block and replicating the findings of Herzberg [ 33 ], self-esteem was correlated the highest with the resilient personality profile similarity (r = .33, p < .001), second highest with the reserved personality profile proximity (r = .15, p < .001), and negatively correlated with the overcontroller personality type (r = -.27, p < .001).

This pattern also applies to affective and cognitive wellbeing as well as physical and mental health measured by the SF-12. Affective wellbeing was correlated the highest with similarity to the resilient personality type (r = .27, p < .001), and second highest with the reserved personality type (r = .23, p < .001). The overcontroller personality type, in contrast, showed a negative correlation with affective (r = -.16, p < .001) and cognitive (r = -21, p < .001) wellbeing. Concerning health, a remarkable finding is that lack of physical health impairment correlated the highest with the resilient personality profile similarity (p = -.23, p < .001) but lack of mental health impairment correlated the highest with the reserved personality type (r = -.15, p < .001). The highest correlation with mental health impairments (r = .11, p < .001), as well as physical health impairments (r = .16, p < .001) was with the overcontroller personality profile similarity. It is striking that although the undercontroller personality profile similarity was associated with risky health behavior, it had a negative association with health impairment measures, in contrast to the overcontroller personality type, which in turn had no association with risky health behavior. This result is in line with the link of internalizing and externalizing behavior with the overcontroller and undercontroller types [ 79 ], respectively. Moreover, it is also in accordance with the association of internalizing problems with somatic symptoms and/or symptoms of depressiveness and anxiety [ 80 ].

A further noteworthy finding is that these associations cannot be solely explained by the high neuroticism of the overcontroller personality type, as the vulnerable-resilient type showed a similar level of neuroticism but no correlation with self-esteem, the opposite correlation with impulsivity, and far lower correlations with health measures or locus of control. The vulnerable-resilient type showed also a remarkable distinction to the other types concerning the correlations to wellbeing. While for all other types, the direction and significance of the correlations to affective and cognitive measures of wellbeing were alike, the vulnerable-resilient type only had a significant negative correlation to affective wellbeing while having no significant correlation to measures of cognitive wellbeing.

To provide an overview of the particular associations of the Big Five values with all of the above-mentioned behavior and personality measures, Table 5 shows the bivariate correlations.

N = 14,048. Except the one in brackets, only correlations with a significance level ≤ 0.001 are depicted. SF-12 = 12-Item Short Form Health Survey.

Investigating the direction of the correlation and the relativity of each value to each other row-wise reveals, to some extent, a clear resemblance with the z-scores of the personality types shown in Fig 3 . Correlation profiles of risk taking, especially the facet risk-taking in health issues and locus of control, clearly resemble the undercontroller personality profile (negative correlations with openness and conscientiousness, positive but lower correlations with extraversion and openness). Patience had negative correlations with neuroticism and extraversion, and positive correlations with openness and conscientiousness, which in turn resembles the z-score profile of the reserved personality profile. Spontaneity/impulsivity had moderate to high positive correlations with extraversion and openness, and low negative correlations with openness and neuroticism, which resembles the inverse of the overcontroller personality profile. Self-esteem as well as affective and cognitive wellbeing correlations with the Big Five clearly resemble the resilient personality profile: negative correlations with neuroticism, and positive correlations with extraversion, openness, openness and conscientiousness. Inspecting the SF-12 health correlation, in terms of both physical and mental health, reveals a resemblance to the inversed resilient personality profile (high correlation with neuroticism, low correlation with extraversion, openness, openness and conscientiousness, as well as a resemblance with the overcontroller profile (positive correlation with neuroticism, negative correlation with extraversion).

On the variable level, neuroticism had the highest associations with almost all of the predicted variables, with the exception of impulsivity, which was mainly correlated with extraversion and openness. It is also evident that all variables in question here are correlated with three or more Big Five traits. This can be seen as support for hypothesis that the concept of personality prototypes has greater utility than the variable-centered approach in understanding or predicting more complex psychological constructs that are linked to two or more Big Five traits.

The goal of this study was to combine different methodological approaches while overcoming the shortcomings of previous studies in order to answer the questions whether there are replicable personality types, how many of them there are, and how they relate to Big Five traits and other psychological and health-related constructs. The results revealed a robust five personality type model, which was able to significantly predict all of the psychological constructs in question longitudinally. Predictions from previous findings connecting the predicted variables to the particular Big Five dimensions underlying the personality type model were confirmed. Apparently, the person-centered approach to personality description has the most practical utility when predicting behavior or personality correlates that are connected to more than one or two of the Big Five traits such as self-esteem, locus of control and wellbeing.

This study fulfils all three criteria specified by von Eye & Bogat [ 81 ] regarding person-oriented research and considers the recommendations regarding sample size and composition by Herzberg and Roth [ 30 ]. The representative and large sample was analyzed under the assumption that it was drawn from more than one population (distinct personality types). Moreover, several external and internal cluster validity criteria were taken into account in order to validate the groupings generated by three different cluster algorithms, which were chosen to represent broad ranges of clustering techniques [ 60 , 82 ]. The Ward followed by K-means procedure covers hierarchical as well as divisive partitioning (crisp) clustering, the latent profile algorithm covers density-based clustering with probabilistic models and information theoretic validation (AIC, BIC), and spectral clustering represents graph theoretic as well as kernel-based non-linear clustering techniques. The results showed a clear superiority of the five-cluster solution. Interpreting this grouping based on theory revealed a strong concordance with personality types found in previous studies, which we could ascertain both in absolute mean values and in the Euclidean distances to mean cluster z-scores extracted from 19 previous studies. As no previous study on personality types used that many external and internal cluster validity indices and different clustering algorithms on a large data set of this size, the present study provides substantial support for the personality type theory postulating the existence of resilient, undercontroller, overcontroller, vulnerable-resilient and reserved personality types, which we will refer to with RUO-VR subsequently. Further, our findings concerning lower validity of the LPA cluster solutions compared to the k-means and spectral cluster solutions suggest that clustering techniques based on latent models are less suited for the BFI-S data of the SOEP sample than iterative and deterministic methods based on the k-means procedure or non-linear kernel or graph-based methods. Consequently, the substance of the clustering results by Specht et. al. [ 36 ], which applied latent profile analysis on the SOEP sample, may therefore be limited.

But the question, if the better validity values of the k-means and spectral clustering techniques compared to the LPA indicate a general superiority of these algorithms, a superiority in the field of personality trait clustering or only a superiority in clustering this specific personality trait assessment (BFI-S) in this specific sample (SOEP), remains subject to further studies on personality trait clustering.

When determining the longitudinal predictive validity, the objections raised by Asendorpf [ 53 ] concerning the direct comparison of person-oriented vs. variable-oriented personality descriptions were incorporated by using continuous personality type profile similarity based on Cronbach and Gleser [ 75 ] instead of dichotomous dummy variables as well as by predicting long-term instead of cross-sectionally assessed variables. Using continuous profile similarity variables also resolves the problem that potentially important information about members of the same class is lost in categorical personality descriptions [ 15 , 53 , 83 ]. Predictions regarding the association of the personality types with the assessed personality and behavior correlates, including risk propensity, impulsivity, self-esteem, locus of control, patience, cognitive and affective wellbeing as well as health measures, were confirmed.

Overcontrollers showed associations with lower spontaneity/impulsivity, with lower mental and physical health, and lower cognitive as well as affective wellbeing. Undercontrollers were mainly associated with higher risk propensity and higher impulsive behavior. These results can be explained through the connection of internalizing and externalizing behavior with the overcontroller and undercontroller types [ 5 – 7 , 78 ] and further with the connection of internalizing problems with somatic symptoms and/or symptoms of depressiveness and anxiety [ 79 ]. The dimensions or categories of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology have a long tradition in child psychopathology [ 84 , 85 ] and have been subsequently replicated in adult psychopathology [ 86 , 87 ] and are now basis of contemporary approaches to general psychopathology [ 88 ]. A central proceeding in this development is the integration of (maladaptive) personality traits into the taxonomy of general psychopathology. In the current approach, maladaptive personality traits are allocated to psychopathology spectra, such as the maladaptive trait domain negative affectivity to the spectrum of internalizing disorders. However, the findings of this study suggests that not specific personality traits are intertwined with the development or the occurrence of psychopathology but specific constellations of personality traits, in other words, personality profiles. This hypothesis is also supported by the findings of Meeus et al. [ 8 ], which investigated longitudinal transitions from one personality type to another with respect to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder. Transitions from resilient to overcontroller personality profiles significantly predicted higher anxiety symptoms while the opposite was found for transitions from overcontroller to resilient personality profiles.

The resilient personality type had the strongest associations with external locus of control, higher patience, good health and positive wellbeing. This not only confirms the characteristics of the resilient type already described by Block & Block [ 18 ] and subsequently replicated, but also conveys the main characteristics of the construct of resilience itself. While the development of resiliency depends on the quality of attachment experiences in childhood and youth [ 89 ], resiliency in adulthood seems to be closely linked to internal locus of control, self-efficacy and self-esteem. In other words, the link between secure attachment experiences in childhood and resiliency in adulthood seems to be the development of a resilient personality trait profile. Seen the other way around, the link between traumatic attachment experiences or destructive environmental factors and low resiliency in adulthood may be, besides genetic risk factors, the development of personality disorders [ 90 ] or internalizing or externalizing psychopathology [ 91 ]. Following this thought, the p-factor [ 92 ], i.e. a general factor of psychopathology, may be an index of insufficient resilience. Although from the viewpoint of personality pathology, having a trait profile close to the resilient personality type may be an index of stable or good personality structure [ 93 ], i.e. personality functioning [ 94 ], which, though being consistently associated with general psychopathology and psychosocial functioning, should not be confused with it [ 95 ].

The reserved personality type had the strongest associations with higher patience as well as better mental health. The vulnerable-resilient personality type showed low positive correlations with spontaneity/impulsivity and low negative correlations with patience as well as health and affective wellbeing.

Analyzing the correlations of the dimensional Big Five values with the predicted variables revealed patterns similar to the mean z-scores of the personality types resilient, overcontrollers, undercontrollers and reserved. Most variables had a low to moderate correlation with just one personality profile similarity, while having at least two or three low to moderate correlations with the Big Five measures. This can be seen as support for the argument of Chapman [ 82 ] and Asendorpf [ 15 , 53 ] that personality types have more practical meaning in the prediction of more complex correlates of human behavior and personality such as mental and physical health, wellbeing, risk-taking, locus of control, self-esteem and impulsivity. Our findings further underline that the person-oritented approach may better be suited than variable-oriented personality descriptions to detect complex trait interactions [ 40 ]. E.g. the vulnerable-resilient and the overcontroller type did not differ in their high average neuroticism values, while differing in their correlations to mental and somatic health self-report measures. It seems that high neuroticism is far stronger associated to lower mental and physical health as well as wellbeing if it occurs together with low extraversion and low openness as seen in the overcontroller type. This differential association between the Big-Five traits also affects the correlation between neuroticism and self-esteem or locus of control. Not differing in their average neuroticism value, the overcontroller personality profile had moderate associations with low self-esteem and external locus of control while the vulnerable-resilient personality profile did only show very low or no association. Further remarkable is that the vulnerable-resilient profile similarity had no significant correlation with measures of cognitive wellbeing while being negatively correlated with affective wellbeing. This suggests that individuals with a Big-Five personality profile similar to the vulnerable-resilient prototype seem not to perceive impairments in their wellbeing, at least on a cognitive layer, although having high z-values in neuroticism. Another explanation for this discrepancy as well as for the lack of association of the vulnerable-resilient personality profile to low self-esteem and external locus of control though having high values in neuroticism could be found in the research on the construct of resilience. Personalities with high neuroticism values but stable self-esteem, internal locus of control and above average agreeableness and extraversion values may be the result of the interplay of multiple protective factors (e.g. close bond with primary caregiver, supportive teachers) with risk factors (e.g. parental mental illness, poverty). The development of a resilient personality profile with below average neuroticism values, on the other hand, may be facilitated if protective factors outweigh the risk factors by a higher ratio.

An interesting future research question therefore concerns to what extent personality types found in this study may be replicated using maladaptive trait assessments according to DSM-5, section III [ 96 ] or the ICD-11 personality disorder section [ 97 ] (for a comprehensive overview on that topic see e.g. [ 98 ]). As previous studies showed that both DSM-5 [ 99 ] and ICD-11 [ 100 ] maladaptive personality trait domains may be, to a large extent, conceptualized as maladaptive variants of Big Five traits, it is highly likely that also maladaptive personality trait domains align around personality prototypes and that the person-oriented approach may amend the research field of personality pathology [ 101 ].

Taken together, the findings of this study connect the variable centered approach of personality description, more precisely the Big Five traits, through the concept of personality types to constructs of developmental psychology (resiliency, internalizing and externalizing behavior and/or problems) as well as clinical psychology (mental health) and general health assessed by the SF-12. We could show that the distribution of Big Five personality profiles, at least in the large representative German sample of this study, aggregates around five prototypes, which in turn have distinct associations to other psychological constructs, most prominently resilience, internalizing and externalizing behavior, subjective health, patience and wellbeing.

Limitations

Several limitations of the present study need to be considered: One problem concerns the assessment of patience, self-esteem and impulsivity. From a methodological perspective, these are not suitable for the assessment of construct validity as they were assessed with only one item. A further weakness is the short Big Five inventory with just 15 items. Though showing acceptable reliability, 15 items are more prone to measurement errors than measures with more items and only allow a very broad assessment of the 5 trait domains, without information on individual facet expressions. A more big picture question is if the Big Five model is the best way to assess personality in the first place. A further limitation concerns the interpretation of the subjective health measures, as high neuroticism is known to bias subjective health ratings. But the fact that the vulnerable-resilient and the overcontroler type had similar average neuroticism values but different associations with the subjective health measures speaks against a solely neuroticism-based bias driven interpretation of the associations of the self-reported health measures with the found personality clusters. Another limitation is the correlation between the personality type similarities: As they are based on Euclidean distances and the cluster algorithms try to maximize the distances between the cluster centers, proximity to one personality type (that is the cluster mean) logically implies distance from the others. In the case of the vulnerable-resilient and the resilient type, the correlation of the profile similarities is positive, as they mainly differ on only one dimension (neuroticism). These high correlations between the profile similarities prevents or diminishes, due to the emerging high collinearity, the applicability of general linear models, i.e. regression to calculate the exact amount of variance explained by the profile similarities.

The latter issue could be bypassed by assessing types and dimensions with different questionnaires, i.e. as in Asendorpf [ 15 ] with the California Child Q-set to determine the personality type and the NEO-FFI for the Big Five dimensions. Another possibility is to design a new questionnaire based on the various psychological constructs that are distinctly associated with each personality type, which is probably a subject for future person-centered research.

Acknowledgments

The data used in this article were made available by the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP, Data for years 1984–2015) at the German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, Germany. However, the findings and views reported in this article are those of the authors. To ensure the confidentiality of respondents’ information, the SOEP adheres to strict security standards in the provision of SOEP data. The data are reserved exclusively for research use, that is, they are provided only to the scientific community. All users, both within the EEA (and Switzerland) and outside these countries, are required to sign a data distribution contract.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2021; 16(1): e0244849.

Decision Letter 0

24 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-00337

Personality Types Revisited – a Comprehensive Algorithmic Approach to an Integration of Prototypical and Dimensional Constructs of Personality Description

Dear Kerber,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by April 23, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephan Doering, M.D.

Academic Editor

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions .

* In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories .

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a sophisticated and methodologically exhaustive study.

I must confess that much of this material is beyond my scope of knowledge and my capacity to comprehend.

After reading the abstract I am still not very clear about what this study is all about. It all seems like at novel approach - or maybe a pioneering approach is a more appropriate term. Therefore, I suggest that nothing should be too obvious in the communication of this study.

1] For example, the abstract only refers to “a large representative German dataset” without providing the N? What is the abbreviation Ward/k standing for?

In general, I encourage the authors to rephrase the abstract and parts of the introduction as a service for the reader.

2] General comment: During the introduction on the first 3-4 pages, I feel somewhat lost as reader. I suppose the authors could sharpen up this part. It may also be helpful to link the rationale to some more familiar/contemporary theory and research within the field.

The 10 first pages seem to work as a review of the literature.

The aim is not presented until page 9 line 207.

3] It could be helpful with a more clear distinguishing between types and traits?

4] Page 6, line 127: “In a recent nature human behavior publication” – are the authors referring to a journal here or a particular issue or paper? It is not evident.

5] Page 7: ”total N of 1560418” – please use comma separators.

6] The authors cite the HiTOP and related scientific papers (e.g., Forbush et al, Kotov et al., Krueger et al.). However, the authors did not relate their findings or discussions to the more authoritative diagnostic frameworks such as the approved ICD-11 dimensional classifications of PDs as well as the DSM-5 alternative model – with particular emphasis on their trait systems.

7] On page 4 the authors write: “it can be said that the human goal is to be as undercontrolled as possible and as overcontrolled as necessary. When one is more undercontrolled than is adaptively effective or more overcontrolled than is adaptively required, one is not resilient”

In relation to “resilience”, it is remarkable that the authors have not related their findings or discussion to Fonagy and Sharp as well as Caspi’s P-factor (see references below). I particularly refer to the P-factor as an index of insufficient resilience, which may be something that could be more clearly incorporated into the manuscript?

Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., & Goldman-mellor, S. J. (2015). The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613497473.The

Sharp, C., Wright, A. G. C., Fowler, J. C., Frueh, B. C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J., & Clark, L. A. (2015). The structure of personality pathology: Both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000033

Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017). What we have changed our minds about: Part 1. Borderline personality disorder as a limitation of resilience. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-017-0061-9

Reviewer #2: congratulations to the authors, this is an excellent work which, however, has two fundamental limitations: 1. it includes a long part, not consistent with the title and the abstract, which can be eliminated; 2 the description of the statistical methodology is poorly understood by colleagues who are not experts in data analysis. The text is weighted and complex to read.

I will point out my thoughts step by step. following them the writing becoming more agile and accessible will bring out the fantastic work behind it.

from row 48 to row 51

The difference between the two approaches should be clearly explained

from row 69 to row 70

The Q procedure should be clearly explained

from row 88 to row 91

I would delete this sentence

from row 127 to row 130

I would explain this study in more detail

rom row 131 to row 133

the reasons for this choice should be explained

from row 143 to row 206

I would eliminate this part

(it seems to me, to all intents and purposes, something that may belong to an interesting review of the literature. this part proposed in this stringed way is obviously inadequate, inconsistent with the title and unnecessarily burdens the text)

Clearly this implies the elimination also of figure 1 and of the results and discussion that refer to the comparison between figure 1 and figure 2

from row 227 to row 229

I would extend this concept

from row 233 to row 244

I would insert a table representing the elements described

from row 291 to row 321

from row 325 to row 353

The meaning of these methods should be clarified in relation to the type of data examined. this will allow a perfect understanding of the results even for non-expert colleagues in data analysiss

from row 354 to row 357

I would delete this sentence, there are recent studies that question this claim

(see Matthijs J Warrens On the Equivalence of Cohen’s Kappa and the Hubert-Arabie Adjusted Rand Index

February 2008 Journal of Classification 25 (2): 177-183)

from row 358 to row 383

These are basic concepts for which the paragraph can be reduced in size

from row 384 to row 435

Insert a figure that graphically describes the procedure

rom row 677 to row 680

delete this sentence

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: Yes: Raffaele Sperandeo

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

23 Sep 2020

Please see the attached document "Response to the reviewers".

Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

PONE-D-20-00337R1

Personality Types Revisited – a Literature-Informed and Data-Driven Approach to an Integration of Prototypical and Dimensional Constructs of Personality Description

Dear Dr. Kerber,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. There are only very minor points raised by reviewer 1 that need to be addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 7, 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: No

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I feel the authors overall adressed the issues I raised.

I only have the following minor comments:

1) The tables have no definitions in the legend for the different terms and abbreivations - I am not entirely aware of the author guidelines for this journal, but I think it is much needed.

2) The authors rigthly included a reference to the now approved ICD-11 PD classification (line 825). However, the authors should provide the correct reference:

WHO. (2019). ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines for Mental and Behavioural Disorders. World Health Organisation. gcp.network/en/private/icd-11-guidelines/disorders

3) Moreover, they only refer to studies on big five convergence with DSM-5 Section III traits - but not with the ICD-11 traits. See for example the following papers:

Somma, A., Gialdi, G., & Fossati, A. (2020). Reliability and construct validity of the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) in Italian adult participants. Psychological Assessment, 32(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000766

Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional trait model proposal: The Personality Inventory for ICD-11. Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000459

Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2019). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11: A facet-level assessment of the ICD-11 trait model. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000763

Reviewer #2: I read this study and reviewed it with great pleasure. I congratulate you on this innovative work which appears to be a milestone in the study of personality

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 1

13 Dec 2020

Reviewer 1:

Response: Thanks to this suggestion we have reviewed all our tables for abbreviations that are not explained and included them in the respective notes.

Response: We have rephrased ll. 838-841 to also include a reference to the ICD-11 PD model.

Decision Letter 2

18 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-00337R2

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Acceptance letter

22 Dec 2020

Personality Types Revisited – a  Literature-Informed and Data-Driven Approach to an Integration of Prototypical and Dimensional Constructs of Personality Description

Dear Dr. Kerber:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Stephan Doering

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

Type B personality: How to leverage your strengths and weaknesses

Discover your authentic self

Kickstart your path to self-discovery and self-awareness. Our coaches can guide you to better understand yourself and your potential.

Jump to section

What’s Type B personality?

4 types of personalities

Alternative personality type systems

The pros and cons of type b personality, navigating type bs if you’re type a, 4 tips for handling your type b personality traits, strategies for living well with any personality type.

Take advantage of your personality type

When looking to improve your life, knowing where to start can be difficult. For many, this uncertainty leads to introspection, self-discovery , and the occasional online personality test .

Your personality type provides insight into your strengths and weaknesses and suggests situations and environments you might feel most comfortable in. Together this information allows you to make more informed decisions regarding how you want to grow or what you want to pursue professionally.

Understanding your positive and negative traits is the first step in adjusting your behavior to account for pitfalls and achieve your goals. 

If test results attribute you with a Type B personality, you might feel relieved or disappointed. Maybe some of the Type B personality traits hit too close to home and you admire others. Regardless, there are strategies you can undertake to make the most of your self-development and lead a life that leverages your unique characteristics.

Type B personality stems from Meyer Friedman and Ray H. Rosenman’s personality categorization, which they developed after noticing overt behavioral patterns in medical patients . While they outlined three types — A, B, and C — Johan Denollet later defined Type D, which completes this personality type system . 

Friedman and Rosenman define Type B personalities as having the following characteristics:

• Not competitive
• Less prone to stress
• Non-confrontational 

Although Type B personalities are laid-back and non-competitive, they still work steadily toward their goals and bring their own set of advantages in the workplace. These individuals feel comfortable with unstructured tasks and are easy going with deadlines , allowing them to quickly adapt to changes in plans and stay flexible.

4 types of personalities 

People often try to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Type A versus Type B personalities, but those aren’t the only options. Here are all three accompanying personality types: 

Type A personality

• Highly ambitious  
• A workaholic
• Goal-oriented
• A perfectionist
• Competitive

Type C personality

• Collaborative
• Rational and logical
• Thoughtful and caring
• Introverted

Type D personality

• Prone to anxiety and depression

This is just one personality-classifying system. A couple others include the Enneagram model and the Myers Brigg Indicator . 

The Enneagram model classifies types into nine characters: 

• The reformer
• The achiever
• The individualist
• The investigator
• The loyalist
• The enthusiast
• The challenger
• The peacemaker

Each character is defined by emotional, cognitive, and behavior patterns. If you’re Type One (the reformer) you’re an idealist thinker with perfectionist tendencies. And if you’re Type Six (the loyalist) you’re reliable, hard working, and strive for security. 

These characters sit as points along a circle, and the types beside your core type are your “wing” characters. This means you’ll also identify with aspects of these types.

The Myers-Brigg Indicator classifies personalities into 16 categories, depending on your levels of: 

• Introversion versus extroversion
• Sensing versus intuition
• Thinking versus feeling
• Judging versus perceiving 

If you tend to be more introverted, intuitive, thinking, and perceiving, your Myers-Brigg personality type is INTP. And if you’re an intuitive extrovert who makes decisions based on feeling and judging, you're an ENFJ. You can take a self-reporting-style personality test to determine your type. 

The best part about exploring any of these methods is learning more about yourself so you can leverage this information to gain further personal and professional growth.

If you identify as Type B, here are some of the pros and cons of this personality type.

• Lower stress levels
• Even-tempered and patient
• Innovative thinking
• Procrastination
• Low motivation
• Less attention to detail skills

Some personality types clash more than others, and that rings true for Type As and Bs. The former are highly ambitious and detail-oriented, so sometimes a Type B’s disorganization can cause conflict or create frustration.

Understanding how to resolve misalignment will help you communicate effectively and reduce stress. Here are a few ways to navigate a Type B personality as a Type A individual . 

Recognize the environment Type Bs work best in

Type B personalities value collaboration and thrive in team environments. Because they tend to procrastinate, project work means more eyes on their tasks and more coworkers helping them stay on track. It’s also more difficult to put off to-dos when you know that slows down coworker progress. 

At first glance, this procrastination habit may seem detrimental, but remember that their creativity produces valuable outside-the-box ideas . And these individuals are excellent social collaborators that can inspire those around them.

Understand what motivates Type Bs

Like most workers, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards serve as great motivation to improve productivity. If you’re working alongside or managing a Type B personality, consider giving them recognition or providing financial incentives for hard work.

Type Bs are also very social. You can often play to this strength by offering public speaking opportunities or inviting them to take on a leadership role in teamwork.

Get to know what Type Bs dislike

Try not to rush a Type B’s work process, since this might make them feel even more inclined to procrastinate as a method for handling their work stress. Type Bs are also people pleasers, so verbally expressing that they’ve made you happy or affirming that they’re not disappointing anyone is valuable to them. And because Type Bs are creative and innovative thinkers, structuring their brainstorming process might feel stifling. Give them room to breathe so they can offer up novel suggestions you and your teammates love. 

If you’ve just discovered you have a Type B personality, you might feel like some of your more common tendencies are now explained. Maybe you worried you were flaky but now realize you’re more prone to procrastination than others. Or perhaps you recognize and love the loyalty you offer friends and family. 

Luckily, personalities are malleable , and you can adjust less-welcome traits by building new habits and leveraging your brain’s neuroplasticity . Here are four tips for regulating Type B behavior patterns.

1. Keep track of your time

Your laid-back personality means you might feel less urgency regarding hitting deadlines and completing tasks. To combat this, consciously work on your time management skills . Here are a few ways to do so:

• Try time-saving strategies like time blocking
• Journal about timing shortfalls to discover what’s holding you back
• Join the 5 AM Club to become more productive
• Set calendar alarms and reminders
• Talk to coworkers to better understand how delays affect them 
• Work with a coworker or mentor who can hold you accountable
• Consult with a career coach about how to become more motivated

2. Set SMART goals

Your preference for work autonomy and a flexible schedule can hinder your progress toward your goals since you’re left to your own devices more often. But setting SMART goals — specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely — might help you stay on track even when you’re your own boss . 

SMART goals are less flexible because they’re well-defined and include a strict due date, but you can still enjoy autonomy regarding what these goals are and how you work on and pace milestones within them. And habituating setting and achieving specific goals with clear success metrics might motivate you to procrastinate less. 

3. Double-check your work

Because you’re easygoing and understand that perfect is often the enemy of good, you might miss important task details or hand in work before it’s up-to-par. Make a habit of double-checking everything you submit to ensure you’re meeting manager and employer expectations. This practice also reminds you that you’re capable of producing excellent work.

4. Set boundaries with others

You’re social, caring, and worry about disappointing people — and all that might lead to people taking advantage of you. You might offer support or emotional energy too quickly, feeling burned out after interactions with social or emotional vampires . 

To avoid mental exhaustion and the symptoms of toxic empathy , set clear boundaries with yourself and others. This might mean keeping workplace chats professional, saying “No” to a few social invites every week, and prioritizing one act of self-care daily. 

No matter your personality type, you can learn to leverage positive traits and build new habits that mitigate less-appreciated ones. Here are a few tips for getting the most out of your personality type: 

• Leverage your strengths: If you’re Type B, you can make teamwork more enjoyable by being easy-going and less competitive. And if you’re Type A, you can keep everyone on track to reach big and audacious goals.
• Find ways to express your positive personality traits during a job hunt: When applying for jobs, you need to stress your employee strengths to persuade your audience you’re the right fit. A Type B personality example of this might be using an anecdote to show a hiring manager how patient you are in high-stress situations.
• Use your knowledge to better your relationships: Understanding your personality type helps you recognize your own actions and emotions, and recognizing others’ types helps you appreciate them for who they are and acknowledge their needs. If you know a fast-paced environment causes your Type A friend to feel stressed, you can choose a relaxing and calming café when suggesting a spot to grab coffee. 
• Reach out for help: If you know of traits you want to mitigate or leverage, consider working with a friend who’s trying to do the same. You can hold each other accountable and offer more objective feedback. And if there are some more distressing behavioral tendencies you want to face, consider speaking with a mental health professional who can create a safe and thoughtful action plan and monitor your progress.

Take advantage of your personality type 

Being your authentic self means knowing who that is. Whether you have a Type B personality or not, you can develop habits to overcome behavioral challenges and better understand others. 

Admitting your weaknesses is the first step in improving, even if it’s difficult. You can then communicate your needs to others to build trust and develop deeper connections . And all this progress allows you to live an even more fulfilling life, which is priceless.

Elizabeth Perry

Content Marketing Manager, ACC

Discover an ENFP personality’s strengths and weaknesses

Infp personality type: what it means to be the mediator, what’s a type a personality, and what are its pros and cons, discover the characteristics of the intj personality type, the 9 enneagram personality types: what’s yours, the best jobs for introverts and how to find your path, how to use workplace personality tests to help your team grow, betterup cio prince harry's new docuseries explores community and support in strengthening our mental health, activities for personality development: 15 ways to grow, similar articles, a look at the types of work relationships: finding your people, discover your positive personality traits and learn to develop more, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care™
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Type A Personality (vs type b)

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

This type of personality concerns how people respond to stress. However, although its name implies a personality typology, it is more appropriately conceptualized as a trait continuum, with extremes of Type A and Type B individuals on each end.

Type A personality is characterized by a constant feeling of working against the clock and a strong sense of competitiveness.

Individuals with a Type A personality generally experience a higher stress level, hate failure, and find it difficult to stop working, even when they have achieved their goals.

Research Background

Friedman and Rosenman (both cardiologists) actually discovered the Type A behavior by accident after they realized that their waiting-room chairs needed to be reupholstered much sooner than anticipated.

When the upholsterer arrived to do the work, he carefully inspected the chairs and noted that the upholstery had worn in an unusual way: “there’s something different about your patients, I”ve never seen anyone wear out chairs like this.”

Unlike most patients, who wait patiently, the cardiac patients seemed unable to sit in their seats for long and wore out the arms of the chairs. They tended to sit on the edge of the seat and leaped up frequently.

However, the doctors initially dismissed this remark, and it was only five years later that they began their formal research.

Friedman and Rosenman (1976) labeled this behavior Type A personality. They subsequently conduced research to show that people with type A personality run a higher risk of heart disease and high blood pressure than type Bs.

Although originally called “Type A personality” by Friedman and Rosenman it has now been conceptualized as a set of behavioral responses collectively known as Type A behavior Pattern.

Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP)

Competitiveness.

Type A individuals tend to be very competitive and self-critical. They strive toward goals without feeling a sense of joy in their efforts or accomplishments.

Interrelated with this is the presence of a significant life imbalance.  This is characterized by a high work involvement.  Type A individuals are easily ‘wound up’ and tend to overreact. They also tend to have high blood pressure (hypertension).

Time Urgency and Impatience

Type A personalities experience a constant sense of urgency: Type A people seem to be in a constant struggle against the clock.

Often, they quickly become impatient with delays and unproductive time, schedule commitments too tightly, and try to do more than one thing at a time, such as reading while eating or watching television.

Type A individuals tend to be easily aroused to anger or hostility, which they may or may not express overtly. Such individuals tend to see the worse in others, displaying anger, envy, and a lack of compassion.

When this behavior is expressed overtly (i.e., physical behavior), it generally involves aggression and possible bullying (Forshaw, 2012). Hostility appears to be the main factor linked to heart disease and is a better predictor than the TAPB as a whole.

Type B Personality

The Type B personality is a psychological concept that describes individuals with a more relaxed, patient, and easygoing disposition compared to their Type A counterparts.

People with a Type B personality tend to exhibit flexibility, low competitiveness, and a relaxed, more laid-back approach to life. They are often more tolerant of others, adaptable to change, and less driven by time pressure.

Type B individuals generally experience lower levels of stress and may be perceived as more patient and less prone to aggression.

Individuals with Type B personalities work steadily, enjoying achievements, but do not become stressed when goals are not achieved.

People with Type B personalities tend to be more tolerant of others, are more relaxed than Type A individuals, are more reflective, experience lower levels of anxiety, and display a higher level of imagination and creativity.

Empirical Research

Friedman & Rosenman (1976) conducted a longitudinal study to test their hypothesis that Type A personality could predict incidents of heart disease. The Western Collaborative Group Study followed 3154 healthy men, aged between thirty-nine and fifty-nine for eight and a half years.

Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire . Examples of questions asked by Friedman and Rosenman:

Do you feel guilty if you use spare time to relax? Do you need to win in order to derive enjoyment from games and sports? Do you generally move, walk and eat rapidly? Do you often try to do more than one thing at a time?

From their responses, and from their manner, each participant was put into one of two groups:

Type A behavior : competitive, ambitious, impatient, aggressive, fast talking. Type B behavior : relaxed, non-competitive.

According to the results of the questionnaire, 1589 individuals were classified as Type A personalities, and 1565 Type B.

The researchers found that more than twice as many Type A people as Type B people developed coronary heart disease. When the figures were adjusted for smoking, lifestyle, etc. it still emerged that Type A people were nearly twice as likely to develop heart disease as Type B people.

For example, eight years later 257 of the participants had developed coronary heart disease. By the end of the study, 70% of the men who had developed coronary heart disease (CHD) were Type A personalities.

Type A personality behavior makes them more prone to stress-related illnesses such as CHD, raised blood pressure, etc.

Such people are more likely to have their ” flight or fight ” response set off by things in their environment.

As a result, they are more likely to have the stress hormones present, which over a long period of time leads to a range of stress-related illnesses.

Research Evaluation

Limitations of the study involve problems with external validity.  Because the study used an all-male sample, it is unknown if the results could be generalized to a female population, who have different ways to deal with stress and might be less vulnerable.

Studies carried out on women have not shown such a major difference between Type A and Type B and subsequent health. This may suggest that different coping strategies are just as important as personality.

The study was able to control for other important variables, such as smoking and lifestyle. This is good as it makes it less likely that such extraneous variables could confound the results of the study.

The study does not show which trait of personality type A leads to CHD. Matthew and Haynes (1996) found that hostility was most associated with CHD.

Dembroski et al. (1989) reanalyzed the results of the study and found that ratings on hostility were good predictors of CHD. The participants of the original study were followed up by Carmelli (1991) and she found a very high rate of death caused by CHD in the participants with high hostility scores.

Theoretical Evaluation

However, there are several problems with the type A and B approach. Such approaches have been criticized for attempting to describe complex human experiences within narrowly defined parameters. Many people may not fit easily into a type A or B person. Also, in individualist cultures , men are socialized to display Type A behavior.

A longitudinal study carried out by Ragland and Brand (1988) found that as predicted by Friedman, Type A men were more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease.  Interestingly, though, in a follow up to their study, they found that of the men who survived coronary events Type A men died at a rate much lower than type B men.

We are not sure type A or type B we tend to vary along the continuum depending on the circumstances and the situation we are in.

Some individuals with type A personalities are driven and well-balanced individuals unlikely to develop CHD, while some type Bs are in fact suppressing their hostility and their ambitions, these people are likely to develop CHD despite being classified as type B.

The major problem with the Type A and Type B theory is actually determining which factors are influencing coronary heart disease.

Some research (e.g., Johnston, 1993) has concentrated on hostility, arguing that the Type A behavior pattern is characterized by underlying hostility which is a major factor leading to coronary heart disease.

Other research has investigated the way that type A people experience and cope with stress, which is the major factor leading to coronary heart disease.

It would seem that a much more sophisticated model is needed to predict coronary heart disease than Friedman and Rosenman’s Type A & Type B approach. Indeed, personality type A could be the result of prolonged exposure to stress.

Carmelli, D., Dame, A., Swan, G., & Rosenman, R. (1991). Long-term changes in Type A behavior: A 27-year follow-up of the Western Collaborative Group Study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14 (6), 593-606.

Dembroski, T. M., MacDougall, J. M., Costa, P. T., & Grandits, G. A. (1989). Components of hostility as predictors of sudden death and myocardial infarction in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Psychosomatic Medicine .

Forshaw, M., & Sheffield, D. (Eds.). (2012). Health psychology in action . John Wiley & Sons.

Johnston, D. W. (1993). The current status of the coronary prone behavior pattern. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 86(7) , 406.

Ragland, D. R., & Brand, R. J. (1988). Coronary heart disease mortality in the Western Collaborative Group Study. Follow-up experience of 22 years. American Journal of Epidemiology, 127(3) , 462-475.

Rosenman, R. H., Brand, R. J., Sholtz, R. I., & Friedman, M. (1976). Multivariate prediction of coronary heart disease during 8.5 year follow-up in the Western Collaborative Group Study. The American Journal of Cardiology, 37(6) , 903-910.

Further Information

• Journal Article – The Personality Assessment System as A Conceptual Framework for the Type A Coronary-Prone Behavior Pattern
• Journal Article – Evaluation of Type A personality

• Memberships

Personality Type A and B Theory

Personality type A & B: this article provides a practical explanation of the Personality type A & B . This article contains the definition of personality type A and type B, as well as who developed this theory. The article further elaborates on the traits associated with the two personality types, and a practical summary. After reading this article, you will have basic knowledge on the two basic personality types and personality traits. Enjoy reading!

What is Personality type A and Personality type B?

Personality types A and B are two contrasting personality types originating from a theory developed by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman.

Type A personalities from these theories are more competitive, better organised, more ambitious, more impatient and more aware than personalities labelled as Type B. People with the type B personality, on the other hand, are less susceptible to stress, take more time for most things, love socialising more and are more creative.

Even though the type B personality is a significant part of the cardiologists’ theory, a lot more is known about personality type A. This is partly thanks to the tobacco industry.

The Type A is one of the two contrasting personality types from the personality theory that was developed by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman. The Type A personalities from these theories are more competitive, better organised, more ambitious, more impatient and more aware than people with a type B personality.

The Type A was discovered by accident by two cardiologists, after they realised that the seats in the waiting room of their practice wore more quickly than expected.

The upholsterer then noted that the upholstery had worn in a rather unusual manner and told Friedman and Rosenman that he’d never seen chairs that wore out like this.

Contrary to other patients, who kept to their seats while waiting, the heart patients appeared to be more nervous and often jumped up or were at the edge of their seat. Five years later, they started their formal study and typified this behaviour as the Type A personality.

Figure 1 – Personality Types A and B Example

The two cardiologists who developed this theory believed that Type A personalities had a higher chance of developing coronary heart diseases and often had higher blood pressure.

The relationship between Type A personalities and coronary conditions was partly or wholly rejected by some following the results of extensive studies. Nevertheless, this study had a significant effect on the development of health psychology, where experts investigate the relationship between an individual’s mental state and physical health.

Although Friedman and Rosenman called this Type A Personality, it is nowadays conceptualised as a range of behaviours that are collectively known as the ‘Type A Behaviour Pattern’ (TAPB).

Type A Personality Characteristics

The personality theory of Friedman and Rosenman describes people with a Type A Personality as follows (personality traits):

• Aware of status
• Always engaged in time management

People with Type A personalities are often driven workaholics. They push themselves with too many deadlines and do not cope well with delays, ambivalence and inefficiency.

Therefore, punctuality is very important to these people and they expect others to be just as punctual as they are.

In extreme cases, these people will develop a hate for those who speak or work slowly. They become irritable and restless when they have to wait in line or are delayed by chaos. The restlessness is a reason that people with a type A personality are more often confronted with stress hormones and burnouts.

Money forms an important part of the lives of people with this personality type. In their experience, money represents security and power and they sometimes think that everything is for sale. People with a type A personality base their relationships on money, spend money to display affection or interest and often think in terms of money.

The superiority complex these people may struggle with has unpleasant consequences for their private life, particularly for their relationships. The partners of these people must accept that work is more important than the relationship. Type A people often struggle to find a partner as they set high standards for themselves, but for their partners as well.

Moreover, it’s difficult for them to relax and they prefer to work alone rather than be sociable. They consider displaying emotions to be a sign of weakness and they believe that emotions are an obstacle that will hinder them in achieving their goal .

In their work life, people with a Type A personality experience more work-related stress and less fun in the work they do (more stress hormones). They tend to get upset about little things and don’t tolerate unfinished work, chaos or loud noise.

They have a typical short temper and can sometimes be blunt and rude. They are often characterised as selfish, which stems from their self-guiding ability and motivation to strive for and achieve personal goals .

In his book ‘Type A Behavior: It’s Diagnosis and Treatment’ , Friedman suggests that dangerous Type A behaviour is expressed in three important symptoms:

• Free-floating hostility
• Time urgency and impatience
• Competitiveness

It previously became clear that people with this personality type are possibly more susceptible to various diseases and other deviations. A number of measures can be taken to minimise the chance of developing diseases:

• Try to relax and slow down every once in a while. Extreme competitiveness practically always leads to stress so try to avoid this.
• Be mindful of a healthy balance between work and private life. Work alone does not provide relaxation
• Don’t do everything yourself and delegate tasks when necessary
• Make time for family, watch a movie or take a holiday?
• Talk about your vision and feelings with the people who are close to you. This helps to reduce anxiety and stress

Characteristics and personality traits of personality type B

There are major differences between type A and B personality. People with a type B personality are patient, easy-going and take time for many tasks they perform. These people are less susceptible to stress and think longer before they act.

The type B personality loves socialising and enjoys being in the company of both people they know and strangers. People in this category often do not have a lack of attention either.

In a professional setting (at work), they prefer comfort to success and are therefore known to have a better balance between work and private life compared to type A personalities. People with the type B personality are often highly creative and do not get stressed out by a lack of achievements.

Because people with the type B personality are not as affected when they fail to meet their goals , they are not afraid to fail either. This has the advantage that they are more comfortable when it comes to experimentation.

Generally speaking, the type B personality is innovative and loves to explore concepts and ideas. ‘Participating is more important than winning’ is a feeling this personality type often expresses compared to other personality types, who are generally more competitive.

In short (personality traits), people with the type B personality are:

• Less stressed
• More patient
• Prone to procrastination

The tobacco industry and the Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP)

It were Friedman and Rosenman who contended that TAPB was a risk factor for the development of coronary heart diseases (CHD). This theory appeared to be confirmed by the findings of the Western Collaborative Group Study that researched the relationship between TABP and mortality in the ’70s.

However, it soon turned out that the positive findings were exceptions. The many studies that followed didn’t show any strong and consistent evidence that confirmed the possible connection between TABP and mortality.

Despite the lack of evidence that TABP was actually a risk factor for CHD, this personality was of great interest to the general public. This interest was encouraged by Friedman and Rosenman who wrote books on how to recognise this ‘deadly’ Type A behaviour in yourself.

TABP truly became popular following flawed studies that were financed by the tobacco industry and were intended to cover up statements on the harmful effects of tobacco and discredit these.

The tobacco producers foresaw a decrease in the consumption of tobacco because proof that smoking was harmful was growing stronger. When it seemed that TAPB was a possible risk factor for CHD, cancer and other afflictions that are also caused by tobacco use, the tobacco producers promoted the role of TAPB in heart conditions and financed Friedman and Rosenman’s studies.

In a self-made film, the Tobacco Institute concluded that smoking is a symptom of cancer rather than its cause. The argument was that cancer and coronary diseases could be caused by someone’s personality and not exclusively by smoking. Although this isn’t the most solid argument to cover up the negative effects of smoking, it was enough to defend the tobacco industry in court for years.

Documentation shows that scientists were paid to work as advisers in the interest of the tobacco industry and experts were persuaded to defend and promote smoking. Strategies, such as Project Whitecoat, were also invented, in which scientists were aimed at downplaying the health risks of passive smoking.

Type A vs Type B

The type B personality is mostly researched as the counterpart to type A. The type A and B personality theory is widespread. This and the polar opposite traits of the personality types gives rise to the study of the personalities as opposites. Type A vs type B is even expressed in caricatures.

If you want to determine if someone has a type B personality, people tend to look for a lack of traits from the other type. In theory, people would only have a type A or type B personality. In reality, it functions as more of a spectrum.

Most people with a type B personality score lower on tests and questionnaires that are aimed at finding type A personalities. This juxtaposes both types to determine whether someone is either one or the other. To express more reality with this personality model, other personality types have since been discussed. These are called type C and D personality as an addition to type A and type B personality.

Additionally, personality theories can be seen as a simplification of the personality of people. Personality types can, however, offer insight into one’s behaviours. A personality theory can serve as a reflection and can motivate people to change their behaviour. If you have a type A personality due to burn-out, it is possible to enhance type B personality traits to improve your health.

To summarise

The Type A often has a negative image. The theory describes that people with this personality type often have a great work ethic and unrealistic sense of urgency. Quantity is often more important than quality for this type, and they are more susceptible to burnouts due to their restless nature.

Money and career are prioritised over relationships, and due to their short temper, these people can be rude, aggressive and blunt. People with this personality type are often competitive, capable at time management and set high goals for themselves.

Friedman and Rosenman called this type deadly, which led the tobacco industry to deny the role of smoking in coronary diseases in order to stimulate consumption.

In many ways, the type B personality is the exact opposite of personality type A. People with this personality type are generally more relaxed and experience less stress.

They enjoy their time more and can more easily postpone things until the last moment.

Now it’s your turn

What do you think? Do you recognise the explanation of the Type A Personality? Do you recognise characteristics of this personality type in yourself or others? Do you think you can raise the bar for yourself after reading the explanation of the TABP?

Share your experience and knowledge in the comments box below.

If you liked this article, then please subscribe to our Free Newsletter for the latest posts on models and methods.

More information

• Rosenman, R. H., & Chesney, M. A. (1980). The relationship of type A behavior pattern to coronary heart disease. Activitas nervosa superior, 22(1), 1-45.
• Sager, J. K. (1991). Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP) among salespeople and its relationship to job stress. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(2), 1-14.
• Petticrew, M. P., Lee, K., & McKee, M. (2012). Type A Behavior Pattern and Coronary Heart Disease: Philip Morris’s “Crown Jewel.” American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), 2018–2025. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300816

How to cite this article: Janse, B. (2018). Personality Type A and B . Retrieved [insert date] from Toolshero: https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/personality-type-a-b/

Original publication date: 03/14/2018 | Last update: 12/09/2023

Add a link to this page on your website: <a href=”https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/personality-type-a-b/”>Toolshero: Personality Type A and B</a>

Did you find this article interesting?

Your rating is more than welcome or share this article via Social media!

Average rating 4.4 / 5. Vote count: 5

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Ben Janse is a young professional working at ToolsHero as Content Manager. He is also an International Business student at Rotterdam Business School where he focusses on analyzing and developing management models. Thanks to his theoretical and practical knowledge, he knows how to distinguish main- and side issues and to make the essence of each article clearly visible.

Related ARTICLES

Enneagram personality types and test

DISC Personality Test explained and questionnaire

Big Five Personality Test explained

Katharine Briggs: her Biography and Books

Isabel Myers biography, quotes and books

Myers Briggs Personality Test (MBTI)

Also interesting.

McClelland Theory of Motivation

McGurk Effect in Psychology explained

Mindfulness: the meaning and principles

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

BOOST YOUR SKILLS

Toolshero supports people worldwide ( 10+ million visitors from 100+ countries ) to empower themselves through an easily accessible and high-quality learning platform for personal and professional development.

By making access to scientific knowledge simple and affordable, self-development becomes attainable for everyone, including you! Join our learning platform and boost your skills with Toolshero.

POPULAR TOPICS

• Change Management
• Marketing Theories
• Problem Solving Theories
• Psychology Theories

ABOUT TOOLSHERO

• Free Toolshero e-book
• Memberships & Pricing

Personality and Personality Types Essay

It is through personality that we are in the position to define an individual. Personality types on the other hand are the mode in which we study an individual through their psychology and classify them according to the groups in which they fit. Through personality, we are able to identify and know individuals, how they think and their way of acting. Personality types should not at any cost be confused with personality traits given that it is a wider term than the latter.

While personality types are qualitative in nature, personality trait focuses much on the quantitative aspects. We can at times categorize individuals as introverts or extroverts while traits will handle them as either introversion or extroversion and argues they are dynamic in nature (Edelstein, 2006).

There are several personality types of and these are generally arrived at according to the assessments by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is a psychometric test questionnaire employed in measuring people’s perception and how they view their surroundings (Edelstein, 2006). The assessment mode borrows heavily from the typological theories in their assessments; it is designed to fully understand the theory.

Personality type theory therefore as defined by Jung identifies two major cognitive operations that is rationality which revolves around thinking and feelings vs. irrationality which are perceiving in nature handling senses and intuitions (Kroeger, Thuesen & Rutledge, 2002). These functions were later developed to help identify personalities as either introverts or extroverts.

Since personality, types have been disintegrated further into many other types among which we have; the duty fulfiller, such person is very serious and often quiet with much interest in security and peace. Such a person can surely be depended upon due to their high sense of responsibility and hardworking. We also have the mechanic type of person, such a person often quiet and reserved, their interest is mostly swayed on trying to know how things work in a given way and why such is the case.

We also have the idealist personality, this person is reflective and has the urge to serve humanity to the fullest, within the value systems developed, and they always make efforts to stay within them. The other person is the scientist; a scientist is an individual much independent in thinking and always original in their ideas, which are creative and analytical. They are theory transformers into effective plans of action (Kroeger, Thuesen & Rutledge, 2002).

In the human functions and organizations, it is prudent to understand each individual in their personalities so that effectiveness can be realized in motivation at work places, effective management and communication functions as well as fostered relationships between the subjects and those they intend to serve (Northouse, 2007). The level at which we understand personality will always help in unlocking a variety of human functions like leadership and even motivation.

It is also quite easy to understand the underlying personality tests, the knowledge gained from such is important in developing self awareness of and human feeling to help others. The management of individuals is very important since it will define who the leader becomes and who is lead in any form of organized groupings.

Personality theories, types and tests are quite applicable in the management of institutions, recruitment of workforce and selection (Kroeger, Thuesen & Rutledge, 2002). It also helps to define training needs of any organization. Studies of personality and personality types are therefore vital and must be given a chance for prosperity in our societies.

Managing strategic performance

Virtual teams in organizations consist of a pool of professionals constituted and working remotely in several locations. The locations may be at the comfort of their homes, co-working offices or the branch offices of large organizations. Irrespective of where an individual works or is stationed, they are normally in the same team and they operate towards the same objectives and aims of the organization.

Through modern technology, the members of the virtual teams always collaborate and work as a group/team from wherever they are located, they operate on the same plat form through the application of most modern technology such as web conferencing and instant messaging, Skype and online management software are employed (Gibson & Cohen, 2003). Virtual teams across the world have the following general characteristics, which enhance their functions.

Executive support; this is a situation where the management is given the role of supporting relationships to help build trust. Secondly, virtual teams experience effective HR functions, which entail frequent training of staff. The teams are highly structured; this is because virtual teams are mostly successful when the right people are selected. The best workforce for a virtual team performance is a person who is self-reliant and independent in their work and self motivated.

The other characteristic is that virtual team organizations have very strong team leaders to steer their roles and functions. Strong leaders are necessary because there are no face-to-face meetings and interaction hence it is hard to build the required trust (Gignac, 2005). Through virtual teams, companies have been in the position of deriving many benefits, which range from cheap salaries and less overhead costs (Gibson & Cohen, 2003).

Overhead costs are reduced since the company does not need to pay for office space and packing for some of its employees. The company is also in the position of attracting the best employees since there is no bureaucracy in getting the employees; they as well have a diverse pool to choose. Other benefits include improved communication, facilitated coordination, increased working time hence an improvement in productivity.

Diversity and cultural enrichment is a benefit, alongside this, research is facilitated (Gignac, 2005). Virtual teams also have set backs despite having many pros. Some of the demerits include; the method requires new skills from their employees hence more costs in form of trainings and retraining frequently. Organizations trying to adopt this form of operations in their organization face a challenge of difficulty to integrate this culture.

It is as well extremely difficult to track the efforts made by its employees hence a difficulty in measuring output; this may fuel wastage and inefficiency in terms of labor force performance (Zofi, 2012). Lastly, benefits that are accrued from face to face operations are lacking since individuals are working from several location. To effectively facilitate the performance of virtual teams by management, the organization should invest heavily in modern technology among other strategies.

Moreover, such technology will facilitate the use of instant messaging to enhance a sense of presence; use of Skype must be embraced while increasing the interval of verbal check-ins. Every employee should be posted online and use of virtual telephone system should be embraced. In addition, the leadership and management should develop a program that will bring the employees to meet at a central physical location occasionally (Zofi, 2012).

Edelstein, L 2006, Writer’s guide to character traits: includes profiles of human behaviors and personality types (2nd ed.), Writer’s Digest Books: Cincinnati, Ohio.

Gibson, CB & Cohen, SG 2003, Virtual teams that work creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness , Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Gignac, F 2005, Building successful virtual teams , Artech House: Boston.

Kroeger, O, Thuesen, JM & Rutledge, H 2002, Type talk at work: how 16 personality types determine your success on the job (Rev. and updated. ed.), Dell Pub: New York.

Northouse, PG 2007, Leadership: theory and practice (4th ed.), SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks.

Zofi, YS 2012, A manager’s guide to virtual teams , American Management Association: New York.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 5). Personality and Personality Types. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-and-personality-types/

"Personality and Personality Types." IvyPanda , 5 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/personality-and-personality-types/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Personality and Personality Types'. 5 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Personality and Personality Types." April 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-and-personality-types/.

1. IvyPanda . "Personality and Personality Types." April 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-and-personality-types/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Personality and Personality Types." April 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-and-personality-types/.

• Introverts: Facts and Misconceptions
• Introverts’ Unique Needs and Habits
• Skype: All you Need to Know
• Statement About Rauch’s “Caring for Your Introvert”
• "Caring for Your Introvert" by Jonathan Rauch
• The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking
• Skype and the Japanese Market
• Skype: A Huge Advancement in Communication Systems
• Implementing Skype over Ip Phone
• The Introvert and Extrovert Concepts and Colors
• The Concept of Ego Depletion in Psychology
• Getting Over a Break-up
• Formation of Self Identity
• What Exactly Does It Mean To Be A Behaviorist?
• The Impact of Applied and Behaviourist Psychology on the Field

Type A and Type B Personality (Free 3-Min Test)

Please answer the questions to determine your personality type:

Have you ever heard someone describe themselves as a Type A personality? As you’ll soon see, classifying themselves as Type A is typical Type A behavior. But what does this mean, and how do personality “types” fit into personality psychology?

This article will describe the different personality types and how certain traits can affect behavior and even physical health. Learning your personality type may help you prepare for certain situations and lead you toward the success you want.

It's important to remember that being categorized as a type A or Type B personality doesn't doom you to a life of determinism... instead remember that this is just a classical way of organizing people into a dichotomy based on how they behave. 

Research on personality types across genders has not found any significant differences. What does that mean? It means along gender lines, there is almost no difference in the handling of stress.

When studying personality types in relation to age groups, it was discovered that older generations tend to exhibit greater agreeableness compared to younger generations, which aligns with a Type B personality profile.

One thing to note is that personality is complex and ever-changing, just as all of your body and mind function throughout your life, so don’t let your personality type put you in a box!

Type A Personality

A Type A personality is easy to identify. People who have this type of personality want to be high achievers. They push themselves to be the best. Type A personalities tend to be competitive, even if competing against themselves. There's usually quite an imbalance in their life regarding love, finances, or health. 

When given a task, they are more likely to immediately make a thorough plan and follow it all the way through until they achieve their goal. If tasked with planning a trip, they will have every detail of the itinerary organized before boarding the plane.

Though Type A personalities are identifiable by their “Go Getter” attitude, they experience higher stress levels. This was thought to make these personalities more susceptible to heart conditions, but some studies say otherwise, and it is a controversial topic.

Type A personalities experience the most stress when things don’t go according to plan. Things like delays in their workflows or obstacles that they didn’t foresee. They also tend to be harder on themselves for the work that they do, they are more overcritical of themselves than any of the other personality types.

Type A Personality Traits

Type A personalities are also highly organized and methodical with their time. These are the type of members you want in your group projects for school or work, they waste no time getting things done and are very structured, wanting things in a very particular way.

To sum it up, these are the characteristics of a Type A Personality:

• Competitive
• Tendency towards Workaholic
• More high strung than their Type B counterparts

Regarding the Big Five, people with a Type A tend to be more Disagreeable, but they also tend to be more Conscientious.

Examples of Type A Personality

If you think you might be a Type A personality, here are some examples of other Type A personalities that you might recognize:

• Miranda Bailey - Grey’s Anatomy
• Randall Pearson - This Is Us
• Miranda Priestly - The Devil Wears Prada
• Captain America - The Avengers
• Belle - Beauty And The Beast
• Amy Santiago - Brooklynn Nine-Nine
• Tony Stark - Iron Man

An example of Type A personality in action could go something like this, see if you can identify the person in this situation with this personality type:

“There are four students in a group working on a poster project for their high-school English class. Student 1 figures that there are three other people in the group and decides to take a nap during class time, thinking that someone else will get the project done. Student 2 wants to do well on the project but is not outspoken enough to get her ideas out there. Student 3 takes out a pencil and paper and decides to write down all her thoughts in an organized way and makes all her ideas known to the group. Student 4 is balancing a pencil on his nose.”

Could you tell in that little snippet of text who was the one that was most likely to be the Type A personality? If you guessed student 3, then you guessed correctly. Not only was she organized in her note-taking to ensure she got all her thoughts down, but she also told the group what her thoughts were and was not afraid to do it.

Just because you feel Type A describes you best, this shouldn’t make you feel categorized (or pigeonholed). Maybe in some situations, you’re the one who wants everything a certain way, but in other cases, you’d rather just relax and let someone else take the reign.

Type B Personality

Type B is often called “non-Type A.” A person with a Type B personality is everything that a person with a Type A personality is not. Type B personalities are less concerned with being the best or finishing first. Rather than powering toward an end goal, people with a Type B personality may prefer to explore different possibilities and ways to achieve that goal. Life is about the journey rather than the destination.

If a person with a Type B personality is tasked with planning a trip, they may have a few pieces planned, but they are more likely to tell the guests that they will “play it by ear.” They are more laid back and will let life take them on a journey. 

Think that the Type B life sounds pretty stress-free? So do we. And that big difference made a huge impact on the initial research into Type A and Type B personalities. In fact, Type B personalities were actually likely to live longer. 

Type B personalities are more balanced in temper and more patient than Type A. This contributes to their stress levels not being as high as Type A. What also helps Type B personalities is their ability to adapt efficiently to change. Not only do they handle change well, they embrace it with no fear.

Type B Personality Traits

The difference between Type B and Type A personalities is like night and day. When we think of Type B personalities, these traits should come to mind:

• Go with the flow attitude
• Flexibility
• Adaptability
• Procrastinators 

The laid-back personality that Type B personalities have makes them very likable to their peers. With these personality tendencies, Type B tends to put things off until the last minute or just “wing it.” They don’t stress it because they are highly creative and can think up things on the spot.

If you find yourself waiting until the day before a big project is due to do the work for it, you might be a Type B personality. If you plan trips but don’t keep an itinerary, you might be Type B. And if your flight for that trip gets delayed and you don’t sweat it, you might be a Type B personality!

Examples of Type B Personality

Let’s take that same example from above and use it to figure out the Type B personality:

Which student would you guess is the Type B personality? The answer could be Student 1 or 4! Both of these students seem to be displaying some procrastination, and neither of them seems too pressured by the assignment. So where does that leave Student 3? The only one we haven’t identified is part of a group that is new to the personality types in psychology and would be categorized as Type D personalities.

Some famous examples of people with Type B personalities include:

• Rachel from Friends
• Bart from The Simpsons
• Ron Weasley from Harry Potter
• Leonard from Big Bang Theory
• Buzz from Toy Story

Physical Effects of Personality Types  

Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman developed the theory of the two original personality types in the 1950s. Friedman and Rosenman weren’t renowned psychologists. They were cardiologists. And while Type A and Type B personalities have a role in modern personality psychology, Friedman and Rosenman weren’t interested in changing the world of psychology.

They were concerned with heart disease.

Encouragement or coaching can cause physical reactions when working on a project. One of these reactions is called cardiac reactivity, and it causes an increase in your heart rate. Even when said with kindness, the phrase, “Work faster!” “Come on!” or “I know you can try harder” may increase your heart rate. If you’re a Type A personality, your heart rate is more likely to increase and increase by a higher rate.

The two cardiologists also noted that most Type A participants didn't like to sit in the waiting room as long as Type B participants would. 

But Friedman and Rosenman’s research didn’t stop there. In their initial research about personality types, they claimed that Type A personalities were more likely to get a heart attack. Why? The stress of having a Type A personality, where everything has to be perfect and planned, can take a serious toll on your heart health.

It should also be noted that these cardiologists found participants who showed type A behavior also were more prone to stress-related illnesses and have their flight-or-fight response set off more often. 

Advancements in Personality Type Theory

Friedman and Rosenman published their initial findings back in the 1950s. Personality psychology has come a long way since then. Two other personality types have been added to the roster of personalities that could potentially cause health problems.

Let’s discuss Type D and T personalities.

Type D Personality

Type D personality traits exist outside of Type A or Type B. Even if a person with a Type A personality faces a big task, they meticulously plan and organize themselves with the hopes and determination to complete it. People with a Type B personality live a less stressful, and therefore more easygoing, life. They face big tasks with a shrug and the assumption that everything will work out.  

If faced with a big task, people with Type D are unlikely to think they can accomplish the task in the first place. The “D” stands for distress. People with Type D personalities are more likely to be pessimistic, talk negatively to themselves, and feel hopeless.

Negativity can cause stress and physical problems similar to the ones people with Type A personalities experience. Research shows that people with a Type D personality are more likely to experience coronary artery disease, a weak immune system, or chronic inflammation.

Type D personalities, by these standards, are more prone to mental health issues like depression or anxiety. These personality types are the classic overthinkers. This is different from the overthinking of Type A personalities because type A are meticulous planners, only thinking of things going the way they planned. Type D personalities are planners because they plan for everything that could go wrong with their plans.

To review, these are the types of characteristics that you would find in someone with a type D personality:

• Glass half-empty attitude
• Self-deprecation
• Fear of rejection
• Avoidance of social situations
• Classic “wallflower” personality
• Little self-confidence

The best word to describe type D personalities is introverts, not liking much attention. They are wallflowers, and they don’t mind it.

The “depressive” type personalities don’t entirely mean that you’re always down and out about life, it just means that these personality types tend to react to stress more negatively than the Type A or B personalities. They are not as adaptable to change.

But this also means that these personality types might report higher job satisfaction, not getting bored with their work because it makes them feel more secure.

Type T Personality

Type D personality traits may encourage someone to stay in and mope. Do people with a Type T personality mope? They’re probably too busy snowboarding or bungee jumping.

The last personality type that has gained popularity recently is the Type T personality. People with this type of personality are thrill-seekers. They seek out and chase experiences with high risks. These risks could be death (Type T personalities tend to climb mountains or skydive) or living without a steady income (artists, entrepreneurs, gamblers...they are likely to have a Type T personality.)

Like Type B personalities, people with Type T personalities are not at high risk for specific heart problems (at least, none that we know of yet.) But with thrill-seeking activities come high risks of their own.

However, the adrenaline pumping through the systems of these type T personalities may be causing them to have more heightened senses, as happens when adrenaline is higher. This is why some people chase these thrills, to feel that rush going over them. 

A person with a Type T Personality will likely have these characteristics:

• A lifestyle that seems unsteady
• Never in the same place for a long
• Thrill seekers

Little research has been done on Type T personalities, but we know that the type that most closely parallels these is the Type A personality. The characteristics of these two personality types make them popular and successful. 

The only perceived negative effect of having this personality type is that you can get into some pretty stressful situations if you aren’t careful. 

And not being able to stay in one spot for long may make it difficult to form deep bonds with other people. You may have to sacrifice relationships for the high-risk lifestyle or vice versa.

Am I Type A Or B?

What does all of this mean for you? First, you’ll have to find out what personality type you are. While the answers tend to be pretty obvious, you can also take tests online to determine which type fits you and your lifestyle (like the one above!).

Put, you can ask yourself these questions and quickly determine what personality type you most likely fit:

• Do you feel like you need to use all of your time productively? 
• If you lose, do you often feel bad instead of enjoying the game?
• Do you walk faster than others? 
• Have you attempted to multitask in the last week? 
• When was the last time you relaxed for more than an entire day?

If you are a Type A or a Type D personality, you may want to reach out to a professional to learn about ways to manage your risk of heart disease and other complications. Healthy habits, like positive self-talk or exercise, can help to reduce stress and stay heart-healthy.

It's important to note that Type A and Type B personality traits are not mutually exclusive, and individuals can possess a mix of both traits. Additionally, it's important to remember that personality is complex and multifaceted, and many other personality traits beyond just Type A and Type B contribute to our overall personality.

Related posts:

• Project Manager Interview Questions (14 Specific Questions + Answers)
• 17+ Cardinal Traits (Definition + Examples)
• What is Personality Psychology?
• Myers Briggs Test (5 Mins) [MBTI Quiz Information]
• Personality Trait Theory

Reference this article:

About The Author

Personality Psychology:

What is Personality?

Personality Theories

Trait Theory

Behavioral Theory

Humanistic Theory

Biological Theory

Psychoanalytic Theory

Personality Tests

Conscientiousness

Openness to Experience

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

The Dark Triad

Myers Briggs Type Indicator

Keirsey Temperament Sorter

Inkblot and TAT

House Person Tree Test

Defense Mechanisms

Manipulation Tactics

Type A and Type B Personalities

Personality Disorders

Predictions

Physical Health

Relationships

Sex Differences in Personality

Child Birth Order

Nature vs Nurture

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

‘Type A’ and ‘Type B’ Personality Differences

Updated 21 April 2023

Subject Management ,  Mental Health

Downloads 54

Category Business ,  Health

Topic Anxiety ,  Comparative Analysis ,  Stress

The Distinction Between 'Type A' and 'Type B' Personalities

The distinction between ‘type A’ and ‘type B’ is obvious and plain, with the variances dependent on their anxiety and stress levels. Several studies have found that those with a ‘type A’ personality are more concerned with social status, life achievements, and self-esteem. These people desire to be in charge; they are impatient and easily irritated. The ‘Type A’ personality is linked to specific conditions such as heart disease. Such people are multitasking achievers; they are continually competing and seeking their goals, and they never tolerate failure. Additionally, these people find it hard to relax since they constantly try to win a race against time (Abigail, 2016). ‘Type A’ individuals will always fight to the last; if there is no apparent competition, they can create a challenge.

The Characteristics of 'Type B' Personality

‘Type B’ personality, on the other hand, has lower incidence of heart diseases and conditions. This type of personality is characterized by indulgence and tolerance. Such individuals also report high levels of satisfaction in life, which is evidenced with the following characteristics. They think critically of their abilities and therefore work steadily towards achieving their goals. They lack nervousness common to many people but feel disappointed when they fail to achieve their goals. Such personalities enjoy competitions and games for the love of the game but not the victory itself (Abigail, 2016). Apart from enjoying the game, they can back down to contests when realizing the defeat as well. These individuals are innovative, and their creativity makes them enjoy and explore many things if necessary. Typically, individuals belonging to ‘type B’ have a less stressful life thanks to being even-tempered. People with this personality type are usually relaxed and need to be externally motivated to explore their potential.

Abigail Wlliams. (2016). The Difference Between ‘Type A’ and ‘Type B’ People in One Hilarious Comic. Retrieved Oct 23, 2017 from https://huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57daa582e4b08cb14093ff47.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

• Search the site GO Please fill out this field.
• Newsletters
• Health Conditions A-Z
• Mental Illness

What Is a Personality Disorder?

Related Conditions

damircudic / Getty Images

Personality disorders are a group of mental health conditions that cause unusual thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that disrupt a person’s life over a long period. These disorders can significantly affect daily life, work, relationships, and well-being. Those with a personality disorder usually begin to show signs of their condition by late adolescence or early adulthood.

Worldwide, an estimated 11% of people live with a personality disorder. There are several types of personality disorders—and the symptoms of each can vary. In general, people with a personality disorder have consistent patterns of thought or behavior that differ from what their culture expects from them.

A psychologist, psychiatrist , or other mental health professional can diagnose personality disorders. But unfortunately, personality disorders are difficult to treat, often because people with personality disorders don't often seek treatment for their condition. If someone does reach out for treatment, psychotherapy and psychiatric medications are the primary tools to help reduce symptoms.

Types of Personality Disorders

Mental health professionals have identified 10 distinct personality disorders, which they group into three main clusters based on symptoms.

Cluster A: Eccentric or Odd

People who have a cluster A personality disorder tend to display unusual thoughts or behaviors. The cluster A disorders are:

• Paranoid personality disorder: Involves distrust, paranoia , and suspicion of others, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing
• Schizoid personality disorder : Being detached from social relationships and showing limited emotional expressions
• Schizotypal personality disorder: Causes odd beliefs, behaviors, and troubles forming close relationships

Cluster B: Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic

People who have a cluster B personality disorder display highly dramatic or emotional thoughts or behaviors that may constantly change. The cluster B disorders include:

• Antisocial personality disorder : Shows disregard for the rights and feelings of others and behaves in a manipulative or deceitful manner in relationships
• Borderline personality disorder : Causes intense mood swings, unstable self-image, difficulty regulating emotions, and turbulent relationships
• Histrionic personality disorder : Involves excessive attention-seeking behavior and intense emotions
• Narcissistic personality disorder : Often leads to a grand sense of self-importance, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others

Cluster C: Anxious or Fearful

People who have a cluster C personality disorder display overly anxious thoughts or behaviors. The cluster C disorders are:

• Avoidant personality disorder: Involves feelings of inadequacy and extreme sensitivity to rejection or criticism which often leads people to withdraw from social situations
• Dependent personality disorder: Causes an excessive dependence on other people for decision-making and reassurance
• Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: Includes traits such as perfectionism , rigidity, and a need for order and control.

Editor's note: Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is not the same condition as obsessive-compulsive disorder (commonly known as OCD).

Common Symptoms of a Personality Disorder

The symptoms of these conditions can vary widely depending on the type of personality disorder someone has. However, there are some common, overarching symptoms, which include:

• Inappropriate behaviors
• Problems with self-image
• Difficulty making friends or maintaining relationships
• Inability to recognize that their behavior is unusual
• Blaming others for their feelings and behaviors
• Mood swings
• Trouble regulating emotions
• Impulsivity

The exact causes of a personality disorder are complex and not fully understood. They likely involve a combination of the following factors:

• Genetics: Scientists have found links between some personality disorders and certain genes. In particular, genes that regulate neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the brain) that affect your emotions may play a role in these disorders.
• History of abuse and trauma: Experts believe that childhood abuse or trauma may contribute to the development of a personality disorder in adolescence or early adulthood. This may include physical abuse, emotional trauma, sexual assault , and bullying, among other traumatic events.
• Culture: Where a person grows up also may contribute to whether they develop a personality disorder and which type they have. For example, some Asian countries have notably low rates of antisocial personality disorder but high rates of anxiety-related personality disorders.

Risk Factors

More research on personality disorders is still needed. But studies on borderline personality disorder, one of the most common personality disorders, have identified several risk factors for developing cluster B disorders, such as:

• Lower socioeconomic status
• Poor parenting
• Having a parent with a personality disorder
• Childhood or generational trauma
• Certain personality traits, including emotional instability, negative attitude, impulsivity, and aggression

To receive a diagnosis for a personality disorder, a mental health provider such as a psychiatrist or psychologist wil l likely perform a thorough evaluation. This assessment may involve:

• Understanding your symptoms
• Learning about your personal and family medical and psychological
• Taking a physical exam

A mental health provider will typically use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 5th edition (DSM-5) to diagnose the condition. The DSM-5 is a reference book that contains the American Psychiatric Association’s standard diagnostic criteria for mental health conditions.

People with personality disorders may not consider their behavior unusual or problematic, so it may fall to a loved one to bring them in for a diagnosis. Or they may initially visit a healthcare provider for a different reason who may then recommend a psychiatric evaluation. It's worth noting that because children’s personalities are still developing, healthcare providers do not diagnose personality disorders until people reach adulthood. A diagnostic requirement in the DSM is that the person is at least 18 years of age.

Personality disorders are difficult to treat compared to other mental health conditions. Treatment for personality disorders often involves a combination of psychotherapy, medication, and supportive interventions. Common treatment approaches include:

• Psychotherapy: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) , dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) , and psychodynamic therapy are common types of therapy for personality disorders. These methods help people gain insight into their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Then they can learn coping skills and find ways to improve their relationships.
• Medication: While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any medications to treat personality disorders directly, some medications may help relieve related symptoms. Healthcare providers may prescribe anti-anxiety medications, antidepressants , or mood-stabilizing drugs for co-occurring anxiety and mood disorders.
• Group therapy: Group therapy sessions can provide social support and validation. Experts believe group therapy may especially be helpful for people with cluster B disorders, such as borderline personality disorder.
• Social skills training: This training is a type of behavioral therapy that can be particularly helpful for people living with avoidant personality disorder.
• Hospitalization: In severe cases where safety is a concern, hospitalization may be necessary. This can stabilize the person with a personality disorder and provide intensive treatment and support to help improve their symptoms and quality of life.

Many people living with a personality disorder may also be at a higher risk of developing other health conditions, such as:

• Anxiety disorders
• Mood disorders
• Substance use disorder
• Cardiovascular (heart) disease
• Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders

Personality disorders also can lead to serious complications. People living with a personality disorder are more likely to experience:

• Poor relationships with others
• Unemployment
• Domestic abuse
• Substance use
• Homelessness
• Traumatic accidents
• Self-harm or premature death by suicide

Looking For Support?

If you are experiencing a crisis, or know someone who is, call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988 for free and confidential support 24/7. You can also visit SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources or call the number below to reach the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) hotline.

Living With a Personality Disorder

The long-term outlook for people with personality disorders tends to be poor because those living with these conditions generally do not recognize that they need treatment. However, if they do seek treatment, many can successfully manage the condition.  

Research has shown that the collaborative care treatment model may be especially successful. This model involves teamwork between psychiatrists, nurse managers, and primary care providers. After six months of this type of care, 1 in 10 people with a personality disorder may improve enough to no longer meet the criteria for having this condition.

Along with their prescribed treatment plan, self-care and coping strategies can also help people manage some symptoms of a personality disorder. If you are living with a personality disorder, consider the following:

• Learn as much as you can about your condition
• Exercise regularly, which has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety
• Avoid drugs and alcohol, which can make symptoms worse or interact with your medications
• Express your feelings by joining a support group or keeping a journal
• Engage in stress-reduction methods such as yoga and meditation
• Surround yourself with supportive friends, family members, or peers who understand what you are going through

Following your treatment plan and getting the support you need can help you improve your quality of life and live well with your condition.

Frequently Asked Questions

Each person living with a personality disorder experiences their condition differently. There is no single type of personality disorder that is hardest to live with. However, narcissistic personality disorder may be the hardest to treat, because people with this condition rarely believe that their behavior is problematic.

With proper and consistent treatment, people with personality disorders can live a healthy life. Psychotherapy can help them understand their feelings and how their behaviors affect others. Certain medications can help treat associated symptoms.

Among people who seek clinical care for a mental health condition, borderline personality disorder and avoidant personality disorder are the most common personality disorders.

American Psychiatric Association. What are personality disorders?

Skodol A. Overview of personality disorders . In: Stein MB, Friedman M, eds. UpToDate . UpToDate; 2022.

American Psychological Association. Help for personality disorders .

MedlinePlus. Personality disorders .

Fariba KA, Gupta V, Kass E. Personality disorder . In: StatPearls . StatPearls Publishing; 2024.

Bozzatello P, Garbarini C, Rocca P, et al. Borderline personality disorder: risk factors and early detection . Diagnostics (Basel) . 2021;11(11):2142. doi:10.3390/diagnostics11112142

Related Articles