Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality

Objective The default assumption among most psychologists is that personality varies along a set of underlying dimensions, but belief in the existence of discrete personality types persists in some quarters. Taxometric methods were developed to adjudicate between these alternative dimensional and ty...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nick Haslam
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2019-03-01
Series:Australian Journal of Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12228
_version_ 1797681667124494336
author Nick Haslam
author_facet Nick Haslam
author_sort Nick Haslam
collection DOAJ
description Objective The default assumption among most psychologists is that personality varies along a set of underlying dimensions, but belief in the existence of discrete personality types persists in some quarters. Taxometric methods were developed to adjudicate between these alternative dimensional and typological models of the latent structure of individual differences. The aim of the present review was to assess the taxometric evidence for the existence of personality types. Method A comprehensive review yielded 102 articles reporting 194 taxometric findings for a wide assortment of personality attributes. Results Structural conclusions differed strikingly as a function of methodology. Primarily older studies that did not assess the fit of observed data to simulated dimensional and typological comparison data drew typological conclusions in 65.2% (60/92) of findings. Primarily newer studies employing simulated comparison data supported the typological model in only 3.9% (4/102) of findings, and these findings were largely in the domain of sexual orientation rather than personality in the traditional sense. Conclusions In view of strong Monte Carlo evidence for the validity of the simulated comparison data method, it is highly likely that personality types are exceedingly scarce or non‐existent, and that many early taxometric research findings claiming evidence for such types are spurious.
first_indexed 2024-03-11T23:48:08Z
format Article
id doaj.art-980a1c68457c4b7db6d703cd2f87a235
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0004-9530
1742-9536
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-11T23:48:08Z
publishDate 2019-03-01
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
record_format Article
series Australian Journal of Psychology
spelling doaj.art-980a1c68457c4b7db6d703cd2f87a2352023-09-19T08:54:47ZengTaylor & Francis GroupAustralian Journal of Psychology0004-95301742-95362019-03-01711394910.1111/ajpy.1222812098913Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personalityNick Haslam0Department of Psychology, University of MelbourneObjective The default assumption among most psychologists is that personality varies along a set of underlying dimensions, but belief in the existence of discrete personality types persists in some quarters. Taxometric methods were developed to adjudicate between these alternative dimensional and typological models of the latent structure of individual differences. The aim of the present review was to assess the taxometric evidence for the existence of personality types. Method A comprehensive review yielded 102 articles reporting 194 taxometric findings for a wide assortment of personality attributes. Results Structural conclusions differed strikingly as a function of methodology. Primarily older studies that did not assess the fit of observed data to simulated dimensional and typological comparison data drew typological conclusions in 65.2% (60/92) of findings. Primarily newer studies employing simulated comparison data supported the typological model in only 3.9% (4/102) of findings, and these findings were largely in the domain of sexual orientation rather than personality in the traditional sense. Conclusions In view of strong Monte Carlo evidence for the validity of the simulated comparison data method, it is highly likely that personality types are exceedingly scarce or non‐existent, and that many early taxometric research findings claiming evidence for such types are spurious.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12228categoriesdimensionspersonalitytaxometricstypestypology
spellingShingle Nick Haslam
Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
Australian Journal of Psychology
categories
dimensions
personality
taxometrics
types
typology
title Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
title_full Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
title_fullStr Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
title_full_unstemmed Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
title_short Unicorns, snarks, and personality types: A review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
title_sort unicorns snarks and personality types a review of the first 102 taxometric studies of personality
topic categories
dimensions
personality
taxometrics
types
typology
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12228
work_keys_str_mv AT nickhaslam unicornssnarksandpersonalitytypesareviewofthefirst102taxometricstudiesofpersonality