Joshua Hook and coauthors are academic psychologists, and this is a peer reviewed journal article in the Journal of Clinical Psychology systematically reviewing the scientific literature on the Enneagram personality typing system. Its strength is exactly that peer reviewed empirical method, the authors examine what controlled psychological research actually supports about the Enneagram's validity as a personality measure, rather than repeating claims made by Enneagram practitioners themselves. Peer review by clinical psychology specialists is a meaningfully different and stronger form of scrutiny than a practitioner's own book. Its limit is that it reviews the state of research as of its publication, and it addresses the Enneagram specifically as a psychological instrument, not the esoteric or spiritual claims some traditions attach to the symbol's origin.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
A peer reviewed systematic review of 104 independent samples of empirical Enneagram research, finding mixed evidence for the model: subscale correlations broadly track the five-factor model of personality, but factor-analytic work has typically recovered fewer than nine factors and no study has derived the nine types by clustering. Included as an outside empirical check alongside the tradition's own practitioner accounts of the system. NotesA systematic review of 104 independent samples of empirical Enneagram research. Finds mixed evidence of reliability and validity: subscales show theory-consistent relationships with the five-factor model, but factor-analytic work has typically recovered fewer than nine factors and no study has derived the nine types by clustering. Added because the corpus held the Enneagram only through its own authors, Riso and Hudson, Naranjo, Ichazo, all Tier 3, and held nothing on its empirical standing.
Citation
AuthorJoshua N. Hook, Todd W. Hall, Don E. Davis, Daryl R. Van Tongeren and Mackenzie Conner
PublisherJournal of Clinical Psychology, volume 77 number 4
Publication Year2021
URLhttps://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23097
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Claims Backed By This Source (44 claims)
This source backs 44 claims across the atlas. As facts: 32 well-attested. Plus 12 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Enneagram Types, 27 claims: 18 well-attested, 9 general references.
- Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
- Enneagram Triads, 6 claims: 3 well-attested, 3 general references.
- Articles, 3 claims: 3 well-attested.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.