The four temperaments theory describes human character through four traditional labels: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic. The labels emerged from ancient and later European theories that linked physical constitution, emotional disposition, and the balance of bodily humors. They remain familiar in popular descriptions of personality, but their historical origin and present scientific standing require separate evaluation. Contemporary research supports measurable individual differences in emotional reactivity, sociability, inhibition, motivation, and self-regulation. It does not establish that everyone belongs to one of four biologically distinct, exhaustive, and stable temperament categories. The clearest scientific account therefore treats the classical names as historical descriptions that can be compared cautiously with modern continuous traits, while locating evidence in the actual measured dimensions and developmental mechanisms. (Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991; Rothbart, 2007; Haslam et al., 2020).
What Is the Four Temperaments Theory?
The four temperaments theory is a historical typology of enduring behavioral and emotional differences. In its familiar form, it describes a sanguine person as socially expressive and lively, a choleric person as forceful and readily angered, a melancholic person as reflective and sensitive to distress, and a phlegmatic person as calm and reserved. The system assigns each pattern to a bodily humor: blood, yellow bile, black bile, or phlegm, respectively. These associations grew within a broader ancient medical cosmology involving heat, cold, moisture, and dryness. They functioned as explanatory claims about health and character, rather than as results obtained from contemporary psychological measurement. (National Library of Medicine, 2022; Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991).
Three distinct propositions are frequently combined under the theory's name. First, people differ in typical emotional and behavioral reactions; this general proposition has strong contemporary empirical support. Second, certain familiar characteristics tend to co-occur; this is a testable question about trait correlations and profiles, and findings depend on the characteristics, sample, measurement, and statistical model. Third, all people form four natural categories corresponding to the classical labels; this is a stronger claim about the latent structure of personality for which the historical typology provides no adequate direct validation. Distinguishing those propositions explains why recognizable descriptions are not sufficient evidence for the four-category theory. (Rothbart, 2007; Haslam et al., 2020).
The word temperament itself has a broader legitimate place in current developmental psychology. It typically refers to relatively early-emerging individual differences in behavioral and emotional reactivity and regulation, shaped over time through maturation and experience. A theory of temperament can therefore be scientifically valuable without adopting the classical division into sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic persons. See the published research overview What Is Temperament in Psychology? Definition, Models and Development for the broader construct. (Rothbart, 2007).
Historical Origins: Hippocratic Medicine, Galen, and Later Character Descriptions
Humors, elements, and bodily constitution
Humoral medicine associated health and bodily condition with the balance of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Medical texts of the Hippocratic tradition and later Galenic writings developed explanations that connected the humors to bodily qualities and environmental conditions. Modern summaries often credit Hippocrates alone with inventing four psychological personality types; historically, the relevant texts were composed and interpreted across different periods, and the familiar fully developed character descriptions owe much to later elaboration. The history contains multiple versions of the humoral doctrine rather than one timeless questionnaire-like theory. The National Library of Medicine documents its long influence on European medicine and literary conceptions of human character. (National Library of Medicine, 2022; Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991).
The historical framework linked the sanguine disposition with blood, the choleric disposition with yellow bile, the melancholic disposition with black bile, and the phlegmatic disposition with phlegm. Associations with seasons, elements, age periods, and perceived physical qualities changed across explanatory traditions. These schemes reveal how earlier scholars attempted to organize observed differences into a coherent account of body and mind. Their conceptual ingenuity belongs to the history of science; their physiological assumptions are no longer an accepted causal model of personality or disease. (National Library of Medicine, 2022).
What Galen actually contributed
Galen of Pergamum connected bodily mixtures and constitution with tendencies of character, but modern scholarship cautions against attributing every familiar adjective in online four-temperament charts to Galen's original descriptions. Stelmack and Stalikas examined this history and found little correspondence between many characteristics appearing in Galen's writings and the elaborate temperament adjectives later assigned to the four types. Much of the recognizable modern portrait emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century descriptive traditions. Consequently, a contemporary infographic that labels sanguine people cheerful, melancholic people perfectionistic, and phlegmatic people conflict-avoidant blends historical layers and should be identified as an interpretive reconstruction. (Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991).
Cultural survival and popular psychological language
Humoral classifications endured through medical teaching, everyday language, moral writing, and literature. Terms such as melancholy and choleric acquired familiar emotional meanings that continued after the physiological doctrine was abandoned. The National Library of Medicine's exhibition on Shakespeare shows how early modern drama portrayed character and affect through the language of the four humors. That cultural continuity helps explain why the labels feel intuitive. It does not demonstrate the existence of a corresponding four-class biological architecture. Historical influence and measurement validity answer different questions. (National Library of Medicine, 2022).
The Four Classical Temperaments and Their Conventional Features
Sanguine: expressiveness, activity, and social engagement
In the familiar popular description, sanguine individuals seek interaction, respond enthusiastically to stimulation, and show expressive positive affect. Contemporary personality researchers can study components of this portrait as continuous dimensions such as extraversion, positive affectivity, social approach, and activity level. Those dimensions need not rise and fall together in every person: someone may enjoy company while remaining deliberate, for example, or may be physically active while socially reserved. Calling that combination sanguine is a descriptive choice rather than evidence of membership in a natural class. (Rothbart, 2007; Zettler et al., 2020).
Choleric: assertiveness, approach, and anger-related reactivity
The conventional choleric portrait combines energy, decisiveness, assertive action, impatience, and anger. It crosses domains that modern research differentiates: social dominance, reward pursuit, irritability, frustration, self-control, and responses to perceived obstruction. These characteristics can vary independently. Strong leadership behavior does not imply frequent anger, and rapid frustration does not imply an enduring assertive style. An empirical analysis must specify which components are measured and under what conditions, rather than interpreting every forceful action as evidence of an ancient temperament. (Zettler et al., 2020; Rothbart, 2007).
Melancholic: threat sensitivity, negative affect, and reflection
Melancholic historically became associated with sadness and inward-looking reflection. In later four-type portraits the label may also signify anxious anticipation, carefulness, deliberation, or strong sensitivity to criticism. Modern affective research distinguishes transient sadness from a stable disposition toward negative emotion, and both from conscientious or reflective behavior. An introverted person may be emotionally stable; an individual who experiences anxiety may be socially outgoing. Melancholic temperament is a historical character term, not a clinical diagnosis of depression, and its conventional components require separate assessment. (Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991; Rothbart, 2007).
Phlegmatic: low visible reactivity, steadiness, and reserve
The conventional phlegmatic description emphasizes an even manner, subdued emotional display, patience, and preference for familiar routines. Observably calm behavior can arise through several pathways: lower initial emotional reactivity, learned control of expressive behavior, situational safety, fatigue, or a social norm favoring restraint. Modern assessment distinguishes arousal from expression and inhibitory control from limited social interest. Being quiet at work and lively with friends illustrates why one outward style cannot identify a universal underlying type. (Rothbart, 2007).
Why the four portraits feel personally recognizable
The four descriptions draw on broad, familiar domains of emotionality and social behavior. A person can recognize experiences from more than one portrait because traits are multidimensional, context-sensitive, and not perfectly correlated. Simple descriptions also invite selective interpretation: readers remember fitting examples and reinterpret ambiguous experiences in a way that preserves a meaningful label. A convincing personal description is therefore a starting hypothesis about behavior, not a psychometric validation study. The scientific alternative asks whether the underlying scores are reliably measured, whether the predicted relationships replicate, and whether classification adds predictive information beyond the continuous characteristics from which it was derived. (Haslam et al., 2020; Espinoza et al., 2020).
Hans Eysenck's Dimensions and the Familiar Four-Quadrant Diagram
Extraversion and neuroticism as two continuous axes
The twentieth-century psychologist Hans Eysenck developed a dimensional approach in which extraversion and neuroticism represent major sources of individual variation. A widely reproduced diagram divides the space defined by these two axes into four quadrants and attaches the historical temperament names. High extraversion with lower neuroticism maps conventionally to sanguine; high extraversion with higher neuroticism to choleric; lower extraversion with higher neuroticism to melancholic; and lower extraversion with lower neuroticism to phlegmatic. This arrangement is a way of reexpressing combinations of dimensions, not a demonstration that four natural biological species of personality exist. (Ruch, 1992; Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991).
An individual near the center of the axes can be placed in one quadrant by an arbitrary threshold, although a minor shift in measured score would place the same person in another. Two people occupying opposite edges of the same quadrant may be more different from each other than two people on either side of a dividing line. The quadrant boundaries also hide facet-level differences, measurement error, and change across contexts. Interpreting the chart accurately means preserving the continuous scores instead of treating the four labels as naturally separated groups. (Haslam et al., 2020).
What the Eysenck comparison does and does not establish
The Eysenck diagram offers a historically influential bridge between familiar temperament language and measurable psychological traits. Its usefulness is explanatory: it shows how a compact portrait might be generated from a combination of two dimensions. The labels inherit whichever empirical relationships the underlying validated dimensions genuinely exhibit; they do not gain independent evidence merely because the mapping is memorable. Furthermore, Eysenck's broader personality framework includes psychoticism, so two-axis diagrams leave aside an important dimension within his own model. The published encyclopedia study Eysenck's PEN Model: Psychoticism, Extraversion and Neuroticism owns the comprehensive account of that theory. (Ruch, 1992).
Early studies that operationalized the ancient labels
Research has examined four groups defined using Eysenck Personality Questionnaire scores. In a 1992 investigation, Ruch compared hypotheses drawn from Pavlovian nervous-system typology and Eysenck's extraversion-neuroticism quadrants across three adult samples. Several patterns agreed with predictions, while one central prediction concerning the sanguine group's balance of excitation and inhibition diverged. These results are historically significant because they subject a proposed mapping to empirical testing. Their scope remains specific: the groups were defined through modern measures and the analyses tested relations among those operationalizations. They did not independently discover four universal humoral kinds. (Ruch, 1992).
Other historical experiments assessed mood patterns among participants placed into the traditional quadrant labels using an existing personality questionnaire. Such work can show differences in average mood outcomes among groups deliberately selected for contrasting trait scores. It does not show that the four categories exist as separate latent entities, that the ancient physiology is correct, or that the same classification is equally predictive across populations. These distinctions are essential when older studies are presented as proof of the entire theory. (Howarth, 1988; Ruch, 1992).
Pavlovian Nervous-System Typology and Physiological Explanation
Pavlovian temperament theories described individual differences using properties of excitation and inhibition, including strength, balance, and mobility. Later investigators sought parallels with Eysenck's measured dimensions and classical temperament labels. The historical continuity of the question is clear: can stable patterns of behavior be linked to measurable properties of nervous-system functioning? Yet an asserted correspondence among systems does not identify one specific neural mechanism for each classical type. Brain function develops through multiple interacting systems, and the available psychological variables do not map one-to-one onto the four historical humors. (Ruch, 1992; Rothbart, 2007).
Physiological observations provide a valuable perspective when design, measures, and replication are adequate. They are still a different level of evidence from questionnaire-based clustering. A correlation between a measured physiological response and a temperament dimension is evidence of association within the conditions of a study; it does not by itself demonstrate that one physiological variable causes the full personality pattern. Modern temperament science studies attention networks, emotional reactivity, regulation, and developmental change rather than reducing all individual differences to a single nervous-system property. (Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Sheese and Posner, 2007).
Four Discrete Types or Continuous Individual Differences?
The central empirical question
A typology makes a structural claim. If four temperaments are natural categories, measurements should reveal distinct populations rather than a continuous distribution divided at convenient cut points. Confirming that socially engaged people differ on average from reserved people cannot settle that question; dimensional models predict average differences too. The evidence must address whether the observed data support categorical latent classes better than appropriately specified continuous alternatives. This distinction is central to scientific comparison of personality types. (Haslam et al., 2020).
What taxometric research indicates
Taxometric methods compare patterns of data against predictions from categorical and dimensional latent structures. A 2020 meta-analysis by Haslam, McGrath, Viechtbauer, and Kuppens assembled 317 relevant findings from 183 articles that used simulation-comparison indices. Findings favored dimensional interpretations substantially more often than categorical interpretations across diverse psychological constructs. The analysis concerns a broad domain of personality and psychopathology constructs; it is not a direct validation trial of all four historical temperaments. Its relevance is methodological and structural: researchers need strong direct evidence before claiming natural psychological kinds on the basis of memorable categorical labels. (Haslam et al., 2020).
Personality profiles are real research questions, but not necessarily four humors
Person-centered studies use statistical profiles to examine recurring combinations of measured traits. Espinoza, Daljeet, and Meyer analyzed large international HEXACO samples and obtained evidence for a five-profile solution within the parameters of their study. That result illustrates a legitimate, actively investigated question about empirical profiles. It also shows why a particular profile solution requires its own replication, interpretation, sample-size checks, and predictions. A profile derived from six modern measured dimensions is not a recovery of four ancient humors; profile membership is a modeling result conditional on variables and analytic choices. (Espinoza et al., 2020).
Why labels can still have limited descriptive utility
A four-quadrant diagram can help illustrate that sociability and emotional reactivity are distinct variables. As a teaching illustration, it can be useful when its axes are explicit and the boundaries are described as schematic. Scientific interpretation requires preserving the distinction between a convenient grouping and a latent category supported by convergent evidence. The label should not replace quantitative scores, contextual observations, or developmental history. (Ruch, 1992; Haslam et al., 2020).
How Modern Temperament Psychology Studies Individual Differences
Reactivity and regulation
Modern temperament frameworks distinguish characteristic reactions from the processes that modify those reactions. Reactivity includes differences in how readily and intensely a person responds to novelty, reward, frustration, or threat. Regulation concerns processes that modulate attention, expression, and action, including effortful control. The two are related but separable: strong initial arousal may be managed effectively, while low observable expression may arise for reasons other than low reactivity. This multidimensional approach explains behavioral variation with greater precision than an undifferentiated classical type. (Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Sheese and Posner, 2007).
Early development and continuity
Temperament has particular relevance in infancy and childhood, when differences in response to stimulation and emerging control can be observed before many adult personality concepts are fully developed. Studies must consider the child's age, the context of observation, caregiver reports, and the ways developmental capacities alter outward behavior. Earlier individual differences may contribute to later patterns while being transformed through social experience and maturation. A childhood tendency toward inhibition should therefore be treated as a developmental risk or variation in specific conditions, not as proof that a child will grow into the melancholic class. (Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Ahadi and Evans, 2000).
Personality traits, changing states, and everyday situations
An enduring tendency and a momentary state are analytically different. A person may usually be quiet but lively during a familiar social activity, usually calm but intensely upset after unexpected loss, or usually assertive but hesitant when expertise is lacking. Repeated observations estimate an individual's characteristic distribution of states rather than assuming that one visible behavior identifies an immutable disposition. This probabilistic view leaves room for both recognizable individual differences and substantial within-person variability. (Fleeson, 2001).
Genetic and environmental development
Personality and temperament have partly heritable influences, but heritability describes population variation under particular environmental and sampling conditions. It is not an estimate of how much of an individual's personality is genetically fixed, and it does not establish four hereditary temperament classes. Genetic influences can operate through numerous pathways while environments both influence and respond to behavior. Longitudinal evidence therefore supports an account of continuity and change shaped by development, relationships, and opportunity. (Briley and Tucker-Drob, 2014; Bleidorn et al., 2022).
Scientific Measurement: What Would a Four-Temperament Test Need to Prove?
A scientifically credible four-temperament instrument would first need an explicit item model specifying what each label means and what behavioral evidence distinguishes the categories. Its scores would need acceptable reliability over conditions for which stability is predicted, along with evidence that items measure coherent constructs. Investigators would then need to demonstrate that the proposed four categories emerge reproducibly in independent samples and remain meaningful across ages, cultures, languages, and demographic groups. Ideally, the categories would contribute predictions beyond well-established continuous traits and observable situational variables. Without these tests, an online quiz classifies responses according to its own scoring rules; it does not reveal a validated biological temperament. (Haslam et al., 2020; Espinoza et al., 2020).
Measurement must also distinguish self-report from external observation. Someone's endorsement of 'I am calm' is informative about self-perception, while repeated observations can investigate how often that calmness appears in specific settings. The degree of convergence is an empirical matter. Parent reports about infants, adult retrospective self-descriptions, behavioral tasks, and physiological indices assess partially different things and cannot be treated as interchangeable evidence of one hidden type. The published article How Is Temperament Measured? Questionnaires, Observations and Limitations examines these methodological issues directly. (Rothbart, 2007).
An appealing test result may describe widely shared experiences in positive language. For scientific use, developers would need preregistered hypotheses where appropriate, independent replication, clear criterion measures, and transparent error estimates. If classification uses arbitrary cutoffs on extraversion and neuroticism, researchers should assess whether maintaining both continuous scores performs better than collapsing them into four bins. That comparison tests the incremental value of the category instead of assuming its utility. (Haslam et al., 2020).
Biological Claims, Clinical Boundaries, and Ethical Interpretation
The classical scheme links traits to balances of bodily fluids, a medical account superseded by modern physiology. Evidence that emotions involve bodily processes cannot retroactively validate blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm as causal psychological variables. Claims assigning each temperament to a particular neurotransmitter, gene, brain region, or endocrine profile require their own direct and reproducible evidence. The contemporary literature on attention and temperament describes interacting systems rather than unique physiological signatures of four ancient categories. (National Library of Medicine, 2022; Rothbart, Sheese and Posner, 2007).
No classical temperament label is a psychiatric diagnosis. Melancholic in historical typology does not mean major depressive disorder; choleric does not denote an impulse-control diagnosis; phlegmatic does not identify emotional blunting or a neurodevelopmental condition; sanguine does not imply pathological elevated mood. The dimensions invoked by popular descriptions may intersect with clinically relevant processes in particular individuals, but diagnosis involves separate criteria, impairment, duration, context, and professional assessment. For children especially, strong responses to novelty or frustration must be interpreted in developmentally appropriate settings and across informants. (Rothbart, 2007).
Assigning a child or partner a permanent temperament type can obscure the role of sleep, stress, learning, family routines, and relationship dynamics. In education and organizational life, rigid labels may create self-fulfilling expectations or encourage stereotyping. Responsible use involves describing specific patterns of behavior, considering the current environment, and revisiting observations as people change. A questionnaire result should never substitute for individual judgment about capability, compatibility, treatment needs, or future outcomes. (Bleidorn et al., 2022; Rothbart, 2007).
Cultural Context and the Limits of Universal Personality Types
The classical terminology emerged within particular Greek and European traditions, subsequently developing through different historical and literary settings. Generalizing its adjectives to all people worldwide would require measurement equivalence and replication across societies. Cultural norms affect when enthusiasm, restraint, assertiveness, and sadness are expressed openly and how they are evaluated. Moreover, the same English adjective may represent a different social judgment across languages and communities. Without cross-cultural evidence of stable construct meaning, correspondence between a local behavior and a classical label is interpretive rather than a universal psychological fact. (National Library of Medicine, 2022; Zettler et al., 2020).
Modern trait research provides examples of how to examine replicability across large samples, but even large data sets warrant careful interpretation of recruitment, representativeness, and translation. Empirically extracted personality profiles depend on the scales included, the sample distribution, and the modeling decisions. The existence of a replicated profile in one measurement framework does not verify the traditional four-humor system or justify projecting it onto every culture. (Espinoza et al., 2020).
Competing Interpretations and the Current Evidence Balance
The historical approach proposes a memorable four-way description; the dimensional approach represents individual variation along measured continua; person-centered approaches investigate empirically identified profiles formed from combinations of variables. These can coexist as different descriptive and analytic choices, provided they are not confused. Scientific support attaches to specific measures, predictions, and replications. A four-type story may preserve observations about sociability and emotionality while its strict claims about biological categories and fixed boundaries remain unsupported. (Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991; Haslam et al., 2020).
The strongest conclusions are established at the level of continuous personality and temperament dimensions, the existence of individual differences in emotional reactivity and regulation, and developmental continuity with change. Preliminary or context-specific findings include particular correlations among groupings constructed from Eysenck scores, older physiological correspondence studies, and individual profile solutions whose robustness must be evaluated within their own measurement frameworks. The claim of exactly four natural, exhaustive, biologically distinct human temperaments remains without a convincing modern evidence base. This judgment distinguishes what the existing research has actually tested from broader conclusions sometimes attached to it. (Ruch, 1992; Espinoza et al., 2020; Haslam et al., 2020).
Practical Questions About the Four Temperaments
Can a person have more than one temperament?
The historical typology sometimes permits mixed descriptions, and modern dimensional psychology explains mixed profiles directly: every person has scores on several partly independent tendencies. Sociability, vigilance, assertiveness, negative affectivity, and self-regulation can combine in many ways. An individual need not choose a single classical label to describe that variation. (Rothbart, 2007).
Is a four-temperament quiz scientifically accurate?
Accuracy depends on the specific instrument and what it claims to predict. A short quiz can consistently assign a label according to its scoring rule while lacking evidence that the label describes a stable natural category or predicts useful outcomes. Scientific evaluation requires transparent construction, reliability, validity, cross-sample replication, and comparison with continuous trait scores. A result is best read as a prompt for reflection until such evidence is available. (Haslam et al., 2020).
Does a child's early temperament determine adult personality?
Early differences can show continuity, but development involves maturation, learning, environments, and changing opportunities. The extent of continuity depends on which characteristic is assessed, how it is measured, and the interval studied. A childhood observation cannot justify assigning a permanent adult identity. (Rothbart, Ahadi and Evans, 2000; Bleidorn et al., 2022).
Are melancholic and choleric temperaments mental illnesses?
They are historical descriptive labels. Sadness, anger, anxiety, and social reserve are experiences or tendencies that vary in intensity and context. Clinical disorders require their own evidence and diagnostic evaluation. Neither a label nor an informal personality quiz supplies such an assessment. (Rothbart, 2007).
Which is more scientific: the four temperaments or contemporary trait models?
Contemporary dimensional frameworks are supported by explicit instruments and accumulated empirical tests of structure and correlates. The classical four types have historical and instructional significance, but they are not an equivalent validated classification system. The best model depends on the research question and its evidence; retaining a dimension can preserve information lost when continuous scores are reduced to four labels. (Zettler et al., 2020; Haslam et al., 2020).
Scientific Conclusion
The four temperaments theory is an influential chapter in the intellectual history of human individual differences. Its sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic portraits organize recognizable qualities of sociability, emotional reactivity, restraint, and behavioral energy. Modern psychology studies those qualities through operational definitions, continuous measurements, developmental research, and tests of competing models. The historical theory's lasting contribution is a language for noticing patterned differences; reliable scientific conclusions come from the evidence about the particular dimensions and processes under study. Human personality can be characteristic, complex, context-sensitive, and capable of change without being confined to four ancient classes. (Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991; Rothbart, 2007; Haslam et al., 2020).
Related Articles
Cluster Personality Traits, Temperament and Individual Differences — the central scientific chapter on personality traits, temperament, individual variation, development, and methods of research.
What Is Temperament in Psychology? Definition, Models and Development — scientific definitions of temperament and modern models of reactivity and regulation.
Eysenck's PEN Model: Psychoticism, Extraversion and Neuroticism — the modern dimensional framework often used to reinterpret the historical four-type diagram.
Thomas and Chess Temperament Types: Easy, Difficult and Slow-to-Warm-Up — a separate developmental typology based on observed childhood temperament patterns.
How Is Temperament Measured? Questionnaires, Observations and Limitations — standards for investigating temperament using questionnaires, observation, and multi-informant evidence.
References
Bleidorn, W., et al. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365
Briley, D. A., and Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4152379/
Espinoza, J. A., Daljeet, K. N., and Meyer, J. P. (2020). Establishing the structure and replicability of personality profiles using the HEXACO-PI-R. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0853-6
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11414368/
Haslam, N., McGrath, M. J., Viechtbauer, W., and Kuppens, P. (2020). Dimensions over categories: A meta-analysis of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 50, 1418–1432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172000183X
Howarth, E. (1988). Mood differences between the four Galen personality types: Choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90044-X
National Library of Medicine. (2022). Shakespeare and the Four Humors. History of Medicine exhibition. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/shakespeare-and-the-four-humors/index.html
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., and Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122
Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., and Posner, M. I. (2007). Executive attention and effortful control: Linking temperament, brain networks, and genes. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00002.x
Ruch, W. (1992). Pavlov's types of nervous system, Eysenck's typology and the Hippocrates-Galen temperaments: An empirical examination of the asserted correspondence of three temperament typologies. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1259–1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90168-O
Stelmack, R. M., and Stalikas, A. (1991). Galen and the humour theory of temperament. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90111-N
Zettler, I., Thielmann, I., Hilbig, B. E., and Moshagen, M. (2020). The nomological net of the HEXACO model of personality: A large-scale meta-analytic investigation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 723–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895036