Person-centered and variable-centered personality research are complementary approaches to studying individual differences. Variable-centered analysis asks how characteristics relate to one another and to outcomes across people; person-centered analysis asks which configurations of characteristics are observed within people and whether those configurations form interpretable, reproducible patterns across a sample. The distinction concerns the research question, statistical representation, and interpretation of heterogeneity. A profile obtained from a dataset is an empirical model of similarities among participants, not automatically a naturally occurring human type. The methodological literature emphasizes this separation between describing patterns and asserting the existence of discrete subpopulations Woo et al., 2024; Masyn, 2013.
For example, a variable-centered investigation may estimate how conscientiousness and emotionality jointly predict academic adaptation. A person-centered investigation may search for recurring combinations of those dimensions and compare the resulting profiles on adaptation. Both address meaningful questions about the same people; neither alone proves that a measured pattern causes an outcome. The distinction becomes especially important when interpreting personality tests, developmental trajectories, applied subgroup classifications, and claims that a particular personality “type” has been scientifically established Hofmans et al., 2020; Spurk et al., 2020.
What Do Variable-Centered and Person-Centered Mean?
Variable-centered analysis: associations, dimensions, and population trends
Variable-centered research treats measured characteristics as analytical variables. Researchers typically examine their distributions, correlations, regression coefficients, factor structures, longitudinal associations, or interactions. The unit of observation is a person, yet the primary scientific estimand may be a correlation between two characteristics, a mean difference between groups, or a slope relating a predictor to an outcome. A regression model can estimate whether one trait predicts another measure when other predictors are held constant. A factor model can summarize covariance among many items into fewer continuous dimensions. These results characterize relationships at the level supported by the design and assumptions; they do not disclose an immutable rule governing each participant Woo et al., 2024.
A variable-centered conclusion such as “higher self-reported conscientiousness is associated with greater task persistence in this sample” describes a conditional statistical tendency. Variation around the estimated line remains part of the evidence. A person with a lower score can persist more than another with a higher score, and the association may differ by setting, measurement, age, or cultural context. Interactions, nonlinear terms, multilevel models, and random slopes can all represent heterogeneous associations within a variable-centered analytical framework. Thus, variable-centered research need not assume that every individual is psychologically identical Hofmans et al., 2020.
Person-centered analysis: configurations within people
Person-centered research makes a person's joint pattern across several characteristics the object of analysis. A participant might display relatively high organization, moderate sociability, and elevated emotional reactivity. Rather than examining each score in isolation, the analyst compares whole vectors of scores. Individuals with sufficiently similar multivariate patterns can be assigned to clusters, probabilistic latent profiles, or other forms of configurational representation. The approach is particularly valuable when theory predicts that a combination of attributes matters beyond the sum of separate effects Daljeet et al., 2017; Woo et al., 2024.
The word person-centered describes an analytical orientation, not a guarantee that individual lives have been comprehensively understood. A model created from six questionnaire scales remains a model of six measured dimensions. It leaves unmeasured motives, environments, relationships, histories, bodily states, and within-person changes outside its representation. Human individuality therefore exceeds the observational window of any multivariate profile, however sophisticated the statistical technique Masyn, 2013.
The contrast at a glance
The defining question for a variable-centered design is “What is the association between characteristics or between a characteristic and an outcome?” For a person-centered design it is “What recurring combinations of characteristics describe participants, and how do those patterns relate to other variables?” Typical variable-centered tools include correlations, regressions, factor analysis, and many longitudinal models. Typical person-centered tools include cluster analysis, latent class analysis, latent profile analysis, and selected mixture and transition models. Both can be cross-sectional or longitudinal, exploratory or theory-guided, descriptive or predictive, depending on the specific implementation Spurk et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2024.
Why the Distinction Matters in Personality Science
Personality research has long faced two related scientific aims: locating dimensions along which people differ and describing coherent patterns of functioning within an individual. Early person-oriented work proposed recognizable constellations such as resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled patterns. Asendorpf and colleagues tested the reproducibility of these prototypes using adult self-reports and parental judgments of children, finding support for a three-prototype description in their analyzed datasets. Their work is historically influential; it does not settle the number of personality profiles across instruments, populations, and analytic choices Asendorpf et al., 2001.
A systematic review of Five-Factor Model profile research reviewed 34 empirical studies representing 36 independent samples. It identified multiple plausible profile solutions, with three- and four-profile solutions appearing most frequently, while concluding that consensus on the number and characteristics of profiles had not been achieved. Importantly, much of the observed separation was associated with overall trait level rather than distinctive profile shape. This evidence illustrates how a model can repeatedly yield meaningful descriptive patterns without supporting a universal taxonomy of personality types Yin et al., 2021.
The same caution applies when the indicators change. A person-centered study using the six dimensions of HEXACO identified five interpretable profiles across two university samples, while acknowledging that earlier HEXACO profile studies had not always agreed. Replication within broadly similar sampling frames is informative, but generalizability beyond those samples requires independent tests with different populations and conditions Daljeet et al., 2017.
A Worked Personality Research Example
One dataset, two distinct questions
Imagine a hypothetical study of several hundred adults assessed on organization, sociability, emotional reactivity, openness, and interpersonal warmth. Researchers also obtain an independently measured outcome such as persistence on repeated tasks. The first analysis estimates standardized relationships between each personality dimension and persistence. A multiple regression can evaluate their conditional associations and can add interaction terms if theory indicates that warmth changes the relationship between organization and behavior. The resulting coefficients answer questions about measured associations across observations. Their estimates remain sensitive to sampling, measurement error, confounding, and the model specification.
A second analysis uses the five personality scales as simultaneous indicators of within-person configurations. A researcher might fit two-, three-, four-, and five-profile solutions, review estimated within-profile means and variances, and compare posterior membership probabilities. Participants can then be described according to their probability of belonging to each modeled profile. The outcome may be compared across these profiles, preferably using procedures that account for classification uncertainty. Such comparisons are descriptive unless the study design supports stronger causal conclusions Masyn, 2013; Spurk et al., 2020.
What the illustration can and cannot establish
Suppose a three-profile model seems interpretable: one profile scores comparatively high across most favorable-direction indicators, another is near the sample average, and a third has elevated emotional reactivity with lower organization. These are hypothetical data patterns, not discovered human categories. They may reflect different average score levels, skewed distributions, correlated continuous traits, method effects, or genuine heterogeneity. If the same profile labels disappear when scales are standardized differently, a second sample is collected, or within-profile covariances are allowed, the interpretation must be reconsidered Bauer and Curran, 2003; Yin et al., 2021.
If profiles predict a relevant outcome even after accounting for underlying trait scores, that offers evidence of incremental utility in the tested setting. Such an evaluation should compare predictions fairly, including model complexity, cross-validation, and practical significance. The correct conclusion is about predictive performance under observed conditions; the analyst still needs longitudinal or experimental evidence before claiming that a configuration caused the outcome Woo et al., 2024.
Main Variable-Centered Research Strategies
Correlations, regression, and trait interactions
Correlation estimates the direction and strength of association between two measured variables, while regression estimates a conditional association or prediction function under an explicit statistical model. These methods can accommodate multiple personality traits, nonlinear terms, moderators, covariates, and hierarchical data. A finding that one trait predicts an outcome after adjusting for another is compatible with a spectrum of person-level patterns. In particular, interaction terms can test whether the predictive meaning of one characteristic changes at different levels of another, although complex interactions can become difficult to estimate precisely Daljeet et al., 2017.
Factor analysis and latent trait dimensions
Factor analysis and related latent-variable models organize correlations among observed indicators into a smaller set of continuous dimensions. When questionnaires contain many items, investigators can study whether responses support particular dimensions, whether the measurement structure is comparable across groups, and whether those dimensions predict relevant behavior. This is a dimensional account of variation, not a claim that people fall into a fixed number of types. A factor solution is also conditional on questionnaire content, sampling, and modeling assumptions Masyn, 2013.
Repeated measurement and within-person models
With repeated observations, variable-centered methods can estimate average time trends, individual deviations, and differences in within-person slopes. A multilevel model might test whether a person's everyday emotional state changes with daily social demands and whether that association varies across individuals. Between-person trait differences and within-person changes must be represented at their appropriate levels to avoid an ecological or atomistic misinterpretation. This concern is methodologically distinct from the decision to fit latent personality profiles, and it often determines whether the study answers its intended question.
Main Person-Centered Research Strategies
Cluster analysis
Cluster analysis groups participants according to selected similarity or distance criteria. Hierarchical procedures build nested partitions or trees; k-means assigns observations around estimated centers. Their results depend on the selected variables, distance metric, scaling, outliers, number of clusters, algorithm, and initialization. A clean-looking dendrogram or visually separated scatterplot provides a useful exploratory description, but does not by itself prove that the data contain naturally discrete populations Woo et al., 2024; Hofmans et al., 2020.
Latent class analysis
Latent class analysis represents categorical observed responses with a finite mixture of unobserved categories. In its standard forms, each class has its own conditional response probabilities, and each participant receives posterior class-membership probabilities. The researcher estimates the number and structure of classes through model comparisons and substantive judgment. Local independence is a common identifying assumption in basic latent class models: after conditioning on membership, observed indicators are treated as independent, although more flexible specifications can relax this assumption Masyn, 2013.
Latent profile analysis
Latent profile analysis is a finite mixture method used with continuous indicators, including questionnaire scale scores. Each latent profile is typically described by its estimated indicator means, with variance and covariance structures governed by the selected model. Posterior probabilities represent uncertainty about a participant's membership, and fitting several candidate class counts permits explicit comparison of statistical fit and substantive interpretability. LPA is popular because it makes a multivariate pattern communicable, yet it does not transform a continuous score vector into an independently verified biological category Spurk et al., 2020; Moore and Quartiroli, 2026.
A researcher must decide whether indicators should be raw, standardized, or otherwise transformed, whether variances are constrained equal across profiles, and whether covariance is permitted within profiles. Different assumptions can produce different solutions from the same dataset. Labeling the smallest or most extreme group a distinctive psychological type without testing these alternatives risks converting modeling artifacts into substantial-looking narratives Masyn, 2013; Bauer and Curran, 2003.
Factor mixture models and hybrid representations
Factor mixture models combine continuous latent dimensions with categorical latent subgroups in one framework. They are conceptually important because individual differences may involve both gradations and configurations. A simple latent profile model may attribute structure to discrete classes that another representation can accommodate with latent dimensions, residual correlations, or nonnormal score distributions. Model comparison therefore concerns competing statistical explanations, each with its own assumptions and identification difficulties Masyn, 2013; Morin et al., 2011.
Growth mixture models and latent transitions
Longitudinal person-centered research can represent groups with different developmental trajectories rather than only cross-sectional trait-score profiles. Growth mixture models estimate potentially different patterns of change, and latent transition approaches examine transitions among modeled categorical states or profiles at multiple observations. Their interpretation is especially sensitive to model assumptions, measurement consistency across time, attrition, and whether the data are adequate to distinguish classes from continuous individual differences in change Bauer and Curran, 2003; Nylund et al., 2007.
How Researchers Choose the Number of Profiles
Statistical fit is necessary but insufficient
Researchers compare candidate solutions using information criteria, likelihood-based tests, convergence diagnostics, parameter estimates, and substantive coherence. The Bayesian information criterion is widely examined; bootstrap likelihood-ratio procedures may also inform enumeration. A major Monte Carlo comparison found that performance depended on model conditions and that no single index could be presumed uniformly decisive. Statistical optimization selects among specified models; it does not certify that a population contains exactly that number of psychological kinds Nylund et al., 2007.
Entropy describes aspects of classification separation, not a stand-alone test that the selected profile count is valid. A high-entropy model can still fit a distorted indicator distribution or contain profiles with weak substantive meaning. Analysts should inspect posterior probabilities, the number and size of profiles, stability across starting values, convergence warnings, and the plausibility of estimated variances. They should report unsuccessful solutions and specification choices as part of a reproducible analytical record Spurk et al., 2020; Moore and Quartiroli, 2026.
The danger of artificial classes
Finite mixture models can partition observations even when the substantive process is primarily continuous. If the assumed within-class distribution is too restrictive, a model may introduce extra classes to capture skewness, heavy tails, outliers, or nonlinear associations. Bauer and Curran demonstrated this overextraction risk in the context of growth mixture models. Their result supports a broad interpretive caution: identifying statistically distinguishable components under one set of distributional assumptions is weaker evidence than demonstrating stable, theoretically meaningful groups under several defensible alternatives Bauer and Curran, 2003.
Replication, robustness, and invariance
A strong profile claim survives scrutiny beyond one fitted solution. Researchers can compare results in a held-out or independent sample, examine whether profiles retain a similar number and pattern of indicator means, and test equivalence across population groups or time. Morin and colleagues distinguish configural, structural, dispersion, distributional, predictive, and explanatory similarity; these levels clarify that finding the same number of groups does not establish their full comparability. Replication of labels alone is insufficient when profile means or associations with outcomes shift materially Morin et al., 2016.
Robustness checks should address indicator selection, reliability, missingness, estimation algorithm, scale transformation, and different defensible residual structures. Where feasible, external validation should rely on measures not already used to construct the profiles. A claimed profile that merely re-describes the input scores has descriptive validity within the chosen model, while validation against independent outcomes speaks to additional scientific or practical usefulness Spurk et al., 2020.
Are Personality Profiles Real Types?
The scientific status of personality profiles is an empirical question about model adequacy, reproducibility, and meaning. Statistical clustering places participants into groups based on selected observations, whereas a strong categorical claim requires evidence that meaningful discontinuities exist in the phenomenon itself. When a model reports a resilient or overcontrolled profile, the label is a compact description of measured score patterns. It should not be interpreted as a clinical diagnosis, a complete portrait of an individual, or evidence for an invariant human essence Asendorpf et al., 2001; Yin et al., 2021.
Both prototype research and its critiques matter. Some investigations have found replicable configurations, including a five-profile HEXACO solution reproduced in two comparable samples. A systematic review of trait-based profiles nevertheless found heterogeneous results and uncertainty about universal structure. These findings are compatible: profiles can be useful, sample-reproducible summaries while their specific count, content, and generalizability remain contingent on design and measures. The evidentiary status of a named profile is therefore established separately from the general utility of the person-centered approach Daljeet et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2021.
Levels, Shapes, and Interpretive Artifacts
Overall elevation versus distinctive configuration
Two participants can differ mainly in overall profile elevation, with one scoring higher than the other on nearly every indicator. Other participants may have similar overall levels but markedly different shapes, such as high sociability with low organization versus low sociability with high organization. A solution dominated by elevation may amount to a re-expression of a general score level instead of revealing qualitatively contrasting configurations. The FFM systematic review found that level differences were especially influential across reported personality profile studies Yin et al., 2021.
To substantiate configuration-specific claims, researchers should inspect how profiles differ after considering overall elevation, examine theoretical relevance of shape differences, and evaluate whether an interaction-based dimensional model gives comparable explanations. Visual profile plots make contrasts easy to see but can amplify small differences through axis scaling or selective display. Publication should provide underlying estimates and uncertainty rather than relying exclusively on colorful profile charts Woo et al., 2024.
Indicators are not neutral inputs
The indicators define the space in which similarity is calculated. If a study includes many measures of negative emotionality but only one measure of openness, distances or latent profiles may be disproportionately influenced by the densely represented construct. Reliability differences, ceiling effects, acquiescence, and cultural meanings of items can further shift the apparent topology. A profile solution is therefore inseparable from the theoretical and measurement decisions that produced it Masyn, 2013; Spurk et al., 2020.
Between-Person Patterns and Within-Person Dynamics
A between-person profile summarizes how individuals compare on a set of attributes at the measured occasion or across an aggregation period. A within-person process asks how a person's states, actions, and circumstances change over repeated observations. A participant classified as relatively reserved at baseline may behave sociably in familiar relationships, become withdrawn under exhaustion, and display different patterns during major life transitions. Cross-sectional clustering alone cannot reconstruct those temporal dynamics. Equating observed profile membership with a stable intrapersonal mechanism would exceed the study design.
Intensive repeated assessment and multilevel modeling can complement profiles by showing whether score configurations recur within individuals, whether person-level profiles predict daily variations, and whether observed groups have distinct processes rather than merely different averages. Multilevel latent profile methods attempt to accommodate nested heterogeneity while requiring careful interpretation of group-level and individual-level classes. Recent methodological work on multilevel LPA illustrates the complexity of separating levels of variation in these models Houle et al., 2026.
Developmental Research and Personality Change
Developmental studies may ask whether children display distinctive patterns of self-regulation and reactivity, whether those patterns remain identifiable as they age, or whether trait dimensions change continuously. A cross-sectional profile cannot by itself establish developmental continuity. Longitudinal research must attend to age-appropriate measures, informant shifts, selective attrition, the changing meaning of behavioral indicators, and measurement equivalence. A parent's rating of an eight-year-old and an adult's self-report twenty years later are not interchangeable evidence of an unchanged category.
The existence of reproducible profiles at several ages does not mean the same person remains in one profile. Rank-order stability concerns relative standing on continuous dimensions; mean-level change concerns the sample's average developmental shifts; profile stability concerns similarity or membership persistence under a specified classification model. These are distinct estimands. A defensible longitudinal analysis can report all of them where appropriate, without treating a transition between probabilistic profiles as a literal transformation from one personality kind into another Bauer and Curran, 2003; Morin et al., 2016.
Culture, Samples, and Generalizability
Many personality profile solutions have been estimated in student, workplace, or national samples that are narrower than the populations to which readers may wish to generalize. If a trait indicator functions differently across languages or cultures, apparent differences in class prevalence may partly be measurement effects. Researchers should examine translation quality, construct relevance, response styles, sample comparability, and measurement invariance when making cross-cultural or group comparisons. Replication across superficially similar convenience samples is useful but cannot replace broader tests Spurk et al., 2020; Morin et al., 2016.
The existence of a statistically well-separated subgroup does not establish that its frequency is the same in every society, period, cohort, or organizational environment. When investigators compare subgroup prevalence across contexts, sampling frames and inclusion criteria must also be comparable. Evidence from one age group, educational level, or employment sector should be presented in its actual population terms, not silently translated into a claim about all people Yin et al., 2021.
Measurement, Informants, and Research Quality
Personality dimensions are frequently measured through self-report inventories. Such instruments reflect respondents' interpretation of questions, memory, current state, social desirability, and response style. Informant reports and observed behavior provide different windows and can sometimes reveal discrepancies that are scientifically informative rather than mere measurement error. A profile derived entirely from self-report scales is a profile of self-reported characteristics. It cannot be assumed to reproduce observed behavioral categories without convergent data.
An especially important issue is circular validation: researchers should not claim independent evidence because clusters created from a set of trait items differ on those very same items. That difference is built into how the clusters were formed. More informative validation examines theoretically predicted consequences, repeated measures, independent informants, or behavioral observations, with attention to correlated measurement errors and opportunities for overfitting Woo et al., 2024; Daljeet et al., 2017.
Prediction, Causation, and Applied Interpretation
A profile can function as a compact predictor, but associations between latent-profile membership and outcomes do not establish causation. Selection into environments, common causes, response biases, and prior outcomes may contribute to observed differences. Even longitudinal associations may contain unmeasured confounding. A randomized intervention that changes a relevant exposure supports certain causal contrasts, yet the profile label itself remains a statistical summary rather than a manipulable treatment. Applied researchers should state the prediction target, time horizon, uncertainty, and validation population precisely Hofmans et al., 2020.
For an applied classification to be useful, it should improve decisions beyond a simpler continuous-score model, generalize to independent data, avoid excessive false positives, and withstand fairness evaluation. A typology that produces attractive names but offers no incremental prediction may add interpretive complexity without additional value. In organizational, educational, and health-related settings, the stakes of labeling people make external validation and proportionate use especially important Woo et al., 2024; Moore and Quartiroli, 2026.
Ethical and Clinical Boundaries
A scientific personality profile is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Traits such as emotional reactivity, disinhibition, sensitivity, reserve, or antagonism describe dimensions of variation whose meaning depends on degree, context, measurement, and functional consequences. A model-labeled class cannot substitute for diagnostic assessment. Even where profiles correlate with distress or behavioral difficulties, clinical interpretation requires validated criteria, impairment assessment, developmental context, and appropriate professional judgment.
Responsible reporting avoids stigmatizing labels, deterministic prediction, and the idea that a person’s whole identity can be inferred from questionnaire scores. Posterior membership uncertainty should be respected; individuals near profile boundaries can be classified differently in alternative model solutions. When profiles are used for allocating resources, educational opportunities, employment decisions, or clinical services, subgroup error rates and potential discrimination require explicit evaluation Masyn, 2013; Woo et al., 2024.
When Should Researchers Use Each Approach?
Choose the question before the method
Variable-centered analysis is appropriate when the primary question concerns the relationship between traits, the predictive contribution of particular dimensions, or a continuous process that can be meaningfully parameterized. Person-centered analysis is appropriate when the central theory predicts meaningful configurations, researcher interest concerns heterogeneity of joint patterns, or subgroup descriptions have a defensible practical purpose. When a study genuinely concerns both dimensional associations and multivariate configurations, preregistered complementary analyses may yield a more adequate account Hofmans et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2024.
A defensible sequence for profile investigations
A rigorous study first defines its population and construct domain; selects theoretically appropriate, reliable indicators; and documents data distributions, missingness, and scaling. It then estimates defensible candidate models, checks convergence and local optima, assesses model count with more than one criterion, and interprets profiles by their actual score patterns. Next come stability checks, classification uncertainty, independent replication, and external validation. Conclusions should distinguish descriptive patterns from validated categories and statistical prediction from causation Spurk et al., 2020; Nylund et al., 2007; Morin et al., 2016.
Researchers can strengthen a person-centered result by fitting plausible variable-centered alternatives and reporting where the two approaches agree or diverge. If a continuous regression explains outcomes as well as the profile grouping, claims of essential categorical differences deserve scrutiny. If externally reproducible configurations predict outcomes beyond well-specified dimensional models, their incremental usefulness becomes an empirical finding. Neither outcome requires elevating a preferred analytic vocabulary above the actual evidence Woo et al., 2024.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is person-centered research the same as qualitative research?
No. Person-centered personality studies often use quantitative models such as k-means clustering and latent profile analysis. Qualitative research may offer detailed individual accounts, and mixed methods can help interpret configurations, but the person-centered label alone does not specify a qualitative design Hofmans et al., 2020.
Is latent profile analysis more accurate than regression?
Accuracy depends on the question, data, model assumptions, and evaluation criterion. LPA can communicate patterns of several continuous variables as probabilistic subgroups. Regression can estimate continuous associations, nonlinearities, and interactions. Neither is inherently superior for every scientific objective; predictions must be compared under equivalent validation conditions Spurk et al., 2020.
Does finding three profiles mean there are three personality types?
No. A three-profile solution describes a fitted model. Evidence for universal, discrete personality types requires convergent support beyond a single class-enumeration result. Reviews report heterogeneity in the number and structure of personality profiles, and mixture models can generate artificial classes under misspecified distributions Yin et al., 2021; Bauer and Curran, 2003.
Can one person change from one profile to another?
Under a longitudinal profile model, an individual may receive a different most-probable class assignment at a later wave. Such a transition can represent change in measured characteristics, measurement variation, or shifting classification uncertainty. Interpretation depends on measurement comparability, model stability, and the transition method used Morin et al., 2016.
How does this differ from nomothetic and idiographic research?
Nomothetic and idiographic concern the scope and level at which generalizations are made: patterns across people or mechanisms within a particular individual. Person-centered clustering generally groups several people into recurring configurations, so it is not automatically an idiographic account of one person's psychological process. An intensive individual time series can be idiographic without identifying population profiles, and dimensional multilevel analysis can incorporate both within-person and between-person information.
Can profiles be used to diagnose personality disorders?
A profile of ordinary personality traits is a statistical summary, not a clinical diagnostic system. Diagnostic conclusions require separate clinical evidence and appropriate standards. Researchers studying clinical samples may use person-centered methods to explore symptom patterns, but those findings do not automatically establish disorder categories or treatment indications.
Scientific Conclusions
Variable-centered methods describe associations, predictive relations, dimensions, and patterns of average change. Person-centered methods investigate whether multivariate configurations among people provide meaningful, replicable descriptions or additional explanatory and predictive value. Each is a methodological tool serving a different inferential target. The most persuasive research makes its estimand explicit, compares plausible competing models, documents uncertainty, and tests whether the resulting findings hold beyond the data used to discover them Woo et al., 2024; Masyn, 2013.
The current evidence supports studying personality both dimensionally and configurationally while maintaining a disciplined distinction between observed score patterns and claims about discrete human types. Reproducible profile solutions have been reported, but a systematic review of the Five-Factor Model literature documents substantial variation across studies. Scientific progress therefore depends on transparent measurement, replication, multilevel and longitudinal designs, and interpretation proportional to the results Asendorpf et al., 2001; Daljeet et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2021.
Related Articles
Cluster Personality Traits, Temperament and Individual Differences — the published scientific research chapter locating configurational methods within temperament, traits, and individual differences.
Individual Differences in Psychology: Definition, Examples and Research — a broader introduction to dimensions of psychological variation, between-person comparisons, and research interpretation.
References
Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., and van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.408
Bauer, D. J., and Curran, P. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models: Implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological Methods, 8, 338–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.338
Daljeet, K. N., Bremner, N. L., Giammarco, E. A., Meyer, J. P., and Paunonen, S. V. (2017). Taking a person-centered approach to personality: A latent-profile analysis of the HEXACO model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.08.003
Hofmans, J., Wille, B., and Schreurs, B. (2020). Person-centered methods in vocational research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103398
Houle, S. A., Morin, A. J. S., and Harvey, J.-F. (2026). Multilevel latent profile analyses: A comprehensive guide. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281261469432
Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 551–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.013.0025
Moore, E. W. G., and Quartiroli, A. (2026). Representing subpopulations with latent profile analysis: A non-technical introduction using exercisers’ goal orientation adoption profiles. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 49, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-025-00596-5
Morin, A. J. S., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J., and Biétry, F. (2016). Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621148
Morin, A. J. S., Morizot, J., Boudrias, J.-S., and Madore, I. (2011). A multifoci person-centered perspective on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 58–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109356476
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., and Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., and Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
Woo, S. E., Hofmans, J., Wille, B., and Tay, L. (2024). Person-centered modeling: Techniques for studying associations between people rather than variables. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-045646
Yin, K., Lee, P., Sheldon, O. J., Li, C., and Zhao, J. (2021). Personality profiles based on the FFM: A systematic review with a person-centered approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 180, 110996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110996