The Enneagram: a rich tradition with limited empirical support

Where the model comes from

The Enneagram symbol was introduced to the West in the early 20th century by the mystic George Gurdjieff, with no link to personality types. Mapping the nine points onto nine character "fixations" was proposed by Oscar Ichazo in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1970s the Chilean psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo connected those types to categories from clinical psychology, and authors such as Don Riso and Russ Hudson popularized the system through books and questionnaires from the 1980s and 1990s onward.

Each type is described by a core motivation and a basic fear, such as the wish to be right (type 1) or to be loved (type 2). The system also includes "wings", "arrows" of integration and disintegration, and levels of development.

What the research says

A systematic review published in 2021 gathered the available empirical studies and concluded that the evidence is mixed (Hook et al., 2021). Some Enneagram questionnaires show acceptable internal consistency, and the types relate in predictable ways to Big Five traits; for example, type 7 tends to go with extraversion and type 5 with introversion. Reliability studies of specific instruments report variable results (Newgent et al., 2004).

On the other hand, there is little research on the model's most distinctive parts, such as wings, arrows and the claim that each person has one type that never changes. Most of the Enneagram literature comes from books and training settings rather than peer-reviewed journals.

Why so many people relate to it

Its focus on motivations, not just behavior, makes the Enneagram feel deep and personal. That can spark reflection, but it has a risky side: rich, emotional descriptions tend to feel accurate to almost anyone (Forer, 1949). Feeling described is not the same as being measured precisely.

Limitations

Ethea's test has not been validated against other Enneagram instruments or in independent samples. Because it uses forced choice, the result is a relative ranking of the nine types; with nine categories and 36 items, ties and close profiles are common, and your main type may change on a retake. Treat the result as a hypothesis to reflect on, not as an identity.

How Ethea adapts the model

Ethea's version compares each type with each of the other eight once (36 pairs; each type appears eight times). The statements describe motivations in everyday language, without esoteric jargon. The result shows your most-chosen type and the closest ones, and leaves out wings, arrows and levels, since there isn't enough empirical basis to score them.

Test created by Giovanni Oliveira.

Ethea is not affiliated with any institute, school or author that sells Enneagram questionnaires.

References

Links with a DOI go to the original article. Where no DOI is given, the link opens a Google Scholar search.

1. Hook, J. N., Hall, T. W., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Conner, M. (2021). The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 865–883. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
2. Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. E., Newman, I., & Higgins, K. K. (2004). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(4), 226–237. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
3. Naranjo, C. (1994). Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View. Gateways/IDHHB. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
4. Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The Wisdom of the Enneagram. Bantam Books. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
5. Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118–123. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
6. Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74(3), 167–184. DOI: 10.1037/h0029780(opens in a new tab)
7. Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460–502. DOI: 10.1177/0013164410375112(opens in a new tab)
8. Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 36–52. DOI: 10.1037/a0030641(opens in a new tab)