Is there scientific evidence supporting the Enneagram?

Yes, many peer-reviewed academic studies have supported the validity and applicability of the Enneagram across different use cases:

  • In a 2004 study, Newgent et. al. found significant correlations between the nine Enneagram types, as categorized by the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) test, and the Big Five personality traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness.

  • In 2005, Brown and Bartram found that the Enneagram types had predictable and strong associations to the Big Five traits, making it possible to classify 70-75% of people accurately.

  • In 2011, Scott found that the Enneagram’s nine personality types were consistent across sex and were unaffected by whether participants already knew their type before the study.

  • In 2013, Sutton et. al. examined the use of the Enneagram in the workplace and concluded that it predicted job-related variables and was a useful typology for understanding individuals’ behavior at work.

  • In 2018, Matise examined correlations between the Enneagram and well-known psychiatric tools, including the criteria for mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV, using patient case studies to demonstrate effectiveness.