How to Find Out Your Enneagram Type

Within this model, finding your Enneagram type means identifying which of nine underlying motivations best explains how a person habitually reacts. The Enneagram doesn’t classify by what you do but by why: two people can behave the same way for very different reasons.

That makes the process trickier. There’s no blood test or objective measure of your type: there are questionnaires, descriptions and self-observation, and it helps to know what each one can offer.

Step one: a questionnaire as a hypothesis

The most common route is a questionnaire. The best known are Riso and Hudson’s RHETI (144 forced-choice pairs of statements, about 40 minutes), the iEQ9 (a paid adaptive online test of about 30 minutes that also reports wings and subtypes) and this site’s free Enneagram test, with a full 144-question version and a quick 10-question one. We compare them in detail in which is the best Enneagram test.

It’s worth reading the result for what it is: the most likely hypothesis based on your answers. In our test, each question offers three reactions and each one counts toward a single type; in the full version, each type appears in 48 possible answers. The result shows the type with the most points and how close you are to the rest, and that “rest” is as informative as the top one.

If you’d like to narrow things down first, the dominant center test cuts the options from nine to three.

What research says about those questionnaires

The most thorough systematic review to date, by Hook and colleagues (2021) in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, analyzed 104 independent samples. Its conclusions, in short:

• The evidence for the reliability and validity of Enneagram questionnaires is mixed.
• The type scales relate to the Big Five in ways consistent with the theory.
• Factor analyses usually find fewer than nine factors, and no study has recovered the nine types by statistically grouping people.
• Several studies found the Enneagram useful for the personal or spiritual growth of those who used it.

An earlier study of the RHETI with 287 participants (Newgent and colleagues, 2004) found acceptable internal consistency and only partial support for its construct validity. In practice, this means two different questionnaires can give you different types, and neither is “measurably” wrong: the model has no gold standard to compare against. We go into more detail in what is a psychometric test.

Step two: look for the motive, not the behavior

With two or three candidates on the table, the Enneagram tradition suggests reading the full descriptions and asking yourself why you do what you do. It helps to think of a specific recent situation, such as a moment of anger, and what sparked it: an injustice, feeling ignored, losing control, feeling incompetent.

The model’s literature points to several pairs that are often confused because they look alike on the outside:

• 1 and 6. Both are responsible and dutiful. According to the model, the 1 follows an inner standard of what’s right and is irritated by things done badly; the 6 seeks security and support, and its doubt comes from uncertainty more than from duty.
• 2 and 9. Both accommodate others. The 2 does it to feel loved and needed; the 9, to keep the peace and avoid conflict, even when expecting nothing in return.
• 3 and 7. Both are active and optimistic. The 3 moves toward a goal and tends its image of success; the 7 seeks options and experiences, and what it avoids is boredom or discomfort.
• 4 and 5. Both can withdraw. The 4 withdraws into its emotions and its sense of identity; the 5 withdraws to protect its energy and space, and thinks more than it feels.

One sign the tradition often mentions is a sense of discomfort when you recognize your own avoidance mechanisms in a description. That’s an observation from the model, not a diagnostic criterion.

The three centers, to narrow it down

The model groups the nine types into three centers, each linked to a core emotion. It helps cut the options from nine profiles to three:

• Instinctive or gut center (8, 9 and 1): the underlying theme is anger and autonomy. The 8 expresses it, the 9 numbs it and the 1 holds it in.
• Feeling center (2, 3 and 4): the underlying theme is image and shame. Each type seeks worth in its own way: by being needed, by succeeding or by being unique.
• Thinking center (5, 6 and 7): the underlying theme is fear and security. The 5 relies on knowledge, the 6 on alliances and rules, and the 7 on keeping options open.

Step three: wings, arrows and subtypes

Once you’ve chosen a type, the model adds nuances that help confirm or rule it out:

• Wings: the two neighboring numbers on the circle. A Type 9 can lean toward 8 (firmer) or toward 1 (more orderly).
• Arrows: the inner lines of the symbol. According to Riso and Hudson, each type takes on traits of one type in growth and of another under stress; the 3, for example, would move toward 6 and toward 9, respectively.
• Instinctual subtypes: Ichazo and Naranjo’s model distinguishes three instincts (self-preservation, social and sexual or one-to-one) that yield 27 variants. A self-preservation 6 and a sexual 6 can seem almost opposite: the first more cautious and the second defiant, what some authors call the “counterphobic” 6.

If the type description fits but the arrows or subtype don’t, that’s a good reason to reread your second candidate.

What this process can give you, and what it can’t

At the end of the process there’s no proven truth, but a language for thinking about yourself that many people find useful. The Enneagram isn’t part of mainstream academic psychology or the diagnostic manuals, and its result isn’t meant for clinical, employment or legal decisions.

Our Enneagram test is an orientative way to start: you can check your result against the descriptions and your own reactions, and it doesn’t replace a professional psychological assessment.

Sources

• Hook, J. N., Hall, T. W., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., and Conner, M. (2021). The Enneagram: A systematic review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 865-883. doi:10.1002/jclp.23097
• Naranjo, C. (1994). Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View. Gateways/IDHHB.
• Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. E., Newman, I., and 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.
• Riso, D. R., and Hudson, R. (1999). The Wisdom of the Enneagram. Bantam.