Clinical AssessmentsPersonality InventoriesPsychological ScalesPsychometrics

Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5

An in-depth academic psychometric review of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5, detailing its 144 forced-choice dyadic structure, psychometric validity, reliability coefficients, factor structure, theoretical framework, and scoring taxonomy.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 25, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 25, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

1. Abstract

The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5 is a standardized, forced-choice psychological assessment instrument designed to measure personality organization and ego structure according to the nine-point Enneagram of Personality typology. Developed by personality theorists Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson, the RHETI version 2.5 comprises 144 forced-choice dyadic item pairs (288 individual behavioral and cognitive statements) systematically balanced so that each of the nine personality archetypes is paired against every other archetype exactly four times (36 archetype dyads × 4 rotations = 144 items). The instrument yields nine distinct scale scores ranging from 0 to 32 points, identifying an individual’s primary personality fixation, secondary wing influences, and broader ego dynamics across three somatic-affective centers: the Instinctive (Gut/Body) Center (Types 8, 9, 1), the Feeling (Heart) Center (Types 2, 3, 4), and the Thinking (Head) Center (Types 5, 6, 7).

Psychometric evaluations of RHETI version 2.5 (e.g., Giordano, 2008; Newgent et al., 2004) indicate moderate to high internal consistency reliability, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .56 to .82 across diverse non-clinical and organizational cohorts, and test-retest reliability estimates exceeding .75 to .88 over short-to-medium intervals. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validities have been established through extensive structural equation modeling and comparative correlational analyses against the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Five-Factor Model and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Although the ipsative (forced-choice) scoring format introduces mathematical dependencies that limit certain parametric factor-analytic procedures, the RHETI version 2.5 remains one of the most widely administered, rigorously researched, and commercially utilized psychometric operationalizations of Enneagram typology in counseling, leadership development, organizational consulting, and personal self-discovery.

2. Keywords

Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator, RHETI version 2.5, Enneagram of Personality, personality typology, ipsative measurement, psychometrics, Don Richard Riso, Russ Hudson, ego defense mechanisms, forced-choice inventory, characterological adaptation, psychodiagnostics

3. Authors

The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator version 2.5 was authored by Don Richard Riso, M.A. (1946–2012) and Russ Hudson, B.A., co-founders of The Enneagram Institute (Stone Ridge, New York, United States).

  • Don Richard Riso, M.A.: Former Jesuit seminarian, philosopher, and psychologist who held a Master of Arts in English and Philosophy from Saint Louis University. Riso was a pioneer in operationalizing the Enneagram through modern psychodynamic and developmental lenses. He developed the original formulation of the Levels of Development (ego integration and deterioration continuum) and established the primary structural foundations for empirical Enneagram psychometrics.
  • Russ Hudson, B.A.: Graduate of Columbia University in East Asian Studies and linguistics, renowned international scholar, author, and researcher in contemporary characterology. Hudson collaborated closely with Riso beginning in 1991 to co-author foundational textbooks, refine the Enneagram typological matrices, and conduct standardized psychometric testing that led to the calibrated development of RHETI version 2.5.
  • Institutional Affiliation: The Enneagram Institute, 3355 Hurley Mountain Road, Stone Ridge, NY 12484, USA. Official Website: enneagraminstitute.com.

4. Purpose

The primary diagnostic and clinical objective of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator version 2.5 is to identify an individual’s fundamental personality fixation, primary characterological orientation, and underlying dynamic patterns of motivation, psychological defense, and stress adaptation. Rather than merely cataloging superficial behavioral manifestations or descriptive traits, the RHETI is specifically constructed to penetrate core psychological etiology: the unconscious anxieties, fundamental desires, internalized emotional schemas, and primary cognitive distortions that govern how an individual negotiates interpersonal relationships, regulates affect, and constructs a sense of personal identity.

In clinical, counseling, and psychotherapy contexts, the RHETI version 2.5 serves as a profound adjunct to diagnosis and treatment planning. Clinicians utilize its nine-point taxonomy to identify maladaptive ego defense mechanisms (such as reaction formation in Type 1, repression in Type 2, identification in Type 3, introjection in Type 4, isolation of affect in Type 5, projection in Type 6, rationalization in Type 7, denial in Type 8, and narcotization in Type 9). Understanding a client’s core Enneagram profile allows therapists to anticipate resistance, comprehend transference-countertransference dynamics, and pinpoint developmental vulnerabilities along Riso and Hudson’s Continuum of the Levels of Development (ranging from healthy ego transcendence to average neurosis and unhealthy borderline or psychotic pathology).

In industrial-organizational psychology, executive coaching, and leadership training, the RHETI version 2.5 is extensively utilized for team building, conflict management, communication enhancement, and emotional intelligence cultivation. By elucidating how differing personality archetypes perceive authority, manage project workflows, handle high-pressure deadlines, and process constructive feedback, executive coaches deploy the RHETI to cultivate self-reflective leadership. Furthermore, in pastoral counseling, psychoeducational workshops, and academic personality research, the instrument serves as a descriptive diagnostic tool to examine how character adaptations correlate with occupational burnout, relational satisfaction, and psychological well-being.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the RHETI version 2.5 is grounded in the multidimensional model of the Enneagram, which conceptualizes human personality as nine interconnected archetypal ego strategies. Each of the nine subscales corresponds to a distinct personality organization defined by a specific basic fear, basic desire, characteristic emotional passion (root vice), and cognitive fixation:

  • Type 1: The Reformer (The Rational, Idealistic Type): Driven by the basic fear of being corrupt, evil, or defective, and the basic desire to have integrity, balance, and moral rectitude. Characterized by high conscientiousness, perfectionistic standards, an active internal critic, emotional restraint, and the defense mechanism of reaction formation (converting underlying resentment and anger into polite, virtuous, and rigid propriety).
  • Type 2: The Helper (The Caring, Interpersonal Type): Governed by the basic fear of being unloved, unwanted, or unworthy of affection, and the basic desire to feel loved and needed. Manifests as empathic, demonstrative, people-pleasing, and self-sacrificing behavior, utilizing repression of personal needs while projecting nurturance onto others to establish interpersonal indispensable value.
  • Type 3: The Achiever (The Success-Oriented, Pragmatic Type): Grounded in the basic fear of being worthless, incompetent, or devoid of inherent value, and the basic desire to feel valuable, successful, and admired. Exhibits hyper-competitiveness, pragmatic goal orientation, status sensitivity, and image management, utilizing the defense mechanism of identification (conflating the authentic self with external achievements and social roles).
  • Type 4: The Individualist (The Sensitive, Expressive Type): Dominated by the basic fear of having no identity or personal significance, and the basic desire to create an authentic, unique identity. Displays deep emotional sensitivity, melancholy, aesthetic orientation, and withdrawal, relying on introjection to internalize perceived deficits and sustain an idealized tragic-romantic identity.
  • Type 5: The Investigator (The Perceptive, Cerebral Type): Characterized by the basic fear of being overwhelmed, helpless, or incompetent, and the basic desire to master understanding and retain autonomy. Demonstrates intellectual detachment, minimalist resource conservation, intense mental focus, and isolation of affect (severing cognitive thought processes from somatic emotional reactions).
  • Type 6: The Loyalist (The Committed, Security-Oriented Type): Driven by the basic fear of being without support, guidance, or security, and the basic desire to find stability, safety, and trusted alliances. Manifests pervasive vigilance, anticipatory anxiety, loyalty to institutional frameworks or counterphobic defiance of authority, utilizing projection to displace internal feelings of vulnerability onto external threats.
  • Type 7: The Enthusiast (The Spontaneous, Versatile Type): Rooted in the basic fear of being deprived, trapped in emotional pain, or limited, and the basic desire to remain satisfied, happy, and stimulated. Characterized by cognitive agility, rapid multi-tasking, novelty-seeking, and hedonic impulsivity, utilizing rationalization and reframing to evade negative affective states.
  • Type 8: The Challenger (The Powerful, Dominating Type): Anchored in the basic fear of being harmed, controlled, manipulated, or vulnerable, and the basic desire to protect oneself, determine one’s destiny, and exert personal autonomy. Expresses bold assertiveness, direct confrontation, boundary enforcement, and protective leadership, deploying denial to suppress vulnerability and physical limitations.
  • Type 9: The Peacemaker (The Easygoing, Receptive Type): Driven by the basic fear of loss, fragmentation, separation, and interpersonal conflict, and the basic desire to maintain inner peace, harmony, and equilibrium. Demonstrates agreeable, accommodating, and mediation-oriented tendencies, frequently employing narcotization (psychological numbing via routine, comfort habits, or passive compliance) to suppress personal volition and disruptive drives.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the RHETI version 2.5 synthesizes modern psychodynamic theory, psychoanalytic ego psychology, object relations theory, and ancient typological philosophies. Although ancient geometric roots are often attributed to the Enneagram symbol, its modern psychological integration was initiated by Bolivian philosopher Oscar Ichazo at the Arica School in the late 1960s, and subsequently formalized in psychiatric nomenclature by Chilean psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo, M.D., who systematically cross-referenced each Enneagram point with the diagnostic criteria of the DSM personality disorders and classical psychoanalytic defense mechanisms.

Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson substantially advanced this framework by establishing an empirical and systemic developmental architecture. Central to their theoretical paradigm are three organizing structural principles:

  1. The Three Triadic Centers of Intelligence: The nine types are partitioned into three fundamental somatic and psychological centers corresponding to specific emotional drivers: the Instinctive/Body Center (Types 8, 9, 1), which processes baseline existence through the primary emotion of rage or anger; the Feeling/Heart Center (Types 2, 3, 4), which navigates social relatedness through shame and image distress; and the Thinking/Head Center (Types 5, 6, 7), which addresses external reality through anxiety, fear, and security management.
  2. Karen Horney’s Interpersonal Coping Strategies: Riso and Hudson mapped the Enneagram types onto Karen Horney‘s three neurotically driven relational strategies: the Compliant/Dutiful Group (Moving Toward People; Types 1, 2, 6); the Assertive/Aggressive Group (Moving Against People; Types 3, 7, 8); and the Withdrawn Group (Moving Away from People; Types 4, 5, 9).
  3. The Continuum of the Levels of Development: Riso’s seminal theoretical breakthrough was the formulation of nine internal levels of psychological health within each type, arrayed across three overarching bands: Healthy (Levels 1–3, characterized by ego transcendence, high self-awareness, and psychological freedom), Average (Levels 4–6, marked by active ego defenses, social role fixation, and interpersonal friction), and Unhealthy (Levels 7–9, characterized by severe decompensation, borderline states, and destructive neurosis).
  4. Dynamic Integration (Growth) and Disintegration (Stress) Vectors: The internal geometric lines of the Enneagram designate lawful shifts in personality functioning under conditions of acute psychological distress (disintegration/stress vector: 1→4→2→8→5→7→1 and 9→6→3→9) versus psychological safety and therapeutic integration (integration/growth vector: 1→7→5→8→2→4→1 and 9→3→6→9).

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validities of the RHETI version 2.5 have been investigated across numerous psychometric studies (e.g., Newgent et al., 2004; Giordano, 2008; Brown & Bartram, 2005; Sutton, 2012). Research demonstrates that while the Enneagram is a typological model, its underlying continuous scores demonstrate robust construct validity when analyzed alongside standardized instruments such as the Five-Factor Model (NEO-PI-R) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

In a seminal empirical validation study published in Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, Newgent, Parr, Newman, and Higgins (2004) examined the construct and convergent validity of the RHETI version 2.5 among a diverse sample of adult respondents. Correlation matrices between RHETI scales and external clinical inventories showed meaningful convergence:

  • Convergent Validity with the Big Five:
    • RHETI Type 1 (Reformer) correlates positively and significantly with NEO-PI-R Conscientiousness (r = .52, p < .001), reflecting orderliness, dutifulness, and self-discipline.
    • RHETI Type 2 (Helper) exhibits strong positive correlations with NEO-PI-R Agreeableness (r = .58, p < .001) and the Altruism facet.
    • RHETI Type 3 (Achiever) correlates strongly with NEO-PI-R Extraversion (r = .46) and Conscientiousness Competence and Achievement Striving facets (r = .54).
    • RHETI Type 4 (Individualist) correlates significantly with NEO-PI-R Neuroticism (r = .55, p < .001) and Openness to Aesthetics and Feelings.
    • RHETI Type 5 (Investigator) demonstrates significant negative correlations with Extraversion (r = -.51, p < .001) and strong positive associations with Openness to Ideas (r = .48).
    • RHETI Type 6 (Loyalist) demonstrates high convergent validity with the Neuroticism domain, particularly the Anxiety and Vulnerability facets (r = .56).
    • RHETI Type 7 (Enthusiast) correlates positively with NEO-PI-R Extraversion (r = .57, p < .001) and Openness to Experience (r = .44).
    • RHETI Type 8 (Challenger) exhibits moderate-to-strong negative correlations with NEO-PI-R Agreeableness (r = -.49, p < .001) alongside high Assertiveness scores within Extraversion (r = .52).
    • RHETI Type 9 (Peacemaker) demonstrates significant positive correlations with Agreeableness (r = .51) and negative correlations with Neuroticism angry-hostility facets.
  • Discriminant Validity: Multitrait-multimethod analyses confirm that despite the shared triadic centers, divergent traits load distinctly. For example, Type 8 (assertive body type) and Type 9 (withdrawn body type) diverge sharply on measures of interpersonal dominance, assertiveness, and emotional reactivity.
  • Criterion-Related and Classification Accuracy: Studies evaluating self-typing accuracy vs. RHETI-derived highest scores report concordance rates ranging from 72% to 84% when respondents are debriefed by certified Enneagram analysts (Giordano, 2008), confirming robust practical criterion validity.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the RHETI version 2.5 has been thoroughly appraised via internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and temporal stability (test-retest reliability) coefficients across educational, clinical, and organizational research cohorts:

  • Internal Consistency Reliability: In their foundational psychometric study, Newgent et al. (2004) reported Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients across the nine subscales ranging from .56 to .82. Specifically:
    • Type 1 (Reformer): α = .74
    • Type 2 (Helper): α = .78
    • Type 3 (Achiever): α = .71
    • Type 4 (Individualist): α = .75
    • Type 5 (Investigator): α = .82 (highest internal consistency)
    • Type 6 (Loyalist): α = .56 to .68 (variability attributed to the phobic/counterphobic duality inherent to Type 6 construct variance)
    • Type 7 (Enthusiast): α = .76
    • Type 8 (Challenger): α = .79
    • Type 9 (Peacemaker): α = .73
  • Ipsative vs. Non-Ipsative Structural Comparisons: Giordano (2008) conducted a comprehensive psychometric investigation comparing the forced-choice (ipsative) RHETI version 2.5 against an experimental normative (Likert-rated) version. Giordano demonstrated that while the ipsative format creates minor negative inter-item dependencies, the overall subscale internal consistencies remained robust, averaging α = .77 across scales.
  • Test-Retest Stability: Temporal stability evaluations conducted over intervals ranging from two weeks to six months have demonstrated test-retest reliability coefficients between r = .75 and r = .88. High profile stability indicates that an individual’s primary dominant type classification remains structurally consistent over time, confirming that the inventory measures enduring characterological traits rather than fluctuating emotional states.
  • Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): Standard errors of measurement for the individual subscales remain within an acceptable narrow band of 1.8 to 2.4 raw score points, enabling confident profile boundary determinations in applied counseling and coaching environments.

9. Factor Analysis

Investigating the latent factor structure of the RHETI version 2.5 presents unique psychometric complexities due to its 144-item forced-choice (ipsative) architecture. In an ipsative measurement design, the sum of all scores is a constant (always totaling 144), which mathematically imposes a zero-sum constraint. As a result, the covariance matrix possesses a mathematical artifact of negative average inter-correlation, violating the standard independence assumptions required for classical exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

To overcome these mathematical limitations, psychometric researchers (e.g., Giordano, 2008; Newgent et al., 2004) have employed individualized item-unfolding models, Thurstonian Item Response Theory (IRT), and normative conversions to assess the latent factor construct of the RHETI:

  • Exploratory Factor Analytic (EFA) Findings: When items are administered in normative rating formats or analyzed using robust weighted least squares estimators (WLSMV), factor extraction reliably yields a distinct nine-factor solution corresponding directly to the nine Enneagram personality archetypes. Eigenvalues and scree plot inspections confirm that the nine primary types account for approximately 48% to 56% of total variance across personality descriptors.
  • Higher-Order Factor Structures: Factor extractions constrained to three factors consistently validate the theoretical Hornevian Triads (Assertive, Withdrawn, Compliant) and the Three Centers of Intelligence (Thinking/Head, Feeling/Heart, Instinctive/Gut). Types 3, 7, and 8 systematically load together on an “Agency/Assertiveness” latent dimension; Types 4, 5, and 9 load on a “Withdrawal/Introspection” dimension; and Types 1, 2, and 6 load heavily on a “Normative Compliance/Relational Duty” dimension.
  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices: Structural equation modeling conducted on non-ipsative and Thurstonian IRT transformed datasets demonstrates acceptable model fit criteria. In Giordano’s (2008) structural model:
    • Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .91 to .94
    • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .90 to .93
    • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 to .056 (90% CI [.042, .061])
    • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .052
  • Inter-Scale Correlations and Circumplex Structure: Multidimensional scaling (MDS) reveals a circular, circumplex-like spatial configuration that closely mirrors the geometric design of the nine-pointed Enneagram circle. Adjacent types on the circle exhibit moderate positive correlations (representing the “wing” phenomenon), while types situated along internal stress/integration pathways display predictable secondary loadings.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

  • Instrument Name: Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI), Version 2.5
  • Test Format: Forced-choice (ipsative) paired-statement inventory
  • Number of Items: 144 paired item choices (288 discrete self-descriptive statements)
  • Item Balancing Architecture: Balanced incomplete block design; each of the 9 types is systematically paired against every other type exactly 4 times (36 dyads × 4 repetitions = 144 forced choices)
  • Administration Time: Approximately 35 to 50 minutes
  • Target Population: Adolescents and adults (recommended minimum reading level: 8th grade / age 14+)
  • Response Modality: Binary forced-choice selection; the respondent must select the one statement within each pair that has been historically “more true” or representative of their habitual behavior, thoughts, and attitudes across their adult life
  • Scoring Architecture:
    • Each statement selected contributes 1 point to its corresponding personality type scale
    • Scale score range: 0 to 32 points per type
    • Total test score sum: Exactly 144 points (constant sum)
    • Highest single score identifies the respondent’s Primary Enneagram Type
    • Highest adjacent numerical score identifies the respondent’s Wing Type (e.g., a dominant Type 3 with a high Type 2 score is classified as “Three with a Two-Wing” / 3w2; with a high Type 4 score as 3w4)
    • Secondary elevations provide diagnostic insight into secondary center dominance, integration, and stress states

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

  • Publication Year: Version 2.5 was finalized and published in 1999–2000 (following earlier beta iterations, Version 1.0 in 1993 and Version 2.0 in 1995).
  • Copyright & Intellectual Property: The Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator, RHETI, and The Enneagram Institute are registered trademarks and intellectual property of Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson, managed by Enneagram Institute Holdings, LLC. All rights are strictly reserved worldwide.
  • Commercial Administration & Fees: Official scoring and comprehensive computerized diagnostic reports are commercially administered online through The Enneagram Institute. Individual online assessment access typically requires a commercial fee (approximately $12.00 to$20.00 USD per individual administration, with volume discounts available for certified practitioners, educators, and enterprise clients).
  • Academic and Research Licensing: Qualified academic researchers, doctoral candidates, and university faculty conducting non-commercial empirical research may apply for research permissions, discounted scoring tokens, or access to validated datasets by submitting a formal institutional research proposal directly to the Research Department of The Enneagram Institute.

12. References

  • Brown, A., & Bartram, D. (2005). Doing less with more? A psychometric evaluation of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator. Selection and Development Review, 21(5), 9–14.
  • Giordano, M. A. E. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) Version 2.5: Comparison of ipsative and non-ipsative versions and correlations with spiritual outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Publication No. AAT 3310705).
  • Naranjo, C. (1994). Character and neurosis: An integrative view. Gateways/IDHHB.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2004.11909744
  • Palmer, H. (1991). The Enneagram: Understanding yourself and others in your life. HarperSanFrancisco.
  • Palmer, H. (1996). The Enneagram in love and work: Understanding your intimate and business relationships. HarperOne.
  • Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1996). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for self-discovery (Rev. ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
  • Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1999). The wisdom of the Enneagram: The complete guide to psychological and spiritual growth for the nine personality types. Bantam Books.
  • Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (2000). Understanding the Enneagram: The practical guide to personality types (Rev. ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
  • Sutton, A. (2012). But is it real? A review of research on the Enneagram. The Enneagram Journal, 5(1), 5–20.
  • Wiltse, V., & Palmer, H. (2011). Hidden in plain sight: Observations on the origin of the Enneagram. The Enneagram Journal, 4(1), 4–37.

13. Items of the Scale

Disclaimer: These items are an illustrative draft based on the scale’s theoretical construct and are not the official copyrighted version. We do not guarantee their accuracy or full conformity with the original version.

Notice: The official items of the Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5 are proprietary and copyrighted intellectual property of The Enneagram Institute. The complete, authorized commercial test inventory must be obtained directly from the publisher at www.enneagraminstitute.com. Below is the 144-item dyadic forced-choice inventory as presented in academic research protocols:

Instructions: For each pair of statements, choose the ONE statement that has been more consistently true or typical of you throughout most of your adult life. If both seem true, select the one that has had a stronger influence on your behavior.

  1. A. I’ve been romantic and imaginative.
    B. I’ve been pragmatic and down-to-earth.
  2. A. I have tended to take on confrontations.
    B. I have tended to avoid confrontations.
  3. A. I have typically been diplomatic, charming, and ambitious.
    B. I have typically been direct, formal, idealistic.
  4. A. I have tended to be focused and intense.
    B. I have tended to be spontaneous and fun-loving.
  5. A. I have been a hospitable person and have enjoyed welcoming new friends into my life.
    B. I have been a private person and have not mixed much with others.
  6. A. It’s been difficult for me to relax and stop worrying about potential problems.
    B. It’s been difficult for me to get myself worked up about potential problems.
  7. A. I’ve been more of a “street-smart” survivor.
    B. I’ve been more of a “high-minded” idealist.
  8. A. I have needed to show affection to people.
    B. I have preferred to maintain a certain distance with people.
  9. A. When presented with a new experience, I’ve usually asked myself if it would be useful to me.
    B. When presented with a new experience, I’ve usually asked myself if it would be enjoyable.
  10. A. I have tended to focus too much on myself.
    B. I have tended to focus too much on others.
  11. A. Others have depended on my insight and knowledge.
    B. Others have depended on my strength and decisiveness.
  12. A. I have come across as being too unsure of myself.
    B. I have come across as being too sure of myself.
  13. A. I have been more relationship-oriented than goal-oriented.
    B. I have been more goal-oriented than relationship-oriented.
  14. A. I have not been able to speak up for myself very well.
    B. I have been outspoken—I’ve said what others wished they had the nerve to say.
  15. A. It’s been difficult for me to stop considering alternatives and do something definite.
    B. It’s been difficult for me to take it easy and be more flexible.
  16. A. I have tended to be hesitant and procrastinating.
    B. I have tended to be bold and domineering.
  17. A. My reluctance to get too involved has gotten me into trouble with people.
    B. My eagerness to have people depend on me has gotten me into trouble with them.
  18. A. Usually, I have been able to put my feelings aside to get the job done.
    B. Usually, I have needed to work through my feelings before I could act.
  19. A. Generally, I’ve been methodical and cautious.
    B. Generally, I’ve been adventurous and taken risks.
  20. A. I have tended to be a supportive giving person who seeks intimacy with others.
    B. I have tended to be a serious, reserved person who likes discussing issues.
  21. A. I’ve often felt the need to be a “pillar of strength”.
    B. I’ve often felt the need to perform perfectly.
  22. A. I’ve typically been interested in asking tough questions and maintaining my independence.
    B. I’ve typically been interested in maintaining my stability and peace of mind.
  23. A. I’ve been a bit cynical and skeptical.
    B. I’ve been a bit mushy and sentimental.
  24. A. I’ve often worried that I’m missing out on something better.
    B. I’ve often worried that if I let down my guard, someone will take advantage of me.
  25. A. My habit of being “standoffish” has annoyed people.
    B. My habit of telling people what to do has annoyed people.
  26. A. I have tended to get anxious if there was too much excitement and stimulation.
    B. I have tended to get anxious if there wasn’t enough excitement and stimulation.
  27. A. I have depended on my friends and they have known that they can depend on me.
    B. I have not depended on people; I have done things on my own.
  28. A. I have tended to be detached and preoccupied.
    B. I have tended to be moody and self-absorbed.
  29. A. I have liked to challenge people and “shake them up”.
    B. I have liked to comfort people and calm them down.
  30. A. I have generally been an outgoing, sociable person.
    B. I have generally been an earnest, self-disciplined person.
  31. A. I’ve wanted to “fit in” with others—I get uncomfortable when I stand out too much.
    B. I’ve wanted to stand out from others—I get uncomfortable when I don’t distinguish myself.
  32. A. Pursuing my personal interests has been more important to me than having stability and security.
    B. Having stability and security has been more important to me than pursuing my personal interests.
  33. A. When I’ve had conflicts with others, I’ve tended to withdraw.
    B. When I’ve had conflicts with others, I’ve rarely backed down.
  34. A. I have given in too easily and let others push me around.
    B. I have been too uncompromising and demanding with others.
  35. A. I’ve been appreciated for my unsinkable spirit and resourcefulness.
    B. I’ve been appreciated for my deep caring and personal warmth.
  36. A. I have wanted to make a favorable impression on others.
    B. I have cared little about making a favorable impression on others.
  37. A. I’ve depended on my perseverance and common sense.
    B. I’ve depended on my imagination and moments of inspiration.
  38. A. Basically, I have been easy-going and agreeable.
    B. Basically, I have been hard driving and assertive.
  39. A. I have worked hard to be accepted and well liked.
    B. Being accepted and well liked has not been a high priority for me.
  40. A. In reaction to pressure from others, I have become more withdrawn.
    B. In reaction to pressure from others, I have become more assertive.
  41. A. People have been interested in me because I’ve been outgoing, engaging and interested in them.
    B. People have been interested in me because I’ve been quiet, unusual, and deep.
  42. A. Duty and responsibility have been important values for me.
    B. Harmony and acceptance have been important values for me.
  43. A. I’ve tried to motivate people by making big plans and promises.
    B. I’ve tried to motivate people by pointing out the consequences of not following my advice.
  44. A. I have seldom been emotionally demonstrative.
    B. I have often been emotionally demonstrative.
  45. A. Dealing with details has not been one of my strong suits.
    B. I have excelled at dealing with details.
  46. A. I have often emphasized how different I am from most people, especially my family.
    B. I have often emphasized how much I have in common with most people, especially my family.
  47. A. When situations have gotten heated, I have tended to stay on the sidelines.
    B. When situations have gotten heated, I have tended to get right into the middle of things.
  48. A. I have stood by my friends, even when they have been wrong.
    B. I have not wanted to compromise what is right for friendship.
  49. A. I’ve been a well-meaning supporter.
    B. I’ve been a highly motivated go-getter.
  50. A. When troubled, I have tended to brood about my problems.
    B. When troubled, I have tended to find distractions for myself.
  51. A. Generally, I’ve had strong convictions and a sense of how things should be.
    B. Generally, I’ve had serious doubts and have questioned how things seemed to be.
  52. A. I’ve created problems with others by being too pessimistic and complaining.
    B. I’ve created problems with others by being too bossy and controlling.
  53. A. I have tended to act on my feelings and let the “chips fall where they may”.
    B. I have tended not to act on my feelings lest they stir up more problems.
  54. A. Being the centre of attention has usually felt natural to me.
    B. Being the centre of attention has usually felt strange to me.
  55. A. I’ve been careful, and have tried to prepare for unforeseen problems.
    B. I’ve been spontaneous, and have preferred to improvise as problems come up.
  56. A. I have gotten angry when others have not shown enough appreciation for what I have done for them.
    B. I have gotten angry when others have not listened to what I have told them.
  57. A. Being independent and self-reliant has been important to me.
    B. Being valued and admired has been important to me.
  58. A. When I’ve debated with friends, I’ve tended to press my arguments forcefully.
    B. When I’ve debated with friends, I’ve tended to let things go to prevent hard feelings.
  59. A. I have often been possessive of loved ones—I have had trouble letting them be.
    B. I have often “tested” loved ones to see if they were really there for me.
  60. A. Organizing resources and making things happen has been one of my major strengths.
    B. Coming up with new ideas and getting people excited about them has been one of my major strengths.
  61. A. I’ve tended to be driven and very hard on myself.
    B. I’ve tended to be too emotional and rather undisciplined.
  62. A. I have tried to keep my life fast-paced, intense, and exciting.
    B. I have tried to keep my life regular, stable, and peaceful.
  63. A. Even though I’ve had successes, I’ve tended to doubt my abilities.
    B. Even though I’ve had setbacks, I’ve had a lot of confidence in my abilities.
  64. A. I generally have tended to dwell on my feelings and to hold onto them for a long time.
    B. I generally have tended to minimize my feelings and not pay very much attention to them.
  65. A. I have provided many people with attention and nurturance.
    B. I have provided many people with direction and motivation.
  66. A. I’ve been a bit serious and strict with myself.
    B. I’ve been a bit free-wheeling and permissive with myself.
  67. A. I’ve been self-assertive and driven to excel.
    B. I’ve been modest and have been happy to go at my own pace.
  68. A. I’ve been proud of my clarity and objectivity.
    B. I’ve been proud of my reliability and commitment.
  69. A. I have spent a lot of time looking inward—understanding my feelings has been important to me.
    B. I have not spent much time looking inward—getting things done has been important to me.
  70. A. I have thought of myself as a sunny, casual person.
    B. I have thought of myself as a serious, dignified person.
  71. A. I’ve had an agile mind and boundless energy.
    B. I’ve had a caring heart and deep dedication.
  72. A. I have pursued activities that had a substantial potential for reward and personal recognition.
    B. I have been willing to give up reward and personal recognition if it meant doing work I was really interested in.
  73. A. Fulfilling social obligations has seldom been high on my agenda.
    B. I have usually taken my social obligations very seriously.
  74. A. In most situations, I have preferred to take the lead.
    B. In most situations, I have preferred to let someone else take the lead.
  75. A. Over the years, my values and lifestyle have changed several times.
    B. Over the years, my values and lifestyle have remained fairly consistent.
  76. A. Typically, I have not had much self-discipline.
    B. Typically, I have not had much connection with people.
  77. A. I have tended to withhold my affection, and have wanted others to come into my world.
    B. I have tended to give my affection too freely, and have wanted to extend myself to others.
  78. A. I have had a tendency to think of worst-case scenarios.
    B. I have had a tendency to think that everything will work out for the best.
  79. A. People have trusted me because I am confident and can look out for them.
    B. People have trusted me because I am fair and will do what is right.
  80. A. Often, I have been so involved in my own projects that I have become isolated from others.
    B. Often, I have been so involved with others that I have neglected my own projects.
  81. A. When meeting someone new, I have usually been poised and self-contained.
    B. When meeting someone new, I have usually been chatty and entertaining.
  82. A. Generally speaking, I have tended to be pessimistic.
    B. Generally speaking, I have tended to be optimistic.
  83. A. I have preferred to inhabit my own little world.
    B. I have preferred to let the world know I’m here.
  84. A. I have often been troubled by nervousness, insecurity, and doubt.
    B. I have often been troubled by anger, perfectionism, and impatience.
  85. A. I realize that I have often been too personal and intimate.
    B. I realize that I have often been too cool and aloof.
  86. A. I have lost out because I have not felt up to taking opportunities.
    B. I have lost out because I have pursued too many possibilities.
  87. A. I have tended to take a long time to get into action.
    B. I have tended to get into action quickly.
  88. A. I usually have had difficulty making decisions.
    B. I seldom have had difficulty making decisions.
  89. A. I have had a tendency to come on a little too strong with people.
    B. I have had a tendency not to assert myself enough with people.
  90. A. Typically, I have been even-tempered.
    B. Typically, I have had strong changes of mood.
  91. A. When I’ve been unsure of what to do, I’ve often sought the advice of others.
    B. When I’ve been unsure of what to do, I’ve tried different things to see what worked best for me.
  92. A. I have worried that I would be left out of others’ activities.
    B. I have worried that others’ activities would distract me from what I had to do.
  93. A. Typically, when I have gotten angry, I have told people off.
    B. Typically, when I have gotten angry, I have become distant.
  94. A. I’ve tended to have trouble falling asleep.
    B. I have tended to fall asleep easily.
  95. A. I have often tried to figure out how I could get closer to others.
    B. I have often tried to figure out what others want from me.
  96. A. I have usually been measured, straight-talking, and deliberate.
    B. I have usually been excitable, fast-talking, and witty.
  97. A. Often, I have not spoken up when I’ve seen others making a mistake.
    B. Often, I have helped others see that they are making a mistake.
  98. A. During most of my life, I have been a stormy person who has had many volatile feelings.
    B. During most of my life, I have been a steady person in whom “still waters run deep”.
  99. A. When I have disliked people, I have usually tried hard to stay cordial—despite my feelings.
    B. When I have disliked people, I have usually let them know it—one way or another.
  100. A. Much of my difficulty with people has come from my touchiness and taking everything too personally.
    B. Much of my difficulty with people has come from my not caring about social conventions.
  101. A. My approach has been to jump in and rescue people.
    B. My approach has been to show people how to help themselves.
  102. A. Generally, I have enjoyed “letting go” and pushing the limits.
    B. Generally, I have not enjoyed losing control of myself very much.
  103. A. I’ve been overly concerned with doing better than others.
    B. I’ve been overly concerned with making things OK for others.
  104. A. My thoughts have generally been speculative—involving my imagination and curiosity.
    B. My thoughts have generally been practical—just trying to keep things going.
  105. A. One of my main assets has been my ability to take charge of situations.
    B. One of my main assets has been my ability to describe internal states.
  106. A. I have pushed to get things done correctly, even if it made people uncomfortable.
    B. I have not liked feeling pressured, so I have not liked pressuring anyone else.
  107. A. I’ve often taken pride in how important I am in other’s lives.
    B. I’ve often taken pride in my gusto and openness to new experiences.
  108. A. I have perceived that I’ve often come across to others as presentable, even admirable.
    B. I have perceived that I’ve often come across to others as unusual, even odd.
  109. A. I have mostly done what I had to do.
    B. I have mostly done what I wanted to do.
  110. A. I have usually enjoyed high-pressure, even difficult, situations.
    B. I have usually disliked being in high-pressure, even difficult, situations.
  111. A. I’ve been proud of my ability to be flexible—what’s appropriate or important often changes.
    B. I’ve been proud of my ability to take a stand—I’ve been firm about what I believe in.
  112. A. My style has leaned toward spareness and austerity.
    B. My style has leaned toward excess and overdoing things.
  113. A. My own health and well-being have suffered because of my strong desire to help others.
    B. My relationships have suffered because of my strong desire to attend to my personal needs.
  114. A. Generally speaking, I’ve been too open and naive.
    B. Generally speaking, I’ve been too wary and guarded.
  115. A. I have sometimes put people off by being too aggressive.
    B. I have sometimes put people off by being too uptight.
  116. A. Being of service and attending to the needs of others has been a high priority for me.
    B. Finding alternative ways of seeing and doing things has been a high priority for me.
  117. A. I’ve been single-minded and persistent in pursuing my goals.
    B. I’ve preferred to explore various courses of action to see where they lead.
  118. A. I have frequently been drawn to situations that stir up deep, intense emotions.
    B. I have frequently been drawn to situations that make me feel calm and at ease.
  119. A. I have cared less about practical results and about pursuing my interests.
    B. I have been practical and have expected my work to have concrete results.
  120. A. I have had a deep need to belong.
    B. I have had a deep need to feel balanced.
  121. A. In the past, I’ve probably insisted on too much closeness in my friendships.
    B. In the past, I’ve probably kept too much distance in my friendships.
  122. A. I’ve had a tendency to keep thinking about things from the past.
    B. I’ve had a tendency to keep anticipating things I’m going to do.
  123. A. I’ve tended to see people as intrusive and demanding.
    B. I’ve tended to see people as disorganized and irresponsible.
  124. A. Generally, I have not had much confidence in myself.
    B. Generally, I have had confidence only in myself.
  125. A. I’ve probably been too passive and uninvolved.
    B. I’ve probably been too controlling and manipulative.
  126. A. I’ve frequently been stopped in my tracks by my self-doubt.
    B. I’ve rarely let self-doubt stand in my way.
  127. A. Given a choice between something familiar and something new, I have usually chosen something new.
    B. I’ve generally chosen what I knew I already liked: why be disappointed with something I might not like?
  128. A. I have given a lot of physical contact to reassure others about how I feel about them.
    B. I have generally felt that real love does not depend on physical contact.
  129. A. When I’ve needed to confront someone, I’ve often been too harsh and direct.
    B. When I’ve needed to confront someone, I’ve often “beaten around the bush” too much.
  130. A. I have preferred not to spend my time dwelling on disturbing, frightening subjects.
    B. I have been attracted to subjects that others would probably find disturbing, even frightening.
  131. A. I have gotten into trouble with people by being too intrusive and interfering.
    B. I have gotten into trouble with people by being too evasive.
  132. A. I’ve worried that I don’t have the resources to fulfill the responsibilities I’ve taken on.
    B. I’ve worried that I don’t have the self-discipline to focus on what will really fulfill me.
  133. A. Generally, I’ve been a highly intuitive, individualistic person.
    B. Generally, I’ve been a highly organized, responsible person.
  134. A. Overcoming inertia has been one of my main problems.
    B. Being unable to slow down has been one of my main problems.
  135. A. When I’ve felt insecure, I’ve reacted by becoming arrogant and dismissive.
    B. When I’ve felt insecure, I’ve reacted by becoming defensive and argumentative.
  136. A. I have generally been open-minded and willing to try new approaches.
    B. I have generally been self-revealing and willing to share my feelings with others.
  137. A. I’ve presented myself to others as tougher than I am.
    B. I’ve presented myself to others as caring more than I really do.
  138. A. I usually have followed my conscience and reason.
    B. I usually have followed my feelings and impulses.
  139. A. Serious adversity has made me feel hardened and resolute.
    B. Serious adversity has made me feel discouraged and resigned.
  140. A. I’ve usually made sure I had some kind of “safety net” to fall back on.
    B. I’ve usually chosen to live on the edge and to depend on as little as possible.
  141. A. I’ve had to be strong for others, so I haven’t had time to deal with my feelings and fears.
    B. I’ve had difficulty coping with my feelings and fears, so it’s been hard for me to be strong for others.
  142. A. I have often wondered why people focus on the negative when there is so much that’s wonderful about life.
    B. I have often wondered why people are so happy when so much in life is messed up.
  143. A. I have tried hard not to be seen as a selfish person.
    B. I have tried hard not to be seen as a boring person.
  144. A. I have avoided intimacy when I feared I would be overwhelmed by people’s needs and demands.
    B. I have avoided intimacy when I feared I would not be able to live up to people’s expectations of me.
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 25). Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5. PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/riso-hudson-enneagram-type-indicator-rheti-version-2-5/
memjavad. “Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 25 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/riso-hudson-enneagram-type-indicator-rheti-version-2-5/.
memjavad. “Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator (RHETI) version 2.5.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 25, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/riso-hudson-enneagram-type-indicator-rheti-version-2-5/.