Take the Assessment
Compare Frameworks

Icosa vs Holland Codes (RIASEC)

Holland Codes capture 80% of Icosa's structural information, with a unique characteristic: domain coverage (80%) exceeds capacity coverage (60%), making this the most domain-informative comparison in the family.

Icosa
80% Capture Rate 126 Types Full + Three-Letter Codes

Overview

John L. Holland developed his theory of vocational personalities and work environments through the 1950s–1970s, culminating in the RIASEC model published in Making Vocational Choices (1973, revised 1985, 1997). The six types — Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional — are arranged hexagonally, with adjacent types sharing more characteristics and opposite types being most dissimilar (R↔S, I↔E, A↔C). The model is widely used in career counseling and has substantial empirical support for vocational prediction.

Holland’s framework occupies a unique position in Icosa’s comparison family. It is the only framework where domain coverage (80%) exceeds capacity coverage (60%) in Icosa’s structural mapping. This inversion reflects Holland’s explicit focus on life-domain engagement — where a person directs their energy — rather than how they engage (the capacity layer). For clinicians working with vocational identity, occupational stress, or meaning-making in career contexts, the Holland comparison provides domain-specific anchoring unavailable in other frameworks.

What This Framework Captures

Holland Codes capture approximately 80% of Icosa’s structural information with an unusual domain-heavy weighting. Coverage weights:

  • Capacities: 60% — Holland types partially constrain Icosa capacities. Realistic→V+ over, Investigative→F+ over with O+ moderate, Artistic→O+ over, Social→B+ over, Enterprising→V+ over with O+ moderate, Conventional→F+ over. The mapping is functional but less precise than DISC or Big Five at the capacity level.
  • Domains: 80% — Unusually high. Holland types map meaningfully onto Icosa’s five domains: Realistic→Physical, Investigative→Mental, Artistic→Emotional+Spiritual, Social→Relational, Enterprising→Relational, Conventional→Mental. This is the most domain-informative comparison in Icosa’s comparison family.
  • Coherence: 30% — Holland’s framework was not designed to measure psychological integration. Investigative and Conventional types tend toward higher coherence expectations empirically, but this is not theorized.
  • Traps: 10% — Not represented.
  • Gateways: 5% — Not represented.

What This Framework Misses

Relational depth. Holland’s Social type maps to Relational domain emphasis and Bond capacity, but the depth of relational patterning — attachment style, relational trap risk, dyadic dynamics — is not modeled. Social type describes where a person engages relationally, not how or at what depth.

Spiritual domain specificity. Artistic type partially overlaps with Spiritual domain (meaning-making, transcendence, aesthetic connection to something larger), but this is implicit rather than measured. Spiritual domain assessment requires Icosa or a dedicated instrument.

Coherence and integration. Holland’s hexagonal model provides information about occupational fit and likely interest patterns, but nothing about the degree to which a person’s capacities are integrated. A person scoring high Artistic may have high Open capacity either in a centered (coherent, creative) or fragmented (scattered, trap-adjacent) state.

Trap patterns. The hexagonal model does not model pathological attractors or oscillation dynamics.

Physical domain beyond vocational expression. Holland’s Realistic type captures physical domain engagement in a vocational sense (working with hands, tools, machines) but does not address the somatic dimension of the Physical domain as Icosa operationalizes it (physical self-awareness, body-based regulation).

Confidence Methodology

Base confidence: 0.80. This reflects strong domain mapping combined with moderate capacity mapping. The unusual domain>capacity weighting makes this comparison particularly valuable for domain-specific clinical applications.

Per-type confidence range: 0.80–0.84. Types vary:

  • Social: 0.84 (clearest single-type mapping: B+ over with R+ domain)
  • Conventional: 0.82 (F+ over with M+ domain, clean mapping)
  • Investigative: 0.83 (F+O+ with M+ domain)
  • Realistic: 0.82 (V+ with P+ domain, strong physical anchor)
  • Artistic: 0.80 (O+ with E+S domains, spiritual ambiguity)
  • Enterprising: 0.81 (V+ with R+ domain, moderate complexity)

120 three-letter Holland codes are fully implemented. All P(6,3) = 120 ordered permutations of the six RIASEC types are available, with 50/30/20 primary/secondary/tertiary blending weights. Order matters: RIA (Realistic primary) produces a different profile than IRA (Investigative primary). Confidence is modulated by hexagon distance between the three component types:

  • All-adjacent triplets (e.g., RIA, ISA): highest confidence (~0.90× primary)
  • Mixed-adjacency triplets: moderate confidence (~0.87× primary)
  • Triplets containing opposite pairs (e.g., RAS with R↔S): lowest confidence (~0.83× primary)

Coverage Matrix

Icosa DimensionHolland CoverageNotes
Open capacity70%Artistic and Investigative
Move capacity75%Enterprising and Realistic
Focus capacity80%Investigative and Conventional
Bond capacity70%Social type
Physical domain90%Realistic type direct analog
Emotional domain65%Artistic type
Mental domain85%Investigative and Conventional
Relational domain80%Social and Enterprising
Spiritual domain50%Artistic (implicit)
Coherence30%Not directly represented
Traps10%Not represented
Gateways5%Not represented

Type-by-Type Mapping

Holland CodePrimary Icosa MappingConfidenceCoherence Range
Realistic (R)V+ over (0.75), F+ centered, O+ under, P+ domain (0.90)0.8250–80
Investigative (I)F+ over (0.85), O+ over (0.60), V+ under, M+ domain (0.90)0.8350–85
Artistic (A)O+ over (0.90), V+ moderate, F+ under, E+ domain (0.75), S+ domain (0.80)0.8040–80
Social (S)B+ over (0.90), O+ over (0.60), V+ moderate, R+ domain (0.90), E+ domain (0.60)0.8455–85
Enterprising (E)V+ over (0.90), O+ moderate, F+ moderate, B+ centered, R+ domain (0.70)0.8150–85
Conventional (C)F+ over (0.90), B+ centered, O+ under, V+ under, M+ domain (0.75)0.8255–85

Capacity key: O=Open, V=Move, F=Focus, B=Bond. Domain key: P=Physical, E=Emotional, M=Mental, R=Relational, S=Spiritual.

Three-Letter Code Examples

All 120 ordered three-letter codes are available in the assessment tool. Below are representative examples showing how blending modulates the primary type’s profile:

CodePrimarySecTertConfidenceKey Shifts from Primary
RIARealisticInvestigativeArtistic0.74Adds F+ and O+ to R’s V+P+ base
RIERealisticInvestigativeEnterprising0.74Adds F+ analytical focus, maintains V+
ASEArtisticSocialEnterprising0.72Adds B+ and V+ to A’s O+E+ base
SERSocialEnterprisingRealistic0.76Adds V+ and P+ to S’s B+R+ base
ECSEnterprisingConventionalSocial0.73Adds F+ structure and B+ to E’s V+ base
IARInvestigativeArtisticRealistic0.75Adds O+ and P+ to I’s F+M+ base
CRIConventionalRealisticInvestigative0.74Adjacent triplet; all F+/V+ oriented
SACSocialArtisticConventional0.68Contains S↔C opposite; widest range
RESRealisticEnterprisingSocial0.69Contains R↔S opposite pair
IECInvestigativeEnterprisingConventional0.69Contains I↔E opposite pair

Hexagon distance key: Adjacent types (distance 1) share capacity emphases; opposite types (distance 3: R↔S, I↔E, A↔C) pull in opposite capacity directions, reducing confidence.

Bidirectional Translation

Holland → Icosa proceeds by mapping the primary Holland code to its domain anchor first (unique among Icosa comparisons — domains lead, capacities follow). This inverts the usual translation order. For example, a Social (S) profile establishes R+ domain emphasis first, then constrains capacity structure: high B+ required, V+ and O+ likely elevated, F+ less specified.

The 30% reverse discount applies for Holland → Icosa translation, reflecting the substantial portion of Icosa’s state space (coherence, traps, gateways, center oscillations) that Holland codes do not inform.

Icosa → Holland works by domain projection. An Icosa profile with P+ domain dominant projects to Realistic; M+ dominant to Investigative; E+S dominant to Artistic; R+ dominant to Social or Enterprising (distinguished by V+ level); M+ with F+ to Conventional. Mixed domain profiles produce Holland code blends.

Known Gaps

Two-letter codes not separately implemented. Holland’s three-letter code system supersedes the older two-letter convention. Any two-letter combination (e.g., RI) can be assessed by using a three-letter code with the strongest available tertiary (e.g., RIA, RIE, RIC). The three-letter system provides more precise mapping with explicit tertiary weighting.

Somatic dimension of Physical domain. Icosa’s Physical domain includes body awareness, somatic regulation, and physical self-knowledge that extends beyond Holland’s vocational application of the Realistic type. This nuance is lost in the translation.

Research Basis

  • Holland, J.L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35–45.
  • Holland, J.L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
  • Holland, J.L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
  • Rounds, J., & Tracey, T.J. (1993). Prediger’s dimensional representation of Holland’s RIASEC circumplex. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 875–890.
  • Icosa Validation Study (2026). Holland-to-Icosa structural mapping: domain correlation analysis. R→Physical r=0.83, I→Mental r=0.81, S→Relational r=0.80, A→Emotional+Spiritual r=0.74.

Interactive Explorer

Select a Holland Codes (RIASEC) type below to see which Icosa centers it maps to. Switch between views to explore capacity targets, domain emphasis, and structural blind spots.

Highlighted rows show capacity targets for this type

Artistic

Creative, expressive, unconventional. Prefers working with forms, designs, patterns. Values self-expression and meaning.

Translation Confidence
80%
Dimension Coverage
Capacities
60%
Domains
80%
Coherence
30%
Traps
10%
Gateways
5%
Mapped Targets (18/20 centers)
Capacities
OpennessOver90%
VitalityOver65%
FocusUnder45%
Domains
EmotionalOver75%
SpiritualOver80%
MentalOver50%
Structural Blind Spots
  • Relational depth beyond surface style
  • Spiritual domain (not addressed)
  • Trap patterns (not modeled)
  • Coherence dynamics (not addressed)
Expected Coherence Range
40% – 80%

See how your profile translates

Take the Assessment →