Chapter 7
The Trait Approach
to Personality
Key themes
The history of trait approaches to personality
Defining traits
Lexical hypothesis approach to personality traits
The contribution of Gordon Allport
Raymond Cattell and the Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory
Hans Eysenck and the three-factor structure
The Big Five
Evaluating trait approaches
Learning outcomes
After studying this chapter you should:
Be able to describe the nomothetic approach to personality
research
Appreciate the long history of attempts to describe and
explain differences in personality
Understand what is meant by the lexical hypothesis
Be familiar with the approach to data analysis employed by
trait theorists
Be aware of the contribution of Gordon Allport to the trait
approach
Appreciate the contribution of Raymond Cattell to the trait
approach
Know about Hans Eysenck’s attempts to uncover the basic
structure of personality
Understand the approaches that have resulted in the
identification of the Big Five personality traits
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:44 PM Page 154
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 155
Easygoing, intelligent, funny, caring, professional
man, aged 44, good in a crisis, seeks
warm, friendly, intelligent woman of a similar
age. Enjoys good food, wine, cinema and
theatre.
Vibrant, charismatic, passionate, energetic
sportswoman, aged 32, loves all outdoor activities,
foreign travel, cooking, reading and gardening
seeks country-dwelling male with similar
interests.
At this point, you may be wondering what lonelyhearts
advertisements are doing in a textbook on personality.
However, we want you to think about the image
of the individuals that these advertisements convey.
Most of us are good at doing this; from a short description
of an individual, we can build up a mental picture of
them and make decisions about which individuals we
are attracted to and might like to meet and which hold
no appeal for us. What we are doing is using our knowledge
of personality traits to build up an image of the
person from their description. We have highlighted the
Introduction
words that label personality traits in the advertisements
above, and it is worth taking a moment to reflect on
what you understand by each of them and how you
value them. Is the picture of a vibrant, charismatic, passionate,
energetic woman one you value you positively
or one you find unappealing?
What these types of adverts suggest is that from a
few personality traits and statements about interests,
we may be able to build up an image of the individual.
This in effect is what trait personality theorists aim to
do, but in a more rigorous, scientific way. Traits theorists
employ the nomothetic approach to personality that
we covered in Chapter 1. The aim is to identify those
personality variables or traits that occur consistently
across groups of people. Each individual can then be
located within this set of variables. The aim is to identify
the main traits that usefully distinguish between types of
people. In achieving this, they hope to uncover the
basic structure of personality. As you may recall from
Chapter 1, this is one of the major aims of studying
human personality. It is a major undertaking, and we will
now explore the progress that has been made, starting
with the Ancient Greeks.
Source: Photodisc/Getty Images
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:44 PM Page 155
156 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Emergence of
personality traits
The Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384–322 BC),
provides the first written description of personality traits,
or dispositions as he preferred to call them. He described
individual differences in traits such as modesty, bravery
and vanity, seeing them as important determinants of
whether a person behaved ethically. One of his students,
Theophrastus (371–287 BC), published an account of 30
personality characters or types. These were early attempts
to describe the commonly acknowledged differences between
individuals and to identify individuals with similar
dispositions. The task can be thought of as putting some
order or structure into our everyday observations so that
they are easier to conceptualise and discuss.
Another Ancient Greek philosopher, Hippocrates
(460–377 BC), described physical illness as being caused by
the balance of bodily fluids, or humours as he labelled
them. These fluids included blood, black bile, yellow bile
and phlegm. Another Ancient Greek, a physician named
Galen (AD 130–200), expanded on Hippocrates’ theory of
the humours and applied it to describe human temperament
or personality (Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991). When
the humours were in balance, an equitable temperament
was the result. If the humours were out of balance, then
physical illness and mental disturbance occurred. The
terms Galen used to describe these mental disturbances are
still part of the English language. An excess of black bile
resulted in a melancholic temperament, associated with
depressed mood and feelings of anxiety. Strong activity in
the body fluids resulted in an individual with strong emotions
described as being of choleric temperament,
meaning that they had a tendency to easily become angry.
Individuals of phlegmatic temperament were calm, as
there was low humorous activity, while individuals of
sanguine temperament were confident and optimistic.
In the Middle Ages the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724–1804) revisited the humoural temperaments
and produced a description of four personality types.
These were based on the strength of the individual’s feelings
and how active the person was. Melancholic individuals
had weak feelings, while sanguine individuals had
strong feelings. Phlegmatic individuals had low levels of
activity, while choleric individuals had much higher levels
of activity.
These early writers all described types of personality
rather than personality traits. This is an important distinction.
Personality types describe discrete categories into
which individuals can be placed. Personality traits are continuous
dimensions, and individuals can be positioned
along the dimension depending on how much of the trait
they possess.
It was Wilhelm Wundt, the founding father of modernday
psychology, who changed the categorical types of personality
into trait dimensions. He revisited the humoural
terms in his description of personality, reclassifying the
old types in two dimensions based on their mood stability
and the strength of their emotions. Individuals could then
be placed along the dimensions of mood stability and
strength of emotions rather than being simply placed in
one category. Wundt’s classification system is displayed in
Figure 7.1.
It is true to say that little progress was made in terms of
classifying personality traits from the time of the Ancient
Greeks to the middle of the nineteenth century, when the
clinical theories emerged – as we have already seen in
Emotional
Emotional dimension
Changeability
dimension
Unchangeable Changeable
Unemotional
Figure 7.1 Wundt’s emotionality and changeability dimensions of personality.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:44 PM Page 156
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 157
Chapter 1. The reason for the delay in the emergence of
trait theories is easily understandable. There are a huge
number of terms in all languages to describe personality
traits. For trait approaches to personality to develop scientifically,
some systematic way of structuring these terms
and identifying the common dimensions underlying them
was necessary. It was the invention of statistical techniques
such as correlation and factor analysis that made this possible,
as we shall see.
Defining personality traits
Up until now, we have used the term ‘trait’ to describe personality.
We are sure you have understood what we have
been saying, but we should begin this section with a definition
of exactly what psychologists mean by a personality
trait. Frequently, terms that have a very specific meaning
in psychology are also part of our everyday language. This
can result in some confusion about the precise meaning of
terms; hence psychology’s obsession with defining the
terms that we use. According to Burger (1997), ‘A trait is a
dimension of personality used to categorise people according
to the degree to which they manifest a particular
characteristic.’
Two assumptions underlie trait theory. The first assumption
is that personality characteristics are relatively
stable over time; the second is that traits show stability
across situations. A person’s behaviour may alter on different
occasions, but the assumption is that there is some internal
consistency in the ways that individuals behave. For
example, someone who is described as an extravert may be
very outgoing and chatty at a party but less so in a psychology
seminar. In both situations, they are likely to be
more sociable than an introverted individual. We also
assume that personality traits influence behaviour. The
person is outgoing and chatty because they are an extravert.
These are somewhat circular arguments, and the
psychologist has to move beyond them. Trait theorists
have to be able to make a distinction between the internal
qualities of the individual and the way they behave. The
causal relationship between the two then has to be explained
if we are to avoid circular arguments. To say that
individuals become angry easily because they have an
angry disposition does not get us very far. We need to
know where their angry disposition has come from and
how it influences their day-to-day behaviour.
It follows logically from the trait approach that trait
theorists are more interested in general descriptions of
behaviour than in understanding the individual and making
predictions about individual behaviour. They take the
trait continuum and provide descriptions of how groups
of people at different points on the continuum might be
expected to behave. For example, they might compare a
group high in aggression with a group with low scores on
the same trait and observe how they behave in a debate.
They are interested in typical group behaviour. It is frequently
a descriptive rather than an explanatory approach.
Some trait theorists are more interested in
describing personality and predicting behaviour than in
identifying what caused the behaviour. This can lead to
circular reasoning. An individual is said to behave in a
certain way because they are an anxious person. When
asked to explain why an individual is anxious, the
response is that they are anxious because they have behaved
in a certain way. Increasingly, however, the identification
processes are only the first stage. Trait theorists are
becoming more interested in providing explanations for
behaviour. Trait approaches make it relatively easy to
make comparisons among people; individuals can be
placed on a continuum relative to others, and groups can
also be compared. However, trait theorists have little to
say about personality change. The theorists with an interest
in personality change have come from a clinical background,
while trait theorists are more likely to be
academic psychologists.
To recap, within psychology, traits are considered the
fundamental units of personality. They represent dispositions
to respond in certain ways. For a long time, there
were arguments about how much the situation influenced
the individual’s behaviour and how much was
down to their personality traits. It is now generally
accepted that while situational factors will affect behaviour,
dispositional effects on that behaviour will still be
observable. Mischel (1999) has produced an elegant definition
of a personality trait that incorporates this. He
suggests that a trait is the ‘conditional probability of a
category of behaviours in a category of contexts’. Hence,
if a person is an extravert, then degrees of extraverted behaviour
will be observable from that person in a variety
of situations.
The development of trait theories
within psychology
During the rest of this chapter we are going to take you
through the development and establishment of the core
trait theories of personality in psychology. These include
the work of:
Sheldon
Early lexical approaches
Allport
Cattell
Eysenck
The five-factor model.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:44 PM Page 157
158 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Sheldon and somatypes
Although the psychoanalyst Jung (Chapter 3) introduced the
terms‘extraversion’and‘introversion’, the real founding figure
of trait psychology is considered to be an American psychologist,William
Sheldon (1899–1977). He outlined what came to
be a very well-known description of personality called somatypes,which
is based on physique and temperament.From
his surveys of thousands of individuals, he concluded that
there are three basic types of physique: endomorphy, mesomorphy
and ectomorphy (Sheldon, 1970). Using correlational
techniques, he demonstrated that each body type was
associated with a particular temperament. A summary of his
theory is displayed in Table 7.1.
While accepting that everyone had the same internal organs,
Sheldon felt that individuals were different in terms of
which organs were most prominent in their bodies and thus
where their body’s focus lay. Table 7.1 represents the
extremes of each type, but Sheldon produced a detailed atlas
of male body types where bodies were matched against these
extremes using a seven-point grading scale. He planned a
similar female body atlas, but this was never produced. You
may still come across descriptions of Sheldon’s body types in
popular texts. In terms of personality theorising, Sheldon’s
work was important as it marked the start of the utilisation
of psychometric approaches to the study of personality. He
carried out extensive surveys of large populations, collected
different measures from individuals using questionnaires
and applied statistical techniques to the analysis of his data.
Early lexical approaches to
personality and the lexical
hypothesis
Several of the early researchers used dictionaries or Roget’s
Thesaurus to try to identify and count the number of
words that describe personality traits. Sir Francis Galton
(1822–1911) was an Englishman who is best known for his
early studies on genetic influences on intelligence, but he
was also interested in the relationships between language
and personality. He suggested that the most meaningful
personality descriptors will tend to become encoded in
language as single words. Galton (1884) provides the first
documented source of a dictionary and/or thesaurus
being used to elicit words describing personality.
This approach has come to be known as the lexical hypothesis.
It suggests that it is the individual differences between
people that are important that become encoded as
single terms. This appears to be a sensible assumption.
Two additional criteria are included in the lexical hypothesis.
First, frequency of use is also assumed to correspond
with importance. Again, it seems logical that the words we
use most to describe personality will be labelling the
aspects of personality that we think are most important.
Secondly, the number of words in a language that refer to
each trait will be related to how important that trait is in
describing human personality. An example from a thesaurus
is included in Table 7.2 to help clarify what we
mean. From the table, you can see that the personality
descriptor ‘honest’ has 31 synonyms listed, suggesting that
it is a more important descriptor of personality than the
word ‘aberrant’, which is not listed in the Oxford Concise
Thesaurus (1999). Similarly, the word ‘warm’ describes a
more useful descriptor of personality than ‘pedantic’ does.
Table 7.1 Sheldon’s theory of physique and temperament.
Physique Temperament
Focus on part of body Physique Temperament Description
Ectomorph Nervous system and
the brain
Light-boned with a
slight musculature
Cerebrotonia A need for privacy,
restrained, inhibited
Mesomorph Musculature and the
circulatory system
Large, bony with
well-defined
muscles
Somatotonia Physically assertive, competitive,
keen on physical
activity
Endomorph Digestive system,
particularly the
stomach
Rounded body
tending towards
fatness
Visceratonia Associated with a love of
relaxation and comfort; like
food and are sociable
While most of the early work was conducted on the
English language, it is assumed that if the lexical hypothesis
is a valid theory, then it should apply cross-culturally
(Norman, 1963). This is the final assumption of the lexical
hypothesis. We will return to the cross-cultural question
later in the chapter. To summarise, it states that if individual
differences between people are important, there will be
words to describe them; the more frequently a personality
descriptor is used, the more important the personality
characteristic; and finally, the more synonyms of the word
there are, the more important the difference.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:44 PM Page 158
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 159
Table 7.2 Evidence for the lexical hypothesis.
Personality descriptor Synonyms Number
Gordon Allport
Initially, lexical researchers were limited to counting the
terms used, identifying synonyms, and producing lists of
these words. One of the first psychologists to produce such a
list was the American Gordon Allport (1897–1967). With a
colleague, he identified 18,000 words, of which 4,500
described personality traits (Allport and Odbert, 1936). Allport
published the first psychology text on personality traits,
Personality Traits: Their Classification and Measurement
(1921), and he is believed to have taught the first course on
personality in the United States in 1924. While promoting
the concept of personality traits, Allport (1961) was quite
clear about the limitations of the trait approach. He felt that
it was almost impossible to use an individual’s personality
traits to predict how they will behave in a specific situation.
He acknowledged that there is variability in everyone’s behaviour,
but that there is also some constancy. Personality
traits constitute this constant portion of behaviour. He suggested
that personality traits have a physical presence in our
nervous systems. He suggested that advances in technology
would one day enable psychologists to identify personality
traits from inspection of the nervous system.
Although interested in traits, Allport adopted a unified
approach to personality, suggesting that it is the way that
the component traits come together that is important. It is
how the traits come together that produces the uniqueness
of all individuals, which he was keen to stress. Together,
these traits produce a unified personality that is capable of
constant evolution and change. Allport felt that change is a
component part of the personality system that is necessary
to allow us to adapt to new situations and grow to cope
with them. He adopted a very positive conceptualisation of
human nature. He suggested that human beings are normally
rational, creative, active and self-reliant. This was a
very different view of human nature from the Freudian one
that was dominant at the time.
Allport made the distinction between nomothetic and
idiographic approaches to the study of personality. We covered
this distinction in Chapter 1, but we have included a
reminder of these terms in Stop and think: Nomothetic
and idiographic approach, as this is an important distinction
that you need to be familiar with. Allport felt that
both approaches bring unique insights into our understanding
of personality. He felt that the nomothetic approach
allows the identification of common personality
traits (Allport, 1961). He saw these common traits as ways
of classifying groups of individuals with one group being
classified as being more dominant, happier or whatever
than another comparable group. He felt that such comparisons
based on common traits are not particularly useful.
Of more use is what he termed the personal disposition
of the individual. The personal disposition represents the
unique characteristics of the individual. This approach emphasises
the uniqueness of each person, and Allport (1961)
felt that this was potentially a more fruitful approach
towards developing a real understanding of personality.
Personality traits were further classified into cardinal,
central and secondary traits. Cardinal traits are single
traits that may dominate an individual’s personality and
heavily influence their behaviour. These may be thought of
as obsessions or ruling passions that produce a need that
honest trustworthy, truthful, veracious, trusty,
honourable, creditable, decent,
law-abiding, uncorrupted, uncorrupt,
incorruptible, ethical, moral, virtuous,
principled, upright, high-minded,
dependable, reliable, reputable,
above-board, straight, square-dealing,
fair, just, candid, frank, sincere, direct,
ingenuous, sound
31
warm amiable, friendly, cheerful, cordial,
affable, pleasant, genial, kindly,
hospitable, hearty, affectionate,
mellow, loving
13
pedantic perfectionistic, scrupulous, finicky,
fussy, punctilious, fastidious,
meticulous, exact, quibbling
9
aberrant – meaning odd or peculiar not included
Source: Oxford Concise Thesaurus, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:44 PM Page 159
160 PART 1 PERSONALITY
demands to be fulfilled. For example, someone may have a
cardinal trait of competitiveness that permeates virtually
every aspect of their behaviour. They strive to be best at
everything they do. Central traits are the 5 to 10 traits that
Allport felt best describe an individual’s personality.
Secondary traits are more concerned with an individual’s
preferences and are not a core constituent of their personality.
Secondary traits may only become apparent in
particular situations – unlike central traits, which have a
more general applicability.
The other major contribution that Allport made to personality
theorising relates to the concept of self. He emphasised
the importance of the concept to any theory of
personality as he felt it is crucial to the development of
identity and individuality. He hypothesised that children
are not born with a concept of self, but that it gradually deStop
and think
Nomothetic and idiographic approach
The nomothetic approach comes from the ancient Greek
term for ‘law’ and is based on the assumption that there is
a finite set of variables in existence that can be used to describe
human personality. The aim is to identify these personality
variables or traits that occur consistently across
groups of people. Each individual can then be located
within this set of variables. By studying large groups of
people on a particular variable, we can establish the average
levels of that variable in particular age groups, or in
men and women, and in this way produce group averages,
generally called norms, for variables. Individuals can then
be described as being above or below the average or
norm on a particular variable. The nomothetic approach
concentrates on the similarities between individuals.
The idiographic approach focuses on the individual
and describes the personality variables within that individual.
The term comes from the ancient Greek idios,
meaning ‘private or personal’. Theorists, who adopt this
approach in the main, are only interested in studying
individuals one at a time. They see each person as
having a unique personality structure. Differences between
individuals are seen to be much greater than the
similarities. The possible differences are infinite. Idiographic
approaches produce a unique understanding of
that individual’s personality. These approaches are usually
based on case studies of individuals.
The aim of lexical
approaches is to find
underlying dimensions to
the many ways we
describe our personality.
Source: Pearson Education Ltd.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 160
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 161
velops. He felt that it is a lifelong process of development.
The child first becomes aware of the separateness of themselves
from others in their environment and from this
comes their sense of self-identity. As a result of their experiences
while becoming integrated into their family and
wider society, they develop self-esteem. Allport felt that the
concept of self presented a challenge to psychologists as it is
difficult to define precisely, consisting as it does of several
component parts. He used the term proprium as a synonym
for the self, suggesting that the terms represented all
the constituent parts that go to make up the concept of self.
Allport’s major impact on personality theory was in terms
of stressing the limitations of the trait approaches as they
were currently adopted. He raised the issue about the relative
influence of personality and situation in determining behaviour,
something still of concern to psychologists. His inclusion
of the concept of self as a legitimate and central concern
of personality theorists was also important in the trait tradition
of personality research. His distinction between nomothetic
and idiographic approaches to the study of personality
is an important one. He did not develop any standardised
measures of personality traits as such; this was left to other
theorists, as we shall see. His list of 4,500 personality traits is
too long to be of much practical use in assessing personality.
Raymond Cattell and the
emergence of the factor
analytic approach
The real advances in trait approaches were only possible
after the invention of the technique of factor analysis. A
detailed description of the principles underlying factor
analysis is given in Chapter 25. You may find it helpful to
read that section so that you can fully understand the rest
of this chapter. Allport did not engage with factor analysis;
but the next theorist that we examine, Raymond
Cattell, made full use of the technique, having been instructed
in it by Spearman, the inventor of factor analysis.
(See Profile: Raymond Cattell.) Following from this early
scientific training, Cattell was keen to apply empirical
methods to discover the basic structure of personality.
From the lists of personality traits, he noted that many
traits are very similar, and he argued that the existing lists
could be reduced to a much smaller number of traits. This
smaller number of traits would represent the basic components
of personality. Cattell’s work thus marks the beginning
of the search for the structure of personality
using factor analysis. Put simply, the procedure involves
identifying lists of the most frequently used sets of words
that seem to describe aspects of personality; large samples
of individuals are then asked to rate the degree to which
the attributes apply to them. This data set is then factor
analysed to identify which attributes cluster together.
Clusters are composed of items that correlate with each
other. So, for example, you might have the variables ‘determined’,
‘persistent’, ‘productive’ and ‘goal-directed’ that
turn out to be highly correlated with each other and thus
form a cluster or factor that you could perhaps call
achievement oriented. What this method gives you is a
general measure of some ability, in this instance achievement
orientation, that you obtain by measuring the individual’s
ratings of their determination, persistence,
productivity and goal-directedness.
Profile
Raymond Cattell
Raymond Bernard Cattell was born in a village just outside
Birmingham, UK, in 1905. His first degree was in
chemistry and physics at the University of London. He
had become interested in psychology and undertook
a PhD in psychology at the same university. His supervisor
was the inventor of factor analysis, Charles
Spearman. This resulted in Cattell being very well
trained in the new statistical technique of factor analysis
and adopting it as an analysis tool. Sir Cyril Burt, the psychologist
who specialised in intelligence, was also in the
same department; and Cattell was influenced by his apparently
rigorous approach to research. You will find out
more about Burt in Chapter 13 when you examine intelligence.
Cattell undertook some studies on personality
and worked in a child guidance clinic to get clinical experience.
In 1937, he emigrated to the United States
and to a position at Columbia University. He has
worked at Clark University, Harvard and the University
of Illinois, where he was director of the Laboratory of
Personality Assessment. Cattell is not always easy to
read in the original. A lot of his work deals with mathematical
issues involved in factor analysis. He was a
prolific writer, publishing 35 books and over four hundred
journal articles. In addition, he produced a variety
of personality tests, including the Culture Fair Intelligence
Tests, Motivation Analysis Test and the much-used
Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire (16PF test).
Cattell died in February 1998.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 161
Types of traits
Cattell (1965) defined personality as being the characteristics
of the individual that allow prediction of how they will
behave in a given situation. His approach to personality
was a broad one, and he identified a range of traits, as we
shall see. Later in his career, he became interested in the
ways that personality traits and situational variables interact
to affect the way that individuals behave. Traits are conceptualised
as being relatively stable, long-lasting building
blocks of personality.
Cattell makes distinctions between types of traits. The
first distinction relates to whether traits are genetically determined
or the result of environmental experiences. The
genetically determined traits are called constitutional
traits while the environmentally induced traits are called
environmental-mold traits. This distinction represents
the nature versus nurture debate that occurs repeatedly in
every area of psychology. In this application, it asks
whether individual differences are caused by inherited aspects
of our personality, or are they explained by how we
have been treated and the environmental experiences we
have had? Cattell (1982) was keen to try to establish the relative
contribution of genetics and environment to various
personality traits. He developed a statistical procedure
called multiple abstract variance analysis (MAVA) to
accomplish this. He administered personality tests to assess
a particular trait in relation to complex samples consisting
of family members raised together, family members raised
apart, identical twins raised together, identical twins
raised apart, unrelated children raised together and unrelated
children raised apart. Using complex statistical procedures,
the test allows the researcher to calculate the precise
degree of influence that genetic and environmental factors
have in the development of a particular personality trait.
Next, Cattell defines three different types of traits: ability,
temperament and dynamic traits. Ability traits determine
how well you deal with a particular situation and how well
you reach whatever your goal is in that situation. For example,
the various aspects of intelligence are good examples of
ability traits. He also identifies individual differences in the
styles that people adopt when they are pursuing their goals.
These are labelled temperament traits. Some people may
be laid back and easygoing, or irritable, or anxious and so
on, in the way that they typically approach life. These then
are examples of temperament traits.
Cattell, like many of the other theorists we have examined,
was interested in what motivates human behaviour.
You will recall from Chapter 1 that this is a core area for personality
theories to explain. He suggested that we have
dynamic traits that motivate us and energise our behaviour
(Cattell, 1965). For example, an individual may be motivated
to succeed and be very competitive, or they may be
ambitious, or driven to care for others, be artistic and so on.
As Cattell (1965) considered the question of motivation to
be at the heart of personality theorising, the dynamic traits
were heavily researched. He concluded that there are three
types of dynamic traits: attitudes, sentiments and ergs.
Attitudes are defined as hypothetical constructs that express
our particular interests in people or objects in specific situations.
Attitudes help to predict how we will behave in a
particular situation. Cattell (1950) defined sentiments as
complex attitudes that include our opinions and interests
that help determine how we feel about people or situations.
Cattell (1979) considered ergs to be innate motivators. He
suggested that ergs are innate drives. They cause us to recognise
and attend to some stimuli more readily than others,
and to seek satisfaction of our drives.
Cattell suggests that all these types of dynamic traits are
organised in very complex and interrelated ways to produce
dynamic lattice. The aim is to explain how we have to acquire
particular traits to achieve our goals. For example, if
your goal is learning to ski, you need to learn to copy the instructor.
You have to demonstrate patience and perseverance
in practising. You have to tolerate being a figure of fun
when you fall over, and you may have to conquer fear to go
on the drag lift and so on. How others react to you will also
affect the lattice as will your attitudes towards others and
the mood you are in. This then gives a hint of the complexity
involved. It is fair to say that this system certainly does
not simplify the explanation of behaviour in any real way,
and other psychologists have not followed up this work.
A further distinction is between common traits and
unique traits. Common traits are those shared by many
people. They would include intelligence, sociability, dependency
and so on. Unique traits are rarer and specific to
individuals. A unique trait might be an interest in collecting
fishing reels by a particular maker or an interest in a
particular entertainer or the like. They are specialised interests,
if you like, that motivate individuals to pursue certain
related activities. While Cattell’s work is concerned almost
exclusively with common traits, he includes the concept of
unique traits to emphasise the uniqueness of human beings.
He also stressed that the uniqueness of individuals is
also due to the unique ways that common traits come together
in different individuals. Different individuals will
have different mixtures of common traits making up their
personalities, thus making them unique.
Cattell (1950) suggested an important distinction between
surface traits and source traits. Surface traits are
collections of traits descriptors that cluster together in
many individuals and situations. For example, individuals
who are sociable also tend to be carefree, hopeful and contented.
These are all surface traits; and when you measure
individuals on each of these surface traits, you find that
their scores on each one are correlated with all the others.
That is, if an individual scores highly on sociability, they
also score highly on the carefree trait, the hopefulness trait
162 PART 1 PERSONALITY
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 162
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 163
and the contentedness trait. The technique of factor analysis
suggests that there is an underlying trait, what Cattell
calls a source trait, that is responsible for the observed
variance in the surface traits. In this case, it is the source
trait of extraversion. Extraversion is measured by the scores
of the surface traits of sociability, carefreeness, hopefulness
and contentedness. The surface traits relate to the overt
behaviours that individuals display. The source trait, on the
other hand, is the major difference in personality that is
responsible for all these related differences in observed
behaviour. In simple terms, being high in the source trait of
extraversion causes you to display behaviour that is more
sociable, to have more hopeful attitudes and so on.
The source traits are identified using the statistical technique
of factor analysis, as we have previously discussed.
Source traits are important as they represent the actual underlying
structure of personality. If psychologists can identify
the basic structure of personality, then they will be better able
to predict behaviour. This has become the main quest for
trait theorists. As we have seen, there are an enormous number
of personality traits; but identifying the source traits will
reduce this number. By using a smaller number of source
traits, psychologists can then construct personality tests that
include only measures of surface traits that relate to the
source traits. Personality tests produced in this way will provide
better measures of individual differences in personality.
Cattell (1957) makes it clear that it is necessary to use a
broad range of personality descriptors to ensure that the
appropriate source traits are discovered. He began his quest
for the underlying structure of personality with the list of
4,500 trait names as identified by Allport and Odbert
(1936). You may recall that we mentioned this list earlier in
the chapter in the section on Allport. Firstly, using teams of
raters, Cattell removed all the synonyms. This left him with
a list of 171 trait names. By getting raters to assess individuals
on these traits, he reduced the list further to produce
36 surface traits. Ten other surface traits were identified in
further studies on personality assessment and from a review
of the psychiatric literature. Thus, Cattell concluded
that 46 surface traits are sufficient to describe individual
differences in personality (Cattell and Kline, 1977).
Beginning with these 46 surface traits, Cattell used a variety
of approaches to uncover the source traits of personality.
The aim was to factor-analyse measures of all the 46
surface traits collected from large samples of individuals.
As you will see in the material on factor analysis (Chapter
25), large numbers of participants are required for factor
analysis. Cattell used different data collection procedures to
obtain his data sets. One source of data he called L-data,
short for ‘life record data’. These are measurements of behaviour
taken from the person’s actual life. Ideally it might
be things like the A-level grades the person got, the degree
they were awarded, the number of car accidents they had
and so on. Such data could be difficult to obtain, so Cattell
settled for ratings of the individual’s behaviour by individuals
who knew them well in a particular situation. In a
school setting it might be teacher’s ratings of aspects of the
individual’s ability, sociability, conscientiousness, and/or
fellow students’ ratings. In a work setting, it might be ratings
by colleagues or managers, for example. These individuals
would rate aspects of their target colleague’s behaviour
using a 10-point Likert Scale.
A second type of data collection involved using personality
questionnaires. Cattell called this Q-data. This is the
paper-and-pencil questionnaire that is widely used as an
assessment tool in psychology.
Cattell’s final method of generating data involved getting
participants to complete tests under standardised testing
conditions, but the tests are such that the responses cannot
be faked. He called the data collected T-data and claimed
that it represents truly objective test data. In normal questionnaires,
respondents may lie about some of their answers
to create a good impression, for example. However, participants
completing the objective tests that produce T-data do
not know what is being measured, so they cannot distort
their answers. Cattell (1965) gives the Rorschach inkblot test
as an example of such a test. Participants are presented with
a series of different inkblots and have to report what they
see. Clinical psychologists then interpret this information.
From the factor analyses of huge data sets gathered
using these different procedures, Cattell identified
16 major source factors (Cattell, 1971; Cattell and Kline,
1977). Further research identified another 7 factors; but his
best-known measure of personality, the Sixteen Personality
Factor (16PF) questionnaire uses the original 16 factors as
they are the most robust measures. Cattell and his coresearchers
have identified these 16 source traits as representing
the basic structure of personality. He also ranked
the traits in terms of how important they were in predicting
an individual’s behaviour. In the following list, we will
present the 16 factors in this order, so that the most predictive
items come first. Each factor represents a continuum
along which individuals are ranked. At one end, individuals
possess extremely high levels of the factor; at the other end,
their levels are extremely low. Cattell (1965) was at pains to
point out that almost all of the source traits have positive
and negative aspects at each end of the continuum. We will
highlight an example as we go through the trait descriptions.
In labelling the source traits, we will use the factor
letters that Cattell used to describe each factor, followed by
what the scales measure (which has come to be the popular
name for each of the scales) and then by the technical labels
that Cattell has assigned to each factor (in parentheses). By
doing this, we want to ensure that you will recognise the
traits in other texts, where any of these names may be used.
Factor A, Outgoing–Reserved (affectothymia–schizothymia).
This factor measures whether individuals are
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 163
outgoing or reserved. It is the largest factor. The technical
labels Cattell chose for the endpoints of this factor, affectothymia
(outgoing) and schizothymia (reserved), reflect
the history of the employment of this trait in psychiatry.
The outgoing–reserved dimension was shown to be important
in determining which individuals were hospitalised for
mental illness (Cattell, 1965).
Factor B, Intelligence (High ‘8’–Low ‘8’). Cattell was
the first to include intelligence as an ability trait. He
rated it as the second best predictor of behaviour in his
initial analysis of the factors that best predict actual
behaviour.
Factor C, Stable–Emotional (high ego strength–low
ego strength). This source trait measures emotional
stability and the ability an individual has to control their
impulses and solve problems effectively (Cattell, 1965).
At the positive end, individuals are rated as being stable
individuals who cope well in their lives and are realistic
in their approach to life. At the negative end, individuals
are emotionally labile. They are more neurotic and
highly anxious.
Factor E, Assertive–Humble (dominance–submissiveness).
At the dominant end individuals display the surface
traits of boastfulness, aggression, self-assertiveness,
conceit, forcefulness, wilfulness, egotism and vigour.
Humble or submissive individuals are seen to be modest,
unsure, quiet, obedient, meek and retiring. This trait
is the first to display a mixture of positive and negative
attributes at each end of the scale. Dominant individuals
have positive qualities of vigour and forcefulness but
are boastful and egotistical.
Factor F, Happy-go-lucky–Sober (surgency–desurgency).
When discussing this term, Cattell defended
his creation of new terms like surgency to describe his
source traits. He suggests that the common names for
traits often do not accurately represent what psychologists
mean, so it is better to use a technical term that can
be defined more precisely. High surgency individuals
are cheerful, sociable, responsive, joyous, witty, humorous,
talkative and energetic. He suggests that this is
more than simply happy-go-lucky, the popular name
for the term. Desurgent individuals are pessimistic, inclined
to depression, reclusive, introspective, given to
worrying, retiring and subdued. Cattell (1980) stated
that this is the most important single predictive factor in
children’s personalities. He explored the influence of genetic
factors on this trait and suggested that 55 per cent
of the variance on this trait is due to heredity.
Factor G, Conscientious–Expedient (high superego–low
superego). Cattell (1965) compares this factor to Freud’s
concept of the superego. Individuals high in conscientiousness
are persistent and reliable and exercise good selfcontrol.
At the other end of the continuum, expedient
individuals tend to take the line of least resistance rather
than be guided by their principles.
Factor H, Venturesome–Shy (parmia–threctia). Here
Cattell contrasts the bold, genial, adventurous, gregarious,
individual (venturesome) with the shy, aloof, selfcontained,
timid individual (shy). Cattell’s technical
labels for these terms are not as obscure as they seem at
first sight. The terms relate to the autonomic nervous system,
specifically the sympathetic and parasympathetic
systems. The sympathetic nervous system produces the
body’s fight-or-flight response in the presence of a stressor
of some sort. Put simply, the parasympathetic system
is involved in maintaining more normal, relaxed functioning.
Parmia is an abbreviation of ‘parasympathetic
immunity’, meaning that the individual remains calm
under potentially threatening circumstances. They are
immune to the effects of the sympathetic system. Similarly,
threctia stands for ‘threat reactivity’ and hence is
used to label an individual who has a reactive sympathetic
system. Cattell (1982) undertook studies on the
heritability of this trait and concluded that the genetic
factor accounted for approximately 40 per cent of the
variance.
Factor I, Tender-minded–Tough-minded (premsia–
harria). The popular name describes this trait well.
Tough-minded individuals are mature, independentminded,
self-sufficient and realistic. Tender-minded individuals
are gentle, imaginative, anxious, impatient,
demanding, immature, creative, neurotic and sentimental.
The technical terms are derived from the phrases
‘protected emotional sensitivity’ (premsia) and ‘hard
realism’ (harria).
Factor L, Suspicious–Trusting (protension–alaxia).
Individuals high in factor L are at the suspicious end of
the continuum and,as well as being suspicious,are jealous
and withdrawn from others. Those scoring low on factor
L are trusting, composed and understanding. Cattell
(1957) explains that the technical term protension is derived
from the words ‘projection’ and ‘tension’. Alaxia is
from the term‘relaxation’.
Factor M, Imaginative–Practical (autia–praxernia).
The individual high in factor M is unconventional, intellectual
and imaginative. They may often be unconcerned
with the practicalities of life. The technical term
autia comes from the word‘autistic’. Praxernia is derived
from ‘practical and concerned’. Such individuals are
conventional, practical, logical, with a tendency to
worry, and conscientious.
Factor N, Shrewd–Forthright (shrewdness–artlessness).
Here the descriptors fit the labels well. The shrewd individual
is astute, worldly, smart and insightful (Cattell and
Kline, 1977). The forthright individual is spontaneous,
unpretentious and somewhat naïve.
164 PART 1 PERSONALITY
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 164
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 165
Factor O, Apprehensive–Placid (guilt-proneness–
assurance). High levels of guilt-proneness are conceptualised
as a purely negative trait by Cattell and Kline
(1977). It is seen to be typical of criminals, alcoholics,
other drug abusers and individuals suffering from manic
depression. Individuals low in factor O are placid,
resilient and self-confident (Cattell and Kline, 1977).
If you recall, at the beginning of this section you were
told that the factors are presented in their order of importance
in explaining individual differences in behaviour.
The remaining four Q factors, therefore, are not particularly
good predictors of behaviour; but some of them have
been researched extensively.
Factor Q1, Experimenting–Conservative (radicalism–
conservatism). It is suggested that conservatives have a
general fear of uncertainty and thus opt for the known
and the well established. Radicals, on the other hand,
prefer the non-conventional and conform less to the
rules of society than conservatives do (Cattell, 1957).
Factor Q2, Self-sufficiency–Group-tied (self-sufficiency–
group adherence). This factor is self-explanatory. It describes
the individual’s preference to go it alone or their
need to be part of a group.
Factor Q3, Controlled–Casual (high self-concept–low
integration). Individuals high in factor Q3 are compulsive
individuals. They crave a controlled environment
that is highly predictable. Individuals low in factor Q3
are undisciplined, lax individuals who have a preference
for disorganisation in their surroundings.
Factor Q4,Tense–Relaxed (high ergic tension–low ergic
tension). Again, this factor is largely self-explanatory.
Those high in factor Q4 are tense, driven individuals;
while at the other end of the continuum, individuals are
relaxed and easygoing (Cattell, 1973).
Contribution of Cattell
As we have seen, Cattell was keen to develop a comprehensive,
empirically based trait theory of personality. He
acknowledged the complexity of factors that all contribute
to explain human behaviour, including genetics and environmental
factors as well as ability and personality characteristics.
Cattell (1965, 1980) was adamant that the test of
any good personality theory was its ability to predict
behaviour; he even produced an extremely complex mathematical
equation that he suggested could do this. He
wrote about the effect of learning on personality development
and even turned his attention to classifying abnormal
behaviour. While he produced vast amounts of empirically
based work and attempted to develop a truly comprehensive
theory of personality, he is best known in psychology
for the 16PF (Cattell, Eber and Tatsuoka, 1970).
The Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) questionnaire has
become a standard measure of personality and has been
used consistently since its publication. However, the internal
consistencies of some of the scales were quite low, and it
has been revised and improved (Conn and Rieke, 1994). To
do this, the questionnaire has been changed substantially,
with over 50 per cent of the items being new or significantly
modified.
Although these revisions have produced a better measure
psychometrically, it does mean that studies using the 16PF
cannot be directly compared with the work that uses the earlier
measure. The earlier measure had good predictability.
Studies were undertaken that linked participation in church
activities to differences in personality characteristics (Cattell,
1973; Cattell and Child, 1975). Other researchers demonstrated
that the 16PF was a good predictor of success in different
school subjects (Barton, Dielman and Cattell, 1971).
Given the amount that Cattell published, it is perhaps
surprising that this work has not had more impact. Part of
the reason for this is that much of his work is difficult to
understand. His use of obscure labels for his factors and the
complex systems that he postulated are not reader friendly.
He put great emphasis on the objectivity of his approach
and did not acknowledge the inherent subjectivity involved
in factor analysis, linked to the initial selection of traits the
researcher chooses to measure and the explanatory labels
they select for their underlying factors. Trait approaches
generally will be evaluated at the end of the chapter so are
not being repeated here. What we need to remember at this
point is that Cattell suggested that the underlying structure
of personality consists of 16 factors.
Which one of Cattell’s 16 personality factors might
describe this man: outgoing-reserved, stableemotional,
happy-go-lucky-sober, venturesome-shy,
apprehensive-placid, experimenting-conservative?
Source: The Kobal Collection
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 165
166 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Hans Eysenck’s trait theory
of personality
When Hans Eysenck began to work in the area of personality,
he observed that there were two schools within psychology.
The first consisted of personality theorists whose main focus
was on the development of theories, with little if any emphasis
on evaluating these theories with empirical evidence. The
second group was made up of experimental psychologists
who had little interest in individual differences. Eysenck
(1947) stressed the need for an integration of these two approaches.
He outlined his goals as being to identify the main
dimensions of personality, devise means of measuring them
and test them using experimental, quantitative procedures.
He felt that these steps would lead to the development of
sound personality theory. (See Profile: Hans Eysenck.)
Eysenck (1947, 1952) accepted the conventional wisdom
that assumed that children inherit personality characteristics
from their parents and other members of their family.
At the time he was writing, the main theoretical slant in
psychology was that babies were relatively blank slates and
that while development was limited by differences in intelligence
or physical skills, it was environmental experiences,
particularly parenting styles, that largely influenced the development
of personality. This was a legacy from the strong
tradition of behaviourism. Over fifty years ago, Eysenck
was stressing the importance of genetic inheritance, a view
that has gained ground within psychology. We know from
physiology that there are differences in physiological functioning
between individuals and that these biological differences
often translate into different behaviour. Eysenck’s
early claim that there is a large biological determinant to
personality was originally met with scepticism; but as you
will read in Chapter 8, it has become accepted as supporting
evidence has emerged from biological research.
Eysenck began by examining historical approaches to
personality, including the work of Hippocrates and Galen
that we covered earlier. His aim was to uncover the underlying
structure of personality. The historical evidence suggested
to him that there are different personality types, and
the definition of personality that he adopted incorporates
this concept. Eysenck (1970) defines personality as being
the way that an individual’s character, temperament, intelligence,
physique and nervous system are organised. He
suggests that this organisation is relatively stable and longlasting.
Traits are the relatively stable, long-lasting characteristics
of the individual. In common with other trait
researchers, Eysenck has utilised factor analysis. He
collected measurements of personality traits from large
samples of individuals and factor-analysed them. After
many years of research, he concluded that there are three
basic personality dimensions, which he called types, and
that all traits can be subsumed within these three types. Before
we examine the three types, we need to become familiar
with Eysenck’s model of personality.
Eysenck’s structure of personality
Beginning with observations of individual behaviour that he
calls specific responses, Eysenck developed a hierarchical
typology.An example of the methodology he used will make
this clearer. For example, you would watch someone talking
with their friends one evening and carefully observe their
specific responses. If this person spends a great deal of their
Profile
Hans Eysenck
Hans J. Eysenck was born in Berlin in 1916 during the
First World War, to parents who were both actors. His
parents divorced when he was only two years old and,
as his mother was a silent film star, he went to live with
his grandmother. Aged 6 years old, Eysenck appeared
in a film alongside his mother. His father would have
liked him to pursue an acting career, but his mother discouraged
it. As a young man he was opposed to Hitler
and the Nazi party and left Germany in 1934. He had
been told that he could not go to university unless he
joined the Nazi party, and he was unwilling to do this.
He went first to France before finally settling in
England. In London, he studied for his undergraduate
degree at the University of London, and it is said that he
only specialised in psychology as he did not have the
prerequisite subjects to study physics. He obtained his
PhD in 1940 and tried to join the Royal Air Force to fight
in the Second World War; but he was not accepted, as
he was German and considered to be an enemy alien.
Instead he went to work at a mental hospital and continued
with his research career. After the war, he went
to work at the Maudsley Hospital in London, where he
soon established the first training course in clinical psychology.
Eysenck continued to work at the Maudsley,
where he was a prolific researcher. He published
around 45 books and hundreds of research papers and
edited chapters. He continued working up until his
death from cancer in 1997.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 166
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 167
time talking with friends, you can begin to observe some of
what Eysenck calls their habitual responses. Thus, habitual
responses are the ways that individuals typically behave
in a situation. From continued observations of the same individual,
you might observe that this person seeks out occasions
to interact with others and really enjoys social events.
The conclusion would be that this person is very sociable, or
in personality terms, they possess the trait of sociability. This
structure of personality is shown in Figure 7.2. From the diagram,
you can see that specific responses that are found together
in the individual make up habitual responses, and
collections of habitual responses that the individual produces
make up the next level of personality traits. Using factor
analyses, Eysenck argued that traits such as sociability,
liveliness, activity, assertiveness and sensation seeking are
highly correlated. This means that an individual’s scores on
each of these traits are likely to be very similar. This collection
of traits then forms a supertrait or personality type.
Each supertrait represents a continuum along which individuals
can be placed, depending on the degree of the attribute
they possess.
Eysenck originally suggested that there are two supertraits.
The first is a measure of sociability with extraversion
at one end of the continuum and introversion at the other.
Extraverts are sociable and impulsive people who like excitement
and whose orientation is towards external reality.
Introverts are quiet, introspective individuals who are oriented
towards inner reality and who prefer a well-ordered
life. The personality traits that make up extraversion are
shown in Figure 7.3.
Trait
Personality type Trait level Habitual response (HR) Specific response
SR1
SR4
SR5
SR6
SR7
SR8
HR1
HR2
HR3
HR4
SR3
SR2
Sociable AssertiveActive
Sensation-seeking Carefree Dominant Surgent Venturesome
Lively
Extraversion
Figure 7.3 Traits that make up extraversion.
Source: Based on Eysenck and Eysenck (1985a).
Figure 7.2 Eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality.
Source: Adapted from Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas, p. 36. Reprinted courtesy of Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 167
168 PART 1 PERSONALITY
The second personality type or supertrait is
neuroticism. Individuals can be placed on this dimension
according to the degree of neuroticism they possess.
Eysenck (1965b) defines neurotics as emotionally unstable
individuals. He describes several types of neurotic behaviour.
Some individuals high in neuroticism may have unreasonable
fears (phobias) of certain objects, places, animals or
people. Others may have obsessional or impulsive symptoms.
The distinguishing feature of neurotic behaviour is
that the individual displays an anxiety or fear level that is
disproportionate to the realities of the situation. The traits
that make up neuroticism are shown in Figure 7.4. Eysenck
does separate out one group of neurotics who are free from
anxiety and fear, and he labels this group psychopaths.
These are individuals who behave in an antisocial manner
and seem unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions
despite any punishment meted out (H. Eysenck,
1965b). Such individuals are described as acting as if they
have no conscience and showing no remorse for things they
have done. Psychopathic personalities are likely to be found
within the prison population.
The recognition of this group of psychopaths by
Eysenck led to the identification of a third personality factor.
As the two personality types (extraversion and neuroticism)
did not adequately explain all of Eysenck’s data, he
added a third type, psychoticism. It is the severity of the
disorder that differentiates psychotics from neurotics. Psychotics
display the most severe type of psychopathology,
frequently being insensitive to others, hostile, cruel and inhumane
with a strong need to ridicule and upset others.
The traits that come together to form psychoticism are
shown in Figure 7.5.
Eysenck and Eysenck (1985a) stated that despite having
all these undesirable traits, psychotics still tend to be creative
individuals. Eysenck quoted several sources of evidence to
support his hypothesis. First, he provided historical examples
of individuals he felt were geniuses and who had all displayed
personality traits typical of psychoticism. He defined
geniuses as being extremely creative individuals, and he suggested
that many of the traits associated with psychoticism
could be perceived as aiding a creative career. Traits such as
being egocentric, so you always put yourself first; being
Anxious Low self-esteemGuilt feelings
EmotionalMoodyTense Irrational Shy
Depressed
Neuroticism
Creative
Aggressive Cold ImpersonalEgocentric
AntisocialTough-mindedImpulsive Unempathic
Psychoticism
Figure 7.4 Traits that make up neuroticism.
Source: Based on Eysenck and Eysenck (1985a).
Figure 7.5 Traits that make up psychoticism.
Source: Based on Eysenck and Eysenck (1985a).
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 168
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 169
tough-minded, so that you pursue your own goals regardless
of others or circumstances; being unempathic, so that you
are not affected by other people’s emotions and problems.
Psychological studies of great individuals have demonstrated
that they have needed to be self-centred and persistent to
overcome the obstacles that they faced in their lives and that
they also possess the ability to think in unusual, almost
bizarre ways (Simonton, 1994). Eysenck (1995) cited evidence
that psychotic individuals perform well on tests of creativity
that require divergent thinking. By divergent
thinking, he meant the ability to produce novel ideas that are
different from those that most people produce. He claimed
that psychotics and geniuses have an overinclusive cognitive
style that allows them to consider divergent solutions to
problems. These views of Eysenck’s are not universally accepted.
As Simonton (1994) points out, humanistic psychologists
such as Maslow and Rogers asserted that creativity is
the result of optimum mental health, which implies balanced
personalities. Eysenck (1995) did admit that more research
is required in this area.
Eysenck (1967) claimed that these three types or supertraits
make up the basic structure of personality, and he developed
an instrument to measure the three types and their
supporting traits. This is called the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ; H. Eysenck and S. Eysenck, 1975). He
suggested that there is a link between the clinical conditions
of neurosis and psychoses and his scales of neuroticism
and psychoticism. Individuals who score highly on
neuroticism or psychoticism are not necessarily neurotic or
psychotic, but he argued that they are at risk of developing
these disorders. High scores indicate a predisposition,
which may develop under adverse circumstances.
Eysenck’s next task was to explain why individuals who
differed along the supertrait dimensions should behave differently.
His theoretical exposition, while not ignoring environmental
influences, was heavily biological. Indeed,
Eysenck (1982a) claimed that about two-thirds of the variance
in personality development can be attributed to biological
factors. Environment plays a part particularly in
influencing how traits are expressed, but Eysenck would
argue that biology has imposed limits on how much an individual
personality can change.A full account of Eysenck’s
biological explanation of personality differences is provided
in Chapter 8 with the other biological theories.
Research evidence for Eysenck’s types
Many predictions have been made from this theory, and
there is a high level of support over a period of 40 years.
For example, Eysenck (1965b) reported that extraverts
compared with introverts prefer to socialise. They like
louder music and brighter colours, and they are more
likely to smoke, drink more alcohol and engage in more
varied sexual activities. These differences generally continue
to be reported in the literature. Amirkham, Risinger
and Swickert (1995) found that extraverts are more likely
than introverts to attract and maintain networks of friends
and to approach others for help when they are undergoing
a crisis.Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) reported that extraverts,
due to their need for variety in their lives, have more career
changes or job changes. Extraverts are also more likely
to change relationship partners more frequently. Campbell
and Hawley (1982) looked at the study habits and the
preferred location for studying of students and found that
introverts prefer to study in quiet areas, while extraverts
study in areas where there are other people and opportunities
to socialise. Extraverts also took more study breaks
than introverts did, indicating that they have a higher need
for change in their activities and environment. Davies and
Parasuraman (1992) reported that extraverts tire more
easily than introverts on tasks requiring vigilance and are
more likely to make errors. While there continues to be a
significant amount of research utilising versions of the
EPQ (H. Eysenck and S. Eysenck, 1975, 1991), the neuroticism
and the extraversion scales have proved to be good
reliable measures psychometrically; the psychoticism scale
is more problematic, with much lower internal reliability
statistics. You can refer to Chapter 24 for a detailed explanation
of reliability statistics. Eysenck (1967) admitted
that this scale is less robust and did refine it somewhat (H.
Eysenck, 1992), but despite this, it remains the weakest
measure.
If the three-factor solution represents the basic structure
of personality, it should be found cross-culturally.
Eysenck and Eysenck undertook a considerable programme
of cross-cultural research to explore whether his
theory held. His EPQ was carefully translated into many
different languages. This research is summarised in
Eysenck and Eysenck (1982). He reported that the primary
factors were found in at least 24 nations in both males and
females. His sample included African, Asian, North American
and many European cultures. From this data and from
twin studies, described in Chapter 8, Eysenck concluded
that the three-factor structure has a genetic basis and represents
the basic structure of personality.
Sybil Eysenck produced a child’s version of the EPQ,
called the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(S. Eysenck, 1965). It was also translated into many languages,
and again the cross-cultural evidence was consistent.
Studies of children found the same three factors
cross-culturally. This provided additional evidence for his
theory. He followed up this research with longitudinal
studies to demonstrate that the structure was stable across
time (H. Eysenck, 1967, 1982a, 1990b, 1993; S. Eysenck,
Barrett and Barnes, 1993; S. Eysenck, Makaremi and
Barrett, 1994). S. Eysenck concluded that all this research
provided confirmatory evidence that there is a genetic basis
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 169
170 PART 1 PERSONALITY
for the primary personality types. They are all found crossculturally,
despite social pressures within different cultures
to develop in specific ways. The same structures are found
in children as in adults. Reviews of studies of identical and
fraternal twins, raised together and raised apart, found the
same structures and personality similarities between individual
biological relatives and lend considerable support
for a significant genetic component to personality. As mentioned
previously, details of genetic studies of personality
are included in Chapter 8.
Eysenck (1990b) does still see a role for the environment
in the development of personality. He suggested that while
individuals’ genes provide a strong tendency to become a
certain type of person, some modification is possible. He
suggested that the way that children are socialised was crucial
here. However, he did not provide a detailed developmental
theory to explain how the environment might
intervene in development or to specify the environment
that would promote healthy development.
Psychopathology and Eysenck’s
therapeutic approach
Eysenck was a behaviourist, and therefore he placed a lot of
emphasis on how learned behaviour was acquired. Thus,
healthy and abnormal behaviour is the result of the way
that individuals respond to the stimuli in their environment.
Some individuals are more susceptible to developing
psychopathology because of their inherited vulnerabilities.
For example, Eysenck suggested that individuals who score
highly on the personality trait neurosis are more likely to
develop clinical neuroses than are those with low scores.
Eysenck’s approach to treatment involved behaviour
therapy. You may recall that we covered this in Chapter 4.
He was extremely hostile to all other therapies but particularly
targeted psychoanalytic approaches. Indeed, Eysenck
(1965a) claimed that the only effective therapy was behaviour
therapy. As mentioned in the Profile box, Eysenck developed
clinical psychology training in the United
Kingdom and was an active clinician as well as a personality
researcher for much of his life.
Eysenck’s contribution to trait
theorising
Eysenck’s theorising is fairly comprehensive, although not
all aspects of it are equally well developed. This is particularly
true of the developmental aspects and the biological
basis, as you will see in Chapter 8. He also focuses heavily
on genetic factors and pays much less attention to the social
context within which much behaviour occurs and that
may affect personality and behaviour in particular situations.
He would argue that personality determines to some
extent the situations that individuals choose to be in, but
that is debatable to some extent. In terms of heuristic
value, Eysenck has been very influential. His critique of all
therapies, apart from behaviour therapy, stimulated therapists
to evaluate their work and led to a large increase in
evaluative research on therapies. His work also has significant
applied value. He demonstrated a rigorous approach
to personality theorising. He moved beyond many personality
trait researchers in that he tried to provide not merely
a description of personality structure but also an explanation
of what caused differences in personality, with his genetic
studies and his biological theory. He also provided a
fairly robust measure of personality. His work has stimulated
an enormous amount of research. Eysenck founded
the journal Personality and Individual Differences, and its
continued growth and development attests to his influence
over many years.
In one other aspect, his theory can perhaps be criticised
for being too parsimonious, having only three factors.
Do three factors really represent the basic structure
of personality? This question of the number of factors
necessary to describe personality structure is what we
shall discuss next. There has been considerable debate in
the psychological literature about the number of factors
required for an adequate description of personality and,
as we shall see, Eysenck before his death contributed to
this discussion.
The five-factor model
Psychologists increasingly agree that five supertraits may
adequately describe the structure of personality. The evidence
to support this contention has come from several
sources. There is still some debate, as we shall see, about
how to label these factors; but this is perhaps unsurprising
given that assigning labels is the most subjective aspect of
factor analysis. Researchers are likely to have different
opinions about which words best describe the constituent
traits that make up a supertrait. We shall begin by examining
the evidence for five factors, and then we will look at
where this leaves Eysenck’s three-factor model and Cattell’s
sixteen-factor model. Finally, we will evaluate the trait
approach to personality.
Evidential sources for the
five-factor model
There are three evidential sources for the five-factor model:
the lexical approach;
factor analysis evidence for the five-factor model;
other evidence in support of the five-factor model of
personality.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 170
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 171
The lexical approach
You will recall that earlier in this chapter, we discussed the
lexical hypothesis. This is the hypothesis that it is the differences
in personality that are important for social interaction,
and human societies have labelled these differences as single
terms. Several detailed accounts of the lexical approach and
its history are available if you want to explore this theory further
(De Raad, 2000; Saucier and Goldberg, 2001).
You will recall that Cattell’s 16PF came from the factor
analysis of the list of 4,500 trait names identified by Allport
and Odbert (1936). Cattell produced a 16-factor solution.
Fiske (1949) reanalysed the same data but could not reproduce
the 16 factors; he published instead a five-factor solution.
This work was ignored for a long time. Tupes and
Christal (1961/1992) reported five factors from analyses of
trait words in eight different samples. Norman (1963) revisited
the earlier research and reproduced the same fivefactor
structure using personality ratings of individuals
given by their peers. Digman and Takemoto-Chock (1981)
carried out further analyses and confirmed Norman’s fivefactor
solution. Goldberg (1981) reviewed all the research
and made a convincing argument for the Big Five. Since
then, Goldberg and his team have carried out an extensive
research programme investigating personality traits, and
Goldberg (1990) concluded that in the English language
trait descriptors are versions of five major features of personality:
love, work, affect, power and intellect. Since then,
the research has spread to other languages. Saucier and
Ostendorf (1999) used a set of five hundred personality
traits and found a five-factor structure in the German
language, for example.
Saucier and Goldberg (2001) have described the lexical
approach to investigating whether the five-factor structure
is universally applicable as an emic approach to research.
(See Stop and think: Lexical approaches produce descriptive
models of personality traits, below.) Basically, what the
researchers do is to use the personality terms that are found
in the native language of the country. They contrast this
with what they call the etic approach, which uses personality
questionnaires translated from another language that
in practice tends to be English. Saucier and Goldberg
(2001) report that etic approaches tends to replicate the
five-factor structure while there is more variability reported
in studies using emic approaches. Perugini and DiBlas
(2002) discuss this issue further in relation to emic
and etic data they collected on Italian samples. They point
out that in the etic approach, the questionnaires being
translated are based on five-factor structures found in the
original language. Goldberg and his research team make a
case for the necessity of further study of cultural differences
in personality trait use that are being found using
emic approaches as a core part of the search for the universal
structure of personality. Goldberg’s research team has
made available copyrighted free adjective scales that can be
used to measure the five factors and personality scales for
measuring them. These can be accessed from his website
and the address included at the end of the chapter.
Factor analysis evidence for the five-factor
model of personality
This is the second source of evidence for the existence of a
structure of five factors. Costa and McCrae (1985, 1989,
1992, 1997) are arguably the most influential researchers in
this area, and their factor solution has come to be called the
Big Five Model. This approach requires large samples of
participants to complete at least two personality questionnaires.
The resultant data set is then factor-analysed to uncover
clusters of traits. The consistent finding is the
emergence of five factors or dimensions of personality.
It is important to stress that it is the analysis of data that
has produced the factors, not exploration of a theory about
the number of factors necessary in a model. This is not the
usual approach in psychology. Usually researchers begin
with a theoretically based hypothesis about some aspect of
behaviour. They then collect their data, and their results either
support or refute their original theory driven hypothesis.
In contrast, with the five-factor research, the
Stop and think
Lexical approaches produce descriptive models of personality traits
You may recall from our early discussion that lexical approaches
produce descriptive models of personality
traits, and you need to bear this fact in mind. At this
stage in their development, the lexical approaches do
not explain why this structure is found, other than to
refer to the lexical hypothesis. There are no explanatory
models offered. However, they are a valuable source of
confirmatory evidence for the existence of the fivefactor
model. If Saucier and Goldberg’s suggestion to
explore the differences uncovered by emic studies is
followed up, this then might lead to explanatory models
linking differences to cultural practices.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 171
172 PART 1 PERSONALITY
hypothesis that five factors represent the basic structure of
personality has come from the data that was collected. In
other words, the Big Five model is a data-derived hypothesis
as opposed to a theoretically based one.
These are the factors described by the American personality
researchers Costa and McCrae (1992), who measured
personality with their well-known Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). The Big
Five factors are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Agreeableness and Neuroticism. You can use
the acronym OCEAN to help you remember what the factors
are called. More detailed descriptions of each factor
are now provided. Each factor represents a continuum
along which individuals can be placed according to their
scores:
Openness – This factor refers to the individual having
an openness to new experiences. It includes the characteristics
of showing intellectual curiosity, divergent
thinking and a willingness to consider new ideas and an
active imagination. Individuals scoring highly on openness
are unconventional and independent thinkers. Individuals
with low scores are more conventional and
prefer the familiar to the new.
Conscientiousness – This factor describes our degree of
self-discipline and control. Individuals with high scores
on this factor are determined, organised and plan for
events in their lives. Individuals with low scores tend to
be careless, easily distracted from their goals or tasks
that they are undertaking and undependable. If you
look closely at the trait descriptors included in conscientiousness,
you will see that they are all attributes likely
to become apparent in work situations. For this reason,
they are sometimes referred to as the will to achieve or
work dimension.
Extraversion – This factor is a measure of the individual’s
sociability. It is the same factor as described by
Eysenck earlier in this chapter and by the psychoanalyst
Jung in Chapter 3. Individuals who score highly on extraversion
are very sociable, energetic, optimistic,
friendly and assertive. Individuals with high scores are
labelled extraverts. As with the Eysenck and Jung descriptions,
individuals with low scores are labelled introverts.
Introverts are described as being reserved,
independent rather than followers socially, even-paced
rather than sluggish in terms of their pace of work.
Agreeableness – This factor relates very much to characteristics
of the individual that are relevent for social
interaction. Individuals with high scores are trusting,
helpful, softhearted and sympathetic. Those with low
scores are suspicious, antagonistic, unhelpful, sceptical
and uncooperative.
Neuroticism – This factor measures an individual’s
emotional stability and personal adjustment. Costa and
McCrae (1992) suggest that although a range of emotions
exists, individuals who score highly on one also
rate highly on others. In psychological terms, the various
emotional states are highly correlated. Thus, the individual
who scores highly on neuroticism experiences
wide swings in their mood and they are volatile in their
emotions. Individuals with low scores on the neuroticism
factor are calm, well adjusted and not prone to extreme
maladaptive emotional states. (Indeed, in some
five-factor models of personality, this dimension is referred
to as emotional stability.)
These are the five main dimensions popularly known
as the Big Five. Within each of the main dimensions there
are more specific personality attributes that cluster together,
and all contribute to the category score. These
subordinate traits are sometimes called facets (Costa and
McCrae, 1992). The Big Five model is a hierarchical
model similar in concept to Eysenck’s model. Each of the
Big Five factors consists of six facets or subordinate
traits. The facets included in the NEO-PI-R (Costa and
McCrae, 1992) are shown in Table 7.3. Thus, an individual’s
scores on the traits of fantasy, aesthetics, feelings,
actions, ideas and values combine to produce their scores
on the openness factor. The NEO-PI-R then allows measurement
at a general factor level or on more specific
Table 7.3 The constituent facets of the Big Five factors.
Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
Fantasy
Aesthetics Order Gregariousness Straightforwardness Angry hostility
Dutifulness Assertiveness Altruism Depressions
Achievement striving Activity Compliance Self-consciousness
Self-discipline Excitement seeking Modesty Impulsiveness
Deliberation Positive emotions Tender-mindedness Vulnerability
Competence Warmth Trust Anxiety
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Source: Based on Costa and McCrae (1985).
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 172
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 173
factors. Obviously, the more specific the measure, the
greater the likelihood of using it to actually predict be-
haviour.
Other evidence in support of the Big Five
There is too much research supporting the Big Five for us
to review it all here. Instead, we will cite some examples
from the main areas. In terms of how well this model fits
with other measures of personality, the evidence is largely
positive. McCrae and Costa (1989) factor-analysed scores
on the Myers–Briggs Type Inventory and found that it
supports a five-factor structure. Boyle (1989) reported
that the five-factor model is also broadly compatible with
Cattell’s fourteen-factor measure and Eysenck’s threefactor
measure. The latest measure of the 16PFI allows
scoring on the Big Five (Conn and Rieke, 1994). Goldberg
(1993) compared the five-factor model with Eysenck’s
three-factor model and concluded that two of the factors –
extraversion and neuroticism – are very similar, and that
psychoticism can be subsumed under agreeableness and
conscientiousness.
The NEO-PI-R has also been translated into several
other languages, and the same factor structure has been
replicated (McCrae and Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 1998,
2000). If you recall, this evidence is not uncontentious,
based as it is on the etic approach to personality research
that we discussed earlier. These researchers (McCrae and
Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 1998, 2000) have also
demonstrated that the observed personality differences
are stable over time and have a genetic basis. To summarise,
Costa and McCrae (1992) claim that the five factors
represent the universal structure of personality
based on all the evidence we have discussed. The factors
are found in different languages, ages of people and
races.
Evaluation of the Big Five and
trait approaches
Can we conclude then that the Big Five represent the structure
of personality? Unfortunately, it is premature to say
that there is total consensus on the model. There is increasing
agreement that there are five factors, but there is still
some level of disagreement about the exact nature of each
of the five factors. Indeed, Saucier and Goldberg (1998)
and Saucier (1995) argue that research should look for solutions
beyond the current five-factor models. This is the
scientific approach – to search for contradictory evidence
instead of purely focusing on searching for confirmation,
as the present research does.
There is some debate about how the factors should be
labelled. Labelling factors depends on the researcher’s
judgement about the best descriptor for the cluster of correlated
traits. For example, the agreeableness factor has also
been labelled conformity (Fiske, 1949) and likeability
(Norman, 1963). The same debate applies for all the other
factors.
Peabody and Goldberg (1989) have also demonstrated
that the measures that are included in a questionnaire crucially
affect the final factors produced. If a questionnaire
does not have many items that measure openness, for example,
then the description of openness that is produced
will be narrower. There is still some argument about the
number of traits, with studies reporting different numbers
between Eysenck’s three and seven (Briggs, 1989; Church
and Burke, 1994; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta
and Kraft, 1993). McCrae and Costa (1995) suggest that
the number depends on the nature of the trait measures
that are included. They point out that five-factor models
tend not to include evaluative traits like moral/immoral. If
evaluative traits are included, Almagor, Tellegen and
Waller (1995) have suggested that a seven-factor solution
emerges.
There has been some debate about what exactly some
of the factors mean (Digman 1990). Are they perhaps linguistic
categories that do not actually represent the underlying
structure of personality? Is it that the five factors
represent out ability to describe personality traits in language
and are nothing to do with underlying structures?
There is no easy answer to this question, although the accumulating
weight of research evidence would seem to
negate it. Is it perhaps that our cognitive abilities only
allow for a five-factor structure but the reality is more
complex and subtle?
Briggs (1989) has criticised the model for being atheoretical.
As we have discussed earlier, the model is data
driven and was not derived from a theoretical base. There
are currently some attempts to address this with genetic
studies and the search for a physiological basis for the observed
differences, as you will see in Chapter 8. This criticism
applies more generally to the trait approach, although
theorists such as Eysenck saw theory building as being crucial
within his approach.
One of the more general criticisms of trait approaches
to personality is related to how the various measures are
interpreted and used. For example, Mischel (1968, 1983a,
1990) has pointed out that many of these measures are
largely descriptive and do not predict behaviour particularly
well. Despite this claim, many of these measures are
widely used to make important decisions about individuals’
lives and in workplace situations are often blindly interpreted
by people who are not psychologists. Mischel
(1968) demonstrates that on average, personality trait
measures statistically account for only around 10 per
cent of the variance observed in behaviour. In other
words, 90 per cent of the variance in behaviour is down
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 173
174 PART 1 PERSONALITY
to something other than the effect of personality. However,
Kraus (1995) has shown that the variance figure is
not insignificant and is similar to that found in studies
measuring the relationship between attitudes and behaviour.
Mischel’s criticism of the overreliance on trait
measures to assess individuals has had beneficial effects
in work settings. The practice currently is to use multiple
measures of personality assessment in work settings. Psychometric
assessments, individual and group tasks and
interviews are frequently used together as an assessment
package, and this prevents overreliance on the psychometric
tool.
Final comments
In summary, we have described the nomothetic approach
to personality research.You should now appreciate the long
history of attempts to describe and explain differences in
personality. You should now understand what is meant by
the lexical hypothesis and be familiar with the approach to
data analysis employed by trait theorists. You should also
be aware of the contributions of Allport, Cattell and
Eysenck to understanding personality, as well as the approaches
that have resulted in the identification of the Big
Five personality traits.
Summary
Two assumptions underlie trait theory. The first is that
personality characteristics are relatively stable over
time. The second is that traits show stability across
situations.
Trait theorists are aiming to find the basic structure of
personality and to produce reliable ways of measuring
personality differences.
William Sheldon outlined a description of personality,
called somatypes, based on physique and temperament.
He described three basic types of physique –
endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy – and
demonstrated that each body type was associated
with a particular temperament.
The lexical hypothesis was first put forth by Sir
Francis Galton. It suggests that it is the important individual
differences between people that come to be
encoded as single word terms (trait descriptors).
The lexical hypothesis led to attempts to categorise
the important personality traits. With the advent of
factor analysis, these trait lists were analysed to try
to uncover the underlying structure.
Gordon Allport identified 18,000 words, of which
4,500 described personality traits.
Allport conceptualised human nature as normally
being rational, creative, active and self-reliant. He
used the idiographic approach to discover personal
dispositions. He described three types of personality
traits: cardinal, central and secondary.
Allport emphasised the importance of the concept of
self to any theory of personality. He hypothesised
that children were not born with a concept of self but
that it gradually developed, and it was a lifelong
process. Allport was a pioneer in trait theory, and one
of his important contributions was to alert psychologists
to the limitations of trait approaches.
Cattell’s work marks the beginning of the search for
the structure of personality using factor analysis. He
made a distinction between traits that are genetically
determined and those that are the result of environmental
experiences. He defined three different types
of traits: ability, temperament and dynamic. He subdivided
dynamic traits into three types: attributes, sentiments
and ergs. All these types of dynamic traits are
organised in complex and interrelated ways to produce
a dynamic lattice. He makes a further distinction
between common traits and unique traits. The latter
account for the uniqueness of human beings.
Cattell made an important distinction between surface
traits and source traits. Surface traits are collections
of trait descriptors that cluster together in many
individuals and situations. Using factor analysis, he
uncovered underlying traits that he called source
traits. These are responsible for the observed variance
in the surface traits.
Cattell used a variety of approaches to uncover the
source traits of personality. He finally produced 16
factors and claimed that they represent the basic
structure of personality. He developed the 16PF as a
measurement tool.
Eysenck’s goals were to identify the main dimensions
of personality, devise means of measuring
them and test them using experimental, quantitative
procedures. He defined personality as being the
way that an individual’s character, temperament,
intelligence, physique and nervous system are organised.
Traits are the relatively stable, long-lasting
characteristics of the individual.
Eysenck developed a hierarchical model of personality
types. At the bottom level are specific behavioural
responses called habitual responses. These come
together to make up personality traits. Clusters of
traits come together to make up personality types.
Using factor analysis, Eysenck identified three types
or supertraits that he hypothesised made up the
basic structure of personality. He developed the
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 174
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 175
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure
these three types and their underlying traits.
Eysenck claimed that about two-thirds of the variance
in personality development can be attributed to
biological factors. Environment influences how traits
are expressed, but Eysenck argues that biology has
imposed limits on how much an individual personality
can change.
There is good support for neuroticism and extraversion,
including cross-cultural, developmental and
longitudinal stability data. Psychoticism is the least
reliable dimension.
Eysenck provided not merely a description of personality
structure but also an explanation of what
causes differences in personality, with his genetic
studies and his biological theory. His work has stimulated
an enormous amount of research.
There is a growing consensus that five supertraits
make up the basic structure of personality. While
there are arguments about the names accorded to
these factors, those chosen by Costa and McCrae
are the most popular. The Big Five factors are
Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness
and Neuroticism (OCEAN).
There are several sources of evidence underpinning
the Big Five structure of personality. The first of these
uses the lexical approach to uncover the structures.
The second approach uses the factor analysis of personality
questionnaires.
The Big Five model is hierarchical, similar in concept
to Eysenck’s model. Each of the Big Five factors
consists of six facets or subordinate traits. Costa and
Macrae’s NEO-PI-R measures both the subordinate
traits and the supertraits.
There is increasing agreement that there are five factors,
but there is still some level of disagreement
about the exact nature of each of the five factors.
Debate continues about how the factors should be
labelled.
The lack of an underpinning theory is problematic for
some psychologists. This trait approach is data
driven, not theoretically driven, although theoretical
support is now developing.
Connecting up
The personality theories covered in this chapter represent
some of the most commonly used theories in the
literature regarding main personality and individual
differences. We go on to discuss the biological aspects of
Eysenck’s personality in the next chapter (Chapter 8),
alongside other biological models of personality. In
Chapter 10 we also explore an additional model of personality
based on the lexical hypothesis, the HEXACO
model of personality, which is an extension of the five
factor model of personality.
You may also want to return to Chapter 3 to look at the
origins of extraversion in Jung’s theory of personality.
Throughout the rest of book, when we consider personality
variables in a number of chapters, we generally
refer to the three-and five-factor models of
personality.
Critical thinking
Discussion questions
Can you identify any traits that Allport would classify as
unique?
How useful are Allport’s categorisations of types of
traits? Can you identify examples of each type of
trait?
Compare and contrast Cattell’s concept of ergs to
Freud’s categories of instincts.
Does Eysenck make a convincing case for his threefactor
structure of personality?
Have psychologists finally uncovered the basic structure
of personality?
Can you identify any problems with the current
approaches to determining the structure of personality?
‘The five-factor model of personality is now dominant
in the research literature’. Evaluate the validity of this
statement.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 175
176 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Essay questions
Three, five or sixteen? Critically examine how many personality
factors there are.
Evaluate Eysenck’s claim that his three factors are
universal.
Critically evaluate the evidence for the five-factor structure
of personality.
Discuss the contribution of Gordon Allport to the trait
approach of personality.
Discuss the contribution of Raymond Cattell to the trait
approach.
Compare and contrast two of the following three
theories of personality
– three-factor
– five-factor
– sixteen-factor
Evaluate the five-factor model of personality and discuss
its relationship to Cattell’s theory of personality.
Going further
Books
Allport, G. W. (1961) Pattern and growth in
personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. This
is one of Allport’s later texts, and it is written in an accessible
style. It gives a comprehensive account of his
position.
Cattell, R. B. and Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis
of behaviour. This book provides a fairly detailed
account of Cattell’s theory, methodology and research.
Costa, P. T. Jr and McCrae, R. R. (2003). Personality in
adulthood, a five-factor theory. London: Guilford Press.
Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E. and Goldberg, L. R. (2000).
Cross-language studies of lexical personality factors. In
S. E. Hampson (ed.), Advances in Personality Psychology.
London: The Psychology Press. This reading is an excellent
summary of the lexical approach applied cross-
culturally.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality
(3rd edn). London: Methuen. This text goes into more
detail about Eysenck’s model and is presented in an
accessible format.
Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality
and individual differences: A natural science approach.
New York: Plenum Press. This book provides an excellent
overview of Eysenck’s work.
De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five personality factors: The
psycholexical approach to personality. Seattle, WA:
Hogrefe and Huber. This book provides an excellent
summary of lexical approaches.
Journals
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P.
and Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural
models for personality: The big three, the Big Five, and
the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 757–768. This paper provides a good
example of the research in this area. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology is published by the American
Psychological Association and is available online via
PsycARTICLES.
Saucier, G. and Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond
the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524. This
paper includes a critique of much of the current
research effort and some timely warnings about future
directions. Journal of Personality is published by Blackwell
Publishing and is available online with Blackwell
Synergy, Swets Wise and Ingenta.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,
Hrebícková, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sánchez-Bernados,
M. L., Kusdil, M. E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R. and
Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament,
personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. This paper
begins to outline a theoretical underpinning for the Big
Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is published
by the American Psychological Association and is
available online via PsycARTICLES.
You will regularly find research articles relating to the
personality theories described in this chapter in the
following journals:
European Journal of Personality. Published by Wiley.
Available online via Wiley InterScience.
Journal of Personality. Published by Blackwell Publishing.
Available online via Blackwell Synergy, SwetsWise
and Ingenta.
Personality Assessment. Published by the Society for
Personality Assessment. Available online via Business
Source Premier.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 176
CHAPTER 7 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO PERSONALITY 177
Journal of Research in Personality. Published by Academic
Press. Available online via IngentaJournals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Published
by Sage Publications for the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology. Available online via
SwetsWise, Sage Online, Ingenta and Expanded Academic
ASAP.
Personality and Social Psychology Review. Published
by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
Inc. Available online via Business Source Premier.
Personality and Individual Differences. Published by
Pergamon Press. Available online via Science Direct.
Web links
Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP).
A scientific computer-supported system for the development
of advanced measures of personality and other
individual differences. The IPIP website is intended to
provide rapid access to measures of individual differences,all
in the public domain,to be developed conjointly
among scientists worldwide (http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/).
A good website outlining many of the personality
theories covered in this chapter of the book is at
http://www.personalityresearch.org/.
Film and literature
Abigail’s Party (1970, BBC Play for Today). If you want
to see a film example of the contrast between an extraverted
individual and an introverted individual, then
the BBC Television film of the play Abigail’s Party is a
great example. The contrasts between the two main female
characters typify these two personality traits. This
is perhaps a little dated, but well worth viewing if you
can get a copy or get the opportunity to see the play.
Other films, that may be more easier to get hold of, that
depict stories around introverted individuals include
Amélie (2001, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet) and
Edward Scissorhands (1990, directed by Tim Burton).
Cruel Intentions (1999, directed by Roger Kumble),
Dangerous Liaisons (1988, directed by Stephen Frears)
and Collateral (2004, directed by Michael Mann). In
this chapter we outlined the concept of psychoticism, a
personality that emphasises hostile, cruel and inhumane
traits with a strong need to ridicule and upset others.
All these films have lead characters who clearly show
these traits.
Explore the website accompanying this text at www.pearsoned.co.uk/maltby for further resources to help
you with your studies. These include multiple-choice questions, essay questions, weblinks and ideas for
advanced reading.
M07_MALT2908_02_SE_C07.QXD 10/21/09 12:45 PM Page 177