The Five-Factor Theory rests on a single causal influence on personality traits namely

Purchase a PDF

Purchase this article for $51.00 USD.

How does it work?

1. Select the purchase option.
2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal.
3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

journal article

Psychological Inquiry

Vol. 21, No. 1 (January-March 2010)

, pp. 2-25 (24 pages)

Published By: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25704842

Read and download

Log in through your school or library

Purchase article

$51.00 - Download now and later

Abstract

The five-factor conceptualization of personality has been presented as all-embracing in understanding personality and has even received authoritative recommendation for understanding early development. I raise various concerns regarding this popular model. More specifically, (a) the atheoretical nature of the five-factors, their cloudy measurement, and their inappropriateness for studying early childhood are discussed; (b) the method (and morass) of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality is questioned and the continuing nonconsensual understandings of the five-factors is noted; (c) various unrecognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the catholic five-factors are brought forward; and (d) transformational developments in regard to inventory assessment of personality are mentioned. I conclude by suggesting that repeatedly observed higher order factors hierarchically above the proclaimed five may promise deeper biological understanding of the origins and implications of these superfactors.

Journal Information

Psychological Inquiry is an international forum for the discussion of theory and meta-theory. The journal strives to publish articles that represent broad, provocative, and debatable theoretical ideas primarily in the areas of social psychology and personality. We discourage submission of purely empirical, applied, or review articles. Each issue typically includes a target article followed by peer commentaries and a response from the target author. Manuscripts for the target articles can be invited or submitted. Manuscripts for the commentaries are always invited. Authors for the commentaries are chosen by the editors with input from the target authors.

Publisher Information

Building on two centuries' experience, Taylor & Francis has grown rapidlyover the last two decades to become a leading international academic publisher.The Group publishes over 800 journals and over 1,800 new books each year, coveringa wide variety of subject areas and incorporating the journal imprints of Routledge,Carfax, Spon Press, Psychology Press, Martin Dunitz, and Taylor & Francis.Taylor & Francis is fully committed to the publication and dissemination of scholarly information of the highest quality, and today this remains the primary goal.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Psychological Inquiry © 2010 Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Request Permissions

Eysenck, McCrae, and Costa’s Trait and Factor Theories

Hans Jurgen Eysenck was born in Berlin on March 4, 1916, the only child of a theatrical family. His mother was Ruth Werner, a starlet at the time of Eysenck’s birth. After his parents’ divorce, Eysenck went to live with his maternal grandmother, who had also been in the theater, but whose promising career in opera was cut short by a crippling fall. Even as a schoolboy, Eysenck was not afraid to take an unpopular stand, often challenging his teachers, especially those with militaristic leanings. Eysenck suffered the deprivation of many post–World War I Germans who were faced with astronomical inflation, mass unemployment, and near starvation. As a consequence of Nazi tyranny, Eysenck, at age 18, left Germany and eventually settled in England, where he tried to enroll in the University of London. In 1940, he was awarded a PhD from the University of London, but by this time England and most European nations were at war. After the war, he became director of the psychology department at Maudsley Hospital and later became a reader in psychology at the University of London. He then served as professor emeritus at the University of London until his death from cancer on September 4, 1997.

Robert Roger McCrae was born April 28, 1949 in Maryville, Missouri, a town of 13,000 people located about 100 miles north of Kansas City. McCrae, the youngest of three children born to Andrew McCrae and Eloise Elaine McCrae, grew up with an avid interest in science and mathematics. After completing his undergraduate degree, he entered graduate school at Boston University with a major in psychology. In 1975, 4 years into his PhD program, McCrae’s destiny was about to change. He was sent by his advisor to work as a research assistant with James Fozard, an adult developmental psychologist at the Normative Aging Study at the Veterans Administration Outpatient Clinic in Boston.

Paul T. Costa, Jr. was born September 16, 1942 in Franklin, New Hampshire, the son of Paul T. Costa, Sr. and Esther Vasil Costa. He earned his undergraduate degree in psychology at Clark University in 1964 and both his master’s (1968) and PhD (1970) in human development from the University of Chicago. While at

Chicago, he worked with Salvatore R. Maddi, with whom he published a book on humanistic personality theory.

The Pioneering Work of Raymond B. Cattell
An important figure in the early years of psychometrics was Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998), who was born in England but who spent most of his career in the United States. Cattell did not have a direct influence on Eysenck; indeed, the two men had quite different approaches to measuring the structure of personality. Because some familiarity of Cattell’s trait theory enhances the understanding of Eysenck’s three-factor theory, we briefly discuss Cattell’s work and compare and contrast it with that of Eysenck.

First, Cattell used an inductive method of gathering data; that is, he began with no preconceived bias concerning the number or name of traits or types. In contrast, Eysenck used a deductive method to identify three personality factors. That is, he had some preconceived hypothesis in mind before he began gathering data.

Second, Cattell used three different media of observation to examine people from as many angles as possible. The three sources of data included a person’s life record (L data) derived from observations made by other people; self-reports (Q data) obtained from questionnaires and other techniques designed to allow people to make subjective descriptions of themselves; and objective tests (T data), which measure performance such as intelligence, speed of responding, and other such activities designed to challenge people’s maximum performance. In contrast, each of Eysenck’s three bipolar factors is limited to responses on questioners. These self-report confine Eysenck’s procedures to personality factors.

Third, Cattell divided traits into common traits (shared by many) and unique traits (peculiar to one individual). He also distinguished source traits from trait indicators,or surface traits. Cattell further classified traits into temperament, motivation, and ability. Traits of temperament are concerned with how a person behaves,motivation deals with why one behaves, and ability refers to how far or how fast onecan perform.

Fourth, Cattell’s multifaceted approach yielded 35 primary, or first-order, traits, which measure mostly the temperament dimension of personality. Of these factors, 23 characterize the normal population and 12 measure the pathological dimension. The largest and most frequently studied of the normal traits are the 16 personality factors found on Cattell’s (1949) Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire (16 PF Scale). By comparison, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire yields scores on only three personality factors.

Fifth, while Cattell was measuring a large number to traits, Eysenck was concentrating on types, or superfactors that make up several interrelated traits. We discuss types and traits in the section titled Hierarchy of Behavior Organization.

Basics of Factor Analysis
To use factor analysis, one begins by making specific observations of many individuals. These observations are then quantified in some manner; for example, height is measured in inches; weight in pounds; aptitude in test scores; job performance by rating scales; and so on. Our next step is to determine which of these variables (scores) are related to which other variables and to what extent. To do this, we calculate the correlation coefficient between each variable and each of the other scores. Some of these correlations would be high and positive, some near zero, and some would be negative. At this point, we turn to factor analysis, which can account for a large number of variables with a smaller number of more basic dimensions. These more basic dimensions can be called traits, that is, factors that represent a cluster of closely related variables. Our next step is to determine the extent to which each individual score contributes to the various factors. Correlations of scores with factors are called factorloadings.

Traits generated through factor analysis may be either unipolar or bipolar. Unipolar traits are scaled from zero to some large amount. Height, weight, and intellectual ability are examples of unipolar traits. In contrast, bipolar traits extend from one pole to an opposite pole, with zero representing a midpoint. Introversion versus extraversion, liberalism versus conservatism, and social ascendancy versus timidity are examples of bipolar traits.

Eysenck’s Factor Theory
The personality theory of Hans Eysenck has strong psychometric and biological components. However, Eysenck (1977a, 1997a) contended that psychometric sophistication alone is not sufficient to measure the structure of human personality and that personality dimensions arrived at through factor analytic methods are sterile and meaningless unless they have been shown to possess a biological existence.

Criteria for Identifying Factors
First, psychometric evidence for the factor’s existence must be established. A corollary to this criterion is that the factor must be reliable and replicable.

A second criterion is that the factor must also possess heritability and must fit an established genetic model. This criterion eliminates learned characteristics, such as the ability to mimic the voices of well-known people or a religious or political belief.

Third, the factor must make sense from a theoretical view. Eysenck employed the deductive method of investigation, beginning with a theory and then gathering data that are logically consistent with that theory.

The final criterion for the existence of a factor is that it must possess social relevance; that is, it must be demonstrated that mathematically derived factors have arelationship (not necessarily causal) with such socially relevant variables as drug addiction,proneness to unintentional injuries, outstanding performance in sports, psychoticbehavior, criminality, and so on.

Hierarchy of Behavior Organization

At the lowest level are specific acts or cognitions, individual behaviors or thoughts that may or may not be characteristic of a person. At the second level are the habitual acts or cognitions, that is, responses that recur under similar conditions. For example, if a student frequently keeps at an assignment until it is finished, this behavior becomes a habitual response.

Several related habitual responses form a trait—the third level of behavior. Eysenck (1981) defined traits as “important semi-permanent personality dispositions” (p. 3).

Traits, then, are “defined in terms of significant intercorrelations between different habitual behaviors” (Eysenck, 1990, p. 244). Most of Cattell’s 35 normal and abnormal primary source traits are at this third level of organization, which accounts for the fact that he identified far more personality dimensions than either Eysenck or advocates of the Five-Factor Theory.

Eysenck concentrated on the fourth level, that of types or superfactors. A type is made up of several interrelated traits. For example, persistence may be related to inferiority, poor emotional adjustment, social shyness, and several other traits, with the entire cluster forming the introverted type.

Dimensions of Personality

Cattell’s 35 traits are all at the third level of the hierarchical structure, whereas Eysenck’s superfactors are at the fourth level. How many general superfactors exist? Many current factor theorists insist that ample evidence exists that five—and no more and no fewer—general factors will emerge from nearly all factor analyses of personality traits. Eysenck, however, extracted only three general superfactors. His three personality dimensions are extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and psychoticism (P), although he did not rule out “the possibility that further dimensions may be added later”

.

Neuroticism and psychoticism are not limited to pathological individuals, although disturbed people tend to score higher than normal people on scales measuring these two factors. Eysenck regarded all three factors as part of normal personality structure. All three are bipolar, with extraversion being at one end of Factor E and introversion occupying the opposite pole. Similarly, Factor N includes neuroticism at one pole and stability at the other, and Factor P has psychoticism at one pole and the superego function at the other.

Eysenck contended that each of these factors meets his four criteria for identifying personality dimensions.

First, strong psychometric evidence exists for each, especially Factors E and N. The P factor (psychoticism) emerged later in Eysenck’s work but was not taken seriously by other researchers until the mid-1990s.

Second, Eysenck (1994a, 1994b) argued that a strong biological base exists for each of his three superfactors. At the same time, he claimed that traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness, which are part of the five-factor taxonomy, do not have an underlying biological foundation.

Third, Eysenck’s three personality dimensions make sense theoretically. Carl Jung and others have recognized the powerful effect on behavior of extraversion and introversion (Factor E), and Sigmund Freud emphasized the importance of anxiety (Factor N) on shaping behavior. In addition, psychoticism (Factor P) agrees with theorists, such as Abraham Maslow, who propose that psychological health ranges from self-actualization (a low P score) to schizophrenia and psychosis (a high P score).

Fourth, Eysenck repeatedly demonstrated that his three factors relate to such social issues as drug use, sexual behaviors, criminality, preventing cancer and heart disease, and creativity (Eysenck, 1993).

Extraversion
Extraverts are characterized primarily by sociability and impulsiveness but also by jocularity, liveliness, quick-wittedness, optimism, and other traits indicative of people who are rewarded for their association with others (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969).

Introverts are characterized by traits opposite those of extraverts. They can be described as quiet, passive, unsociable, careful, reserved, thoughtful, pessimistic, peaceful, sober, and controlled. According to Eysenck (1982), however, the principal differences between extraversion and introversion are not behavioral, but rather biological and genetic in nature.

Eysenck (1997a) believed that the primary cause of differences between extraverts and introverts is one of cortical arousal level, a physiological condition that is largely inherited rather than learned.

Neuroticism
People who score high on neuroticism often have a tendency to overreact emotionally and to have difficulty returning to a normal state after emotional arousal. Neuroticism, however, does not necessarily suggest a neurosis in the traditional meaning of that term. People can score high on neuroticism and be free of any debilitating psychological symptoms.

Eysenck accepted the diathesis-stress model of psychiatric illness, which suggests that some people are vulnerable to illness because they have either a genetic or an acquired weakness that predisposes them to an illness.

Psychoticism
Eysenck’s original theory of personality was based on only two personality dimensions— extraversion and neuroticism. After several years of alluding to psychoticism (P) as an independent personality factor, Eysenck finally elevated it to a position equal to E and N (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). Like extraversion and neuroticism, P is a bipolar factor, with psychoticism on one pole and superego on the other. High P scorers are often egocentric, cold, nonconforming, impulsive, hostile, aggressive, suspicious, psychopathic, and antisocial. People low on psychoticism (in the direction of superego function) tend to be altruistic, highly socialized, empathic, caring, cooperative, conforming, and conventional (S. Eysenck, 1997).

Measuring Personality
Eysenck evolved four personality inventories that measure his superfactors. The first, the Maudsley Personality Inventory, or MPI (Eysenck, 1959), assessed only E and N and yielded some correlation between these two factors. For this reason, Eysenck developed another test, the Eysenck Personality Inventory, or EPI. The EPI contains a lie (L) scale to detect faking, but more importantly, it measures extraversion and neuroticism independently, with a near zero correlation between E and N. The Eysenck Personality Inventory was extended to children 7 to 16 years of age by Sybil B. G. Eysenck (1965), who developed the Junior EPI.

The EPI was still a two-factor inventory, so consequently Hans Eysenck and Sybil Eysenck (1975) published a third personality test, namely the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), which included a psychoticism (P) scale. The EPQ, which has both an adult and a junior version, is a revision of the still-published EPI. Subsequent criticisms of the P scale led to yet another revision, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised.

Units of the Five-Factor Theory
In the personality theory of McCrae and Costa (1996, 1999, 2003), behavior is predicted by an understanding of three central or core components and three peripheral ones. The three central components include (1) basic tendencies, (2) characteristic adaptations, and (3) self-concept.

Core Components of Personality

Basic Tendencies As defined by McCrae and Costa (1996), basic tendencies are one of the central components of personality, along with characteristic adaptions, self-concept, biological bases, objective biography, and external influences.

Characteristic Adaptations Core components of Five-Factor Theory include the characteristic adaptations, that is, acquired personality structures that develop as people adapt to their environment. The principal difference between basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations is their flexibility. Whereas basic tendencies are quite stable, characteristic adaptations can be influenced by external influences, such as acquired skills, habits, attitudes, and relationships that result from the interaction of individuals with their environment.

Self-Concept McCrae and Costa (2003) explain that self-concept is actually a characteristic adaptation, but it gets its own box because it is such an important adaptation. McCrae and Costa (1996) wrote that it “consists of knowledge, views, and evaluations of the self, ranging from miscellaneous facts of personal history to the identity that gives a sense of purpose and coherence to life” (p. 70).

Peripheral Components
The three peripheral components are (1) biological bases, (2) objective biography, and (3) external influences.

Biological Bases The Five-Factor Theory rests on a single causal influence on personality traits, namely biology. The principal biological mechanisms that influence basic tendencies are genes, hormones, and brain structures.

Objective Biography The second peripheral component is objective biography, defined as “everything the person does, thinks, or feels across the whole lifespan”(McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 187).

External Influences People constantly find themselves in a particular physical or social situation that has some influence on the personality system. The question of how we respond to the opportunities and demands of the context is what external influences is all about. According to McCrae and Costa (1999, 2003), these responses are a function of two things: (1) characteristic adaptations and (2) their interaction with external influences.

Basic Postulates
Each of the components of the personality system (except biological bases) has core postulates. Because the components of basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations are most central to the personality system, we will elaborate only on the postulates for these two components.

Postulates for Basic Tendencies
The individuality postulate stipulates that adults have a unique set of traits and that each person exhibits a unique combination of trait patterns.

Second, the origin postulate takes a clear if somewhat controversial stance: All personality traits are the result solely of endogenous (internal) forces, such as genetics, hormones, and brain structures.

Third, the development postulate assumes that traits develop and change through childhood, but in adolescence their development slows, and by early to mid-adulthood (roughly age 30), change in personality nearly stops altogether

Finally, the structure postulate states that traits are organized hierarchically from narrow and specific to broad and general, just as Eysenck (1990) had suggested.

Postulates for Characteristic Adaptations
The postulate concerning characteristic adaptations states that, over time, people adapt to their environment “by acquiring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are consistent with their personality traits and earlier adaptations” (McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 190). In other words, traits affect the way we adapt to the changes in our environment. Moreover, our basic tendencies result in our seeking and selecting particular environments that match our dispositions.

The second characteristic adaptation postulate—maladjustment—suggests that our responses are not always consistent with personal goals or cultural values.

The third characteristic adaptation postulate states that basic traits may “change over time in response to biological maturation, changes in the environment, or deliberate interventions”

·         Eysenck and the Five-Factor theorists were not concerned with traditional themes such as determinism versus free choice, optimism versus pessimism, and teleological versus causal influences.

·         Eysenck believed that humans possess not only consciousness, but self-consciousness as well.

·         Second, Eysenck, as well as McCrae and Costa, placed heavy emphasis on genetic factors of personality. Therefore, we rate trait and factor theories very low on social influences. 

·         On the dimension of individual differences versus similarities, trait and factor theories lean toward individual differences.

·         the theories of Eysenck and Costa and McCrae must be rated very high on generate research.

·         trait and factor theories receive a moderate to high rating on falsifiable.

·         Third, trait and factor theories are rated high on their ability to organize knowledge.

·         Fourth, a useful theory has the power to guide the actions of practitioners, and on this criterion, trait and factor theories receive mixed reviews.

·         Again, the rating must be equivocal. The theories of Eysenck and advocates of the Big Five are each a model of consistency, but the two theories taken together are somewhat inconsistent.

·         Ideally, trait and factor theories should receive an excellent rating on this standard, because factor analysis is predicated on the idea of the fewest explanatory factors possible.

Which of the following is not one of the traits of the 5 Factor theory?

What are the five personality traits explain in detail?

What are basic tendencies of the Five Factor theory?

What is McCrae and Costa's five factor theory?