1-s2.0-S0191886901001866-main

A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three structural modelsfor personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R,EPQ-RS and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives

Anton Alujaa,*, Oscar Garcıab, Luis F. Garcıac

aDepartment of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Lleida, Complex de la Caparrella, s/n,25192 Lleida (Catalonia), Spain

bEuropean University of Madrid, SpaincAutonomous University of Madrid, Spain

Received 8 June 2001; received in revised form 1 September 2001

Abstract

This study was designed to explore the inter-relationships of the personality inventories NEO-PI-R,ZKPQ-III-R and EPQ-RS, within the framework of the structural models of 3, 4 and 5 factors proposedby Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Teta, Joireman, and Kraft [(1993). A comparison of three structural models ofpersonality: the Big Three, the Big Five, and the alternate Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 65, 757–768]. As an additional measure of the Big Five, Goldberg’s bipolar adjectives were added.Extraversion and Neuroticism were quite similar across all three models. With a three-factor solution, thedifferent measures of personality can be grouped into Neuroticism, Extraversion and Psychoticism factors.Openness of the NEO-PI-R, Sociability and Activity of the ZKPQ-III-R are clearly located on the Extra-version factor, while Conscientiousness and Agreeableness come within the Psychoticism factor, togetherwith Impulsive Sensation Seeking and Aggressivity-Hostility of the ZKPQ-III-R. The four-factor structuresuggests that Psychoticism is split into two factors. The first one was formed by Conscientiousness,Impulsive Sensation Seeking and Psychoticism, and the other by Agreeableness and Aggression-Hostility.The five-factor model seems to be similar to the four-factor one, except for Openness markers that formsan independent factor. The relationship of Openness with Psychoticism and Extraversion is discussed.# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ZKPQ-III-R; EPQ-RS; NEO-PI-R; Goldberg’s adjectives; Structural models of personality; PEN model;Five Factor personality Model; Openness to Experience

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0191-8869(01 )00186-6

Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-973-702312; fax: +34-973-702305.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Aluja).

1. Introduction

The past decade has seen an interesting and polemic discussion: which of the structural models,of five or three factors, best explains human personality? (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992a;Eysenck, 1991, 1992a, 1992b). Eysenck (1991) defends a three factor structure based on Psycho-ticism (P), Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N), while Costa and McCrae (1985) put forward afive-factor structure as the most adequate: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O)Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C).One of Eysenck’s criticisms of the five-factor model is that A and C factors would in fact betraits opposed to the P dimension. The negative correlations between A and P, and C and Pfound by McCrae and Costa (1985) suggest that these two factors would be part of the severalpersonality traits related to P. Within the Big Five framework, somewhat different interpretationsof the negative and moderate correlations between A and C with P, have been made by Goldberg(1993) and John (1990). From this point of view, A and C would actually be personality dimen-sions not considered as primary factors that combine in a second order wider factor, P wouldrather be integrated in A and C. Another of Eysenck’s objections refers to the O factor, which hesees as representing a component of cognitive skills rather than a personality dimension (Eysenck,1991). Of the Big Five personality factors, O is the most difficult to conceptualise. It has also beentermed Culture or Intellect (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989), although Openness to Experience seemsto be a better description of this personality characteristic (Costa & McCrae, 1985).The development of an alternative five-factor model by Zuckerman has contributed to thedebate on the three or five-factor models to explain human personality. Zuckerman, Kuhlman,Thornquist, and Kiers (1991) performed an exploratory factor analysis of 33 out of 46 scales ofseveral personality inventories (PRF, JPI, CPI, KSP, EASI, EPQ and SSS)1. After studying dif-ferent rotated structures ranging from three to six factors, it was concluded that a five-factorstructure was the best and most robust solution. This structure included the following factors:Impulsive Sensation Seeking (ImpSS), Neuroticism-Anxiety (N-Anx), Aggression-Hostility (Agg-Host), Activity (Act), and Sociability (Sy). As can be seen, Openness was not included in thismodel. From the items in the several scales used in the work of Zuckerman et al. (1991), theZuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire was constructed. After several revisions, a finalversion of the instrument with five subscales corresponding to each of the five factors stated ear-lier and an additional Infrequency (Inf) subscale was elaborated (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Teta,Joireman, & Carrocia, 1992; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Teta, Joireman, & Kraft, 1993).Costa and McCrae (1992b) criticize the deliberate omission by Zuckerman et al. (1991) ofmarkers for the Openness dimension in their different factor models. Nevertheless, they considerthat the personality variables in the study by Zuckerman et al. (1991), the N, E, O, A and Cdimensions are represented by Neuroticism and Extraversion (EPQ), Experience Seeking (SSS),Low PRF Aggression, and PRF Cognitive structure, as markers of the Big Five. Costa andMcCrae (1992b) reanalysed the Zuckerman et al. (1991) data through an orthogonal Procrustes

1 Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1974), Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1976), California Psycholo-gical Inventory (Gough, 1957), Karolinska Scales of Personality (Schalling, 1978) Emotionality-Activity Sociability-

Impulsivity Scale (Buss & Plomin, 1975), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck , 1975) and SensationSeeking Scale, form V (Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978).

714 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

rotation obtaining five factors designated N, E, O, A and C. The O factor loadings were Cogni-tive structure (PRF), the four subscales of the SSS, Decision Time (EASI), the Impulsivenessscales and Monotony Avoidance (KSP), P (EPQ) and Socialization (CPI). The P loading inthe O factor was 0.49, while the E loading of only 0.14 was in an independent factor of socia-bility.Subsequently, Zuckerman et al. (1993) analyzed the factorial structure of the EPQ, the NEO-PI-R and the ZKPQ-III-R, extracting three, four and five factors. In all solutions the Extraver-sion factor and Neuroticism factor remain constant. When three factors were extracted, P wasnegatively associated with C and A and with ImpSS and Agg-Hos from the ZKPQ-III-R. O waslocated on the Extraversion factor (0.35). The Psychoticism factor scales are split into two factorsin the 4-factor solution: Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The first one is formed by A, Agg-Ho, and O. The second one is formed by C, P, and ImpSS. Finally, in the five-factor solution,when adding the 30 NEO PI-R facets, the six facets of O formed an independent factor. In thismodel, P was grouped with ImpSS, N5 (Impulsivity) and the six C facets (with negative load-ings).The relationship reported by Costa and McCrae (1992b) between P and an O factor seems to betheoretically incongruent and difficult to test according to later data provided by Zuckerman etal. (1993). On the other hand, E of the EPQ is located on the Extraversion factor with a lowloading on O, where a rather bigger loading would be expected. Neither Eysenck nor Zuckermaninclude in their respective models a proposal for a Culture or Openness dimension. Openness isstrongly related to Extraversion (0.43 and 0.40) in the Costa and McCrae instrument (Costa &McCrae, 1992c; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991), and with the Sensation Seeking Scale, form V,(Zuckerman, 1994). In the study by Zuckerman et al. (1993), the three, four, and five factormodels, no relationships are observed between P and O. Rather, in the five-factor structure, P hasa low loading of 0.07 in the fifth factor formed by the six O facets. Psychoticism loads on thesecond factor, together with the C facets, ImpSS and N5 (impulsivity). Psychoticism also has arelevant weight of �0.43 on the fourth factor, formed by the A facets, N2 (Anger-Hostility) andAgg-Hos (�0.60 and �0.74, respectively) of the ZKPQ-III-R.Nevertheless, the relationship between P and O found by Costa and McCrae (1992b) might bejustified by the strong relationship of P with the SSS (Zuckerman et al., 1978). The creativitycomponent of P could even have an indirect relationship with O (Eysenck, 1992c; Zuckerman,1989). To date, data obtained by Zuckerman et al. (1993) point to the fact that Openness toExperience tends to be associated with Extraversion in the three-factor model, with A and Agg-Hos (in negative) in the four-factor model, and seems to be independent in the five-factor model.The aim of this study was to replicate the three structural models obtained by Zuckerman et al.(1993) in samples from our sociocultural context. If Zuckerman’s data are consistent, they wouldbe expected to remain stable in our study. Therefore, our predictions were the following: (1)Neuroticism and Extraversion factors would not have substantial changes depending on thenumber of factors extracted, (2) we expected Psychoticism to be grouped with Agreeableness,Conscientiousness, ImpSS and Agg-Hos in a three-factor model. In the case of four factors,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness would form different factors, and (3) the Openness toExperience measures would mainly load on the Extraversion factor in the three and four-factormodels and would not be related to Psychoticism, though they would form an independent factorin the five-factor model.

A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725 715

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The sample was composed of 429 psychology students (167 male and 262 women) from theLleida University, the European University of Madrid and the University of Barcelona. Theaverage age was 21.04 (S.D.:3.46) for males and 20.95 (S.D.:2.65) for females. An indivi-dual profile of descriptive results of some of the studied personality dimensions wasoffered to each subject in order to motivate participation in the research. The ques-tionnaires were administered in their respective classrooms and the participation was voluntaryand anonymous. The average time employed in filling in the questionnaires was approximately 90min.

2.2. Measures

We translated into Spanish the following questionnaires from the English version for this study:the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c) form S, the 50Goldberg bipolar adjectives (1992), and the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire(ZKPQ-III-R; Zuckerman et al., 1993).The NEO-PI-R has 240 items and measures Big Five personality factors, as well as 30 facets (sixby dimension), although they were not used in the present study. The construct validity of theNEO PI-R, and its previous version—the NEO-PI–, has been clearly demonstrated by thereplicability of its five-factor structure in several languages and cultures (Caprara, Barbaranelli,Hahn, & Comrey, 2001; Katigbak, Church, & Akamine, 1996). The reliability coefficients oscil-late between 0.86 and 0.92 (Costa & McCrae, 1992c).Goldberg (1992) compiled a list of 50 transparent bipolar adjectives adjusted to the Big Fivemodel of personality. This pool of adjectives was administered to a sample of students, scoring ona 1–9 scale (e.g.: introverted, 1–2=very, 3–4=moderately, 5=neither, 6–7=moderately, 8–9=very. extraverted). The results were factor analysed in two different formats, transparent andopaque, showing a five-factor structure with 10 adjectives included in each one. The personalitydimensions measured were: Intellect (G-Int), Conscientiousness (G-Con), Surgency (G-Sur),Agreeableness (G-Agr), and Emotional Stability (G-Emo). The author informs of good con-vergent and discriminant validity with the NEO-PI, form S (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Reliabilityalpha coefficients range between 0.84 and 0.88.The ZKPQ-III-R has 99 items and measures the following personality domains: ImpulsiveSensation Seeking (ImpSS), Neuroticism-Anxiety (N-Anx), Aggression-Hostility (Agg-Hos),Activity (Act), Sociability (Sy) and Infrequency (Inf). The ZKPQ-III-R has been related to boththe EPQ and the NEO-PI-R Scales. In reference to the EPQ, Act, Sy and ImpSS are related to E;N-Anx and Agg-Hos to N. Act, Sy and ImpSS were also related to E. Psychoticism was related toImpSS and Agg-Hos. In regard to the NEO-PI-R, N-Anx and Sy were positively related to N andE facets, respectively; Agg-Hos and ImpSS were negatively related to A and C facets, respec-tively; and finally, Act was positively related to E and C facets. All correlations were high andsignificant. Reliability coefficients of the ZKPQ-III-R ranged between 0.72 and 0.83 (Zuckermanet al., 1992).


We also used the Spanish 48-item short scale version of the Eysenck Personality Inventoryrevised (EPQ-RS). Each of the four scales is integrated by 12 items, EPQ-E:2 Extraversion; EPQ-N:2 Neuroticism; P: Psychoticism and L: Lie. Reliability alpha coefficients ranged between 0.73and 0.82. Psychometric properties are fair and similar to those obtained in the original Englishlanguage studies (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1997).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptives and differences by gender

Global means for the A, C, and E NEO-PI-R Scales are not different to those reported byCosta and McCrae (1992c) in the American normalization study. On the other hand, the meanscore for N obtained in this study is about 15 points, while the mean score for E is about sixpoints above that in the original normative study. This difference could be explained by therelatively low age of the participants in the study, with a mean age of about 20 years, sinceNeuroticism and Extraversion tend to correlate negatively with age. A parallel factor analysis ofthe 30 facets of the NEO-PI-R demonstrated a good adjustment to a five-factor structure repor-ted by Costa and McCrae (1992c), with superior interfactors congruence indexes of 0.95 (Aluja,Garcıa, Garcıa, & Seisdedos, submitted). The ZKPQ-III-R means are also very similar to thosereported by Zuckerman et al. (1992, 1993), and also to those obtained with the EPQ-RS in theirSpanish version (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1997). The internal consistency of the various scales is highand in general above 0.70, except for the ZKPQ-III-R Infrequency Scale with a coefficient of 0.44.The psychometric properties of the measures used in this study, and considering our socioculturalcontext, are good and similar to those obtained by their authors with English-speaking samples(Table 1).Table 1 also shows descriptives and t-tests by gender on every scale. Results are strongly con-sistent across questionnaires. There are significant differences on the Neuroticism scales of theNEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, and EPQ-RS. Women also score higher on the Agreeableness andConscientiousness scales of the NEO-PI-R and Goldberg’s adjectives, as well as the L scale of theEPQ-RS. On the other hand, males score higher on ImpSS and the Psychoticism scale of theEPQ-RS. Note that there are no differences in the scales directly related to Extraversion, includ-ing Sociability and Activity of the ZKPQ-III-R.

3.2. Correlational analysis

The Appendix shows the correlation matrix between the NEO-PI-R, Goldberg’s bipolar adjec-tives, ZKPQ-III-R, and EPQ-RS. As expected, the five NEO-PI-R dimensions correlate stronglywith Goldberg’s personality markers. Neuroticism yields a high correlation with N-Anx, 0.81,EPQ-N, 0.77 and G-Emo, �0.72. Extraversion is related to G-Int, 0.40, Sy, 0.66, EPQ-E, 0.77 andAct, 0.38. Openness is related to G-Int, 0.47, ImpSS, 0.34, and EPQ-E 0.33. Agreeableness yieldsa negative correlation with Agg-Hos, �0.59, P, �0.31; while Conscientiousness is related to

2 To refer to the E and N of the EPQ we will use EPQ-E and EPQ-N, respectively.


ImpSS, �0.53, and P, �0.47. Psychoticism is positively related to ImpSS, 0.57 and Agg-Hos,0.33. EPQ-E is positively related to Sy, 0.64, and Act, 0.33, whereas EPQ-N is related to N-Anx,0.80, and to a lesser extent with Agg-Hos, 0.31. All correlations are statistically significant.

3.3. Three, four, and five-factor structural models

First of all, a principal component analysis of all personality variables studied was performed,excluding L and Inf of the EPQ-RS and ZKPQ-III-R, respectively. Factors were orthogonalityrotated by the Varimax method (Kaiser, 1961). In Fig. 1, the factors and the eigenvalues areshown. A three-factor structure model is shown in Table 2 that explains 59.71% of the variance.The three factors contain scales that can be considered markers of Extraversion, Neuroticism and

Table 1Means, standard deviations, t-test by gender and Cronbach’s alpha

Variable Items Men Women All t-test P< Alpha

M S.D. M S.D.

Age 21.04 (3.46) 20.95 (2.66) 20.98 (3.99) 0.28 NS –NEO-Neuroticism a6�8 89.37 (26.63) 96.95 (26.70) 94.01 (26.90) �2.87 0.004 0.90NEO-Extraversion 6�8 115.66 (21.66) 115.08 (21.69) 115.30 (21.66) 0.27 NS 0.86NEO-Openness 6�8 110.52 (21.27) 112.18 (17.88) 111.54 (19.25) �0.84 NS 0.81

NEO-Agreeableness 6�8 117.07 (17.56) 125.49 (17.06) 122.22 (16.72) �4.88 0.001 0.81NEO-Conscientiousness 6�8 118.91 (23.07) 127.97 (21.95) 124.45 (22.80) �4.04 0.001 0.89

G-Emotional Stability b10 5.48 (1.09) 5.30 (1.22) 5.38 (1.18) 1.62 NS 0.81G-Surgency 10 6.44 (1.17) 6.36 (1.23) 6.40 (1.21) 0.65 NS 0.88G-Intellect 10 6.42 (0.93) 6.39 (0.85) 6.41 (0.88) 0.30 NS 0.74

G-Agreeableness 10 6.85 (0.87) 7.16 (0.81) 7.04 (0.57) �3.68 0.001 0.81G-Conscientiousness 10 6.55 (1.14) 7.05 (0.92) 6.86 (1.06) �4.57 0.001 0.83

ZKPQ-ImpSS c19 10.57 (4.19) 8.81 (4.40) 9.50 (4.40) 4.15 0.001 0.82

ZKPQ-N/Anxiety 19 8.10 (3.90) 9.46 (4.24) 8.93 (4.16) �3.40 0.001 0.80ZKPQ-Agg/Hostility 17 8.04 (3.60) 7.58 (3.43) 7.76 (3.51) 1.30 NS 0.73ZKPQ-Activity 17 8.92 (3.44) 8.41 (3.82) 8.61 (3.68) 1.42 NS 0.76

ZKPQ-Sociability 17 9.43 (3.74) 9.89 (3.32) 9.71 (3.50) �1.31 NS 0.76ZKPQ-Infrequency 10 2.10 (1.53) 1.36 (1.36) 1.65 (1.48) 5.081 0.001 0.44

EPQ-Psychoticism d12 3.82 (2.45) 2.95 (2.18) 3.29 (2.33) 3.75 0.001 0.63EPQ-Extraversion 12 8.03 (3.07) 8.09 (2.97) 8.07 (3.00) �0.22 NS 0.80EPQ-Neuroticism 12 4.80 (3.47) 5.72 (3.46) 5.36 (3.49) �2.67 0.01 0.83

EPQ-Lie 12 5.25 (2.73) 6.12 (2.70) 5.79 (2.74) �3.22 0.001 0.70

167 262 429

a Each NEO-PI-R dimension is formed by six facets of eight items with a rang score of 0–4 point.b The Goldberg’s adjectives rang scores is 1–9 points.c The ZPQK-III-R rang scores is 0–1 points.d The EPQ-RS rang score is 0–1 points.


Psychoticism. The Extraversion factor was composed of the extraversion scales of the four ques-tionnaires (E, EPQ-E, G-Surg, Sy, G-Int, O and Act). The Neuroticism factor was integrated bythe neuroticism scales (N-Anx, N, EPQ-N and G-Emo). The third Psychoticism factor groupedthe following scales: G-Con, C, P, ImpSS, A, G-Agr and Agg-Hos. Moreover, a three-factorstructure is shown in which Goldberg’s bipolar adjectives have been excluded, explaining 62.37%of the variance. This allows a direct comparison with the derivative models of Zuckerman et al.(1993).A model with a four-factor structure is presented in Table 3 which explains 68.54% of thevariance. The first and second factors were composed of the same personality variables as in theprevious three-factor structure scales (Extraversion and Neuroticism markers). The third andfourth factor was integrated by the scales that composed the Psychoticism markers in the previousthree-factor structure. Furthermore, a non-forced four-factor structure is shown in which Gold-berg’s bipolar adjectives have been excluded, explaining 71.67% of the variance.The five-factor structure coincided with the Guttman criterion extraction approach (eigenvalue

51; Guttman, 1954), explaining 74.48% of the variance. The first factor was integrated by E,EPQ-E, G-Sur, Sy and Act, being a neat factor of Extraversion. The second factor was composedof the four scales of Neuroticism contents (N-Anx, EPQ-N, N and G-Emo). The third factor wasintegrated by C, G-Con, ImpSS and P (both negative), being a factor of Psychoticism. The fourthfactor contains the NEO-PI-R, A scale and Goldberg’s adjectives of Agreeableness, together withAgg-Hos of the ZKPQ-III-R. The fifth factor was formed by O and G-Int (Table 4).

Fig. 1. Scree plot of personality variables, excluding L and Inf, factor numbers and eigenvalues.


4. Discussion

The performed, —non forced—, exploratory factorial analysis with the 18 personality scalesshowed a five-factor solution, while Zuckerman et al. (1993) obtained a four-factor solution. Thefifth factor in our study could be explained by the inclusion of the additional Goldberg measures.This was tested when performing the factorial analysis with the same variables but excludingGoldberg’s adjectives. In this case, factors with an eigenvalue equal or higher than one are four,exactly the same as in Zuckerman et al. (1993), although in our data Openness loads on theExtraversion factor and not on A and Agg-Hos. In our four-factor model, Openness and G-Intare grouped into the Extraversion factor. The three remaining factors contain the Neuroticismscales of the four questionnaires, the G-Con, C, ImpSS and P on the third factor, and A, Agg-Hos and G-Agr on the fourth factor. When forcing the solution to three factors, the relationshipof the several scales is clear and consistent. The Extraversion scales of the four questionnaires, E,

Table 2Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (three-Factor Model)

Factor loadingsa h2 Factor loadingsb h2

Total variance explained: 60.07% Total variance explained: 62.37%

26.67% 20.97% 12.42% 25.71% 23.99% 12.66%Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Three-factor analysis

NEO-Extraversion 0.88 �0.19 �0.07 0.75 0.89 �0.22 0.04 0.84EPQ-Extraversion 0.85 �0.16 �0.10 0.76 0.86 �0.17 0.08 0.72G-Surgency 0.82 �0.29 �0.08 0.75 – – – –ZKPQ-Sociability 0.70 0.04 �0.07 0.49 0.80 0.07 �0.03 0.64

G-Intellect 0.59 �0.01 0.34 0.47 – – – –NEO�Openness 0.55 0.10 �0.02 0.31 0.52 0.04 0.08 0.27ZKPQ-Activity 0.47 �0.05 0.01 0.22 0.48 �0.07 �0.02 0.23

ZKPQ-N-Anxiety �0.08 0.91 �0.01 0.83 �0.06 0.94 0.03 0.88NEO-Neuroticism �0.15 0.90 �0.17 0.85 �0.13 0.90 0.18 0.86

EPQ-Neuroticism �0.07 0.89 �0.14 0.82 �0.07 0.89 0.19 0.83G-Emotional Stability 0.06 �0.81 0.23 0.72 – – – –

G-Conscientiousness 0.07 �0.08 0.79 0.64 – – – –NEO-Conscientiousness 0.09 �0.23 0.75 0.63 0.02 �0.27 �0.64 0.49EPQ-Psychoticism 0.13 0.07 �0.71 0.53 0.11 0.07 0.76 0.58ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.42 0.06 �0.69 0.65 0.44 0.06 0.69 0.66

NEO-Agreeableness 0.03 0.00 0.58 0.34 0.13 0.10 �0.72 0.54G-Agreeableness 0.47 �0.06 0.57 0.54 – – – –ZKPQ-Agg-Hostility 0.12 0.28 �0.51 0.37 0.03 0.19 0.67 0.48

h2, communalities.a With Goldberg’s adjectives.b Without Goldberg’s adjectives.


EPQ-E, G-Sur, Sy and Act, are grouped into the two Openness measures: O and G-Int. The fourNeuroticism scales, N-Anx, N, EPQ-N and G-Emo, remain on the same factor, while on the thirdfactor the C, G-Con A, G-Agg scales are positive, and P, ImpSS and Agg-Hos are negative. Thethree- and four-factor models without Goldberg’s adjectives are strikingly similar to thoseobtained by Zuckerman et al. (1993), except that Openness loads clearly on the Extraversionfactor, which seems more theoretically consistent.Psychoticism is not related to the Openness factor in either model. On the other hand, anddespite being a Psychoticism marker, ImpSS loads significantly on the Extraversion factor in boththe three and four factor models, which includes the two Openness scales, G-Int and O, suggest-ing that a potential relationship between O and P could be mediated by ImpSS. Furthermore, therelationships between O and E are basically due to O3 and O4, feelings and actions respectively

Table 3Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation (four-Factor Model)

Factor loadingsa h2 Factor loadingsb h2

Total Variance Explained: 68.54% Total Variance Explained: 71.67%

26.67% 20.97% 12.42% 8.47% 25.71% 23.99% 12.65% 9.30%Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Four-Factor Analysis

NEO-Extraversion 0.88 �0.19 �0.08 0.04 0.81 0.89 �0.22 0.09 0.01 0.85EPQ-Extraversion 0.85 �0.16 �0.09 �0.01 0.76 0.86 �0.16 0.10 0.05 0.78G-Surgency 0.82 �0.29 0.01 �0.14 0.78 – – – – –ZKPQ-Sociability 0.69 0.04 �0.18 0.19 0.54 0.79 0.07 0.07 �0.08 0.64

G-Intellect 0.59 �0.01 0.47 �0.09 0.56 – – – – –NEO-Openness 0.55 0.10 �0.07 0.09 0.34 0.45 0.00 0.35 �0.24 0.38ZKPQ-Activity 0.47 �0.05 0.14 �0.18 0.30 0.55 �0.03 �0.27 0.29 0.45

ZKPQ-N-Anxiety �0.08 0.91 �0.03 0.04 0.83 �0.06 0.94 0.04 �0.03 0.88NEO-Neuroticism �0.15 0.90 �0.15 �0.08 0.85 �0.13 0.91 0.14 0.09 0.86

EPQ-Neuroticism �0.06 0.89 �0.08 �0.13 0.83 �0.06 0.90 0.10 0.15 0.84G-Emotional Stability 0.05 �0.82 0.17 0.14 0.72 – – – – –

G-Conscientiousness 0.05 �0.09 0.88 0.09 0.78 – – – – –NEO-Conscientiousness 0.08 �0.24 0.86 0.05 0.81 0.12 �0.23 �0.82 �0.05 0.73ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.44 0.07 �0.67 �0.20 0.69 0.36 0.03 0.77 0.18 0.64EPQ-Psychoticism 0.14 0.08 �0.62 �0.35 0.53 0.05 0.06 0.70 0.35 0.62

NEO-Agreeableness 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.89 0.80 0.08 0.03 �0.20 �0.85 0.77ZKPQ-Agg-Hostility 0.15 0.29 �0.13 �0.75 0.68 0.09 0.25 0.19 0.79 0.72

G-Agreeableness 0.45 �0.07 0.31 0.59 0.66 – – – – –

h2, communalities.a With Goldberg’s adjectives.b Without Goldberg’s adjectives.


(Costa & McCrae, 1992c), the O4 facet having a significant correlation with ImpSS in the Zuck-erman et al. (1992) study.Data provided in this study yield a high convergence among the various scales of the studiedquestionnaires, as suggested by Zuckerman et al. (1993). Regarding the adequacy of the theore-tical factor structure, the questionnaires analyzed are coherent with both the three factor Eysenckmodel and the five factor structure depending on the number of factors extracted: Three or fivefactors. The main debate seems to centre on Openness, a variable that despite seeming theoreti-cally independent, is clearly related to Extraversion and, to a lesser extent, to ImpSS markers.In the light of the results obtained in the present research, it is possible that age, educationallevel and social desirability effects could mediate the relationships between Openness and otherpersonality variables. In this sense, implications and directions for further research could includethe replication of these results with a more diversified sampling considering non-university sub-jects, and a greater number of respondents with a higher mean age, in order to minimize Open-ness, Extraversion and Impulsive Sensation Seeking relationships.

Table 4Principal components analysis with Varimax rotationa (five factor model)

Factor loadings h2

6.49% 20.90% 12.31% 8.50% 6.25%Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Five-Factor AnalysisNEO-Extraversion 0.84 �0.18 �0.10 0.06 0.30 0.83EPQ-Extraversion 0.82 �0.14 �0.10 0.01 0.28 0.77

G-Surgency 0.80 �0.28 0.00 �0.13 0.26 0.79ZKPQ-Sociability 0.75 0.07 �0.17 0.21 0.06 0.64ZKPQ-Activity 0.67 0.01 0.19 �0.16 �0.21 0.56

ZKPQ-N-Anxiety �0.09 0.91 �0.03 0.04 0.00 0.84EPQ-Neuroticism �0.15 0.90 �0.14 �0.08 �0.05 0.83

NEO-Neuroticism �0.07 0.90 �0.08 �0.13 �0.01 0.86G-Emotional Stability 0.06 �0.82 0.17 0.14 0.01 0.72

NEO-Conscientiousness 0.01 �0.09 0.87 0.08 0.16 0.81

G-Conscientiousness 0.11 �0.23 0.86 0.04 0.04 0.79ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.33 0.05 �0.71 �0.19 0.25 0.71EPQ-Psychoticism 0.12 0.08 �0.63 �0.34 0.03 0.53

NEO-Agreeableness 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.89 �0.03 0.82ZKPQ-Agg-Hostility 0.14 0.29 �0.14 �0.75 0.06 0.82

G-Agreeableness 0.34 �0.08 0.28 0.60 0.33 0.68

NEO-Openness 0.16 0.03 �0.18 0.08 0.83 0.76

G-Intellect 0.28 �0.07 0.38 �0.10 0.75 0.80

Eigenvalues 5 1. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.: 0.8. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Approx.Chi-Square: 4553.41; d.f.: 153; P<0.000.h2, communalitiesa Total variance explained: 74.48%.


Appendix. Pearson correlation matrix of NEO-PI-R, Goldberg’s 50 bipolar adjectives, ZKPQ-III-R and EPQ-RSa

Starting from +/� 0.16 P<0.001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. NEO-Neuroticism 1.02. NEO-Extraversion �0.30 1.03. NEO-Openness �0.02 0.39 1.0

4. NEO-Agreeableness �0.10 0.02 0.03 1.05. NEO-Conscientiousness �0.34 0.07�0.04 0.21 1.06. G-Emotional Stability �0.72 0.15�0.06 0.14 0.35 1.0

7. G-Surgency �0.34 0.75 0.31�0.08 0.14 0.28 1.08. G-Intellect �0.18 0.40 0.47�0.04 0.33 0.14 0.41 1.09. G-Agreeableness �0.21�0.04�0.05 0.20 0.75 0.26 0.07 0.39 1.0

10. G-Conscientiousness �0.22 0.36 0.23 0.52 0.28 0.26 0.31 0.36 0.42 1.011. ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.09 0.37 0.34�0.25�0.53�0.13 0.33 0.01�0.49�0.09 1.012. ZKPQ-N-Anxiety 0.81�0.24�0.01 0.02�0.22�0.64�0.30�0.10�0.10�0.11 0.07 1.0

13. ZKPQ-Agg-Hostility 0.31 0.08 0.01�0.59�0.23�0.33 0.11 0.03�0.20�0.31 0.27 0.19 1.014. ZKPQ-Activity �0.11 0.38 0.06�0.04 0.22 0.01 0.46 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.17�0.08 0.03 1.015. ZKPQ-Sociability �0.03 0.66 0.20 0.08�0.08 0.01 0.46 0.20�0.12 0.27 0.23�0.02 0.06 0.22 1.016. EPQ-Psychoticism 0.17 0.07 0.10�0.31�0.47�0.16 0.15�0.14�0.44�0.22 0.57 0.09 0.33 0.09 0.05 1.0

17. EPQ-Extraversion �0.24 0.77 0.33�0.02 0.03 0.15 0.74 0.41�0.02 0.30 0.34�0.18 0.10 0.33 0.64 0.11 1.018. EPQ-Neuroticism 0.77�0.22 0.00�0.13�0.28�0.70�0.26�0.11�0.17�0.18 0.13 0.80 0.31�0.02�0.04 0.18�0.19 1.019. EPQ-Lie �0.19�0.04�0.03 0.32 0.43 0.17�0.02 0.18 0.23 0.35�0.29�0.12�0.25 0.09�0.05�0.24�0.04�0.11 1.0

a The correlation data matrix and syntax program in SPSS format is available in http://www.udl.es/usuaris/e7806312/zuck345.zip

Uncited reference

Zuckerman, 1992

A.Aluja

etal./

Perso

nality

andIndivid

ualDifferen

ces33(2002)713–725

723

References

Aluja, A., Garcıa, O., Garcıa, L. F., Seisdedos, N. (submitted). Invariance of the ‘‘NEO-PI-R’’ factor structure across

exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley.Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Hahn, R., & Comrey, A. L. (2001). Factor analyses of the NEO-PI-R Inventory andthe Comrey Personality Scales in Italy and United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 217–228.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resour-ces.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 861–865.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individuals Differences, 13,653–665.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992c). NEO-PI-R. professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources. Inc.Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision ofthe NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898.

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality, 16, 5 or 3?-Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and

Individual Differences, 12, 773–790.Eysenck, H. J. (1992a). Four ways five factor are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673.Eysenck, H. J. (1992b). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C-the role of theory. Personality and Individual

Differences, 13, 867–868.Eysenck, H. J. (1992c). The definition and measurement of psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 557–785.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). London:

Hodder & Stoughton.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1997). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) and short scale (EPQ-RS). Madrid: TEA Ediciones, S.A.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1),26–42.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.Gough, H. G. (1957). California psychological inventory. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrica, 18, 149–162.Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality research Form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press.Jackson, D. N. (1976). Manual, Jackson personality inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Research Psychologists Press.

John, O. P. (1990). The ‘‘big five’’ factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language and in ques-tionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),Handbook of personality: theory and research (pp. 66–100). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Kaiser, H. F. (1961). A note on Guttman’s lower bound for the number of common factors’. British Journal of Sta-

tistical Psychology, 14, 1–2.Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., & Akamine, T. X. (1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions:relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 99–114.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factormodel of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597.

Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567.Schalling, D. (1978). Psychopathy-related personality variables and the psychopathology of socialization. In R. D. Hare,& D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic behavior: approaches to research (pp. 85–106). Chichester. England: Wiley.

Zuckerman, M. (1989). Personality in the third dimension: a psychobiological approach. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 10, 391–418.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press.

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural,age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139–149.


Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Teta, P., Joireman, J., & Carrocia, G. (1992). The development of Scales for a five

basic personality factor questionnaire. Communication presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Asso-ciation, Boston, MA, April 3–5.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Teta, P., Joireman, J., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models

of personality: the big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,757–768.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale fac-

tors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 929–941.


1-s2.0-S0191886901001866-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S0191886901001866-main