Factors and factors of personality.

An effort was made to account for the diverse sets of factors of personality found by the analysis of questionnaire items as reported by different investigators and to see what common ground there might be. Divergencies were attributed to certain insufficiencies in factor analysis and to the fundamental views of analysts with regard to emphasis upon data or upon personality theory. Some reconciliations were found by recognizing that factors of different levels of psychological generality can come out in a one-level analysis. A three-level model of factor traits, based upon 13 Guilford factors, was proposed as a frame of reference. Construct validities of factor traits from different sources were examined. Suggestions were made concerning how to deal with factors of different levels. As this was being written, 40 years had elapsed since the first factor-analytic attempt to isolate dimensions of personality (Guilford & Guilford, 1934). The possibility for this approach had been suggested 4 years earlier (Guilford & Braly, 1930). After all these years, there is today a highly confused situation with regard to what the "real" factors are. In this article, I deal only with nonaptitude traits and with measurement only by means of questionnaire items. We find that Cattell (1972) and Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969) claimed two very different sets of factors and piled evidence on evidence in attempts to gain support. Both claimed their factors are superior to those of others. On the other hand, Howarth and Browne (1971b, 1972) presented evidence that both Cattell and Eysenck factors are questionable. The situation is illustrated in a statement made by Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) after analyzing Cattell, Eysenck, and Guilford items together: "Eysenck factors are replicated reasonably well, the Guilford ones only partially, and the Cattell ones hardly at all" (p. 193). I try to clarify this confused situation, to bring some degree of order and coherence into the factorial picture, and to account for some of the conflicting assertions and conclusions. There is no intention here to present a thorough review of an area of re