Reply to Eysenck

Abstract In this response to Eysenck's comments we argue that a contemporary review of the literature would favor the five-factor model; we attempt to explain the observed correlations between scales that measure different factors; and we reiterate our view that the systematic description of personality must precede, not follow, personality theory.

[1]  Vincent Egan,et al.  The ‘big five’ dimensions of personality? Evidence from ipsative, adjectival self-attributions , 1989 .

[2]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Über die faktorielle Struktur und externe Validität einiger Fragebogen-Skalen zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Extraversion und emotionalen Labilität. , 1982 .

[3]  J. S. Wiggins,et al.  Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. , 1990 .

[4]  J. Block.  P scale and psychosis: continued concerns. , 1977, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[5]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality , 1985 .

[6]  M. Bond,et al.  Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: the Chinese case. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  W. T. Norman,et al.  Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings. , 1963, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[8]  Steven R. Conn,et al.  Factor Structure of the Comrey Personality Scales, the Personality Research Form—E, and the Five-Factor Model , 1990 .

[9]  Hans J. Eysenck,et al.  Four ways five factors are not basic , 1992 .

[10]  J. R. Royce,et al.  Theory of personality and individual differences : factors, systems, and processes , 1983 .

[11]  Peter Borkenau,et al.  Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality , 1990 .

[12]  Andrew L. Comrey,et al.  Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? , 1987 .

[13]  P. Costa,et al.  Four ways five factors are basic , 1992 .

[14]  S. Krug,et al.  A Large Scale Cross-Validation of Second-Order Personality Structure Defined by the 16PF , 1986 .

[15]  J. Loehlin.  Heredity, Environment, and the Structure of the California Psychological Inventory. , 1987, Multivariate behavioral research.

[16]  G. Boyle.  Re-examination of the major personality-type factors in the Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck scales: Were the factor solutions by Noller et al. optimal? , 1989 .

[17]  J E Everett,et al.  Factor Comparability As A Means Of Determining The Number Of Factors And Their Rotation. , 1983, Multivariate behavioral research.

[18]  D. Buss,et al.  Structure of act-report data: is the five-factor model of personality recaptured? , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  H. Gough,et al.  Shared variance in the California Psychological Inventory and the California Q-Set. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Henk A. L. Kiers,et al.  Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture , 1991 .

[21]  M. Amelang,et al.  Correlations between Psychometric Measures and Psychophysiological as Well as Experimental Variables in Studies on Extraversion and Neuroticism , 1991 .

[22]  P. Costa,et al.  Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory☆ , 1991 .

[23]  Jeffrey A. Gray,et al.  The neuropsychology of temperament. , 1991 .