Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three structural models

for personality through the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R,
EPQ-RS and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives
Anton Alujaa,*, Óscar Garcı́ab, Luis F. Garcı́ac
a
Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Lleida, Complex de la Caparrella, s/n,
25192 Lleida (Catalonia), Spain
b
European University of Madrid, Spain
c
Autonomous 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 proposed
by Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Teta, Joireman, and Kraft [(1993). A comparison of three structural models of
personality: 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, the
different 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, together
with Impulsive Sensation Seeking and Aggressivity-Hostility of the ZKPQ-III-R. The four-factor structure
suggests 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 forms
an 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

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

E-mail address: aluja@pip.udl.es (A. Aluja).

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(01)00186-6
714 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

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 a
five-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 be
traits opposed to the P dimension. The negative correlations between A and P, and C and P
found by McCrae and Costa (1985) suggest that these two factors would be part of the several
personality traits related to P. Within the Big Five framework, somewhat different interpretations
of 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 would
rather be integrated in A and C. Another of Eysenck’s objections refers to the O factor, which he
sees 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 been
termed Culture or Intellect (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989), although Openness to Experience seems
to be a better description of this personality characteristic (Costa & McCrae, 1985).
The development of an alternative five-factor model by Zuckerman has contributed to the
debate 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 of
several 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-factor
structure 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 this
model. From the items in the several scales used in the work of Zuckerman et al. (1991), the
Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire was constructed. After several revisions, a final
version 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) of
markers for the Openness dimension in their different factor models. Nevertheless, they consider
that the personality variables in the study by Zuckerman et al. (1991), the N, E, O, A and C
dimensions are represented by Neuroticism and Extraversion (EPQ), Experience Seeking (SSS),
Low PRF Aggression, and PRF Cognitive structure, as markers of the Big Five. Costa and
McCrae (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 Sensation
Seeking Scale, form V (Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978).
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725 715

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 Impulsiveness
scales and Monotony Avoidance (KSP), P (EPQ) and Socialization (CPI). The P loading in
the 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 was
negatively associated with C and A and with ImpSS and Agg-Hos from the ZKPQ-III-R. O was
located on the Extraversion factor (0.35). The Psychoticism factor scales are split into two factors
in 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 this
model, 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 be
theoretically incongruent and difficult to test according to later data provided by Zuckerman et
al. (1993). On the other hand, E of the EPQ is located on the Extraversion factor with a low
loading on O, where a rather bigger loading would be expected. Neither Eysenck nor Zuckerman
include in their respective models a proposal for a Culture or Openness dimension. Openness is
strongly 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 factor
models, no relationships are observed between P and O. Rather, in the five-factor structure, P has
a low loading of 0.07 in the fifth factor formed by the six O facets. Psychoticism loads on the
second factor, together with the C facets, ImpSS and N5 (impulsivity). Psychoticism also has a
relevant weight of 0.43 on the fourth factor, formed by the A facets, N2 (Anger-Hostility) and
Agg-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 be
justified by the strong relationship of P with the SSS (Zuckerman et al., 1978). The creativity
component 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 to
Experience 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 would
be 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 the
number 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 to
Experience measures would mainly load on the Extraversion factor in the three and four-factor
models and would not be related to Psychoticism, though they would form an independent factor
in the five-factor model.
716 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The sample was composed of 429 psychology students (167 male and 262 women) from the
Lleida University, the European University of Madrid and the University of Barcelona. The
average 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 was
offered to each subject in order to motivate participation in the research. The ques-
tionnaires were administered in their respective classrooms and the participation was voluntary
and anonymous. The average time employed in filling in the questionnaires was approximately 90
min.

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 50
Goldberg 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 (six
by dimension), although they were not used in the present study. The construct validity of the
NEO PI-R, and its previous version—the NEO-PI–, has been clearly demonstrated by the
replicability 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 Five
model of personality. This pool of adjectives was administered to a sample of students, scoring on
a 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 and
opaque, showing a five-factor structure with 10 adjectives included in each one. The personality
dimensions 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). Reliability
alpha coefficients range between 0.84 and 0.88.
The ZKPQ-III-R has 99 items and measures the following personality domains: Impulsive
Sensation 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 both
the 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 to
ImpSS and Agg-Hos. In regard to the NEO-PI-R, N-Anx and Sy were positively related to N and
E 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 and
significant. Reliability coefficients of the ZKPQ-III-R ranged between 0.72 and 0.83 (Zuckerman
et al., 1992).
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725 717

We also used the Spanish 48-item short scale version of the Eysenck Personality Inventory
revised (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 0.73
and 0.82. Psychometric properties are fair and similar to those obtained in the original English
language 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 by
Costa and McCrae (1992c) in the American normalization study. On the other hand, the mean
score for N obtained in this study is about 15 points, while the mean score for E is about six
points above that in the original normative study. This difference could be explained by the
relatively low age of the participants in the study, with a mean age of about 20 years, since
Neuroticism and Extraversion tend to correlate negatively with age. A parallel factor analysis of
the 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,
Garcı́a, Garcı́a, & Seisdedos, submitted). The ZKPQ-III-R means are also very similar to those
reported by Zuckerman et al. (1992, 1993), and also to those obtained with the EPQ-RS in their
Spanish version (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1997). The internal consistency of the various scales is high
and 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 sociocultural
context, 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 the
NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III-R, and EPQ-RS. Women also score higher on the Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness scales of the NEO-PI-R and Goldberg’s adjectives, as well as the L scale of the
EPQ-RS. On the other hand, males score higher on ImpSS and the Psychoticism scale of the
EPQ-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 strongly
with 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 and
Act, 0.38. Openness is related to G-Int, 0.47, ImpSS, 0.34, and EPQ-E 0.33. Agreeableness yields
a 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.
718 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

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 orthogonality
rotated by the Varimax method (Kaiser, 1961). In Fig. 1, the factors and the eigenvalues are
shown. 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 1
Means, 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 –

a
NEO-Neuroticism 68 89.37 (26.63) 96.95 (26.70) 94.01 (26.90) 2.87 0.004 0.90
NEO-Extraversion 68 115.66 (21.66) 115.08 (21.69) 115.30 (21.66) 0.27 NS 0.86
NEO-Openness 68 110.52 (21.27) 112.18 (17.88) 111.54 (19.25) 0.84 NS 0.81
NEO-Agreeableness 68 117.07 (17.56) 125.49 (17.06) 122.22 (16.72) 4.88 0.001 0.81
NEO-Conscientiousness 68 118.91 (23.07) 127.97 (21.95) 124.45 (22.80) 4.04 0.001 0.89

b
G-Emotional Stability 10 5.48 (1.09) 5.30 (1.22) 5.38 (1.18) 1.62 NS 0.81
G-Surgency 10 6.44 (1.17) 6.36 (1.23) 6.40 (1.21) 0.65 NS 0.88
G-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 0.81
G-Conscientiousness 10 6.55 (1.14) 7.05 (0.92) 6.86 (1.06) 4.57 0.001 0.83

c
ZKPQ-ImpSS 19 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 0.80
ZKPQ-Agg/Hostility 17 8.04 (3.60) 7.58 (3.43) 7.76 (3.51) 1.30 NS 0.73
ZKPQ-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 0.76
ZKPQ-Infrequency 10 2.10 (1.53) 1.36 (1.36) 1.65 (1.48) 5.081 0.001 0.44

d
EPQ-Psychoticism 12 3.82 (2.45) 2.95 (2.18) 3.29 (2.33) 3.75 0.001 0.63
EPQ-Extraversion 12 8.03 (3.07) 8.09 (2.97) 8.07 (3.00) 0.22 NS 0.80
EPQ-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.
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725 719

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 by
the neuroticism scales (N-Anx, N, EPQ-N and G-Emo). The third Psychoticism factor grouped
the following scales: G-Con, C, P, ImpSS, A, G-Agr and Agg-Hos. Moreover, a three-factor
structure 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 the
variance. The first and second factors were composed of the same personality variables as in the
previous three-factor structure scales (Extraversion and Neuroticism markers). The third and
fourth factor was integrated by the scales that composed the Psychoticism markers in the previous
three-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 composed
of the four scales of Neuroticism contents (N-Anx, EPQ-N, N and G-Emo). The third factor was
integrated by C, G-Con, ImpSS and P (both negative), being a factor of Psychoticism. The fourth
factor contains the NEO-PI-R, A scale and Goldberg’s adjectives of Agreeableness, together with
Agg-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.
720 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

4. Discussion

The performed, —non forced—, exploratory factorial analysis with the 18 personality scales
showed a five-factor solution, while Zuckerman et al. (1993) obtained a four-factor solution. The
fifth 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 excluding
Goldberg’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 the
Extraversion factor and not on A and Agg-Hos. In our four-factor model, Openness and G-Int
are grouped into the Extraversion factor. The three remaining factors contain the Neuroticism
scales 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 relationship
of the several scales is clear and consistent. The Extraversion scales of the four questionnaires, E,

Table 2
Principal 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 0.84
EPQ-Extraversion 0.85 0.16 0.10 0.76 0.86 0.17 0.08 0.72
G-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 0.27
ZKPQ-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 0.88

NEO-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 0.83
G-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 0.49
EPQ-Psychoticism 0.13 0.07 0.71 0.53 0.11 0.07 0.76 0.58
ZKPQ-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 0.54
G-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.
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725 721

EPQ-E, G-Sur, Sy and Act, are grouped into the two Openness measures: O and G-Int. The four
Neuroticism scales, N-Anx, N, EPQ-N and G-Emo, remain on the same factor, while on the third
factor the C, G-Con A, G-Agg scales are positive, and P, ImpSS and Agg-Hos are negative. The
three- and four-factor models without Goldberg’s adjectives are strikingly similar to those
obtained by Zuckerman et al. (1993), except that Openness loads clearly on the Extraversion
factor, which seems more theoretically consistent.
Psychoticism is not related to the Openness factor in either model. On the other hand, and
despite being a Psychoticism marker, ImpSS loads significantly on the Extraversion factor in both
the 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, the
relationships between O and E are basically due to O3 and O4, feelings and actions respectively

Table 3
Principal 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 0.85
EPQ-Extraversion 0.85 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.76 0.86 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.78
G-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 0.38
ZKPQ-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 0.88
NEO-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 0.84
G-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 0.73
ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.44 0.07 0.67 0.20 0.69 0.36 0.03 0.77 0.18 0.64
EPQ-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 0.77
ZKPQ-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.
722 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

(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 studied
questionnaires, 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 Eysenck
model and the five factor structure depending on the number of factors extracted: Three or five
factors. 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, educational
level and social desirability effects could mediate the relationships between Openness and other
personality variables. In this sense, implications and directions for further research could include
the 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 4
Principal 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 Analysis
NEO-Extraversion 0.84 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.30 0.83
EPQ-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 0.79
ZKPQ-Sociability 0.75 0.07 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.64
ZKPQ-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 0.84

EPQ-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 0.86
G-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 0.79
ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.33 0.05 0.71 0.19 0.25 0.71
EPQ-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 0.82

ZKPQ-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, communalities
a
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

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

1. NEO-Neuroticism 1.0
2. NEO-Extraversion 0.30 1.0
3. NEO-Openness 0.02 0.39 1.0
4. NEO-Agreeableness 0.10 0.02 0.03 1.0
5. NEO-Conscientiousness 0.34 0.07 0.04 0.21 1.0
6. 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 1.0
8. G-Intellect 0.18 0.40 0.47 0.04 0.33 0.14 0.41 1.0
9. 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 1.0
11. ZKPQ-ImpSS 0.09 0.37 0.34 0.25 0.53 0.13 0.33 0.01 0.49 0.09 1.0
12. 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 1.0
14. 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 1.0
15. 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 1.0
16. 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 1.0
18. 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 1.0
19. 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

723
724 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725

References

Aluja, A., Garcı́a, O., Garcı́a, 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 and
the 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 of
the 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). New York: 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-factor
model 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 Individual
Differences, 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.
 A. Aluja et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 713–725 725

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.