Person. indic;d. Di@ Vol. 9. No. I, pp. 173-175. 1988 0191-8869 88 53.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. All rights resewed Copyright c 1988 Pergamon Journals Lid

Mood differences between the four Galen personality

types: Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Melancholic

EDGAR HOWARTH
Deportment of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada T&T 2E9

(Received 28 January 1987)

Summary-Four personality types-Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Melancholic-were selected using

the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and tested on ten self-report mood scales. Four specific predictions
as to the relations between the typology and mood scores were made and were generally confirmed.
Choleric types showed greater anger, Sanguine types greater Optimism, Phlegmatics less State Anxiety
and least Depression, and Melancholies were high on State Anxiety. Other findings were that Sanguine
types showed both the greatest concentration and the highest potency (these are Stable Extraverts) and
were lowest in Scepticism whereas Melancholies were the most sceptical. The study is a test of Eysenck’s
operationalization of the Galen typology in relation to the matter of the relationship of state and trait.
This issue is discussed and a measure for differentiating state and trait is referred to.

Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) began their important second chapter titled “The Development of a Paradigm** with a
description by Kant of the four types and went on to (a) draw a quadrant diagram combining the ideas of Kant and Wundt;
(b) updating the quadrant diagram as to traits in terms of their long experience in the testing area @. 50). Although the
present research was embodied in a proposal before the appearance of this book, we will conveniently use the latter diagram
as a starting point. It is necessary to be quite clear at the outset of this article that there has been only a handful of studies
attempting to relate state and trait [e.g. Borgatta (1961). Howarth (1980)] and a dearth of studies considering the matter
in the context of a meaningful theory of personality such as that proposed by Eysenck for his trait research. Indeed, in
regard to the Galen theory Eysenck and Eysenck operationalized the trait groupings (types) by suggesting that Cholerics
correspond to neurotic extraverts, Sanguine types to stable (non-neurotic) extraverts, Phlegmatics to stable introverts, and
Melancholies to neurotic introverts. This suggestion of the Eysencks refers to a trait-state problem which has not yet been
investigated, although we should also note that (a) the suggestion (also see their diagram and theorizing on pages 141-142)
is specific to state anxiety differences and to patterns of change therein and does not address the possibility of a wider
spectrum of state-trait interconnections; (b) therefore the basic idea can be broadened to other aspects of mood change
such as those operationalized by Howarth and Young (1986) (see Fig. I).
On the basis of the information provided by Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) certain predictions were made as follows:
1. Cholerics should be higher than the other types on the Anger (AG) scale.
2. Sanguine types should be higher on Optimism (OP).
3. Phlegmatics should be low on State Anxiety (AX).
4. Melancholies should be higher on Depression (DP) and also high on State Anxiety (AX) as they are neurofic introverts.
It need hardly be added that we will be using the Null Hypothesis to test whether these predictions are borne out in the
empirical relationships between operationalized trait measurement on the one hand and operationalized state measurement
on the other hand, using respectively the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [Eysenck and Eysenck (1975)] to measure the
traits of Extraversion and Neuroticism and the Howarth Mood Adjective Checklist (HMACL4J (see Fig. 1) (Howarth and
Young, 1986) to measure moods.

METHOD

Four-hundred and sixty-seven (467) students were tested and the Extraversion and Neuroticism scores on the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire were obtained. Table 1 compares the manual norms for English students with those obtained
for Canadian students. The latter were used to decide the ranges of E and N to be used for selection as to the Galen tTology.
Cholerics were E greater than 18, N greater than 16 Sanguines were E greater than 18, N less than 7. Phlegmatlcs were
E less than 9, N less than 7. Melancholies were E less than 9. N greater than 16. (i.e. Neurotic Extraverts, Stable Extraverts,
Stable Introverts, Neurotic Introverts).
The ten (10) representatives, half male, half female, for the four quadrants were individually tested in the Personality
Laboratory with a careful explanation of the use of the answer scales and in order to be sure that they clearly understood

Table I, Norms for Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

Extraversion Neuroticism

M SD M SD
English students
Males N = 231 13.80 4.24 9.93 5.08
Females N = 203 13.49 4.14 12.16 5.85
Canadian students
Males N = 217 13.70 4.55 10.80 4.50
Females N = 250 13.80 4.50 11.73 5.03

173
174 NOTES AND SHORTER COUMUNICATIO~S

DATE NME

SEQUENCE NUMBER SEX (Check one) ti F

--

1ostructions: Indicate how you feel right now es follows:

If you definitely do not feel that way leave blank.
If you do not feel that way put a ‘1’.
If you feel that way put a '2'.
If you definitely feel that way put e '3'.

CONCENTRATING COOPERATIVE ANXIOUS CONFIDENT ANGRY

OEPRESSED SLEEPY DOUBTING CONTROLLED CHEEWFUL

CLEARTHINICINC FRIENDLY JITTERY BOLD DEFIANT

DOW'RHEARTED TIRED SCEPTICAL PROPER CAREFREE

INTENT HELPFUL UPTIGHT POWERFUL RILED

SAD WEARY CRITICAL CONVENTIONAL JOYFUL

AWARE KINDLY NERVOUS STRONG UAD

DISCOURAGED DROWSY CYNICAL ORDERLY ELATED

CLEVER WARMHu\RTED TENSE ASSERTIVE ANNOYED

CLOOKY WORNOUT HARDNOSED CONFORMING PLMSED

WITH IT FORGIVING UNEASY SELF-ASSURED-. BADTEWERED

BLUE SLUGGISH CHOOSY RESTRAINED HAPPY

Office use only:

CN --- co Ax PT - AG-

DP SL SC CL -- OP

Fig. 1. Howarth Mood Adjective Checklist Mk IV.

each term (adjective) in the HMACL4 as shown in Fig. 1. For further background information see Howarth and
Schokman-Gates (1981). Howarth and Young (1986). The HMACL4 measures Concentration (CN), Cooperation (CO),
State Anxiety (AX), Potency (PT), Anger (AG), Depression (DP), Sleep (SL), Scepticism (SC), Control (CL) and Optimism
(OP).
Of these scales, according to our predictions, Anger (AG), Optimism (OP), State Anxiety (AX) and Depression (DP)
were of special focus as relating potentially to Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic and Melancholic type differences, respectively.

RESULTS

Considering the differences between the four types we found fourteen significant differences, conservatively using two-tail
values for l-test Ferguson (1966), at or beyond the 5% level of significance. We will first direct ourselves to the four
predictions and will then present additional findings.
1. Cholerics showed greater Anger (AG) than either Sanguine or Phlegmatic types which confirms the prediction.
2. Sanguine types evinced greater Optimism (OP) than the other types which is in accord with our prediction.
3. Phlegmatic types showed less State Anxiety (AX) than Melancholies and Cholerics which confirms the prediction.
4. The prediction that Melancholies would be high on State Anxiety (AX) is borne out, although the prediction that
they would be high on Depression (DP) is not supported.
 NOTES ASD SHORTER COMMUNlCATlONS 175

Table 2. Scores on ten mood scales (HMACL4)

CN CO AX PT AC DP SL SC CL OP

Phlegmatic 6.7 IO.4 4.9 7.5 0.7 0.9 6.0 4.1 6.2 7s
Melancholic 8.4 11.0 9.7 5.5 3.7 3.3 9.6 6.9 8.0 6.8
Choleric 7.6 10.2 IO.1 5.7 4.6 5.0 8.5 6.5 8.3 7.6
Sanguine 12.1 11.4 4.1 10.3 1.8 3.4 7.5 3.6 6.3 10.6

5. Potency (PT) scores were highest in the Sanguine group-which corresponds to Stable Extraversion-and least in the
Melancholic and Choleric groups (i.e. the neurotic groups).
6. Phlegmatics were least and Melancholies most sleepy (SL scale).
7. Melancholies (Neurotic Introverts) were most Sceptical (SC) and Sanguines (Stable Extraverts) were the least Sceptical.
8. All groups were relatively high on Concentration (CO) and also there were no typological mood differences in Control
(CL).

DISCUSSION

The results have confirmed a prediction made generally on the basis of Kantian descriptions and more specifically
on the Eysenck modification and operationalization of the ancient Galen theory of types. It is all very well to speculate
on Personality Theories but among the general detritus there are to be found-admittedly scarce-golden nuggets.
Considering that some 2500 years have passed before the theory was tested one is tempted to shout Eureka!
What follows then is not so much a discussion. as the results which speak for themselves, as a consideration of the
state-trait issue. As pointed out there has been a dearth (actually none) of previous studies based on a meaningful theory
leading to specifically testable predictions. This is by way of being an Experimentum Crucis for Eysenck’s theory carried
out by a person who is highly sceptical of Personality Theories in general.
Let us define Trait as follows:
A replicable group of meaningfully labellable behaviours at approximately the same level of generality. We may then define
Type as a combination of superfactor traits such as Extraversion and Neuroticism.
Let us define Sfure as follows:
A transient lab&able experience often of emotional connotation (e.g. Depression) though not necessarily so (e.g.
Concentration).
Operationalization of these terms-Trait and State-has been in terms of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
measuring E and N. and the HMACL4 measuring ten mood states.
We will ask: when is a trait a trait, and when is a state a state? For example Webster’s Dictionary provides both trait
(hot tempered, irascible) and state (angry, irate) for the Choleric type. Sanguine is described by a trait (happy-go-lucky)
which contains a state! When we are writing about traits or states it may be all too easy to decide by fiat which is which
but is it possible to decide operationally and definitively? Howarth (1978) devised the p index for precisely this purpose
and this formula has already succeeded in differentiating state from trait in the case of Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory which actually uses the same adjectives for both although with instructions “how do you feel right now” for
state, and “how do you generally feel” for trait. The index is based on the assumption that state measures are to be sensitive
to change whereas trait measures are to show reliability over time and occasions. The problem then to be faced is (e.g.)
that people who are often in an angry mood may be defined as having a ‘trait’ of anger. Therefore, what I am suggesting
is that some assumed traits are, in reality, states. In regard to the ‘states’ measured by the writer’s HMACL4 the reverse
argument may be considered-Concentration (CN) clearly varies over time and occasions as do PT. AX, AG and SL,
whereas CO, SC, CL and OP have a more trait-like appearance. It would be convenient if this distinction were to appear
in factor solutions but as Howarth (1986) showed this is not the case. Consequently what is now needed is research using
the p index as an operational differentiator of state and trait.
In the meantime the present research supports the view that general trait groupings (types) can be used to make mood
predictions and we may regard the application of the HMACL4 as a snapshot photograph whereby the mood pattern of
a particular type is revealed at a moment in time. What has now to be investigated is variation over time on the ten mood
scales along the lines suggested by the Eysencks on page 142 of Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) but for this research we will
require ten diagrams rather than one as instead of studying ‘positive and negative affect’ only we will first study the separable
moods and will then combine them using the factor and circumplex model methods described in Howarth and Young (1986).

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be addressed to Prof. E. Howarth

REFERENCES

Borgatta E. (1961) Mood, personality and interaction. J. gen. Psycho/. 64, 105-137.
Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) Manual for the Eysenck Personulity Quesrionnaire. Educational and Industrial
Testing Service, San Diego.
Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck M. W. (1985) Personality und Individual Dtfirences: A Nafural Science Approach. Plenum Press,
New York.
Ferguson G. A. (1966) Sfafistica/ Analysis in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Howarth E. (1978) The p index for differentiating state and trait. Psychol. Rep. 43, 474.
Howarth E. (1980) Interrelations between state and trait: some new evidence. Percept. Mot. Skills 51, 613-61-t.
Howarth E. and Young P. D. (1986) Patterns of mood change. Person. indiuid. 018 7, 271-281.
Howarth E. and Schokman-Gates K-L. (1981) Self report multiple mood instruments. Br. J. Psychol. 72, 421-441.

PA,” PI-I.