See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232548035

Cloninger's Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character and the

Five-Factor Model of Personality

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · September 2000

DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00204-4

CITATIONS READS

264 7,880

3 authors, including:

Filip De Fruyt Kees van Heeringen

Ghent University Ghent University
229 PUBLICATIONS   7,358 CITATIONS    338 PUBLICATIONS   8,609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

personality related characteristics in eating disordered patients View project

Hungarian taxonomy of personality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Filip De Fruyt on 27 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Cloninger's Psychobiological Model of Temperament and

Character and the Five-Factor Model of Personality
F. De Fruyt a,*, L. Van De Wiele b, C. Van Heeringen b
a
Department of Psychology, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
b
Department of Psychiatry, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
Received 1 April 1999; received in revised form 5 August 1999; accepted 6 September 1999

Abstract

The relationships between Cloninger's Temperament and Character dimensions [Cloninger, C. R.

(1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classi®cation of personality variants. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 44 573±588; Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A
psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975±990] and
the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality are investigated in a randomised sample of 130 patients
admitted to the Emergency Psychiatric Unit of a large university hospital. Cloninger's psychobiological
model identi®es four dimensions of temperament (Novelty seeking, Harm avoidance, Reward
dependence and Persistence) and three dimensions of character (Self-directedness, Cooperativeness and
Self-transcendence). The FFM proposes the domains of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism and Openness as the basic dimensions underlying individual di€erences. Five-factor scores
are obtained with the NEO-PI-R [Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R. Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources]; Cloninger's personality dimensions are
assessed with the Temperament and Character Inventory (Cloninger et al., 1993). The present study
primarily focuses on the direct equivalence of Cloninger's scales with the NEO-PI-R domains and facets.
Considerable overlap with the FFM dimensions is demonstrated and the results show that each TCI
factor is substantially covered by the FFM. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Temperament; Character; Personality; Individual di€erences; Assessment

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-9-264-6473; fax: +32-9-264-6499.

E-mail address: ®lip.defruyt@rug.ac.be (F. De Fruyt).

0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 2 0 4 - 4
442 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452

1. Introduction

In recent articles Cloninger et al. (1993), Cloninger and Svrakic (1997), Svrakic, Whitehead,
Przybeck and Cloninger (1993) and Stallings, Hewitt, Cloninger, Heath and Eaves (1996)
provide evidence in favour of a four-dimensional model of temperament and three later-
developing character dimensions. It is suggested that the seven-dimensional model may bridge
the gap between the lexically based Big Five and more parsimonious models, such as Eysenck's
PEN model and Cloninger's Tridimensional Model (Stallings et al., 1996). However, Stallings
et al. (1996) provide only suggestions regarding the relationships with respect to two of the Big
Five, i.e. Neuroticism and Extraversion. In their study, Neuroticism is strongly correlated with
Cloninger's Harm Avoidance Scale, whereas Extraversion is negatively related to Harm
Avoidance, but positively to Novelty-Seeking and Reward Dependence. In addition, Cloninger
questions the validity of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) to capture domains of personality
relevant to psychopathology, such as individual autonomy, traditional moral values and all
aspects of maturity and self-actualisation (Cloninger et al., 1993; Svrakic et al., 1993). He
further assumes that the FFM dimensions are diagnostically unspeci®c and argues, together
with other FFM opponents (Eysenck, 1991, 1992), that the descriptive nature of a model is not
a sucient criterion to select among alternative ways of summarising personality traits, such as
for example Eysenck's PEN-Model (Eysenck, 1990), the FFM or his own temperament and
character model. Instead, Cloninger (1987), Cloninger et al. (1993), Eysenck (1991, 1992) and
Zuckerman (1991) stress the importance of the psychobiological basis as an important
additional criterion for a trait to be appended to the hall of fame of main personality
dimensions.

1.1. Cloninger's Temperament and Character Model

Cloninger et al. (1993) proposed a psychobiological theory, including four dimensions of

temperament and three dimensions of character. Initially, the model included only three
temperament dimensions, i.e. Novelty Seeking (NS), Harm Avoidance (HA) and Reward
Dependence (RD). The temperament dimensions were assumed to be independently heritable
and to manifest early in development. Variation in each of the dimensions was supposed to be
associated with monoaminergic activity (Cloninger, 1986): NS with low basal dopaminergic
activity, HA with high serotonergic activity, and RD with low basal noradrenergic activity
(Stallings et al., 1996). The three temperament dimensions are de®ned in terms of individual
di€erences in behavioural learning mechanisms, explaining responses to novelty, danger or
punishment and cues for reward (NS), avoiding aversive stimuli (HA), and reactions to
rewards (RD) (Cloninger, 1987). Cloninger developed the Tri-Dimensional Personality
Questionnaire (TPQ; Cloninger, 1987) to measure the three temperament dimensions. However,
research with the TPQ has demonstrated that the former RD subscale `Persistence', proved to
be relatively independent of the former three temperament factors and was therefore proposed
as an additional fourth temperament dimension. In order to more adequately represent
individual di€erences, the four-dimensional model was extended to a seven-dimensional
scheme, including three additional dimensions of character, i.e. Self-directedness (SD),
Cooperativeness (CO) and Self-transcendence (ST). Self-directedness refers to the self-
 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452 443

determination of the subject and it is conceptually related to Rotter's locus of control

construct. Cooperativeness accounts for traits characterising the interpersonal circumplex
(Wiggins, 1979, 1980) and the Self-transcendence dimension refers to the experiencing of
spiritual ideas (Cloninger et al., 1993, p. 981). Cloninger assumes that character is less heritable
than temperament and matures with age. A 15-step model of personality development
(Cloninger & Svrakic, 1997), the so-called `canonical sequence', has been described, linking
personality development to stages in development distinguished by Piaget, Freud and Erikson.
A hierarchy of di€erent types of psychological and psychiatric problems is described in relation
to these developmental phases and the temperament and character dimensions (Cloninger &
Svrakic, 1997).

1.2. The Five-Factor Model

During the past ten years, a consensus has been growing among trait psychologists about the
validity of ®ve broad dimensions to represent individual di€erences, although agreement is far
from complete (Block, 1995; Pervin, 1994). Even among ®ve-factor enthusiasts, controversy
remains on the most appropriate label for the ®fth factor.
The lexical hypothesis assumes that basic individual di€erences are represented in the natural
language by trait adjectives (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981; John, 1990). The study of the
structure of natural languages has demonstrated that ®ve replicable factors, the so-called Big
Five, are sucient to account for the variance in extended lists of trait adjectives (Goldberg,
1981, 1990, 1993; John, 1990) in both self and peer ratings (Mervielde & Vandierendonck,
1994). The lexical Big Five factors are usually labelled as Extraversion/Surgency,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability or Neuroticism and Intellect/Culture
(Goldberg, 1981, 1982; Norman, 1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961, 1992).
Inspired by the lexical approach, Costa and McCrae (1992) complemented their NEO
questionnaire, including scales to measure Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness, with scales
to assess Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. They further demonstrated that no recurrent
and important dimensions beyond these ®ve could be recovered when factoring the items of
several major personality questionnaires. They developed the FFM as a framework to
accommodate scales of a variety of personality inventories (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae,
1989) and constructed the NEO-PI-R, one of the more popular questionnaires to assess a
subject's standing on the ®ve factors. Although the FFM was developed to account for adult
individual di€erences in the general population, recent research focuses on the applicability of
the FFM to represent maladaptive facets of personality and personality disorders (Costa &
McCrae, 1990; Costa & Widiger, 1994; Widiger & Trull, 1992).

1.3. The present study

Although Cloninger's seven-dimensional model and the FFM have a di€erent basis - the ®rst
developed by consideration of the underlying biological and social determinants of individual
di€erences, the second derived from a careful analysis of the personality assessment literature
Ð the two models have several characteristics in common. First, both models are about the
description of individual di€erences, warranting an investigation of their relationships.
444 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452

Cloninger's model is one of the more popular models in current psychiatric practice and
research to describe individual di€erences in psychopathological behaviour, whereas the FFM
received more attention and recognition from psychologists. The models are similarly conceived
as hierarchical models, with second order domains and ®rst order facets. Secondly, Cloninger's
model is presumed to be more adequate to represent maladaptive facets of behaviour, whereas
the FFM is conceived as describing the normal range of individual di€erences. More recently,
however, ®ve-factor researchers and clinical psychologists started to investigate the validity and
usefulness of the FFM to describe personality disorders, psychopathology and maladaptive
traits (Clark & Livesley, 1994; Costa & McCrae, 1990; Costa & Widiger, 1994; Widiger &
Trull, 1992). These studies shed a new light on the structure of maladaptive behaviour,
demonstrating that a considerable part of the variance in adaptive and maladaptive traits can
be described along a common set of dimensions, hereby bridging the gap between two domains
that were previously thought to be qualitatively di€erent. Thirdly, recent behaviour genetic
research has demonstrated that the phenotypic variance in both Cloninger's Temperament
dimensions (Stallings et al., 1996) and the FFM (Loehlin, 1992; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa &
John, 1998; Plomin, 1994) can be largely explained by both genetic and nonshared
environmental factors. The contribution of shared-environmental factors to the phenotypic
trait variance seems to range from moderate to minimal. Finally, both the TCI and the NEO-
PI-R are currently used in studies on the molecular genetic basis of individual di€erences
(Plomin & Caspi, 1998; Plomin & Rutter, 1998). Recent genetic research investigates the
association between genes of small e€ect size in multiple-gene systems, the so-called
quantitative trait loci (QTL), and phenotypic traits. The ®rst QTL association for personality
was reported for novelty seeking, a trait assessed by the TPQ and the TCI (Cloninger,
Adolfsson & Svrakic, 1996). Finding such QTL associations for personality traits is critically
dependent, among other factors, on the availability of reliable and valid phenotypic assessment
instruments. In order to advance the comparison and replication of research ®ndings, we need
information on the equivalence of personality frameworks and measures. Therefore, the major
objective of this study is to describe the relationships between Cloninger's seven-dimensional
model and the FFM at the phenotypic domain and facet level.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

A random sample of 130 patients admitted for observation and diagnosis to the Psychiatric
Unit of a large university hospital participated in this study. Patients su€ering from dementia,
psychosis or with IQ scores below 80 were excluded. Subjects completed personality
questionnaires as part of the intake procedure. The sample included 69 males and 61 females;
their mean age was 37 years …S:D: ˆ 11:9, range from 15 to 78). The sample was heterogeneous
with respect to educational level and psychopathology, including drug and alcohol abuse,
suicidal and criminal behaviour, sexual disorders and emotional and mood disorders.
 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452 445

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. NEO-PI-R
The authorised Dutch translation of Costa and McCrae's NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
1992; Hoekstra, Ormel & De Fruyt, 1996) was used to assess the ®ve domain factors and their
30 facets. The NEO-PI-R comprises 240 items, with 8 items to measure each personality facet.
Domain scores are obtained by aggregating scores of the 6 facets per domain. The structure of
the Dutch NEO-PI-R closely resembles the structure obtained in the normative US samples,
including a replication of both primary and secondary loading patterns, except for minor
deviations for the E3 (Assertiveness) and N5 (Impulsiveness) facets (De Fruyt, 1996; De Fruyt
& Mervielde, 1998; Hoekstra et al., 1996). In the normative US data, E3 primarily loads the
Extraversion component, whereas in Dutch and Flemish data, E3 has a negative primary
loading on Neuroticism. The N5 facet loads primarily on the Neuroticism dimension in US
samples, but the Extraversion factor in Dutch and Flemish data.

2.2.2. TCI
The Dutch translation of Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI;
Cloninger et al., 1993; Pandelaers, 1996; Vertommen, 1996) was used to assess the four
dimensions of temperament and the three dimensions of character. The TCI has 226 items and
measures four primary dimensions of temperament and their facets: Novelty seeking: NS1-
Exploratory excitability vs. Stoic rigidity; NS2-Impulsiveness vs. Re¯ection; NS3-Extravagance
vs. Reserve; NS4-Disorderliness vs. Regimentation; Harm avoidance: HA1-Anticipatory worry
and pessimism vs. Uninhibited optimism; HA2-Fear of uncertainty; HA3-Shyness with
strangers; HA4-Fatigability and asthenia; Reward dependence: RD1-Sentimentality; RD2-
Attachment; RD3-dependence; Persistence. The three dimensions of character are: Self-
directedness: S1-Responsibility vs. Blaming; S2-Purposefulness vs. Lack of goal-direction; S3-
Resourcefulness; S4-Self-acceptance vs. Self-striving; S5-Enlightened second nature;
Cooperativeness: C1-Social acceptance vs. Social intolerance; C2-Empathy vs. Social disinterest;
C3-Helpfulness vs. Unhelpfulness; C4-Compassion vs. Revengefulness; C5-Pure-hearted
conscience vs. Self-serving advantage; Self-Transcendence: ST1-Self-forgetful vs. Self-conscious
experience; ST2-Transpersonal identi®cation vs. Self-di€erentiation; ST3-Spiritual acceptance
vs. Rational materialism. The psychometric characteristics of the translation are described in
Pandelaers (1996).

2.2.3. Analysis
Presentation and scoring of the TCI and the NEO-PI-R was computer-administered. Pearson
correlation coecients are reported to examine the equivalence of the TCI and the NEO-PI-R
scales. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the trait variance shared by the NEO
and the TCI factors.
446 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452

3. Results

3.1. Correlational analysis

An overview of the intercorrelation coecients among the scales within and between the two
models is presented in Table 1. An investigation of the rows shows that all TCI scales correlate
higher than |0.40| with at least one NEO-PI-R domain scale, demonstrating that each TCI
scale shows considerable overlap with the Big Five. Harm Avoidance is strongly positively
correlated with Neuroticism and negatively related to Extraversion. The scale is further
negatively related to Openness and Conscientiousness. Novelty seeking is related to
Extraversion and Openness and negatively to Conscientiousness. Persistence is highly
correlated with Conscientiousness. Reward dependence primarily relates to Extraversion and
secondarily to Openness. Self-directedness is inversely related to Neuroticism and correlates
positively with Conscientiousness and Extraversion. Cooperativeness relates to Agreeableness
with minor correlations with Extraversion and Openness. Finally, Self-Transcendence, is
primarily related to Openness and secondarily to Extraversion.
Inspection columnwise shows that the TCI scales capture part of the variance of each of the
Big Five. The TCI Temperament scales share variance with four of the Big Five, except for
Agreeableness. The revision of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire to a four
dimensional inventory, including a separate Persistence temperament dimension, increases the
comparability with the Five-Factor Model, providing relationships with Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness and ®nally with Conscientiousness. The extension of the
temperamental model with character dimensions increased the shared variance with the Big
Five, especially with Neuroticism and Conscientiousness (Self-directedness), with Openness
(Self-transcendence), and with Agreeableness (Cooperativeness). The correlations among scales
within each model range from |0.03| to |0.40| for the NEO-PI-R and from |0.00| to |0.54| for
Cloninger's model.

Table 1
Pearson Correlations of TCI and NEO domain scales. p < 0.01, 
p < 0.001

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

(1) Neuroticism
(2) Extraversion ÿ0.29
(3) Openness 0.02 0.40
(4) Agreeableness ÿ0.03 ÿ0.17 ÿ0.18
(5) Conscientiousness ÿ0.34 0.14 ÿ0.03 0.22
  
(6) Harm avoidance 0.54 ÿ0.57 ÿ0.33 0.05 ÿ0.24
(7) Novelty seeking ÿ0.01 0.43 0.27 ÿ0.12 ÿ0.36 ÿ0.38
(8) Persistence ÿ0.03 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.46 ÿ0.03 ÿ0.22
 
(9) Reward dependence 0.10 0.45 0.32 0.17 0.07 ÿ0.03 0.21 ÿ0.05
(10) Self-directedness ÿ0.63 0.29 0.06 0.14 0.45 ÿ0.54 
0.00 0.17 0.08
(11) Cooperativeness ÿ0.18 0.20 0.22 0.51 0.12 ÿ0.13 0.00 0.11 0.47 0.38
 
(12) Self-transcendence 0.06 0.25 0.41 ÿ0.01 0.16 ÿ0.25 0.14 0.30 0.04 ÿ0.03 0.03
 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452 447

The TCI domain and NEO-PI-R facet correlations are presented in Table 2. In order to
account for the large number of possible relationships, we limit the discussion to correlations
signi®cant at p < 0.001. Harm Avoidance is strongly positively correlated with all Neuroticism
facets, except for Impulsiveness (N5) and substantially negatively related to almost all
Extraversion and Openness facets. Novelty seeking correlates positively with Extraversion
facets such as Warmth (E1), Gregariousness (E2), Excitement-seeking (E5) and Positive
emotions (E6), but negatively with Dutifulness (C3), Deliberation (C6) and Order (C2) from

Table 2
TCI domain and NEO-PI-R facet correlations. p < 0.01, 
p < 0.001a

HA NS P RD SD C ST

N1: Anxiety 0.56 ÿ0.47

N2: Angry hostility 0.22 ÿ0.45 ÿ0.35 0.21
N3: Depression 0.41 ÿ0.54
N4: Self-consciousness 0.44 ÿ0.23 ÿ0.42
N5: Impulsiveness 0.27 0.27 ÿ0.21

N6: Vulnerability 0.52 ÿ0.58

E1: Warmth ÿ0.33 0.42 0.44 0.19

E2: Gregariousness ÿ0.35 0.43 0.46
E3: Assertiveness ÿ0.42 0.23
E4: Activity ÿ0.30 0.34 
0.20 
0.19 0.21 0.22
E5: Excitement-seeking ÿ0.43 0.38 
0.19 0.27
E6: Positive emotions ÿ0.50 0.24 0.37 0.37

O1: Fantasy 0.23 0.25 ÿ0.20 0.31


O2: Aesthetics ÿ0.21 0.40
O3: Feelings ÿ0.24 0.26 0.49 0.36
O4: Actions ÿ0.35 0.33
O5: Ideas ÿ0.32 0.26 0.24 0.31
O6: Values ÿ0.20 0.20 
0.29

A1: Trust ÿ0.29 0.26 0.40

A2: Straightforwardness 0.20 ÿ0.19 
0.36
A3: Altruism 0.34 0.19 0.37

A4: Compliance ÿ0.18 0.32
A5: Modesty 0.31 ÿ0.27 0.27
A6: Tender-mindedness 0.22

C1: Competence ÿ0.39 0.25 0.44 0.24

C2: Order ÿ0.29 0.26
C3: Dutifulness ÿ0.45 0.39
C4: Achievement striving ÿ0.33 0.46 0.44 0.23
C5: Self-discipline ÿ0.35 0.42 0.53 0.25
C6: Deliberation ÿ0.46 0.20 0.25

a
Only signi®cant correlations are reported. NS: Novelty seeking, HA: Harm avoidance, RD: Reward dependence,
P: Persistence, SD: Self-directedness, C: Cooperativeness, ST: Self-transcendence.
448 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452

the Conscientiousness domain. This temperament factor is further slightly negatively correlated
with Modesty (A5) and relates positively to Openness to Actions (O4) and Feelings (O3).
Persistence is in terms of the FFM a relatively factor-pure scale, being signi®cantly and
substantially related to only the six Conscientiousness facets and the Activity (E4) scale of
Extraversion. Reward Dependence is not related to Conscientiousness and Neuroticism facets,
except for Impulsiveness (N5), but is strongly correlated with Warmth (E1), Gregariousness
(E2), Openness to Feelings (O3) and Fantasy (O1). Self-directedness is strongly negatively
related to all Neuroticism facets and positively to the pro-active Conscientiousness facets such
as Self-discipline (C5), Achievement striving (C4) and Competence (C1). Cooperativeness is
related to ®ve of the Agreeableness facets and negatively to Angry hostility (N2), and
positively to Self-discipline (C5). Finally, Self-transcendence is associated with Openness to
Aesthetics (O2), Feelings (O3), Fantasy (O1) and Ideas (O5) and is related to Positive emotions
(E6), Excitement-seeking (E5) and Competence (C1).

3.2. Multiple regression analysis

A multiple regression analysis with the NEO domain factors as predictors and the TCI scales
as the dependent variables, demonstrates that between 23 to 51% of the variance of the TCI-
scales is explained by the FFM (Table 3). Especially the Temperament dimensions, Harm
avoidance and Novelty seeking, and the Character dimensions, Self-directedness and
Cooperativeness, are substantially explained by the FFM. Regressing the seven TCI scales on
the ®ve NEO domains (Table 4) shows that the TCI dimensions explain 29 to 55 per cent of
the variance of the NEO dimensions. Half or more of the variance of Neuroticism,
Extraversion and Conscientiousness is predicted by the TCI scales.

4. Discussion

The primary objective of the present study was to examine the relationship between

Table 3
Multiple regression coecients and Beta coecients for NEO-PI-R domain scales predicting TCI-scalesa

HA NS P RD SD CO ST

Neuroticism 0.42 ÿ0.04 0.15 0.25 ÿ0.52 ÿ0.15 0.16

Extraversion ÿ0.36 0.46 0.03 0.50 0.11 0.17 0.13
Openness ÿ0.20 0.09 0.01 0.16 0.05 0.26 0.37
Agreeableness ÿ0.03 0.07 ÿ0.06 0.29 0.10 0.60 0.04
Conscientiousness ÿ0.04 ÿ0.45 0.52 0.03 0.24 ÿ0.08 0.20

Multiple R 0.71 0.62 0.48 0.59 0.69 0.65 0.48

R2 0.51 0.38 0.23 0.35 0.48 0.42 0.23

a
NS: Novelty seeking, HA: Harm avoidance, RD: Reward dependence, P: Persistence, SD: Self-directedness, CO:
Cooperativeness, ST: Self-transcendence; Beta coecients printed in bold are signi®cant at p < 0.01.
 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452 449

Cloninger's model and the FFM through correlational and regression analyses. The ®ndings
clearly illustrate that the expansion of the Temperament model to the Temperament and
Character Model moved Cloninger's structural representation of individual di€erences more
towards the FFM. All TCI scales correlate higher than |0.40| with at least one NEO-PI-R
domain scale, demonstrating that each TCI scale shows considerable overlap with the FFM.
These ®ndings underscore the comprehensive character of the NEO-structural model,
corroborating the evidence that no important factors beyond the ®ve are enclosed in major
personality questionnaires. Although the NEO was developed to account for adult individual
di€erences in the normal range, the considerable shared variance with the TCI dimensions
indirectly suggests that the model might also be applicable to account for at least part of the
variance in psychopathological behaviour and vice versa. All NEO-domains were substantially
predicted by the TCI scales underscoring the TCI's ability to account for a substantial part of
the variance in the normal range of individual di€erences.
Novelty Seeking was highly correlated with Extraversion and Conscientiousness of the NEO,
underscoring the ®ndings reported by Zuckerman and Cloninger (1996). They found high
correlations between Novelty Seeking and Impulsive Sensation Seeking (Zuckerman-Kuhlman
Personality Questionnaire; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta & Kraft, 1993) and
Eysenck's Psychoticism factor. There is empirical evidence that Eysenck's Psychoticism factor
splits into two components, one negatively related to Conscientiousness, the other negatively
associated with Agreeableness (De Fruyt, Buyst & Mervielde, 1993). Harm avoidance is highly
positively correlated with Neuroticism and negatively related to Extraversion. The correlational
pattern is almost identical to the ®ndings of Zuckerman and Cloninger using the EPQ,
underscoring their contention that Harm avoidance is a dimension ranging from neurotic
introversion to stable extraversion (Zuckerman & Cloninger, 1996, p. 284). The third
temperament dimension, Reward dependence, is correlated with both Extraversion and
Openness. Persistence can be conceived as the Conscientiousness marker of the TCI.
Comparable to these results, Zuckerman and Cloninger report a positive correlation between

Table 4
Multiple regression coecients and Beta coecients for TCI-scales predicting NEO-PI-R domainsa

N E O A C

Harm avoidance 0.36 ÿ0.47 ÿ0.29 0.09 ÿ0.20

Novelty seeking 0.09 0.18 0.06 ÿ0.08 ÿ0.44
Persistence 0.06 0.11 ÿ0.05 ÿ0.05 0.30
Reward dependence 0.14 0.44 0.23 ÿ0.08 0.23
Self-directedness ÿ0.44 0.02 ÿ0.15 ÿ0.02 0.34
Cooperativeness ÿ0.04 ÿ0.08 0.13 0.57 ÿ0.18
Self-transcendence 0.10 0.06 0.33 0.03 0.09

Multiple R 0.70 0.74 0.58 0.54 0.71

R2 0.49 0.55 0.34 0.29 0.50
a
N: Neuroticism, E: Extraversion, O: Openness, A: Agreeableness, C: Conscientiousness; Beta coecients printed
in bold are signi®cant at p < 0.01.
450 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452

Persistence and the ZKPQ Activity scale and a negative correlation with Eysenck's
Psychoticism factor. Cooperativeness is further accurately predicted by Agreeableness.
Zuckerman and Cloninger (1996) report strong negative correlations between Cooperativeness
and the ZKPQ Aggression±hostility scale and the EPQ's Psychoticism scale, both known to be
negatively correlated with Agreeableness. Finally, Self-transcendence is substantially correlated
with Openness and moderately with Extraversion, but Openness is not included in
Zuckerman's or Eysenck's models. No Temperament and Character dimension proved to be
outside the FFM, underscoring the comprehensive character of the FFM as a taxonomy of
individual di€erences.
As far as there is equivalence between NEO-dimensions and Eysenck's EPQ-R and
Zuckerman et al's ZKPQ (1993), the relationships described by Zuckerman and Cloninger
(1996) in a student population generally hold up in a psychiatric sample, suggesting stability in
the con®gural nature of personality across samples.
Although, the present study has demonstrated that there are substantial relationships
between Cloninger's seven dimensions and the FFM, the two models cannot be considered as
equivalent instruments to assess individual di€erences in normal and clinical groups. The
interesting features of Cloninger's model for ®ve-factor researchers are the associations between
personality dimensions and the activity in monoaminergic pathways. Although the ®ve factors
have proven to be the cross-cultural common denominator to represent individual di€erences,
the model is often criticised for being only descriptive and not explanatory (Pervin, 1994).
Assuming the biological basis of the TCI is sound and the mapping of Cloninger's dimensions
within the ®ve-factor space is stable, then it might be possible to hypothesise about the
relationships between the ®ve factors and monoaminergic activity. Eysenck (1991, 1992);
Zuckerman (1991) and Cloninger et al. (1993) have consistently argued for the biological
underpinnings of main dimensions of temperament and personality. However, before it is
possible to encourage extrapolation and speculation about a biological explanation for the
NEO dimensions, the biological orientation of the TCI should ®rst be further demonstrated
and replicated. The ®ndings of this study ought to be replicated in a second step, although
replication of the latter might be informative for molecular genetic researchers interested to
compare their research ®ndings on QTL and trait associations using the NEO and the TCI.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Petra Pandelaers and Hans Vertommen for providing us with a
Dutch translation of the TCI and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
This research was supported in part by Grants from Eli Lilly and Smith Klein Beacham
awarded to Cornelis Van Heeringen. Filip De Fruyt is a postdoctoral research fellow of the
Fund of Scienti®c Research.

References

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ®ve-factor approach to personality. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187±215.
 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452 451

Clark, L. A., & Livesley, W. J. (1994). Two approaches to identifying the dimensions of personality disorder:
convergence on the Five-Factor Model. In P. T. Costa Jr., & T. A. Widiger, Personality disorders and the Five-
Factor Model of personality (pp. 261±277). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cloninger, C. R. (1986). A uni®ed biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states.
Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167±226.
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classi®cation of personality variants.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573±588.
Cloninger, C. R., Adolfsson, R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1996). Mapping genes for human personality. Nature Genetics,
12, 3±4.
Cloninger, C. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1997). Integrative psychobiological approach to psychiatric assessment and
treatment. Psychiatry, 60, 120±141.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and
character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975±990.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal
of Personality Disorders, 4, 362±371.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa Jr., P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model of personality.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
De Fruyt, F. (1996). Personality and vocational interests. Relationship between the Five-Factor Model of
personality and Holland's RIASEC typology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ghent, Belgium.
De Fruyt, F., Buyst, V., & Mervielde, I. (1993). Psychoticism versus Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. In A.
Vandierendonck, Abstracts of the Annual meeting of the Belgian Psychological Society (p. 9). Ghent: University of
Ghent.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1998). The assessment of the Big Five in the Dutch language domain. Psychologica
Belgica, 38, 1±2.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417±440.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual di€erences: the three major
dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 245±261.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16-, 5- or 3. Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and
Individual Di€erences, 12, 773±790.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways ®ve factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 667±673.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual di€erences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. In L.
Wheeler, Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 (pp. 141±165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: some explorations in the language of personality. In C. D.
Spielberger, & J. N. Butcher, Advances in personality assessment, 1 (pp. 203±234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ``description of personality'': the Big Five factor structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216±1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26±34.
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten NEO-PI-R en NEO-FFI.
Handleiding (NEO Personality Inventories: NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Manual). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
John, O. P. (1990). The `Big Five' factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language and in
questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin, Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 66±100). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. London, UK: Sage.
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and measure-speci®c
components of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 431±453.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the Five-Factor Model: joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with other
instruments. In D. M. Buss, & N. Cantor, Personality psychology: recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 237±
245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
 452 F. De Fruyt et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 29 (2000) 441±452

Mervielde, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (1994). The Five-Factor Personality Model: European contributions.
Psychologica Belgica, 34(4), 173±281.
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: normative operating characteristics for a university
population. University of Michigan: Department of Psychology.
Pandelaers, P. (1996). Temperament en persoonlijkheidsstoornissen. Temperament vanuit een factoranalytische
invalshoek binnen een breder opgezet onderzoek over persoonlijkheidsstoornissen. Temperament and personality
disorders. Unpublished gradute thesis, University of Leuven, Belgium.
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103±113.
Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience: the interplay between nature and nurture. London: Sage.
Plomin, R., & Caspi, A. (1998). DNA and personality. European Journal of Personality, 12, 387±407.
Plomin, R., & Rutter, M. (1998). Child development, molecular genetics, and what to do with genes once they are
found. Child Development, 69, 1223±1242.
Stallings, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1996). Genetic and environmental
structure of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: three of four temperament dimensions? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 127±140.
Svrakic, D. M., Whitehead, C., Przybeck, T. R., & Cloninger, C. R. (1993). Di€erential diagnosis of personality
disorders by the seven-factor model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 991±999.
Tupes, E. C., Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Tech. Rep. No. ASD-TR-
61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US Air Force.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality,
60, 225±251.
Vertommen, H. (1996). Nederlandse vertaling van de Temperament and Character Inventory. Experimentele versie
(Dutch translation of the Temperament and Character Inventory: experimental version). Belgium: Centrum voor
Klinische Diagnostiek, KUL.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Personality and psychopathology: an application of the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality, 60, 363±393.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: the interpersonal domain. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395±412.
Wiggins, J. S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In L. Wheeler, Review of personality and social
psychology, 1 (pp. 265±294). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M., & Cloninger, R. C. (1996). Relationships between Cloninger's, Zuckerman's and Eysenck's
dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 21, 283±285.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural
models for personality: THE big three, the big ®ve and the alternative ®ve. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 757±768.

View publication stats