Santa RISE Cony mye Anion Pcl eg, A Comparison of Three Structural Models for Personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five ‘Marvin Zuckerman, D. Michac! Kuhlman, Jeffrcy Joireman, Paul Teta, and Michael Kraft “Themajor factor from 3 modelsof personality arecompare Pysencks Three Factor model, Costa and McCrae' version of the Big Five, and Zuckerman and Kuhimans Aterative Five. The Ist, study describes the development of a questionnaire measure forthe Alternative Five and the reliability assessments of the scales The 2nd study used factor analysis to compare the factors ‘among the scales fom the 3 models, Estraversion and Neuroticism were quite similar arossall3 ‘models Eysenek’s Prychoticism sale marked a factor that included Conscintiousness and Il sive Sensation Seeking factors from the other 2 models. Areeableness and Aggression Hostility formed sth factor, Opeancs could be identified axe factor uaing fact sealca but it showed no ‘convergence with other factors Four of the 5 factors showed convergence acros atleast 2 ofthe model For many years, the fils of personality structure, or the tax- onomy of traits, was dominated by two models, H. J Eysenck’s (4947, 1967) three-factor and Catteils 1957) 16-factor models. Almost unnoticed at first, the Big Five model emerged and ‘evolved (see Digman, 1990) from its origins in the Fiske (1949) study on the selection of clinical psychologists and Norman's (1963) research (developed from work by Tupes & Christal, 1961), toits present claim tobe the best paradigm for personal- ity structure (Costa & McCrae, 19922, 1992¢; Goldberg, 1992), ‘This claim has not gone unchallenged (Eysenck, 1992a, 19926; Zuckerman, 1992), and the issues have been debated at recent conferences Angleitner, 1992; Halverson & Kohnstamm, 1991; Zuckerman, 19918), Five-and three-factor theorists generally agree on two points First, 16 basic faciors are at least 11 too many, although they ‘could represent narrow factors comprising the broader ones ‘The problem is that Cattell (1987) and Guilford and Zimmer- man’ (1956) factors are generally not replicable across gender, ‘age, or methods, and many investigators have simply filed to find them (Digman, 1990; H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). The second point is that in all five- and three-factor models, two of ‘the major factors consist of Extraversion-Introversion (E, oF Surgeney) and Neuroticism (N, or Emotional Sability-listabil- ity, or Negative Emotionaliy (Tellegen, 1985]). Although all modelsconcur on the existence of these two basic factors, there is less agreement on the narrower traits comprising them, and the conformance between measures of similar traits derived from different models is open to investigation. The more per- Marvin Zackerman, D. Michael Kuhlman, Jefe Joizeman, Paul ‘Teta, and Michael Kra, Department of Psychology University of Del Copies of the Zuckerman-Kuiman Personality Questionnaire Form Il @2KPQ tl) and scoring keys may be obtained from Marvin Zuckerman, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marvin Zuckerman, Department of Psjchology, University of Dela- ware, Newark, Delaware, 19716-2577 10 plexing and contentious question, however, is “what ties beyond Eand N?* (Zuckerman, Kuliman, & Camac, 1988). ‘LEysenck (1967; H. 1. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) saw the neces- sity foronly one additional factor which he called Psychoricism (P). The Big Five includes three more factors labeled Agreeable- rness,Conscieniousness,and variously) Intelligence, Inellect, I= tellctance, Culture, or Openness to Experience. AAn alternative fve-factor model (Zuckerman, Kuhlman, ‘Thornquist, & Kiers,1991) adds Impulsive Unsocialized Sensa- tion Seeking (ImpUSS), Aggression-Hostility (Agg-osd), and ‘Activity (Ac), 1 Sociability (Sy) and Neuroticism-Anaxiety (N ‘Anx), Eysenck sugeested that factors other than his Big Three, such as Agreeableness, Aggression, Conscientiousness, Impul- sity Activity and Sensation Seeking, are either componentsof E, N.or Por combinations of two of them. Conscientiousness and Agrecableness factors of the Big Five, for instance, are re- arded by Eysenck (19921) as components of, whereas Big Five proponents (Costa & MeCrat, 992c; Goldberg & Rosolac, in press) regard Pas a combination of the primary traits of ‘Aareeableness and Conscientiousness, Although Goldberg and Rosolack have said that "Psychotiism isa hybrid of factors If (disagrecableness] and III funconscientiousness},” they assert that P is not x higher order or super factor Because t does not emerge in three-factor rotations along with the clusters of trait adjectives. However, the lexical criterion is not necessarily the final word on which are the basic personality factors. The en- coding of personality traits in the language may not be propor- tional tothe behavioral importance ofthe traitsor their biologi= cal relevance,(Zuckerman, 1992). Apreeableness and Con- Scientiousness are important and salient traits for human observers, but the capacity to be socialized by societal condi tioning may be more basic and fundamental than thece two of its components. ‘The definition ofa basic trait of personality cannot be settled by factor analyses of trait measures alone (Eysenck, 1992a, 1992b; Zuckerman, 1992), The outcomesof factor analysesobvi- ‘ously depend on the sampling of variables to be factored. Ey- senck and Zuckerman have insisted that basic traits should be758 ‘ZUCKERMAN, KUHLMAN, JOIREMAN, TETA, KRAFT par of anomological neswosx or theory and have some demon- Strable biological basis. Costa and McCrae (1992s) responded ‘that “itis poor science to expan the known on the basis of the lunkrovn”(p. 659). Although the paychobilogy of basic pet= Sonality (Zuckerman, 19918) 1s ints infancy, much is known About certain traits such as E(H. J. Eysenck & Fysenck, 1985), Anxiety (Gray, 1982, 1991), P (HE. J. ysenck & Eysenck, 1976), and Sensation Seeking (Zackerman, 1979, 1983, 1984), but ese is known about Conscientiousness, Agrecablenes, and Open= ness to Experience. It might be argued that the former kinds of traits are dimensions of temperament, whereas the later are & ‘model for personality Suelau (1983) made the distinction be- tween temperament and personality traits in terms of the stronser role of biological factors early appearance in culo ‘ment, analogues in other species, and expressive, energetic ex pressions in temperament traits as opposed to directional, mo- tivational expressions in personality traits. However, Zucker. man (19910) has argued that the distinction "between temperament and basic personality traits is not at all clear or ‘meaningfuly What are called traisof temperament sch 38 So- ciabilty, Emotionality Agsression, Impulsivy, and Sensation ‘Seeking, are not very diffrent in content from F,N, Agreeable- ness, and Conscieniousness, One ofthe purposesof his article Is toasess the degiee ofeor espondenee between Sach tats as ‘operationally defined in qustionaaices The alternative five-factor mode emerged from factor analy. ses ackerman et al, 1988, Zuckerman eta, 1991) that aso included 8. BG, Eysenck, Eysenck, and Barrett's 1983) revi- sion ofthe Fysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) scales for the three-factor model. The revision ofthe EPQ was done pri- ‘marily o correct psychometric deficiencies in the P scale, in- cluding low internal reliability a curtailed scoring range and a highly skewed distribution of scores. The new seale achieved some improvement, but reliabilities are stil lower than those for other EPQ scales, and the distibution is stil far from normal ‘The sampling of scales forthe original factor analyses was based on hypothesized factors of basie personality from the researc literature on temperament and personality and mary of tie sales had been used in psychobiologiealreseareh (Zuck- erman ct a, 1988). The second study used the findings from the first study to more sharply define the factors and test th renlirahlity xroes four samples (Zuckerman sta, 1991). Tt ‘ational selection of scales for te initial facto analyses difers from the lexical sampling determining the Big Five and there- foe might have yielded diferent kinds of factors. There was no ‘extensive sampling of scales for an Intellect-Openness factor, for instance, but more extensive sampling of Sensation Seeking scales because of their demonstrated biological relevence (Zackesman, Buchsbaum, & Murph, |980). Social desirability scales were also included to assess the importance ofthis trait in the content factors, Ii dhe unreesttor solution in both studies, the scale rom, the EPQ loaded on a Sociability factor, along with other scales of afiliatve tendencies, the N seale was the strongest marker fora neuroticism-emotionaity factor, and the P scale was the best marker for ImpUSS, ImpUSS was the same at the five fac- tor level in the Zuckerman et al. (1991) study, and P was still a strong marker forthe factor. At this level, N remained a strong ‘marker fora dimension containing other N and anxiety scales, but aggression, anger, hostility and inhibition of aggression scales formed a factor distinct from that in N-Anx, Seales of activity energy level, and persistence formed a fh facto, dis- tinct from their location in the fatorin the thee-factoranaly- sis. E continued to group withthe scales in the Sy factor but, unlike other sociability scales, showed a secondary loading on PimpUSS. The results demonstrated a convergence ofthe E)- senck model with thee of the factorsin the alternative ive fac- tor model. ‘Studies comparing the Fysenck three-factor and Costa and MeCre five-factor models (Angleitner & Ostendorf, in press; MeCrae & Costa, 1985) showed that Eand N were highly com ‘evgent with the corresponding trait meseures in both eyetams, ‘McCrae and Costa found that Eysenck's measure of P was lated to Agrecableness and Conscientiousness factors in their Big Five model. Angleitner and Ostendorf also found reation- ships berween P and Agreeableness, Conscieniousness, and (Openness in a fivefactor analysis. However, using a sisfactor ‘model, P correlated mast highly with Openness. ‘Angleiiner and Ostendorf in press also compared other pu- tative measures of adult “temperament” with Costa and MeCrae’s (NEO) measures of the five factor model. They in ‘cluded the four subsesies ofthe Sensation Seeking Seale (SSS Form ¥, Zuckerman, 1979; Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978) and the subscales of the Buss and Plomin (1975) EASI temperament measures. All ofthese temperament scales were used in the studies first defining the alternative five factor model (Zuckerman etal, 1988; Zuckerman etal, 1991),allow- inga comparison of he Big Five and the Alternative Five mod- els, Three ofthe four sensation seeking subscales ofthe SSS and «sensation seeking subscale of impulsivity on the EAST loaded ‘most highly on the openness factor of the NEO) The Fxper: ence Seeking subscale of the SSS had the strongest relationship with the Openness factor, and the other two subseales of the ‘$SSaand the EASI had equal or near-equal loadings (negative) on the Agrecableness factor. The disinhibition subscale of the SSS had its primary and substantial loading (negative) on the Agreeableness factor Costaand McC ac (19923) reanalyzed the fctor analysis data ‘of Zuckerman et al. (1991, cerotating the five factor to align with putative markers for their model, They used the SSS Fxpe- renee Secking subscale w ieutfy dhe Openness factor The ‘ew rotations resulted in Eysenck’s P scale loading moderately ‘on both the Openness (positively) and Conscientiousness (nega tively factors and somewhat lower on the Agreeableness(nega- tively factor. The loading of Pon the Openness ctor is some- what inconsistent with prior notions ofits identity asthe oppo- site of Conscientiousness and Agrecableness, but Eysenck (49924 has maintained that creativity is associated with the P dimension and provides one ofthe adaptive advantages of the trait. Supporting this notion isthe fact that creative and success- {ul artists and writers are among the highest scoring groups on the P scale Zuckerman, 1989) ‘There has been no study directly comparing all three models because until recently there were no direct measures for the ternative ive-factor model. The first study inthis article de= seribes the development ofa questionnaire fo this model. The second stugy was designed to compare the three models using‘THREE STRUCTURAL MODELS FOR PERSONALITY 139 the operational definitions provided by the primary scales for ‘each. In view ofthe previous studies, a high degree of conver- pence was expected for the Extrversion-Sociabiity and N fac- {ors in all three models. ImpUSS inthe alternative model was expected to be nepitively related to Conscientiousness, and ‘Age Host in our model was predicted 19 measure the obverse of ‘Agreeableness inthe Big Five model. The major questions con cern the equivalences for P from the Fysenck model in the other two. The results rom previous studies have not been con- sistent, some suggesting Agrecableness and others Opennessor CConscientiousness as primary equivalents of P ‘A second typeof comparison of the components ofthe three ‘models isthe extent o which they correlate with thesamescales from other questionnaire measures. Things that correlate wi thesame thingsare not necessarily the same, but when the total profile of comparisons igsimilar, they obviously share some important characteristics Other models, including the original fourfactor temperament scheme of Buss and Plomin (1975) and the two-fctor system of Block and Block (1980), were compared with the thre: and fvefactor models central to this study Measures that are of a narrower of more specific focus such as cognitive trait and reinforcement sensitivity scales were also of interest, Concepts such as “generalized reward expec- ancy" are relevant tothe theoretical mechanisms underlying some ofthe traits. ‘The hypotheses generated from the theee models areas fol lows: 1. According o Bysenck, the scales from the other two tests (NEO and Zuckerman-Kublman Personality Questionnaire {ZKPQ}) should load on three factors identifiable by his own ‘markers a8 E, N, and P,respectively, with one exception. Be- cause he and Zuckerman deliberately excluded markers forthe Culture-Inelect-Openness factor, the NEO Openness scale ‘would not be expected to be encompassed within isthe fac- tor model. The P factor should consist of scales for Ags Host (ZKPQ), Agreeableness and Conscieniousness (NEO), and ImpUSS (ZKPQ), the later because of the impulsivity rather than the Sensation Seeking component. I is important that P be the highest, or among, the highest loading scales on this factor ina three-factor analysis onthe assumption that it isthe best comprehensive measure ofthe broad factor. 2. The Costa and McCrae model would predict atleast four ‘major factors using the total scores on the NEO scales (N,E, ‘Agrecableness, and Conscientiusnes), with thet own sales loading highly on these superusits. The fifth factor of Open- ness would not be expected when using only the single NEO total score for Openness because there would be no corre: sponding scale within the EPQ or ZKPQ The fifth factor should be defined by the six NEO face scales for Openness, but ‘ight also include some secondary loadings from the ZKPQ. ImpUSS scale or the EPQ P scales according to Angletner and, Ostendor’s Gin press) results ‘5. The Zuckerman and Kublman model would also predict at east four factors using the broad scales from all of the tests with high loadings from the ZKPQ Sy, N-Anx, ImpUSS, and [Age Host scales fr the four factors. A Af factor of Act would not be expected because of the absence of a corresponding ‘major scale in the other tests. Act might emerge asa fifth factor inn analysis using the NEO facet scales because there is an ‘Activity Facet scale within the major E scale that might com- bine with ZKPQ Act. ZKPQ ImpUSS could be most strongly related to Agrecableness, Conscientiousness, of Openness scales ofthe NEO beeause previous findings have found one or ‘more of these correlating with ImpSS. According to previous factor analyses (Zuckerman et al, 1988; Zuckerman et al 1991), ImpSS will bo more strongly related to a dimension ‘marked by EPQ P than one identified with F. Study 1: Development of Scales for the Alternative Five-Factor Model Method Factoe scores were compute for individual subjects on each ofthe ‘asc five facts i dhe the Zacher etal 981) stay AML of Ihe ‘tems contained in thescales sed nthe Zackermaret al 0991) sts, ‘ace thse from the EPQ, were coreated withthe five Fctor sores inthecormbined samplestn» $22, Twenty items wereseleced foreach factor Seale 8 the bass of having the highest correlation with that factor, litle corelation wth ether factors, and minimal coreéation ‘withthe Crowne-Marlone (160) Socal Desirability scaleVAthowgh theres evidence that social desirability isnot an important confound ing nfvnce in most scales (Mere & Costa, 1983), tan fet the endorsement frequen of certain types of items, particulary those eating wit socttyunaceepiable alts such a aggression, and may ‘sccount forthe skewed distribution of cles such as Eysenck and Fy- senck’ 1976) P| Many of the items were rewritten forthe second form ofthe ZKPQ (ZKPOM because some were from published testsand olbers needed Improvement in wording. The ZKPQ Il consisting O10 items was sven to 589 subjects, and thee em responses were factor anelyaed ‘sing principal components and a vrimax rotation, Sere tess ind cated the appropriateness ofthe vector solaton. Ninety ofthe 100 items loaded at east 30 on thes predicted factor and higher on that factor than any of ie ocr four One em mer tis creo, it Ihe loading on «second factor was 0 cote to that on the primary factor that it was eliminated. The remaining 89 items were sled forthe revised sale (ZKPQ Ill)~An examination of the distributions of Scores on the five sales showed that al but the Sy scale were Sty normaly distribute, but the eistibutionofecoreson Sy wasskewed toward thehigh nd, somnew tems were writen forthisscale(orimarly Invrovesionype tems in an atempi to normalize the distribution, ‘An examination of the distribution in a subsequent sample showed that the disinbution was now much closer to nocmal. Tea ew items were wren for a infequeney see wo ate eareessrespondiae The ne seales canbe described i erms oftheir typical conten: 1. Impulsive Sensation Sting (npSS. 19 tem) The impulsivity items imo a lack of planing andthe tendeny to 4 impulsively ‘without thinking. The ImpS em are general in content and do not describe specie activites such as drinking or sex. Most can be de- scribed as experience seeking ofthe willingness to take ks for the sake of excitement or nvelexperience. J 2. Nane(19 er These tems detribe emotional upc, tension, worry fearfulness obsessive indecision, lack of selfconfidene, and 3. gales (17 tems, About hal ofthe tems desribe a readiness tocnqres verbal agression, Others concern rude thous, or ane tisocial behavior, vegefunes, and spitetulnss, The persons scoring high admit a quick emper and impatince with others ‘4 (17 toms, About ha ofthe tems describe the ned for at ity and an inability to relax and do nothing when the opportunity presen itself Type A personality). The other ems portray a peter760. nce for hantor challenging work, anactve busy ile andahigh energy devel 5. SY(17 tems) These tems concern the numberof rendsone has snd the amouatoftimespent with them, outgoingneseat partes anda reference fr being with thers as opposed to being alone and purso- Ingsolitary activities. «4 Infequency (ln, 10 items. These items are mostly exaggerate, ‘true scored, socaly desirable but unlikely to be completely iue tae rents about anyone. The scale i highly skewed, with most scores around 0 oF J, and this may account for its low internal reli Rather than being regarded asa scale, should oaly be used to detect inattention tothe task oran excessive concern withappearingsocially New roveism-Anney:ImpUSS~ Impulsive Unsocalzed Sensation Ssking. At version ofthe Big Five, “angry-hostility”is subsumed in the N factor along with anxiety and depression, although logically ‘one would expect it to be the opposite pole of Agreeableness. [earl all classification of temperament in children includes activity as a basic factor (Kohnstamm, Bates, & Rothbart, 1985). In both the Big Taree and Big Five, activity is subsumed a & component of F. (although Cont aid McCrae (19928) factoranalsisshows.a higher loadingon the Conscientiousness factor). Our factor analyses (Zuckerman etal, 1988, Zucker- ‘man etal, 1991) alsoshow activity encompassed within a broad E trait at the three-factor level, but with a negative relationship to N-Anx aswell. Despite this dual influence of End Anxiety om activity, it did emerge asa distinct factor atthe fve-fctor level in earlier analyses Zuckerman et al, 1991), Because ofits eo™ AgEression- Hostility developmental and psychobiological significance, activity level rmeritsa distinctive assessment asa major trait of temperament for personality. Buss and Plomin (1984) included it ax one of | their Big Three (Emotionaliy Activity and Sociability in their revised theory of temperament. “The conventional Big Five developed from lexical analyses of uraittermsin tanguage systems and thelr anslation into simple rating scales (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). The factors prob- ably reflect the importance and observability of trait concepts in social interactions. However, the sampling of traits in the language may not reflect their importance as basic traits of personality Surgency (E) and Agreeableness always emerge as the two strongest factors in language analyses, but Emotional Stability (N) comes out fourth i size, indicating that there are‘THREE STRUCTURAL MODELS FOR PERSONALITY 765 ‘Table7 Correlations Between NEQZKPQ, and EPQ Scales and Other Tests zKPQ NEO. ZKPQ- NEO ZKPQ. NEO ZKPQ- Seale __NEON Netw FPQN NEOE ZKPQSy EPQE Conse. ImpSS ERQP Agree AmsHo Open Act EAS! Emationaty 740" gee 7a m3 m8 -or ~296 -14 Souabiity ier — yee 356 eee <2, <8 2 Impulsvty “14 0802 ae Stee ‘seer ater 03 aay 2B =10 ive ae a a ss “Tal 0s aoe se ss came ie TAS 2am dir 33 Sage ore Gite op ES 8 Os lias eee eee se ono De 21 ae ae age ee 2-09 Be ov Bo be he See ts 88 lock Ego Uc 96 Set nae age gy gare gate ae) goa EpoRes =e Sie “ie ore Shee pee nae ae Saw Roe Toews st ae ok kat GRAPES RewExp Aste am 08 m2 see Pon Exp ae ie 10 ae 3 as) 08 sacs 1s “3,00 ore att ot 1 ae IS too, 01 ar a ae a a a - - ase 0108 ag 98 ase gore wate a ast ose nse amaze “age “9p 30 aie 10 ae =a8 Sao lt oe oar i t8 20° St =e boise ‘Nae, N = Neuroticism; N-Anx.~ Neurotcism-Anaety: E~ Extaversion; $y ~ Socibility Cone. = Conscientiounes,ImpSS = Impulsive Sensation Seeking, P= paychotcim Age ~ Agrecabicoes, Ago ~ Aguresson-Hostliy, Open. ~ Openness, Act = Acivity EASL = ‘Bust-Plomin Temperament scales, S8S = Sensation Seeking Scale (Form): Total ~ total sore fm of four subscale), TAS ~ Thrill and ‘AdventureSeeking, ES = Experience Seeking, Di~ Dsinhibiuon, BS Boredom Susceptibility Block = Bock Ego Scales Ego UC~ Epo (Unde) Control, Eao Res = Exo Resiliency: Locus ~ Roster Locus of Control Scale: GR APES ~ Ball sn Zuckerman 1960) Geeralived Reward ant Punitimiem Expectancy Scales: Rew Exp = Reward Expectancy. Pon Exp= Punihmen: Expectancy SltCe-Fengstein Seneer ane BossL9T3) SeltConscousness Scales: Private ~ Private Sel'Conseiousness, Public ~ Pubic SeConscoumnes. Soc Anx = Socal Anasty, Res. Set = ‘Crowne-Mariowe Social Desirability scale Jae. SD ~ Jackson Socal Desist Seales, Bass SA ~ Bass Social [yatnek Personality Questionnaire Li scale Pe Ol, two led i ope 0S, owoaied text fewer words to represen it In analyses of questionnaire scales, much ike that proposed by H. 1. Esenck and M. W Eysenck however, N almost alvays emerges, along with E,asone ofthe 1985). The fst factor is F, inchiding sociaility and activity, two strongest factors. land the second is N, with very close idemtty of the measures ‘Traits uch at impulsivity and Sensation Seeking, which have from all three models. The thid factor looks very much like P important psychobiological bases (Zuckerman, 1983, 1984, as described by the Eysencks, with Agrecableness, Con- 19910), are only represented as single scales within the larger _scientiousness, Aggresion, and ImpSS included and the Pscale factors of the Big Five and are listed under diferent major itself asthe strongest marker ImpSS bas its major loadi factors: “impulsiveness” is regarded asa facet of Nand excite- the P factor, as predicted from the Zuckerman-Kuhlman ‘ment seeking” as a facet of E (Costa & McCrae, 1992) Simi- model, but ImpSS does have a moderate secondary loading on larly HJ. Eysenck and Fysenck 985) placed sensationseeking the E factor as wel. under F and classified impulsivity under P However, sensation _In the four-factor analysis, Pis identified with Conscientious- seeking and impulsivity are closely related and with socializa- nest and ImpSS, but Agreeableness from the NEO and ABS tion form a distinctive factor in fve-fector analyses of scales Host from the ZK PQ form aseparate dimension, Thus, the two (Zuckerman et a, 1991) and slems. fivefactor models show a high degree of convergence on four of ‘Despite these differences between the three models, the e- the five base factors. sults of this empirical analysisof the major fctors inal models _Acivty inthe alternative fie-factor model isnot represented Suggest a great dal of convergence between them, particularly by 2 major dimension in the other two models so could not the two fve-factor models. Eand N are quite similar acrossall emerge asa separate factor defined by at least two scales. The three models, despite some differences in their components. Act factor in the ZKPQ correlated .52 withthe Activity facet Restricting the analysis to three factors produces a model very scale in the NEO and 59 with the EASI Activity scale, How-166 ZUCKERMAN, KUHLMAN, JOIREMAN, TETA, KRAFT. veri thefve-factor analysis using the NEO facet scales along, with the EPQ and ZKPQ scales, NEO and ZKPQ Act scales ‘both loaded most strongly onthe E dimension. Act seems to be the weakest factor of our alternative five and from a statistical ‘viewpoint alone, one could argue for reducing the major factors to fourand including activity in the F dimension. However, the ‘ability ofa basic dimension goes beyond its strength in factor analyses and to the question of is theoretical and biological significance (H. J. Fysenck, 19922, 1992; Zuckerman, 1992); consequently, judgment should be postponed until there are ‘enough data to demonstrate the construct validity of Act. The same conclusioncan be applied toallof the dimensions beyond and N from any of the models. Like Activity, Openmess could not be identified as a actor in {actor analyses of the threescaleshocause ithad nodirectcorr- sponding measure in the EPQ and ZXPQ In the fourfactor analysis, it loaded postvly onthe Agreeableness versus Age: Host factor. However, when we used the facet scales instead of the total factor scales forthe NEO, al sx ofthe Openness facet Scores formed the ith factor. However, despive previous data from the Angletner and Ostendorf Gn press) study suggesting that Openness might have some relationship with P, Sensation Seeking. or Agrceablenes, litle relainnshin wae fine ew tween this factor and most of the scales from the other four factors. The strongest correlations betwoen the Openness total Score and other scales were wth Block's Ego Resiliency sale (7 .44) and the Experience Seeking subseale of the SSS = 43), The pattern of correlations between corresponding scales from the three models and other test were quite simitat, Three ofthe four scales inthe EAST scales of temperament coreate with E,N, and P factors inthe three models, and EAS! activity correlates highly with ZKPQ Act. R. ImpSS, and Con: Scientiousnssall correlate moderately with lof the Sensation ‘Secking subscales but Disinhibtion and Boredom Susceptibil- ityalsocorrelate with Aga Hostand Agreeablenes, as we might ‘expect from their relationships with antisocial types of Seasa- tion Secking (Zuckerman, 1979), The relationships of generalized reward and punishment cx- pectancy scales from the GRAPES with E and N factors are Similar to what was found inthe Ball and Zuckerman (1990) study: Fie elated only to reward expectancy, whereas N is re- lated to both generalized punishment and reward expectancies (positively 1 the former and negatively othe atten) The results provide only partial support for Gray’ theory ifselectve stim: Uulis sensitivity” and "generalized expectancy” can be equate. ‘Whereas his theory suggests that E is related positively to re- ‘ward and negatively to punishment stimulussensiiity the find ings from thisand the previousstudy show that Fisonly related to reward expectancy His theory also predicts positive relation- ships between N and punishment and revare sensitivities, but, the present data show a positive coreation with punishment and a negative correlation with reward expectancy. Sel-consciousness scales show ttle relationship to these pet- sonality factors. Private sel-consciousness i nt elated to In- {roversion as suggested by the test authors theory but seems to ‘bea weaker form of social anxiety somewhat related to N. But social anxiety seems to represent acombination of Nand Into ‘Acqiescence does not correlate significant overall withthe scales involved in these mode's, which is reassuring considering the imbalanced true-false keying of some of them. Acces: ‘ence has been discounted asa response set influence on most ‘seaes for some time (Block, 1965). SD, particulary ofthe type measured by the Jackson scale, does correlate substantially with measures of N and Fin all models and measures of Con- sciefiousness and P from the NEO and EPQ. This does not indicate that these scales are somehow confounded ot lst valid because ofa response st influence. McCrae and Costa (1983) have shown that correcting the correlations between NEO seals and spouse ratings for scores on the Msrlowe-Crowne (1.960) SD and Eysenck Lie scales had no elect on the spouse ‘set vallaty coeteiems. Even in he current stu¢y, these two seals did not correlate very highly with mast of the three ‘model scales. The Jackson SD scale, ike the now seldom used Edwards (1957) SD scale, seems to be more loaded with the type of psychopathology contained in N-Anx scales. The ImpSS measure was unrelated 10 SD except fr a low negative correlation withthe EPQ Liescale. This finding hasbeen gener- ally true for Sensation Seeking measures Zuckerman, 1979) Correlations between personality questionnaires primarily reflec similaritie in content domains The crucial test of con vergence or specificity wil depend on use ofthe measures fom. the three models in studies of behavioral and biological phe- nomena. These tests wll also determine whether theabsence of ‘an Openness factor inthe Big Three and Alternative Five mod- cls, ora separate activity factor in the Big Thre and Big Five ‘models, or separate AggHlost (os. Agreeablenes) factor inthe Big Three are important deficits inthe respective models References “Anges, A. (992, ne) Sympestn on Temperament and the Fe "Facer Model Preseated atthe Sixth Conference of the Exopean ‘Association for Personality Paychology. Groningen, The Nether. tunes. “Anaetoes. A. & Ostend, Fin press) Temperament and the Big Five factors of pereoality In. F Halverson, G. A. Kabastemm, & LP Martin (Es), The developing race of temperament and pecmolty from fone aalhood Milled, NI. Elba Bal. S. 4.8 Zuckerman, M (990. Sensation secking, ysl pete ‘sonality dimension and reinforcement ens inconcep ra ‘on sonality and Daal Diferences 11,343 353 Bass BLM. (986, Development and ealuton af seal for measur Ingsccial acquiescence Jornal of Abnormal and Soil Pschabey 53 396-299, Bishop, DVM. 197D)- The Psateand psychosis Journal Abnormal Paychology 86. 127-134 Block, J 965). The challenge of responce cts New York: Appleton ‘Century Crom Blok, 19770 The Fjsecks and psychotics, urna of Abnormal Pacholog 6 653-654, Block, 11977) Psealeand ppchoss Continue concerns Jouralof ‘Abnormal Psychology: 86, 3-434 Block, 1H. & Block 1 (980). The role of g0-contol and egos lisney inthe organization of behave. Te WA. Cline (F), The Minnerta Symposia on Chl Psychology 8613. Deeopmen of ‘opntion, fect, ond socal relations (pp. 39-101, Hillsdale, Ni Esha‘THREE STRUCTURAL MODELS FOR PERSONALITY Bass A. Hy Plain, (97S). 4 semperment theory of personaly ‘dslopment New York: Wiley ‘Bass, 1H, Plain, R984) Temperament Barly develping per ‘oval at Wildl, NI: Eebuar. (Cael, 8.0987), Posonaiyand mtvation structure and mesure ‘men. New Yr: Haru, Brace, & Wor. erate 81), Pec In Ryn (FA), Dimer af ‘posonaly (9p. 79-109) Oxford, England Pereamon Press ‘Conta PT, Jr McCrae, RR (19923) Four may Sve Stor are Tesi, Prsonly andra Difeence 13, 653-6, (Conta, PT, Jr, & MeCre, (9825, NEOLPL Reied NEO ‘eonaliy Fventory (NEOPA) Odessa, FL: Paychoogical As scsument Resources, (Costa. PTs, Meine R.R 19923. Reply to ysenck,Prsonaliy ‘Indians 15, 8-86 (Crowe DP, & Marlowe, D (1960), A new cle of socal desibity Indpcodst of poebopatcley Jornal of Cons EHO 2308-354, ‘Crowne DP, & Mariome, D964). The approval mative New Yr: ‘ey Dritaman,R & Zoskerma, M980) Disahibtoy sensation eck ‘ing, pewonaliy and gonadal hormone, Pomona and india Diener 1103110. Dignan, 1M. (980) Pesonaliystrucure Emergence ofthe free Tor model, Annual Reviw of Psehlon 41, 417-860 Boward, AL, (95) The socal des verable posonly ‘hetmon andrea New Ye: Den ysenek HJ (947). Dimesins of perionaliy New York: Prag, ysenek, HL 0967). The bool ass of personality Spring, TI: Chaves Thomas. ‘ysenck (92a) reply to Coste an MeCiae Por Aan the elec theory Personality and nda Diferonces, 13, 867-868. ‘ysenek, HJ (9828) Fourways fe factors are not bas, Peony 2nd PidduclDiferencs. 1687-673, perch H-1 (9820, The deniton and measurement of psychotic. ‘ss Personal end indie Difereces 7157-785 perch, HJ, & Eyseack, MW (1985). Poona and indidual Cifernce A natal weience approach, New York: Plenum Press, perch HJ & Byenck, © 8.0. (969), Personality site and ‘measizenet. San Die, CA: Robert R. Kear. genak HJ, Eeene, 8.6 (1970. Pyohacem aa dmonsin ‘of pon: New Yor: Crane, Russa penal, S BG & yen (975), Mama ofthe EPO Posona "iy Question San Dees, CA: Educational nd Indust Test Ingservce ‘seek 5 BG. eck HJ, A Bare, P0988) A revised venion ‘ofthe pach sale. Posonlt and Pda Dies 6. 21-28, Fenigstin, A. Scheie, MF, & Bus, A. H. (97S). Publiand private seltconoustss: Asesimest and theory Jounal of Cosing tnd tial Pycholy 43. $2527. Fike, DW (1949), Consistency of acral srotures for personality rags fom dierent sources Journal of Amaral and Soil PS ology 44 329-344 Galdber. LR. (990. Ao alernatie“deseiton of personaly" ‘The Bin actor strucare Journal ef Ponty and Soil Poy ology 88121661229. Golders LR, 0992, ne. The rac of phenotypic personaly tals the magia ruber fe ls” ina 200 Paper pre- ‘ected at th Sith Confrence ofthe European Association Pe Sealy Psychol Groningen, The Netherands. Goldberg, LR, Rosolck, TK, Gr pes Putting she Bg Five ctor trctre apie ts competion” An empl comparison 167 with encks PE, N mode. InC.F Haberoa,G.A.Kobastae, [ERP Martin (Eas, The developing struc oftemperament and peronliy fom fone) adulthood Hilde NI Esbau Gray 5 A (1982). The newsycholoy fans: An eva int the “fons ofthe cen hnpocampa stom, New York Oxford Une iy Pres. Gem! A991) The nmmprchalgy fempmament Repleatonsin Temperament: erational perpen on theory and mesa (@p 1087128). New er: Plenum Press Guile, JP, & Zimmerman, W'S. (1956). Fourteen dimensional vemperament ators. Peholegial Monographs 70) 1-26. akerto, C.F, & Kebestann, 0. (981, June). Covfrnce an the ‘devlopmont ofthe sacar f temperament and persona) from inoneyiaduihood Neterlands astutor Advanced Stud, Was sSenaa, The Netherands. Jackson, DLN. (1874). Penalty Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: Cotulig Ppt Pres Kohnstamm, GA. Bates, E_& Rothbart, M, K. (1989) Temper ‘mono chdkoed New Vo: Wiley MeCing, RR, Costs, PJ (1983) Soil desirably seaie: More stance than she Jounal of Consling and Chica Pyehaloes SS 812-888 MeCing, RR, & Costa, PT. Je 0985) Comparison of EP and Psy ‘holm sas with arora of he vesacior mosel of personal |, Peaonaly and divide Difrncs 6, 589-97. Norman, WT. (196), Toward an adequate stosomy of personaly trbver:Reieate factor stuart oural ef ABnomal and Sor fal Pyetlory 66 574-583, Rotter, B (1966) Gereraized expectancies forint! v.eternat Control of enforcement, Phobia! Manogrzphs, 8{Whale No. (as). ‘uel, 1.0983), Femperament. persona actity New Yok: Aes demic Press. “Telgen, (988) tuctaresof mood and personality an there vance foasesing ait withan emphasis on selsepot, Im. H {Tuma 81D Mme (2d, tov and he anny der 81-706). Hilsdale NE Eribaum, Tapes E.G, & Christal RE (961), Recaren! personaly factors ‘ase on ating: US. Ait Force, ASD Techoeal Rept (NO. 679) Valli L981. Pryhobinog afapgresonadvolece. New York: Raven Pres ‘eckerman, M979). Somat seokig: Beyond the oti ler of onl ied, NI: eau ‘Zeckerman, M. (983) olga base of sensation skin impu ‘ian anny ida a Zackarman, M. (198), Seaton scking A compat approach 0 ‘thaman ek, Behavioral ana Brat Selene. 7 413-4 Zackerman, M198) Personality he hie dimension: A psyco ‘olga approach Personality and India Dfeences 10. 91— an ‘asker, M. (9810), Sporn: Bas dimensions of eon. ‘resected atthe esting be Ltecnational Society forthe Sty of ‘nsdn Diferenees, Ors, Eglind, uy 981 ‘ackerman, M. (9919, Pehle peonaliy New York: Cas ‘ge rivers Pres Zackeran, M. (1992). Whats basic factor and which factors are Tani! Tarts al the way down. Posonalty and India Der ences 13, 675-882 “Zackerman, M. Bacseaur, M.S, & Marpy D1 (980) Sersation Seckingand is islopeal orcas, Pcl! Buen 8, ne168 zoster ZUCKERMAN, KUHLMAN, JOIREMAN, TETA, KRAFT MM, Fysenet,$.B.G. Ae foeech H.31978) Sensation Zackeeman,M, Kohiman, DM. Thracus Ma Kier 1.0992). Teolngs England and Amence Creseeaieri a andsexcom- Fite thre Robust guetonaite sae for of peioaliy st umal(Conalng snd Pochags 3910). wibotcare Pesoay ond al iene 12 29-1 pers, Me abla My Cama (98). What es ‘pen anh Ftor spree bev mea be Rocce Nove 18,1992 Trewin of peronlty na Ponlond Sa Ph Revision received March 12,1993 corsasecit ‘asceted March 16,1993 = Call for Nominations ‘The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations forthe editorships of Behavioral Neuroscience, the Journal of Experimental Peychology: General, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition forthe years 1996-2001. Lamy R. Suir, PHD, Eat Hunt, PRD, and Keith Rayner, PRD respectively, arethe incumbent editors. Candidates must be members of APA and shouldbe availabe (0 “star receiving manuserpisin early 1995 to prepare fr isstes published in 1996, Please note that the P&C Board encourages participation by members of underrepresented groups inthe publication process and would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate and fates. prepare ninlement of one page less i support ofeach candidate (© For Behavioral Neuroscience, submit nominations to J, Brace Overmier, PRD, itt Hall—Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minne polis, MN 55455 ort pryjbo@vxcisumaeda, Other members ofthe search committe are Norman Adler, PAD, Evelyn Satnoff, PAD, and Richard F. Thomp- son, PAD. (©) For the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, submit nominations to Howard E. Bgsth, PAD, Chur, JEP: General Seazch, Department of Pycholngy, Johns Hopkins Univesity, Charles & 34th Streets, Bakimore, MD 21218, to egeth@ jnuvm bitnet orto fax number 410-516-4478, Othermemberso the search ‘committe are Donald S, Blough, PAD, Martha Farah, PRD, and Edward E. Smith Pa, (© Forthe Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, submit nominations to Donna M. Gelfand, PaD, Dean, Socal and Behavioral Science, 205 Ost, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-1102 orto fax number 801-585-5081, Other members of the search committee aro Marcia Johnson, PAD, Michael Potner PAD, Henry I. Roediger Ill, PRD, and Richard M. Shifrin, PRD, First review of nominations will begin December 15,1993