1

Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck: Trait Theory of Personality

Emaan Atif (BSCP-22S-0199)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University

CPSY2103: Theories of Personality

Dr. Nasreen Kausar

11th Dec 2023

 2

Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck: Trait Theory of Personality 4

Introduction 4

Similarities between Eysenck and Cattell's Trait Theories: 5

1. Trait Stability: 5

2. Foundational Traits Focus: 5

3. Trait Heritability Recognition: 5

4. Utilization of Factor Analysis: 5

5. Impact on Personality Assessment: 6

6. Emphasis on Empirical Validation: 6

7. Hierarchical Models: 6

8. Cross-Cultural Applicability: 6

9. Contributions to Psychological Research: 6

10. Influence on Personality Psychology: 7

11. Trait Interaction Recognition: 7

12. Enduring Legacy and Influence: 7

Differences between Eysenck and Cattell’s Trait theory of Personality 7

1. Biological Foundations in Personality Theories: 7

2. Structural Variance in Trait Representation: 8

3. Approaches in Factor Analysis: 8

4. Divergence in Primary Factor Numbers: 8

5. Hierarchical Arrangement of Traits: 8

6. Integration of Personality with Psychopathology: 8

7. Cross-Cultural Implications: 9
 3

8. Perceptions on Trait Stability: 9

9. Precision in Trait Dimensions: 9

10. Predictive Value of Traits: 9

11. Development of Assessment Instruments: 9

12. Inclusion of Psychoticism Dimension: 10

Similarities and Differences in the Views on Human Nature 10

1. Nature vs Nurture: 10

2. Optimism vs Pessimism: 10

3. Determinism vs Free Will: 10

4. Childhood Influence: 10

5. Stability vs Growth: 11

6. Uniqueness vs Universality: 11

Similarities and Differences in Assessment 11

1. Self-Report Measures: 11

2. Standardization of Assessments: 11

3. Quantitative Analysis: 12

4. Psychometric Properties: 12

5. Factor Analysis: 12

6. Trait Hierarchies: 12

7. Objective Assessment: 12

8. Longitudinal Assessment: 13

9. Development of Assessment Tools: 13

References 14
 4

Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck: Trait Theory of Personality

Introduction

The trait theory of personality, as elucidated by renowned psychologists Hans Eysenck

and Raymond Cattell, offers a comprehensive framework to understand the fundamental aspects

of human personality (Eysenck, 1947; Cattell, 1943). These theories represent a paradigm shift in

psychological understanding, moving away from earlier psychoanalytic and behaviorist

perspectives and focusing on quantifiable and measurable characteristics that define an

individual's personality.

Hans Eysenck, a pioneering psychologist, formulated a comprehensive model

highlighting primary dimensions of personality. His PEN model, encompassing Psychoticism,

Extraversion-Introversion, and Neuroticism, aimed to capture the fundamental traits influencing

human behavior (Eysenck, 1947). On the other hand, Raymond Cattell's 16 Personality Factors

(16PF) theory provided a detailed classification of personality traits, proposing a hierarchical

structure with primary, secondary, and surface traits, delving into the multifaceted nature of

individual differences (Cattell, 1943).

Both Eysenck and Cattell employed rigorous empirical methods, including psychometric

assessments and factor analysis techniques, to derive and classify these core traits (Eysenck,

1947; Cattell, 1943). Their theories laid the foundation for understanding the complexities of

personality, aiding psychologists and researchers in exploring the distinct factors contributing to

human behavior and functioning.

This exploration into the trait theories of Eysenck and Cattell offers valuable insights into

the nature of personality (Eysenck, 1947; Cattell, 1943). Understanding these frameworks
 5

enriches our comprehension of human behavior and provides a robust foundation for personality

assessment and psychological research.

Similarities between Eysenck and Cattell's Trait Theories:

Both Cattell's and Eysenck's trait theories of personality are influential in psychology and

share several similarities in their approach to understanding human personality. Following are

the few that have been identified from writings of Boyle et al. (2016) and Bourke and Francis

(2000).

1. Trait Stability:

Both Cattell and Eysenck believed in the enduring stability of personality traits over time,

emphasizing their consistent nature across various situations and contexts.

2. Foundational Traits Focus:

Both scholars aimed to identify fundamental traits that elucidate variances in behavior,

cognition, and emotion. Cattell's factors and Eysenck's dimensions serve as pivotal pillars within

their respective models, illuminating the core elements of personality.

3. Trait Heritability Recognition:

Acknowledging the influential role of genetics in shaping personality, both theorists

recognized and emphasized the heritability of certain traits. Eysenck, in particular, accentuated

the biological underpinnings of dimensions within his model.

4. Utilization of Factor Analysis:

While exploring the realms of personality, Cattell extensively employed factor analysis to

distill his 16 personality factors, whereas Eysenck utilized this statistical technique to identify

and substantiate his primary personality dimensions.

 6

5. Impact on Personality Assessment:

The indelible influence of both Cattell and Eysenck resonates within the realm of

personality assessment, evident in widely used tools like Cattell's 16PF Questionnaire and

Eysenck's Personality Inventory (EPI), derived from their seminal theories.

6. Emphasis on Empirical Validation:

Both researchers underscored the criticality of empirical validation for their proposed

traits. Extensive research endeavors were pursued to validate their models through rigorous

correlation studies and predictive validity examinations.

7. Hierarchical Models:

Cattell and Eysenck each proposed intricate hierarchical frameworks to comprehend the

complexities of personality traits. Within Cattell's 16PF and Eysenck's model, an intricate

interplay of multiple layers of traits forms a comprehensive understanding of personality.

8. Cross-Cultural Applicability:

The universal application of their theories across diverse cultural contexts underscores

the potential universality of identified traits and dimensions, albeit necessitating nuanced

adaptations for specific cultural frameworks.

9. Contributions to Psychological Research:

Their pioneering theories significantly propelled advancements in psychological research,

particularly in unraveling the intricate structure of personality, understanding individual

differences, and fostering the development of sophisticated assessment tools.

 7

10. Influence on Personality Psychology:

Cattell and Eysenck's seminal contributions have profoundly shaped the landscape of

personality psychology, fostered subsequent research endeavors, and served as cornerstones for

theoretical developments.

11. Trait Interaction Recognition:

Both theorists acknowledged the dynamic interplay among traits and the environment,

illuminating the complex interactional dynamics that shape an individual's personality within

varied situational contexts.

12. Enduring Legacy and Influence:

The enduring and pervasive legacy of Cattell and Eysenck in the realm of personality

psychology persists, their theories serving as enduring references and continually expanded upon

by contemporary researchers, educators, and practitioners.

Differences between Eysenck and Cattell’s Trait theory of Personality

Fundamental differences between their theories have been identified, as explained by

Johnson (2014), Peck and Whitlow (2019) and Schultz and Schultz (2004). These are as follows:

1. Biological Foundations in Personality Theories:

Eysenck incorporated a robust biological basis into his theory, emphasizing the

substantial influence of genetic factors on personality traits, particularly extraversion and

neuroticism. In contrast, while Cattell acknowledged genetic influence, his approach did not

emphasize biological underpinnings as prominently as Eysenck's did.

 8

2. Structural Variance in Trait Representation:

Cattell delineated 16 primary personality factors within his 16PF theory, while Eysenck

initially concentrated on three major dimensions. Later, Eysenck refined his model to incorporate

a biological perspective, emphasizing two higher-order factors: extraversion and neuroticism.

3. Approaches in Factor Analysis:

Cattell extensively relied on factor analysis to identify and derive his 16 personality

factors. Conversely, Eysenck initially used factor analysis, later integrating biological theories to

underscore the influence of genetics on personality traits.

4. Divergence in Primary Factor Numbers:

Cattell's theory comprised 16 primary factors derived through extensive factor analysis.

In contrast, Eysenck initially proposed three major dimensions, later consolidating his model into

fewer, broader dimensions influenced by biological factors.

5. Hierarchical Arrangement of Traits:

While both proposed hierarchical structures, Cattell's 16PF theory featured a more

intricate arrangement with 16 primary factors and multiple sub-factors. Eysenck's model evolved

to highlight two higher-order factors (extraversion and neuroticism) governing the lower-level

traits.

6. Integration of Personality with Psychopathology:

Eysenck associated his dimensions with psychopathology, suggesting a link between

neuroticism and emotional instability, and a predisposition to certain mental health conditions.

Cattell's theory did not explicitly address personality dimensions in the context of

psychopathology.
 9

7. Cross-Cultural Implications:

Cattell's 16PF theory aimed for cross-cultural applicability, striving to identify universal

personality traits. Eysenck's model was also intended for cross-cultural application, but his later

emphasis on biological factors might not universally apply in all cultural contexts.

8. Perceptions on Trait Stability:

Cattell stressed trait stability, proposing that personality traits remain relatively consistent

throughout an individual's life. Eysenck recognized stability but also acknowledged the potential

for change, particularly in response to life experiences.

9. Precision in Trait Dimensions:

Eysenck's model initially focused on three dimensions but later converged into two

higher-order factors (extraversion and neuroticism) based on empirical findings. Cattell's

approach resulted in a larger number of primary factors, offering a more detailed breakdown of

personality traits.

10. Predictive Value of Traits:

Eysenck's model highlighted the predictive power of extraversion and neuroticism in

understanding behavior, especially concerning biological predispositions. Cattell's 16PF theory

aimed for a comprehensive description of personality without specific emphasis on predicting

behavior based on primary factors.

11. Development of Assessment Instruments:

Cattell's theory led to the creation of the widely used 16PF Questionnaire. Eysenck

devised the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure his dimensions, primarily

focusing on extraversion, neuroticism, and later, psychoticism.

 10

12. Inclusion of Psychoticism Dimension:

Eysenck's later model integrated psychoticism as a third dimension, reflecting traits

associated with aggression, tough-mindedness, and anti-social behavior. In contrast, Cattell's

16PF did not specifically encompass a dimension akin to psychoticism.

Similarities and Differences in the Views on Human Nature

Following are the similarities and differences between Eysenck and Cattell’s trait theory

on the basis of views on human nature taken from Schultz and Schultz (2004) and B (2003).

1. Nature vs Nurture:

 Similarity: Both recognized genetics and environment as shaping personality.

 Difference: Cattell emphasized environmental influences; Eysenck focused more on

biological underpinnings.

2. Optimism vs Pessimism:

 Similarity: Both took a neutral, empirical stance.

 Difference: Cattell leaned towards growth potential, while Eysenck was cautious due to

biological predispositions.

3. Determinism vs Free Will:

 Similarity: Both leaned toward determinism but acknowledged individual agency.

 Difference: Cattell's view was more predictive, Eysenck allowed more individual influence.

4. Childhood Influence:

 Similarity: Both recognized childhood's role in shaping traits.

 Difference: Cattell emphasized environmental impact; Eysenck balanced biological

predispositions with upbringing.

 11

5. Stability vs Growth:

 Similarity: Both acknowledged stability and potential for change.

 Difference: Cattell leaned towards stable traits; Eysenck recognized variation in the capacity

for change.

6. Uniqueness vs Universality:

 Similarity: Both appreciated individual uniqueness and common trait patterns.

 Difference: Cattell aimed for unique trait identification; Eysenck focused on universal

personality dimensions.

Similarities and Differences in Assessment

Krug (1978), Anastasi (1988) and Boyle and Helmes (2020) have discussed following

similarities and differences in assessment techniques used by Hans Eysenck and Raymond

Cattell.

1. Self-Report Measures:

 Similarity: Both Cattell and Eysenck relied on self-report measures for personality

assessment, using questionnaires to gather information.

 Difference: Cattell's measures focused on identifying specific, quantifiable traits (16

Personality Factors), while Eysenck emphasized broader dimensions (e.g., extraversion,

neuroticism).

2. Standardization of Assessments:

 Similarity: Both stressed the importance of standardized measures to ensure consistency in

assessment administration.

 Difference: Cattell aimed at standardizing measures to identify specific personality factors,

whereas Eysenck focused on dimensions with a broader scope.

 12

3. Quantitative Analysis:

 Similarity: Both used quantitative methods like factor analysis to structure and validate their

proposed traits/dimensions.

 Difference: Cattell's emphasis was on identifying and quantifying specific traits, while

Eysenck concentrated on broader dimensions and their interrelations.

4. Psychometric Properties:

 Similarity: Both were concerned with establishing the reliability and validity of their

assessment tools.

 Difference: Cattell focused on psychometric properties for his 16 Personality Factors,

whereas Eysenck emphasized the properties for his primary dimensions (e.g., introversion-

extraversion, neuroticism).

5. Factor Analysis:

 Similarity: Both heavily relied on factor analysis in developing their assessment tools.

 Difference: Cattell used factor analysis to derive specific factors, while Eysenck used it to

identify broader dimensions of personality.

6. Trait Hierarchies:

 Similarity: Both incorporated hierarchical structures in organizing personality traits.

 Difference: Cattell's hierarchy aimed at specific factors nesting under broader factors, while

Eysenck's hierarchy focused on the relationships between fundamental dimensions.

7. Objective Assessment:

 Similarity: Both aimed for objectivity in assessments, minimizing subjective bias.

 13

 Difference: Cattell's approach targeted precise trait measurement, while Eysenck's focused

on broader, less specific dimensions.

8. Longitudinal Assessment:

 Similarity: Both recognized the importance of longitudinal assessment.

 Difference: Cattell's measures were more geared towards tracking changes in specific traits,

while Eysenck's were aimed at understanding the stability of fundamental dimensions across

time.

9. Development of Assessment Tools:

 Similarity: Both made significant contributions in developing widely used personality

assessment tools.

 Difference: Cattell's 16PF Questionnaire aimed to measure distinct traits, while Eysenck's

Personality Inventory (EPI) focused on broader dimensions.

 14

References

Anastasi, A. (1988) Psychological testing. 6th Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New

York.

B, R. E. (2003). An introduction to theories of personality: 6th Edition. Psychology Press.

Bourke, R., & Francis, L. J. (2000). Comparing Cattell’s personality factors and Eysenck’s

personality dimensions among adolescents. Irish Journal of Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2000.10558243

Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., Martin, N. G., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, M. W., & Ortet, G. (2016).

Hans J. Eysenck and Raymond B. Cattell on intelligence and personality. Personality

and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.029

Boyle, G. J., & Helmes, E. (2020). Personality assessment methods. In Cambridge University

Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108264822.011

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. The

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116

Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Johnson, J. A. (2014). Theories of Personality. Waveland Press.

Krug, S. (1978). Reliability and scope in personality assessment: A comparison of the Cattell

and Eysenck inventories. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reliability-and-scope-

in-personality-assessment%3A-A-Krug/cdcf1407148669b11eb56a593282929421264e89

Peck, D., & Whitlow, D. (2019). Approaches to Personality Theory. Routledge.

Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. (2004). Theories of Personality. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
15