Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Introspections Concerning Cloninger’s Concepts of Temperament and Character Influence Eysenckian Personality Structure

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two studies examine the consequences of distinguishing between self-report responses on the Eysenck Personality Profiler (Eysenck et al. The European Journal of Psychological Assessment 8: 109–117, 1992) in terms of Cloninger’s concepts of Temperament and Character (Cloninger et al. Archives of General Psychiatry 50: 975–990, 1993). Character is thought to reflect conscious, maturation-related influences on personality, while Temperament is thought to reflect instinctive, biologically-based influences. In Study one, one-hundred and thirty-three participants (76.6% female) classify primary scales of the Eysenck Personality Profiler as relating to Character or Temperament. Impulsiveness, Anxiety and Aggression are perceived as the most Temperament-based scales, while Responsibility, Manipulativeness and Assertiveness are perceived as the most Character-based scales. In Study two, one-hundred and seventy-seven participants (74.4% female) complete the Eysenck Personality Profiler using the standard response scale, while one-hundred and thirty-eight participants (62.3% female) complete the Eysenck Personality Profiler using a scale which distinguishes between Character and Temperament. Results demonstrate differences in the factor structure and concurrent validity of the Eysenck Personality Profiler when scoring distinguishes between Temperament and Character. We conclude that the concepts of Temperament and Character might usefully be applied to Eysenck’s personality taxonomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As a mean value is used, this method does not introduce measurement bias–see General Discussion.

References

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & White, T. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Gully, S., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck’s P-E-N system: Three and five factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 308–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thompson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1980). The biosocial nature of man. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 3, 125–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: the three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1993). The nature of impulsivity. In W. G McCown, J. L. Johnson, & M. B. Shure (Eds.), The impulsive client: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 57–69). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., Barrett, P., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. J. (1992). Primary trait measurement of the 21 components of the P-E-N System. The European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 109–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W., McLoud, C., & Matthews, A. (1987). Cognitive functioning in anxiety. Psychological Research, 49, 189–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. D. (2000). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. Australia: Cymeon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowles, D. C. (1987). Applications of a behavior-theory of motivation to the concepts of anxiety and impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology; General, 137, 201–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Jackson, C., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (2001). Correlates of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 587–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1982). ‘From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality’. In C. D. Spielberger, & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment, 1 pp. 203–234. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, R., Cooper, A., & Gomez, A. (2005). An item response theory analysis of the Carver and White (1994) BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1093–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in non-human animals: a cross-species review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotlib, I. H., & McCann, C. D. (1984). Construct accessibility and depression: an examination of cognitive and affective factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 427–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1987a). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In S. M. Stahl, S. D. Iverson, & E. C. Goodman (Eds.), Cognitive neurochemistry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1987b). The psychology of fear and stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J. (2001). Comparison between Eysenck & Gray’s models of personality in the prediction of motivational work criteria. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J. (2002a). Mapping Gray’s model of personality onto the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP). Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 495–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J. (2002b). Learning Styles and its measurement: An applied neuropsychological model of learning for business and education. Australia: Cymeon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J. (2003). Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory: a psychometric critique. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 533–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J. (2005). An applied neuropsychological model of functional and dysfunctional learning: Applications for business, education, training and clinical psychology. Australia: Cymeon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J. (2008). Measurement of functional and dysfunctional learning. In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of Personality and Testing (p. 73–93). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J., & Francis, L. J. (2004). Are interactions in Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory proximal or distal in the prediction of religiosity: a test of the joint subsystems hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1197–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J., Furnham, A. F., Forde, L. D., & Cotter, T. (2000). The dimensional structure of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 223–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. J., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Overlap between personality and learning style. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, S. Z., & Jackson, C. J. (2004). Eysenck’s theory of crime revisited: factors or primary scales? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin, J. (1989). Partitioning environmental and genetic contributions to behavioral development. American Psychologist, 44, 1285–1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Joffe, R. T. (1996). Validation of the biosocial model of personality: confirmatory factor analysis of the tridimensional personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 8, 139–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrides, K. V., Jackson, C. J., Furnham, A., & Levine, S. Z. (2003). Exploring issues of personality measurement and structure through the development of a revised short form of the Eysenck Personality Profiler. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 272–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. D. (2008). Formal and computational models of reinforcement sensitivity theory. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, R., Chipuer, H., & Loehlin, J. (1990a). Behavioral genetics and personality. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, R., DeFries, J., & McClearn, G. (1990b). Behavioral genetics: A primer. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, R., DeFries, J., McClearn, G., & Rutter, M. (1997). Behavioral genetics. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: implications for psychometric measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, M. E., Ebmeier, K. P., & Dreary, I. J. (2004). The structure of Cloninger’s tridimensional personality questionnaire in a British sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1403–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strelau, J. (1987). Emotion as a key concept in temperament research. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 510–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellegen, A. (1982). Emotion as a key concept in temperament research. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 510–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • VandeWalle, D. M., & Cummings, L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. D., Gray, J. A., & Barrett, P. T. (1990). A factor analysis of the Gray–Wilson personality questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1037–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Organization and Management, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Chris J. Jackson

  2. Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

    Luke D. Smillie

Authors
  1. Chris J. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke D. Smillie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris J. Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jackson, C.J., Smillie, L.D. How Introspections Concerning Cloninger’s Concepts of Temperament and Character Influence Eysenckian Personality Structure. Curr Psychol 27, 257–276 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9039-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9039-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation