Psychology
Eysenck's Theory of Personality
Eysenck's Theory of Personality is a prominent model that emphasizes the role of biological factors in shaping individual differences in personality. It proposes that personality can be understood through three major dimensions: extraversion-introversion, neuroticism-stability, and psychoticism. Eysenck's theory suggests that these dimensions are influenced by genetic and physiological factors, and it has been influential in the field of personality psychology.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
12 Key excerpts on "Eysenck's Theory of Personality"
eBook - PDF- Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- BPS Blackwell(Publisher)
Thus, you can be stable In 1947, he conceptualized a two-dimensional model of personality based on Neuroticism and Extroversion. A third dimension, Psychoticism, was added to his theory in the late 1970s (based on the work he conducted with his wife, Sybil). One of the major strengths of Eysenck’s the- ory was that it provided a detailed account of the biological causes of personality. For exam- ple, he proposed that Extroversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal: Introverts are more cortically aroused, or naturally “stimu- lated” than Extroverts, such that they will seek to avoid external stimuli compared to Extroverts. Conversely, extroverts will seek out more stimu- lating activities as their arousal is low. The major alternative to Eysenck’s three- dimensional model of personality is the Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1985), which makes use of the following five broad traits: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Although in recent years this theory has received more support than Eysenck’s, the models are com- patible, because Eysenck’s P dimension can be broken down into low Aggression and Conscientiousness and high Openness. Eysenck was the founding editor of the jour- nal Personality and Individual Differences, and authored over 50 books and over 900 academic articles. He was one of the most industrious scholars in individual differences and worked until his final days. Eysenck died in London on 4 September 1997, of a brain tumor. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck FOCUS POINT 2.2 HANS EYSENCK Gigantic Three theory derived from Eysenck’s investigations on personality and indi- vidual differences, which posits three major personality dimen- sions – Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism – for clas- sifying individuals. 40 PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES and extraverted, or stable and introverted, and so on.
eBook - PDFPersonality
Theory and Research
- Daniel Cervone, Lawrence A. Pervin(Authors)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
The following are other facts consistent with Eysenck’s biological theorizing: the fact that the dimension of introversion–extraversion is found cross-culturally, that individual differences are stable over time, and that various indices of 209 The Three-Factor Theory of Hans J. Eysenck (1916–1997) biological functioning (e.g., brain activity, heart rate, hormone level, sweat gland activity) cor- relate with E scores (Eysenck, 1990). Regarding neuroticism, Eysenck hypothesized that the key neural systems are (a) the limbic system, a lower-level brain region involved in emotional arousal and (b) the autonomic nervous system, the part of the nervous system that influences bodily arousal (e.g., heart rate, sweat gland activity) and that, in turn, is regulated by the limbic system. In particular, Eysenck pre- dicted that, among individuals high on neuroticism, the autonomic nervous system would respond particularly quickly to stress and would be slow to decrease its activity once danger disappears. The neurotic person thus seems “jumpy” and “stressed out.” Unfortunately for Eysenckian theory, research has not consistently supported this physiological theory of neuroticism, as Eysenck him- self fully recognized (Eysenck, 1990). Recent work using brain imaging methods unavailable to Eysenck, however, has been more promising (see this chapter’s Personality and the Brain feature). Less is known about the biological basis for the psychoticism (P) dimension. However, here a genetic association is suggested, in particular an association linked with maleness; aggres- siveness, a component of (P), is higher in men and may be affected by levels of testosterone (Eysenck, 1990). A more recent suggestion involved a neurotransmitter in the brain, namely, dopamine. Research suggests that people with higher levels of psychoticism have higher levels of dopamine-based neural activity (Colzato, Slagter, van den Wildenberg, & Hommel, 2009).
- Philip A. Vernon(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
Section III Personality This page intentionally left blank 7 Personality Biological Foundations H. J. Eysenck I. INTRODUCTION The term personality is used in many different ways, and it would be inappropriate here to discuss in detail these various definitions, and argue about the relative merits of idiographic and nomothetic approaches. Scientific research has largely been based on a conception of personality as being defined and measured in terms of a hierarchical arrangement of traits, inter-correlations between which produce higher order factors, whereas the traits themselves are based on intercorrelations of items, (i.e., specific action ten-dencies of one kind or another). Traits can be measured by means of self-ratings (questionnaires), ratings by friends or spouses, behavior in miniature situations, reactions in experimental settings, projective tests, and physiolog-ical reactions. Some authors have concentrated more on traits than on higher order concepts (e.g., Cattell), while others have emphasized higher order type-concepts (e.g., Eysenck). A detailed account of the arguments, facts, and theories involved has been given elsewhere (H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck, 1985), and will not be repeated here. How many superfactors (type concepts) are there, and is there agreement on this point? Eysenck (1991b) has argued that there are three major dimen-sions of personality, looking at the evidence available at present, and not ruling out the possibility that further dimensions may be added later. These three dimensions are extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and psychoticism (P); the nature of these type-concepts can be clarified by looking at the traits which, by their intercorrelations, define the types. Figure 1 shows the traits defining E, with introversion of course showing the inverse pattern.
No longer available |Learn morePsychology Applied to Modern Life
Adjustment in the 21st Century
- Wayne Weiten, Dana Dunn, Elizabeth Hammer(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
Humanistic psychologists have not compiled a convincing body of research to support their ideas. BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES LEARNING OBJECTIVES ● Outline Eysenck’s view of personality, and summarize behavioral genetics research on personality. ● Summarize neuroscience and evolutionary research on personality. ● Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of biological theories of personality. Could personality be a matter of genetic inheritance? This possibility was largely ignored for many decades of per- sonality research until Hans Eysenck made a case for ge- netic influence in the 1960s. In this section, we’ll discuss Eysenck’s theory and look at more recent behavioral ge- netics research on the heritability of personality. We’ll also examine neuroscience and evolutionary perspectives on personality. Eysenck’s Theory Hans Eysenck was born in Germany but fled to London during the era of Nazi rule. He went on to become one of Britain’s most prominent psychologists. According to Ey- senck (1967), “Personality is determined to a large extent by a person’s genes” (p. 20). How is heredity linked to personality in Eysenck’s model? In part, through condi- tioning concepts borrowed from behavioral theory. Ey- senck (1967, 1982, 1991) theorizes that some people can be conditioned more readily than others because of inher- ited differences in their physiological functioning (specifi- cally, their level of arousal). These variations in “condi- tionability” are assumed to influence the personality traits that people acquire through conditioning. Eysenck views personality structure as a hierarchy of traits. Numerous superficial traits are derived from a smaller number of more basic traits, which are derived from a handful of fundamental higher-order traits, as shown in Figure 2.19 on the next page. Eysenck has shown a special interest in explaining variations in extraversion-introversion, the trait dimension first described years earlier by Carl Jung.
- Phil Gorman(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Do these questions relate to the characteristics that they are intended to measure? Do you think the responses to these questions would be entirely honest? Why?The biological basis of personality
Eysenck’s early work on psychiatry had led him down the path of looking at biological explanations for behaviour and he was particularly keen to try to understand the biological influences on our personality, as he believed that it would be reasonable to try to understand personality in relation to theconstitutional make-upof a person. As we will see later, Eysenck did not deny the influence of environmental factors but felt that some researchers had gone too far in attempting to explain personality in relation to purely social or psychological factors.Eysenck (1963) had noticed that different types of drugs would affect someone’s position on the introversion/extraversion scale, such that stimulants would shift a person towards the introversion end and depressants would shift a person towards the extraversion end. As these drugs act upon thereticular activating system (RAS), Eysenck believed that it must be the activity in this part of the nervous system that is involved; hypothesising that those with low levels of activity and therefore low levels of arousal (extraverts) would seek out arousing activities in order to raise their cortical arousal to its optimum level. Those with already high levels of activity in this area and therefore high levels of arousal (introverts) would have no need to raise their levels of cortical arousal and would therefore have no need to seek out further stimulation. Eysenck believed that these different levels of activity would most probably have been inherited.The criminal personality
In its most basic form, Eysenck regards extraversion as the most obvious dimension pushing people towards crime as this is likely to make a person sensation seeking. This is similar to Zuckerman (1983), who suggested that sensation seekers are risk-takers who seek out stimulation through activities that are potentially dangerous but extremely stimulating; so some people might jump off a bridge with nothing but a piece of elasticated rope attached to their leg but others may steal a car for the thrill of being chased by the police!
eBook - PDF- Ronald Comer, Elizabeth Gould, Adrian Furnham(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
Thus, he also studied the biological basis of personality traits. His belief in the biological roots of per- sonality has been supported by a number of studies. Several investigations of twins, for example, suggest that genetics play a significant role in how individuals score on the extra- version superfactor (Pergadia et al., 2006; Heath et al., 1994). A number of studies of hormones, blood pressure and brain activity support the notion that biological factors are linked to the superfactors at least to some degree (Eysenck, 1990). Furnham (2008), among others, argues that Eysenck ’s work was characterized by five things: • a desire to be parsimonious • a desire to offer explanations for the mechanisms and processes by which the traits worked • laboratory experimentation to test his theories • understanding how the traits worked in the applied world • continual updating and refinement of the theory and the measures. Eysenck ’s work has had an enormous influence on per- sonality theory and research. His early emphasis on empiri- cal research set the stage for much of the current research on personality. Eysenck ’s personality tests have been trans- lated into many languages. In addition, his ideas and findings five-factor model an empirically derived model that proposes five major trait catego- ries: agreeableness/ disagreeableness, extraversion/introver- sion, neuroticism/ stability, conscien- tiousness/irresponsi- bility and openness to experience/ unimaginativeness. FIGURE 15.3 The five-factor model of personality. Studies using factor analysis have identified five broad categories of traits, known as the Big Five. Many researchers believe that individual dif- ferences in personality can be captured by these five categories. Adapted from Cattell (1974). Personality pinned down.
eBook - ePub- Gordon Claridge, Caroline Davis(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Chapter 3 Personality Dimensions: Description and Biology In the previous chapter we outlined a general model for understanding how personality differences can connect to psychological disorders. In this chapter we examine the personality aspect in more detail. For the moment we shall mostly concentrate on those dispositional dimensions that relate to the non-psychotic disorders, as we have already broadly defined them. As a starting point, it is logical to pick up where we left off in Chapter 2, with the work of Eysenck, whose theory is the prototypical example of how normal personality has been linked to the abnormal. This will also allow us then to introduce contemporary themes from the more recent literature. Historical Antecedents and Eysenck’s Theory Just as we have tried to convey here, Eysenck always stressed the importance of knowing where ideas come from historically. In the case of his own theorizing about personality, he made frequent reference to its antecedents in the classic typology of the four temperaments (see Figure 3.1). This theory, which originated in Hippocratic medicine and was later extended by the Graeco–Roman physician, Galen, was one of the earliest attempts to describe human personality differences. What is remarkable, and indicative of the longstanding influence of the typology, is the fact that its terminology has survived into modern everyday usage; it is still employed as a handy description of our fellow human beings. We still speak of the carefree and optimistic as ‘sanguine’; the gloomy and pessimistic as ‘melancholic’; the angry as ‘choleric’; the calm and unemotional as ‘phlegmatic’. Furthermore, when using these terms we definitely mean to refer to the person’s ‘basic’ temperament or ingrained outlook on life
eBook - PDF- Richard Ryckman(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
(Adapted from The Biological Basis of Personality, by H. J. Eysenck, 1967, p. 36. Courtesy of Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Ltd., Springfield, Illinois.) 244 Part 3: Trait Perspectives Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. is based on observed intercorrelations among traits such as sociability, impulsivity, activity, liveliness, and excitability. Each of these traits is inferred from intercorrelated habitual responses such as going to parties, liking to talk to people, going to films on the spur of the moment, and so forth. These habits are themselves inferred from observable specific responses—actual occasions when the person went to a party, talked to people, and so forth. On the basis of numerous factor analyses of personality data gathered from different study participant populations all over the world, Eysenck derived two factors that could readily be labeled introversion/extraversion and stability/neuroticism. Later, on the basis of other statistical analyses, he postulated a third dimension, impulse control/psychoti- cism (Eysenck, 1982, p. 9). These three dimensions, according to Eysenck, are the major individual difference types most useful in describing personality functioning. Once he had identified the three primary dimensions, Eysenck proceeded to construct a paper-and-pencil test to measure them. The original test is the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975).
- Philip J. Corr, Gerald Matthews(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
This approach is readily justified by the fact that these models have been demon- strated to fall within the same factor structure as the Big Five (e.g., Markon, Krueger and Watson 2005; Angleitner, Riemann and Spinath 2004). Most of the theorists have revised their models substantially over time; in the interest of space we discuss only the latest version of each. Eysenck assigned traits to three ‘superfactors’, Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985). Extraversion and Neuroticism are nearly identical in Eysenck’ s system and the Big Five, whereas the unfortunately-labelled Psychoticism reflects a roughly equal blend of low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness (Goldberg and Rosolack 1994). In his biological theorizing, Eysenck (1967; Eysenck and Eysenck 1985) relied heavily on the functions of the brain’ s ascending reticular activating system, associating Extraversion with the reticulo-cortical circuit and Neuroticism with the reticulo-limbic circuit. Eysenck hypothesized that extraverts have a higher threshold for cortical arousal than intro- verts and therefore choose more stimulating activities and experiences in order to achieve their preferred level of arousal. He hypothesized that neurotics are more easily aroused by emotion-inducing stimuli than are emotionally stable people. Eysenck did not develop as well-specified a biological model of Psychoticism, but at different times he hypothesized that Psychoticism was negatively associated with serotonergic function (Eysenck 1992) and positively associated with dopaminergic function (Eysenck 1997). Jeffrey Gray, who was Eysenck’ s student, focused more heavily on neuro- biology than on personality, with an emphasis on the development of a ‘concep- tual nervous system’ describing functional systems that could be mapped onto brain systems.
eBook - PDF- V. D. Nebylitsyn, J. A. Gray, V. D. Nebylitsyn, J. A. Gray(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
Chapter 24 Crime and Personality: A Review of Eysenck's Theory* R. E. PASSINGHAM Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, England^ I. Introduction 342 II. The Problem 342 III. The Theory 343 IV. The Evidence 349 V. Conclusion 365 References 366 I. INTRODUCTION In their review of the results of 25 years of research on crime and person-ality, Schuessler and Cressey (1950, p. 476) commented that in general the studies examined are characterized by a tendency merely to apply a Personality Test without reference to a hypothesis about personality elements and criminal behaviour. One reason for the importance of Eysenck's book Crime and Personality (1964,1970b) is that it presents a hypothesis which might serve to guide future research. II. THE PROBLEM Theories are put forward in an attempt to solve problems. It is neces-sary, therefore, to be clear as to what Eysenck's theory is designed to explain. Eysenck is not concerned to answer the question what is the * This paper is based on a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the require-ments of the Postgraduate M.Sc. in Abnormal Psychology in the University of London. My thanks are due to Professor H. J. Eysenck, Dr. S. Rachman, Dr. H. B. Gibson and Dr. M. S. Hoghughi, who helped in the preparation of this paper. t Now at: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, England. 342 24. CRIME AND PERSONALITY 343 III. THE THEORY In its simplest logical form, Eysenck's theory is as follows: A. EXTRAVERSIÓN 1. Extraverts condition badly (Eysenck 1964, p. 81). 2. Socialization is mediated by conditioning (ibid., pp. 99-100). 3. Therefore extraverts will tend to be poorly socialized (ibid., p. 111). Two predictions follow from this: (i) Criminals will tend to be extraverted (ibid., p. 121). (ii) Criminals will tend to condition badly (ibid., p. 120).
- Philip J. Corr, Gerald Matthews(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
On reflection, what Eysenck seems to have are major descriptive dimensions of personality (Introversion– Extraversion and Stability–Neuroticism) that represent the combined effects of separate causal systems. If this conclusion is true then it is not surprising that he never got beyond the postulation of very general systems of arousal and activation – namely, the Ascending Reticular Activating System and visceral system, respectively (for a summary, see Corr, 2004). We may assume that these diffuse systems cut across specific causal systems, as con- tained in approach-avoidance theories of personality. However, in one important sense, Eysenck may have captured the personality factors and processes that reflect the combined effects of reward/approach and punishment/ avoidance systems as they operate on a moment-to- moment basis. (Eysenck could well argue that this is “per- sonality,” at least at the behaviorally descriptive level; yet it would be inadequate as regards a causally adequate theory of personality.) By its very nature, Eysenck’s attempt to isolate descriptive dimensions of personality set a barrier to dissecting the neural bases of personality: It is the delineation of such neural systems that is needed if we are ever going to have a proper theory to explain how these combined effects arise in the first place. In retro- spect, given the fundamental limitations inherent in multi- variate statistical techniques (e.g., especially factor analysis; see Lykken, 1971), Eysenck’s approach never stood much of a chance of unravelling the true complexity of the biological systems unpinning personality – this is the tragedy of what was the first fully developed biological theory of personality. However, Eysenck’s theory was highly inspirational – Gray’s work was especially inspired. In contrast to Eysenck’s approach, Gray (1970) was the most prominent theorist to lend the conceptual and experimental tools of learning theory to personality psych- ology.
eBook - PDF- Robert Hogan, John Johnson, Stephen Briggs(Authors)
- 1997(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
Another increasingly influential system for conceptualizing individual differ-ences comes from the longitudinal investigations of Block (1971, 1993; Funder, Parke, Tomlinson-Keasey, & Widaman, 1993) employing the California Q Set. Two major dimensions underlying the various personality types and developmental trajectories identified by Block and his colleagues are ego resiliency and ego control. At the current time, the most influential formulation of individual differences in personality is the Big Five trait taxonomy. Building on the early work of Fiske (1949), Norman (1963), and Tupes and Christal (1961), a number of personality psychologists have proposed that the universe of trait dimensions can be reduced to approximately five basic bipolar categories (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981,1993; John, 1990; McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Different factor-analytic studies have cut the pie in slightly different ways, but a representative breakdown is that of McCrae and Costa (1987), who identify the five as (1) extraversion-introversion (E) (2) neuroticism (N), (3) openness to experience (O), (4) agreeableness-antagonism (A), and (5) conscientiousness-undirectedness (C). Goldberg's pains-taking lexical analyses suggest that these five dimensions are encoded in language. At least in the case of English, these five may serve as the grand organizing dimen-sions with respect to which virtually all trait labels for describing general noncondi-tional individual differences in human behavior and experience can be construed. VI. CONCLUSIONS: PROGRESS AND STAGNATION In conclusion, the history of personality psychology in the twentieth century may be broadly viewed from the standpoint of conceptual progress and stagnation. The field of personality has traditionally emphasized the study of the whole person, the dynamics of human motivation, and the identification and measurement of individ-
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
