Person. indioid. Diff: Vol. 13,No. 6,pp. 675-681,1992
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
WHAT
0191~8869/92 %5.00+0.00
Copyright 0 1992Pergamon Press Ltd
IS A BASIC FACTOR AND WHICH FACTORS
BASIC? TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN
ARE
MARVIN ZUCKERMAN
Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.
(Received
IO November
1991)
Summary-Criteria
for a “basic factor” of personality include: (1) reliable identification of the dimension
factor across methods, genders, ages; (2) at least moderate heritability; (3) identification of similar kinds
of behavioral traits in non-human species; and (4) association of the trait biological trait markers. The
conventional five factor model has not gone far beyond the first of these. An alternative five factor model
has been developed from factor analyses of traits selected from psychobiological studies of personality;
it includes the basic factors of sociability, neuroticism-anxiety, impulsive unsocialized sensation seeking,
aggression-hostility and activity. Universal factors are likely to have biological bases. Personality traits
must be studied at all biological levels from the behavioral to the genetic.
CRITERIA
FOR
“BASIC
TRAITS”
OF
PERSONALITY
How do we determine which are the basic dimensions
of personality
or temperament?
Before we
can answer this question we must agree on what defines a “basic factor”. Part of the disagreement
between Eysenck (1992) and Costa and McCrae (1992) in the preceding articles stems from this
issue.
I have suggested some criteria for a basic trait of personality
(Zuckerman,
1991). The first is
reliable identification
of the dimension factor across methods, genders, ages, and cultures. The “big
five” model has achieved its “born again” prominence
because of the identification
of the factors
by many investigators
in different cultures. But most studies have used trait ratings rather than
questionnaire
scales, leading to the question of whether we are describing the general language
system of traits or the actual way social behavior is organized. When we develop a state scale for
Sensation Seeking using adjectives alone we found a paucity of appropriate
single words to describe
this trait (Neary 1975, described in Zuckerman,
1979). We found a few like “daring, adventurous,
zany, curious, and playful”, but most were less specific referring to surgent or positive affect. Only
questionnaire
items were capable of delineating the trait in terms of the specific and well replicated
four subfactors. Costa and McCrae (1992) comment on a similar paucity of adjectives describing
the trait of openness. Most of the adjectives they found referred to the cognitive elements of the
trait leading lexigraphical
researchers to call the trait “intellect”.
But perhaps Costa and McCrae
were unduly influenced by this conception
in developing their own construct of openness. There
is no guarantee that the encoding of personality traits in language is proportional
to the behavioral
importance
of the traits or their biological relevance. This is why the questionnaire
studies of
personality are more interesting. Questionnaires
can designate actions more specifically than single
word ratings.
The second is at least moderate heritability
for the trait. This is easy enough for most traits of
any breadth.
Although
some studies have shown less heritability
for narrower
traits like
masculinity-femininity,
most broad personality traits yield heritabilities
in the range of 40 to 60%
(Zuckerman,
1991). Some temperament
theorists like Strelau (1983) have drawn a distinction
between temperament
traits as primarily
biologically
based and personality
traits as primarily
socially based, but the narrow range of heritability of traits does not allow for a distinction on this
basis alone. However traits such as sensation
seeking (Fulker, Eysenck & Zuckerman,
1980),
constraint (Tellegen, 1985) and psychoticism (Rose, 1988) deserve more consideration
as basic traits
because their heritabilities
tend to fall at the maximum end of the range for personality traits. Little
genetic study has been done on the conventional
“big five” except for extraversion and neuroticism
which have been studied in the context of Eysenck’s model.
The third criterion is identification
of similar kinds of behavioral
traits in non-human
species,
particularly
those which live in social groups or colonies. This criterion is important
for two
675
MARVINZUCKERMAN
616
reasons. If we assume an evolutionary
origin of personality
traits there is reason to believe that
some kinds of prototypes for the behavior exist in other species and can be studied in those species.
Many of the biological bases of human traits cannot be experimentally
studied without the use of
animal models (Zuckerman,
1984). But human traits are often defined in uniquely human terms
that do not lend themselves to translation
across species. “openness to experience,”
for instance,
is difficult to apply to rats or chimps, but “explorativeness”
or “sensation
seeking”, in terms of
the tendency to approach novel stimuli, are possible descriptors of animal behaviors.
“Conscientiousness”
or “agreeableness”
are not traits that could be used as descriptions
for
animal behavior although “impulsivity”
and “aggressiveness”
are applicable. The issue is not just a
semantic one because impulsivity and sensation seeking are not simple opposites for conscientiousness. Whereas Impulsive Unsocialized
Sensation Seeking is one of the “big five” of Zuckerman,
Kuhlman, Thornquist
and Kiers (1991), impulsivity and sensation seeking are not defined as major
traits in the other “big five” systems. Some preliminary
studies of the relationships
between the
Costa and McCrae and the Zuckerman
er al. big five models will be described in this article.
The fourth standard is the identification
of the dimension with some significant biological trait
markers. We do not inherit traits directly, but we do inherit variations in structure and biochemistry
of the nervous system and it is these that dispose us to certain types of behavioral,
affective, or
even cognitive reactions to the environment.
Costa and McCrae argue that basic personality traits
need not be linked to biological mechanisms either by theory or empirical findings since “it is poor
science to explain the known on the basis of the unknown.”
While it is true that the “psychobiology
of personality
” (Zuckerman,
1991) is in its infancy, there are already findings indicating a likely
connection
between certain personality traits and biological mechanisms. I do not agree with Gray’s
“bottom-up”
approach
(1987) which seems to demand
an isomorphism
between the basic
dimensions of personality and specific neurological
or neurotransmitter
systems. This approach has
led him to suggest new basic dimensions
running at odd angles between Eysenck’s “big three”. I
agree with Costa and McCrae and Eysenck that a “top-down”
approach is better in defining the
basic traits, but we should consider which dimensions,
among those suggested, have already shown
some connection
with biological functions, and our redefinitions
of the traits must consider their
biological bases.
As an example, consider the contrast between impulsivity and conscientiousness
as related, but
not identically
opposite
traits. There are findings in both animal experiments
and human
correlational
work suggesting that the ability to restrain behavior in conflict situations with both
reward and punishment
as possible outcomes (the opposite of impulsivity) depends on serotonergic
1986). These systems may be one of the bases of the
neurotransmitter
systems (Soubrie,
psychoticism
(P)-ImpUSS
(Impulsive
Unsocialized
Sensation Seeking) dimension
of personality
and the Antisocial Personality Disorder (Zuckerman,
1991). Of course, conscientiousness
as defined
by Costa and McCrae’s “facets” (competence,
order, dutifulness, achievement,
self-discipline,
and
deliberation)
may have the same biological basis or some other one, but we need the research to
demonstrate
this. One might guess that subtraits like competence
and achievement
striving have
more to do with inherited abilities and socially determined
motivations
than with the basic trait
of behavioral control. Their own factor analysis of facets in their Table 1 shows that deliberation
loads more highly on the broader factor of extraversion than on conscientiousness,
and competence
has a strong secondary negative loading on neuroticism.
Impulsiveness,
scored in their neuroticism
category, has an equally high loading on extraversion.
If more markers for impulsivity
and
sensation seeking had been included they might have been able to find a separate factor, distinct
from extraversion
and neuroticism
as we have found (Zuckerman
et al., 1991).
FACTOR
It is a truism that
certainly be explicit
and we should use
least several markers
and Camac (1988);
ANALYSES
OF TRAITS
you cannot get more out of a factor analysis than you put into it. We should
in what we are trying to sample in the selection of variables for a factor analysis,
scales that are reliable and factorially homogenous.
We should try to have at
for any category of variables we feel may be important. Zuckerman,
Kuhlman
Zuckerman
et af. (1991) and Angleitner and Ostendorf (1991) used as markers
What
is a basic factor
and which
factors
are basic?
611
scales that claim to be measures of temperament
or personality traits with a strong biological basis
including:
the Strelau Temperament
Inventory
(STI), the EASI-III
Temperament
Survey, the
Dimensions
of Temperament
Survey, and the Sensation
Seeking Scale. The ST1 is not a scale
developed through factor analysis and its scales are multifactorial.
Angleitner and Ostendorf also
used the NE0 Personality
Inventory and the adjective rating inventory providing markers for the
usual “big five”.
Zuckerman
et al. (1988) started from a list of traits which have been generally regarded as
components
of temperament:
activity, sociability, impulsivity,
socialization,
sensation seeking and
emotionality.
We also decided to include measures of social desirability
since it is important
to
know how much dimensions
of personality
are influenced by this response set. Neuroticism
and
agreeableness
among the “big five” would seem to be likely candidates
for social desirability
influence. Conscientiousness
might also be influenced by the response set or style, however you
regard it. The main lack in the sampling of the Angleitner-Ostendorf
study is the absence of
markers for activity and socialization
and negative-pole
markers for agreeableness
like aggression
and hostility scales. However this is one of the few studies beyond our own that included the
separate subscales of sensation seeking.
In our previous analyses (Zuckerman
et al., 1988) we found that impulsivity
scales, all of the
sensation seeking scales, and socialization
formed a major dimension
of personality
in the three
dimensional
analysis which we called ImpUSS. Since Eysenck’s P scale was the second best marker
for the dimension we placed a P before the ImpUSS to identify the factor with his third dimension
of personality.
Similarly, Eysenck’s extraversion
(E) scale proved to be an excellent marker for the
E dimension
(sociability
and activity) and his neuroticism
(N) scale was the best marker for an
emotionality
dimension.
The fact that his scales provided the best markers for E and N was not
surprising in view of the extensive factor analytic work that went into the development
of these
scales, but we had not really expected the P scale to be the excellent marker that it was for
“personality
in the third dimension”
(Zuckerman,
1989). Eysenck’s own hierarchal model (Eysenck
& Eysenck, 1985) puts impulsivity
in the P dimension,
but sensation seeking in the E dimension.
Similarly, Costa and McCrae call “excitement
seeking” a facet of extraversion.
Our more recent factor analytic study (Zuckerman
et al., 1991) used the best markers for the
narrower dimensions
found in the previous study and an expanded N of 525 Ss, or about 16 Ss
per variable for the overall analysis. Both five and three factor solutions (but not four and six factor
ones) resulted in highly consistent factors comparing
men and women in the form of (Tucker’s)
congruence coefficients. For the three factor solution the corresponding
factors correlated 0.94 to
0.98 while the non-corresponding
factors ranged from - 0.24 to + 0.25. For the five factor solution
the convergent
(similar) factors correlated 0.93 to 0.97 while the coefficients of divergent factors
ranged from -0.22 to 0.39. The average diagonal coefficient was 0.95, and the average off-diagonal
coefficient was 0.08. Three and five factor solutions were equally robust.
Eysenck maintains
that the scree test suggested only two factors. While there was a marked fall
off in eigen values after the second factor a final plateau was not reached until the sixth and
subsequent
factors. More importantly,
while the first three and five factors reflected consistent
content among the scales comprising
them, the other solutions were less robust. Had we settled
for two factors we would have ended up with Nemotionality
and P-ImpUSS
and lost the
sociability factor. But the most powerful factors which emerge first in a factor analysis are generally
those that have the most markers and therefore account for the most variance. The order in which
factors emerge does not necessarily reflect the relative importance
of the factors in accounting
for
the variance of personality
traits.
Our five robust factors consisted of sociability, N-anxiety,
P-ImpUSS,
aggression-hostility,
and
activity. The three robust factors were N-emotionality
(a blend of N-anxiety
and aggressionhostility), P-ImpUSS
and sociability (now including two of the three scales defining the activity
factor in the five factor analysis). Eysenck’s N scale had the highest loading for the emotionality
dimension
and his P scale was the strongest marker for the ImpUSS dimension,
but his E scale
was not the strongest marker for the sociability dimension and unlike the other sociability scales
showed a strong secondary loading on the P-ImpUSS
dimension. The results suggested a hierarchal
model with impulsivity
and sensation seeking blending at the five factor level and anxiety and
hostility combining
into general emotionality
at the three factor level.
678
MARVIN ZUCKERMAN
Costa and McCrae (1992) attempted to redefine the results from this study by rotating the results
in a Procrustean
solution defining the axes for each of the five dimensions
by the best known
markers for their own dimensions
among the variables used in the study. The results are shown
in their Table 4. On the basis of prior correlational
studies the SSS Experience Seeking Scale was
chosen as the marker for the openness to experience dimension. Two of the other sensation seeking
scales loaded on this dimension
but disinhibition
(Dis) had its primary loading (a negative one)
on the conscientiousness
dimension
defined by the PRF Cognitive Structure scale. Costa and
McCrae claim that the result is a translation
of our big five into theirs. One could argue that their
Procrustean
solution mutilated our analyses rather than transformed
them into the “correct” or
“true north” orientation.
Their own openness factor, for instance, does contain the idea of seeking
novel experience
through
the mind and senses (experience
seeking) but does not include
socialization,
which should have been found in the agreeableness
and conscientiousness
factors.
It is also somewhat
surprising
to find most of the sensation
seeking subscales ending up in
a dimension
that is supposed to be similar to the “culture” or “intellect” dimension
of the other
big five theorists.
In their own big five “excitement
seeking” is supposed
to be a facet of
extraversion.
The study by Angleitner
and Ostendorf (1991) is more relevant than the post-hoc analyses of
the Zuckerman
et al. (1991) data by Costa and McCrae because it included direct measures of the
Costa and McCrae five factors (a short form of the NE0 inventory
and an adjective rating
inventory)
as well as the SSS (Zuckerman,
Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978; Zuckerman,
1979) and
temperament
scales including the: Strelau, Angleitner, Bantelmann
and Ruth, (1990) Temperament
Inventory-Revised
(STI-R); the EASI III Temperament
Survey (Buss & Plomin, 1975) and the
Dimensions
of Temperament
Survey (DOTS, Windle & Lerner, 1986).
The usual five factor structure, defined by the NE0 system, emerged from their analyses. The
factor identified as openness by its loadings on the NE0 scales and self-ratings was also constructed
from loadings by mobility (from the STI-R), impulsivity (short decision time, and sensation seeking
from the EASI III), approach, flexibility, and lack of rhythmicity
or regularity of sleeping, eating,
and daily habits (from the DOTS-R), and thrill and adventure
seeking, experience seeking, and
boredom susceptibility
subscales of the SSS. Only the Dis subscale of the SSS had its primary
loading (a negative one) on another factor: agreeableness. When the NE0 scales were removed from
the factor analysis, all of the SSS scales loaded on one factor (as in Zuckerman
et al., 1991) along
with excitation from the STI-R, short decision time from the EASI III and approach and flexibility
from the DOTS-R.
The results were consistent with Costa and McCrae’s suggestion that experience seeking is an
excellent marker for the openness dimension and that Dis is more properly placed at the negative
pole of the agreeableness
dimension of their five factor model. But in our (Zuckerman
et al., 1991)
most recent five factor analyses the closest analogue
of agreeableness
would be the aggression-hostility factor (reversed). Dis had its primary loading (0.54) on the P-ImpUSS
factor, along
with the other SS scales, and only a secondary loading (0.34) on the aggression-hostility
factor.
Thus the placement of Dis in five factor space depends on how the five factors are defined. In our
system it belongs with the other types of sensation seeking and impulsivity in one factor. In Costa
and McCrae’s system it belongs primarily to the agreeableness
dimension.
The analyses of their dimension
of openness along with temperament
scales in the Angleitner
and Ostendorf
study and their reanalysis of ours (Zuckerman
et al., 1991) suggests a broader
conception
of this dimension
than is incorporated
in the NE0 scales and questions the content
validity of this part of the NE0 system. Of the facet scales defining the dimension
(fantasy,
aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values) only one of the six pertains to behavior, while the
SSS scales are more behavioral in content. Impulsivity and lack of socialization,
related to sensation
seeking in the ImpUSS factor, are not part of the concept of openness in the NE0 even though
they are strongly related to openness in the other analyses. The content of our five factors emerged
from empirical factor analytic studies of scales while the facet defined conceptions
of the NE0
factors were developed rationally.
We have recently developed scales to measure our five factors
and comparisons
of these with the NE0 scales should further clarify the exact relationships
between
the two five factor models. It is a bit premature
to insist that all factors be incorporated
in the
cartography
of traits described in the NE0 atlas.
What is a basic factor and which factors are basic?
619
The disagreements
between the various factor analytic studies probably depend on the particular
selection of variables and the tendency of factor loadings to wander from one factor to another
if they are not based on sufficiently
large samples. Our selection of scales has been called
“idiosyncratic”
because we have not included
the standard
markers for the “big five.” My
rationale
for selection of markers in the first study were quite explicit. Most of the scales had
been widely used in genetic and psychobiological
studies. There is a kind of “band-wagon”
effect for the “big five” which is intolerant of models that deviate even slightly from the prototype.
If our questionnaire
dimensions
are idiosyncratic
they are an amazingly
replicable
kind of
idiosyncrasy.
BIOLOGICAL
BASES
It is true, as stated by Costa and McCrae and others, that a taxonomy of basic personality traits
need not be demonstrably
linked to biological mechanisms.
There was a taxonomy of the species
based on superficial similarities
in form and function before there was a biological
theory of
evolution.
But as biologists learn more about evolution
they must revise their classification
of
families of species. Not all creatures that swim are fish and not all traits that are related in function
have the same biological basis. I agree with Costa and McCrae that we should start with systems
derived from analyses of traits at the psychological
level and then look down to the biological
mechanisms related to them. But in evaluating competing trait dimensions developed in this manner
we must go beyond the endless factoring of traits. In the last analysis, the determination
of what
is a basic dimension of personality does not depend on factor loadings but on the predictive power
of the dimension
for behavior and its biological basis. If these basic dimensions
are universal as
claimed, then the probability
is that they are based on the way in which our biology has evolved
to cope with the extraordinary
range of social structures and physical environments
on this planet.
Whether or not ES and Dis belong to the same dimension is less relevant than their foundation
in biological bases of personality.
Both variables, incidentally,
have the highest heritabilities among
the four SS scales (Fulker et al., 1980). Dis is the more powerful predictor of alcohol and drug
use and social deviance in longitudinal
studies (Newcomb & McGee, 1991) while experience seeking
is the most strongly related to preferences among visual stimuli and art and music (Zuckerman,
1979). Dis is the SSS subscale most strongly and consistently related to a number of biological traits
including: augmenting-reducing
of the cortical evoked potential and the deceleration
vs acceleration of heart rate in response to novel tones (Zuckerman,
1990), the enzymes monoamine
oxidase
and dopamine-P-hydroxylase
and androgen and corticosteroid
hormones (Zuckerman,
199 1). Dis
is also the most culture-free scale, although it shows strong sex differences and age decline, perhaps
related to associated sex and age differences in MAO and gonadal hormones.
Perhaps narrower
traits are closer to the biological
levels than the broader traits. Narrow
impulsivity,
for instance, is more closely related to cortical arousal and conditionability
than the
broad trait of extraversion
(Zuckerman,
1991). Regardless of how personality
is organized at the
three or five factor levels, it would be a mistake to ignore factor components
like Dis or narrow
impulsivity.
We should not box ourselves into any big three or five as the end-all of personality
measurement.
However, it would be useful to organize narrower traits within broader ones in a
hierarchal model as Costa and McCrae have done. Although Eysenck (1967) advocates a hierarchal
model he has not developed his measures in accordance with such a model. Eysenck and Eysenck
(1963) originally claimed that extraversion
was composed of two positively correlated subfactors
and many investigators
subsequently
scored these two groups of items in the E scale of the Eysenck
Personality
Inventory
separately. However after the development
of the P scale many of the items
on the E scale were drawn away from the E dimension axis. Rather than developing impulsivity
within the context of extraversion
or psychoticism,
they developed independent
scales of impulsivity
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977) which proved to be related to more than one of the other super-factors
and therefore could not be fitted into a neat hierarchal model. Zuckerman
et al. (1988, 1991) have
found that nearly all of the impulsivity
scales they used (the Eysenck Imp scales were not used)
loaded primarily on the P dimension.
There once was a great oriental guru who was asked by a young, eager student: “what does the
world rest on?” The guru replied: “a giant turtle.” The student thought a bit and then asked: “Well
680
MARVINZUCKERMAN
Fig.
1
what does that turtle rest on?“, “An even larger turtle” the guru replied. The student pressed his
point again: “and what does that turtle rest on.” The guru somewhat testily replied: “Another large
turtle” . . . and before the inevitable question came, the guru added with finality: “and from there
on it is turtles all the way down.” But in another version of this story when the guru comes to
the seventh turtle, he adds: “and there it stops because seven is a magic number.”
Figure 1 shows my seven turtles of the psychobiology
of personality:
traits, social behavior,
conditioning
or observational
learning, physiology, biochemistry,
neurology, and the final seventh,
genetics. Traits are based on aggregations
of instances of social behavior or covert reactions. These
behavioral
dispositions
are based on conditioning
and, of course, observational
learning. Most
studies of traits and theories of their origins stop at this turtle. But there are turtles below.
Conditionability,
and other kinds of learning depend on both information
processing systems and
motivational
systems in the brain. Centers for reward and punishment
in the limbic brain may be
the basis for at least two of the major dimensions
of personality (Gray, 1987). The neuronal pathways defining these systems depend on chemical neurotransmitters
and a complex host of enzymes
that regulate their formation
and breakdown
in the neuron and the synaptic cleft. One of these
enzymes, monamine oxidase (MAO), has proven to be a marker for sociability and sensation seeking,
in both humans and monkeys. But many more remain to be investigated.
Finally there is neurology
or the structure of the brain which, as we know from studies of brain damaged individuals,
can
have marked effects on personality.
And then we come to the magical seventh turtle, behavior
What
is a basic factor
and which
factors
are basic?
681
genetics. While we can argue about direction of causation for the higher turtles, like physiology
and biochemistry, genetics is the egg from which the turtles emerge.
This is not a reductionist model. Each turtle is a distinct creature to be studied at its own level,
but for a complete understanding of any turtle one cannot ignore the next turtle down who forms
its foundation. When that turtle moves the turtles above it move whether they want to or not. But
a turtle on top may move without any effects on the turtles under it. We cannot hide within the
shell of our most familiar turtle and ignore the others.
REFERENCES
Angleitner, A. & Ostendorf, F. (1991). Temperament
and the big five factors of personality. Paper presented at a conference
on “The development of the structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood.” Wassenaar,
The
Netherlands,
17-20, June, 198 1.
Buss, A. H. & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley.
Costa, P. T. Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6),
653665.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are nor basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 667673.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural science approach. New York:
Plenum Press.
Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1963). On the dual nature of extraversion.
British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 2, 4655.
Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality
description.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 5768.
Fulker, D. J., Eysenck, S. B. G. & Zuckerman,
M. (1980). The genetics of sensation seeking. Journal of Personality Research,
14, 261-281.
Gray, J. A. (1987). The neuropsychology
of emotion and personality.
In Stahl, S. M., Iverson, S. D. & Goodman,
E. C.
(Eds), Cognitive neurochemistry (pp. 171-190). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Neary, R. S. (1975). The development
and validation
of a state measure of sensation seeking. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
University of Delaware.
Newcomb, M. D. & McGee, L. (1991). Influence of sensation seeking on general deviance and specific behavior problems
from adolescence
to young adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 614628.
Rose, R. J. (1988). Genetic and environmental
variance in content dimensions of the MMPI. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 302-3 11.
Soubrie, P. (1986). Reconciling the role of central serotonin neurons in animal and human behaviour. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 9, 319-364.
Strelau, J. (1983). Temperament, personality, activity. London: Academic Press.
Strelau, J., Angleitner,
A., Bantelmann,
J. & Ruth, W. (1990). The Strelau Temperament
InventoryRevised (STI-R):
Theoretical
considerations
and scale development.
European Journal of Psychology, 4, 209-235.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures
of mood and personality
and their relevance to assessing anxiety with an emphasis on
self-respect. In Tuma, A. H. & Maser, J. D. (Eds), Anxiety & the anxiefy disorders (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Windle, D. M. & Lerner, R. M. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions of temperament
individuality
across the life span: The
revised Dimensions
of Temperament
Survey (DOTS-R).
Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 213-230.
Zuckerman,
M. (1979). Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman,
M. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative
approach
to a human trait. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9,
749-754.
Zuckerman,
M. (1989). Personality
in the third dimension:
A psychobiological
approach.
Personality and Individual
Differences, 10, 391418.
Zuckerman,
M. (1990). The psychophysiology
of sensation seeking. Journal of Personality, 58, 313-345.
Zuckerman,
M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Zuckerman,
M., Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural,
age and sex comparisons.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139-149.
Zuckerman,
M., Kuhlman,
D. M. & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to
measure basic dimensions
of personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 966107.
Zuckerman,
M., Kuhlman,
D. M., Thornquist,
M. & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire
scale factors
of personality
without culture. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 929-941.