CHARTER
R.B.
CATTELL'S
III
PERSONALITY
THEORY
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Some Views on Personality
3.3,
R. 0. Cattell's Personality Theory
3.4
R. B. Cattell's fourteen Factors Used in
HSPQ and their Psychological Meaning
45
3.1
Introduction t
The ^tark)•Personality* is originated from Latin word
^
•Personate* which means as- 'Producing sound.' The word
'Personality* also expresses sound of a character in 'mask.'
The uora 'Persona* was used in ancient turn in expressing a
person's deeds. These words were only of theatrical importance.
8ut these meanings are of too limited s value so far as psycho­
logy of personality is concerned. Uith the flux of time, consi­
derable thought began to be given to 'Personality.' Each thought
differed from the other. Right from the ancient era of psychology
•Personality* has been continuosly defined; yet it seems too
vast to be governed by a definition. The possible cause seems
to be the influence of the age, time and tradition over the
thinkers. Every thinker, while defining 'Personality' dwelt
upon such salient features of a person's life as seemed domik
nantly exposed to them.
i
!
3.2
Some
~ ^
~i
l
...______ i v iews on Personality s
G. Allport studied definitions galore of personality,
minutely, and consequently could produce his own definition
in the following words; "Personality is a dynamic Organization
within the individual of those psychological systems that
determine his unique adjustment to his environment.* ^ According
to this definition personality is something internal. The
46
organization of abilities, habits, attitudes and opinions within
the individual gives rise to a particular type of behaviour or
particular thoughts in response to acme specific situation.
These abilities, habits etc., do not remain the same in the
person for all tine. Hence one's personality also la not static
but is developing.
Fredenburgh says, 'Gordon Allport's views are difficult to
classify, Hie interest in personality ranges far and wide* He
he* concerned himself with the uniqueness and complexity of the
human personality.*2
According to Uarrsn, 'Personality is the entire mental
organization of a human being at any stage of hia development.
It embraces every phase of hutran character i intellect, tempe­
rament, skill, morality and every attitude that has built us
in the course of one's life.*3 Gordon says, 'Personality ia e
more comprehensive term end it Includes character which is a
special aspect of a developed personality.'4 Norman defines
the personality, ast 'Personality is the system whereby the
individual, characteristically, organizes end processes
1
bio­
physical and environmental inputs to produce behaviour in inte­
raction with the larger surrounding systems.*5 According to
Ua&son, 'Personality is the some activities that can be dis­
covered by actual observations over a long enough period of
/
time to give reliable information.'5 As per H. 3. Eysenck,
47
personality ia 'the sum total of, actual or potential behaviour
patterns of the organism.*7 ‘Personality ia the more or less
stable end enduring organisation of a person's character,
temperament, intellect and physique, which determine hia unique
adjustment to environment.*8 According to PlcCleelland, 'Perso­
nality is the most adequate conceptualizing of a person’s
behaviour in all its detail that the scientist can give at a
moment of time**9 Prince Norton explained the term personality
as, 'Personality is the turn totel of ell the biological Innate
dispositions, and tendencies acquired by experienced.*10
Oeshiell accepts that, 'It is the sum total of behaviour trends
manifested in his social adjustment.*11 According to Owaretzky,
f
'The organization of relatively enduring characteristic unique
to an individual es revealed by the individual's interaction
with his or her environment.'^ studying different views of
personality, Franz A. Fredenburg defined it ess 'Personality
is e stable system of complex characteristics ( variables )
by which the life pattern of en individual may be identified.*1^
Now it goes unsaid that the definition of personality is
i
yet disputable end not ultimate. This very fact signifies its
importance.
Not^withstending, the conclusions from the above mentioned
definitions are such as given here under s
48
*
It in » mantel organisation.
*
It it dyna*lo, internal, and developmental.
*
It
*
It la something that which can ha discovered
e m b ra c e s
svsty phsss of human character.
^
by
aerial obsarvstlcn.
3.3
at
*
It la a aum total
potential behaviours,
*
it la unique adjustment to environment*
*
It has taxation with behaviour*
*
it la that by which a man is identified*
9L«.Jl_.JGattej.1 *a„ Psr«on*nty
Thaayy «
it* 8* Cattail use horn in 198$ in staffenfire tie
received hie education in Cnglsnd. Me did hie §.3e* with
Chemistry from London university In 1924, Me achieved the
decree of hh*o* from the same institution under the guidance
of Spearmen, Me served university College of the South vastCaster* England from 1928 to 1931 as s loctursr* Then h#
toss to ho the director of City Psychologic*! Clinic
In
Leicester end remained in the clinic f r o m 1332* This very
Institution paid much to Cattail in cresting tremendous
increase in hie interest in the Psychological testing. Hie
work on personality measurement uss h o n o u r e d hy university of
London which swarded him the degree o f 9 . 3 c * Me worked as s
lecturer at Teachers Soilage * Columbia University and also as
Research Associate of E. L. Thorndike and the Professor of
Psychology, G. Stanley Hall, from 1937 to 1938 and 1938 to
1941 respectively. Then he joined University of Illinois in
1944 where he has been working as a research professor ever
since.
He was awarded Daruin Research Fellowship in 1935. He
urate Uenner Green Prize Essay in 1953. He also had been
the fellow of British Psychological Society and a member
of Psychological Association. He elao had the worthy member­
ship of *Eugenics Society,* 'Genetics Society* and 'Sigma
U . * Me gave his precious services for war department.
Ha was lnstruraetnal in founding Multivariate Experi­
mental Psychological Society in 1950 and served as it3 first
President. During a forty year-span he has put forth several
books of great;importance. His writing was not limited to
only personality research but reached horizons of experi­
mental psychology, social psychology, and human genetics.
Up to the year 1964, he gave the world twenty.two books,
monographs, a dozen of intelligence, personality and clinical
teats with handbooks and scientific articles numbering more
than two hundred thirty-five, the following books from his
writing work are very important and worthy encominum s
50
D escription end fasaurenent o f P areo n slity (1946)
b arso n allty t • s y s te a s tie , t h i a r t t l e a l and fa c tu a l
study (I960)
Ttia ic U n tiflc a n a ly sis o f P erso n ality (1966)
Parsons 1Ity and M otivation S tructure and fcaasureiwnt (1957)
th e Handbook o f M ultlvariata Experimental Psychology (1566)
th e Handbook o f flodern P ersonality theory (1970)
Every thinker stepped
In the f ie ld o f p erso n ality
theory o f h ie own. The expression o f h is theory wso influ*
•need by th e ir p a rtic u la r su b je c ts, and th e ir tin e s , So the
erstw h ile th eo ries which were ag ain st th e ir own opinion also
caused eaertj-enee o f new th e o rie s, Tha theories o f fra u d ,
Murray and 3ung were considered to bs psychoanalytical and
psychophiiosophica1, Tha theories of ftllp o rt, hogera and
Rurphy wars taken to be a e lf* in te re c tlv a and b lo e o c ia l,
Sheldon*a theory was categorised as paycho*biologic* 1, L<ewin*s
sym bolical, f.aalow’a humanistic* kelly*a personal c o n stru c ts,
trik e o n ’s development* S ulliv an ’s interpersonal and frown’s
as so c lo a n a ly tie a l.
Thus I t can be seen th a t various personality theories
ore in ex isten ce, ftsny other th eo ries too ere put f o rth .
The present in v e stig a to r would lik e to dwell upon the
p erso n ality theory o f 9 , 6 , C a tta il which i t known as
51
°Psycho**statistical or Factor analytic theory.0 Cattail
explained personality through statistical point of view so
his theory is known as a statistical or analytical theory
among the theories of personality. Cattell believed that any
explanation of personality, if it can not be measured and
the consequence of which can not be explained by statistical
method, would be simply a subject of philosophy and not
psychology.
Cattell considered objectivity, reality, i m p a r t i a l i t y
and scrutiny to be the important characteristics in his
personality theory.
Personality s
According to R. B. Cattell,
'Personality is that which
permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given
situation.'
^
in other book, he further states,
'Personality
is that which determines behaviour as a defined situation.
For
the clarification, he has given the following
equations
P ij a s iJ
T1 * .
1 .1
* Here Pj j
situation
* Til,
T2i,
SgjL
*
T2 I
1 .2
S3 I
+
T3i _
1 .3
a te .
*
is the performance of the individual in the
3.
Tgi, e tc
sre the individual's endounents in
52
abilities, temperaments and dynamic source trait.
* S1J, S2J« S3J, ate are stimulus situation constant for the
situation, S-j
with respect of the source trait 1% tj 2
otf
T2, ate. for example the prediction required eight be with
respect to performance in the gene of chess and 71 night be
general intelligence, T2 persistence and T3 general sacsfclo­
cality. Then S
would be appreciable, and S3 would be negative
since emotionality interferes with good chess play. All ether
source trait3, would be involved in this as in every piece of
behaviour, but presuably with negligible situation indices,
flow the structure which is implied by this specificat­
ion equation in factor terms is essentially the same as
what the clinical end general psychologist mesne when speaks
of s structure, i.e. trait structure, the ego, attitudes, etc,
However?
the total personality is not to ba represented
only as an Integrated set of factors, integrated by their
common action In the specification equation* Personalities
differ not only in their factor strength but also, in the
particular, unique attachments of these traits to things
in the environment, R. 8, Cattell elaborates,
'One must not forget that there are two
general problems of prediction in per­
sonality,
1« Predicting what a given person will
do in a given stimulus situation,
2, Predicting what a person of given
endowment will become in e given envi­
ronment*
The lews governing the first are impli­
cit in the above equation* Those -
53
governinn the second are the general
laws of psychology applied quantita­
tively to the particular endowments
of the individuals and the situation.
The calculation of developmental
change can be encompassed by some such
simple formulation as that given above
prediction of a reaction in a given
situation. Thus personality is the
integration of the partial reaction
of the organism, but it promises also
to be the integration of psychology.
Traits s
The trait is the most important factor of Cattail’s
personality theory. He introduces characteristic of perso­
nality tb s trait, for its clarification, hs has, given
classification. According to him a trait ia a mental
structure or an inference which is mads from observed
behaviour-accounts for regularity or consistency in the
behaviour.
Surface Traits ;
According to R. 8. Cattell, * the procedure consists
in correlating trait elements until one discovers those
which correlate positively in every possible internal combi­
nation. Such a collection is called a syndrome in abnormal
psychology and in normal psychology, a surface trait.
A
surface trait is in any case simply a collection of traitelements, of greater or lesser width of representation,
which obviously "go together" in many different individuals
and cirsumstances.**?
54
M a l i and
Uindzey
say,
the
interaction of source
ted
to
be
lass s t able
As mentioned
meanings
of
a
° source
general
Unique
traits and
t r a i t ** a s
already defined,
” , whose
else has
people possess
is p e c u l i a r
and method
covers
and
(a)
(b)
t wo
the notion
the
notion
factors-
to the
On
individual
is a t r a i t
t he o t h e r h a n d ,
in that no o n e
t r a i t s m a y be
illustrated
general mental capacity,
’g e n e r a l *
the variability o f a specific
source of variation
because
cularized
however,
trait element
that some
remains
are
is s o m e n a r r o w a b i l i t y o r h i g h l y
source of personality
that
these
they spread over most
for w h e n al l the g e n e r a l factor v a r i a n c e s
factor
etc.
t
t r a i t is a
trait elements^it usually happens,
A specific
require
f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ."^9
a g r e a t n u m b e r o f t r a i t e l e m e n t s • In e x t r a c t i n g
•general*
ted
of
in s o m e d e g r e e .
Schizothymia,
factor or s ource
to
can have
that the common trait
General and Specific Source Traits
“A
by
c a n be e x p e c ­
u n d e r s t a n d i n g and d e f i n i t i o n
just that pattern. Common
by C y c l o t h y m i a
produced
:
8, C a t t e l l a c c e p t s
traits
generally
s There correspond
idea o f the a i m s
which all
are
‘g o i n g t o g e t h e r n e s s *
and C o m m o n T raits
R.
unique
above,
trait
traits
than factors.
statistically.
of “ Surface
** S u r f a c e
part of
unaccoun­
taken-out.
parti­
reaction which operates
in
<1*
'
' '
55
that situation and that only, and of which all paople hava
a certain amount, i.s., it ia a common traif
Constitutional and environmantal-Plold Traits s
•Patterns thus springing from internal conditions or
influences us may call constitutional source traits. The
term ‘innate’ is avoided because all we know is that the
source is physiological and uithin the organism which will
mean inborn only in a certain fraction of casea. On the
other hand j a pattern might be imprinted on the personality
by something external to it. Such source traits * appearing
as factors, we may pall environmental-mold traits, because
they spring from the molding affect of social institutions
■
<
”
'
and physical realities which constitute the cultural pattern.
Source traits can bs divided into constitutional and environ?
mantel-mold, but surface traits can not.*2?
Ability, Tsmperamentsl and Dynamic Traits sThose traits connected with our
abilities, tact and achievement, can be
defined as an ability trait. "Abilities
by contrast, are shown by how well the
parson makes his way to accepted goals.*
On the other hand, temperamental traits
are connected with our nature and way
of emotional expression. Temperamental
traits are definable by exclusion as
those traits which are unaffected by
incentive or complexity. Dynamic traits
ere characterized by behaviour arising
56
from a stimulus situation or icentiva and directad to sons goal, at
which tha action c a s s e s ." 22
In short, thay sra traits in
which performance varies as tha
incentiwa variss.
Personality Waasurenant t
Cattail baliavaa that parsonality can ba Measured by
objective test, self-rating Method, and life-record Method.
In objective test a certain stimulus situation is put
before a parson kaep-ing in view his mental process. The
responses of the parson to tha stimulus sra recorded and the
scores are obtained from it* from these scores the statis­
tical maasuramant of a person's spacific aspecta can ba mads.
Under self-rating method a person himsslf is ssksd
about his ability or sny aspect of hie personality* The
foundation of this method ie a person's self-sttituds. iut
by this method complete, valid and vivid picture of perso­
nality cannot bs achieved.
Life-recard method or biographical method means tha
Method of getting acquainted with a parson on the basis of
his entire life;:history right ffom his birth till tha present
circumstances. In this method* personality is explained by
the help of observation, biography, experience, opinion and
the substantial incidents of life.. That*
why it is known
57
as U f a rseord method.
Cattell is of the opinion that to understand personality,
valid facts are more necessary than the logical inference.
Kany studies have been done on personality in the oriental
and occidental world and yet it is alleged that all these
studies merely make the preface of the subject on personality.
This causes the possibilities of many further research works
on this subject. How far and how much is Cattail disputable
is not the subject of the present investigator; yet very
geneially he would certainly mention that when veterans from
the field of tasting realise the validity of Cattail's theory,
they would have to accept that Cattail's decade-long endea­
vour ultimately has born
fruit by the time they would have
mads out the utility of Cattail's theory.
3.4
ft. B. Cattail's fourteen factors Used in HSPfl end
that Psychological Meaning a
'The psychological meaning of the factors are here,
in terms of general behaviour. The following tables, therefore, simply sit out forms of criterion behaviour that have
been shown in experiments and rating studies to be expression
of each factor. The correlation on which they are based
represent the mean of three or more independent factoranalytic studies on adults and children.
58
The forma of behaviour listed towards the top of each
list are so placed because they have higher correlation with
the source trait. They are ears complete expressions of it.
Every factor is presented as a bipolar continuum, tha two
polar titles end two behaviour lists, presented as left and
right, describing the extreme opposite poles. The high score
on the test Corresponds always to the right - hand pain*
However, one should guard against summing that the right hand, *high* pole is in some psychological sense 'good*
end leu pole, ‘bad,* According to what performances and
purposes ere considered, sometimes tha left and sometimes
the right pole is advantageous. Experimentally, this is shown
elaarly in that both positive end negative correlations occur
for any given factor pole in relation to a series of different
achievements.
The factors are given here in their usual alphabetic
order, this symbolism having originally, arisen from placing,
the factors in the order of diminishing contribution to the
variance of the total personality sphere. Thus, factor A,
affactothymia, tends to influence more of a person*# total
behaviour than does source trait X, pramsie, or trait Q2»
self sufficiency. However this order has not yet been re*
determined for children, among whom Q4 and I, for example,
seem larger in variance then with adults. For purposes of
59
cross-reference to research studies, the factors are named ,
first by their technical, psychological title, but also, in
parentheses, by more 'popular* but looser descriptive labels
suitable
for explaining results in the discussion of cases
with the layman.
FI,, 6. Cattell accepts that the popular titles ugad in
H5PQ were suggested by Laird and King from their experience
in counselling and vocational advisement. However, the letter
label is the one by which these factors are now most commonly
and conveniently. Known to professional psychologists Actually,
ths symbols A through Q4 constitute the references to the
principal known normal personality factors.
In addition to the letter designations, researchers, in
particular, may wish to use the universal index number, the
U. I(L) series forlife records, rating and U.I.(Q) series for
questionniare, self-report data. U,I. designations combined
L and Q are set out below along with the main, letter index.
The present investigator has now discussed the chara­
cteristic expression of each factor one by one, in turn. In
doing so, it has amply used the books ft.8. Eattell as well
as the Handbook ,for the High School personality questionnaire
preferred by ft. 8. Cattell and Plarry 0. L.Cattell,
60
1
Factor
A
TABLE
3.1
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
OF FACTOR A
(U.I,(L.Q)1)
LOU SCORE
SIZOTHYWIA, A-
HIGH SCORE
VERSUS
(RESERVED* DETACHED,
CRITICAL, ALOOF, STIFF)
AfFECTOTHYHIA, A +
(w a r m h e a r t e d , outgoin g
EASYGOING, PARTICIPATING
CRITICAL
VS
GOOO NATURED, EASYGOING
STANDS BY HIS tJUN IDEAS
VS
READY TO. COOPERATE, LIKES
TO PARTICIPATE
COOL, ALOOF
VS
ATTENTIVE TO PEOPLE
PRECISE, 0B3ECTIVE
vs
SOFTHEARTED, CASUAL
DISTRUSTFUL SKEPTICAL
vs
TRUSTFUL
RIGID
vs
:
I
■
t
.ADAPTABLE, CARELESS
"GOES ALONG"
COLO
vs
WARM HEART E0
PRONE TO SULK;
vs
LAUGHS READILY
fit one time the terms Schizothy»e*ws.Cyclothyme were used
for thie source traiit, because its pattern seemed to represent,
within the limits of normality the historical meaning which
61
v
psychiatrists like Bleuler and Kretschmer had given to tempe­
rament distinguishing manic-depressive and schizophrenic
disorders. However* it has become evident that the psychiatric
distinction is complex* involving factor K more than A* and
with added abnormal factors. Factors. Factor A, at either
pole* is entirely normal and to avoid the abnormal associ­
ations* the terms affectothymia, meaning a tendency to be
full of emotional expressiveness* and sizothymia, to describe
the flati dry* highly restrained expression of A - person,
have been adopted instead. In popular terms, the afPectothyme,
as the above list of correlated behaviours shows* is warm­
hearted* sociable* and perhaps sentimental. This expression of
feeling may not, however, mean a lot or prove dependable. The
sizothymic person is hard to approach, cooly, objective* and
shows other subtraits on the left of table 3.1.
There is evidence that when persons of A* score come
together, they more readily form active groups, and there is
an experimental proof that they are more Impulsive, generous
in personal relationship* less disturbed by criticism* and
better able to remember names of people * The sizothymes* on
the other hand* are more penetrating in their evaInstions of
people end things* more dependable in long term under-takings
and those requiring exactness, (e.g., electricians' work,),
more uncompromising, more inventive* end. more dependable in
62
s x a c tly
m e e tin g p ro m is e s a n d o b l i g a t i o n s .
It
is
th is d iffe ­
r e n c e w h ic h p r o b a b l y e x p l a i n s t h e A+ o r a f f a c t o t h y m e s g e n e ­
ra ly
g e t tin g s u p e r io r s o c i a l a d ju stm e n t r a tin g s
in h ig h
s c h o o ls .
2
F a c to r
B
j TABLE 3 . 2
.'
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
OF FACTOR B
( U .I .(L .Q ) 2 )
toy SCORE
LOU INTELLIGENCE* B -
HIGH SCORE
VERSUS
,
HIGH INTELLIGENCE, B*
(CRYSTALLIZED* POWER
(CRYSTALLIZED* POWER
MEASURE)(DULL)
BEASURE) (BRIGHT)
LOU BENTAL CAPACITY
VS
^
;t€GH GENERAL BENTAL
CAPACITY
UNABLE TO HANDLE
VS
INSIGHTFUL, FAST*LEARNING
ABSTRACT PROBLEMS
INTELLECTUALLY ADAPTABLE
THE BEASUREBENT OF INTELLIGENCE H S BEEN SHOWN TO CARRY UITH
I T AS A FACTOR IN THE PERSONALITY REALM SOME OF THE FOLLOWING
RATINGS| THE CORRELATIONS, HOWEVER,
APT TO BE LESS
WELL ORGANIZED
VS
I
RE QUITE LOU.
INCLINED TO HAVE BORE
INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS
es
Personality subtrait associations with intelligence
are not very highly loaded, being of the order of *3 and .4,
but indicate a slight tendency for the mere intelligent child
to show better moral, more persistence, and greater school
,
'
^
interest. They also suggest, as Terman’s work indicated, that
he tends to be popular uith peers as a work partner, well
adjusted to school, a leader, and less likely to be found
in institutionalized deliquent groups.
The principal object in measuring Factor
B
is not to
add personality information in the narrower sense, but to
complete the measurement of factors important in most school
and clinic predictions by adding a goad, brief, general
ability measure.
The main dimension in abilities, that of general mental
capacity is always important, so here it is given its proper
role along 3ide the personality
dimensions of about equal
predictive value. The B scale is included in the HSPQ simply
to make the test a well-rounded, sufficient instrument in
itself. The result of a longer test, especially if free of
educational biss, e.g., the culture Fair Intelligence Test
would naturally be given greater weight, when they are combined
into a single estimate uith the present B scale score. It
should also be noted that the present S scale, even apart from
^
\
64
its extrema brevity, would not ba expected to correlate
perfectly with the average intelligence teat, which is
typically given scale, the individual ia allowed as much
time as he needs. The 8 factor measure is, therefore, in
intelligence test terms, a power, not a speed measure. All
this may be summarized by saying that it measures ‘Crysta­
llized* rather then fluid general ability.
3
Factor
C
^
TABLE 3*3
CHARATERISTIG EXPRESSIONS
OF FACTOR C
~
LOU SCORE
EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY
(U.I. (L.Q)3)
HIGH SCORE
VERSUS
HIGHER EGO STRENGTH
OR EGO UEAKNESS, C-
C+ (EMOTIONALLY STA8LE,
(AFFECTED BY FEELINGS,
MATURE, tACES REALITY,
EMOTIONALLY LESS STABLE,
CALM)
EASILY UPSET, CHANGEABLE
GETS EMOTIONAL UHEN FRUS­
VS
EMOTIONALLY MATURE
VS
STABLE, CONSTANT IN INTE­
TRATED
CHANGEABLE IN ATTITUDES
AND INTERESTS
RESTS
EASILY PERTURBED
EVASIVE OF RESPONSIBILI­
TIES, TENDING TO GIVE UP
VS
VS
CALM
DOES NOT LET EMOTIONAL
NEEDS AD3USTS.TO FACTS
WORRYING
VS
UNRUFFLED
GETS INTO FIGHTS AND
PROBLEMS SITUATIONS
VS
5HQUS RESTRAINT IN
AVOIDING DIFFICULTIES
65
Ego strength is commonly regarded as a factor expressing,
the level of natural dynamic integration, emotional control,
and stsblit$ty. The some what varied descriptions of ego
strength by phycholegist have this empirically demonstrated
pattern in common. Uhat some learning theorists consider the
achievement of integrative learning, would also describe this,
but the work Of both Eysenck and Cattell shows that ego-stren­
gth is not entirely depended on learning in home or school.
Constitutional tendencies apparently make, acquisition of
emotional control and steadiness harder for some than others.
Factor C appears to be the core also of uhat is viewed as
capacity for frustration tolerance. The C - individual, as
shown by the response items, tends to be easily annoyed by
things and people, is more often dissatisfied with his femily
and his school has emotional difficulty in keeping quiet and
restraining himself, and is discouraged by his inability to
meet good standards of behaviour. He shows more than an
average number of generalized neurotic response, in the
of manifest defence mechanisms, notably repression, of diges­
tive and sleep disturbanpes, irrational fears, obsessinsl
behaviour, and vague health failures. Law Factor E appears
in a wide range of neuroses and some psychoses and character
disorders.
66
4 Factor 0
TABLE • 3.4
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
OF
FACTOR - 0
1'
h»‘
( O.I.(L.Ql4
,,
v
•
;
HIGH SCORE
LOW SCORE
VERSUS
PHLEGMATIC TEMPERA j
; WENT- 0. j
(UNDEMONSTRATIVE OELIRER*
ATE, INACTIVE, STODGY
EXCITABILITY, D ♦
(EXCITABLE, IMPATIENT,
DEMANDING, OVERACTIVE.
UNRESTRAINED
STOICAL
VS
COMPLACENT
VS
DELIBERATE
VS
EXCITABLE, OVERACTIVE
NOT EASILY 3EALDUS
VS
PRONE TO 3EAL0USY
SELF-EFFACING
vs
; SELF-ASSERTIVE,EGOTISTICAL
CONSTANT
vs
»DISTRACTIBLE
NOT RESTLESS
vs
\SHOUS MANY NERVOUS
SYMPTOMS
DEMANDING, IMPATIENT
ATTENTION, GETTING
i SHOWING OFF
*
This dimension might at first sight be thought of as
•neurotic’ behaviour, as In C -{ admittedly, it has some
behaviour in common, but it is distinguishable by the more
67
im m ed iate
‘ t e m p e r a m e n t a l * q u a l i t y o f t h e e x c i t a b i l i t y , by
a m ind w a n d e r i n g d i s t r a d t i b i l i t y , by a q u a l i t y o f i n s e c u r i t y ,
a n d by a n i r r e p r e s s i b l e , p o s i t i v e , a s s e r t i v e e m p h a s i s i n i t s
e m o t i o n a l i t y , e . g . n o ta b ly an i r r e p r e s s i b l e
im p u lsiv e n e ss.
T he 0 * i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t s t h a t h e i s a r e s t l e s s s l e e p e r ,
e a s ily d is tra c te d
fro m w o rk b y n o i s e o r i n t r i n s i c - d i f f i c u l t y ,
i s h u r t a n d a n g r y i f n o t g i v e n i m p o r t a n t p o s i t i o n s , o r when­
ev er he is re s tr a in e d
so m e -tim e s f a i l e d
o r p u n is h e d , and s o o n . T h is f a c t o r h as
t o a p p e a r w i t h a d u l t , b u t i t sh o w s a s a
r e a l l y s u b s t a n t i a l d im e n sio n in c h i l d r e n .
An a b n o r m a l e x t e n s i o n o f i t
i s s e e n in B egan, L o r r ,
e t . a s , U itte n b a r n and U ittm a n ’s f a c t o r i n g s o f m e n ta l h o s p i t a l
b e h a v io u r,
i n w h a t h a s b e e n a s c r i b e d t o m a n ic a n d c a t a t o n i c
e x c i t e m e n t , w ith l o a d i n g s on r e s t l e s s o v e r a c t i v i t y ,
b ility
- il is tr e - ?
s l e e p l e s s n e s s , and p h y s i c a l a s s u l t s * S i m i l a r l y th e
h i g h 6 s c o r i n g i n d i v i d u a l , th o u g h l i k a b l e a n d a f f e c t i o n a t e
in
q u i e t e r m oods, i s a p t t o be re g a r d e d a s a c o n s i d e r a b l e n u i ­
san ce in r e s t r i c t i v e
5
fa c to r
s i t u a t i o n s , s in c e he is so
*i m p u l s i v e . 1
E
TABLE
3 .5
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR - E
(U. I ; ( L . Q . ) 5 )
HIGH SCORE
LOU SCORE
SOBFIISSIVENESS, E -
OF
V
VERSUS
(OBEDIENT| WILD, EASILY
LED* DOCILE, ACCOMODATING)
DOMINANCE OR ASCEN­
DANCE, E ♦
(ASSERTIVE, AGGRESSIVE,
COMPETITIVE, STUBBORN)
SUBMISSIVE
VS
ASSERTIVE, SELF-ASSURED
DEPENDENT
VS
INDEPENDENT-MINDED
CONSIDERATE, DIPLOMATIC
US
STERN, HOSTILE
EXPRESSIVE
VS
SOLEMN
VS
UNCONVENTIONAL .REBELLIOUS
»
- '
CONVENTIONAL,CONFORMING
EASILY* UPSET BY AUTHORITY US
HUMBLE
VS
HEADSTRONG
ADMIRATION DEMANDING
Here is the well-known facto? of dominance in human beings
and animal, which has been Investigated by Maslov* Allport and
other personality theorists. The mode of expression of this
trait in girls appears to be somewhat different from that in
boys, though not to the extent that it differs in women, who
show* besides dominance overtly as above, hypochondriacal,
.
socially-poised* prominent, and attention-getting subtraits.
In either sex, high dominance may lead to disobedience, head
strong self will, independence and creativity of mind* and
some times, anti-social behaviour, But the more direct expre­
ssions are often controlled, and in ‘sublimated* form the
trait is not always rated underslrable. As an example, good
sports performance and independence and creativity in arts
and sciences are associated with dominance. At elementary
school stages, achievement is positively correlated with
docility, E -? but in university graduate work in the corre­
lation changes to positive with E ♦ .
69
From the Ascendance * submission studies with Allport’s
test, it is known that dominance tends to be positively
correlated to some extent with social status, and both Allport's
and Cattail's results show it to be somewhat higher in esta­
blished leaders than in followers. The correlation is higher
with attempted leadership than accepted leadership!
Never­
theless, experiment shows that groups in which all members are
on the high side in dominance display more effective role
interaction and more truly individualistic democratic proce­
dure. They 'feel free to participate;' they readily raise
group problems; and they criticize group defects.
Both extremes on the dimensions pose problems for adjust­
ment. High score (dominance) is very definitely part of the
delinquency - behaviour problem pattern in teen - agers, but
very low score is also 'pathological,' for it occurs in the
profiles of neurotics and various institutionalized types.
6
Factor
F
TABLE
3.6
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR - F
Low SCORE
DESURGENCY, F-
OF
( U.I.(L.Q.)6)
HIGH SCORE
. VERSUS
(SABER, TOCITURN , SERIOUS)
SURGENCY , F +
(ENTHUSIASTIC, HEEDLESS,
HAPPY-GO-LUCKY)
70
SILENT, INTROSPECTIVE
VS
TALKATIVE
FULL Of CARES
VS
CHEERFUL
CONCERNED, REFLECTIVE
VS
HAPPY, GO, LUCKY
VS
FRANK, EXPRESSIVE,
INCOfWUNICATXVE, STICKS
REFLECTS THE GROUP
TO INNER VALUES
SLOW, CAUTIOUS
VS
QUICK AND ALERT
This is one of the most important component in extraversion. At one time it was thought that this was larger a
•state'- of elation or of depression - hut it is now clear
that it represents a relatively fixed trait, of seriousness,
caution and subduedness at the F - pole and of debonair,
happy-go-lucky light heartedness at the surgent pole.
Surgent persons have generally had easier, less puni­
shing, more optimism - creating enrironment, or that they
have acquired this more happy - go- lucky attitude through
less exacting aspirations and indulgent, secure family
atmospheres. Desurgent individuals have generally been
brought up with more servers, exacting standards and diffi­
cult conditions. However, Gottenman's twin studies show- that
this acceptance of greater responsibility also has an appre­
ciable hereditary component. Oesurgency is also found with
many chronic physical and mental illness. Desurgent children
71
tend t;o be rated as secretive and daydreaming, with a proneness
to the particular nervous habit of nail biting. Surgency has
a significant relation to preference for living in the centre
of large cities., as opposed to suburbs or quiet country and
to family position. The eldest child tends to be more desurgent and the youngest more surgent. Quite apart from this
family position effect, surgency declines, after adolescence,
with age; the clearest data show a fairly steep drop between
if
and 35 years# In common language, desurgency may be consi­
dered as adjustment to a'load of care.*
While desurgent children are not outstandingly popular .
with peers 4 and do not usually succeed in elected leadership
or personal 'contact' work; their seriousness about any job
tends Jto promote occupation steadiness and adjustment on
leaving schools
7
factor
G
TfiBLE
3.7
CHARACTERISTIC.EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR - G
LOW SiCORE
LOU SUPEREGO
STRENGTH OR
LACK OF ACCEPTANCE
OF
<U.I.:(L.Q.)7)
HIGH SCORE
VERSUS
SUPEREGO STRENGTH
OR CHARACTER.G t
(CONSCIENTIOUS,
72
PERSISTENT,MORALl
OF GROUP MORAL STA­
STIC
NDARDS, G -
STAID)
(DISREGARDS RULES,
EXPEDIENT)
QUITTING, FICKLE
VS
PERSERVING, DETERMINED
FRIVOLOUS
VS
RESPONSIBLE
SELF-INDULGENT
VS
EMOTIONALLY, DISCIPLINED
SLACK, INDOLENT
VS
CONSISTENTLY ORDERED
UNDEPENDABLE
VS
CONSCIENTIOUS, DOMINANTED
BY SENSE OF DUTY
'
DISREGARDS OBLIGATIONS
TO PEOPLE
VS
CONCERNED ABOUT MORAL
STANDARDS AND RULES
This facto* has some superficial resemblance
to *C*
that it is indicative of self-controlled rather than emot­
ional behaviour* The origins, however, are entirely different,
and even statistically it differs from ego strength in more
marked loading here oh persistence drive and domination by
a sense of duty. As one considers the array of known perso­
nality factors, it is at once evident that the superego ..
in psychanalysls receives Its clearest confirmation from this
factor. It depicts the regard for moral standards, the
73
tendency
to d r i v e e g o a n d
frequently,
regarded
be d i stinguished
of
*c*
factor,
to r e s t r a i n
aa marks of
from the more
the
id, w h i c h
the superego,
stolid,
which stems simply
ara most
and which can
emotional stability
from good d y n amic
integ­
ration.
Subjectively,
in, a n d
able
end
the G +
cautious
preferring efficient
number of objective
a n d s e e m to
variety
*0',
interest
peers
Conversely,
researches
staling,
and
before he
speaks,
been found
for
involves success
persistence,
ft
this
in a
freedom
thinking. High
consistently
from
score
correlate
and significantly with a c a demic achievement,
b e l o w a v e r a g e and
order,
requiring
it
organization of
in s c h o o l a n d
leadership.
off,
indicate that
and good
planful,
to o t h e r c o m p a n i o n s ,
in t y p i c a l h i g h s c h o o l g r o u p s ,
positively
Briefer
people
correct
perserving
in t h i n k i n g
tests have already
of performances
Oscillation,
on
views h imself as
a guardian of,manners and morals,
to c o n c e r n t r a t e ,
factor
person
popularity,
institutionalized
I m p r o v e o n G as t h e y
show relations of
destruction
election
deliquents
to lying,
of property defiance of
for e v a l u a t i n g
to
score
improve on adjustment.
low G
temper tantrums. Obviously,
generally significant
and
measures of
character
showing
law and
*G'
are
education.
74
8
Factor
H
TABLE 3.8
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS OF
FACTOR - H
(U.I. (L.Q.)8)
HIGH SCORE
LOW SCORE
THRECTIA f H-
VERSUS
PARMIA, H +
(ADVENTUROUS,.
(S8Y , TIMID -
THICK-SKINNED, SOCIALLY
RESTRAINED, THREAT-
BOLD)
SENSITIVE)
S8Y, WITHDRAWN
VS
ADVENTUROUS, LIKE
MEETING PEOPLE
RETIRING IN FACE OF
VS
ACTIVE, OVERT INTEREST
OPPOSITE SEX
-
IN OPPOSITE SEX
cautious
VS
RESPONSIVE, DENIAL
APT TO BE EMBITTERED
vs
FRIENDLY
RESTRAINED| RULE-BOUND
vs
IMPULSIVE
RESTRICTED INTERESTS
vs
EMOTIONAL AND ARTISTIC
INTERESTS
CAREFUL, CONSIDERATE,
vs
CAREFREE, DOES NOT SEE
EMOTIONALLY
QUICK TO SEE DANGERS
DANGER SIGNALS
Factor H is a well-defined factor which has bean repea­
tedly discovered both in ratings and in questionnaires. It is
75
probable that H - represents the basic, innate, leptosomatic,
schizothyme temperament the H ** individual shows the shy,
withdrawn, careful, 'well - behaved* syndrome which may be
one condition in schizoid prepsychotic; for schizophrenics
have been shown to score significantly below overage on
H.
The H- individual reports himself to be intensely shy, and
impeded in expressing himself. He dislikes occupations with
personal contacts, prefers one or two close friends to crowds,
avoids large parties or open competition, is ferful,
of
situations, easily resentful, and distrustful, but very
considerate of others' sensitivities, and not given to keeping
contact with all that goes on around him. In group situations,
high H persons feel free to participate, but are privately
voted to be long - winded, insensitive speakers. In group
dynamics they make more merely 'social* than task oriented
remarks, whereas threctics (H -) keep to the point.
Quite a number of physiological measures have been shown
to correlate with K and the evidence is that H is i (a) sub­
stantially, a constitutional factor, and (b) connected with
greater - threat - reactivity to the autonomic nervous
system. The term 'threetie' for H - is intended to summarize
this essential threat responsiveness, while 'parmia' at the
opposite pole, is an abbreviation for 'Parasympathetic
Predominance,* i.e., a thick - skinned immunity to threat.
76
9 Factor I
TABLE 3.9
CHARACTER1STIE EXPRESSIONS OF
( u.i.(L.g.)g)
FACTOR - I
HIGH SCORE
LOU SCORE
HARRIA, I-
VERSUS
(TOUGH-FIINOED
PREF1SIA, I +
(TENDER-MINDED, SENS1TIVE, DEPENDENT, OVERPROTECTEO
RESECTS ILLUSIONS)
■,
UNSENTIMENTAL, EXPECTS
VS
ION AND ATTENTION
LITTLE
SELF-RELIANT, TAKING
RESPONSIBILITY
HARO (TO POINT OF CYNICI*
SH) ’
FIDGETY, EXPECTING AFFECT-
VS
,
VS
CLINING* INSECURE, SEEKING
HELP AND SYMPATHY
KINDLY INDULGENT TO
SELF AND OTHERS
FEU ARTISTIC RESPONSES
vs
(BUT NOT LACKING IN TASTE) V
ARTISTICALLY FASTIDIOUS,
AFFECTED, THEATRICAL
UNAFFECTED BY'"FANCIES"
IMAGINATIVE IN INNER,11FE
AND IN CONVERSATION
VS
ACTS ON PRACTICAL, LOGICAL vs
EVIDENCE
KEEPS TO THE POINT
vs
DOES NOT SWELL ON PHYSICAL vs
DISABILITIES
ACTS ON SENSITIVE INTUI,^
TION
ATTENTION-SEEKING, FLIGHTY
HYPOCHONDRIACAL, ANXIOUS
ABOUT SELF
77
In the questionnaire studies, the premise I * person
shows a definite fastidious dislike of 'exude' people end
rough occupations, a recreational taste for * romantic'
travel and new experiences, a labile, imaginative, esthetic
mind, a love of dramatics, and a certain impractically in
general affairs, there are indications that artists score
high on this factor and women and girls also run decidedly
higher than men and boys. However, it would be a mistake,
as is sometimes done to call this 'femininity - masculinity,'
for the sexes differ significantly also on the other factor,
e.g.t E arid A, Group performances tend to be proper the
higher the average I + of their constituent members, while
in group dynamics experiments, I ♦ individuals, receive signifantly more descriptions as fussing, showing up group perfor­
mance in arriving at decisions, and making social-emotional,
negative remarks. I - at the opposite pole, represents some
sort of tough, masculine, practical, mature, group solidarity­
generating, and realistic temperamental dimension*
To the substantial extant that it is environmentally
ditermined, the evidence shows *1* to be associated with
indulgent, overprotected, and in some cases, more faatdiouslycultured homes, as well es with overripe cultures- infact,
with a pattern beat described as ' protected emotional senslvity,*
78
mu shortened in the title to *Preatsia»* Similarly, ’harria*
conveniently abbreviates the t i t l e of hardness and realism,
at the opposite pole U>)* However, the central feature of
I ♦ ie the emotionally - indulgent, overprotective home*
though I t has cultural associations, i t would he a mistake
to idantify i t with 'higher* culture or refined ideals, for
high *1* often occurs in homes of quite low cultural statue
where discipline Is neglected, indulgence maintained, and
senaivity to Individual subjectivity is high. High *1*
individuals report that they avoid rough and adventurous
situ a tio n s, ilka to depend on the teacher, are a r tis tic and
neat hut not organised. They tend to be reted as not contri­
buting socially and not an asset in an emergency, they are
rated as fastidious, dependant, ta le -te llin g , demanding of
atten tio n , sensitive and nervous, they claim to feel easily ,
complain of nlghtmaves, headaches, stomach upsets and
'imaginary* ailments, and tend to avoid games and physical
eaercise. The child who scores very high on factor *T* should
probably ba encouraged to develop responsibility, to cling
less to teachers or parents, and indulge more in the a c tiv i­
tie s of Ms own age group.
79
10
Factor
3
TABLE
3.10
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACDR - 3
(U.I.(L.Q.)IO)
HIGH SCORE
LOW SCORE
ZEPPIA, 3 -
OF
VERSUS
COASTHENIA, 3 ♦
(CIRCUMSPECT, INDIVIDUA-
(ZESTFUL, LINKING-
LISM REFLECTIVE,
GROUP ACTION)
INTERNALLY RESTRAINED)
LIKES TO GO WITH THE
VS
ACTS INDIVIDUAL!STICALLY
LIKES ATTENTION
VS
GUARDED, WRAPPED UP IN SELF
SINKS PERSONALITY INTO
VS
FASTIDIOUSLY OBSTRUCTIVE
VIGOROUS
v s
NEURASTHENICALLY FATIGUED
ACCEPTS COMMON STANDAR05
vs
EVALUATES COLDLY
GROUP
GR0 u £ ENTERPRISE
In questionnaire responses* the 3 + individual prefers
to do things on his own*
Is physically and intellectually
fastidious, thinks over his inis take© a n d how to avoid them,
tends not to forget if he is unfairly treated, has private
view differing from the group, but prefers to keep in the
80
back-ground to avoid argument, and knows he has fewer friends.
The psychologist will recognize that this factor appears to the
common influence underlying psychasthenic, obsessional, compul­
sive, and neurasthenic behaviour; hence, the term 'Colasthen is1
i.e* what is common to the asthenias. However, 3 is quite
distinct from 0 2 , self-sufficiency, with which it is sometimes
confused conceptually. As might be expected 3 + students tend
to be unpopular with other students. There are indications of
appreciable constitutional determination and some association
/
with greater proneness to schizophrenia and delinquency. This
factor justifies more intensive research on its associations
and origins.
11
Factor
0
TABLE
3.11
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR - 0
VERSUS
ADEQUACY 0(SELF-ASSURED, PLACID*
SECURE, COMPLACENT, SERENE
*
(U.I. (L.Q. )15)
HIGH SCORE
LOW SCORE
UNTROUBLED
Of
GUILT PRONENESS, 0 +
(APPREHENSIVE, SELFREPROACHING, INSECURE,
WORRYING, TROUBLED)
81
SELF-CONFIDENT
VS
WORRYING, ANXIOUS
CHEERFUL,
vs
DEPRESSED, CRIES EASILY
IMPENITENT* PLACID
vs
EASILY TOUCHED, OVERCOME
BY MOODS
EXPEDIENT, INSENSITIVE
vs
STRONG SENSE OF OBLIGATION
TO PEOPLE’S APPROVAL OR
SENSITIVE TO PEOPLE'S
DISAPPROVAL
APPROVAL ANO DISAPPROVAL
DOES NOT CARE
vs
SCRUPULOUS FUSSY '
RUDELY VIGOROUS
US
HYPOCHONDRIACAL AND
INAOEAUTE
NO FEARS
vs
PHOBIC SYMPTOMS
GIVEN TO SIMPLE ACTION
vs
LONELY, BROODING
Earlier adjustment questionnaires have applied such terms
.as 'Depressive Tendency* Woodiness*'
'Emotional Sensivity,'
•self-depreciation,' and even 'Neuroticism to this factor, and
all these labels have some optness. As the actual items show,
the 0 ♦ person feels overfatigued by exciting situations, and
has a sense of inferiority and inadequacy in meeting the rough
daily demands of life. He is unable to sleep through worrying,
is easily downhearted, and especially, remorseful and guilty.
This last and the fact that he feels that people are not so
moral and concerned about things as they should be together
with his inclination to plity , has pointed to the guilt proneness concept. However, in addition, he gets emotionally
«r
82
upset,by pressure from authority and prefers books and quiet
•
i
interests to people and noise. Such students overreact to
!
V
difficulties and need encouragement.
In children, definite fears, as well as a central feel­
ing of inadequacy and loneliness are prominent for 0 + scores.
Croup dynamics experiments record high *0 ' individuals ss not
feeling accepted or free to participate; and although they are
concerned about group standards and conformity, they are
" socially maladjusted.”
12
Factor
Q2
TABLE
3.12
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR
02
LOU SCORE
GROUP DEPENDENCY O5 (SOCIABLY GROUP DEPEND
OF
(U I.(Q)17)
HIGH SCORE
VERSUS
SELF-SUFFICIENCY, q 2'+
(SELF-SUFFICIENT, RES0-
DENT, A "OOINER" AND
URGEFUL, PREFERS OWN
F0LL0UER)
DECISIONS)
This factor, as its Q designation indicates, is not
clearly established in external behaviour ratings, showing
83
itself more in internal attitudes than in behaviour. It is
one of the major factors in the second order factor of
introversion. The item content at the positive pole reveals
a person who is resolute and accustomed to making his own
decisions, alone while that at the Q2- pole shows a person
who goes with the group, who strongly values social approval,
and is conventional and fashionable. Scientists, executives,
and other individuals who think much on their own, turn out
to be above average on this factor. In group dynamics, the
high % person is significantly more dissatisfied with group
integration, makes remarks which are more frequently solu­
tion than questions - and tends to be rejected I At school,
82 + children commonly prove to be decidedly on the seclusive side. They ©Iso seem to have older friends and mature
interests, and their general achievement is higher. 82
*
Is
thus S confident and resourceful self-sufficiency, with
some apparent disdain of the 'mob* which is often mistaken
for shyness, sizothyroia, and other components of introvers ion.
84
13
Factor
93
TABLE
3.13
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR - Q3
(U.I. (9)18)
HIGH SCORE
LOU SCORE
LOU SELF-SENTIMENT
OF
VERSUS
INTEGRATION, Q3-
HIGH STENGTH OF SELF1 SENTIMENT, 93 +
(UNCONTROLLED, LAK,
(CONTROLLED, EXACTING UIU
FOLLOWS OUR URGES,
POWER, SOCIALLY PRECISE
CARELESS OF SOCIAL RULES)
COMPULSIVE, FOLLOWING
SELF-IMAGE
This factor, like the preceding, bears a Q label because
it has been firmly established only in questionnaire responses,
though it correlates substantially with some important behavi­
oural criteria.
the experimental evidence that ft3 correlates the self­
sentiment, as independently measured by objective interest
devices in the school Motivation Analysis Test and Motivation
Analysis Test, agrees with the theory that Q3 expresses the
degree to uhich the individual has adopted and invested his
85
interest in an ideal ‘self-regarding sentiment.* That is to
say, it represents the degree to which he directs his behaviour
by reference to the concept of himself which hs believes
represents his real potential. There is every indication that
the self-concept and the associated self-sentiment-dynamic
investment can be stimulated by direct constructive education
in socio-moral values, and encouragement in self-resoept.
The major response items show the child high in Q3 as
self-controlled* striving to accept approved ethical standards,
ambitious to do well* concerned with his social image* consi­
derate of others, foresighted* disposed to reduce and control
expressions of emotion* conscientious* and sometimes, 'smug.1
This agrees with the understanding of the self-sentiments
factor as a set of socially-oriented, self-controlling
attitudes as revealed in the FIAT and SflAT. Its negative pole,
Q3 is essentially an untutored, unreflective emotionality and
a nurcissistic rejection of cultural demands.
Factorially, there is also the problem that at all
levels Q3 seems to shift somewhat with the particular social
•and cultural values anxiety Factor, i.e. poor integration
and low regard for a stable self-sentiment are definitely
associated with anxiety.
86
High Q3 is associated with success in mechanical,
mathematical and productive organizational activities. It
is high in executives, personnel department workers and
psychiatric technicians, in all of whom objectivity, balance,
and decisiveness are especially demanded. However, it is also
above average in certain schizophrenics, for reasons not yet
clear. Otherwise, research agrees in finding q3 * associated
with all kind of occupational and scholastic success. From
its role in many situations of control, q 3 has aptly been
called the 'gyroscopic* factor, producing steadiness and
purpose in personality. Consistent with this, a low score
on Q3 is associated with teen age delinquency.
14
factor
Q4
TABLE
3.14
CHARACTERISTIC EXPRESSIONS
FACTOR - Q4
OF
(U.I.(Q)19)
LOU SCORE
LOU ERGIC TENSION, Q4-
HIGH SCORE
VERSUS
HIGH ERGIC TENSION
Q4 ♦
(RELAXED* TRANQUIL, TORPID,
UNFRUSTRATED, COMPOSED)
(TENSE, FRUSTRATED DRI­
VEN, OVERWROUGHT , FRET­
FUL
87
This last of the fourteen factors is again given a
Q designation and omits any loadings on observer behaviourrating variables because it is more readily demonstrable
as a pattern in questionnaires, and is an elusive factor
in observer-ratings. Children and adults scoring high on
q4
describe themselves as irrationally worried, tense,
irritable, and in turmoil. They feel frustrated and are
sensitively aware of being criticized by parents for un­
tidiness, phantasy, and neglect of good goals.
Some superficial resemblance can be noticed as in
Q3— , factor 0, but the actual correlational connections
of Q4 are rather with C-, ego weakness, and q
guili
proness, which shares strong common contribution to the
pool of the anxiety second-order factor. Indeed clinically,
it is noteworthy that Q4 strongly shares with 0, the capa­
city to differentiate neurotics from normals, for it is one
of the three highest-loaded factors in general anxiety. It
is abnormally high in character disorders, chronic physical
disability and psychosis. The best theoretical interpretat­
ion of q 4, at present, is that it describes excitement and
/
tension and reflects the level of undischarged drive.
88
REFERENCES
:
1
G.U.Allport,
5 P a t t e r n a n d G r o w t h in P e r s o n a l i t y . N e w Yorks
H o l i ' i " R i n e h a r t a n d U i n s t o n , 1961, p . 3 5
2
F r a n z A . F r e d e n b u r g j T h e P s y c h o l o g y o f P e r s o n a l i t y end
fid j us tenant. S u m m i n g P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y .
C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 7 1 , p. 3 8 7
3
H.C.Warren
4
R.G.Gordon
5
N o r m a n 0.
;;
6
3,
8.
7
H.
3 . Eysencks Dim e n s i o n s o f P e r s o n a l i t y
"
K e g a n P a u l , 1 9 4 7 , p. 2 5
8
H.3.Eysenck
& Carmichel, L s E l ements of H uman P s y c h o l o g y :
N e w Y o r k : H o u g h t o n "W if f'lin C o m p a n y , 1 9 6 0
p .333,
s
-
1
■
t Personality
s London;
Kegan Paul,
Waston
s Behaviourism, London,
P.S.
•
Kegani P a u l ,
'
,
;
.
s
p.2.
>!
9
Oi N e C l e e l a n d
s Personality
10
Pjflnc© N o r t o n
j The Unconscious : New York t The
N c N i i l a n " C o m p a n y , 1914, p.532
11
3.E.Dashiell
t New York
$ Sloans,
1951,p . 69
i Fundamental of Objective Psyc h o l o g y :
BSston
3*P.Dworetzky
1930,
: London:
s The Structure of Human Personality
N e w Y o r k s N e t h u e n a n d Co., 1971,
••
12
p.3
Sundbergs Assessment o f P e r s o n s Ne w 3eraeyj
Prentice B a l l I n c , Englewood cliffs,
1928, p.12.
,1
f
1928,
s 'H o u g h t o n ,''1 9 2 9 , p . 5 5
s Psychology s New York
C o m p a n y , 1982, p . 3 99
: West Publishing
\
89
13
Franz A. Fredenburtg s
Op. Cit., p.8
14
R.,8.Cattail s Personality s ft Systematic. Theoretical
and Factual Study. New York t Fie Gray
Hill, 1950,' pp. 2-3
15
R.B.Cattel s fin Introduction to Personality Study :
London : Hutchinsori, House, 1950, pp. 222
16
R.B. Cattal i Ibid,, pp. 222-24
17
R.B. Cattail s Personality t A Systematic. Thsoritical
and Factual Study, New York : Pic Grau
H t U , ,1950, p.21
18
G.S.Hall and Gorden, Lindsey j Theory of Personality,
Second edition, New York : Bohn Uiley &
Sons, Inc, 1970, p. 387
19
R.B. Cattell j Personality : A Systematic. Theoritical
and Factual Study, Neu York : Pic Gray
Hill, 1950, p.22
20
R.B. Cattel s Ibid., p.33
21
R.B.' Gattells Ibid.. p.34
22
R.B. Cattel : Ibid., p. 35