Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionIV. Dispositional Theories 14. Eysenck, McCrae, and
Costa’s Trait and Factor
Theories(^414) © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2009
Eysenck’s Factor Theory
The personality theory of Hans Eysenck has strong psychometric and biological
components. However, Eysenck (1977a, 1997a) contended that psychometric so-
phistication alone is not sufficient to measure the structure of human personality and
that personality dimensions arrived at through factor analytic methods are sterile and
meaningless unless they have been shown to possess a biological existence.
Criteria for Identifying Factors
With these assumptions in mind, Eysenck listed four criteria for identifying a factor.
First, psychometric evidencefor the factor’s existence must be established. A corol-
lary to this criterion is that the factor must be reliable and replicable. Other investi-
gators, from separate laboratories, must also be able to find the factor, and these
investigators consistently identify Eysenck’s extraversion, neuroticism, and psy-
choticism.
A second criterion is that the factor must also possess heritabilityand must fit
an established genetic model. This criterion eliminates learned characteristics, such
as the ability to mimic the voices of well-known people or a religious or political
belief.
Third, the factor must make sense from a theoretical view.Eysenck employed
the deductive methodof investigation, beginning with a theory and then gathering
data that are logically consistent with that theory.
The final criterion for the existence of a factor is that it must possess social rel-
evance;that is, it must be demonstrated that mathematically derived factors have a
relationship (not necessarily causal) with such socially relevant variables as drug ad-
diction, proneness to unintentional injuries, outstanding performance in sports, psy-
chotic behavior, criminality, and so on.
Hierarchy of Behavior Organization
Eysenck (1947, 1994c) recognized a four-level hierarchy of behavior organization.
At the lowest level are specific acts or cognitions,individual behaviors or thoughts
that may or may not be characteristic of a person. A student finishing a reading as-
signment would be an example of a specific response. At the second level are the ha-
bitual acts or cognitions,that is, responses that recur under similar conditions. For
example, if a student frequently keeps at an assignment until it is finished, this be-
havior becomes a habitual response. As opposed to specific responses, habitual re-
sponses must be reasonably reliable or consistent.
Several related habitual responses form a trait—the third level of behavior.
Eysenck (1981) defined traits as “important semi-permanent personality disposi-
tions” (p. 3). For example, students would have the trait of persistence if they habit-
ually complete class assignments and keep working at other endeavors until they are
finished. Although traits can be identified intuitively, trait and factor theorists rely on
a more systematic approach, namely factor analysis. Trait-level behaviors are ex-
tracted through factor analysis of habit-level responses just as habitual responses are
mathematically extracted through factor analysis of specific responses. Traits, then,
408 Part IV Dispositional Theories