Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionIV. Dispositional Theories 14. Eysenck, McCrae, and
Costa’s Trait and Factor
Theories© The McGraw−Hill^423
Companies, 2009Eysenck (1997a) further argued that many psychology studies have reached er-
roneous conclusions because they have ignored personality factors. For example,
studies in education comparing the effectiveness of discovery learning and tradi-
tional reception learning have often produced either conflicting differences or no dif-
ferences. Eysenck believed that these studies did not consider that extraverted chil-
dren prefer and do better with the more active discovery learning, whereas
introverted children prefer and do better with the more passive reception learning. In
other words, an interaction exists between personality dimensions and learning
styles. However, when investigators ignore these personality factors, they may find
no differences in the comparative effectiveness of discovery versus reception learn-
ing styles.
Eysenck (1995) also hypothesized that psychoticism (P) is related to genius
and creativity. Again, the relationship is not simple. Many children have creative
ability, are nonconforming, and have unorthodox ideas; but they grow up to be non-
creative people. Eysenck found evidence that these people lack the persistence of
high P scorers. Children with the same creative potential who are also high in psy-
choticism (P) are able to resist the criticisms of parents and teachers and to emerge
as creative adults.
Similarly, Eysenck and S. B. G. Eysenck (1975) reported that both high P
scorers and high E scorers are likely to be troublemakers as children. However, par-
ents and teachers tend to regard the extraverted children as charming rogues and to
forgive their misdemeanors, whereas they see high P scorers as more spiteful, dis-
ruptive, and unlovable. Thus, the high E scoring troublemakers tend to grow into pro-
ductive adults, while the high P scoring troublemakers tend to continue to have
learning problems, to get into crime, and to have difficulty making friends (S.
Eysenck, 1997). Again, Eysenck believed strongly that psychologists can be led
astray if they do not consider the various combinations of personality dimensions in
conducting their research.
Personality and Disease
Can personality factors predict mortality from cancer and cardiovascular disease
(CVD)? Beginning during the early 1960s, Eysenck devoted much attention to this
question. He and David Kissen (Kissen & Eysenck, 1962) found that people who
scored low on neuroticism (N) on the Maudsley Personality Inventory tended to sup-
press their emotion and were much more likely than high N scorers to receive a later
diagnosis of lung cancer.
Later, Eysenck teamed with Yugoslav physician and psychologist Ronald
Grossarth-Maticek (Eysenck & Grossarth-Maticek, 1991; Grossarth-Matick &
Eysenck (1989); Grossarth-Maticek, Eysenck, & Vetter, 1988) to investigate not only
the relationship between personality and disease, but also the effectiveness of be-
havior therapy on prolonging the life of cancer and CVD patients. Grossarth-
Maticek had used a short questionnaire and a long personal interview to place peo-
ple into one of four groups or types. Type I included people with a hopeless/helpless
nonemotional reaction to stress; Type II people typically reacted to frustration with
anger, aggression, and emotional arousal; Type III people were ambivalent, shifting
from the typical reaction of Type I people to the typical reaction of Type IIs and then
back again; Type IV individuals regarded their own autonomy as an important
Chapter 14 Eysenck, McCrae, and Costa’s Trait and Factor Theories 417