Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-q9hcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-21T03:43:49.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Five and Seven Factors Personality Models: Differences and Similitude between the TCI-R, NEO-FFI-R and ZKPQ-50-CC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Anton Aluja  and
Angel Blanch
Anton Aluja*
Affiliation:
Universitat de Lleida (Spain)
Angel Blanch
Affiliation:
Universitat de Lleida (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anton Aluja. Institut de Recerca Biomèdica (IRBLleida). Área de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento psicológico. Universitat de Lleida. Avda de l'Estudi General, 4. 25001 Lleida (Spain). E-mail: aluja@pip.udl.cat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study tests the relationships between the three frequently used personality models evaluated by the Temperament Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R), Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Five Factor Inventory – Revised (NEO-FFI-R) and Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire-50- Cross-Cultural (ZKPQ-50-CC). The results were obtained with a sample of 928 volunteer subjects from the general population aged between 17 and 28 years old. Frequency distributions and alpha reliabilities with the three instruments were acceptable. Correlational and factorial analyses showed that several scales in the three instruments share an appreciable amount of common variance. Five factors emerged from principal components analysis. The first factor was integrated by A (Agreeableness), Co (Cooperativeness) and Agg-Host (Aggressiveness- Hostility), with secondary loadings in C (Conscientiousness) and SD (Self-directiveness) from other factors. The second factor was composed by N (Neuroticism), N-Anx (Neuroticism-Anxiety), HA (Harm Avoidance) and SD (Self-directiveness). The third factor was integrated by Sy (Sociability), E (Extraversion), RD (Reward Dependence), ImpSS (Impulsive Sensation Seeking) and NS (novelty Seeking). The fourth factor was integrated by Ps (Persistence), Act (Activity), and C, whereas the fifth and last factor was composed by O (Openness) and ST (Self- Transcendence). Confirmatory factor analyses indicate that the scales in each model are highly interrelated and define the specified latent dimension well. Similarities and differences between these three instruments are further discussed.

Este estudio explora las relaciones entre los tres modelos de personalidad más frecuentemente utilizados evaluados por el Inventario de Carácter y Temperamento revisado (TCI-R), el Inventario de Neuroticismo, Extraversión y Apertura Revisado de Cinco Factores Revisado (NEO-FFI-R) y el Cuestionario de Personalidad de Zuckerman-Kuhlman de 50 ítems (el ZKPQ-50-CC). Los resultados se obtuvieron con una muestra de 928 sujetos voluntarios provenientes de la población general entre 17 y 28 años. Las distribuciones de frecuencias de las medias y fiabilidades alfa de los tres instrumentos fueron aceptables. Los análisis correlacionales y factoriales mostraron que los tres cuestionarios compartían una apreciable cantidad de varianza común. De los análisis de componente principales emergieron cinco factores. El primer factor quedó integrado por A (Amabilidad), Co (Cooperación) y Agg-Host (Agresividad-hostilidad), con las cargas secundarias en el factor C (Responsabilidad) y SD (Auto-Dirección) de otros factores. El segundo factor estaba compuesto por N (Neuroticismo), N-Anx (Neuroticism-ansiedad), HA (Evitación del Daño) y SD (Auto-Dirección). El tercer factor quedo integrado por Sy (la Sociabilidad), E (Extraversión), RD (Dependencia de la Recompensa), ImpSS (Búsqueda de Sensaciones Impulsiva) y NS (Búsqueda de Novedad). El cuarto factor quedó integrado por P (Persistencia), Act (Actividad), y C, el quinto y el último factor estaba compuesto por O (Apertura) y ST (Auto-Transcendencia). Un análisis factorial confirmatorio indicó que las escalas de cada modelo están muy interrelacionadas y definen bien la dimensión latente especificada. Se discuten las similitudes y diferencias entre estos tres instrumentos.

Keywords

personalityTCI-RNEO-FFI-RZKPQ-50-CCpersonalidadTCI-RNEO-FFI-RZKPQ-50-CC
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 659 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aluja, A., García, O., & García, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman's three structural models for personality throught the NEO-PI-R, ZKPQ-III, EPQ-RS and Goldberg's 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 713–725. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00186-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aluja, A., García, O., & García, L. F. (2003). Relationships among extraversion, openness to experience, and sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 671–680. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00244-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aluja, A., García, O., Rossier, J., & García, L. F. (2005). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 591–604. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aluja, A., Kuhlman, M., & Zuckerman, M. (2010). Development of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA-P): A factor/facet version of the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 416–431. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.497406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aluja, A., Rossier, J., García, L. F., Angleitner, A., Kuhlman, M., & Zuckerman, M. (2006). A cross-cultural shortened form of the ZKPQ (ZKPQ-50-CC) adapted to English, French, German, and Spanish languages. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 619–628. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanch, A., & Aluja, A. (2009). Validation study of the Spanish Version of the Work-Family Conflict Questionnaire (CCTF). Spanish Journal of Psychology. 12(2), 746–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. and Long, J. S. (eds.). Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R. (1986). A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states. Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167–226.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloninger, C. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1997). Integrative psychobiological approach to psychiatric assessment and treatment. Psychiatry, 60, 120–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New Jersey, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor-inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
De Fruyt, F., Van De Wiele, L., & Van Heeringen, C. (2000). Cloninger'spsychobiological model of Temperament and Character and the Five-Factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality, 16, 5 or 3?-Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1992a). Four ways five factor are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-JCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1992b). A replay to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C-the role of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867–868. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90003-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985) Personality and Individual Differences. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, F., & Goldberg, L. R. (2008). A psychometric evaluation of the revised temperament and character inventory (TCI-R) and de TCI-140. Psychological Assessment, 20, 281–291. doi:10.1037/a0012934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, L. F., Aluja, A., García, O., & Cuevas, L. (2005). Is openness to experience an independent personality dimension? convergent and discriminant validity of the openness domain and its NEO-PI-R facets. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 132–138. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler, L., Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutierrez-Zotes, J. A., Bayón, C., Montserrat, C., Valero, J., Labad, A., Cloninger, C. R., & Fernandez-Aranda, F. (2004). Temperament and Character Inventory Revised (TCI-R). Standardization and normative data in a general population sample. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 32, 8–15.Google Scholar
Joireman, J., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2004). The Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire: Origin, development, and validity of a measure to assess an alternative Five-Factor Model of personality. In Stelmack, R. M. (Ed.), On the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman (pp. 49–64). New York, NY: Elsevier Science. doi:10.1016/B978-008044209-9/50005-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1961). A note on Guttman's lower bound for the number of common factors'. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 14, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitland, S. B., Nyberg, L., Bäckman, L., Nilson, L. G., & Adolfsson, R. (2009). On the structure of personality: Are there separate temperament and character factors? Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 180–184. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Universal features of personality traits from observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587–596. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: normative operating characteristics for a university population. Michigan, MI: University of Michigan, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. doi:10.1007/BF02291170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Tech. Rep. No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US Air Force.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (2002). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): An alternative five-factorial model. In Raad, B. de & Perugini, M. (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 377–396). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (2008). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (ZKPQ): An operational definition of the Alternative Five Factorial Model of Personality. In Boyle, G. J. Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 219–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (1996). Relationships between Cloninger's, Zuckerman's, and Eysenck's dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 283–285. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00042-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Teta, P., Joireman, J., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models of personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 12, 929–941. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90182-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar