Manual EPP6

2.1 Description of variables ..................................................................................................
5
2.1.1 Form S1 .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Form S2 .................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Test forms ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Form S1 – Long form ................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2 Form S2 – Short form................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Objectivity ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Reliability ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.2.1 Form S1 .................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Form S2 .................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Validity............................................................................................................................ 7
3.4 Economy ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.5 Resistance to faking ....................................................................................................... 8
3.6 Fairness ......................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Instructions ....................................................................................................................12

5.2 Test phase.....................................................................................................................12
6.1 General notes on interpretation .....................................................................................13

6.2 Interpretation of variables ..............................................................................................13
6.2.1 Extraversion .............................................................................................................13
6.2.2 Emotionality .............................................................................................................15
6.2.3 Adventurousness .....................................................................................................16
6.3 Additional output of results ............................................................................................18
H. Eysenck, G. D. Wilson & C. J. Jackson
The EPP6 test is a multi-dimensional modular personality inventory for assessing the three
dimensions of extraversion, emotionality, and adventurousness as described by Eysenck
Main areas of application: personnel psychology, traffic psychology, aviation psychology,
sport psychology, clinical psychology, health psychology.
The EPP6 is a multi-dimensional questionnaire based on the personality theory of Eysenck.

On account of the wide bandwidth of the Five Factor Model, Eysenck’s factors of
extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism can be readily incorporated into the overall
classification structure of this model. These universal factors enable a more individual
perspective to be adopted. However, the dimensions have not become superfluous; the
intention is that they should be underpinned by these factors. The three dimensions
mentioned in the EPP6, namely extraversion, emotionality (neuroticism) and
adventurousness (psychoticism) confirm this theory and summarise the scores obtained on
the seven subscales. In addition, an honesty scale has been added to the questionnaire.
After general instructions have been provided the test items are presented one by one.
Respondents enter their answers on a three-point scale (“Yes”, “No”, “Can’t decide”). As
soon as an answer has been entered the next item appears. It is not possible to correct
preceding items.
The long form S1 consists of 440 items (21 subscales); the short form S2 consists of 200
items (9 subscales).
Raw scores are given for all the subscales, the honesty scale and the number of “Can’t
decide” responses. The raw scores on the three dimensions are calculated from the scales
assigned to those dimensions.
For Form S1 the reliability scores (internal consistency) range from r=0.56 (tough-
mindedness) to r=0.85 (inferiority, unhappiness) for men and from r=0.41 (tough
mindedness) to r=0.89 (unhappiness) for women. For Form S2 reliabilities range from r=0.68
(irresponsibility) to r=0.89 (unhappiness) for women and from r=0.74 (assertiveness) to
r=0.85 (unhappiness) for men.
Factor analysis reveals a clear three-factor structure. The emotionality factor explains 27.2%
of the variance, the adventure factor 17.9% and the extraversion factor 10.1% (cumulatively
55.1%). These findings were replicated by Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson & Jackson (1992) and
Costa & McCrae (1995). In addition, Costa & McCrae (1995) provide some alternative factor
solutions that are of particular interest with regard to the Five Factor theory. Furthermore, the
factorial validity of the EEP6 has been shown to apply across different cultures and age
groups; highs level of equivalence are found in the factor structures obtained from these
different samples (Eysenck, Wilson & Jackson, 2000).
The norms are quoted in percentile ranks and T-scores for all the subscales and dimensions.
The norm sample of the paper-and-pencil version of the EPP6 was used, consisting of
N=1394 respondents.
A norm sample of N=222 representative of the general Austrian population is also available.
Between 20 and 55 minutes (including instruction and practice phase), depending on test
form.
A description of the theoretical background to the test, notes on interpretation and a
complete bibliography can be found in the Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (V6) by
Eysenck, Wilson and Jackson (2000). Additional information on the EPP6 (Form S2) is
available in the Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (Short) by Eysenck, Wilson and
Jackson (2000). Excerpts from both manuals for the paper-and-pencil version of the EPP6
are contained in the Appendix.
Form S1 consists of 21 subscales. They can be divided into three groups of second-order
factors – these are the three main variables which form the core of the EPP6. Each of the
three main variables is thus composed of 7 subscales, which are also reported as normed
variables.
Extraversion
The following dimensions make up this main variable: Activity, Sociability, Expressiveness,
Assertiveness, Ambition, Dogmatism and Aggression.
Emotionality
The following dimensions make up this main variable: Inferiority, Unhappiness; Anxiety,
Dependence, Hypochondria, Guilt and Obsessiveness.
Adventurousness
The following dimensions make up this main variable: Risk-taking, Impulsiveness,
Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, Sensation-seeking, Tough-mindedness and Practicality.
Dissimulation
This variable (Low dissimulation-High dissimulation) was added to ensure the reliability of the
questionnaire. If the test result shows a very low level of openness (which equals a high level
of dissimulation) an additional warning is issued. In this case the questionnaire must be
regarded as unreliable.
“Can’t decide” answers

The variable Number of “Can’t decide” answers was added as an additional reliability
check. If more than 5% of answers are "Can’t decide", evaluation of the profile must be
regarded as unreliable. Again, a warning is issued.
Working time
This variable gives the test length in minutes and seconds.
The short form S2 consists of 9 scales, from which the 3 dimensions are calculated.
Extraversion
The following variables relate to this dimension: Activity, Sociability and Assertiveness.
Emotionality
The following variables relate to this dimension: Inferiority, Unhappiness and Anxiety.
Adventurousness
The following variables relate to this dimension: Risk-taking, Impulsiveness and
Irresponsibility.
Dissimulation
This variable (Low dissimulation-High dissimulation) was added to ensure the reliability of the
questionnaire. If the test result shows a very low level of openness (which equals a high level
of dissimulation) an additional warning is issued. In this case the questionnaire must be
regarded as unreliable.
“Can’t decide” answers

The variable Number of “Can’t decide” answers was added as an additional reliability check.
If more than 5% of answers are "Can’t decide", evaluation of the profile must be regarded as
unreliable. Again, a warning is issued.
Working time
This variable gives the test length in minutes and seconds.
The long form S1 consists of 440 items. The total number of items can be divided into 21
subscales and a dissimulation scale. Each scale consists of 20 items. The individual scales
are listed in the section “Description of variables”.
The short form contains a reduced number of scales; it comprises 200 items, which are
assigned to 9 different scales. These are used to assess the three dimensions of
extraversion, emotionality and adventurousness. The individual scales are listed in the
section “Description of variables”.
Test administrator independence exists when the respondent’s test behaviour, and thus his
test score, is independent of variations (either accidental or systematic) in the behaviour of
the test administrator (Kubinger, 2003).
Since administration of the EPP6 is computerised, all respondents receive the same
information, presented in the same way, about the test. These instructions are independent
of the test administrator. Similarly, administration of the test itself is identical for all
respondents.
The recording of data and calculation of variables is automatic and does not involve a scorer.
The same applies to the norm score comparison. Computational errors are therefore
excluded.
Since the test has been normed, interpretation objectivity is given (Lienert & Raatz, 1994).
Interpretation objectivity does, however, also depend on the care with which the guidelines
on interpretation given in the chapter “Interpretation of Test Results” are followed.
The reliability values of Form S1 are described in more detail in the Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Profiler (V6) by Eysenck et al. (2000). The values (internal consistency) range
from r=0.56 (tough-mindedness) to r=0.85 (inferiority, unhappiness) for men and from r=0.41
(tough mindedness) to r=0.89 (unhappiness) for women.
For Form S2 reliabilities range from r=0.68 (irresponsibility) to r=0.89 (unhappiness) for
women and from r=0.74 (assertiveness) to r=0.85 (unhappiness) for men. A more detailed
description can be found in the Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (V6) by Eysenck
et al. (2000), which is reproduced in the Appendix.
Information on validity and factor analysis can be found in Section 1.5 “Comparison to other
Systems” of the Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (V6) by Eysenck et al. (2000),
which is reproduced in the Appendix. More information is contained in the short form of the
Manual of the EPP6 Questionnaire by Eysenck et al. (2000), which is reproduced in the
Appendix.
Renner and Anderle (1998) tested young drivers in Austria using a German translation of the
Eysenck personality scales (EPS für Erwachsene, no year); the young people had just
passed their driving test and exhibited certain driving habits. Their findings show that male
respondents with specific driving habits have significantly higher raw scores on the
extraversion scale than the control group of their female colleagues; this reveals a clear
tendency to stimulus-seeking and risk-taking behaviour. However, there was no evidence of
aggressive tendencies or a general lack of respect for rules in this group. In 1999
Moosbrugger and Fischbach, working with the German version of the long form of the
questionnaire, provided further evidence of the construct validity of the Eysenck Personality
Profiler.
A study by Seiwald (1998) of the German long form established certain points that could form
a possible basis for a Rasch-homogenous short form. Using LPCM-Win 1.0 (Fischer and
Ponocny-Seliger, 1998) it was found after step-wise deletion of items that 7 of the 22 scales
are Rasch-homogenous; evaluation of the model fit was based on the classification criteria of
subscale result, gender, age and normal vs. pretended good health. The last-mentioned
criterion was selected because this questionnaire is commonly used in personnel selection.
However, further comparison studies still need to be carried out.
Intercorrelations among the scales are given in the manuals in the Appendix. Information
with regard to Form S1 can by found in Table 3.4: Intercorrelations among the Traits in the
Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (V6), which is reproduced in the Appendix.
Information with regard to Form S2 is contained in Table 4: Intercorrelations among the
Traits in the Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler (V6) (short form), which is likewise
reproduced in the Appendix.
Being a computerised test, the EPP6 is very economical to administer and score. The
administrator’s time is saved, and he is relieved of the need to calculate raw and norm
scores, because the instructions at the beginning of the test are standardised and raw and
norm scores are calculated automatically.
With regard to the time expended by respondents, evaluation of the test must take account of
the absence of a speed component and the diagnostic usefulness of the information obtained
through use of the questionnaire.
A test that meets the quality criterion of resistance to falsification is one that can prevent a
respondent answering questions in a manner deliberately intended to influence or control his
test score (Kubinger, 2003).
While issues of faking can arise with questionnaires, the risk is kept to a minimum in the
EPP6 through the use of additional variables. Socially desirable answers can be monitored
through interpretation of the dissimulation scale. The variable Number of “Can’t decide”
answers provides another means of monitoring the validity of respondents’ answers.
Confirmation of the view that questionnaires with a low number of “Can’t decide” answers
provide a more valid measurement of the measured construct was provided by a study by
Moosbrugger und Fischbach (1999) that used a German version of the long form. The
authors report a significant increase in construct validity as a result of excluding the “Can’t
decide” answers.
Using the Rasch-homogenous subscales of the German long form, Seiwald (1998)
investigated differences in scores between a group that received the standard instructions
and a group that was given false instructions. The respondents who received the false
instructions were encouraged to complete the questionnaire as though they were applying for
a job. Seiwald showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups with
regard to their results on the Rasch-homogenous subscales that were used in this study.
If tests are to meet the quality criterion of fairness, they must not systematically discriminate
against particular groups of respondents on the grounds of their sociocultural background
(Kubinger, 2003). Although empirical findings contradict the assumption that fairness can be
scaled for all scales (Seiwald 1998), there are no indications that the EPP6 is not fair with
regard to inter-individual differences in computer skills at one scale level.
The norms were obtained by calculating the mean percentile rank PR(x) for each raw score
X according to the formula (from Lienert & Raatz, 1994):
cum fx  fx 2
PRx  100 
N
cum fx corresponds to the number of respondents who have achieved the raw score X or a
lower score, fx is the number of respondents with the raw score X, and N is the size of the
sample.
Norms with a sample size of N=1394 are available in the form of percentile ranks and T-
scores for both test forms. The above-mentioned sample comprises individuals (697 male,
697 female) aged 20 and above who completed the English-language paper-and-pencil
version of the EPP6.
Table 1: Age distribution of the norm sample
Age group Men Women

N % N %
20 - 29 214 30.7 222 31.9
30 - 39 286 41.0 285 40.9
40 - 49 137 19.7 138 19.8
50 - 59 42 6.0 43 6.2
60+ 18 2.6 9 1.3
Total 697 100 697 100
Key: N = sample size in absolute figures. % = percentage of total sample.
Further details can be found in Section 2.3. “Detailed Norms of the EPP“ of the Manual of the
Eysenck Personality Profiler (V6) by Eysenck et al. (2000), which is reproduced in the
Appendix.
Work on re-norming the EPP6 on Austrian adults was carried out during 2007-08 at the test
laboratory of the Schuhfried company. This norm sample consist of 222 adults aged between
15 and 77 who completed the computerised version of the EPP6.
The age distribution of this sample is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Age distrubution of the sample “Adults – Austria”
Age group Men Women

N % N %
15 - 24 21 20.8 22 18.2
25 - 34 20 19.8 23 19.0
35 - 44 16 15.8 26 21.5
45 - 54 18 17.8 15 12.4
55 - 64 16 15.8 22 18.2
65+ 10 9.9 13 10.7
Total 101 100 121 100
Key: N = sample size in absolute figures. % = percentage of total sample.
In terms of age and gender the sample “Adults – Austria” is representative of the general
population of Austria.
The EPP6 consists of an instruction phase and the test phase itself.
The monitor must be at the same height as the response panel. It is particularly important not
to position the monitor on top of a desktop computer (see Figure 1).
Fig. 1: On-screen presentation of the EPP6
Before the test starts it is possible to make a selection from the 22 scales of the long form S1
or the 10 scales of the short form S2; if this is done, only the selected scales will be
administered to the respondent.
At the start of the test the tasks that it contains and the use of the selected input medium are
explained by means of standardised instructions.
The 440 items of Form S1 of the questionnaire or the 200 items of Form S2 are displayed
one by one on the screen. Respondents enter their answers on a three-point scale (“Yes”,
“No”, “Can’t decide”). Once the respondent has entered an answer, he clicks the “Next”
button to move on to the next item. It is possible both to omit items and to correct the
preceding item. Omitted items are re-presented at the end of the questionnaire in order to
ensure that as many items as possible are answered; however, there is no compulsion to
answer.
In general a percentile rank of < 16 can be interpreted as a below-average score on the
corresponding variable.
A percentile rank between 16 and 24 can be regarded as a below-average to average result

on the corresponding variable.
A percentile rank between 25 and 75 can be regarded as an average result on the

Percentile ranks between 76 and 84 reflect an average to above-average result on the

A percentile rank of >84 indicates a clearly above-average result on the corresponding

variable.
Individuals with high (PR>84) or low (PR<16) scores on the variable Extraversion have
high/low scores on the majority of the following scales and can accordingly be described as
follows:
Activity – Low scorers have low activity levels; high scorers have high activity levels.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are generally active and energetic.
They tend to be starters of work and be proactive. They also tend to have several projects on
the go at any one time. They also enjoy all kinds of physical activity including hard work and
exercise. They tend to wake early and quickly in the morning, move rapidly from one activity
to another, and pursue a wide variety of different interests. High activity is an extravert
characteristic.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are inclined to be physically evenly
paced, and sometimes are easily tired. They move about the world at a leisurely pace, prefer
to perform tasks one at a time and tend to be good finishers of work. They prefer quiet
environments. Low activity goes with introversion.
Sociability - Low scorers are less sociable; high scorers are highly sociable.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable have an inclination to seek out the
company of other people. They like social functions such as meetings, selling to people,
going to parties and dances. They tend to meet people easily and are generally happy and
comfortable in social situations. High sociability is a key aspect of extraversion.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable prefer to have only a few special
friends. They enjoy solo activities such as reading, painting or working with computers and
have difficulty finding things to talk about to other people. They are inclined to withdraw from
oppressive social contacts. Low sociability is a component of introversion.
Expressiveness - low scorers have less of a tendency to be expressive; high scorers have
more of a tendency to be expressive.
This refers to a general tendency to display one’s emotions openly and outwardly.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable tend to be open with their feelings,
volatile and demonstrative. Others tend to find it relatively easy to relate to expressive
people.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are reserved, even-tempered, cool,
detached and generally controlled as regards the expression of their thoughts and feelings.
This can make them difficult to read by colleagues.
Assertiveness - low scorers have low levels of assertiveness; high scorers have high levels
of assertiveness.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable have what is sometimes called a
“strong personality”: they are independent, dominant, and stand up for their rights, perhaps to
the extent of being viewed as “pushy”. They tend to be at the centre of attention at meetings.
People with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are humble, timid, submissive, disinclined
to take the initiative in interpersonal situations and may be easily imposed upon. A form of
social skills therapy called “assertiveness training” sets out to bolster this attribute, hopefully
without increasing aggressiveness.
Ambition - low scorers have a low level of achievement orientation; high scorers have a high
level of achievement orientation.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are ambitious, hard-working,
competitive, keen to improve their social standing and place a high value on productivity and
creativity within their area of work.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable place little value on competitive
performance or creative output within their area of work. They may have other interests that
preoccupy them outside of work.
Dogmatism - low scorers have a low level of dogmatism; high scorers have a high level of
dogmatism.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable have set, uncompromising views on
most matters and are likely to defend them vigorously and vociferously.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are less rigid and less likely to see
things in black and white; they are open to rational persuasion and tolerant of uncertainty.
Aggression - low scorers have low aggression; high scorers have high aggression.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are given to the direct or indirect
expression of aggression through behaviours such as temper tantrums, fighting, violent
argument and sarcasm. They take no nonsense from anyone and feel compelled to return
fire or “get back” at anyone who transgresses against them.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are gentle, even-tempered, prefer to
avoid personal conflict and are not given to violence, either physical or indirect.
Individuals with high (PR>84) or low (PR<16) scores on the variable Emotionality have
follows:
Low self-esteem/inferiority - low scorers have high confidence in their abilities; high scorers
have feelings of inferiority.
This refers to the self-perception of inferiority rather than to any objective assessment of the
individual’s worth.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable have a low opinion of themselves,
believing that they are unattractive failures whatever their actual qualities or achievements.
An extreme high score might be thought of as approximating to the celebrated “inferiority
complex”.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable have high levels of self-confidence.
They believe in themselves and their abilities. They think of themselves as worthy, useful
human beings, and believe that they are well-liked by other people. Without necessarily
implying conceit it could be said that they like themselves a lot.
Unhappiness – low scorers are happy; high scorers are unhappy.

Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are characteristically pessimistic,
gloomy and depressed, disappointed with their existence and at odds with the world. They
are of course more prone to clinical depression, though there is no single cut-off point where
therapy is indicated.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are generally cheerful, optimistic and
well. They are satisfied with their existence, find life rewarding and are at peace with the
world.
Anxiety – low scorers are calm; high scorers are worriers.

Individuals with a high score on this variable are easily upset by things that go wrong. They
are somewhat ”jumpy” and are inclined to worry unnecessarily about unpleasant things that
may or may not happen. Such people account for a high proportion of the consumption of
minor tranquillisers like Librium and Valium.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are placid, serene and resistant to
irrational fears and anxieties. On average, women admit to a higher degree of fear and
anxiety than men, but there is considerable overlap between the sexes.
Dependence – low scorers are self-reliant; high scorers are dependent.

Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable lack self-reliance, think of themselves
as helpless pawns of fate, are pushed around by other people and events and show a high
degree of what has been called “authoritarian submission” - the unquestioning obedience to
institutional power.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are autonomous, enjoy a great deal of
freedom and independence, make their own decisions, view themselves as the master of
their own fate and take realistic action to solve their problems.
Hypochondria – low scorers have a good sense of health; high scorers have a poor sense of
health.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are stress prone. They acquire
psychosomatic symptoms and imagine that they are ill. Such people complain of a wide
variety of diffuse physical symptoms, show a great deal of concern about their physical
health, and frequently demand the sympathetic attention of their doctor and their family and
friends. It should be noted that a high score on this scale could be obtained by someone who
is physically ill, but the variety of symptoms sampled makes this extremely unlikely.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are seldom ill and do not worry very
much about their health. They are also generally resistant to stress.
Guilt – low scorers lack feelings of guilt; high scorers have feelings of guilt.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are self-blaming, self-abasing and
troubled by their conscience regardless of whether or not their behaviour is really morally
reprehensible.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are little inclined to punish themselves
or regret their past behaviour. This does not mean that they are blameless, just that their
conscience is non-punitive.
Obsessiveness – low scorers have low levels of obsessiveness; high scorers have high
levels of obsessiveness.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are careful, conscientious, highly
disciplined, staid, finicky and easily irritated by things that are unclean, untidy or out of place.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are casual and easy-going, with less
need for order, routine or ritual.
Individuals with high (PR>84) or low (PR<16) scores on the variable Adventurousness have
follows:
Risk-taking – low scorers take fewer risks; high scorers take more risks.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable like to live dangerously and seek
rewards with little concern for the possible adverse consequences. Characteristically, they
are gamblers who believe that “an element of risk adds spice to life”.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable indicate a preference for familiarity,
safety and security, even if this means sacrificing some degree of excitement in life.
Impulsiveness – low scorers are controlled in their behaviour; high scorers are impulsive.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are inclined to act on the spur of the
moment; they make hurried, often premature decisions and are usually carefree, changeable
and unpredictable.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable consider matters very carefully before
making a decision. They are systematic, orderly, cautious and plan their life out in advance:
they think before they speak and “look before they leap”.
Irresponsibility – low scorers are careful and considerate; high scorers are irresponsible.
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable describe themselves as irresponsible.
Irresponsible people are inclined to be overly casual, thoughtless, careless of protocol,
unpredictable and socially unreliable. There is no necessary implication of delinquency or
psychopathy. Psychopaths and criminals are usually irresponsible but the converse is by no
means certain; many people would score high on this factor without criminal intent.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are likely to be conscientious, reliable,
trustworthy and serious-minded, possibly even a little bit compulsive.
Manipulativeness – low scorers are empathetic; high scorers are manipulative.

Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are detached, calculating, shrewd,
worldly, expedient and self-interested in their dealings with other people.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are warm-hearted, trusting, sensitive,
straightforward and altruistic, perhaps also a little naive and gullible.
Sensation-seeking – low scorers seek security; high scorers seek excitement.

Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are forever seeking thrills in life. They
have an insatiable thirst for novel experiences and require regular “jabs” in order to stave off
boredom. To this end they will accept a moderate level of danger to life and limb.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable have little need for excitement or
adventure; instead they prefer the secure and familiar comforts of “home”.
Tough-mindedness - low scorers are tender-minded; high scorers are tough-minded.

Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are unconcerned about crawling
insects, the sight of blood and other gruesome spectacles. They are tolerant of and probably
enjoy violence obscenity and swearing. They are disinclined to show weakness or
sentimentality of any kind, for example, by crying or expressing love, and rely on reason
rather than intuition. Some people would describe them as "macho” or "butch” in personality
(i.e. masculine).
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are easily upset by bugs, blood and
brutality. They have a high interest in delicate matters such as art, clothes and flowers.
Traditionally they would be described as "feminine” in personality.
Practicality - low scorers are reflective; high scorers are practical.

Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable are inclined to be practical, are
interested in doing things rather than thinking about them and tend to be impatient with ivory
tower theorising.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable are inclined to be interested in ideas,
abstractions, philosophical questions, discussions, speculations and knowledge for the sake
of knowledge; that is, they are generally thoughtful (in the literal sense of the word) and
introspective.
Dissimulation - low scorers have answered the questions honestly; high scorers have
answered the questions to put themselves in a positive light.
The dissimulation or lie scale is a “control key” for assessing the validity of the other self-
reported traits. In particular, when the dissimulation score is high, scores on the Emotionality
and Adventurousness variables (and the associated subscales) may appear lower than they
ought to be. Scores on the Extraversion variable (and associated subscales) are more likely
to be slightly elevated if the questions have not been answered honestly, since most people
think it is preferable to be sociable than withdrawn. However, the impact of social desirability
will depend upon the context of testing (Jackson & Wilson, 1994).
Individuals with a high score (PR>84) on this variable have put themselves in a positive
light so as to try and create a positive impression. Usually the faking is regarded as trying to
increase social desirability. A person who is genuinely virtuous might also come out with a
high score but this is relatively unlikely. If honesty is very low (PR>95) the reliability of the
questionnaire should always be regarded as doubtful.
Individuals with a low score (PR<16) on this variable have answered the questions without
trying to fake their answers so as to put themselves in a positive light. Higher dissimulation
(lie) scores are often associated with personality questionnaires when used in selection.
Profile - Overall sample:

T 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inactive Active
Unsociable Sociable
Inhibited Expressive
Submissive Assertive
Unambitious Ambitious
Flexible Dogmatic
Peaceful Aggressive
Self Esteem Inferiority
Happy Unhappy
Calm Anxious
Autonomy Dependence
Sense of Health Hypochondria
Guilt freedom Guilt
Casual Obsessive
Careful Risk taking
Control Impulsive
Responsible Irresponsible
Empathy Manipulation
Unadventurous Sensation seeking
Tender-minded Tough-minded
Reflective Practical
Low dissimulation High dissimulation
Introversion Extraversion
low Emotionality high Emotionality
Caution Adventure
PR 0.1 2.3 15.9 50.0 84.1 97.7 99.9
Comment(s): The highlighted area represents the average area of the norm score scale.
The profile is a diagrammatic representation of the normed test scores; it enables the
respondent’s performance to be compared easily with the selected reference sample. The
grey area indicates the average range; it covers the mean +/- one standard deviation. Scores
in the white area to the left are below average; those in the white area to the right are above
average. The respondent’s score is indicated by a point. The range marking to the left and
right of this point indicates the range within which the respondent’s performance lies with a
reliability of 95%.
Test protocol:
Scale Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
0 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2
1 - 10
0:14 0:14 0:52 0:45 0:41 0:50 0:47 0:25 0:15 0:32
Activity
2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 2
11 - 20
0:36 0:48 0:23 0:49 0:22 1:09 0:16 0:31 0:13 0:38
0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0
1 - 10
0:57 0:59 0:42 0:29 1:03 0:42 0:38 0:37 0:58 0:44
Sociability
2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 2
11 - 20
0:23 0:54 0:28 0:38 0:14 0:24 0:36 0:26 0:15 0:42
1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1
1 - 10
0:14 0:16 0:36 0:54 1:02 1:04 0:27 0:36 0:28 0:30
Expressiveness
1 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1
11 - 20
0:27 0:19 0:11 1:04 0:24 0:35 1:00 0:43 0:15 0:21
2 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 1
1 - 10
0:33 0:14 0:36 0:33 0:12 0:36 0:17 0:53 0:51 1:03
Assertiveness
1 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 0
11 - 20
1:01 0:42 0:47 0:43 0:21 0:17 0:12 0:33 0:38 0:56
2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 2
1 - 10
0:52 0:26 0:58 0:35 0:31 0:47 0:44 0:15 0:30 0:55
Ambition
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
11 - 20
0:41 1:06 0:21 0:39 0:16 0:48 0:57 0:37 0:30 0:44
0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1
1 - 10
0:26 0:20 0:40 0:47 0:13 0:26 0:59 0:27 0:41 0:15
Dogmatic
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0
11 - 20
0:43 1:03 0:17 0:42 0:11 0:12 0:21 0:15 0:26 0:10
1 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 2
1 - 10
0:41 0:57 1:01 1:00 0:53 1:05 0:23 0:33 0:48 0:45
Aggression
0 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 1
11 - 20
0:27 0:49 0:49 0:22 0:35 0:17 0:49 0:39 1:04 0:46
1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
1 - 10
0:47 0:52 0:53 0:40 0:38 0:57 1:00 0:57 0:34 0:23
Inferiority
2 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1
11 - 20
0:27 0:59 0:36 1:07 0:52 0:33 1:07 1:06 0:22 0:43
0 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0
1 - 10
1:09 0:27 0:36 0:50 0:24 0:40 0:39 0:20 0:16 1:06
Unhappiness
0 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0
11 - 20
0:28 0:39 0:48 0:59 0:11 0:53 0:11 1:00 0:25 0:38
0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 2
1 - 10
0:51 0:27 1:08 0:26 1:05 0:19 0:46 0:31 0:49 0:34
Anxiety
0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0
11 - 20
0:53 0:31 0:11 0:41 1:04 1:03 1:05 0:15 0:44 1:00
0 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 1
1 - 10
0:50 0:18 0:36 0:58 0:22 0:38 1:04 0:41 0:17 0:26
Dependence
1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 1 2
11 - 20
0:26 0:15 0:50 0:36 0:10 0:40 0:29 0:52 0:48 0:45
2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 1
1 - 10
0:27 0:19 0:19 1:07 0:10 1:01 0:56 0:24 0:45 0:14
Hypochondria
1 2 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 1
11 - 20
0:25 0:34 0:35 1:00 0:21 0:39 0:37 0:28 1:07 0:47
1 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0
1 - 10
0:16 0:23 0:34 0:42 0:25 0:59 0:39 0:10 1:01 0:32
Guilt
1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
11 - 20
0:41 0:59 0:21 0:59 0:16 0:53 1:06 0:22 0:54 0:50
1 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1
1 - 10
1:08 0:38 0:33 0:45 0:33 0:50 0:27 0:17 0:32 0:35
Obsessiveness
2 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0
11 - 20
1:00 0:49 0:14 0:45 0:38 0:10 0:17 0:38 0:14 0:21
2 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 0
1 - 10
0:31 0:23 0:51 0:12 1:05 0:42 0:43 0:36 0:11 0:29
Risk-Taking
0 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
11 - 20
0:27 0:24 0:52 0:20 0:25 0:12 1:00 1:05 0:18 0:37
2 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2
1 - 10
0:59 0:29 0:43 0:20 0:51 0:51 0:40 0:47 0:12 0:57
Impulsiveness
0 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 2
11 - 20
0:47 0:14 0:31 0:57 0:25 0:34 1:05 0:28 0:51 1:01
1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2
1 - 10
0:24 0:10 1:02 0:21 0:51 1:03 0:55 1:01 1:09 0:48
Irresponsibility
2 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 1
11 - 20
0:46 0:36 0:38 0:14 0:55 0:16 1:07 0:18 0:32 0:49
0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2
1 - 10
0:15 0:25 0:54 0:51 0:40 0:53 0:52 0:33 0:14 0:59
Manipulativeness
1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 2
11 - 20
1:02 1:01 0:55 0:18 0:34 0:50 0:35 0:38 0:52 1:02
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 0
1 - 10
0:57 0:35 0:17 1:08 0:35 1:07 0:57 0:16 0:39 1:00
Sensation-Seeking
0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2
11 - 20
0:53 0:29 0:24 0:30 0:38 0:26 0:56 0:12 0:57 0:54
1 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2
1 - 10
0:58 0:49 0:35 0:15 0:42 1:02 0:56 0:48 0:18 0:28
Tough-Mindedness
2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
11 - 20
0:22 0:41 0:23 0:18 0:58 0:14 0:26 0:11 0:50 0:37
0 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 1
1 - 10
1:04 0:13 0:16 0:28 1:00 0:11 0:20 0:56 0:51 0:46
Practical
1 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2
11 - 20
0:51 0:35 0:50 1:03 0:53 0:33 0:59 0:43 0:17 0:52
2 1 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 2
1 - 10
0:40 0:10 0:30 0:59 0:14 0:52 1:07 0:14 0:53 0:54
Dissimulation
2 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 0
11 - 20
0:12 0:52 0:44 0:58 1:01 1:00 0:19 0:48 0:37 1:09
Comment(s): T he numbers in the fields mean: answer selected: 2 = yes, 1 = can't decide, 0 = no (underlined:
answer was corrected), ? = item was not answered; working time in minutes:seconds; ——: item was not
presented
The test protocol reveals how each item of each scale was answered, whether the answer
was corrected and how long the respondent took to answer each question. This can be used
to investigate whether a higher than average number of problems arose at any particular
point during the test.
For each subtest the test protocol can be selected or deselected in the scoring screen via the
“Options” button on the right-hand side.
Bartussek, D., (1991). Sechzig Jahre faktorenanalytische Persönlichkeitsforschung: Ein
Überblick über die vier Gesamtsysteme der Persönlichkeit. Trierer Psychologische
Berichte 18, Vol. 5.
Eysenck, H., Wilson, G. & Jackson, C. (2000). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler.
Guildford: Psi-Press
Eysenck, H., Eysenck, S.B.G. (no year). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS
Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton
Eysenck, H., Wilson, G. & Jackson, C. (2000). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Profiler
(Short V6). Guildford: Psi-Press
Fischer G. & Ponocny-Seliger, E. (1998). Structural Rasch Modeling. Handbook of the Usage
of LPCM-WIN 1.0. Groningen: ProGAMMA / Department of Psychology, University
of Vienna.
Jackson, C. J. and Wilson, G.D (1994) Group obsessiveness as a moderator of dissimulation
on neuroticism scales. European Journal of Personality Assessment 10, 224-228.
Moosbrugger, H. & Fischbach, A. (1999). How to improve the reliability and validity of a
German version of Eysenck's Personality Profiler (EPP). (Series: Arbeiten aus dem
Institut für Psychologie, Vol. 1999/8). Frankfurt a.M.: Universität, Institut für
Psychologie, Frankfurt a. M.
Renner, G. & Anderle, F-G. (1998). Reizsuche und Extraversion als Prädiktoren
verkehrsauffälligen Verhaltens – eine Pilotstudie. In J. Glück, O. Vitouch, M. Jirasko
& B. Rollett (Eds.), Perspektiven psychologischer Forschung in Österreich (pp.163-
166). Vienna: Universitätsverlag
Seiwald, B. B. (1998). Eine testtheoretische Analyse des neuen EPP-D. In J. Glück, O.
Vitouch, M. Jirasko & B. Rollett (Eds.), Perspektiven psychologischer Forschung in
Österreich (pp.193-196). Vienna: Universitätsverlag.
 PARTS OF THE MANUAL OF THE EYSENCK PERSONALITY PROFILER (EPP V6)
 MANUAL OF THE EYSENCK PERSONALITY PROFILER (SHORT)

H. J. Eysenck, Ph.D., D.Sc.,
Professor Emeritus, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
G. D. Wilson Ph.D., FBPsS, C.Psychol.

Reader in Personality, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
Edited and updated by:

C. J. Jackson MPhil Ph.D., C.Psychol (Occ.), AFBPsS.
Lecturer in Psychology, University of Surrey
H. J. Eysenck & G. D. Wilson

C. J. Jackson
© Revised by PSi-Press, 2000

Manual Version 6.1, January 2000
All trademarks and copyrights acknowledged.
The authors and publishers have made every effort to ensure that the manual, questionnaire
and software are of the highest standard but can accept no liability in terms of accuracy,
reliability, currentness, legality or otherwise. Moreover, the authors and publishers accept no
liability for any uses of which the Eysenck Personality Profiler may be utilised. It is a specific
condition of use that the purchaser accepts that the authors and publishers entire and sole
liability shall be a full replacement of the manual and questionnaires.
The authors and publishers only authorise registered users to use the personality profiler and
manual.
The Eysenck Personality Profiler provides an extremely accurate insight into

personality. Since this inevitably reveals weaknesses as well as strengths, users are
advised to use the test only with regard to best practice. Specifically, users are
advised to provide feedback to people who have been tested in order to answer any
questions and concerns that they might have. Never use the test as the sole method
for selection and appraisal.
Always follow your country’s code of conduct such as that issued by the British
Psychological Society
Always act within your country’s legal framework, especially with regard to equal
opportunities
Always ensure that people taking the EPP sign the declaration
You will need to register under your country’s Data Protection Act or equivalent.
For all further information contact:

PSi-Press
54 High View Road
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 5RT
UNITED KINGDOM
tel: +44(0)1483 567 606
fax: +44(0)1483 456 239
e-mail: sales@psi-press.co.uk
web-site: http://www.psi-press.co.uk
1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................26
1.2 History of the EPP and the EPQ ....................................................................................26
1.3 The EPP Scales ............................................................................................................27
1.3.1 Extraversion .............................................................................................................27
1.3.2 Introversion ..............................................................................................................28
1.3.3 Neuroticism ..............................................................................................................28
1.3.4 Adventurousness (Psychoticism) .............................................................................28
1.3.5 Dissimulation (or Lie scale) ......................................................................................29
1.3.6 Item construction ......................................................................................................30
1.4 The EPP and Personality Theory...................................................................................31
1.4.1 The hierarchical Model .............................................................................................32
1.4.2 The EPP Scales and Classical Theory .....................................................................33
1.5 Comparison to other systems ........................................................................................34
1.5.1 Dimensional validity .................................................................................................34
1.5.2 Cross-cultural validity ...............................................................................................35
1.5.3 Longitudinal consistency ..........................................................................................36
1.5.4 Genetic factors .........................................................................................................37
1.6 Personality and behavior ...............................................................................................38
1.6.1 Criminality ................................................................................................................38
1.6.2 Sexual behaviour .....................................................................................................39
1.6.3 Smoking ...................................................................................................................39
1.6.4 Learning ...................................................................................................................39
1.6.5 Accident-proneness .................................................................................................40
1.6.6 Sport ........................................................................................................................40
1.6.7 Research .................................................................................................................40
1.6.8 Clinical .....................................................................................................................40
1.6.9 Occupational ............................................................................................................41
1.7 The biology of Personality .............................................................................................42
1.7.1 Summary .................................................................................................................45
1.8 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................45
2.1 The trait structure of the EPP.........................................................................................46

2.2 The type structure of the EPP ........................................................................................57
2.3 Detailed Norms of the EPP ............................................................................................61
2.4 Administration Guidelines ..............................................................................................66
2.4.1 Prior to testing ..........................................................................................................66
2.4.2 Start of testing ..........................................................................................................66
2.4.3 Testing .....................................................................................................................66
2.4.4 Rapport ....................................................................................................................66
2.4.5 Disability ..................................................................................................................67
2.4.6 Test Administration ..................................................................................................67
2.4.7 Feedback .................................................................................................................67
2.4.8 Records ...................................................................................................................68
2.5 Cautions ........................................................................................................................68
2.6 Description of the traits ..................................................................................................69
2.6.1 E1: Activity (a sub-scale of extraversion)..................................................................69
2.6.2 E2: Sociability (a sub-scale of extraversion) .............................................................69
2.6.3 E3: Expressiveness (a sub-scale of extraversion) ....................................................69
2.6.4 E4: Assertivenesse (a sub-scale of extraversion) .....................................................70
2.6.5 E5: Ambition (a sub-scale of extraversion) ...............................................................70
2.6.6 E6: Dogmatic (a sub-scale of extraversion) ..............................................................70
2.6.7 E7: Aggression (a sub-scale of extraversion) ...........................................................70
2.6.8 N1: Low Self-Esteem (a sub-scale of neuroticism) ...................................................71
2.6.9 N2: Unhappiness (a sub-scale of neuroticism) .........................................................71
2.6.10 N3 Anxiety (a sub-scale of neuroticism) ...................................................................71
2.6.11 N4: Dependence (a sub-scale of neuroticism) ..........................................................71
2.6.12 N5: Hypochondria (a sub-scale of neuroticism) ........................................................72
2.6.13 N6: Guilt (a sub-scale of neuroticism).......................................................................72
2.6.14 N7: Obsessiveness (a sub-scale of neuroticism) ......................................................72
2.6.15 P1: Risk-Taking (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism) .........................72
2.6.16 P2: Impulsiveness (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism)......................73
2.6.17 P3: Irresponsible (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism) ........................73
2.6.18 P4: Manipulative (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism) ........................73
2.6.19 P5: Sensation-Seeking (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism) ..............73
2.6.20 P6: Tough-Mindeness (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism) ................74
2.6.21 P7: Practical (a sub-scale of adventurousness or psychoticism) ..............................74
2.6.22 Dissimulation (Lie) Scale ..........................................................................................74
The Eysenck Personality Profiler is a direct development of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire. This section also describes the development of the EPP and the EPQ as well
as explaining the personality theory on which these two tests are based.
The EPP is based on a solid line of questionnaire development: The Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ) is itself a development of various earlier personality questionnaires; it
differs from the latest of these (the EPI, or Eysenck Personality Inventory) by including an
additional scale, and by having made improvements in other scales.
The first questionnaire in this series was the Maudsley Medical Questionnaire (Eysenck,
1952); this was a forty item measure of N (neuroticism or emotionality). It was followed by the
Maudsley Personality Inventory, which contained scales for the measurement of N and E
(extraversion-introversion).
The MPI (Eysenck, 1959) was in turn followed by the EPI (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964); this
added a "Lie" scale to measure dissimulation, and provided two alternative forms (A and B)
for repeated testing of the same population. In addition, the EPI was written in somewhat
simplified English, in order to make it easier for less highly educated subjects to understand
the questions.
1952 Maudesley Medical Neuroticism

Questionnaire
1959 Maudesley Personality Neuroticism
Inventory
1964 Eysenck Personality Neuroticism
Inventory Extraversion
1975 Eysenck Personality Extraversion
Questionnaire Neuroticism
Psychoticism
Dissimulation
Questionnaire (Revised) Neuroticism
90 Items Psychoticism
Dissimulation
Profiler Emotionality
630 Items (Neuroticism)
Tough-mindedness
(Psychoticism)
Profiler Emotionality
440 Items (Neuroticism)
Adventurousness
(Psychoticism)
Dissimulation
Profiler – Short version Neuroticism
200 items Psychoticism
Lie scale
Profiler (v6) Neuroticism
440 items Adventurousness
(Psychoticism)
Dissimulation
And Eysenck Personality Extraversion
Profiler Short (V6) Neuroticism
200 items Psychoticism
Lie Scale
The EPI was also designed with certain psychometrically desirable improvements over the
MPI; e.g., the dimensions of E and N were completely independent in the EPI, whereas they
had been slightly correlated in the MPI. Also, the reliability of the EPI was somewhat higher.
Corresponding scales on the two inventories do of course correlate so highly that they must
be assumed to measure identical dimensions of personality, and for most practical purposes
they are interchangeable; similarly, the E and N scales of the EPQ are so similar to the
corresponding scales of the other questionnaires that whatever has been discovered about
correlates of E and N with the use of the older scales should be assumed to apply with equal
force to the EPQ scales.
The EPQ introduced a new variable, which is labelled P for psychoticism, although this
psychiatric term should not be taken to imply that the scales are not useful for the
measurement of personality traits in normal persons. The word "psychoticism", as we shall
explain presently in some detail, simply refers to the underlying personality trait present in
varying degrees in all persons; if present in marked degree, it predisposes a person to the
development of psychiatric abnormalities. However, the possession of such predisposition is
a far cry from actual psychosis, and only a very small proportion of people with high P scores
are likely to develop a psychosis in the course of their lives.
For many practical purposes and certainly for discussing the results of the inventory with lay
people, it is useful to omit psychiatric terms like "neuroticism" and "psychoticism" altogether,
and refer instead to "emotionality" and "adventure/caution" as used in the EPP.
Descriptively, the factorial studies of E have resulted in a picture which may resemble, but is
certainly not identical with, that given by Jung. Below is a brief account of the "typical"
extravert and of the "typical" introvert; these may be regarded as idealised extremes on a
continuum to which real people may approach to a greater or lesser degree.
The typical extrovert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk
to, and does not like reading or studying by themselves. S/he craves excitement, takes
chances, and risks, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally impulsive. S/he is fond
of practical jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change; s/he is carefree,
easy-going, optimistic and likes to "laugh and be merry". Extraverts prefer to keep moving
and doing things, tend to be aggressive and lose their temper quickly. Altogether feelings are
not kept under tight control and s/he is not always a reliable person.
The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than
people; s/he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends. Introverts tend to plan ahead,
"look before they leap" and distrust the impulse of the moment. S/he does not like
excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes a well-ordered
mode of life. S/he keeps feelings under close control, seldom behaves in an aggressive
manner, and does not lose his/her temper easily. S/he is reliable, somewhat pessimistic, and
places great value on ethical standards.
As regards N, no such account is perhaps required as our description would be very similar
to those given by countless other writers since Woodworth published his Personal Data
Sheet and Taylor her Manifest Anxiety Scale. However, for the sake of completeness we
may describe the typical high N scorer.
The high N scorer is an anxious, worrying individual, moody and frequently depressed; likely
to sleep badly, and to suffer from various psychosomatic disorders. S/he is overly emotional,
reacting too strongly to all sorts of stimuli, and finding it difficult to get back on an even keel
after each emotionally arousing experience. The neurotic's strong emotional reactions
interfere with proper adjustment, making him/her react in irrational, sometimes rigid ways.
When combined with extraversion, such an individual is likely to be touchy and restless,
become excitable and even aggressive.
If the high N individual is to be described in one word, one might say "worrier" - a
preoccupation with things that might go wrong, and a strong emotional reaction of anxiety to
these thoughts. The stable individual, on the other hand, tends to respond unemotionally and
only slowly and generally weakly, and to return to baseline quickly after emotional arousal;
s/he is usually calm, even-tempered, controlled and unworried.
A high P scorer may be described as solitary, not caring for people; and often troublesome,
not fitting in anywhere. S/he may be cruel and inhumane, lacking in feeling and empathy and
altogether insensitive. The high P scorer is hostile to others, even his/her own kith and kin,
and aggressive, even to loved ones. S/he has a liking for odd and unusual things, and a
disregard for danger; s/he likes to make fools of other people and to upset them.
This is a description of adult high P scorers. As far as children are concerned, we obtain a
fairly congruent picture of an odd, isolated, troublesome child; glacial and lacking in human
feelings for his or her fellow-beings and animals; aggressive and hostile, even to near-and-
dear ones. Such children try to make up for lack of feeling by indulging in sensation-seeking
"arousal jabs" without thinking of the dangers involved. Socialisation is a concept which is
relatively alien to both adults and children; empathy, feelings of guilt, sensitivity to other
people are notions which are strange and unfamiliar to them.
This description, of course, refers in its entirety only to extreme examples; persons scoring
relatively high, but nearer the middle range of scores, would of course be far more frequent
than extremes, and would only show these behaviour patterns to a much less highly
developed degree. Psychiatric terms which would seem to assimilate this kind of behaviour
pattern are "schizoid" and "psychopathic"; "behaviour disorders" is another term which
springs to mind. Our concept of "psychoticism" overlaps with all three of these diagnostic
terms whilst adventurousness reflects high scores likely to be achieved within the general
population.
In spite of the psychiatric nature of the term used, and its resemblance to other psychiatric
concepts, it must be emphasised that our scale differs profoundly from pathological scales
like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. We are dealing throughout with normal
behaviours, not with symptoms; just as in the case of neuroticism, we are concerned with
personality variables underlying behaviours which become pathological only in extreme
cases. It is for this reason that this scale is appropriate for use with normal, non-pathological
samples of the population, and it is for this reason we have suggested that in the interests of
communication with users who are not familiar with the underlying theory the terms
"neuroticism" and "psychoticism" be dropped, and the terms "emotionality" and
"adventure/caution" be substituted. This substitution would also be useful in allaying the fears
of many people likely to be aroused when dealing with scales in which one end is clearly
more socially desirable than the other; social desirability has often been shown to interfere
with truthful answering of questions in personality inventories.
A fourth scale is the "Lie" scale (L). This scale, which was first incorporated in our series of
questionnaires in the EPI, attempts to measure a tendency on the part of some subjects to
"fake good"; this tendency is particularly marked when the questionnaire is administered
under conditions where people are particularly motivated to appear virtuous (e.g., as part of
an employment interview).
A series of factorial and experimental studies has been carried out to investigate the nature
of this scale in some detail (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1971). It is clear that the scale possesses
a considerable degree of factorial unity - individual items have high loadings on this factor,
and on no other. However, there are certain difficulties in regarding scores as nothing but
indicators of dissimulation. The main difficulty seems to be that in addition to measuring
dissimulation, the L scale also measures some stable personality factor which may possibly
denote some degree of social naivety. The evidence is strong on both points (Eysenck and
Eysenck, 1968). The L scale does measure dissimulation; Michaelis and Eysenck, 1971
have shown that it is possible to manipulate L-scale scores by varying the experimental
conditions from high to low motivation to dissimulate. However, if dissimulation were the only
factor affecting the variance of this score, then the reliability of the score should be a function
of the size of score; when scores are low (indicating that subjects are not dissimulating) then
the scale should have a low reliability.
Empirically, this has not been found to be so; there is no lowering of reliability of the L scale
under the conditions of little dissimulation, and no increase in reliability under conditions of
high dissimulation. Hence the scale must measure some stable personality function;
unfortunately little is known about the precise nature of this function.
Michaelis and Eysenck have shown that the dissimulation motivating conditions can be
distinguished fairly adequately from the non-motivating conditions by noting the correlation
between N and L. When conditions are such as to provide high degrees of motivation for
dissimulation, the correlation between N and L is relatively high (approaching or even
exceeding -0.5). When conditions are such as to provide little motivation for dissimulation,
the correlation between N and L becomes quite small, or vanishes altogether. Thus under
conditions of little motivation to dissimulate, the L-scale score may be used as a measure of
whatever personality function is being measured by the scale; this would seem to constitute
an important experimental problem.
Under these conditions there is little point in trying to correct for dissimulation, and hence the
scale should not be used for that purpose. Under conditions of high motivation to dissimulate
(i.e., when the correlation between N and L is relatively high) the L-scale may be used with
advantage to screen out dissimulators, the highest 5% of L scorers for instance. No definite
cut-off point is being suggested beyond which subjects should be eliminated, as this depends
on the general level of scoring of the population, as well as its age; the L-scale score
decreases with age in children, and increases with age in adults.
Perhaps the best advice that can be given at this stage to investigators is to analyse their
data first of all without eliminating any subjects on the basis of high L scores with all relevant
personality and experimental variables. They should next eliminate the highest-scoring 5% of
L scorers, and repeat the process of working out correlations. This procedure of eliminating
high L scorers can be repeated with progressively higher numbers of subjects, until it
becomes clear from the regression of the results whether L has any influence on the results,
and in which direction this influence is working.
Under special circumstances it may be possible to correct for correlations between

experimental variables, on the one hand, and N, E and P on the other, by partialling out L, or
by correcting the personality-variable scores in some systematic fashion for interference by
L. This would have to be decided in each case on psychometric grounds depending on
circumstances.
When the L-score mean of a group seems high we normally recommend dividing the data
into high and low L scores and analysing each group separately. If the means and the
correlations of L with N and P are similar, the data can be treated as one group (there are
some groups of subjects which have high L scores but do not alter the replies to the other
factors accordingly. This would produce a low NL and PL correlation in spite of a high L
mean and would lead us to trust the P, E and N scores of the group.
If, on the other hand, correlations of L with N and P are higher in the high lie mean group
than in the low lie mean group, the reliable group is obviously the latter one and the former
must be kept separate for subsequent analyses and interpretations.
In psychological assessment tests, the actual questions asked are termed "items". The items
used in the construction of the EPP and its predecessors were originally largely taken from
the published work of Thurstone, Guilford and other writers who were working in this field
around the 1940s and 50s. No originality is claimed, but very extensive analyses were done
to compare the different constructs of Guilford's and Cattell's with our own (Eysenck and
Eysenck 1969). It is in the construction of the scales, and the theoretical work underlying
these, that the originality of EPP lies.
We may add, however, that as the theoretical understanding of the nature of P, E and N
increased, new items were written and added to the pool, in each case carrying out a number
of factor analyses to make certain that the new item would blend with one or other of the
three factors, as hypothesised, but did not show loadings on the other factors.
The EPQ has been deliberately devised to be a relatively short scale, including only 90
items; each scale is heterogeneous in the sense that it incorporates a number of traits, as
already shown in relation to our hierarchical systems. It is of course possible to measure
these traits by having a separate scale for each, but that increases the number of items to an
extent which makes the instrument difficult or impractical for normal usage. The extended
version of the EPQ, containing 440 items, spread over 21 scales of 20 items each is the
EPP.
The EPP differs from most if not all other systems of personality description and
measurement in a variety of ways which will become clear in due course. It is closely
integrated with the theory of personality development; it is firmly grounded in a causal
theory of personality determination; and it claims to have universal applicability, ie not to be
dependent on cultural factors. It also claims to represent a paradigm (ie a system of
description and measurement which is largely independent of specific samples or
instruments of measurement). The system has grown through a process of empirical study
and theoretical improvement for a period of over 40 years, beginning with "Dimensions of
Personality" (Eysenck, 1947), through "The Scientific Study of Personality" (Eysenck, 1952),
"The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria" (Eysenck, 1957), "The Biological Basis of
Personality" (Eysenck, 1981), to "Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science
Approach" (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). This last is the best reference to the present status
of the paradigm, but the history can best be traced in "The Structure of Human Personality"
(Eysenck, 1970).
A brief historical note may be appropriate. When Eysenck started working in this field, the
notion of trait psychology was at its nadir, having fewer defenders than when it was later
under attack by Mischel, and had to be defended against the empty doctrines of
"situationalism" (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1980). The reasons for this low estimate of trait
psychology lay largely in the arbitrary nature of the way in which personality inventories for
the measurement of such dimensions as neuroticism and introversion were constructed.
As Vernon demonstrated (Vernon, 1938), alleged measures of introversion correlated as

highly with other measures of introversion, and similarly measures of neuroticism correlated
highly with measures of introversion as with other measures of neuroticism. Construction of
questionnaires rested on hunches which were never tested and there was little psychometric
study of the consequences of the arbitrary allocation of items to concepts.
Neither was there any conceptual model of personality; interest was almost exclusively in
clinical or industrial applications of these ill-conceived measures. The work described in
"dimensions of Personality" suggested the usefulness of a hierarchical model, which is
illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Hierarchical Model of Personality

It will be seen that we are here dealing with four levels of behaviour-organisation. At the
lowest level, we have specific responses. These are acts, such as responses to an
experimental test or to experiences of everyday life, which are observed once, and may or
may not be characteristic of the individual.
At the second level, we have what are called habitual responses. These are specific
responses which tend to recur under similar circumstances; i.e. if the test is repeated, a
similar response is given, or if the life-situation recurs, the individual reacts in a similar
fashion. This is the lowest level of organisation; roughly-speaking, the amount of organisation
present here can be measured in terms of reliability coefficients, (i.e. in terms of the
probability that on repetition of a situation behaviour will be consistent).
At a third level, we have organisations of habitual acts into traits. These traits, accuracy,
irritability, persistence, rigidity, etc., are theoretical constructs, based on observed
intercorrelations of a number of different habitual responses. In the language of the factor
analyst, they may be conceived of as group factors.
At the fourth level, we have organisation of traits into a general type; in our example, the
extravert. This organisation also is based on observed correlations, this time on correlations
between the various traits which between them make up the concept of the type under
discussion. Thus in our example, sociability, impulsiveness, activity, liveliness, excitability
and various other traits would form a constellation of traits intercorrelating among
themselves, thus giving rise to a higher-order construct, the type of Extraversion.
This model incorporates many features which have attracted a good deal of attention lately.
Thus it differentiates between states and traits; lower levels respond to our conception of
states, higher levels to our conception of traits. Another feature is that of aggregation, (i.e.
the suggestion that in regarding consistency of conduct we must be careful to look at
aggregates of instances rather than single items). Higher levels in the hierarchy aggregate
more instances of conduct, and are hence more reliably measured (Rushton et al., 1983).
A major advantage of this hierarchical system is of course that it is testable. We can ask
ourselves what are the major types or dimensions of personality (i.e. the concepts emerging
at level 4), and we can test specific theories as to their composition, i.e. regarding the
particular traits which correlate together to define the higher order type concepts.
A third feature of the hierarchical system, as described in "Dimensions of Personality", is its

basis in behaviour, another feature which has come to force in recent years. This, one might
have thought, would have recommended it to behaviourists, but the doctrines preached by
Watson and Skinner show little interest in individual differences in personality, and hence
behaviourists have not shown much interest in these concepts. For reasons that will become
apparent, we think that this is a great pity because human and animal behaviour are
characterised by very marked differences in reactions to identical stimuli.
Based on larger-scale factor analyses of ratings and self-ratings, (Eysenck, 1947, 1952).
Eysenck suggested that there were three major dimensions of personality, independent of
each other (Eysenck, 1952); these were labelled extraversion-introversion, neuroticism-
stability, and psychoticism-(also known as super ego control or adventurousness). The first
two of these concepts have a very long history, going back to the ancient Greek doctrine of
the four temperaments - phlegmatic, melancholic, choleric and sanguine. This doctrine was
widely accepted in Europe due to its advocacy by the famous philosopher Kant; his
descriptions of the temperaments still give us a very good representation of the traits
characteristic of them. But the system was not viable because clearly not everybody
belonged to one of the four great groups, as the theory demanded.
The person who translated these categories into a dimensional scheme was actually Wundt
(1903) - a more than unexpected candidate for the job, seeing that he was supposed to be
hostile to any notions of personality and individual differences! However, he noted that
choleric and the melancholic types had in common a high degree of emotionality, whereas
the sanguine and the phlegmatic were non-emotional; thus he defined his first dimension,
which is identical with our modern notion of neuroticism-stability.
He also noted that the choleric and the sanguine were changeable, whereas the
melancholic and the phlegmatic were unchangeable; thus he defined our second dimension
which we would now call "extraversion" as opposed to "introversion". Figure 2.2 shows the
combination of the Kant and Wundt theories, and there is no doubt that this corresponds
pretty closely to the results of modern work on ratings, self-ratings and behaviour in miniature
situations and in the laboratory.
The concept of psychoticism or adventurousness is rather more recent, and does not
have as long and involved a history as have neuroticism and extraversion; nevertheless
there is now a good deal of evidence to show that it takes a rightful place with E and N as
one of the three major dimensions of personality (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). Figure 2.3
shows the hierarchical nature of the concept, and makes clear the traits which correlate
together to define it.
EMOTIONAL
ANXIOUS QUICKLY ROUSED

WORRIED EGOCENTRIC
MELANCHOLIC UNHAPPY EGOCENTRIC
CHOLERIC
SUSPICIOUS EXHIBITIONIST
SERIOUS HOT-HEATED
THOUGHTFUL HISTRIONIC
UNCHANGEABLE CHANGEABLE
REASONABLE PLAYFUL
HIGH-PRINCIPLED EASY-GOING
PHLEGMATIC . CONTROLLED SOCIABLE
SANGUINE
PERSISTENT CAREFREE
STEADFAST HOPEFUL
CALM CONTENTED
NON-EMOTIONAL
Figure 2.2. Diagrammatic representation of Eysenck´s classical theory

Figure 2.3. Hierarchical nature of Adventurousness (Psychoticism)
Why, it may be asked, should we prefer this system as a paradigm of personality research,
rather than alternative systems, like Cattell's 16PF, or Gough's CPI, or the MMPI, or any
other? There are a series of criteria which may be used to judge different systems, and it is
on the basis of these criteria that it may be suggested that the PEN system is superior to
existing alternatives.
Our first criterion would be that the same major dimensions used in the EPP should emerge
from a meta analysis of all existing large-scale correlation and factorial studies. Such an
analysis has been undertaken by Royce and Powell (1983) and the results are shown in
Figure 2.4. This depicts a hierarchical system somewhat more detailed than the one shown
in Figure 2.1, but what is quite clear is that there are three major affective types,
corresponding to our dimensions of personality. Introversion-extraversion is identical with our
own terminology. Emotional stability is the obverse end of the neuroticism continuum.
Emotional independence is a name chosen by Royce and Powell to characterise a
dimension of personality very similar in its make-up to our notion of adventurousness
(psychoticism). Readers will have no difficulty in identifying their three major dimensions with
P, E and N.
Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) have gone in some detail into the question of whether existing
systems like the MMPI, or the 16PF, when properly factor analysed, give results similar to
those suggested, (i.e. three major dimensions at the top of the hierarchy similar to, or
identical with, P, E and N.) The answer in practically every case has been the affirmative. As
regards the MMPI, for instance, a paper by Wakefield et al. (1974) may be consulted.
Regarding the 16PF, McKenzie (1988) has demonstrated that from the Cattell items three
factors clearly resembling P, E and N can be shown to emerge. (P is somewhat rudimentary
as the Cattell items do not contain all of the characteristics of high P scorers.) The Guilford
factors can be similarly ordered in a three-dimensional super factor arrangement, labelled by
him 'anxiety' (for N), introversion-extraversion, and super ego (for psychoticism).
What would happen if instead of factor analysing correlations between items within one of
the most widely used scales, we actually correlated scales? Zuckerman et al. (1988)
correlated 46 scales from 8 tests; their very careful work isolated three major factors, and
they found that "the three-factor solution approximates the model proposed by Eysenck, and
his own scales provide excellent markers for the three factors. Correlations of factors of
course derive from data for men and women and when applied to data for the opposite sex
show very good correspondence of factors at the three-factor level" (p. 96). Zuckerman et al.
(1988) and Zuckerman (1989) discuss the issue very thoroughly, and the reader is referred
to their summaries.
2.4. The hierarchical structure of the affective system
On the first point, then, we find that the PEN model emerges unscathed. We now turn to the
second requirement, namely that the model should be of cross-cultural validity. If the model
were only applicable to Europeans, North Americans, or Australians, etc., but did not apply to
Japanese and Chinese, or to African tribes, or to members of the Communist culture, then
one would rightly feel that it has only very partial validity, and no universal applicability. A
large-scale series of studies by S.B.G. Eysenck has now been in progress for some ten
years, encompassing 35 different nationalities and cultures, ranging from the typical
European-North American groups to African cultures (Uganda, Nigeria), Indian cultures
(India, Bangladesh), Mongoloid cultures (Japan, Hong Kong Chinese, Mainland Chinese),
Middle Eastern countries like Iran, small isolated countries like Iceland, or Singapore, or Sri
Lanka; and, at the time of testing, socialist countries like the USSR, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia. In each of these countries a minimum of 500 males and
500 females were tested on a translated version of the EPQ, and factor analyses done to test
the similarity of the resulting factors to the original British standardisation group, and to each
other.
Indices of factor comparison were run between each country and every other, for male and
female separately. The results are reported in two publications (Barrett and Eysenck, 1984;
Eysenck and Eysenck, 1983). These publications only report on 25 cultures, but the results
for 35 cultures are essentially very similar, as are another series of studies carried out on
children in a variety of different countries.
Overall, indices of factor comparison between any one country and any other average 0.98,
which is an astonishingly high figure considering the diversity of countries sampled and the
difficulties of translation. Indeed, the similarity between these factors is identical to that which
emerges within a given country, when comparing the factor structure for males and females.
We may thus say with considerable conviction that the P, E and N factor system is not
dependent on cultural factors but applies universally to all populations that have been tested
hitherto.
Indeed, there is considerable evidence to show that the factor structure can be extended
even to non-human primates (Chamove, Eysenck and Harlow, 1972) and even to rats
(Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). The reason presumably is that ultimately personality is a term
used to describe interpersonal relations, and that there are only three major ways of dealing
with the challenge presented by other people. The first choice is aggression and hostility (P);
the second is fear and flight (N); and the third is social interaction (extraversion). The animal
literature is not large enough to make very definitive statements but it is sufficiently
supportive to claim that, as far as it goes, it is in line with theoretical expectation.
We now turn to the third of our criteria. Conclusions based on studies of cross-sectional
consistency demand support from studies of longitudinal consistency. A detailed survey of
the literature is given by Eysenck and Eysenck (1985). Of particular interest is the extensive
work of Hindley and Guiganino (1982), in which a longitudinal sample of 97 subjects was
rated at 3, 7, 11 and 15 years on variables selected as indices of extraversion - introversion
and neuroticism. Principal factor analysis and Varimax rotation were performed at each age,
and continuity of patterning of the variables across the four ages was determined before and
after rotation of the items to maximal contiguity by Kaiser's method. Two principal factors
clearly identifiable as E and N displayed very high continuity.
This study concerns the extent to which the behavioural characteristics assessed can be
regarded as similar in nature at different ages, i.e. the question of continuity versus this
continuity of variables. Another concern relates to the extent to which individuals maintain
their relative status across ages on the variables in question. Here the work of Conley
(1984a,b) is outstanding. He looked at the longitudinal consistency of the personality
dimensions of neuroticism and introversion-extraversion over periods extending up to 45
years. He found that scales related to these concepts had rather substantial correlations
across time periods and across personality inventories.
There seems to be little doubt from these and other studies summarised in Eysenck and
Eysenck (1985) that a person tends to retain his or her position on the major dimensions of
personality over time with considerable consistency, somewhat less than he does in the
cognitive field (intelligence), but not very much inferior. Thus our system (particularly as far
as E and N are concerned) passes this particular requirement also.
We turn next to the fourth criterion which should govern the acceptability of a system of
personality description. Man is a biosocial animal and it seems very unlikely that his
personality would be moulded entirely by environmental influences, particularly when the
same dimensions emerge cross-culturally. We would expect major dimensions of personality
to have a strong genetic basis and this indeed has been found to be so (Eaves, Eysenck and
Martin, 1989). There has been a veritable revolution in the field of the genetics of personality
with very advanced and complex systems of modelling emerging on the theoretical side and
very large-scale data collection experiments emerging on the empirical side (samples of up
to 12,000 or 15,000 pairs of twins being studied in Finland and Sweden respectively.) Quite
large samples have also been used in the original British studies of Eaves and Eysenck, the
Australian studies of Nick Martin (Eaves, Eysenck and Martin, 1989) and the American
studies of Loehlin and Nichols (1976). Most of these studies have used some form of the
Eysenck Personality Inventories, although other inventories like the CPI have also been
used.
It is reassuring that all these studies, using different measuring instruments, different
populations, different cultural frameworks and often different methods of analysis have come
to very similar conclusions. Indeed, these conclusions are very compelling because of the
size of the samples, the sophistication of the statistical treatment, and the overall agreement
on results. They may be summarised as follows:
1. Additive genetic factors (Va) account for at least 50% of the total variance in P, E, and N.
This conclusion may also be extended to a number of other personality traits which have
been studied, such as altruism, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, etc. (Eysenck, 1983).
There is no reasonable way of doubting the overwhelming significance of genetic factors
as far as personality is concerned, contrary to opinions which were dominant even as
little as ten years ago.
2. There is little evidence of assortative mating or dominance in these data. There is a
minimal amount of assortative mating as far as N and P are concerned, amounting to
perhaps 0.2 at most, and there is some slight evidence for the existence of a small
degree of dominance as far as extraversion is concerned. However, it needs very large
samples to discover such evidence, and we still cannot be certain that such dominance
actually manifests itself as far as E is concerned.
3. One of the most important results of the genetic analysis of personality has been the
discovery that between-family environmental variance is practically non-existent, so that
all the burden of environmental influences on personality development is borne within-
family environmental factors. The distinction is a very clear-cut and crucial one. In most
theories of personality it is assumed explicitly or implicitly that families have a strong
influence on the development of the personality of the children who grow up in these
families, so that differences between families (between-family environmental variance) is
the most important contributor to differences in personality. The Freudianand social
learning theories are an obvious example, but it would be difficult to find any personality
theory which did not adhere to this paradigm.
4. Within family environmental variance is much more difficult to define and pin down; it
would seem to relate to accidental happenings during the developmental period of the
child which create differences between siblings. Thus one might have a good teacher,
another a bad one, or one might have a debilitating illness, while another escapes.
Sibling position within the family is another possible variable for which there is some
empirical evidence. Probably even more important might be ante-natal influences on the
development of the foetus; these have been almost entirely disregarded by personality
psychologists, but their importance has been demonstrated in the important series of
research reported by Joffe (1969). In a series of experiments, he showed that pre-natal
events, such as shocks delivered to the mother, produced far-reaching effects on the
future behaviour of the pups in the rat population he studied. This is a field which would
almost certainly repay extensive study; at the moment all we can say is that the nature of
the environmental influences which go to shape personality are virtually unknown.
5. Individual items on a questionnaire of P, E or N differ widely in the degree to which the
answers are determined by genetic or environmental influences. It is possible to create a
scale of P, or E, or N which is much more influenced by genetic, or by environmental
factors, than are the present scales which, as we have already mentioned, show a
heritability of 50% (uncorrected for measurement error). No-one has as yet used
contrasting scales of this kind to carry out appropriate experiments, but it may be
suggested that this could be of very great importance and interest. Predictions of therapy
might be more or less successful depending on the particular heritability of the items
used in the questionnaire making the prediction. It is impossible to say any more because
the field is completely unexplored at present.
6. On very large samples it becomes obvious that the genes determining behaviour are
somewhat different for males and females, and for members of the same sex at different
ages. Here again we have an important novel contribution which has not so far given rise
to any research project to explore and extend the findings.
7. These are the major discoveries in this relatively recent field (recent as far as acceptable
methodology is concerned!), but they do enable us to state with great confidence that on
this point too our P, E and N system emerges as successful, although it should be added
that the influence of genetic factors is so universal that other higher and lower order
factors are also likely to show a considerable degree of heritability.
We now come to the last but one of the requirements for a properly paradigmatic system of
personality description. This is that the personality dimensions in question should strongly
predict and interact with important social types of behaviour. There can be little question that
this is true of the P, E and N system.
Only a few examples will be given, the first being criminality (Eysenck, 1977); Eysenck and
Gudjonsson, 1988). It was predicted that criminals, and people showing anti-social behaviour
in general, would have high scores on P, E and N. This anticipation has been strongly
supported by a large number of studies, including work on children, youths, and adults. E
seems to be more highly correlated with anti-social conduct in younger people than in older
ones, and N in older ones as compared with younger ones. P appears to be universally
correlated quite highly with delinquency and anti-social conduct. There are causal theories
mediating the linkage between personality and criminality (see Eysenck and
Gudjonsson,1988) but it would take us too far in this brief description of the EPQ to go into
further detail.
Sexual behaviour is another area of social conduct that plays an important role (Eysenck,
1976). In this book the following predictions are tested:
1. Extraverts will have intercourse earlier than introverts.

2. Extraverts will have intercourse more frequently than introverts.
3. Extraverts will have intercourse with more different partners.
4. Extraverts will have intercourse in more different positions than introverts.
5. Extraverts will indulge in more varied sexual behaviour outside intercourse.
Extraverts will indulge in longer pre-coital love-play than introverts.
Again these predictions follow from a causal theory of extraversion to be described a little
later, but there is no doubt that the evidence from our own work and that of others strongly
supports it. There are also important correlations with neuroticism and adventurousness
(psychoticism) so that sexual behaviour is very strongly determined by personality factors of
the P, E, N system.
Related to sexual behaviour is marriage, and one would expect that personality factors
should be adequate in predicting satisfaction in marriage (Eysenck and Wakefield, 1981).
Again the evidence seems to support such a view, although the empirical results do not
support either the similarity or the complementary theories of many writers in this field as far
as personality is concerned. The results are too complex and detailed to discuss here, but
they leave no doubt about the relevance of personality to marital satisfaction.
Theory suggests that personality should also be a powerful influence in smoking behaviour
and this hypothesis too has been strongly supported by large-scale empirical studies
(Eysenck, 1980). The general finding is that extraverts are more likely to smoke cigarettes
than introverts, that high N scorers are more likely to smoke cigarettes than low N scorers
and that high P scorers are also more likely to be smokers. Again there are theories linking
these behaviours with personality through biological factors which will be mentioned in a later
section.
As another example of the relationship between social behaviours and personality, consider
the relationship between personality and learning, both at school and university and in
general life. A detailed discussion has been given elsewhere (Eysenck, 1978) but quite
generally it appears that extraverts, as one might have expected, are less successful at
school and university than are introverts, and that in particular extraversion coupled with
neuroticism makes for scholastic failure. Another important finding is that different methods
of teaching appeal to different types of personality.
Thus the discovery method is much more successful with extraverts than with introverts,
while reception learning is much preferred by introverts, who are more successful with it.
Along a rather different line, McCord and Wakefield (1981) tested the hypothesis that
introverted children would respond better to punishment, extraverted ones to reward; their
results bear this prediction out at a high level of significance.
Another example which may be of interest relates to the concept of accident-proneness
(Shaw and Sichel, 1970). As they also show very clearly, high E, and high N subjects are
much more likely to be involved in industrial and traffic accidents than are other groups;
stable introverts, in particular, are much less likely to be so involved. Here again the
evidence supports the view that personality is closely integrated with important types of
social behaviour.
A final area of social interest is sport and here the relationship between sport and personality
has been established with some degree of certainty (Eysenck, Nias and Cox, 1982). Quite
generally extraverts tend to indulge more in sports than introverts, and to be more
successful; high P also helps success in competitive sports. Neuroticism is generally
correlated negatively with success in sport even to the extent that when the top shooting
team in England (Team A) was compared with the replacement team (Team B), there was a
significant difference between the two teams in the sense that Team A was more stable! It
was also found that extraversion-introversion mediated excellence in the sport depending on
the type of shooting that was involved, extraverts being more successful when targets
appeared suddenly and required rapid firing, while introverts were most successful when
targets were stationary and a long period of adjustment was possible.
The superfactors of E, N and P have been used more widely than any other personality
dimensions, particularly with respect to studies of the biological basis of individual
differences. However, many studies have also been concerned with exploring the
significance of the main components of the ‘giant three’. Traditionally, sociability and
impulsiveness were considered to be aspects of extraversion which were frequently pitted
against each other as rival claimants for explaining the correlation between extraversion and
some other variable (e.g., vigilance performance or time of day effects). However, since the
P-factor has been fully developed as the third member of the ‘giant-3' it has become clear
that impulsiveness is more aligned with P than with E. This explains many confusing findings
in the literature, but in any case was an issue that could not be addressed without separate
measurement of Sociability and Impulsiveness. Much the same applies to Risk-taking as a
trait; once considered an aspect of extraversion, it is now recognised as being more
comfortably accommodated within the P cluster of traits. By contrast, Activity and
Assertiveness, which are often measured independently, remain associated with Sociability
as aspects of extraversion. It is anticipated that researchers will find the EPP-S questionnaire
a useful compromise between the EPQ which does not offer separate measures of these
important subcomponents of E, N and P and the full EPP which has been found to be too
long and unwieldy for many research projects.
Traits of Neuroticism and Adventurousness (Psychoticism) are clearly more likely to be

troublesome or maladaptive in the extreme than are the Extraversion traits. Therefore they
are likely to have greater clinical significance. The most widely used diagnostic system for
the classification of personality disorders (the DSM-IV) has been shown to be unsatisfactory
on several counts (e.g., low reliability and difficulty in distinguishing between normal variation
on the one hand and the neurotic and psychotic categories on the other) and there is every
reason to argue for the replacement of diagnostic categories with continuous dimensions
such as the above (Costello, 1996).The MMPI is one of the most widely used personality
tests within the clinical field, but factor analysis has shown that the familiar clinical scales
collapse into psychotic, neurotic and introvert clusters with little loss of information (Wakefield
et al., 1974). This might suggest that there is little to be gained as regards diagnostic power
in breaking the giant-3 into subcomponents. There is a widespread belief within clinical
circles that Depression and Anxiety are separable syndromes requiring different
management strategies and so these components of N have been separated so that this
issue can at least be explored. Indeed, important clinical decisions might be facilitated by the
comparison between these two scores. Again, Inferiority feelings (or low self-esteem) might
seem to be an inevitable consequence, or a possible cause of depression, but without
separate measurement it would never be possible to investigate the question. Improvement
of self-esteem is also the stated aim of many humanistically oriented therapies, hence a
measure of this attribute might be useful in evaluating therapeutic progress.
Interest, aptitude and ability tests have been used for many years in occupational selection
and placement, but there is increasing recognition today that matching the individual to
his/her job with respect to personality is equally important. In fact, in situations where ability
levels are fairly similar (e.g., within the legal profession or among assembly workers)
personality may often constitute the most important variable. High levels of E (Sociability,
Assertiveness and Activity) are appropriate in many occupational contexts (e.g., sales,
entertainment, social work, receptionists, school teachers and many forms of business
enterprise). Extraverts enjoy jobs that involve travel, change, novelty and contact with
people. Introverts generally get on better in work situations that are solitary, theoretical and
constant from day to day (e.g., architect, watchmen, researchers, computer programmers
and musicians who need to practice alone a great deal). In jobs that are monotonous or
which require long periods of sustained concentration, the performance of extraverts declines
at a faster rate over time compared with introverts. Thus introverts generally last better in
assembly work and vigilance tasks (e.g., monitoring airport X-rays or security cameras). It is
also known that introverts are generally more alert in the morning hours, whereas extraverts
often come into their own in the evening.
Emotional people (those high on Anxiety, Unhappiness and Inferiority) are relatively
susceptible to stress and are therefore better to avoid occupations that require a cool head
(e.g., bomb disposal, air traffic control, driving, medical emergency work and business
positions that require rational decision making under risk or duress). On the other hand,
emotional people have qualities of empathy and sensitivity that equip them well for other
occupations such as counsellor, artist, composer, dancer and primary school teacher. Of
course, permanently high levels of anxiety, depression and pessimism may be contagious
and this has to be taken into consideration in job placement.
With respect to the three P traits, it is obvious that Risk-takers are likely to gravitate towards
certain sensation-seeking occupations such as bodyguards, stuntmen, stock market
speculators, gamblers, racing drivers and mineclearers. Although they may enjoy these
situations and feel at home in them, there is no reason to suppose that they would
necessarily be superior in discharging their duties once appointed. Indeed, to the extent that
they actually enjoy the risk component, they might cause danger to their colleagues and
companions. Much the same applies to Impulsiveness. Quick decisions may be useful, but
not if they often turn out to be the wrong ones. Irresponsibility is seldom a desirable trait
within the employment context, although the extreme opposite end of the continuum
(obsessionality) is also unhelpful in many occupational contexts. Overall, high P might
appear to be detrimental to prospects of career development, and yet it has to be conceded
that certain associated attributes such as determination, power-seeking, arrogance and
recklessness result in considerable (if unreliable and often temporary) success in fields such
as business and politics. High P individuals are also likely to show greater originality and
creativity, perhaps even genius (Eysenck, 1995).
In summary, it is clear that there is no one personality profile that is desirable where
employment decisions are concerned; it is always a case of matching the person to the
requirements and lifestyle of the job. The more constraints there are on the conduct of the
job, the more important is the role of personality in determining happiness and success within
it. Jobs such as airline pilot and assembly work are heavily constrained (permitting few
options), whereas business and teaching give more scope for creativity and hence tailoring
the environment to suit one’s own personality.
Employment decisions can be made on an intuitive basis, i.e., deciding in advance what
personality attributes are appropriate and using the EPP-S to locate them. Or, they can be
based on empirical studies conducted ‘within house’ to discover what personality profile is
predictive of job success. This requires establishing clear criteria (e.g., sales performance,
absenteeism, length of stay) and the development of a database over some period of time.
Logically, it also means keeping an open mind (i.e., not using the test for selection/rejection
decisions) until the actuarial data is available. Typical profiles have been established for
some occupational and special interest groups, e.g., physicists (Wilson & Jackson, 1994),
motor cycle enthusiasts (Jackson & Wilson, 1992) and various types of performing artists -
actors, singers, dancers and musicians (Marchant-Haycox & Wilson, 1992) but most
employers will need to gather their own data for their own particular circumstances.
We now come to the final test of the paradigmatic status of any theory of personality. Given
that all types of traits and higher order dimensions of personality are strongly determined by
genetic causes, it seems clear that these genetic influences must operate through some form
of biological substrate, whether anatomical, physiological, or biochemical. One would expect
that any far-reaching theory of personality would specify these biological determinants, and
demonstrate their relevance. Eysenck has tried to offer such theories (Eysenck, 1967;
Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976). The best established theory relates to extraversion-
introversion, and it is this theory which will be discussed in some detail.
The theory Eysenck has proposed, to put it briefly, links extraversion with low cortical
arousal, and introversion with high cortical arousal. This arousal is mediated by the
ascending reticular activating system, as illustrated in Figure 2.5. Incoming afferent pathways
take messages to the receptor areas in the brain, but collaterals also go to the ARAS, which
in turn sends out messages to the neo-cortex to keep it in a state of arousal, ready to deal
with the incoming messages. There is also a reciprocal flow of information from the neo-
cortex to the ARAS, informing it that the messages, say, are repetitive, and do not require a
high state of arousal, thus shutting down the ARAS. Also included in the diagram is the
visceral brain or limbic system, which governs the expression of the emotions, and is
causally related to neuroticism.
The two systems are relatively independent, but as indicated by the arrows, in a high state of
limbic system activation, the ARAS is also affected; clearly it would be impossible to have
strong feelings of fear or anger and also a low state of cortical arousal!
It is possible to make predictions from this theory along one of two directions:
1. We can directly test physiological predictions, such as that of EEG activity indicative of
arousal (fast rate, low amplitude wave) would be more frequent in introverts, wave forms
indicative of low arousal (slow wave, high amplitude) would be characteristic of
extraverts. Gale (1983) has considered 33 studies containing a total of 38 experimental
comparisons. Extraverts were less aroused than introverts on the EEG in 22
comparisons, while introverts were less aroused than extraverts in 5 comparisons. Non-
significant effects were reported in the remaining studies. Gale also succeeded in
showing that the studies which went in the wrong direction were characterised by
stimulus conditions which were not in accord with the theory, i.e. were either too
stimulating or too boring to be likely to give positive results. He found that introverts
appeared to be more aroused than extraverts in all 8 of the studies using moderately
arousing conditions that reported significant effects. The expected result was found in 9
out of 12 significant studies using low-arousal conditions, and 5 out of 7 using high-
arousal conditions. Results thus strongly favour the theory.
2. Many other studies using the orientating response, auditory evokes potentials,
pupillometry, sedation thresholds and many other methods have been reviewed by
Eysenck and Eysenck (1985). On the whole the results favour the theory in question.
3. An alternative way of testing the theory is along psychological experimental lines. Figure
2.6 shows roughly the way predictions can be mediated. There is a curvilinear
relationship between the level of stimulation and hedonic tone (preference judgments).
Most people prefer medium levels of stimulation; very high levels tend to produce pain,
very low levels sensory deprivation, both conditions which are avoided. High arousal
shifts the curve for introverts towards the left, lower arousal that of the extraverts towards
the right, as indicated in Figure 2.6. This immediately mediates the prediction that
extraverts would tolerate pain better and introverts tolerate sensory deprivation better.
Many other deductions have of course been made, regarding such issues as
conditioning, perception, learning, memory, auditory and visual thresholds, psychomotor
performance, vigilance, and many others. These are all reviewed in detail in "Personality
and Individual Differences" (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). This review leaves little doubt
that in the great majority of cases predictions are indeed found to apply although of
course there are still anomalies which require to be ironed out. Experimental
psychological studies thus take a place beside the psychological ones to support the view
that the concepts of arousal and extraversion-introversion are closely related (Strelau and
Eysenck, 1987).
Figure 2.5. Representation of the interaction between the limbic and reticular-cortical arousal system
Figure 2.6. Relationship between stimulation and hedonic tone
How about Adventurousness (Psychoticism)? Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) suggested that
testosterone might be a relevant variable, in view of the fact that males have much higher
scores on P than do females, and there is some evidence for this. However, ambient levels
of testosterone are variable and not necessarily highly correlated with ante-natal
masculinisation. Hence correlations, although in the right direction, are not very high. More
promising has been research using platelet MAO activity. MAO is a mitochondrial enzyme
present in all tissues and responsible for the oxidative deamination of the endogenous
neurotransmitters as well as of exogenous monoamines. There is some evidence that low
platelet MAO activity reflects low serotonin turnover in the brain. Hence we would expect
individuals high on P to be low on MAO, and this has been the general finding, particularly in
relation to traits characteristic of high P, like impulsivity, aggressivity (Schalling et al, 1988). A
more detailed account is given by Zuckerman, Ballinger and Post, 1984.
It is not always realised how close the relationship between questionnaire answers and
biochemical assays may be. Schalling et al. (1988) divided their sample into those low,
intermediate or high on MAO, and reported the number of "yes" answers to a number of
questions. Consider the following: "Do you often do things on the spur of the moment?".
Affirmative responses to this amounted to 83% in the low, 41% in the intermediate, and 8%
in the high MAO group. Similarly, the question "Do you mostly speak before thinking things
out?", affirmative answers were given by 75% of the low, 44% of the intermediate, and 8% of
the high MAO group. Not all items are so highly related to MAO activity but the relationship is
remarkably close between impulsivity and MAO activity.
Enough has been said to make it clear that while the ultimate aim of establishing clear-cut
relationships between biological functioning of the organism and behaviour leading to
differences in personality is still a long way off. Recent advances have shown that the aim is
not unreachable, and that we already have theories which are capable of mediating positive
predictions and research findings. None of the alternative approaches to the study of
personality can be said to have entered this field or made any great contribution to it. Yet in
view of the strong genetic determination of personality and individual differences, this is an
area most in need of study.
It is sometimes suggested that the "Big 5" model of personality (surgency, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, intellect) has a superior claim to general acceptance
(Norman, 1963; Goldberg and Kilkowski, 1985; McCrae and Costa, 1985). Let us note, first
of all, that two of the scales are identical with E and N. Psychoticism, as McCrae and Costa
(1985) have shown, corresponds to the low poles of agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Intellect, the fifth factor, is for the most part a cognitive rather than a non-cognitive aspect of
personality, and is probably best measured by means of IQ tests. In addition there is no
agreement on the nature of this fifth factor, McCrae and Costa (1985) suggesting what they
call "openness to experience". It must be doubtful whether this is in fact a proper dimension
of personality, or rather a trait not possessing the breadth of meaning associated with a
super-factor. It can hardly be said that the "Big 5", in so far as they deviate in composition
from P, E and N, fulfil the criteria we have laid down to the same extent.
It will have been noticed by most readers that the present account of the EPQ differs sharply
from that most usually associated with manuals or descriptions of personality inventories.
The reason of course is plain. Most personality inventories (MPI, CPI) are based on a-priori
notions of what are important traits, how they can be measured, and possibly even how they
are related to each other. Empirical studies have usually shown these beliefs to be
unfounded; factor analysis of the MMPI scales show them to be very heterogeneous, and not
at all in line with expectation. Other authors have relied on factor analysis, as for instance
Cattell in the construction of the 16PF, but it is usually found that the factors are difficult to
replicate. In the case of Cattell, for instance, it has been impossible for anyone else to get
anything like his particular factor structure - usually just a few factors are found, none of them
similar to those which he proposed (eg, Barrett and Kline, 1982; Saville and Blinkhorne,
1981). Numerous studies of the EPQ structure have resulted in almost complete replication
of the structure of the test (eg. Barrett and Kline, 1980). Alternative techniques, such as that
of multidimensional scaling, have also resulted in a replication of the suggested factor
structure.
However, we regard factor analysis and other statistical techniques as necessary but not
sufficient conditions for the creation of a proper scale for the measurement of personality. We
firmly believe that this can only be done by beginning with a proper theoretical analysis,
leading to the type of research which we regard as necessary to meet the criteria suggested
in this chapter. It is only this integration of theory and practice which can lead to a proper
validation of the measuring instruments in question. Validity is a very complex concept, and
we believe that only in the way indicated here can we make any assertions about the validity
of a given test, or a given scale within a test. It was for this reason that the present chapter
has gone into details concerning issues which are usually reckoned to be outside the
competence of a test constructor. The methods of psychometrics are the central feature of
test construction, but once we ask wider questions about validity, personality theory and
social applications, we can see that psychometric criteria are not sufficient to ensure the
value of the given instrument.
The 7 traits consisting of the Extraversion variable are:- E1: Activity; E2: Sociability; E3:
Expressiveness; E4: Assertiveness; E5: Ambition; E6: Dogmatic; E7: Aggression.
The 7 traits consisting of the Neuroticism variable are:- N1: Low Self Esteem; N2:
Unhappiness; N3: Anxiety; N4 Dependence; N5: Hypochondria; N6: Guilt; N7:
Obsessiveness.
The 7 traits consisting of Adventurousness (Psychoticism) variable are: P1: Risk-taking;

P2: Impulsiveness; P3: Irresponsibility; P4: Manipulativeness; P5: Sensation Seeking; P6:
Toughmindedness; P7: Practical.
There are 20 questions comprising each of the twenty-one trait scales, and for the twenty
second (Lie) scale, making 440 items in total. All traits are scored so that a high score is an
indication of Adventurousness (P), E, N or L.
Our general norm group consisted of 697 males and 697 females making a total of 1,394
subjects. The age levels of the sample, for males and females were balanced (Table 3.1).
Means and standard deviations of the twenty two scales are given in Table 3.2 Table 3.3
gives the percentile scores of the subjects. Finally, Table 3.4 gives the intercorrelations
between the traits.
Table 3.1. Sample characteristics
N %
Males 697 50.0
Females 697 50.0
Total 1394 100
Distribution of age of males (in years)
Age N %
20-29 214 30.7
30-39 286 41.0
40-49 137 19.7
50-59 42 6.0
60+ 18 2.6
Total 697 100
Distribution of age of females (in years)
Age N %
20-29 222 31.9
30-39 285 40.9
40-49 138 19.8
50-59 43 6.2
60+ 9 1.3
Total 100 697
Table 3.2. Means and standard deviations of the traits
Trait Mean SD
E
E1: Activity 26.72 7.32
E2: Sociability 27.38 7.99
E3: Expressiveness 17.98 6.18
E4: Assertiveness 23.36 7.20
E5: Ambitiousness 21.90 7.96
E6: Dogmatism 14.52 5.61
E7: Aggressiveness 13.11 6.64
N
N1: Low Self Esteem 10.40 8.59
N2: Unhappiness 8.41 8.43
N3: Anxiousness 11.65 8.61
N4: Dependency 8.73 6.48
N5: Hypochondriasis 4.05 4.64
N6: Guilt 8.22 6.95
N7: Obsessiveness 12.47 6.50
P
P1: Risk-taking 20.99 6.73
P2: Impulsiveness 19.38 7.52
P3: Irresponsibility 17.47 7.06
P4: Manipulativeness 16.47 6.60
P5: Sensation Seeking 21.88 7.68
P6: Toughmindedness 19.33 7.82
P7: Practicality 19.56 7.48
Dissimulation (Lie) Scale 12.12 6.70

Notes: A high score indicates high E, N & P (for example, unhappiness is scored so that a high score
indicates depression while a low score indicates a feeling of well-being)
Table 3.3. Percentile scores of the traits
a) The Extraversion traits

E1: Activity
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
Value % % Value % % Value % %
0 0 0 16 2 10 29 3 59
4 0 0 17 1 11 30 7 66
5 0 0 18 3 14 31 4 69
6 0 1 19 2 16 32 8 78
7 0 1 20 4 20 33 3 81
8 1 1 21 3 23 34 6 87
9 0 2 22 5 28 35 2 89
10 1 3 23 3 31 36 5 94
11 0 3 24 5 36 37 1 95
12 1 4 25 3 39 38 3 98
13 1 5 26 6 45 39 0 98
14 2 7 27 3 48 40 2 100
15 1 8 28 7 56
E2: Sociability
2 0 0 17 1 13 30 7 60
4 0 0 18 3 16 31 3 63
6 0 1 19 1 17 32 7 70
7 0 1 20 3 20 33 3 73
8 1 2 21 2 22 34 6 80
9 1 3 22 3 25 35 3 83
10 2 4 23 2 27 36 7 90
11 0 5 24 4 31 37 2 92
12 2 6 25 3 34 38 6 98
13 1 7 26 7 41 39 1 98
14 1 9 27 4 45 40 2 100
15 1 10 28 5 50
16 2 12 29 4 53
E3: Expressiveness
2 0 0 14 7 32 26 4 92
3 0 0 15 2 34 27 1 93
4 0 1 16 8 42 28 2 95
5 1 2 17 5 47 29 1 96
6 1 3 18 8 55 30 2 98
7 1 4 19 4 59 31 0 98
8 2 6 20 8 67 32 1 99
9 2 8 21 5 72 33 0 99
10 4 12 22 5 77 34 1 100
11 2 14 23 3 80 36 0 100
12 7 21 24 5 85 37 0 100
13 4 25 25 3 88
E4: Assertiveness
2 0 0 15 2 15 28 9 76
3 0 0 16 3 19 29 3 79
4 0 0 17 2 21 30 5 84
5 0 1 18 4 25 31 2 87
6 1 1 19 3 27 32 5 92
7 0 2 20 5 32 33 2 93
8 2 3 21 3 35 34 3 96
9 1 4 22 6 41 35 1 97
10 2 6 23 5 46 36 2 99
11 1 7 24 7 53 37 1 99
12 2 10 25 4 56 38 0 100
13 1 11 26 8 64 39 0 100
14 3 14 27 4 68 40 0 100
E5: Ambition
0 0 0 13 1 16 26 9 70
1 0 0 14 4 20 27 3 73
2 0 1 15 2 22 28 6 79
3 1 1 16 2 24 29 3 82
4 1 2 17 3 27 30 6 88
5 1 3 18 5 32 31 2 90
6 2 5 19 2 34 32 4 94
7 1 6 20 5 39 33 1 95
8 2 8 21 3 42 34 2 97
9 1 9 22 5 47 35 1 98
10 2 11 23 4 51 36 1 99
11 1 12 24 6 57 37 0 99
12 3 15 25 4 61 38 1 100
E6: Dogmatic
0 0 0 13 5 44 25 1 97
2 0 1 14 9 53 26 1 98
3 0 1 15 5 58 27 1 99
4 1 2 16 8 66 28 0 99
5 2 4 17 5 71 29 0 99
6 3 7 18 7 78 30 0 99
7 3 10 19 3 81 31 0 99
8 6 16 20 5 86 32 1 100
9 2 18 21 2 88 34 0 100
10 7 25 22 3 91 35 0 100
11 6 31 23 2 93 36 0 100
12 8 39 24 3 96
E7: Aggression
0 1 1 12 8 52 24 2 94
1 0 1 13 4 56 25 1 95
2 2 3 14 8 64 26 1 96
3 2 5 15 3 67 27 1 97
4 4 9 16 6 73 28 1 98
5 2 11 17 2 75 29 0 98
6 6 17 18 4 79 30 1 99
7 3 20 19 3 82 31 1 100
8 7 27 20 4 86 32 0 100
9 4 31 21 2 88 33 0 100
10 9 40 22 2 90 34 0 100
11 4 44 23 2 92 35 0 100
b) The Neuroticism traits
N1: Low Self Esteem
0 7 7 14 3 73 28 1 96
1 2 10 15 2 75 29 1 96
2 11 21 16 3 78 30 1 97
3 2 23 17 1 80 31 0 98
4 9 32 18 2 82 32 1 98
5 3 35 19 1 83 33 0 98
6 7 42 20 3 86 34 1 99
7 3 45 21 1 87 35 0 99
8 6 51 22 2 89 36 0 99
9 3 54 23 1 90 37 0 100
10 6 60 24 1 91
11 4 64 25 1 92
12 4 68 26 2 94
13 2 70 27 1 94
N2: Unhappiness
0 13 13 14 3 81 28 1 96
1 3 17 15 1 82 29 0 97
2 12 29 16 2 84 30 1 97
3 4 33 17 1 85 31 0 98
4 12 45 18 2 87 32 1 98
5 4 49 19 1 88 33 0 98
6 8 57 20 1 89 34 0 99
7 3 60 21 1 90 35 0 99
8 5 65 22 1 92 36 0 99
9 2 67 23 1 93 38 1 100
10 3 70 24 1 93
11 2 72 25 0 94
12 3 76 26 1 95
13 2 77 27 0 96
N3: Anxiety
0 4 4 13 2 63 26 2 93
1 2 6 14 4 68 27 1 94
2 8 14 15 2 70 28 1 95
3 3 17 16 4 74 29 1 95
4 9 26 17 2 76 30 1 97
5 3 28 18 4 80 31 1 97
6 8 36 19 1 81 32 1 98
7 2 38 20 3 84 34 1 99
8 6 45 21 2 86 35 0 99
9 2 47 22 2 88 36 1 100
10 6 54 23 1 88
11 3 56 24 2 90
12 5 62 25 1 91
N4: Dependence
0 6 6 12 5 76 24 1 98
1 2 8 13 2 78 25 0 98
2 9 17 14 5 83 26 0 98
3 3 20 15 1 84 27 1 99
4 12 32 16 3 87 28 0 99
5 5 37 17 2 89 29 0 99
6 9 46 18 2 91 30 0 99
7 4 50 19 1 92 31 1 100
8 8 58 20 2 94 32 0 100
9 3 61 21 1 95 34 0 100
10 7 68 22 1 96 35 0 100
11 3 71 23 1 97
N5: Hypochondria
0 25 25 10 3 92 20 0 99
1 5 30 11 1 93 21 0 99
2 21 51 12 2 95 22 0 99
3 4 55 13 1 96 23 0 99
4 13 68 14 0 96 25 1 100
5 4 72 15 1 97 26 0 100
6 8 80 16 1 98 30 0 100
7 2 82 17 0 98 31 0 100
8 5 87 18 0 98 40 0 100
9 2 89 19 1 99
N6: Guilt
0 9 9 13 3 80 26 1 98
1 2 11 14 4 84 27 0 98
2 12 23 15 1 85 28 1 99
3 4 27 16 3 88 29 0 99
4 11 38 17 2 90 30 0 99
5 4 42 18 1 91 31 0 99
6 9 51 19 1 92 32 0 99
7 4 55 20 2 94 33 0 99
8 8 63 21 0 94 34 1 100
9 2 65 22 1 95 36 0 100
10 6 71 23 1 96 39 0 100
11 3 74 24 1 97 40 0 100
12 3 77 25 0 97
N7: Obsessiveness
0 0 1 12 9 56 24 1 95
1 0 1 13 3 59 25 0 95
2 3 4 14 7 66 26 2 97
3 1 5 15 3 69 27 1 98
4 6 11 16 7 76 28 0 98
5 1 12 17 3 79 29 1 99
6 8 20 18 5 84 30 0 99
7 3 23 19 1 85 31 0 99
8 9 32 20 4 89 32 1 100
9 2 34 21 1 90 34 0 100
10 10 44 22 3 93 35 0 100
11 3 47 23 1 94 40 0 100
c) The Adventurousness (Psychoticism) traits
P1: Risk-taking
4 0 0 16 7 27 28 5 86
5 0 0 17 3 31 29 2 88
6 1 1 18 7 38 30 4 92
7 0 2 19 3 41 31 1 93
8 2 4 20 8 49 32 3 96
9 1 4 21 3 52 33 1 96
10 2 6 22 8 60 34 2 98
11 1 8 23 4 64 35 0 98
12 3 11 24 7 70 36 1 99
13 2 13 25 3 73 37 0 100
14 5 18 26 6 79
15 3 21 27 2 81
P2: Impulsiveness
1 0 0 15 3 32 29 2 90
2 1 1 16 6 38 30 3 92
3 0 1 17 4 42 31 1 93
4 0 1 18 5 47 32 2 95
5 1 2 19 5 52 33 1 96
6 1 3 20 6 58 34 1 98
7 1 4 21 3 60 35 1 98
8 2 7 22 7 67 36 1 99
9 2 9 23 3 70 37 0 99
10 4 13 24 5 75 38 1 100
11 2 15 25 3 78
12 4 20 26 4 82
13 4 23 27 2 84
14 6 29 28 4 88
P3: Irresponsibility
0 0 0 14 6 36 27 1 90
2 1 1 15 3 40 28 3 94
3 0 1 16 8 48 29 1 95
4 2 3 17 4 52 30 2 96
5 1 4 18 7 59 31 1 97
6 2 6 19 3 62 32 1 98
7 1 7 20 6 68 33 0 98
8 4 11 21 4 72 34 1 99
9 2 13 22 4 76 35 0 99
10 5 17 23 2 78 36 1 100
11 3 20 24 5 83
12 7 26 25 2 85
13 3 30 26 4 89
P4: Manipulativeness
0 0 0 14 7 42 28 2 96
1 0 0 15 6 48 29 1 97
2 1 1 16 5 53 30 1 98
3 0 1 17 5 58 31 0 98
4 1 2 18 7 65 32 1 99
5 1 3 19 4 69 33 0 99
6 2 5 20 5 74 34 0 99
7 2 7 21 4 78 35 1 100
8 5 12 22 5 83 36 0 100
9 3 15 23 1 84 37 0 100
10 5 20 24 4 88 38 0 100
11 3 23 25 1 89 40 0 100
12 6 29 26 4 93
13 6 35 27 1 94
P5: Sensation Seeking
0 0 0 15 2 22 29 3 82
1 0 0 16 4 26 30 5 87
2 1 1 17 3 29 31 2 89
4 0 1 18 4 33 32 5 94
5 1 2 19 4 37 33 1 95
6 1 3 20 5 42 34 3 98
7 1 4 21 3 45 35 0 98
8 2 6 22 5 50 36 1 99
9 1 7 23 3 53 37 1 100
10 2 9 24 6 59 38 0 100
11 1 10 25 4 63 39 0 100
12 3 13 26 7 70 40 0 100
13 2 15 27 2 72
14 5 20 28 7 79
P6: Toughmindedness
2 0 0 15 3 35 28 4 86
3 0 0 16 6 41 29 2 88
4 1 1 17 2 43 30 4 92
5 1 2 18 6 49 31 1 93
6 2 4 19 2 51 32 3 96
7 1 5 20 5 56 33 1 97
8 4 9 21 3 59 34 2 99
9 2 11 22 5 64 35 0 99
10 4 15 23 3 67 36 1 100
11 2 17 24 4 71 37 0 100
12 7 24 25 3 74 38 0 100
13 3 27 26 5 79 40 0 100
14 5 32 27 3 82
P7: Practicality
2 1 1 15 4 31 28 4 87
3 0 1 16 5 36 29 2 89
4 0 1 17 3 39 30 5 94
5 1 2 18 6 45 31 1 95
6 2 4 19 4 49 32 2 97
7 1 5 20 5 54 33 1 98
8 3 8 21 4 58 34 1 99
9 2 10 22 6 64 35 0 99
10 4 14 23 3 67 36 0 99
11 2 16 24 6 73 37 0 99
12 4 20 25 3 76 38 1 100
13 3 23 26 4 80 40 0 100
14 4 27 27 3 83
Table 3.4.: Intercorrelations among the traits
(Ac) (Ag) (Am) (As) (Do) (Ex) (So)

Activity
Aggression 0.02
Ambition 0.53** 0.05
Assertiveness 0.40** 0.23** 0.40**
Dogmatic 0.08** 0.46** 0.18** 0.17**
Expressiveness 0.16** 0.49** 0.15** 0.29** 0.35**
Sociability 0.45** 0.03 0.35** 0.44** 0.00 0.28**
Anxiety -0.25** 0.30** -0.12** -0.33** 0.27** 0.26** -0.32**
Dependence -0.33** 0.25** -0.24** -0.43** 0.26** 0.19** -0.28**
Guilt -0.21** 0.32** -0.06* -0.25** 0.35** 0.26** -0.21**
Hypochondria -0.29** 0.32** -0.07** -0.19** 0.27** 0.23** -0.22**
Low Self-Esteem -0.38** 0.20** -0.24** -0.50** 0.19** 0.06* -0.46**
Obsessiveness 0.03 0.16** 0.20** -0.07* 0.27** 0.12** -0.12**
Unhappiness -0.37** 0.32** -0.18** -0.31** 0.25** 0.19** -0.33**
Impulsiveness 0.09** 0.32** -0.10** 0.07** 0.24** 0.44** 0.15**
Irresponsibility -0.30** 0.34** -0.37** -0.15** 0.17** 0.31** -0.08**
Manipulativeness 0.15** 0.38** 0.22** 0.31** 0.23** 0.15** 0.07*
Practical 0.08** -0.04 -0.16** -0.07** -0.14** -0.17** 0.10**
Risk Taking 0.17** 0.31** 0.05 0.26** 0.19** 0.32** 0.23**
Sensation-Seeking 0.30** 0.31** 0.29** 0.32** 0.15** 0.30** 0.36**
Tough-Mindedness 0.15** 0.21** 0.14** 0.22** 0.05 -0.12** 0.16**
(An) (Dep) (Gu) (Hy) (In) (Ob) (Un)

Dependence 0.65**
Guilt 0.62** 0.65*
Hypochondria 0.59** 0.58** 0.60**
Low Self-Esteem 0.72** 0.69** 0.66** 0.51**
Obsessiveness 0.38** 0.32** 0.37** 0.38** 0.30**
Unhappiness 0.73** 0.73** 0.64** 0.61** 0.73** 0.26**
Impulsiveness 0.20** 0.29** 0.25** 0.16** 0.14** -0.14** 0.21**
Irresponsibility 0.29** 0.37** 0.34** 0.27** 0.31** -0.17** 0.34**
Manipulativeness -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.08** -0.03 0.01 0.07**
Practical -0.18** -0.07** -0.22** -0.14** -0.11** -0.15** -0.13**
Risk-Taking -0.08** -0.04 -0.00 -0.06* -0.11** -0.31** 0.02
Sensation-Seeking -0.13** -0.13** 0.01 -0.06* -0.16** -0.11** -0.05
Tough-Mindedness -0.35** -0.23** -0.18** -0.18** -0.28** -0.17** -0.20**
(Im) (Ir) (Ma) (Pr) (Ri) (Se)

Irresponsibility 0.51**
Manipulativeness 0.09** 0.11**
Practical 0.04 -0.03 0.10**
Risk-Taking 0.48** 0.39** 0.26** 0.01
Sensation-Seeking 0.27** 0.14** 0.27** -0.07** 0.56**
Tough-Mindedness -0.06* -0.00 0.30** 0.19** 0.25** 0.44**
* - p< .05 ** - p< .01 (2-tailed)
Factor analysis of the twenty two traits showed a reasonably clear three factor structure (four
including the Dissimulation or lie scale). The scree slope is shown in Figure 3.1. The
percentage of variance explained by each factor is displayed in Table 3.5. The rotated
varimax factor matrix is shown in Table 3.6.
The factor structure of the EPP has been investigated using different samples by Eysenck,
Barrett, Wilson & Jackson (1992) and by Costa & McCrae (1995). Other factor analytic
investigations are proceeding such as by Furnham, Jackson, Forde & Cotter, Jackson &
Francis, Aziz & Jackson. See these papers for other proposed solutions. The paper by Costa
& McCrae is especially interesting for five factor theorists.
Factor Scree Plot

7
E
i
g
e6
n
v
a5
l
u
e4
0
1 3 5 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 2
1 3 5 7 9 1
Factor Number
Figure 3.1.: Scree slope of the factor solution
Table 3.5. Percentage of variance
Factor % of Var Cumulative %

1 (N) 27.2 27.2
2 (P) 17.9 45.0
3 (E) 10.1 55.1
Table 3.6. Rotated Factor Matrix
I II III
E1: Activity -0.29 0.20 0.63
E2: Sociability -0.36 0.35 0.42
E3: Expressiveness 0.30 0.59 0.24
E4: Assertiveness -0.32 0.39 0.58
E5: Ambition -0.04 0.08 0.81
E6: Dogmatic 0.44 0.39 0.30
E7: Aggression 0.38 0.63 0.14
N1: Inferiority 0.79 -0.05 -0.33

N2: Unhappiness 0.80 0.13 0.26
N3: Anxiety 0.84 0.03 -0.13
N4: Dependence 0.78 0.10 -0.30
N5: Hypochondria 0.75 0.09 -0.05
N6: Guilt 0.80 0.16 -0.06
N7: Obsessiveness 0.60 -0.25 0.45
P1: Risk-taking -0.17 0.79 -0.10
P2: Impulsiveness 0.16 0.67 -0.23
P3: Irresponsibility 0.26 0.57 -0.55
P4: Manipulativeness 0.03 0.44 0.24
P5: Sensation Seeking -0.16 0.67 0.25
P6: Toughmindedness -0.36 0.35 0.10
P7: Practical -0.29 0.04 -0.23
Table 7 reports the means and standard deviations of P, E and N. Note that the total of each
of the types is simply the mean of the seven traits reported here multiplied by seven. The
mean and the standard deviation of L is also reported here. Table 8 shows the percentile
scores of P, E, N and L, Table 9 shows the correlation matrix and Table 10 reports the alpha
reliability coefficients.
Table 3.7. Means and standard deviations of the types
a) All data
Variable Mean SD
E 20.71 4.27
N 9.13 5.72
P 19.30 4.08
L 12.12 6.70
b) Males c) Females
Variable Mean SD Mean SD
E 21.17 4.24 20.25 4.26
N 8.21 5.36 10.05 5.92
P 20.78 3.96 17.80 3.62
L 11.49 6.73 12.75 6.61
The means are calculated as the simple arithmetic average of the seven primary scales
associated with each factor. Multiply average by 7 to obtain totals.
Table 3.8.: Percentile scores of the types
a) Extraversion
Cum Cum Cum
Value Pct Pct Value Pct Pct Value Pct Pct
7.00 0 0 15.86 1 14 22.43 1 64
7.14 0 0 16.00 1 14 22.57 2 66
7.43 0 0 16.14 1 15 22.71 1 67
7.57 0 0 16.29 1 16 22.86 1 68
7.71 0 0 16.43 1 16 23.00 1 70
8.29 0 1 16.57 1 17 23.14 1 71
8.71 0 1 16.71 0 17 23.29 1 72
9.00 0 1 16.86 1 18 23.43 1 73
9.86 0 1 17.00 1 19 23.57 1 74
10.00 0 1 17.14 1 20 23.71 2 76
10.43 0 1 17.29 1 21 23.86 1 76
10.57 0 1 17.43 1 22 24.00 1 78
10.71 0 1 17.57 1 22 24.14 1 79
10.86 0 2 17.71 1 23 24.29 1 80
11.14 0 2 17.86 1 24 24.43 1 80
11.29 0 2 18.00 2 26 24.57 1 81
11.43 0 2 18.14 1 27 24.71 1 83
11.57 0 2 18.29 1 28 24.86 1 84
11.86 0 2 18.43 1 29 25.00 1 85
12.00 0 3 18.57 1 30 25.14 1 85
12.14 0 3 18.71 1 31 25.29 1 86
12.29 0 3 18.86 1 32 25.43 2 88
12.43 0 3 19.00 1 33 25.57 1 89
12.57 0 3 19.14 1 34 25.71 1 90
12.71 0 4 19.29 1 35 25.86 1 90
12.86 0 4 19.43 2 37 26.00 1 91
13.00 1 4 19.57 1 38 26.14 0 91
13.14 0 5 19.71 2 40 26.29 1 92
13.29 0 5 19.86 1 41 26.43 0 92
13.43 1 6 20.00 2 43 26.57 1 93
13.57 0 6 20.14 1 45 26.71 1 94
13.71 1 6 20.29 1 46 26.86 1 94
13.86 1 7 20.43 1 47 27.00 0 95
14.00 0 7 20.57 1 48 27.14 1 95
14.14 1 8 20.71 1 49 27.29 0 95
14.29 1 8 20.86 1 50 27.43 0 96
14.43 0 9 21.00 1 52 27.57 0 96
14.57 1 9 21.14 2 53 27.71 0 96
14.71 1 10 21.29 1 54 27.86 0 96
14.86 1 11 21.43 1 56 28.00 0 97
15.00 0 11 21.57 1 56 28.14 0 97
15.14 1 12 21.71 2 58 28.29 0 97
15.29 0 12 21.86 1 59 28.43 0 97
15.43 0 13 22.00 1 60 28.57 0 97
15.57 0 13 22.14 1 62 28.71 0 97
15.71 0 13 22.29 2 64 28.86 0 98
b) Neuroticism
Cum Cum Cum
0.29 0 0 9.00 1 59 17.14 0 90
0.86 0 0 9.14 1 60 17.43 0 90
1.14 0 1 9.29 1 60 17.57 0 91
1.29 0 1 9.43 1 62 17.71 1 91
1.43 1 2 9.57 0 62 17.86 0 91
1.57 0 2 9.71 1 63 18.00 0 92
1.71 1 3 9.86 1 64 18.14 0 92
1.86 0 3 10.00 1 65 18.29 0 92
2.00 1 4 10.14 1 65 18.43 0 92
2.14 0 4 10.29 1 66 18.57 1 93
2.29 1 6 10.43 1 67 18.71 0 93
2.43 1 6 10.57 1 68 18.86 0 93
2.57 1 8 10.71 1 68 19.00 0 93
2.71 1 9 10.86 1 69 19.14 0 94
2.86 1 10 11.00 1 70 19.29 0 94
3.00 1 10 11.14 1 71 19.43 0 94
3.14 1 11 11.29 0 71 19.57 0 95
3.29 1 12 11.43 1 72 19.71 0 95
3.43 2 14 11.57 1 72 19.86 0 95
3.57 1 15 11.71 1 73 20.00 0 95
3.71 1 16 11.86 0 74 20.14 0 95
3.86 1 17 12.00 1 74 20.57 0 95
4.00 1 18 12.14 0 75 20.71 0 96
4.14 1 19 12.29 1 75 20.86 0 96
4.29 2 21 12.43 1 76 21.00 0 96
4.43 1 22 12.57 0 76 21.14 0 96
4.57 1 23 12.71 1 77 21.43 0 96
4.71 1 24 12.86 1 78 21.57 0 96
4.86 1 25 13.00 0 78 21.71 0 97
5.00 1 26 13.14 1 79 21.86 0 97
5.14 2 28 13.29 0 79 22.43 0 97
5.29 1 29 13.43 1 80 22.57 0 97
5.43 2 31 13.57 0 80 22.71 0 97
5.57 1 32 13.71 0 80 22.86 0 97
5.71 2 33 13.86 1 81 23.00 0 98
5.86 1 35 14.00 1 81 23.14 0 98
6.00 2 37 14.14 1 82 23.43 0 98
6.14 1 38 14.29 0 82 23.57 0 98
6.29 1 39 14.43 0 82 23.71 0 98
6.43 1 40 14.57 0 83 23.86 0 98
6.57 1 41 14.71 0 83 24.00 0 98
6.71 1 42 14.86 1 84 24.14 0 98
6.86 2 44 15.00 1 84 24.29 0 99
7.00 1 45 15.14 0 85 24.57 0 99
7.14 2 46 15.29 1 85 24.86 0 99
7.29 1 47 15.43 1 86 25.00 0 99
7.43 1 49 15.57 0 86 25.14 0 99
7.57 1 50 15.71 0 86 25.29 0 99
7.71 1 50 15.86 0 87 25.86 0 99
7.86 1 52 16.00 0 87 26.00 0 99
8.00 1 52 16.14 0 88 26.57 0 99
8.14 1 54 16.29 0 88 26.71 0 99
8.29 1 54 16.43 0 88 28.00 0 99
8.43 1 55 16.57 0 88 28.43 0 99
8.57 1 56 16.71 0 89 28.86 0 99
8.71 1 57 16.86 0 89 29.00 0 100
8.86 1 58 17.00 1 90 30.00 0 100
c) Adventturousness (Psychoticism)
Cum Cum Cum
8.29 0 0 16.71 1 28 24.00 1 88
8.86 0 0 16.86 2 29 24.14 1 88
9.00 0 0 17.00 1 30 24.29 0 89
9.14 0 0 17.14 1 32 24.43 1 89
9.43 0 0 17.29 1 33 24.57 1 90
9.57 0 1 17.43 2 35 24.71 0 90
9.71 0 1 17.57 1 35 24.86 0 91
9.86 0 1 17.71 2 37 25.00 1 91
10.43 0 1 17.86 1 38 25.14 1 92
10.57 0 1 18.00 1 39 25.29 0 92
10.71 0 1 18.14 1 41 25.43 1 93
11.00 0 2 18.29 2 42 25.57 0 93
11.14 0 2 18.43 1 44 25.71 1 93
11.29 0 2 18.57 2 45 25.86 1 94
11.43 0 2 18.71 2 47 26.00 1 94
11.57 0 2 18.86 2 48 26.14 0 95
11.71 0 3 19.00 1 50 26.29 0 95
11.86 0 3 19.14 1 51 26.43 1 96
12.00 0 3 19.29 1 52 26.57 0 96
12.14 0 4 19.43 1 53 26.71 0 96
12.29 0 4 19.57 1 54 26.86 0 96
12.43 1 4 19.71 1 55 27.00 0 97
12.57 0 5 19.86 1 56 27.14 0 97
12.71 1 5 20.00 1 58 27.29 0 97
12.86 1 6 20.14 1 59 27.43 0 97
13.00 0 6 20.29 2 61 27.57 0 97
13.14 0 7 20.43 1 62 27.71 0 98
13.29 1 7 20.57 1 63 27.86 0 98
13.43 0 8 20.71 1 64 28.00 0 98
13.57 1 8 20.86 2 65 28.14 0 98
13.71 0 9 21.00 1 67 28.29 0 99
13.86 0 9 21.14 1 68 28.43 0 99
14.00 1 10 21.29 1 69 28.57 0 99
14.14 0 10 21.43 2 71 28.71 0 99
14.29 1 11 21.57 1 72 29.14 0 99
14.43 1 12 21.71 2 74 29.29 0 99
14.57 0 12 21.86 1 75 29.43 0 99
14.71 1 13 22.00 1 76 29.57 0 99
14.86 1 14 22.14 1 77 29.71 0 99
15.00 1 14 22.29 1 78 30.00 0 99
15.14 1 15 22.43 2 80 30.43 0 100
15.29 1 16 22.57 1 80 30.57 0 100
15.43 1 18 22.71 1 81 30.86 0 100
15.57 1 19 22.86 1 82 31.00 0 100
15.71 1 20 23.00 1 83 31.57 0 100
15.86 1 21 23.14 1 84 33.00 0 100
16.00 1 22 23.29 1 84
16.14 1 23 23.43 0 85
16.29 1 24 23.57 1 85
16.43 1 24 23.71 1 86
16.57 2 26 23.86 1 87
d) Dissimulation (Lie) Scale

Cum Cum Cum
0 2 2 13 3 61 26 1 97
1 0 2 14 7 68 27 0 98
2 3 5 15 3 71 28 1 99
3 1 7 16 6 77 29 0 99
4 5 11 17 2 79 30 0 99
5 6 17 18 5 84 31 0 99
6 8 25 19 2 85 32 0 99
7 2 27 20 4 89 33 0 100
8 8 35 21 1 90 34 0 100
9 3 37 22 3 92 35 0 100
10 7 44 23 1 94 36 0 100
11 4 48 24 2 95 38 0 100
12 10 58 25 1 96
Table 3.9.: Correlation matrix of the types
E N P
N -0.13**
P 0.38** -0.04
L -0.13** -0.10** -0.39**
*=p<0.05; **=p<0.01 (2-tailed)
Table 3.10.: Alpha internal consistency coefficients
Coefficient alpha
males females
E
E1: Activity 0.75 0.77
E3: Expressiveness 0.60 0.60
E5: Ambition 0.80 0.80
E6: Dogmatic 0.56 0.60
E7: Aggression 0.70 0.67
N
N1: Inferiority 0.85 0.85
N3: Anxiety 0.83 0.85
N4: Dependence 0.75 0.77
N5: Hypochondria 0.75 0.69
N6: Guilt 0.81 0.79
N7: Obsessiveness 0.71 0.69
P
P4: Manipulativeness 0.65 0.63
P5: Sensation Seeking 0.75 0.76
P6: Toughmindedness 0.56 0.41
P7: Practical 0.73 0.77
Note: Taken from Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson & Jackson,1992
For more detailed analysis, Table 3.11 gives means and standard deviations of the traits by
age and sex, and Table 3.12 does the same for P, E, N and L. Finally, Table 3.13 gives the
correlations of the twenty one EPP scale with the nine scales of the EPP-S.
Table 3.11.: Means and standard deviations of the traits by sex and age group
Age: 20-29 Males Females

Trait Mean SD Mean SD
E1: Activity 26.53 7.32 25.71 7.62

E2: Sociability 28.78 7.20 27.67 7.76
E3: Expressiveness 19.10 5.81 20.03 6.42
E4: Assertiveness 23.84 6.90 21.20 7.39
E5: Ambition 22.92 7.76 22.33 7.29
E6: Dogmatic 16.32 5.62 15.26 5.39
E7: Aggression 15.69 7.03 13.19 6.57
N1: Inferiority 11.02 8.44 14.24 9.52

N2: Unhappiness 10.23 8.73 11.51 9.84
N3: Anxiety 12.36 8.42 15.83 9.55
N4: Dependence 9.48 6.28 11.33 7.30
N5: Hypochondria 4.84 4.89 5.31 4.91
N6: Guilt 10.80 7.81 10.68 7.48
N7: Obsessiveness 12.74 7.06 13.57 6.60
P1: Risk-taking 23.43 6.39 20.96 6.36

P2: Impulsiveness 21.34 7.01 21.50 7.53
P3: Irresponsibility 20.07 7.37 19.32 6.91
P4: Manipulativeness 18.92 7.18 14.91 5.83
P5: Sensation Seeking 26.32 6.04 21.84 7.00
P6: Toughmindedness 24.82 5.97 13.56 5.17
P7: Practical 19.93 7.13 18.36 7.58

E1: Activity 27.70 6.88 27.75 6.83

E2: Sociability 28.35 7.74 27.69 7.89
E4: Assertiveness 24.74 6.95 23.51 6.88
E5: Ambition 23.56 7.83 21.51 7.92
E6: Dogmatic 14.58 5.69 13.20 5.58
E7: Aggression 13.84 6.47 11.88 6.20
N1: Inferiority 7.03 6.43 10.41 8.50

N2: Unhappiness 6.25 6.97 7.75 7.64
N3: Anxiety 8.80 7.27 11.88 8.13
N4: Dependence 6.74 5.30 8.04 6.06
N5: Hypochondria 2.83 3.57 3.72 3.97
N6: Guilt 6.23 5.42 7.60 6.42
N7: Obsessiveness 11.30 5.56 12.47 6.27
P1: Risk-taking 21.77 6.78 20.67 6.54

P2: Impulsiveness 17.76 7.02 19.74 7.21
P7: Practical 20.39 7.54 19.22 7.65

E1: Activity 26.91 7.39 26.41 7.06

E2: Sociability 26.59 8.37 25.40 8.12
E4: Assertiveness 24.83 6.88 22.54 8.10
E5: Ambition 22.24 7.08 19.51 8.08
E6: Dogmatic 14.09 5.00 13.45 5.42
E7: Aggression 13.36 6.49 10.66 6.11
N1: Inferiority 8.18 7.59 11.23 8.67
N2: Unhappiness 6.09 7.14 9.07 9.16
N3: Anxiety 8.00 7.13 12.62 8.73
N4: Dependence 7.06 5.83 9.41 6.88
N5: Hypochondria 3.18 3.76 4.05 4.94
N6: Guilt 6.07 5.83 7.79 7.00
N7: Obsessiveness 11.61 6.42 12.67 6.19
P1: Risk-taking 20.48 6.63 18.87 6.90

P2: Impulsiveness 16.96 8.01 19.28 7.70
P7: Practical 20.84 7.23 18.80 7.73

E1: Activity 24.57 6.53 24.67 9.62

E2: Sociability 23.57 10.39 25.81 7.52
E4: Assertiveness 23.52 6.28 21.95 6.94
E5: Ambition 20.52 7.82 16.93 9.07
E6: Dogmatic 14.83 5.07 14.16 4.83
E7: Aggression 12.31 6.09 10.47 5.62
N1: Inferiority 10.43 8.48 12.74 8.62

N2: Unhappiness 6.55 6.83 8.30 8.27
N3: Anxiety 10.24 7.65 13.60 8.65
N4: Dependence 8.76 6.21 10.23 5.41
N5: Hypochondria 4.17 5.09 4.37 3.58
N6: Guilt 8.21 6.82 7.26 4.77
N7: Obsessiveness 14.57 8.41 11.98 4.94
P1: Risk-taking 19.02 5.88 18.56 6.88

P2: Impulsiveness 15.05 6.26 20.16 7.58
P7: Practical 19.31 6.39 19.40 7.52
Table 3.12.: Means and standard deviations of the types

Extraversion 21.88 3.87 20.77 4.01

Neuroticism 10.21 5.89 11.78 6.24
Adventurousness (P) 22.12 3.78 18.64 3.50
Dissimulation (L) 6.81 10.44 6.65 12.47
Extraversion 21.38 4.26 20.58 4.10

Neuroticism 7.03 4.42 8.84 5.25
Dissimulation (L) 11.92 6.22 12.58 6.22

Extraversion 20.52 4.19 19.35 4.60

Neuroticism 7.17 4.79 9.55 5.93
Dissimulation (L) 11.46 7.47 13.61 7.31

Extraversion 19.21 4.10 18.83 4.19

Neuroticism 8.99 5.76 9.78 4.77
Dissimulation (L) 13.14 7.38 12.72 6.02
Table 3.13.: Overlap between the EPP (Short) and the other scales which comprised the 440 item
EPP
EPP (Short scales)

Other scales E1: Sociability E2: Activity E3: Assertiveness
Aggression 0.03 0.02 0.23**
Ambition 0.35** 0.53** 0.40**
Dogmatism 0.00 0.08** 0.17**
Expression 0.28** 0.16** 0.29**
Dependence -0.28** -0.33** -0.43**
Guilt -0.21** -0.21** -0.25**
Hypochondria -0.22** -0.29** -0.19**
Obsessiveness -0.12** 0.03 -0.07*
Manipulation 0.07* 0.15** 0.31**
Practicality 0.10** 0.08** -0.07**
Sensation seeking 0.36** 0.30** 0.32**
Tough-mindedness 0.16** 0.15** 0.22**
N1:Anxiety N2:Inferiority N3:Unhappiness

Aggression 0.30** 0.20** 0.32**
Ambition -0.12** -0.24** -0.18**
Dogmatism 0.27** 0.19** 0.25**
Expression 0.26** 0.06* 0.19**
Dependence 0.65** 0.69** 0.73**
Guilt 0.62** 0.66** 0.64**
Hypochondria 0.59** 0.51** 0.61**
Obsessiveness 0.38** 0.30** 0.26**
Manipulation -0.01 -0.03 0.07**
Practicality -0.18** -0.11** -0.13**
Sensation seeking -0.13** -0.16** -0.05
Tough-mindedness -0.35** -0.28** -0.20*
P1:Risk-taking P2:Impulsiveness P3:Irresponsibility

Aggression 0.31** 0.32** 0.34**
Ambition 0.05 -0.10** -0.37**
Dogmatism 0.19** 0.24** 0.17**
Expression 0.32** 0.44** 0.31**
Dependence -0.04 0.29** 0.37**
Guilt -0.00 0.25** 0.34**
Hypochondria -0.06* 0.16** 0.27**
Obsessiveness -0.31** -0.14** -0.17**
Manipulation 0.26** 0.09** 0.11**
Practicality 0.01 0.04 -0.03
Tough-mindedness 0.25** -0.06* -0.00
Note: *-p<0.05, **-p<0.01
It appears, therefore, that the statistical and psychometric properties of the EPP-S are
acceptable. The ten scales have reasonable alpha reliabilities, not too low to be useful and
not too high to suggest redundancy. The traits cohere as predicted, and both factor analysis
and multidimensional scaling give firm evidence for the meaningful postulation of P, E, and N
as major components of personality, with L as a relatively independent index of
dissimulation. The test does not presume to cover all of the traits of personality, but it does
adequately cover the areas likely to be of particular importance for academic, commercial,
business and industrial use.
It is essential that administration of the Eysenck Personality Profiler is in accord with the
Company’s code of practice. If testing within the UK, it is the test administrator’s
responsibility to see that the Data Protection Act (1984), the Sex Discrimination Act (1975),
the Race Relations Act (1976) and the Disabilities Discrimination Act (1995) are not infringed
upon. In other countries, it is the tester’s responsibility to ensure that equivalent or other
relevant legislation is followed.
Prior to testing, the person being tested should be sent information about the session which
contains information about the test, why it is being used, conditions of testing and feedback
information.
People being tested will need to be reassured that their answers will be treated in
confidence. Candidates need to be told that the answers to actual items are strictly
confidential and are never analysed at that level unless the candidate actually requests this
kind of feedback. The tester will need to tell them who is going to have access to the results
and for how long the results will be kept. The tester will need to obtain informed consent prior
to administration of the Eysenck Personality Profiler.
The tester must be aware that selection and appraisal decisions should not be made purely
on the basis of a personality test. The test should be used as part of the selection or
appraisal process.
The Eysenck Personality Profiler should be administered under standard test conditions so
that the effects of external factors on test reliability and performance are kept as small as
possible. Having said that, it is important that the tester acts naturally with the candidate. It is
best to use a natural conversation, be interested and encouraging, and try to make the
session as pleasant as possible for the person being tested.
The tester should minimise distractions, and ensure that the test is conducted in a quiet,
comfortable, properly lit, well-ventilated room. No other people should be in the room during
testing. When administering the test to groups, ensure people are far enough apart so as not
to interfere with the performance of each other.
It is not unusual for people to begin the testing session feeling anxious, suspicious or
resentful. All of this is likely to provide a sub-optimal test environment. The tester must
therefore establish rapport when the candidate arrives and reassure them.
Administrators need to take care that candidates do not consciously or unconsciously

sabotage the test. When administering the pencil and paper version, candidates may leave
items out, circle two or more responses for an item or even alter the test item before
answering. The administrator should check that the questionnaires have been properly
completed and if not encourage candidates to complete them.
Disability may interfere with a candidate’s ability to complete the test. It is the administrator’s
responsibility to provide all reasonable means to accommodate the candidate’s needs. How
this was achieved should be reported together with the actual results of the Eysenck
Personality Profiler. For example, items may need to be read to the candidate if s/he is
visually disabled. Physically disabled candidates may need to be tested in a ground floor
room and may need help to actually get to the testing site. If a candidate does not
understand an item in the test, then the administrator may provide further explanation.
However, if the lack of understanding represents poor literacy or education, then it may be
necessary to abandon the test session altogether.
The Eysenck Personality Profiler was not standardised with modifications to the testing
session and so the administrators’ professional judgement will need to be used in such
situations.
Thank the subject(s) for attending and express the hope that they will find the experience
both interesting and useful. Establish rapport, introduce the Eysenck Personality Profiler and
say what will happen to the results. Results must never be used for purposes other than
those which are explained to the subject.
If there are several subjects say: ‘From now on please do not talk amongst yourselves, but
ask if anything is not clear.’
Then say: ‘The Eysenck Personality Profiler asks you a number of questions about how you
see yourself, your habits and experiences. You should work quickly giving your most truthful
reply. There are no right or wrong answers, we are only interested in your personal
responses.’ For the full version of the test say, ‘There are 440 questions which will take about
40 minutes to complete (unless the automatic scoring software is used in which case it will
take 30 minutes).’ Change and adapt this part according to which scales are actually being
administered. Then say, ‘To begin, we ask you to give a few basic personal details following
which you will start the questionnaire.’
You may have to assist subjects in completing the subject details section. Subjects can then
begin to complete the answer sheet of the questionnaire. Administration of the questionnaire
is not timed.
After the profiler had been competed thank the subject for attending and check that all
questions have been answered correctly. Subjects should have their attention drawn to any
omissions or unclear answers.
Finally, ensure that the people taking the questionnaire are informed about what will happen
to the test scores and that they are satisfied that the testing was conducted in a proper
manner.
It is accepted practice that subjects have feedback concerning their scores if the scores are
to be used for a purpose that has some effect on the individual (e.g. selection for a job). This
may be done by viewing the results immediately and giving feedback, or at a later interview
once you have had time to review the results.
Given the relatively direct nature of the questions and possible low face validity of the
questions to some candidates, it is a specific responsibility of the Tester to ensure that the
person being tested understands:
e) That the questions map on to traits which are valid constructs of personality and thus that
the low face validity of individual questions is not an important issue. In fact, low face
validity may improve accuracy as it is more difficult to spot the ‘correct’ answer.
f) The intrusive nature of the questions has little relevance as the tester is not interested in
the answer to any specific question. It is only the score on the trait which is evaluated.
The Administrator should keep proper records of attendance and what happens during the
testing session. This should be reported to the decision makers.
Tests (both new and completed) must be kept in a locked container and access should be
restricted. Completed questionnaires should be disposed of by shredding or incineration after
analysis.
Any self-report test such as the EPP can be faked if the candidate is motivated to do so.
Research shows that emotionality scores tend to be lower when personality tests are taken
for job selection purposes as compared with research or self-interest purposes. It follows that
socially undesirable traits are likely to be more valid and meaningful than those that make the
candidate look good. For example, a person who comes out as very happy is either very
happy or wishes the tester to gain that impression; the person who comes out as miserable
and depressed is unlikely to have contrived the result.
The most valid results will be obtained when the candidate believes that the results of the
test will be used for his/her own benefit, for example to ensure that he/she is most suitably
placed within the organisation and not given a job that is too boring, stressful or otherwise
inappropriate to his/her personality needs. Therefore the manner in which the test is
introduced is most important. If it is not possible to reassure the candidate along these lines
then considerable caution is needed in the interpretation of results.
In the case of the actuarial use of the test the precise mechanism by which valid prediction
occurs does not matter and may never be known - although injustice in certain individual
cases is likely. This is why we recommend that the test is never used as a stand-alone
personnel selection device. The candidate should always be given the opportunity at
interview to explain or discuss results that might otherwise seem to render him/her
unsuitable.
Most of the traits measured in the EPP relate systematically to demographic characteristics.
Women, for example, are generally more emotional than men, and men are generally higher
in P than women. People are inclined to get more introverted, tender minded and stable as
they grow older. These facts can be handled in different ways. In assessing ‘normality’
appropriate corrections can be made (intuitively or statistically). With actuarial prediction it
does not matter what is ‘causing’ the personality relationships, the validity still holds.
Nevertheless users should bear in mind the possible controversy where test results come
into conflict with current social ethics or even the law (e.g., sex equality laws). If airline pilots
are chosen on emotional stability, for example, more of them will be male than female.
Finally, we re-emphasise that personality factors should not be the only basis of selecting
and appraising employees. Depending upon the requirements of the job, personality may be
very important or of little importance, and other attributes such as education, experience,
talent, speech and grooming must be given due weight.
Low scorers are inclined to be physically evenly paced, and sometimes are easily tired. They
move about the world at a leisurely pace, prefer to perform tasks one at a time and tend to
be good finishers of work. They prefer quiet environments. Low activity goes with
introversion.
High scorers are generally active and energetic. They tend to be starters of work and be
proactive. They also tend to have several projects on the go at any one time. They also enjoy
all kinds of physical activity including hard work and exercise. They tend to wake early and
quickly in the morning, move rapidly from one activity to another, and pursue a wide variety
of different interests. High activity is an extravert characteristic.
Low scorers prefer to have only a few special friends, enjoy solo activities such as reading,
painting or working with computers; have difficulty finding things to talk about to other people
and are inclined to withdraw from oppressive social contacts. Low sociability is a component
of introversion.
High scorers have an inclination to seek out the company of other people. They like social
functions such as meetings, selling to people, going to parties and dances. They tend to
meet people easily and are generally happy and comfortable in social situations. High
sociability is a key aspect of extraversion
This refers to a general tendency to display one’s emotions openly and outwardly.
Low scorers are reserved, even-tempered, cool, detached and generally controlled as
regards the expression of their thoughts and feelings. This can make them difficult to read by
colleagues.
High scorers tend to be open with their feelings, volatile and demonstrative. Others tend to
find it relatively easy to relate to expressive people.
Low scorers are humble, timid, submissive, disinclined to take initiative in interpersonal
situations and may be easily imposed upon. A form of social skills therapy called
‘assertiveness training’ sets out to bolster this attribute, hopefully without increasing
aggressiveness.
High scorers have what is sometimes called a ‘strong personality’: they are independent,
dominant, and stand up for their rights, perhaps to the extent of being viewed as ‘pushy’.
They tend to be at the centre of attention at meetings.
Low scorers place little value on competitive performance or creative output within their area
of work. Low scorers may have other interests that pre-occupy them outside of work.
High scorers are ambitious, hard-working, competitive, keen to improve their social standing
and place a high value on productivity and creativity within their area of work.
Low scorers are less rigid and less likely to see things in black and white; they are open to
rational persuasion and tolerant of uncertainty.
High scorers have set, uncompromising views on most matters and are likely to defend them
vigorously and vociferously.
Low scorers are gentle, even tempered, prefer to avoid personal conflict and are not given to
violence, either physical or indirect.
High scorers are given to the direct or indirect expression of aggression through behaviours
such as temper tantrums, fighting, violent argument and sarcasm. They take no nonsense
from anyone and feel compelled to return fire or ‘get back’ at anyone who transgresses
against them.
This refers to the self-perception of inferiority rather than to any objective assessment of the
individual’s worth.
High scorers have a low opinion of themselves, believing that they are unattractive failures
whatever their actual qualities or achievements. An extreme high score might be thought of
as approximating to the celebrated ‘inferiority complex’.
People of high self-esteem (low scorers on this scale) have plenty of confidence in
themselves and their abilities. They think of themselves as worthy, useful human beings, and
believe that they are well-liked by other people. Without necessarily implying conceit it could
be said that they like themselves a lot.
Low scorers are generally cheerful, optimistic and well. They are satisfied with their
existence, find life rewarding and are at peace with the world.
High scorers are characteristically pessimistic, gloomy and depressed, disappointed with
their existence and at odds with the world. They are of course more prone to clinical
depression, though there is no single cut-off point where therapy is indicated.
Low scorers are placid, serene and resistant to irrational fears and anxieties. On average,
women admit to a higher degree of fear and anxiety than men, but there is considerable
overlap between the sexes.
High scorers on anxiety are easily upset by things that go wrong. They are somewhat”
jumpy” and are inclined to worry unnecessarily about unpleasant things that may or may not
happen. Such people account for a high proportion of the consumption of minor tranquillisers
like Librium and Valium.
Low scorers are autonomous, enjoy a great deal of freedom and independence, make their
own decisions, view themselves as the master of their own fate and take realistic action to
solve their problems.
High scorers lack self-reliance, think of themselves as helpless pawns of fate, are pushed
around by other people and events and show a high degree of what has been called
‘authoritarian submission’- the unquestioning obedience to institutional power.
Low scorers are seldom ill and do not worry very much about their health. They are also
generally resistant to stress.
High scorers are stress prone. They acquire psychosomatic symptoms and imagine that they
are ill. Such people complain of a wide variety of diffuse physical symptoms, show a great
deal of concern about their physical health, and frequently demand the sympathetic attention
of their doctor and their family and friends. It should be noted that a high score on this scale
could be obtained by someone who is physically ill, but the variety of symptoms sampled
makes this extremely unlikely.
Low scorers are little inclined to punish themselves or regret their past behaviour. This does
not mean that they are blameless, just that their conscience is non-punitive.
High scorers are self-blaming, self-abasing and troubled by their conscience regardless of
whether or not their behaviour is really morally reprehensible.
Low scorers are casual and easy-going, with less need for order, routine or ritual.
High scorers are careful, conscientious, highly disciplined, staid, finicky and easily irritated by
things that are unclean, untidy or out of place.
Low scores indicate a preference for familiarity, safety and security, even if this means
sacrificing some degree of excitement in life.
High scorers like to live dangerously and seek rewards with little concern for the possible
adverse consequences. Characteristically, they are gamblers who believe that ‘an element of
risk adds spice to life’.
Low scorers consider matters very carefully before making a decision. They are systematic,
orderly, cautious and plan their life out in advance: they think before they speak and ‘look
before they leap’.
High scorers are inclined to act on the spur of the moment, make hurried, often premature
decisions and are usually carefree, changeable and unpredictable.
Low scorers are likely to be conscientious, reliable, trustworthy and serious-minded, possibly
even a little bit compulsive.
Irresponsible people are inclined to be overly casual, thoughtless, careless of protocol,

unpredictable and socially unreliable. There is no necessary implication of delinquency or
psychopathy. Psychopaths and criminals are usually irresponsible but the converse is by no
means certain; many people would score high on this factor without criminal intent.
Low scorers are warm-hearted, trusting, sensitive, straightforward and altruistic, perhaps also
a little naive and gullible.
High scorers are detached, calculating, shrewd, worldly, expedient and self-interested in their
dealings with other people.
Low scorers have little need for excitement or adventure; instead they prefer the secure and
familiar comforts of ‘home’.
High scorers are forever seeking thrills in life; they have an insatiable thirst for novel
experiences and require regular ‘jabs’ in order to stave off boredom. To this end they will
accept a moderate level of danger to life and limb.
Low scorers are easily upset by bugs, blood and brutality. They have a high interest in
delicate matters such as art, clothes and flowers. Traditionally they would be described as
"feminine” in personality.
High scorers are unconcerned about crawling insects, the sight of blood and other gruesome
spectacles. They are tolerant of and probably enjoy violence obscenity and swearing. They
are disinclined to show weakness or sentimentality of any kind, for example, by crying or
expressing love, and rely on reason rather than intuition. Some people would describe them
as "macho” or "butch” in personality (i.e. masculine).
Low scorers are inclined to be interested in ideas, abstractions, philosophical questions,

discussions, speculations and knowledge for the sake of knowledge; that is, generally
thoughtful (in the literal sense of the word) and introspective.
High scorers are inclined to be practical, are interested in doing things rather than thinking
about them and tend to be impatient with ivory tower theorising.
This is not so much a personality trait as a ‘control’ key for assessing the validity of the other
self-reported traits. In particular, when L is high, N and P scores may appear lower than they
ought to be. E scores are more likely to be slightly elevated if the questions have not been
answered honestly, since most people think it is preferable to be sociable than withdrawn.
However, the impact of social desirability will depend upon the context of testing (Jackson &
Wilson, 1994).
Low scorers have answered the questions without trying to fake their answers so as to put
themselves in a positive light. Higher Dissimulation (Lie) scores are often associated with
personality questionnaires when used in selection.
High scorers have put themselves in a positive light so as to try and create a positive
impression. Usually the faking is regarded as trying to increase social desirability. A person
who is genuinely virtuous might also come out with a high score but this is relatively unlikely.
Aiken, L. (1985). Psychological Testing and Assessment. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing. New York: MacMillan.
Cohen, R., Montague, P., Nathanson, L. & Swerdlike, M. (1988). Psychological Testing: An
Introduction to Tests and measurement. California: Mayfield Publishing.
Cook, M. (1988) Personal Selection and Productivity. Chichester: Wiley.
Cronbach, L. (1984). Essentials of Psychological Assessment. New York: Harper
International.
Groth-Marnat, G. (1984). Handbook of Psychological Assessment. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Kline, P. (1983) Personality: Measurement and Theory. London: Hutchison.
Toplis, J., Dulewicz, V., & Fletcher, C. (1988). Psychological Testing: A Practical Guide.
London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Barrett, P., & Eysenck, S. The assessment of personality factors across 25 countries.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1984, 5, 615-632.
Barrett, P., & Kline, P. Personality factors in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
Barrett, P., & Kline, P. Ten items and radical parcel factor analysis of the 16-PF
questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 1982, 3, 259-270.
Chamove, A.S., Eysenck, H.J., & Harlow, H.F. Personality in monkeys: Factor analysis of
rhesus social behaviour. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 24,
496-504.
Conley, J.J. The hierarchy of consistency: a review and model of longitudinal findings on
adult individual differences in intelligence, personality and self-opinion. Personality
and Individual Differences, 1984a, 5, 11-26.
Conley, J.J. Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Self-reported psychological
characteristics across 45 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1984b, 47, 1325-1334.
Costello, C, G. Personality Characteristics of the Personality Disordered. New York: Wiley,
(1996).
Eaves, L., Eysenck, H.J., & Martin, N. Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical
Approach. New York Academic Press, 1989.
Eysenck, H.J. Dimensions of Personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1947.
Eysenck, H.J. The Scientific Study of Personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952.
Eysenck, H.J. The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1957.
Eysenck, H.J. The Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory. London: University of
London Press, 1959.
Eysenck, H.J. The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield: C.C. Thomas, 1967.
Eysenck, H.J. The Structure of Human Personality. 3rd Edition London: Methuen, 1970.
Eysenck, H.J. Sex and Personality. London: Open Books, 1976.
Eysenck, H.J. Crime and Personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.
Eysenck, H.J. Personality and Learning. In: S. Murray-Smith (Ed.), Melbourne Studies in
Education. Pp. 134-181. Melbourne: University Press, 1978.
Eysenck, H.J. The Causes and Effects of Smoking. London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1980.
Eysenck, H.J. (Ed.) A Model for Personality. New York: Springer, 1981.
Eysenck, H.J. A biometrical-genetical analysis of impulsive and sensation-seeking behaviour.
In: M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological Bases of Sensation-Seeking, Impulsivity and
Anxiety. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1983.
Eysenck, H.J. Is there a paradigm in personality research? Journal of Research in
Personality, 1983, 17, 369-397.
Eysenck, H.J. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995
Eysenck, H.J and Eysenck M.W. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science
Approach. New York: Plenum Press, 1985
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. The Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.
London: University of London Press, 1964.
Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. A factor-analytic study of the Lie scale of the Junior
Eysenck Personality Inventory. Personality, 1970, 1, 3, 3-10.
Eysenck, S.B.G., Nias, D.K.B., & Eysenck, H.J. The interpretation of children's Lie scale
scores. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 41, 23-31.
Eysenck, H.J., Nias, D.K.B., & Cox, D.N. Sport and Personality Advances in Behaviour
Research Therapy, 1982, 4, 1-56.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, M.W. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science
Approach. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. Personality Structure and Measurement. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1975. San Diego: DIGITS, 1975.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. Recent advances in the cross-cultural study of personality.
In: J.N. Butcher and C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment, 2,
p. 41-69.
Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G. The Causes and Cures of Criminality. New York: Plenum
Press, 1988.
Eysenck, H.J., & Wakefield, J.A. Psychological factors as predictors of marital satisfaction.
Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1982, 4, 1-56.
Eysenck, M.W., & Eysenck, H.J.. British Journal of Psychology, 1980. 71. 191-209.
Eysenck, S.B.G., Eysenck, H.J., & Barrett, P. A revised version of the psychoticism scale.
Furnham, A. Personality at Work: The Role of Individual Differences in the Work Place.
London: Doubleday, 1992
Gale, A. Electroencephalographic studies of extraversion-introversion: A case study in the
psychophysiology of individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences,
1984, 4, 371-380.
Goldberg, L.P., & Kilkowski, J.M. The prediction of semantic consistency in self-description:
Characteristics of persons and of terms that affect the consistency of responses to
synonym and antonym pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 48,
82-89.
Hindley, C.B., & Guiganino, B.M. Continuity of personality pattern using from 3-15 years old
in a longitudinal sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 1982, 3, 127-144.
Joffe, R. Prenatal Determinants of Behaviour. London: Pergamon Press, 1969.
Loehlin, J.C., & Nichols, R.C. Heredity, Environment and Personality. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1976.
McCord, R.R., & Wakefield, J.A. Arithmetic achievement as a function of introversion-
extraversion and teacher-presented reward and punishment. Personality and
Individual Differences, 1981, 2, 145-152.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of
the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 1985, 6,
587-597.
McKenzie, J. Three super-factors in the 16-PF and their relation to Eysenck's P, E and N.
Michaelis, W., & Eysenck, H.J. The determination of personality inventory factor patterns and
intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. Journal of Genetics and
Psychology, 1971, 118, 223-234.
Norman, W.T. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes. Replicated factor
structures in regular nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
1963, 60, 574-583.
Royce, J.R., & Powell, A. Theory of Personality and Individual Differences: Factors, Systems
and Processes. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983.
Rushton, J.P., Brainerd, C.J., & Pressley, M. Behavioural development and construct validity:
The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 1983, 94, 18-38.
Saville, P., & Blinkhorn, S. Reliability, homogeneity and the construct validity of Cattell's 16-
PF. Personality and Individual Differences, 1981, 2, 325-333.
Schalling, D., Ederson, G., Asberg, M., & Oreland, L. Platelet MAO activity associated with
impulsivity and aggressivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 1988, 9, 597-605.
Shaw, L., & Sickel, S. Accidence-Proneness. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1970.
Strelau, J., & Eysenck, H.J. Personality Dimensions of Arousal. New York: Plenum Press,
1987.
Venman, P.E. The Assessment of Psychological Quantities by Verbal Methods. London,
H.M.S.O., 1938.
Wakefield, J.A., Yom, B.H., Bradley, P.E., Doughtie, E.B. Cox, J.A., & Kraft, I.A. Eysenck's
personality dimensions: A model for the MMPI. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 1974, 13, 413-420.
Wundt, W. Grundzuge der Psychologischen Psychologie. (Vol. 3, 5th Edition). Leipzig: W.
Engelmann, 1903.
Zuckerman, M. Psychobiology of Personality. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,
(1991)
Zuckerman, M. Personality in the third dimension: A psychobiological approach. Personality
and Individual Differences, 1989, 4, 391-418.
Zuckerman, M., Ballinger, J., & Post, R. The neurobiology of some dimensions of personality.
International Review of Neurobiology, 1989, 25, 391-436.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, M.L., & Camac, C. What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of
scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1988, 54, 96-107.
Aziz, S. & Jackson, C. A comparison between three and five factor models of Pakistani
Personality data.
Eysenck, H.J., Barrett, P., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. J. (1992). Primary trait
measurements of the 21components of the P-E-N system. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 18,109-117.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck's P-E-N system: Three- and
five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 308-317.
Francis, L. J. & Jackson, C. J. (In press). The social desirability of tough-mindedness: a
study among undergraduates. Irish Journal of Psychology
Francis, L. J., Jones, S. H., & Jackson, C. J. The feminine personality profile of male
anglican clergy in Britain and Ireland: a study employing the Eysenck Personality
profiler. Submitted.
Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1997a). Personality scores and test taking style.
Personality and Individual Differences. In press.
Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1997b). Personality and intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences. In press.
Furnham, A., Jackson, C., Forde, L & Cotter, T. The dimensional structure and correlates of
the Eysenck Personality profiler. Submitted
Jackson, C. J. & Corr, P. (1998). Personality-performance correlations at work: individual and
aggregate levels of analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 815-820.
Jackson, C. J. & Francis, L. J. (1998). Interpreting the correlation between neuroticism and
lie scale scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 59-64.
Jackson, C. J. & Francis, L. J. Factor structure and internal consistency of the EPP and EPP-
S using a student sample
Jackson, C. J., Furnham, A. & Lawty-Jones, M.. (In press). Relationship between
indecisiveness and neuroticism: the moderating effect of a tough-minded culture.
Personality and Individual Differences,
Jackson, C., Sowden, P., & Fitzgerald, M. Correlation between EEG, Extraversion and
Activity
Jackson, C. J. and Wilson G.D. (1992) Mad, bad or sad? The personality of bikers
Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 241-292.
Jackson, C. J. and Wilson, G.D (1994) Group obsessiveness as a moderator of dissimulation
on neuroticism scales. European Journal of Personality Assessment 10, 224-228.
Jackson, C. J. (1994). The personality of physicists. Physics World, April, 101 - 103.
Jackson, C. J. (1995). Getting inside the head of recruitment consultants. Selection, March,
4-6
Jackson, C. J.. (1998). Tough-minded culture acts as a stressor in creating conflict.
European Conference of Personality 7-11th July (ECP9), University of Surrey,
Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Jackson, C. J. Beliefs about money in interaction with personality and attributional style as
predictors of sales success. Submitted.
Jackson, C. J. Comparison between Eysenck & Gray’s models of personality. Submitted.
Marchant-Haycox, S. E. and Wilson, G.D. (1992) Personality and stress in performing artists.
Personality and Individual Differences 13, 1061-1067.
Wilson, G.D. and Jackson, C. J. (1994) The personality of physicists. Personality and
Individual differences 16, 187-189.
H. J. Eysenck, Ph.D., D.Sc.,
Professor Emeritus, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
G. D. Wilson Ph.D., FBPsS, C.Psychol.

Reader in Personality, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London

C. J. Jackson MPhil Ph.D., C.Psychol (Occ.), AFBPsS.
Lecturer in Psychology, Surrey University
H. J. Eysenck, G. D. Wilson, & C. J. Jackson
© Revised by PSi-Press, 2000
Manual Version 6.1, January 2000
All trademarks and copyrights acknowledged.
The authors and publishers have made every effort to ensure that the manual, questionnaire
and software are of the highest standard but can accept no liability in terms of accuracy,
reliability, currentness, legality or otherwise. Moreover, the authors and publishers accept no
liability for any uses to which the Eysenck Personality Profiler may be put to. It is a specific
condition of use that the purchaser accepts that the authors and publishers entire and sole
liability shall be a full replacement of the manual and questionnaires.
The authors and publishers only authorise registered users to use the personality profiler and
manual.
The Eysenck Personality Profiler provides an extremely accurate insight into

personality. Since this inevitably reveals weaknesses as well as strengths, users are
advised to use the test only with regard to best practice. Specifically, users are
advised to provide feedback to people who have been tested in order to answer any
questions and concerns that they might have.
Never use the test as the sole method for selection and appraisal.
Always follow your country’s code of conduct such as that issued by the British
Psychological Society
Always act within your country’s legal framework, especially with regard to equal
opportunities
Always ensure people being tested sign the declaration
You will need to register under your country’s Data Protection Act or equivalent.
For all further information contact:

PSi-Press
54 High View Road
Guildford
GU2 5RT
Surrey
UNITED KINGDOM
tel: +44(0)1483 567 606
fax: +44(0)1483 456 239
e-mail: sales@psi-press.co.uk web-site: http://www.psi-press.co.uk
Table 2: Means and standard deviations of the traits
Trait Mean SD
E
E2 Activity 26.72 7.32
E3 Assertiveness 23.36 7.20
N
N1 Anxiety 11.65 8.61
N2 Inferiority 10.41 8.59
N3 Unhappiness 8.41 8.43
P
P1 Risk-taking 20.99 6.73
P2 Impulsiveness 19.38 7.52
P3 Irresponsibility 17.47 7.06
L 12.12 6.70
Notes: A high score indicates high E, N & P (for example, unhappiness is scored so that a high score
indicates depression while a low score indicates a feeling of well-being)
Table 4: Intercorrelations among the traits
(Rt) (Ac) (As) (S) (An) (ln) (U) (Im) (lr)
Activity
Assertiveness 0.40**
Sociability 0.45** 0.44**
Anxiety -0.25** -0.33** -0.32**
Inferiority -0.38** -0.50** -0.46** 0.72**
Unhappiness -0.37** -0.31** -0.33** 0.73** 0.73**
Impulsiveness 0.09** 0.07** 0.15** 0.20** 0.14** 0.21**
Irresponsibility -0.30** -0.15** -0.08** 0.29** 0.31** 0.34** 0.51**
Risk-taking 0.17** 0.26** 0.23** -0.08** -0.11** 0.02 0.48** 0.40**
L 0.04 -0.08** -0.03 -0.13** -0.11** -0.14** -0.24** -0.43**
0.30**
* p <0.05; ** p <0.01 (2-tailed)
Factor analysis of the ten traits showed a clear three factor structure (four including the lie
scale). The percentage of variance explained by each factor is displayed in Table 4.
The structure matrix, after oblimin rotation, and the communalities of the traits, are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5: Percentage of variance explained
Factor % of Var Cumulative%

1 (N) 35.1 35.1
2 (P) 22.7 57.8
3 (E) 10.1 67.9
4 (L) 7.8 75.6
5 6.0 81.7
6 5.7 87.4
7 4.6 92.0
8 3.3 95.3
9 2.5 97.8
10 2.2 100.0
Notes: 3 factor solution imposed, but all eigenvalues shown
Table 6: Structure Matrix and communalities
I II III IV
N P E L
N1: Anxiety 0.92 0.10 -0.29 -0.07
N2: Inferiority 0.89 0.07 -0.51 -0.02
N3: Unhappiness 0.88 0.18 -0.36 -0.11
P2: Impulsiveness 0.22 0.86 0.12 -0.13

P1: Risk-taking -0.12 0.78 0.24 -0.34
P3: Irresponsibility 0.29 0.72 -0.37 -0.47
E2: Activity -0.28 0.04 0.84 0.11

E3: Assertiveness -0.42 0.08 0.73 -0.26
E1: Sociability -0.40 0.24 0.73 -0.03
L -0.12 -0.29 0.01 0.95
Variable Communality
E1: Sociability 0.59
E2: Activity 0.72
E3: Assertiveness 0.63
N1: Anxiety 0.85
N2: Inferiority 0.83
N3: Unhappiness 0.80
P1: Risk-taking 0.67
P2: Impulsiveness 0.78
P3: Irresponsibility 0.78
L 0.92
Notes: Principal components solution with oblimin rotation (delta=-0.5) and automatic sort option
Table reports the means and standard deviations of P, E and N. Note that the total of each of
the types is simply the mean of the three traits reported here multiplied by three. The mean
and the standard deviation of L is also reported here. Table 8 shows the percentile scores of
P, E, N and L, Table 9 shows the correlation matrix and Table 10 reports the alpha reliability
coefficients.
Table 7: Means and standard deviations of the types
a) All data
Variable Mean SD
E 25.82 5.90
N 10.16 7.73
P 19.28 5.69
L 12.12 6.70
b) Males c) Females
Variable Mean SD Mean SD
E 26.32 5.84 25.32 5.93
N 8.71 7.06 11.61 8.09
P 19.33 5.88 19.24 5.49
L 11.49 6.73 12.75 6.61
The means are the simple arithmetic average of the three traits associated with each factor.
Multiply average by three to obtain totals.
Table 8: Percentile scores of the types
a) Extraversion
7.33 0 0 18.67 1 14 28.67 2 66
8.00 0 0 19.00 1 15 29.00 1 67
8.33 0 0 19.33 1 16 29.33 3 70
8.67 0 0 19.67 1 17 29.67 2 71
9.33 0 0 20.00 1 18 30.00 2 74
9.67 0 1 20.33 1 19 30.33 1 75
10.33 0 1 20.67 1 20 30.67 3 78
10.67 0 1 21.00 1 21 31.00 2 80
11.00 0 1 21.33 1 23 31.33 2 82
11.33 0 1 21.67 2 24 31.67 2 84
11.67 0 2 22.00 2 26 32.00 2 86
12.00 0 2 22.33 1 27 32.33 1 87
12.67 0 2 22.67 2 30 32.67 2 89
13.00 0 3 23.00 1 30 33.00 1 90
13.33 0 3 23.33 2 33 33.33 2 92
13.67 0 3 23.67 2 34 33.67 1 93
14.00 1 4 24.00 2 36 34.00 1 95
14.33 0 4 24.33 1 38 34.33 1 96
14.67 1 5 24.67 2 40 34.67 1 97
15.00. 0 5 25.00 2 42 35.00 1 97
15.33 1 6 25.33 2 44 35.33 1 98
15.67 0 6 25.67 2 47 35.67 0 98
16.00. 1 7 26.00 3 49 36.00 1 98
16.33 1 8 26.33 1 50 36.33 0 99
16.67 1 8 26.67 2 53 36.67 0 99
17.00. 1 9 27.00 2 54 37.00 1 99
17.33 1 10 27.33 2 56 37.33 0 100
17.67 1 11 27.67 2 59
18.00 1 12 28.00 3 62
18.33 1 13 28.33 2 64
b) Neuroticism
0.00 1 1 12.33 1 69 24.67 0 94
0.33 0 1 12.67 1 71 25.00 1 94
0.67 2 3 13.00 1 72 25.33 0 95
1.00 1 4 13.33 1 73 25.67 0 95
1.33 3 7 13.67 1 73 26.00 0 95
1.67 1 8 14.00 1 74 26.33 0 95
2.00 4 12 14.33 1 75 26.67 0 96
2.33 1 13 14.67 1 76 27.00 0 96
2.67 3 17 15.00 1 77 27.33 0 96
3.00 1 18 15.33 1 78 27.67 0 96
3.33 3 21 15.67 0 79 28.00 0 97
3.67 1 23 16.00 1 80 28.33 0 97
4.00 3 25 16.33 1 80 28.67 0 97
4.33 2 27 16.67 1 81 29.33 0 97
4.67 3 30 17.00 1 82 29.67 0 98
5.00 3 33 17.33 1 83 30.00 0 98
5.33 2 35 17.67 0 83 30.33 0 98
5.67 1 36 18.00 1 84 30.67 0 98
6.00 2 38 18.33 1 84 31.00 0 98
6.33 1 39 18.67 1 85 31.33 0 99
6.67 3 42 19.00 0 86 31.67 0 99
7.00 2 44 19.33 1 87 32.00 0 99
7.33 2 46 19.67 1 87 32.33 0 99
7.67 2 48 20.00 1 88 32.67 0 99
8.00 2 50 20.33 0 88 33.00 0 99
8.33 2 51 20.67 1 89 33.33 0 99
8.67 2 53 21.00 0 89 34.00 0 99
9.00 2 55 21.33 1 90 34.33 0 99
9.33 2 57 21.67 0 90 34.67 0 100
9.67 1 58 22.00 1 91
10.00 2 60 22.33 0 91
10.33 1 61 22.67 1 92
10.67 2 63 23.00 0 92
11.00 2 64 23.33 1 93
11.33 2 66 23.67 0 93
11.67 1 67 24.00 0 93
12.00 2 69 24.33 0 93
c) Psychoticism
4.67 0 0 15.67 2 30 25.67 1 87
5.33 0 0 16.00 2 32 26.00 2 88
6.00 0 0 16.33 1 34 26.33 1 89
6.67 0 1 16.67 2 36 26.67 2 91
7.00 0 1 17.00 2 38 27.00 1 91
7.33 0 1 17.33 2 40 27.33 1 92
7.67 0 1 17.67 2 42 27.67 1 93
8.00 1 2 18.00 3 44 28.00 1 94
8.33 0 2 18.33 2 46 28.33 1 94
8.67 0 2 18.67 3 49 28.67 0 95
9.00 0 3 19.00 2 51 29.00 1 95
9.33 0 3 19.33 3 54 29.33 0 95
9.67 0 3 19.67 2 55 29.67 0 96
10.00 1 4 20.00 3 58 30.00 1 96
10.33 0 4 20.33 2 60 30.33 0 97
10.67 1 5 20.67 1 62 30.67 1 97
11.00 1 6 21.00 1 63 31.00 1 98
11.33 2 8 21.33 2 65 31.33 0 98
11.67 1 9 21.67 1 66 31.67 0 98
12.00 2 10 22.00 3 69 32.00 0 99
12.33 1 12 22.33 1 70 32.33 0 99
12.67 2 13 22.67 2 72 32.67 0 99
13.00 1 14 23.00 2 74 33.00 0 99
13.33 2 16 23.33 2 76 33.33 0 99
13.67 2 17 23.67 1 77 33.67 0 99
14.00 3 20 24.00 2 79 34.00 0 100
14.33 1 22 24.33 2 81
14.67 3 24 24.67 1 83
15.00 2 26 25.00 1 84
15.33 3 29 25.33 2 85
Lie scale (L)
0.00 2 2 13.00 3 61 26.00 1 97
1.00 0 2 14.00 7 68 27.00 0 98
2.00 3 5 15.00 3 71 28.00 1 99
3.00 1 7 16.00 6 77 29.00 0 99
4.00 5 11 17.00 2 79 30.00 0 99
5.00 6 17 18.00 5 84 31.00 0 99
6.00 8 25 19.00 2 85 32.00 0 99
7.00 2 27 20.00 4 89 33.00 0 100
8.00 8 35 21.00 1 90
9.00 3 37 22.00 3 92
10.00 7 44 23.00 1 94
11.00 4 48 24.00 2 95
12.00 10 58 25.00 1 96
Table 9: Correlation matrix of the types
E N P
N -0.51**
P 0.08** 0.21**
L -0.03 -0.14** -0.40**
*=p<0.05; **=p<0.01 (2-tailed)
Table 10: Alpha internal consistency coefficients
Coefficient alpha
Males Females
E
E2: Activity 0.75 0.77
N
N1: Anxiety 0.83 0.85
N2: Inferiority 0.85 0.85
P
Note: Taken from Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson & Jackson,1992
Tabelle 13: Overlap between the EPP (Short) and the other scales which comprised the 440 item EPP
EPP (Short scales)

Other scales E1:Sociability E2:Activity E3:Assertiveness
Aggression 0.03 0.02 0.23**
Ambition 0.35** 0.53** 0.40**
Dogmatism 0.00 0.08** 0.17**
Expression 0.28** 0.16** 0.29**
Dependence -0.28** -0.33** -0.43**
Guilt -0.21** -0.21** -0.25**
Hypochondria -0.22** -0.29** -0.19**
Obsessiveness -0.12** 0.03 -0.07*
Manipulation 0.07* 0.15** 0.31**
Practicality 0.10** 0.08** -0.07**
N1:Anxiety N2:Inferiority N3:Unhappiness

Aggression 0.30** 0.20** 0.32**
Ambition -0.12** -0.24** -0.18**
Dogmatism 0.27** 0.19** 0.25**
Expression 0.26** 0.06* 0.19**
Dependence 0.65** 0.69** 0.73**
Guilt 0.62** 0.66** 0.64**
Hypochondria 0.59** 0.51** 0.61**
Obsessiveness 0.38** 0.30** 0.26**
Manipulation -0.01 -0.03 0.07**
Practicality -0.18** -0.11** -0.13**
Sensation seeking -0.13** -0.16** -0.05
Tough-mindedness -0.35** -0.28** -0.20**
P1:Risk-taking P2:Impulsiveness P3:Irresponsibility

Aggression 0.31** 0.32** 0.34**
Ambition 0.05 -0.10** -0.37**
Dogmatism 0.19** 0.24** 0.17**
Expression 0.32** 0.44** 0.31**
Dependence -0.04 0.29** 0.37**
Guilt -0.00 0.25** 0.34**
Hypochondria -0.06* 0.16** 0.27**
Obsessiveness -0.31** -0.14** -0.17**
Manipulation 0.26** 0.09** 0.11**
Practicality 0.01 0.04 -0.03
Tough-mindedness 0.25** -0.06* -0.00
EPP (Short scales)
Other scales E1:Sociability E2:Activity E3:Assertiveness
Aggression 0.03 0.02 0.23**
Ambition 0.35** 0.53** 0.40**
Dogmatism 0.00 0.08** 0.17**
Expression 0.28** 0.16** 0.29**
Dependence -0.28** -0.33** -0.43**
Guilt -0.21** -0.21** -0.25**
Hypochondria -0.22** -0.29** -0.19**
Obsessiveness -0.12** 0.03 -0.07*
Manipulation 0.07* 0.15** 0.31**
Practicality 0.10** 0.08** -0.07**
Note: All other scales are available from the third author upon request
*-p<0.05, **-p<0.01
It appears, therefore, that the statistical and psychometric properties of the EPP-S are
acceptable. The ten scales have reasonable alpha reliabilities, not too low to be useful and
not too high to suggest redundancy. The traits cohere as predicted, and both factor analysis
and multidimensional scaling give firm evidence for the meaningful postulation of P, E, and N
as major components of personality, with L as a relatively independent index of
dissimulation. The test does not presume to cover all of the traits of personality, but it does
adequately cover the areas likely to be of particular importance for academic, occupational
and industrial use.

Manual EPP6

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Manual EPP6

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2.1 Description of variables ..................................................................................................

3.1 Objectivity ....................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Instructions ....................................................................................................................12

6.1 General notes on interpretation .....................................................................................13

The EPP6 is a multi-dimensional questionnaire based on the personality theory of Eysenck.

“Can’t decide” answers

“Can’t decide” answers

Table 1: Age distribution of the norm sample

Age group Men Women

Age group Men Women

Fig. 1: On-screen presentation of the EPP6

A percentile rank between 16 and 24 can be regarded as a below-average to average result

A percentile rank between 25 and 75 can be regarded as an average result on the

Percentile ranks between 76 and 84 reflect an average to above-average result on the

A percentile rank of >84 indicates a clearly above-average result on the corresponding

Unhappiness – low scorers are happy; high scorers are unhappy.

Anxiety – low scorers are calm; high scorers are worriers.

Dependence – low scorers are self-reliant; high scorers are dependent.

Manipulativeness – low scorers are empathetic; high scorers are manipulative.

Sensation-seeking – low scorers seek security; high scorers seek excitement.

Tough-mindedness - low scorers are tender-minded; high scorers are tough-minded.

Practicality - low scorers are reflective; high scorers are practical.

Profile - Overall sample:

 MANUAL OF THE EYSENCK PERSONALITY PROFILER (SHORT)

G. D. Wilson Ph.D., FBPsS, C.Psychol.

Edited and updated by:

Edited and updated by:

© Revised by PSi-Press, 2000

The Eysenck Personality Profiler provides an extremely accurate insight into

For all further information contact:

2.1 The trait structure of the EPP.........................................................................................46

1952 Maudesley Medical Neuroticism

Under special circumstances it may be possible to correct for correlations between

As Vernon demonstrated (Vernon, 1938), alleged measures of introversion correlated as

Figure 2.1. Hierarchical Model of Personality

A third feature of the hierarchical system, as described in "Dimensions of Personality", is its

ANXIOUS QUICKLY ROUSED

Figure 2.2. Diagrammatic representation of Eysenck´s classical theory

2.4. The hierarchical structure of the affective system

1. Extraverts will have intercourse earlier than introverts.

Traits of Neuroticism and Adventurousness (Psychoticism) are clearly more likely to be

The 7 traits consisting of Adventurousness (Psychoticism) variable are: P1: Risk-taking;

Table 3.1. Sample characteristics

Distribution of age of males (in years)

Table 3.2. Means and standard deviations of the traits

Dissimulation (Lie) Scale 12.12 6.70

a) The Extraversion traits

(Ac) (Ag) (Am) (As) (Do) (Ex) (So)

(An) (Dep) (Gu) (Hy) (In) (Ob) (Un)

(Im) (Ir) (Ma) (Pr) (Ri) (Se)

Factor Scree Plot

Figure 3.1.: Scree slope of the factor solution

Table 3.5. Percentage of variance

Factor % of Var Cumulative %

Table 3.6. Rotated Factor Matrix

N1: Inferiority 0.79 -0.05 -0.33

Table 3.8.: Percentile scores of the types

d) Dissimulation (Lie) Scale

Table 3.10.: Alpha internal consistency coefficients

Age: 20-29 Males Females

E1: Activity 26.53 7.32 25.71 7.62

N1: Inferiority 11.02 8.44 14.24 9.52

P1: Risk-taking 23.43 6.39 20.96 6.36

Age: 30-39 Males Females