Reply to Eysenck

Paul Costa, Robert R. McCrae

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

In this response to Eysenck's comments we argue that a contemporary review of the literature would favor the five-factor model; we attempt to explain the observed correlations between scales that measure different factors; and we reiterate our view that the systematic description of personality must precede, not follow, personality theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)861-865
Number of pages5
JournalPersonality and Individual Differences
Volume13
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 1992
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Personality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Reply to Eysenck. / Costa, Paul; McCrae, Robert R.

In: Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No. 8, 1992, p. 861-865.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Costa, Paul ; McCrae, Robert R. / Reply to Eysenck. In: Personality and Individual Differences. 1992 ; Vol. 13, No. 8. pp. 861-865.
@article{7679e56a24074a1195521e030ac342b9,
title = "Reply to Eysenck",
abstract = "In this response to Eysenck's comments we argue that a contemporary review of the literature would favor the five-factor model; we attempt to explain the observed correlations between scales that measure different factors; and we reiterate our view that the systematic description of personality must precede, not follow, personality theory.",
author = "Paul Costa and McCrae, {Robert R.}",
year = "1992",
doi = "10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "861--865",
journal = "Personality and Individual Differences",
issn = "0191-8869",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to Eysenck

AU - Costa, Paul

AU - McCrae, Robert R.

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - In this response to Eysenck's comments we argue that a contemporary review of the literature would favor the five-factor model; we attempt to explain the observed correlations between scales that measure different factors; and we reiterate our view that the systematic description of personality must precede, not follow, personality theory.

AB - In this response to Eysenck's comments we argue that a contemporary review of the literature would favor the five-factor model; we attempt to explain the observed correlations between scales that measure different factors; and we reiterate our view that the systematic description of personality must precede, not follow, personality theory.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40549145685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40549145685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7

DO - 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7

M3 - Letter

AN - SCOPUS:40549145685

VL - 13

SP - 861

EP - 865

JO - Personality and Individual Differences

JF - Personality and Individual Differences

SN - 0191-8869

IS - 8

ER -