Reply to Eysenck

Paul T. Costa; Robert R. McCrae

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7

Reply to Eysenck

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	861-865
Number of pages	5
Journal	Personality and Individual Differences
Volume	13
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7
State	Published - Aug 1992
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Psychology(all)

Access to Document

10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to Eysenck'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@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 = "Costa, {Paul T.} and McCrae, {Robert R.}",

year = "1992",

month = aug,

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 T.

AU - McCrae, Robert R.

PY - 1992/8

Y1 - 1992/8

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 -