Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 14031418 www.elsevier.

com/locate/paid

The structure of Cloningers Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire in a British sample

Mary E. Stewarta,*, Klaus P. Ebmeierb, Ian J. Dearyc
Department of Psychiatry, McKinnon House, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Morningside Park, Edinburgh EH10 5HF, UK b Department of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Morningside Park, Edinburgh EH10 5HF, UK c Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, UK Received 31 October 2002; received in revised form 6 May 2003; accepted 9 June 2003
a

Abstract This study adds to the very few published reports of the structure of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) at both the item and subscale levels. The TPQ was completed by 897 students from Universities within Edinburgh. Exploratory factor analysis was run on the items and the 12 subscales as described by Cloninger, Przybeck, and Svrakic (1991). Harm Avoidance showed high internal consistency both for the whole scale and the subscales; however, this was not the case for Reward Dependence and Novelty Seeking. A three factor solution was extracted from analysis at the scale level which gives support to Cloningers model. However, when analysis was carried out at the item level, three and four factor solutions were extracted with only one factor, that of Harm Avoidance, resembling Cloningers model. The four factors extracted were provisionally named Harm Avoidance, Conscientiousness, Sociability and Impulsiveness. These more closely resemble factors from the Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and Eysencks three factor model (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) than Cloningers theory. It may be necessary to adapt Cloningers model for a British sample, and more generally to question the psychometric structure of the TPQ. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire; TPQ; Exploratory factor analysis

The majority of researchers working on trait models of personality agree that there are between three and ve independent, reliable and stable broad personality factors (Barrett, Petrides, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1998; DiLalla, Gottesman, Carey, & Bouchard, 1999; Jang, McCrae,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-131-537-6591. E-mail address: mary.stewart@lpct.scot.nhs.uk (M.E. Stewart).
0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00237-X

1404

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; McCrae et al., 2000). Recently attention has turned to the determinants of personality and its biological basis. Cloninger (1987) proposed a biological model derived from animal research. He suggests that three personality traits: Harm Avoidance (HA); Reward Dependence (RD); and Novelty Seeking (NS) are heritable and that they relate to the monoamine systems: serotonin; noradrenaline; and dopamine, respectively. They are genetically independent but the systems are interconnected. Cloningers theory has received much attention both within psychology and also within psychiatry, with relationships being found between these personality traits and mental illness. For instance, Harm Avoidance scores are increased in patients with depression, panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and eating disorders (Kleield, Sunday, Hurt, & Halmi, 1994; Reich, Noyes, Hirschfeld, Coryell, & OGorman, 1987; Richter, Summerfeldt, Joe, & Swinson, 1996; Starcevic, Uhlenhuth, Fallon, & Pathak, 1996). However, the measures derived from Cloningers (1987) theory of personality must yet be shown to be both reliable and valid. To date only one study has tested Cloningers model in a British sample (Otter, Huber, & Bonner, 1995). In this study exploratory analysis at the scale level and conrmatory factor analysis were used in only 413 subjects. Although the Harm Avoidance Scale and its subscales were found to be reliable, the a coecients were less than 0.6 for the Reward Dependence subscales, RD1, RD2 and RD4 and the Novelty Seeking subscales NS1 and NS4, with only NS3 and RD3 achieving coecients above 0.7. Kline (1993) recommends that the coecents should be nearing 0.9 and not fall below 0.7. Therefore in Otter et al.s sample it would appear that only the Harm Avoidance scale and its subscales are reliable. When an exploratory factor analysis was carried out at the scale level a three factor solution in line with Cloningers was found, however, conrmatory factor analysis, also at the scale level, suggested that Cloningers model provided a poor t for the data. The w2 goodness-of-t did not support the model. Cloningers model has been tested in other groups and cultures (Aschauer et al., 1994; Le Bon, Staner, Tecco, Pull, & Pelc, 1998; Lepine, Pelissolo, Teodorescu, & Teherani, 1994; Weyers, Krebs, & Janke, 1995) as well as in North America (Bagby, Parker, & Joe, 1992; Cannon, Clark, Leeka, & Keefe, 1993; Giancola, Zeichner, Newbolt, & Stennett, 1994; Parker, Bagby, & Joe, 1996; Sher, Wood, Crews, & Vandiver, 1995; Waller, Lilienfeld, Tellegen, & Lykken, 1991) with mixed results. Using conrmatory factor analysis on both a community based adult population (n=360), and a group of undergraduate students (n=233) Parker et al. (1996) suggest that their data are consistent with Cloningers model. Similarly Bagby and colleagues (1992) suggested from a group of undergraduate students (n=216) that a good t of Cloningers model could be found. However, the w2 goodness-of-t did not support the model in either study although three other indices did the goodness-of-t, the adjusted-goodness-of-t, and the root mean-square residual. Earleywine (1993) disagreed with Bagby et al.s interpretation, suggesting both from further data (Earleywine, Finn, Peterson, & Pihl, 1992) and from Bagby et al.s (1992) study that Cloningers model was not a good t. Earleywine (1993) suggests that these three indices (the goodness-of-t, the adjusted-goodness-of-t, and the root mean-square residual) should not be taken in isolation. Support for Earleywines position comes from Raykov (1993) and Cannon and colleagues (1993), who suggest that these three indices are descriptive and that the w2 shows that the model is a poor t. French and German samples, where the questionnaire has been translated, nd a somewhat similar model to Cloningers (Le Bon et al., 1998; Weyers et al., 1995), however, both of these studies analyse the TPQ at the scale level and the samples are small (n=104 and n=160, respectively).

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1405

Similarly at the scale level modest support is given from a Taiwanese sample, however, the authors suggest renement of the Reward Dependence Scale (Chen, Chen, Chen, Yu, & Cheng, 2002). Five studies factor analyse the TPQ at the item level (Cannon et al., 1993; Chen et al., 2002; Sher et al., 1995; Stallings, Hewitt, Cloninger, Heath, & Eaves, 1996; Zohar, Lev-Ari, Benjamin, Ebstein, Lichtenberg, & Osher, 2001). Three of these were in samples from the US (Cannon et al., 1993; Sher et al., 1995), one in a Hebrew speaking population from Israel (Zohar et al., 2001), and one in a Chinese speaking population in Taiwan. Sher et al. recruited a mixed group of volunteers, some who had a family history of alcoholism (n=490) (Sher et al., 1995), while the group that Cannon and colleagues recruited were all alcoholics (Cannon et al., 1993). Interestingly, Stallings et als group was a twin sample (n=3290). They assessed Cloningers model by extracting 12 factors using iterative principal factor analysis. Nine of the subscales corresponded very closely to Cloningers model and only one (RD4) could not be recovered. However, a three or four factor model was not attempted at the item level in this study. Chen et al (2002) found that factor loading at the item level was not coherent with Cloningers scales, however the sample was small with only 201 subjects. The other three studies nd moderate support for Cloningers model with the rst factor clearly representing Harm Avoidance, but there was considerable overlap between Novelty Seeking and Reward Dependence. Zohar et al. (2001) found that over 50% of the items did not load on the designated factor in 1139 subjects. Cloningers model of personality has been widely accepted and utilised throughout psychiatry and psychology. It is perhaps surprising that Cloningers TPQ has been so widely accepted within research on personality although it has not been subject to equivalent reliability and validity analysis as questionnaires such as the NEO-PI-R or the EPQ-R. Both of these personality theories have received support from a wide range of sources and across cultures (Barrett et al., 1998; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Heath, Eaves, & Martin, 1989; Katigbak, Church, & Akamine, 1996; McCrae, Jang, Livesley, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2001; Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1994; Yang & Bond, 1990). The present study is the largest analysis of the TPQ in a British sample and the only exploratory item level analysis in a British sample. This study aims to assess Cloningers three factor personality model in a large British sample by using exploratory factor analysis at both the scale and item levels. 1. Methods 1.1. Recruitment of subjects Subjects were recruited from Edinburgh Universities. They were included if English was their rst language and if they were over 18 years of age. Participants were given a stamped, addressed envelope to return a questionnaire, and were asked to take a questionnaire only if they were willing to be considered for the experimental [acute tryptophan depletion stage of the study (see Stewart, Deary, & Ebmeier, 2002). Approximately 2000 questionnaires assessing mood and personality were distributed; 1032 were completed and returned. The questionnaire pack included the Tri-dimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ; Cloninger, 1987), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R; Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) as well as other measures assessing personality and mood. The questionnaire pack took approximately 1 h to complete. Here we report results from the TPQ responses.

1406

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1.2. Factor analysis The psychometric properties of the TPQ were explored using exploratory factor analysis. At both the scale and item level factors were extracted using prinicipal axis factoring (communalities were iterated) and rotated orthogonally using Varimax.

2. Results 2.1. Subjects Those who did not complete both the TPQ and EPQ-R were excluded. A total of 347 males and 550 females remained in the data set. Six males and ve females omitted their dates of birth from the questionnaire pack. Male ages ranged from 17.4 to 50.4 (mean=21.1, standard deviation=4.7). Female ages ranged from 17.1 to 48.9 (mean=20.7, standard deviation=4.0). 2.2. Psychometric properties of the TPQ In order to attempt conrmation of Cloningers model analysis was conducted on the three higher factors and 12 subscales as described by Cloninger, Przybeck, and Svrakic (1991). Table 1 shows the number of items, the mean scores, and internal consistency (Cronbach a reliability) for the three dimensions of Harm Avoidance, Novely Seeking and Reward Dependence and their subscales for males and females separately. The alpha reliabilities for the total scales range from 0.72 to 0.90 (mean=0.81) and are all within the satisfactory range. The TPQ Harm Avoidance Scale has the highest reliabilities both for the total scale (0.90 and 0.89 for males and females respectively) and the subscales (range between 0.72 and 0.90). Reward Dependence has the lowest reliabilities both for the total scale (0.72 in both males and females) and for the subscales (range between 0.39 and 0.76) and both RD1 (Sentimentality) and RD4 (Dependence) have a less than 0.5 in both men and women. The Novelty Seeking subscales also have low reliabilities and only NS3 (Extravagance) has an a above 0.7 with both NS1 (Exploratory Excitability) and NS4 (Disorderliness) having a less than 0.6. In sum, the reliabilities for both the Novelty Seeking and Reward Dependence subscales are poor. All the TPQ Scales are normally distributed. Gender dierences for the total scale scores and the subscales are shown in Table 1. Females scored higher on the TPQ HA total scale (t=5.35, df=895, P<0.0001; d=0.4) and on all of the HA subscales except HA3 (shyness with strangers) where the scores in males and females are equivalent. Females also score higher on the TPQ RD Scale (t=8.53, df=895, P<0.0001; d=0.6) and on all of the RD subscales. There were no gender dierences on the TPQ NS Scale (t=1.35, df=895, ns) but males do score higher on NS4 (disorderliness) (see Table 1). 2.3. Exploratory factor analysis of the TPQ at the scale level (Table 2) The Scree plot drawn from principal axis factors shown in Fig. 1 smooths o after three factors with the fourth adding very little additional variance to the solution and its eigenvalue is <1.

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418 Table 1 Means, internal consistency and gender dierences of the TPQ scales Scale Description Males Mean (S.D.) HA1 (10) HA2 (7) HA3 (7) HA4 (10) Total HA NS1 (9) NS2 (8) NS3 (7) NS4 (10) Total NS RD1 (5) RD2 (9) RD3 (11) RD4 (5) Total RD Anticipatory worry Fear of uncertainty Shyness with strangers Fatigability 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.3 13.2 5.4 3.7 3.8 5.6 18.4 3.2 4.6 6.6 3.2 17.6 (2.8) (2.2) (2.2) (2.5) (7.6) (1.9) (2.1) (2.0) (2.0) (5.9) (1.3) (2.2) (2.7) (1.3) (4.7) a 0.81 0.76 0.80 0.78 0.90 0.51 0.66 0.74 0.54 0.81 0.47 0.64 0.75 0.39 0.72 Females Mean (S.D.) 4.6 4.3 3.2 3.8 15.9 5.2 3.4 4.0 5.2 17.9 3.8 5.3 7.7 3.4 20.3 (2.8) (2.0) (1.9) (2.5) (7.1) (1.9) (2.2) (1.9) (2.0) (5.6) (1.2) (2.1) (2.6) (1.3) (4.4) a 0.81 0.72 0.72 0.77 0.89 0.53 0.68 0.71 0.47 0.79 0.44 0.64 0.76 0.47 0.72

1407

Gender dierences (P) < 0.001 < 0.001 n.s. 0.002 < 0.001 n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.017 n.s. < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.017 < 0.001

Exploratory excitability Impulsiveness Extravagance Disorderliness

Sentimentality Persistence Attachment Dependence

Fig. 1. Scree plot of factor analysis of the subscales of the TPQ.

1408

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

Table 2 Structure matrix for three factor solution of the TPQ at the scale level Scale HA1 HA2 HA3 HA4 NS1 NS2 NS3 NS4 RD1 RD2 RD3 RD4 Description Anticipatory worry Fear of uncertainty Shyness with strangers Fatigability Exploratory excitability Impulsiveness Extravagance Disorderliness Sentimentality Persistence Attachment Dependence Factor 1 0.72 0.75 0.68 0.60 0.50 0.14 0.05 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.18 Factor 2 0.03 0.19 0.11 0.14 0.38 0.65 0.62 0.66 0.02 0.37 0.16 0.10 Factor 3 0.14 0.15 0.20 0.07 0.24 0.09 0.29 0.08 0.65 0.06 0.66 0.52 Communality 0.45 0.46 0.40 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.18 0.28 0.25

Three factors were extracted using principal axis factoring. Table 2 displays the orthogonal rotation, loadings >0.3 are in bold (the oblique solution is very similar and is available from the authors). Factor 1 is evidently Harm Avoidance, with high loadings from all four of the subscales and these subscales do not load above 0.2 on any of the other factors. However, Novelty Seekings exploratory excitability subscale does load negatively to a high degree on this factor. Cloninger et al. (1991) suggests that this subscale represents exploratory excitability versus stoic rigidity. Factor 2 is made up mainly of Novelty Seeking with all four of the subscales having loadings greater than 0.3 on this factor. However, Novelty Seekings exploratory excitability subscale, loads more highly on factor 1 than on factor 2. Also the Persistence subscale (RD2) loads negatively to a moderate degree on factor 2. Factor 3 is Reward Dependence being made up of 3 of the Reward Dependence subscales and none of the other subscales. The Persistence subscale loads below 0.1 on this, its home, factor. In sum, Cloningers structure is fairly well represented when exploratory factor analysis is carried out at the scale level. Three factors emerge with the highest loadings coming from the hypothesised subscales. However, there are some signicant apparent mis-placements of the exploratory excitability and persistence subscales. 2.4. Exploratory item analysis of the TPQ Principal axis factoring of the items from the TPQ was carried out and an orthogonal rotation was used (SPSS version 10.0 for Windows). As a guide, items with loadings lower than 0.3 were considered not to load on given factors. Loadings are reported to two decimal places. A Scree plot of eigenvalues derived from the correlation matrix of the items from the TPQ is shown in Fig. 2. The graph starts to atten o after four factors. However, Cloninger predicts three factors. Therefore both the three and four factor solution were extracted. Tables 3 and 4 show the rotated factor matrix for the three and four factor solutions respectively (the oblique solution is very similar, available via the authors).

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1409

Fig. 2. Scree plot of a factor analysis for the TPQ.

2.5. Three factor solution of the TPQHarm Avoidance, Conscientiousness and Sociability (HCS) (Table 3) The rst factor in the three factor solution is clearly Harm Avoidance. However, Novelty Seeking and Reward Dependence are replaced by two factors which appear to represent Conscientiousness and Sociability. Thirty of the 34 HA items load predominantly on the rst factor with loadings ranging between 0.31 and 0.67. Only three items from other scales load on this Harm Avoidance factor, two Novelty Seeking items load negatively and one Reward Dependence item loads positively. Three of the HA items do not load on any factor. Two items load on both Harm Avoidance and factor 3 (HA 33, HA 37). However, their loadings are higher on Harm Avoidance than on the other factors. There are a number of themes within this factor. The rst relates to feelings of worry and anxiety for unfamiliar and future experiences, for instance: HA2 19 I often feel tense and worried in unfamiliar situations, even when others feel there is little to worry about and HA1 5Usually I am more worried than most people that something might go wrong in the future. The second theme seems to relate to fatigue for instance: HA4 73It is extremely dicult for me to adjust to changes in my usual way of doing things because I get so tense, tired or worried and HA4 84I recover more quickly than most people from minor illnesses or stress. The third theme could be said to relate to condence and anxiousness in social situations, for example: HA3 37I often avoid meeting strangers because I lack condence with people I do not know and HA3 33When I have to meet a group of strangers, I am more shy than most people. Lastly there are a few questions relating to a search for excitement and inability to settle which load negatively on this factor: NS1 4When nothing new is happening, I usually start looking for

1410

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

something that is thrilling or exciting and HA3 100- It is easy for me to organise my thoughts while talking to someone. Factors 2 and 3 are not quite so clear. Factor 2 (Conscientiousness-HCS) consists of 15 loadings from Novelty Seeking items, 5 from Reward Dependence and one from Harm Avoidance. Loadings ranged between 0.31 and 0.56. It would seem that factor 2 is Novelty Seeking, according to Cloningers scheme. However, only ve items load above 0.5 and as many as 15 NS items do not load on any factor while three load on Harm Avoidance and two load on Sociability. Less than 50% of the NS items load on this factor within this the subscales are not equally well represented. There is a range from NS2, 3 and 4 subscales but there is only one question from NS1. There are a number of themes within this factor. The rst relates to an unwillingness to
Table 3 Three factor varimax rotated solution of the TPQ Factor one No. 19 23 18 1 89 5 8 75 73 95 84 37 80 10 79 59 26 42 33 14 54 63 82 91 98 44 38 69 51 57 100 4 2 Item HA2 HA2 HA2 HA1 HA3 HA1 HA1 HA4 HA4 HA1 HA1 HA3 HA4 HA1 RD2 HA4 HA2 HA3 HA3 HA1 HA4 HA4 HA1 HA1 HA1 HA3 HA3 HA4 HA2 HA4 HA3 NS1 NS1 Loading 0.67 0.66 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.40 Factor two No. 55 66 72 70 49 48 99 22 24 56 87 81 46 36 43 13 78 97 45 39 92 Item NS2 NS3 NS3 NS3 HA4 NS2 NS2 NS4 NS4 NS2 NS3 NS2 NS2 RD4 NS1 NS4 NS3 RD2 RD2 RD2 RD2 Loading 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.56 Factor three No. 88 90 86 12 3 31 32 36 40 74 15 58 7 34 37 33 Item RD3 RD3 RD3 RD3 RD3 RD1 NS3 RD4 NS1 RD3 RD3 RD4 RD3 RD1 HA3 HA3 Loading 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.60 0.44 0.42 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.33

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1411

push hard at work, for instance, RD2 92 loads negatively I am more hard-working than most people and RD2 39 loads negatively I usually push myself harder than most people do because I want to do as well as I possibly can. The second theme relates to a preference in spending rather than saving money for instance NS3 66 loads negatively I am better at saving money than most people and NS3 70 I often spend money until I run out of cash or get into debt from using too much credit. The third to a willingness to make rash decisions rather than think over consequences, for instance, NS2 55 is answered negatively I usually think about all the facts in detail before I make a decision and NS2 48 I often follow my instincts, hunches, or intuition without thinking through all the details. This factor could represent a negative Conscientiousness or Irresponsibility and appears to also relate to Impulsiveness. Factor 3 (Sociability-HCS) is predominantly Reward Dependence, with 12 RD, two NS items and two HA items loading negatively. The loadings on this factor ranged between 0.30 and 0.70.
Table 4 Four factor solution of the TPQ orthogonally rotated Factor one No. 23 19 73 5 18 10 14 1 89 84 79 8 37 95 54 69 91 30 33 80 38 42 75 64 57 63 59 26 68 11 Item HA2 HA2 HA4 HA1 HA2 HA1 HA1 HA1 HA3 HA1 RD2 HA1 HA3 HA1 HA4 HA4 HA1 NS2 HA3 HA4 HA3 HA3 HA4 RD3 HA4 HA4 HA4 HA2 HA4 NS1 Loading 0.68 0.67 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.55 0.50 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.36 Factor two No. 66 55 72 70 99 49 87 56 48 22 24 81 36 78 16 46 21 43 45 97 39 92 Item NS3 NS2 NS3 NS3 NS2 HA4 NS3 NS2 NS2 NS4 NS4 NS2 RD4 NS3 NS4 NS2 NS4 NS1 RD2 RD2 RD2 RD2 Loading 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.47 0.50 0.56 0.62 Factor three No. 88 90 86 12 3 31 32 40 36 74 58 15 7 34 83 35 38 37 33 Item RD3 RD3 RD3 RD3 RD3 RD1 NS3 NS1 RD4 RD3 RD4 RD3 RD3 RD1 RD1 NS4 HA3 HA3 HA3 Loading 0.69 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.45 0.42 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.36 Factor four No. 75 47 26 29 1 51 89 59 82 20 17 8 95 80 41 22 97 62 48 4 60 2 Item HA4 HA2 HA2 HA2 HA1 HA2 HA3 HA4 HA1 RD4 RD4 HA1 HA1 HA4 RD2 NS4 RD2 NS4 NS2 NS1 NS4 NS1 Loading 0.46 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.47

1412

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

The highest loadings are all from Reward Dependence 3 subscale. These questions relate to openness with other people and discussing problems with others, Reward Dependence items are not representative of the factor as 14 RD items do not load on any factor, ve load on Factor 2, one loads on factor 1. The rst theme relates to a willingness to open up and listen to others RD3 88 Even when I am with friends, I prefer not to open up very much, and RD3 90 answers negatively I usually like to stay cool and detached from other people. The second main theme is a preference to be around others than being alone, for instance, RD3 7 I would like to have warm and close friends with me most of the time and RD3 15 It wouldnt bother me to be alone all the time. This factor appears to relate to sociability or openness to others. 2.6. Four factor solution of the TPQHarm Avoidance, Conscientiousness, Sociability and Impulsiveness (HCSI) (Table 4) Factor 1 (Harm Avoidance-HCSI) is clearly Harm Avoidance, as with the three-factor HCS solution. In this case 26 of the HA items load on factor 1, with 24 of these having their highest loadings on factor 1. The loadings range between 0.32 and 0.68. It also has moderate loadings from 2 Reward Dependence items and 2 Novelty Seeking items, one loading positively and one loading negatively. The factor seems to be describing emotionality. The themes are similar to that of the three factor solution, with a theme relating to worry, a theme relating to condence in social situations and a theme relating to fatigue. However, this factor is slightly less broad than the one described in the three factor HCS solution and does not contain a theme relating to a search for excitement and inability to settle. Factor 2 (Conscientiousness-HCSI) is a mix of Reward Dependence and Novelty Seeking items. The Reward Dependence items are all but one from the subscale Persistence and these all load negatively on the factor with items also from the Novelty Seeking sub-scales of Impulsiveness, Extravagance and Disorderliness. The loadings range between 0.31 and 0.62. It has an almost identical item content to the Conscientiousness factor found in the three factor HCS solution with one item not loading on this factor and two further items (all three have loadings of less than 0.35). The items with the highest loadings relate to work attitudes and pushing hard at work. The second theme relates to spending money with a preference to spending rather than saving. The third theme relates to rashness and not willing to follow routines or rules. The themes and item content are the same as in factor 2 of the three factor solution. Factor 3 (Sociability-HCSI) is mainly made up of Reward Dependence items with the highest loadings being ve items from the Reward Dependence subscale Attachment (RD3) with the loadings ranging between 0.30 and 0.69. The item content is almost identical to factor 3 in the three factor solution with an additional three items loading on this factor with loadings less than 0.31. The rst theme relates to openness with friends and a willingness to discuss problems and private thoughts. The second corresponds to the individuals response to others, and wish to be with others. This factor appears to relate to Sociability and is almost identical to the factor in the three factor solution. Factor 4 (Impulsiveness-HCSI) has a mix of predominantly Novelty Seeking and Harm Avoidance with three Reward Dependence items with loadings ranging between 0.30 and 0.47. The items appear to relate to searching for new ideas and thrills, risk taking, impulsiveness and not thinking about the consequences. For instance the highest loading items are: NS1 2 I often try new things just for fun or thrills, even if most people think it is a waste of time, HA4 75 I usually feel

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1413

much more condent and energetic than most people, even after minor illnesses or stress, NS4 60 I am usually able to get other people to believe me, even when I know that what I am saying is exaggerated or untrue, HA2 47 Most of the time I would prefer to do something a little risky (like riding in a fast automobile over steep hills and sharp turns)rather than having to stay quiet and inactive for a few hours, NS1 4 When nothing new is happening, I usually start looking for something that is thrilling or exciting and NS2 48 I often follow my instincts, hunches, or intuition without thinking through all the details. It seems to represent a factor relating to Impulsiveness (I).

3. Discussion Cloningers model appears to be relatively well replicated when exploratory analysis is carried out at the scale level. The three factors did, in the main, contain loadings from the hypothesised subscales with only a few exceptions. However the subscale of Persistence (RD2) did not load highly on any factor but had a small negative loading on the Novelty Seeking factor (0.37), and exploratory excitability loaded higher on HA than on its home factor of Novelty Seeking. Some of the scales and subscales showed unacceptably low internal consistency suggesting that the items are not measuring the same construct. Only the subscales from Harm Avoidance show satisfactory reliabilities with the total scale showing high alphas for both males and females. At the item level the three factor model as proposed by Cloninger was not found. Three and four factor solutions were extracted with only Harm Avoidance from Cloningers model being extracted as a single factor. The three factor solution, imposed on the data because of Cloningers model (HCS) suggested factors resembling Harm Avoidance, Conscientiousness and Sociability. The four factor solution, indicated by the data, (HCSI) suggested factors representing Harm Avoidance, Conscientiousness, Sociability and Impulsiveness. Surprisingly, Cloningers model has not been subject to the level of psychometric debate or testing of other personality models such as Eysencks three factor model or Costa and McCrae Five Factor Model. This study does not add support to the psychometric properties of the Tridimensional Personality Model as proposed by Cloninger. The personality factor, Harm Avoidance, is apparent whether Cloningers questionnaire is analysed at the item or the scale level. However the other two factors of Reward Dependence and Novelty Seeking are weakly supported by these analyses. The factors found in this study are similar to Eysencks three factor model of personality and to Costa and McCrae Five Factor Model. The four factor solution contains dimensions very similar to those in Eysencks model of personality. The Harm Avoidance factor from the four factor solution is similar to Eysencks Neuroticism where the items relate to anxiety and depression with no items relating to impulsivity. Within both the three and four factor solutions is a Sociability factor that is similar to Eysencks Extraversion from the EPQ-R and EPQ. The Extraversion factor from the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI, Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) measures both Sociability and Impulsivity whereas Extraversion from the EPQ scales measures Sociability alone (Roger & Morris, 1991). Interestingly there is a factor in the four factor solution relating to Impulsivity. There is a further factor of Conscientiousness which could be said to relate to Tough Mindedness. Therefore in the four factor solution there is a factor similar to Neuroticism (Harm Avoidance), Extraversion appears to be split into Sociability and Impulsiveness and Conscientiousness which relates to Tough Mindedness.

1414

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

The Harm Avoidance factor in the three factor solution appears more similar to the Five Factor Models Neuroticism with themes relating to worry and anxiety, to fatigue, to condence and anxiousness in social situations and to excitement and an inability to settle. Costa and McCraes Neuroticism factor contains six subscales which are Anxiety (N1), Angry Hostility (N2), Depression (N3), Self-Consciousness (N4), Impulsiveness (N5) and Vulnerability (N6). The Conscientiousness factor in both the solutions is clearly very similar to Costa and McCraes Conscientiousness. Costa and McCrae include six subscales of Competence (C1), Order (C2), Dutifulness (C3), Achievement Striving (C4), Self-Discipline (C5), Deliberation (C6). The themes in the solutions from the TPQ are working hard which may relate to Dutifulness and Achievement Striving, a preference to saving money rather than spending which may relate to Self-Discipline and Order, and a wish to think things through and in detail which would seem to relate to Deliberation. Without further analysis it is dicult to ascertain the extent to which these scales overlap. It is easy to see how what one person may call Conscientiousness another may call Tough Mindedness and so on. It is only when these factors are tested against other constructs that they can truly be identied. Other studies which analyse the TPQ at the item level similarly nd an Emotionality factor whether a three, four or ve factor solution is extracted (Cannon et al., 1993; Sher et al., 1995; Zohar et al., 2001). Interestingly a Conscientiousness factor is also extracted in all but Sher et al.s three factor solution. A factor that relates to conformity, sociability and agreeableness can be seen in all the solutions. Table 5 summarises these solutions and the solutions from the current study. Notably all of the solutions contain a factor similar to Harm Avoidance. The second most consistent factor is one relating to Conscientiousness (Conscientiousness in the three and four factor solutions from this study, Persistence from Sher et al. and Orderliness from Cannon et al). A third factor that is represented is Sociability or Reward Dependence. This factor appears to encompass a wish to be with others and an ability to be open with others. In Cannon et al.s ve factor solution this is represented negatively by their second factor Detachment. In sum, none of the published exploratory item level analyses of the TPQ or the current study could reproduce Cloningers three factors to a satisfactory level. Females scored higher on the Harm Avoidance Scale and on the Reward Dependence Scale. Similar dierences in these scales have been found on these scales in other languages and cultures (e.g. Cloninger et al., 1991; Giancola et al., 1994; Otter et al., 1995; Zohar et al., 2001). There are a number of possibilities why women score higher on these scales. There may be a genuine gender bias, a sampling error, it may be due to the scale itself, a reporting bias or it may be due to
Table 5 Factors found from exploratory item analysis of the TPQ Author (Cannon et al., 1993) (Sher et al., 1995) (Sher et al., 1995) HCS this study HCSI Factor 1 Subjective Distress Harm Avoidance Harm Avoidance Harm Avoidance Harm Avoidance Factor 2 Detachment Reward Dependence Reward Dependence Sociability Sociability Factor 3 Disinhibition Novelty Seeking Novelty Seeking Impulsiveness Factor 4 Factor 5

Relaxed Condence Orderliness Persistence Conscientiousness Conscientiousness

HCS H, Harm Avoidance; C, Conscientiousness; S, Sociability; HCSI H, Harm Avoidance; I, Impulsivity.

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1415

chance. There may be a gender bias in the questions, for instance Jorm (1987) (when discussing Neuroticism, a scale which is highly correlated to Harm Avoidance) suggests that some of the questions might be weighted to contain more items which are more appropriate for females rather than males. A male might be more likely to show anger than cry. Zohar et al. (2001) suggest that the gender dierences in Harm Avoidance represent a genuine dierence as a similar pattern is shown across other languages and cultures and that this dierence is shown in scales beyond the personality questionnaires for instance in anxiety and mood measures. However, they suggest that the dierences in Reward Dependence are more related to social desirability in responding than in genuine dierences in personality. Two components have been found in the Neuroticism Scale, one that was inuenced by gender, and one that was not (Francis, 1993). It would be interesting to assess whether this is also the case with the TPQ. The mean scores, for this sample if compared to Cloningers normative sample (Cloninger et al., 1991) and the previous English sample (Otter et al., 1995), dier. The present sample showed slightly higher means for Harm Avoidance compared with the other samples, higher Novelty Seeking values than Cloninger et al.s (1991) samples though similar to Otter et als (1995) sample, but similar Reward Dependence values. There could be a number of reasons for the dierence in scores. When the subjects were recruited they were asked to volunteer only if they would be willing to take part in the acute tryptophan depletion study. Perhaps those higher in Novelty Seeking would be more likely to apply. A further reason for a dierence in scores may be age. In comparison to the other two studies, the present group was younger and all were recruited from the student population. Novelty Seeking is likely to decrease with age therefore it is likely that the younger group would have higher scores. Cloninger et al. (1991) found a negative correlation (r=0.36 to 0.42) between age and Novelty Seeking. Cloningers model is attractive in that a trait is directly related to a monamine system. One of the rst quantitative trait loci identied for personality was connected with Novelty Seeking (Benjamin, Li, L., Patterson, Greenberg, Murphy, & Hamer, 1996; Ebstein et al., 1996), an association between the D4 dopamine receptor gene and Novelty Seeking. However only one of these groups used the TPQ and Cloningers personality trait of Novelty Seeking (Ebstein et al., 1996), the other used the NEO personality inventory (Benjamin et al., 1996). This association has proved inconsistent (Malhotra, Virkkunen, Rooney, Eggert, Linnoila, & Goldman, 1996). Jang, Vernon, and Livesley (2001) suggest that the ambiguity in this area may be due to the measure of personality employed, and most of the studies which have found negative results with dopamine and Novelty Seeking have used the TPQ. Extraversion and Neuroticism are found consistently within research on personality but there is still a debate as to whether there is one further factor or three. Extraversion and Neuroticism were found from Cloningers TPQ with two further personality factors Conscientiousness and Impulsivenss. Zuckerman, Kuhlman and Camac (1988) asked what lies beyond E and N. This question is still valid.

Acknowledgements We thank the volunteers who took part in this study. Norma Brearley, George Tait and Margaret van Beck for their help and support.

1416

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

References
Aschauer, H. N., Meszaros, K., Willinger, U., Fischer, G., Berger, P., Reiter, E., Lenzinger, E., & Berger, K. (1994). Tridimensional Personality Questionnairesome results on the validity of a German version of the questionnaire. Neuropsychiatrie, 8(3), 177181. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Joe, R. T. (1992). Conrmatory factor analysis of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Dierences, 13, 12451246. Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: an examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Dierences, 25(5), 805819. Benjamin, J., Li, L., Patterson, C., Greenberg, B. D., Murphy, D. L., & Hamer, D. H. (1996). Population and familial association between the D4 dopamine receptor gene and measures of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics, 12, 8184. Cannon, D. S., Clark, L. A., Leeka, J. K., & Keefe, C. K. (1993). A reanalysis of the tridimensional personality questionnaire (TPQ) and its relation to Cloningers Type 2 Alcoholism. Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 6266. Chen, W. J., Chen, H. M., Chen, C. C., Yu, W. Y., & Cheng, A. T. A. (2002). Cloningers tridimensional personality questionnaire: psychometric properties and construct validity in Taiwanese adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 43(2), 158166. Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classication of personality variants. A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(6), 573588. Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1991). The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: US normative data. Psychological Reports, 69(3), 10471057. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-RTM) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structureemergence of the 5-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417 440. DiLalla, D. L., Gottesman, I. I., Carey, G., & Bouchard, T. J. Jr. (1999). Heritability of MMPI Harris-Lingoes and Subtle-Obvious subscales in twins reared apart. Assessment, 6(4), 353366. Earleywine, M. (1993). The examination of alternative models enhances conrmatory factor-analyses. Personality and Individual Dierences, 15(5), 593594. Earleywine, M., Finn, P. R., Peterson, J. B., & Pihl, R. O. (1992). Factor structure and correlates of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53(3), 233238. Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., Bennett, E. R., Nemanov, L., Katz, M., & Belmaker, R. H. (1996). Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics, 12, 7880. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press. Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychotocism scale. Personality and Individual Dierences, 6, 2129. Francis, L. J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian Neuroticism Scalesa question of sex-dierences. Personality and Individual Dierences, 15(1), 4359. Giancola, P. R., Zeichner, A., Newbolt, W. H., & Stennett, R. B. (1994). Construct-validity of the dimensions of Cloninger Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Dierences, 17(5), 627636. Heath, A. C., Eaves, L. J., & Martin, N. G. (1989). The genetic-structure of personality. 3. Multivariate genetic item analysis of the EPQ Scales. Personality and Individual Dierences, 10(8), 877888. Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(6), 15561565. Jang, K. L., Vernon, P. A., & Livesley, W. J. (2001). Behavioural-genetic perspectives on personality function. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 46(3), 234244. Jorm, A. F. (1987). Sex dierences in neuroticism: a quantitative synthesis of published research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 21(4), 501506.

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

1417

Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., & Akamine, T. X. (1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions: relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two cultures. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(1), 99 114. Kleield, E. I., Sunday, S., Hurt, S., & Halmi, K. A. (1994). The tridimensional personality questionnaire: an exploration of personality traits in eating disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Research, f5, 413423. Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge. Le Bon, O., Staner, L., Tecco, J., Pull, C., & Pelc, I. (1998). Tridimensional personality questionnaire (TPQ): validation of a French-speaking control population. Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique, 24(1), 4045. Lepine, J. P., Pelissolo, A., Teodorescu, R., & Teherani, M. (1994). Psychometric properties of the French version of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ). Encephale-Revue De Psychiatrie Clinique Biologique et Therapeutique, 20(6), 747753. Malhotra, A. K., Virkkunen, M., Rooney, W., Eggert, M., Linnoila, M., & Goldman, D. (1996). The association between the dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) 16 amino acid repeat polymorphism and novelty seeking. Molecular Psychiatry, 1, 388391. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., Sanchez-Bernardos, M. L., Kusdil, M. E., Woodeld, R., Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173186. McCrae, R. R., Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2001). Sources of structure: genetic, environmental, and artifactual inuences on the covariation of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 511 535. Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (1994). A comparison of dierent instruments proposed to measure the Big-5. European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee, 44(1), 4553. Otter, C., Huber, J., & Bonner, A. (1995). Cloninger Tridimensional Personality Questionnairereliability in an English sample. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18(4), 471480. Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Joe, R. T. (1996). Validation of the biosocial model of personality: conrmatory factor analysis of the tridimensional personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 8(2), 139144. Raykov, T. (1993). Conrmatory factor analysis of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: comments on Bagby, Parker and Joe. Personality and Individual Dierences, 15, 729731. Reich, J., Noyes Jr., R., Hirschfeld, R., Coryell, W., & OGorman, T. (1987). State and personality in depressed and panic patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(2), 181187. Richter, M. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Joe, R. T., & Swinson, R. P. (1996). The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 65(3), 185188. Roger, D., & Morris, J. (1991). The internal structure of the EPQ Scales. Personality and Individual Dierences, 12(7), 759764. Sher, K. J., Wood, M. D., Crews, T. M., & Vandiver, P. A. (1995). The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire reliability and validity studies and derivation of a short-form. Psychological Assessment, 7(2), 195208. Stallings, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1996). Genetic and environmental structure of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: three or four temperament dimensions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 127140. Starcevic, V., Uhlenhuth, E. H., Fallon, S., & Pathak, D. (1996). Personality dimensions in panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Aective Disorders, 37, 7579. Stewart, M. E., Deary, I. J., & Ebmeier, K. P. (2002). Neuroticism as a predictor of mood change: the eects of tryptophan depletion. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181(SEPT), 242247. Waller, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., Tellegen, A., & Lykken, D. T. (1991). The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire structural validity and comparison with the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(1), 123. Weyers, P., Krebs, H., & Janke, W. (1995). Reliability and construct-validity of the German version of Cloningers Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Dierences, 19(6), 853861. Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: the Chinese case. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58(6), 10871095.

1418

M.E. Stewart et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 36 (2004) 14031418

Zohar, A. H., Lev-Ari, L., Benjamin, J., Ebstein, R., Lichtenberg, P., & Osher, Y. (2001). The psychometric properties of the Hebrew version of Cloningers Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Dierences, 30, 12971309. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96107.