Reply to Eysenck
Publication
, Journal Article
Costa, PT; McCrae, RR
Published in: Personality and Individual Differences
January 1, 1992
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. © 1992.
Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats
Published In
Personality and Individual Differences
DOI
ISSN
0191-8869
Publication Date
January 1, 1992
Volume
13
Issue
8
Start / End Page
861 / 865
Related Subject Headings
- Social Psychology
- 5205 Social and personality psychology
- 5202 Biological psychology
- 1702 Cognitive Sciences
- 1701 Psychology
Citation
APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(8), 861–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7
Costa, P. T., and R. R. McCrae. “Reply to Eysenck.” Personality and Individual Differences 13, no. 8 (January 1, 1992): 861–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences. 1992 Jan 1;13(8):861–5.
Costa, P. T., and R. R. McCrae. “Reply to Eysenck.” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 13, no. 8, Jan. 1992, pp. 861–65. Scopus, doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences. 1992 Jan 1;13(8):861–865.
Published In
Personality and Individual Differences
DOI
ISSN
0191-8869
Publication Date
January 1, 1992
Volume
13
Issue
8
Start / End Page
861 / 865
Related Subject Headings
- Social Psychology
- 5205 Social and personality psychology
- 5202 Biological psychology
- 1702 Cognitive Sciences
- 1701 Psychology