150 II. BIOLOGICAL  FOuNDATIONS
tant point further, we administered three 
purported Big Three instruments—  the EPQ, 
the CPI, and our own GTS—to a sample of 
250 University of Iowa undergraduates. We 
then subjected the nine higher-  order scales 
from these instruments—  three for each 
superfactor—  to a principal factor analysis 
(squared multiple correlations in the diago -
nal).
As expected, three factors clearly emerged 
and, when rotated using varimax, clearly 
established that these instruments define a 
common three-  dimensional structure (see 
Table 6.1).  Each factor is strongly defined by 
a scale from each instrument and is identi -
fiable easily as E/PE, N/NE, and DvC, re -
spectively. Consistent with earlier studies 
in this area (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1993), 
the markers of the DvC dimension gener -
ally show the weakest level of convergence. 
In addition, the GTS and EPQ scales show 
the strongest convergence and consistently 
emerge as the best markers of the underlying 
dimensions, most likely because they were 
developed using factor analysis rather than 
the criterion keyed method used by Gough 
in developing the CPI.
Relating the Big Three and the Big Five
The Big Five model developed originally out 
of attempts to understand the natural lan -
guage of trait descriptors (see John, Chap -ter 2, this volume; Digman, 1990). Exten -
sive structural analyses of these descriptors, 
which initially were based on other- rather 
than self-  ratings, consistently revealed five 
broad factors: neuroticism (vs. emotional 
stability), extraversion (or surgency), consci -
entiousness (or dependability), agreeableness 
(vs. antagonism), and openness to experi -
ence (or imagination, intellect, culture, or 
open-  mindedness). Moreover, this structure 
proved to be remarkably robust, with the 
same five factors emerging in questionnaire 
items as well as adjective descriptors (Gold -
berg, 1993; McCrae & John, 1992); self- as 
well as peer-  ratings (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 
2010), adults, adolescents, and children 
(Ahadi, Rothbart, & Ye, 1993; De Fruyt, 
De Bolle, McCrae, Terracciano, & Costa, 
2009; Digman, 1990, 1994; De Clercq, De 
Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006), 
and across a wide range of languages and 
cultures (e.g., Ahadi et al., 1993; De Clercq 
et al., 2006; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Rie -
mann, & Livesley, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 
1997; McCrae & Terracciano, 2008).
As noted earlier, the Big Three and the Big 
Five models define nested trait structures. 
First, it is abundantly clear that the neuroti -
cism and extraversion factors of the Big Five 
are essentially equivalent to the N/NE and E/
PE dimensions, respectively, of the Big Three 
(e.g., Watson & Clark, 1992b, 1993; Wat -
son, Kotov, & Gamez, 2006). Thus, these 
TABLE 6.1.  Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings of the Higher-Order 
Scales from the EPQ, CPI, and GTS
Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
EPQ Extraversion  .84 –.09 –.06
GTS Positive Temperament  .71 –.13 –.25
CPI Internality –.73  .06 –.13
GTS Negative Temperament –.09  .84  .09
EPQ Neuroticism –.16  .81  .07
CPI Self-Realization  .02 –.66 –.16
GTS Disinhibition  .19  .20  .73
EPQ Psychoticism –.05  .09  .64
CPI Norm-Favoring  .29 –.05 –.61
Note. N = 250. Loadings of .40 or greater are shown in boldface . EPQ, Eysenck 
Personality Questionnaire; CPI, California Psychological Inventory; GTS, General 
Temperament Survey.