 6. Temperament  149
(1991) and its more recent revision (e.g., J. 
Gray & McNaughton, 2000)—have placed 
greater value on explicating underlying neu -
robiological substrates (e.g., Corr, 2008; 
Corr & McNaughton, 2012; J. Gray & Mc -
Naughton, 2000; Eysenck, 1992, 1997; Tel -
legen, 1985). In contrast, proponents of the 
Big Five have focused more on the pheno -
typic description of personality, although it 
must be acknowledged that this gap has nar -
rowed substantially in recent years, as Big 
Five researchers have shown greater interest 
in the biological etiology of the dimensions 
(e.g., Briley & Tucker-  Drob, 2012; Jang, 
Livesley, Angleitner, Reimann, & Vernon, 
2002; Moore, Schermer, Paunonen, & Ver -
non, 2010; Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 
1997; Spengler, Gottschling, & Spinath, 
2012).
Last, this model has long guided our 
thinking and led us to develop our own Big 
Three instrument, the General Temperament 
Survey (GTS; Clark & Watson, 1990). Con -
sequently, we use these dimensions as our 
basic organizing framework; nonetheless, 
we consider data related to lower levels of 
the structure when relevant. Briefly, neuroti -
cism/negative emotionality (N/NE) reflects 
individual differences in the extent to which 
a person perceives the world as threatening, 
problematic, and distressing. High scorers 
experience elevated levels of negative emo -
tions and report a broad array of problems, 
whereas those low on the trait are calm, 
emotionally stable, and self-  satisfied (Wat -
son & Clark, 1984). Extraversion/positive 
emotionality (E/PE) involves an individual’s 
willingness to engage the environment. High 
scorers (i.e., extraverts) approach life active -
ly, with energy, enthusiasm, cheerfulness, 
and confidence; as part of this general ap -
proach tendency, they seek out and enjoy the 
company of others, and are facile and per -
suasive in interpersonal settings; in contrast, 
those low on the dimension (i.e., introverts) 
tend to be reserved and socially aloof, and 
they report lower levels of energy and confi -
dence (Watson & Clark, 1993). Finally, dis -
inhibition versus constraint (DvC) reflects 
individual differences in the tendency to be -
have in an undercontrolled versus overcon -
trolled manner. Disinhibited individuals are 
impulsive and somewhat reckless, and are 
oriented primarily toward the feelings and sensations of the immediate moment; in con -
trast, constrained individuals plan carefully, 
avoid risk and danger, and are controlled 
more strongly by the longer-  term implica -
tions of their behavior (see Watson & Clark, 
1993).2
This model arose from the pioneering 
work of Eysenck (e.g., Eysenck, 1947, 1967, 
1992, 1997; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). As 
noted earlier, Eysenck originally created a 
widely influential two-  factor model consist -
ing of the broad traits of neuroticism  (vs. 
emotional stability) and extraversion  (vs. 
introversion) which, when crossed, yielded 
the four Greek temperaments. Subsequent 
analyses of expanded pools of questionnaire 
items led to the identification of a third 
broad dimension that Eysenck labeled psy-
choticism  (which, despite its name, is bet -
ter viewed as a measure of psychopathy or 
disinhibition; see Digman, 1990; Watson & 
Clark, 1993). A scale assessing this third su -
perfactor was first included in the Eysenck 
Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & 
Eysenck, 1975).
Other theorists since have postulated very 
similar three-  factor models. Tellegen (1985) 
proposed a scheme consisting of negative 
emotionality  (cf. neuroticism), positive emo -
tionality  (cf. extraversion), and constraint  
(which has a strong negative correlation 
with psychoticism). We (Watson & Clark, 
1993) subsequently articulated a highly 
similar model, with factors named negative 
temperament, positive temperament,  and 
disinhibition  (vs. constraint), respectively. 
Furthermore, in his reformulation of the 
California Psychological Inventory (CPI), 
Gough (1987) introduced three higher-  order 
“vectors” of self-  realization, internality,  
and norm favoring,  which reflect the low 
ends of neuroticism, extraversion, and psy -
choticism, respectively.
These models define a single common 
structure. For example, Tellegen (1985) 
demonstrated a high degree of convergence 
between his factors and those of both Ey -
senck and Gough. Similarly, we have ob -
tained strong correlations between our 
factors and those of Eysenck and Tellegen 
(Watson & Clark, 1993, 1997). Finally, 
Gough (1987) reported substantial correla -
tions between his higher-  order vectors and 
Eysenck’s scales. To document this impor -