Comparison of Personality Theories

This essay provides a contrast and comparison of Eysenck's PEN model and Gray's biopsychological theory of personality to study their implications in ongoing psychological research.

Running head: COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY THEORIES
Comparison of personality theories
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Personality may be defined as the numerous behavioral tendencies, cognitive patterns,
traits, emotional patterns and thoughts that make up a person’s character. These traits of
personality usually emanate from environmental and biological factors. Personality psychology
may be explained as the branch of psychology which deals with the study of personality traits
and behavioral patterns that shape human beings. It can be asserted that the various theories of
personality strive to predict and control human behavior, which is invariably the result of one’s
individual personality traits. The first theories of personality would include the psychodynamic
approaches to personality, which drew upon the ideas and concepts of Sigmund Freud, Alfred
Adler and Erik Erikson. Every since then, there have been several other theories that have
emerged, like that of Gray’s theory of personality or Eysenck’s PEN personality theories
(Figueredo et al., 2015). The essay will study the two aforementioned theories of personality and
provide a comparative study of the same.
Both Jeffrey Gray and Hans Eysenck have been regarded as the chief proponents of the
hypothesis that personality characteristics of a human being provide an insight into the various
minute differences in the brain functioning of the individual. Both theorists assume that it is
possible to characterize the brain functioning of a person based on a conceptual nervous system,
which consists of human behavioral tendencies and personality. Gray and Eysenck emphasize
the biological basis of personality. Yet, there are a few differences between the two proposed
theories. While Gray studies the concepts of anxiety and impulsivity and the factors, Eysenck
mainly focuses on the personality traits related to neuroticism, psychoticism and extraversion
(Jackson, 2001). The prime difference between the two theories is the fact that Eysenck’s theory
is more explanatory and descriptive in nature while Gray is more specific and focuses on
behavioral activation and inhibition.

2COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Hans Eysenck (1916 -1997) came up with the biological theory of personality which
is also known as the PEN personality theory. According to Eysenck (2017), there are three
main aspects of an individual’s personality – namely, extraversion, neuroticism and
psychoticism. Furnham and Petrides (2014) opined that in Eysenck’s theory, biological factors
(which include hormone levels and cortical arousal) coupled with environmental factors (like
conditioned behavior or learning) would affect the personality traits of an individual. The three
aspects of the PEN model must be better explained to grasp an understanding of Eysenck’s
perspective. On the extraversion – introversion scale, an individual with higher levels of
extraversion is more likely to be sociable, outgoing and have a more positive outlook towards
life. Such a person is also more likely to harbor a positive and motivational approach towards
challenging and stressful situations, possessing more potential for healthy coping strategies (Gao
et al., 2013). Additionally, such individuals are talkative and fit in better into groups. They
usually have large circles of friends and acquaintances and enjoy being the center of attention.
On the other hand, introverted people tend to be shy, meek, quiet and tend to avoid social
gatherings or interactions with large groups of people. They are not comfortable meeting or
socializing with strangers and would prefer to have a tighter and smaller group of friends
(Halverson et al., 2014). Eysenck believed that the extraversion scale of an individual would
depend on his levels of cortical arousal. Extraverts experience lower cortical arousal, and as a
result, they tend to seek arousal from other external stimuli. On the other hand, introverts have
higher cortical arousal levels, which would make them avoid similar stimuli.
On the emotional stability – neuroticism scale, the personality traits related to
emotional aspects of an individual can be measured. A person with higher neuroticism levels is
more likely to be immature, emotionally unstable, prone to emotional outbursts, stress and

3COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
anxiety (Ormel et al., 2013). Such people are likely to lose their calm over trivial matters and are
usually unable to cope with the stressful life situations in a mature and composed manner. They
are also likely to feel jealous and envious and avoid confrontation or challenging situations
(Barlow et al., 2014). On the other hand, a person with lower levels of neuroticism is likely to be
more tolerant, more stable in their expression of emotions and more capable of dealing with high
pressure situations. On the psychoticism – normality scale, a person with higher scores in
psychoticism is more likely to indulge in behavior that is miscalculated or irresponsible. They
are likely to ignore social norms and conventions and would act without consideration of the
consequences. However, such a person is expected to be more creative.
Gray, on the contrary, was opposed to the concept that biological factors like
cortical arousal were solely responsible for the personality traits of a person (Nebylitsyn &
Gray, 2013). Eysenck was more focused on the reticular activating system which plays a crucial
role in personality traits. However, Kennis, Rademaker and Geuze (2013) argued that Gray
disagreed with the perspective of Eysenck because he believed that certain aspects of the human
personality cannot be explained through theories of classical conditioning. In other words,
certain personality traits are innate and cannot be acquired as part of a learning process.
According to Tremblay (2017), Gray’s biopsychological theory of personality is one of the
most popular and commonly accepted theories which study human behavior. The theory which
was introduced by Jeffrey Alan Gray in the year 1970, comprises two basic systems which
predict and control human behavior. They are the behavioral activation system and the
behavioral inhibition system or BAS and BIS respectively. BAS, as the name suggests, entails
punishments as reinforcement and considers punishment to be one of the factors behind
avoidance motivation whereas BIS entails approach motivation and rewarding system.

4COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Gray (2017) opined that behavioral inhibition system or BIS is defined as a
neuropsychological system which predicts and controls the response of an individual to the
anxiety relevant cues, which may be present in a particular situation. This system is triggered in
the case of negative events, boring situations and punishment. A person would respond to such
negative stimuli through frustration, anxiety, avoidance and escapism. The activation of the BIS
would ensure sensitivity to negative reinforcements like punishments and avoidance motivation.
In other words, it is BIS which forms the basis of anxiety in human beings (Chamorro Premuzic,
2016). As a result of chronic anxiety, frustration and stress, such individuals would be more
likely to avoid confrontation with challenging situations. Individuals who are extremely sensitive
to negative reinforcements like punishments would perceive it as aversive. The causal factor
behind BIS is expected to the biological system named septohippocampal system of the human
body. The BAS, on the other hand, is more concerned with appetitive motivation. This refers to
the inclination of an individual to pursue goals and work towards achieving them. Rewards and
such methods of positive reinforcement serve as triggers for the activation of the BAS.
According to Gray, this aspect of human personality is intimately associated with hope, which is
the innate trait of every individual. A person who believes that he has hopes of achieving
something for himself is likely to work towards it. It can thus be asserted that rewards would be
more beneficial for the personality development of a person, because it is linked with impulsivity
(Van Beek et al., 2013). A person with a highly active behavioral activation system would
demonstrate more positive behaviors which include happiness, hopefulness and elation. Such
individuals are also likely to engage in activities that are goal oriented and work towards
achievement of such goals.

5COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Hence, it is important to study the course of development from Eysenck’s theory to
that of Gray’s, to provide a comparison between the two. Eysenck focuses on two broad
aspects of personality in his theory. His is a highly regarded theory of personality traits which
relies on a psychobiological perspective and factor analysis. According to Eysenck (2014), on
one hand there is the reticulo – cortical circuit which is related to cortical arousal and would be
affected by stimuli. For example, introverts more than extraverts have higher cortical arousal
levels. On the other hand, there is the reticulo limbic system which is aroused as a result of the
emotion inducing stimulations. Gray disagrees with this broad classification of personality
aspects and has a more specific motivational basis. It is often claimed that the model proposed by
Gray is a 45 degree rotation of that of Eysenck. However, recent research shows that the attribute
of impulsivity is inclined at 30 degrees to that of extraversion while anxiety is alighted at 30
degrees to neuroticism. In Gray’s theory of personality, impulsivity is closely linked with the
behavioral activation system whereas anxiety is closely associated with the behavioral inhibition
system (Mathews & Gilliland, 1999). Gray’s theory also draws a comparison between the
punishments and rewards as methods of reinforcement. Gray suggests that a highly impulsive
person would be more motivated by rewards and would work twice as hard towards attainment
of goals. On the other hand, a person with a more active BIS would be extremely sensitive to
punishment and fear and is likely to be more vulnerable to anxiety (Corr & Cooper, 2016). If the
assumption that rewards and punishments are relevant reinforcements as far as personality traits
are concerned, the theory proposed by Gray would be more meaningful than Eysenck’s, with
regards to study of human personality.
The aforementioned two theories differ with respect to the mode of psychological
constructs and also with regards to the specific circuits that determine human personality.

6COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Eysenck’s limbic systems and that of reticulo cortical systems are broadly defined and explained.
However, Gray identifies and recognizes arousal as something distinct from BAS or BIS. Unlike
Eysenck, Gray uses the concept of arousal in a more specific way and refers to the dorsal
noradrenergic bundle fibers (DNAB) which are closely linked with aroused emotional functions
(Mathews & Gilliland, 1999). One of the major benefits of Eysenck’s theory is the fact that he
uses arousal and such biological factors as the mediating variable linking personality traits to
various response indices which are qualitatively different. Gray’s theory however establishes
Eysenck’s theory as a generalized classification and instead predicts a range of personality
related behavioral tendencies with greater specificity. Yet, in some cases it might prove to be
challenging to link human behavioral patterns with the outputs of Gray theory of personality. In
these specific cases, the general classifications of Eysenck’s arousal theories may prove to be
more effective in predicting an individual’s behavioral responses (Jackson, 2001).
Both theories have had implications with respect to the current research in
psychology. For instance, the PEN model introduced by Eysenck has later been modified and
expanded to the Five Factor Personality Model, which establishes that there are five essential
factors which determine individual personality traits. The five factors are openness, neuroticism,
extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Allik, Realo & McCrae, 2013). All of these
factors determine different aspects of human behavior, along with predictions and controls.
Similarly, the theory that had been proposed by Gray has now been revised to develop the
reinforcement sensitive theory (Corr, 2016). At present, in personality psychology, the various
traits of a person’s personality would be related to motivational systems and emotional aspects.
His theory had an immense influence on the neurosciences of personality (Corr, DeYoung &
McNaughton, 2013). He had advocated the approach which took into account the CNS

7COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
components of personality, comprising of central nervous systems ad conceptual nervous
systems.
To conclude, it can be said that at present, there are a number of theories that are
associated with personality, personality traits and development of human personality. While a
number of primitive theories like the psychodynamic theories exist, there are two main theories
or models which have been studied in this paper – the theories proposed by Eysenck and Gray.
Eysenck adopted a very generalized way of assessing human personality by dividing it into three
aspects, namely neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism. Opposing his theory of cortical
arousal, Gray proposed a different theory which takes into account the role of positive and
negative reinforcements in shaping and modifying the behavioral patterns and personality traits
of human beings. The above paper provides a contrast and comparison of these two theories to
study their implications in ongoing psychological research.

8COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
References:
Allik, J., Realo, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2013). Universality of the five-factor model of personality.
Barlow, D. H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J. R., Bullis, J. R., & Ellard, K. K. (2014). The nature,
diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Back to the future. Clinical Psychological
Science, 2(3), 344-365.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2016). Personality and individual differences. John Wiley & Sons.
Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Structural
survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60-64.
Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. J. (2016). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality
Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological
assessment, 28(11), 1427.
Corr, P. J., DeYoung, C. G., & McNaughton, N. (2013). Motivation and personality: A
neuropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 158-
175.
Eysenck, H. (2017). The biological basis of personality. Routledge.
Eysenck, M. (2014). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Psychology Press.
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., King, J. E., & Jacobs, W. J.
(2015). Evolutionary personality psychology. The handbook of evolutionary psychology,
851-877.

9COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2014). Eysenck’s Personality Theory. In Encyclopedia of
Criminology and Criminal Justice(pp. 1538-1545). Springer, New York, NY.
Gao, Q., Xu, Q., Long, Z., Duan, X., Liao, W., Ding, J., ... & Chen, H. (2013). Extraversion and
neuroticism relate to topological properties of resting-state brain networks. Frontiers in
human neuroscience, 7, 257.
Gray, J. A. (2017). STRENGTH OF THE NERVO US SYSTEM AS A DIMENSION OF
PERSONALITY IN MAN. Pavlov's Typology: Recent Theoretical and Experimental
Developments from the Laboratory of BM Teplov Institute of Psychology, Moscow, 1,
157.
Halverson Jr, C. F., Kohnstamm, G. A., Martin, R. P., Halverson, C. F., & Kohnstamm, G. A.
(2014). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to
adulthood. Psychology Press.
Jackson, C. J. (2001). Comparison between Eysenck's and Gray's models of personality in the
prediction of motivational work criteria. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(2),
129-144.
Kennis, M., Rademaker, A. R., & Geuze, E. (2013). Neural correlates of personality: an
integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(1), 73-95.
Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). The personality theories of HJ Eysenck and JA Gray: A
comparative review. Personality and Individual differences, 26(4), 583-626.
Nebylitsyn, V. D., & Gray, J. A. (Eds.). (2013). Biological bases of individual behavior.
Academic Press.

10COMPARISON OF PERSOALITY THEORIES
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., ... & Oldehinkel, A. J.
(2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: meaning and utility of a complex
relationship. Clinical psychology review, 33(5), 686-697.
Tremblay, R. E. (2017). The prediction of delinquent behavior from childhood behavior:
Personality theory revisited. In Facts, frameworks, and forecasts (pp. 193-230).
Routledge.
Van Beek, I., Kranenburg, I. C., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). BIS-and BAS-
activation and study outcomes: A mediation study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 55(5), 474-479.