Ten mood variables were related to eight weather variables in a multidimensional study. Data were collected from 24 male subjects over 11 consecutive days. The mood variables were as follows: concentration, cooperation, anxiety, potency, aggression, depression, sleepiness, scepticism, control, and optimism. The weather variables included: hours of sunshine, precipitation, temperature, wind direction, wind velocity, humidity, change in barometric pressure and absolute barometric pressure. Humidity, temperature and hours of sunshine had the greatest effect on mood. High levels of humidity lowered scores on concentration while increasing reports of sleepiness. Rising temperatures lowered anxiety and scepticism mood scores. Humidity was the most significant predictor in regression and canonical correlation analysis. Implications for school and office performance are discussed which highlight the importance of humidity as a weather variable.

No abstract

One hundred and nineteen mice of 10 inbred strains were run on 32 measures from 16 tests in order to obtain a large variance coverage of behavioral differences for the purpose of obtaining factors among emotionality measures and strain factor scores.

Considering the wide usage of the Eysenck Personality Inventory, it was deemed desirable to critically examine the factorial nature of its Extraversion and Neuroticism scales. Of prime concern were the questions: (1) is the inventory a univocal measure of extraversion and neuroticism, for which it was designed, (2) are primary personality factors replicable ? An item factor analysis (60 variables, 1319 subjects) extracted 15 interpretable, orthogonal (Varimax) factors: Sociability I, Adjustment‐emotionality, Inferiority, Impulsivity, Mood‐swings‐readjustment, Sleep, Superego I, Jocularity, Sociability II, Dominance, Social conversation, Hypochondriac‐medical, Superego II, and two Lie factors. Obliquity of the primaries was determined by a Promax solution. It was concluded that the Extra version and Neuroticism scales are not univocal and that primary personality factors are replicable, as has been shown by a number of researchers including Eysenck. It is suggested that, until a more comprehensive and accurate inventory, to assess primary factors, is available, the EPI be scored for primary factor scales in order to present a more detailed picture of extraversion and neuroticism for the clinician and the researcher.

Cattell's system of personality factors has not changed in essentials since his foundation 'personality sphere' studies of 30 yeam ago, although the original 12 factor (A through L) system has been extended and has found worldwide application in the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF). The article begins with a summary of recent criticisms of the latter, as reflecting upon Cattell's system, and then proceeds to a specific re-examination of the foundations of that system in order to put the question: Were CatteU'B 'persomllty sphere' factors correctly identified in the 6rst instanceY Instead of 12 factors, it is herein suggested that possibly six clear-cut factors might have been extracted originally, factors which accord well with more recent work carried out independently from Cattell's laboratory. The implications of this are examined, accompanied with recommendations for more accurate delineation of personality factors in the future.Cattell's long continued and widely documented research into personality factors represents the single most monumental effort to operationalize those sources of individual differences often referred to as 'temperament' or 'personality' (and is comparable to that of Guilford on cognitive factors). According to Berg (1972) ' Cattell's major contribution will undoubtedly be seen as the discovery of the major factorial dimensions in rating, questionnaire and objective tests'. It is this system with which we are now concerned, and in order to clear up any initial misunderstanding it should be stated that this writer does not belong to that large camp of North American psychologists who are either indifferent or hostile to Cattell's work [in marked contrast to Europesee Berg (1972) for a fuller discussion of the matter]. Rather, the present article is concerned with the accurate delineation of personality factors and, quite clearly, had Cattell already outlined or charted the 'personality sphere ', then subsequent investigators could safely use this chart while exploring the far corners of the sphere. Moreover, in view both of the laudable scope and intention of Cattell's work (Howarth & Cattell, 1973) the present article is written with both regret and reservation, and only under the impetus of scientific truth and accuracy. Nor should a critical examination of a particular system be taken as reflecting upon multivariate methods (Adcock, 1972) per se.The present article does not, therefore, call into question either the scope and intention of Cattell's work, which is unrivalled in both respects, but it does have the temerity to question certain methodological practices and assumptions on the part of Cattell. We find ourselves, therefore, somewhat in the role of David facing Goliath with a small army at our back and a large army in front! Nor do we question Cattell's strategy for these reasons: Fiske (1971) has recently reviewed the various modes of measuring personality, each with its devotees and limitations, and each not always easily relatable to other modes. However, it...