Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The relationship between HorneyÕs three neurotic types
and EysenckÕs PEN model of personality
Steven M. Shatz
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11548, USA
Received 23 July 2003; received in revised form 7 November 2003; accepted 4 December 2003
Available online 23 January 2004
Abstract
The Horney–Coolidge Type Inventory (HCTI) was developed by Coolidge, Moor, Yamazaki, Stewart,
and Segal (2001) to objectively measure the three neurotic personality types postulated by Karen Horney.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between HorneyÕs three neurotic types and
EysenckÕs PEN model of personality. The HCTI and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQR) were completed by 130 university students (92 women and 38 men). It was hypothesized that the HCTI
and EPQ-R scales would correlate in predictable ways, and this hypothesis was partially supported. A
principal components analysis of the HCTI and EPQ-R scale scores indicated that the Aggressive and
Detached scales loaded onto the same factor as Psychoticism, while the Compliant scale and Neuroticism
loaded onto the same factor. The results indicated that the HCTI might be a measure of interpersonal
aspects of EysenckÕs Psychoticism and Neuroticism factors.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Karen Horney; HCTI; Aggressive; Detached; Compliant; Neuroticism; Extraversion; Psychoticism
1. Introduction
Karen Horney (1945, 1950) developed a theory of neurosis based on clinical observation. Horney
postulated that neurotic behavior was the result of adverse childhood environmental factors, specifically parental attitudes and behaviors towards the developing child, such as inconsistent,
neglectful, aloof, overbearing, or abusive behaviors. Children that were consistently exposed to any
of these adverse environmental factors would develop basic anxiety, which is ‘‘the feeling a child has
of being isolated and helpless in a potentially hostile world’’ (Horney, 1945, p. 41).
E-mail address: dr_shatz@yahoo.com (S.M. Shatz).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.009
1256
S.M. Shatz / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
To cope with this feeling of basic anxiety individuals develop specific clusters of interpersonal
behaviors and perceptions, which Horney termed trends. In childhood, these trends help the child
adapt to whatever adverse environmental factors he or she is exposed to. However, when these
trends become rigid, inflexible and maladaptive, the trends become neurotic. Horney proposed
three specific neurotic trends, which are rooted in how an individual interacts with and perceives
other people; the Compliant type (moves towards people), the Aggressive type (moves against
people), and the Detached type (moves away from people).
The Compliant type is particularly vulnerable to the feelings of helplessness and isolation that
accompany basic anxiety. Thus, the overriding need in the Compliant type is to be loved and to
appease others, which will help diminish the feelings of isolation and helplessness. The Compliant
type avoids confrontation, seeks approval and affection from others, and is interpersonally
dependent. In order to be approved of by others the Compliant type will inhibit his or her
behavior, will place other peopleÕs needs over their own, and is prone to self-deprecation.
The Aggressive type views others as hostile, and is generally mistrustful of others. Thus, the
overriding need of this type is to be in control of others and to feel powerful. The Aggressive type
is driven to succeed, exploitative of others, competitive, and loathe to expressing personal
weakness. The Aggressive type views the world as dog-eat-dog, and believes that one must either
figuratively hunt or be hunted.
The Detached type copes with basic anxiety by pulling away from others. The overriding need
of this type is to be left alone. The Detached type is aloof, has a strong desire to be self-sufficient,
views others as intrusive, and suppresses emotionality.
HorneyÕs theory is primarily a theory of psychopathology. Much of the theory describes
maladjusted personality development, with little discussion of healthy personality development.
There has been little empirical research utilizing HorneyÕs constructs. However, as van den
Daele (1987, p. 100) states, HorneyÕs constructs are ‘‘readily operationalizable, and conceptually
congruent with the requirements of psychological measurement’’. In the first empirical attempt to
research HorneyÕs constructs, Cohen (1967) created a 35-item Likert-type scale that was designed
to measure HorneyÕs three types. However, there was no evidence reported on the psychometric
properties of the scale. The study indicated that HorneyÕs constructs might have value in consumer-marketing research.
In a more recent study (Coolidge et al., 2001) HorneyÕs neurotic types were shown to be
partially related to DSM-IV personality disorders in predictable ways. For example, Detached
scale scores were significantly positively correlated with Schizoid, Schizotypal and Paranoid
personality disorder scores. The authors also created the Horney–Coolidge Type Inventory
(HCTI), which was designed to measure HorneyÕs three neurotic types.
EysenckÕs (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) PEN model of personality proposed that there are
three basic, orthogonal, personality dimensions; Psychoticism, Extraversion and Neuroticism.
Individuals who score high on Psychoticism are generally aggressive, aloof, egocentric, impulsive, unempathic, and tough-minded, while low scorers are sensitive, able to control impulses,
and conforming. Extraversion reflects individual differences in social interest and activity level.
Individuals who score high on Extraversion are sociable, lively, active, assertive, and sensation
seekers, while low scorers are shy, quiet, passive, and careful. Neuroticism reflects differences
in emotional reactivity to negative environmental stimuli. High scorers are prone to anxiety, depression, guilt, low self-esteem and moodiness, while low scorers are calm and less reactive.
S.M. Shatz / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
1257
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between HorneyÕs model of
neuroses and EysenckÕs PEN model of Personality (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).
1.1. Hypothesis
Given the nature of HorneyÕs and EysenckÕs constructs, some logical predictions could be made:
(a) Compliant scores would be negatively correlated with Psychoticism scores, as some of the
characteristics of Psychoticism are aggressiveness and coldness, which are opposite to the
Compliant type. Compliant scores would be positively correlated with Extraversion scores because extraverts desire social interaction, and the Compliant type seeks social attention and
approval. Compliant scores would be positively correlated with Neuroticism scores. Neuroticism items encompass expressions of negative affect, which would be expected in the self-deprecating Compliant type. All correlations would be statistically significant.
(b) Aggressive scores would be positively correlated with Psychoticism scores, as both constructs
are indicative of tough-mindedness. Aggressive scores would be positively correlated with
Extraversion scores, as some of the characteristics of Extraversion are social dominance
and assertiveness, both compatible with the Aggressive type. Aggressive scores would be negatively correlated with Neuroticism scores. Neuroticism items are based on admission of personal weaknesses (e.g., guilt, depression and anxiety), and as previously mentioned, the
Aggressive type is not willing to admit personal weaknesses. All correlations would be statistically significant.
(c) Detached scores would be positively correlated with Psychoticism scores, as one aspect of
Psychoticism is social coldness. Detached scores would be negatively correlated with Extraversion, as desire for social interaction should be low in the Detached type. Detached scores would
be negatively correlated with Neuroticism scores for the same reason Neuroticism scores would
be negatively correlated with Aggressive scores, the Detached type is not willing to admit personal weaknesses and suppresses emotionality. All correlations would be statistically significant.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 130 university students (92 females and 38 males) who participated in
this study for credit as part of their undergraduate psychology classes. One-hundred and one were
Caucasian (78.3%), eight were African American (6.2%), eight were Hispanic (6.2%), six were
Asian (4.7%) and six identified themselves as ‘‘Other’’ (4.7%). The mean age of the sample was
21.19 years (SD ¼ 3.98) with a range of 18–42.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Horney–Coolidge Type Inventory (HCTI)
The HCTI was developed to assess Karen HorneyÕs three neurotic types; Compliant, Aggressive
and Detached (Coolidge et al., 2001). It is a 57-item self-report inventory, which yields three
1258
S.M. Shatz / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
scores, each representing one of the three neurotic types. Each item is a statement that the participant must rate on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Hardly ever) to 4 (Nearly
always) depending on how frequently the statement describes them. In the present study the
internal consistency coefficients for the three scales were as follows: Compliant (a ¼ 0:69),
Aggressive (a ¼ 0:81) and Detached (a ¼ 0:73).
2.2.2. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R)
The EPQ-R (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) is a revised version of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The EPQ-R was developed to enhance the
psychometric properties of the Psychoticism scale, including the internal consistency and low
range of scoring, which were problematic on the original version of the EPQ. The EPQ-R is a 100item Yes–No questionnaire which measures Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism and the Lie
scale, which is an indicator of social desirability. In the present study the internal consistency
coefficients for the four scales were as follows: Psychoticism (a ¼ 0:73), Extraversion (a ¼ 0:86),
Neuroticism (a ¼ 0:85) and Lie (a ¼ 0:70).
3. Results
3.1. Sex differences
Mean values and standard deviations of the EPQ-R and HCTI scales are presented in Table 1.
It also shows that three of the seven variables examined showed significant sex differences. Males
had higher scores on the EPQ-R Psychoticism scale and the HCTI Aggressive scale. Females had
higher scores on the EPQ-R Lie scale. The sex difference on the HCTI Aggressive scale was reported by Coolidge et al. (2001), thus not unexpected. The sex difference on the EPQ-R P scale
was also not unexpected (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975).
3.2. Correlations between the HCTI and EPQ-R scales
Seven of the nine correlations between the HCTI and EPQ-R scales were in the predicted
directions, although not all correlations were statistically significant (Table 2). The HCTI ComTable 1
Means and standard deviations on all measures by sex
Measures
EPQ-R Psychoticism
EPQ-R Extraversion
EPQ-R Neuroticism
EPQ-R Lie
HCTI Compliant
HCTI Aggressive
HCTI Detached
Male (n ¼ 38)
Female (n ¼ 92)
F
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
10.32
16.47
12.87
5.10
51.05
50.13
40.21
4.09
4.62
5.70
2.59
6.81
8.12
6.62
7.10
15.78
14.09
7.37
51.56
44.21
38.13
3.47
5.18
5.14
3.83
6.40
6.96
6.18
EPQ-R ¼ Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised; HCTI ¼ Horney–Coolidge Type Inventory.
P < 0:01.
**
20.79
0.51
1.42
11.15
0.17
17.65
2.92
S.M. Shatz / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
1259
Table 2
PearsonÕs correlations between HCTI and EPQ-R scales
Comp.
Agg.
Det.
P
E
N
L
Comp.
Agg.
Det.
P
E
N
L
–
)0.03
)0.32
)0.30
0.10
0.47
)0.02
)0.02
–
0.55
0.55
0.24
0.18
)0.24
)0.29
0.43
–
0.39
)0.18
0.13
0.13
)0.21
0.40
0.28
–
0.29
0.01
)0.50
0.08
0.20
)0.14
0.23
–
)0.33
)0.20
0.36
0.15
0.10
0.01
)0.28
–
)0.02
)0.01
)0.18
0.09
)0.35
)0.15
)0.01
–
Comp. ¼ Compliant; Agg. ¼ Aggressive; Det. ¼ Detached; P ¼ Psychoticism; E ¼ Extraversion; N ¼ Neuroticism;
L ¼ Lie. Correlations disattenuated for measurement error are below the diagonal.
*
P < 0:05 (one-tailed test).
**
P < 0:01 (one-tailed test).
pliant scale scores were significantly negatively correlated with EPQ-R P scale scores (r ¼ 0:21,
P < 0:01), and significantly positively correlated with EPQ-R N scale scores (r ¼ 0:36, P < 0:01).
These correlations indicate that higher Compliant scores were associated with lower Psychoticism ?tul> scores and higher Neuroticism scores. These correlations were in the predicted
directions. The correlation (r ¼ 0:08) between Compliant scale scores and EPQ-R E scale scores
was close to zero.
The HCTI Aggressive scale scores were significantly positively correlated with EPQ-R P scale
scores (r ¼ 0:40, P < 0:01), EPQ-R E scale scores (r ¼ 0:20, P < 0:05), and EPQ-R N scale scores
(r ¼ 0:15, P < 0:05). These correlations indicate that higher Aggressive scores were associated
with higher Psychoticism scores, higher Extraversion scores and higher Neuroticism scores. The
correlations between the Aggressive scale and the EPQ-R P and E scales were in the predicted
directions, while the correlation with the EPQ-R N scale was not.
The HCTI Detached scale scores were significantly positively correlated with EPQ-R P scale
scores (r ¼ 0:28, P < 0:01). This correlation indicates that higher Detached scores were associated
with higher Psychoticism scores. Detached scale scores correlations with EPQ-R E scale scores
(r ¼ 0:14) and EPQ-R N scale scores (r ¼ 0:10) were small and not significant.
3.3. Principal components analysis of HCTI and EPQ-R scales
A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was performed with the HCTI scale
scores and the EPQ-R scale scores, excluding the L scale scores (Table 3). Three factors with
eigenvalues >1 were extracted which explained 75.1% of the total variance. Factor 1 (30.4% of the
variance) was labeled as Tough-Mindedness, as it reflects aspects of the HCTI Detached,
Aggressive and EPQ-R Psychoticism scales. Factor 2 (23.2% of the variance) was labeled as
Neurotic-Dependence, as it reflects aspects of the HCTI Compliant and EPQ-R Neuroticism
scales. Factor 3 (21.5% of the variance) was labeled as Sociability, as it was reflected predominantly by the EPQ-R Extraversion scale. However, negative loadings >0.40 were found for the
HCTI Detached and EPQ-R Neuroticism scales on Factor 3.
1260
S.M. Shatz / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
Table 3
Principal components analysis of HCTI and EPQ-R scalesa
Scale
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
HCTI Aggressive
EPQ-R Psychoticism
HCTI Detached
HCTI Compliant
EPQ-R Neuroticism
EPQ-R Extraversion
0.82
0.72
0.71
)0.21
0.20
0.17
0.17
)0.15
)0.14
0.85
0.77
0.00
0.13
0.24
)0.42
0.22
)0.40
0.91
a
Excluding the EPQ-R Lie scale.
3.4. HCTI scale factor analyses
A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation revealed that the Compliant
scale had a seven factor solution (eigenvalues greater than 1.00) with 14%, 10%, 10%, 9%, 8%, 7%
and 6% of the variance accounted for by its factors, respectively. The first factor was interpreted
as a measure of altruism. The second factor was interpreted as a measure of need for relationships.
The third factor was interpreted as a need to be around others. The fourth factor was interpreted
as self-abasement. The fifth factor was interpreted as the tendency to accept blame and forgive
others. The sixth factor was interpreted as interpersonal submissiveness. The seventh factor was
comprised of only one item and was thus not interpreted. Coolidge et al. (2001) reported a five
factor solution for the Compliant scale.
The Aggressive scale had a five factor solution with 14%, 13%, 11%, 10% and 9% of the variance
accounted for by its factors, respectively. The first factor was interpreted as a measure of having a
malevolent view of others. The second factor was interpreted as a measure of interpersonal control
and dominance. The third factor was interpreted as a measure of tough-mindedness. The fourth
factor was interpreted as strength and bravery. The fifth factor was interpreted as a malevolent
view of the world. These five factors are similar to the five reported by Coolidge et al. (2001).
The Detached scale had a six factor solution with 17%, 10%, 9%, 9%, 8% and 7% of the variance
accounted for by its factors, respectively. The first factor was interpreted as the need to be alone.
The second factor was interpreted as interpersonal avoidance. The third factor was interpreted as
social guardedness. The fourth factor was interpreted as social aloofness. The fifth factor was
interpreted as a measure of independence. The sixth factor was interpreted as a measure of selfsufficiency. Coolidge et al. (2001) reported a five factor solution for the Detached scale.
4. Discussion
The correlational analysis showed that HorneyÕs three neurotic types were partially related to
EysenckÕs PEN model of personality, as predicted. The deviation from the predicted directions
was most notable on the Neuroticism scale. Horney (1945, 1950) indicated that the Aggressive
type is reluctant to expressing personal weaknesses and the Detached type suppresses emotionality, thus the predicted negative correlations with the Neuroticism scale were made. However,
these correlations were positive. It is possible that since the three Neurotic types were conceived of
S.M. Shatz / Personality and Individual Differences 37 (2004) 1255–1261
1261
by Horney as maladjusted, the three types would be associated with emotional instability as
defined by EysenckÕs Neuroticism dimension.
The results indicate that the three HCTI scales may not be independent from one another. In
particular, the correlation between the Detached and Aggressive scales (r ¼ 0:43, r ¼ 0:55 disattenuated for measurement error) indicate that they share common variance. The principal
components analysis of the scale scores further indicates that the Detached and Aggressive scales
may not be independent. If the theoretical HCTI scale structure was supported the Aggressive and
Detached scores should have loaded onto different factors, as they are theoretically different types.
This is contrary to what was found. Three components were extracted, each resembling Psychoticism (HCTI Aggressive, Detached, and EPQ-R Psychoticism), Neuroticism (HCTI Compliant
and EPQ-R Neuroticism) and Extraversion (EPQ-R Extraversion). This indicates that the HCTI
might be measuring interpersonal components of EysenckÕs big-three personality dimensions
rather than constructs separate from the PEN model. The Compliant scale might be measuring an
interpersonal component of Neuroticism, such as dependency. The Aggressive and Detached
scales might be measuring two different interpersonal components of Psychoticism.
The major limitation of this study is the great disparity between females (92) and males (38) in
the sample. Coolidge et al. (2001) reported that on the HCTI males had significantly higher
Aggressive and Detached scores, while females had significantly higher Complaint scores. This
indicates that the results found in the current study might not have been the same had the sample
been more equal. Other limitations are the relatively small sample size and a sample not representative of the general population (college students).
Further research on HorneyÕs theory and the HCTI might examine if the constructs have any
utility in predicting individual differences in behavior. One possible example might be comparing
Compliant types and Aggressive types on obedience to authority in an experimental situation. It
would be predicted that the Compliant types would be more obedient than the Aggressive types.
In addition, the question of the independence of HorneyÕs three types, particularly the Aggressive
and Detached types, needs to be clarified.
References
Cohen, J. B. (1967). An interpersonal orientation to the study of consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 4,
270–278.
Coolidge, F. L., Moor, J. C., Yamazaki, T. G., Stewart, S. E., & Segal, D. L. (2001). On the relationship between Karen
HorneyÕs tripartite neurotic type theory and personality disorders features. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,
1387–1400.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural science approach. New York
and London: Plenum Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.
Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
van den Daele, L. (1987). Research in HorneyÕs psychoanalytic theory. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 47, 99–104.