research paper of personality traits

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 04 September 2023

Personality traits and brain health: a large prospective cohort study

• Ya-Ru Zhang 1   na1 ,
• Yue-Ting Deng 1   na1 ,
• Yu-Zhu Li 2   na1 ,
• Rui-Qi Zhang 1 ,
• Kevin Kuo 1 ,
• Yi-Jun Ge 1 ,
• Bang-Sheng Wu 1 ,
• Wei Zhang 2 ,
• A. David Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1095-6722 3 ,
• John Suckling 4 , 5 ,
• Barbara J. Sahakian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7352-1745 2 , 4 , 5 ,
• Jian-Feng Feng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5987-2258 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ,
• Wei Cheng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1118-1743 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 &
• Jin-Tai Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2532-383X 1  

Nature Mental Health volume  1 ,  pages 722–735 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1033 Accesses

1 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neurological disorders
• Psychiatric disorders

Personality has recently emerged as a critical determinant for multiple health outcomes. However, the evidence is less established for brain health, and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Here, utilizing data of 298,259 participants from the UK Biobank, five personality traits, including warmth, diligence, nervousness, sociability and curiosity, were constructed, and their relationships with brain disorders were examined with Cox regression and Mendelian randomization analyses. The results revealed consistent deleterious roles of nervousness, while the protective roles of warmth, diligence, sociability and curiosity in brain disorders were emphasized. Neuroimaging analyses highlighted the associations of personality traits with critical brain regions including the frontal cortex, temporal cortex and thalamus. Exploratory analyses revealed the mediating effects of neutrophil and high-density lipoprotein, indicating the contribution of inflammation and lipid metabolism to the associations between personality and brain health. This study provides a foundation for personality-oriented interventions in brain health, and it is necessary to validate our findings in other populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

55,14 € per year

only 4,60 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

The influence of personality on the risk of myocardial infarction in UK Biobank cohort

Amelia D. Dahlén, Maud Miguet, … Gull Rukh

Whole-brain white matter correlates of personality profiles predictive of subjective well-being

Raviteja Kotikalapudi, Mihai Dricu, … Tatjana Aue

Personality traits and dimensions of mental health

Weixi Kang, Francois Steffens, … Antonio Malvaso

Data availability

The main data used in this study were accessed from the publicly available UK Biobank Resource under application number 19542, which cannot be shared with other investigators. The GWAS data of brain disorders were retrieved from the exogenous population which is publicly available (dementia: https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/datasets/finn-b-F5_DEMENTIA/ , PD: https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/datasets/ieu-a-812/ , stroke: http://megastroke.org/download.html , schizophrenia: https://pgc.unc.edu/for-researchers/download-results/ , bipolar affective disorder: https://pgc.unc.edu/for-researchers , and MDD: https://pgc.unc.edu/for-researchers/download-results/ ).

Code availability

Packages including survival 3.2, TwoSampleMR and lavaan 0.8 in R version 4.0.0 were used to perform Cox proportional hazards regression model, MR study and structural equation model, respectively. PLINK 2.0 was used to perform genome-wide association analysis and PRSice2 was used to calculate the PRS. Freesurfer v6.0 and FSL 6.0 were used to process the imaging data, and MATLAB 2018b was used to perform corresponding linear association analysis. Scripts used to perform the analyses are available at https://github.com/yuzhulineu/UKB_personality .

Optimizing Brain Health Across the Life Course: WHO Position Paper (World Health Organization, 2022).

World Mental Health Report: Transforming Mental Health for All (World Health Organization, 2022).

Taquet, M. et al. Neurological and psychiatric risk trajectories after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies including 1 284 437 patients. Lancet Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00260-7 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhang, Y. R. et al. Modifiable risk factors for incident dementia and cognitive impairment: an umbrella review of evidence. J. Affect. Disord. 314 , 160–167 (2022).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ascherio, A. & Schwarzschild, M. A. The epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease: risk factors and prevention. Lancet Neurol. 15 , 1257–1272 (2016).

Boehme, A. K., Esenwa, C. & Elkind, M. S. Stroke risk factors, genetics, and prevention. Circ. Res. 120 , 472–495 (2017).

Aschwanden, D., Sutin, A. R., Luchetti, M., Stephan, Y. & Terracciano, A. Personality and dementia risk in England and Australia. GeroPsych 33 , 197–208 (2020).

Sieurin, J. et al. Personality traits and the risk for Parkinson disease: a prospective study. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 31 , 169–175 (2016).

Lonnqvist, J. E. et al. Premorbid personality factors in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: results from a large cohort study of male conscripts. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 118 , 418–423 (2009).

McAdams, D. P. & Olson, B. D. Personality development: continuity and change over the life course. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61 , 517–542 (2010).

Newton-Howes, G., Clark, L. A. & Chanen, A. Personality disorder across the life course. Lancet 385 , 727–734 (2015).

Roberts, B. W. & Yoon, H. J. Personality psychology. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73 , 489–516 (2022).

John, O. & Srivastava, S. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (eds Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P.) 102–138 (Guilford Press, 1999).

Aschwanden, D. et al. Is personality associated with dementia risk? A meta-analytic investigation. Ageing Res. Rev. 67 , 101269 (2021).

Santangelo, G. et al. Personality and Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 49 , 67–74 (2018).

DeYoung, C. G. et al. Testing predictions from personality neuroscience. Brain structure and the big five. Psychol. Sci. 21 , 820–828 (2010).

Valk, S. L. et al. Personality and local brain structure: their shared genetic basis and reproducibility. NeuroImage 220 , 117067 (2020).

Pape, K., Tamouza, R., Leboyer, M. & Zipp, F. Immunoneuropsychiatry—novel perspectives on brain disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 15 , 317–328 (2019).

Hussain, G. et al. Lipids as biomarkers of brain disorders. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 60 , 351–374 (2020).

Zhang, S., Lachance, B. B., Mattson, M. P. & Jia, X. Glucose metabolic crosstalk and regulation in brain function and diseases. Prog. Neurobiol. 204 , 102089 (2021).

Luchetti, M., Barkley, J. M., Stephan, Y., Terracciano, A. & Sutin, A. R. Five-factor model personality traits and inflammatory markers: new data and a meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology 50 , 181–193 (2014).

Kurki, M. I. et al. FinnGen provides genetic insights from a well-phenotyped isolated population. Nature 613 , 508–518 (2023).

Malik, R. et al. Multiancestry genome-wide association study of 520,000 subjects identifies 32 loci associated with stroke and stroke subtypes. Nat. Genet. 50 , 524–537 (2018).

Simón-Sánchez, J. et al. Genome-wide association study reveals genetic risk underlying Parkinson’s disease. Nat. Genet. 41 , 1308–1312 (2009).

Pardiñas, A. F. et al. Common schizophrenia alleles are enriched in mutation-intolerant genes and in regions under strong background selection. Nat. Genet. 50 , 381–389 (2018).

Stahl, E. A. et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 30 loci associated with bipolar disorder. Nat. Genet. 51 , 793–803 (2019).

Wray, N. R. et al. Genome-wide association analyses identify 44 risk variants and refine the genetic architecture of major depression. Nat. Genet. 50 , 668–681 (2018).

Terracciano, A., Stephan, Y., Luchetti, M., Albanese, E. & Sutin, A. R. Personality traits and risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. J. Psychiatr. Res. 89 , 22–27 (2017).

Duberstein, P. R. et al. Personality and risk for Alzheimer’s disease in adults 72 years of age and older: a 6-year follow-up. Psychol. Aging 26 , 351–362 (2011).

Terracciano, A. et al. Neuroticism and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis. Mov. Disord. 36 , 1863–1870 (2021).

Bower, J. H. et al. Anxious personality predicts an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 25 , 2105–2113 (2010).

Ishihara-Paul, L. et al. Prospective association between emotional health and clinical evidence of Parkinson’s disease. Eur. J. Neurol. 15 , 1148–1154 (2008).

Jokela, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., Elovainio, M. & Kivimäki, M. Personality traits as risk factors for stroke and coronary heart disease mortality: pooled analysis of three cohort studies. J. Behav. Med. 37 , 881–889 (2014).

Koorevaar, A. M. et al. Big Five personality and depression diagnosis, severity and age of onset in older adults. J. Affect. Disord. 151 , 178–185 (2013).

Xia, J. et al. The relationship between neuroticism, major depressive disorder and comorbid disorders in Chinese women. J. Affect. Disord. 135 , 100–105 (2011).

Simonsen, E. & Newton-Howes, G. Personality pathology and schizophrenia. Schizophr. Bull. 44 , 1180–1184 (2018).

Gale, C. R. et al. Pleiotropy between neuroticism and physical and mental health: findings from 108 038 men and women in UK Biobank. Transl. Psychiatry 6 , e791 (2016).

Zhang, F. et al. Causal influences of neuroticism on mental health and cardiovascular disease. Hum. Genet. 140 , 1267–1281 (2021).

Terracciano, A. et al. Reply to: “Is conscientiousness related to the risk of Parkinson’s disease?”. Mov. Disord. 36 , 2216 (2021).

Chida, Y. & Steptoe, A. Positive psychological well-being and mortality: a quantitative review of prospective observational studies. Psychosom. Med. 70 , 741–756 (2008).

Boehm, J. K. & Kubzansky, L. D. The heart’s content: the association between positive psychological well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychol. Bull. 138 , 655–691 (2012).

Wickett, R., Muhlert, N. & Niven, K. The influence of personality on interpersonal emotion regulation in the context of psychosocial stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043073 (2023).

Bogg, T. & Roberts, B. W. Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychol. Bull. 130 , 887–919 (2004).

Klein, D. N., Kotov, R. & Bufferd, S. J. Personality and depression: explanatory models and review of the evidence. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 7 , 269–295 (2011).

Bjørnebekk, A. et al. Neuronal correlates of the five factor model (FFM) of human personality: multimodal imaging in a large healthy sample. NeuroImage 65 , 194–208 (2013).

Halassa, M. M. & Kastner, S. Thalamic functions in distributed cognitive control. Nat. Neurosci. 20 , 1669–1679 (2017).

Szeszko, P. R. et al. Frontotemporal thalamic connectivity in schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 322 , 111463 (2022).

Lisman, J. et al. Viewpoints: how the hippocampus contributes to memory, navigation and cognition. Nat. Neurosci. 20 , 1434–1447 (2017).

Catani, M., Dell’acqua, F. & Thiebaut de Schotten, M. A revised limbic system model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37 , 1724–1737 (2013).

Zarkali, A. et al. Fiber-specific white matter reductions in Parkinson hallucinations and visual dysfunction. Neurology 94 , e1525–e1538 (2020).

White, T. et al. Spatial characteristics of white matter abnormalities in schizophrenia. Schizophr. Bull. 39 , 1077–1086 (2013).

Wardlaw, J. M., Smith, C. & Dichgans, M. Mechanisms of sporadic cerebral small vessel disease: insights from neuroimaging. Lancet Neurol. 12 , 483–497 (2013).

Yao, J. et al. The negative affectivity dimension of Type D personality associated with increased risk for acute ischemic stroke and white matter hyperintensity. J. Psychosom. Res. 160 , 110973 (2022).

Rost, N. S. et al. White matter hyperintensity burden and susceptibility to cerebral ischemia. Stroke 41 , 2807–2811 (2010).

Eisenberger, N. I., Inagaki, T. K., Mashal, N. M. & Irwin, M. R. Inflammation and social experience: an inflammatory challenge induces feelings of social disconnection in addition to depressed mood. Brain. Behav. Immun. 24 , 558–563 (2010).

Zahodne, L. B., Kraal, A. Z., Zaheed, A., Farris, P. & Sol, K. Longitudinal effects of race, ethnicity, and psychosocial disadvantage on systemic inflammation. SSM Popul. Health 7 , 100391 (2019).

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Derry, H. M. & Fagundes, C. P. Inflammation: depression fans the flames and feasts on the heat. Am. J. Psychiatry 172 , 1075–1091 (2015).

Irwin, M. R. & Vitiello, M. V. Implications of sleep disturbance and inflammation for Alzheimer’s disease dementia. Lancet Neurol. 18 , 296–306 (2019).

Furman, D. et al. Chronic inflammation in the etiology of disease across the life span. Nat. Med. 25 , 1822–1832 (2019).

Glass, C. K. & Olefsky, J. M. Inflammation and lipid signaling in the etiology of insulin resistance. Cell Metab. 15 , 635–645 (2012).

Camont, L., Chapman, M. J. & Kontush, A. Biological activities of HDL subpopulations and their relevance to cardiovascular disease. Trends Mol. Med. 17 , 594–603 (2011).

Kroencke, L., Harari, G. M., Katana, M. & Gosling, S. D. Personality trait predictors and mental well-being correlates of exercise frequency across the academic semester. Soc. Sci. Med. 236 , 112400 (2019).

Scheffer, D. D. L. & Latini, A. Exercise-induced immune system response: anti-inflammatory status on peripheral and central organs. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 1866 , 165823 (2020).

Gregor, M. F. & Hotamisligil, G. S. Inflammatory mechanisms in obesity. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 29 , 415–445 (2011).

Sonar, S. A. & Lal, G. Blood–brain barrier and its function during inflammation and autoimmunity. J. Leukoc. Biol. 103 , 839–853 (2018).

Huang, X., Hussain, B. & Chang, J. Peripheral inflammation and blood–brain barrier disruption: effects and mechanisms. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 27 , 36–47 (2021).

Felger, J. C. Imaging the role of inflammation in mood and anxiety-related disorders. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 16 , 533–558 (2018).

Dahlen, A. D., Miguet, M., Schioth, H. B. & Rukh, G. The influence of personality on the risk of myocardial infarction in UK Biobank cohort. Sci. Rep. 12 , 6706 (2022).

Ruijter, M. J. T., Dahlen, A. D., Rukh, G. & Schioth, H. B. Association of diligence and sociability with stroke: a UK Biobank study on personality proxies. Front. Biosci. 27 , 231 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Fry, A., Littlejohns, T., Sudlow, C., Doherty, N. & Allen, N. OP41 The representativeness of the UK Biobank cohort on a range of sociodemographic, physical, lifestyle and health-related characteristics. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 70 , A26–A26 (2016).

Sudlow, C. et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12 , e1001779 (2015).

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F. & Watson, D. Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 , 139–157 (2005).

Samuel, D. B. & Widiger, T. A. A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 28 , 1326–1342 (2008).

Forgy, E. W. Cluster analysis of multivariate data: efficiency vs interpretability of classifications. Biometrics 21 , 768–769 (1965).

Google Scholar  

Hartigan, J. A. & Wong, M. A. Algorithm AS 136: a K -means clustering algorithm. Appl. Stat. 28 , 100–108 (1979).

Miller, K. L. et al. Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. Nat. Neurosci. 19 , 1523–1536 (2016).

Brain imaging documentation. UK Biobank https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/showcase/showcase/docs/brain_mri.pdf .

Desikan, R. S. et al. An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. NeuroImage 31 , 968–980 (2006).

Fischl, B. et al. Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 33 , 341–355 (2002).

Griffanti, L. et al. BIANCA (Brain Intensity AbNormality Classification Algorithm): a new tool for automated segmentation of white matter hyperintensities. NeuroImage 141 , 191–205 (2016).

Bycroft, C. et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562 , 203–209 (2018).

Chang, C. C. et al. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. GigaScience 4 , https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8 (2015).

Watanabe, K., Taskesen, E., van Bochoven, A. & Posthuma, D. Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nat. Commun. 8 , 1826 (2017).

Wang, K., Li, M. & Hakonarson, H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 38 , e164 (2010).

Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. LD score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 47 , 291–295 (2015).

Choi, S. W. & O’Reilly, P. F. PRSice-2: Polygenic Risk Score software for biobank-scale data. Gigascience https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz082 (2019).

Bowden, J. et al. A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat. Med. 36 , 1783–1802 (2017).

Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., Haycock, P. C. & Burgess, S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet. Epidemiol. 40 , 304–314 (2016).

Hartwig, F. P., Davey Smith, G. & Bowden, J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46 , 1985–1998 (2017).

Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G. & Burgess, S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44 , 512–525 (2015).

Hemani, G. et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. eLife 7 , e34408 (2018).

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 6 , 1–55 (1999).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from the STI2030-Major Projects (2022ZD0211600), National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071201, 82071997), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (2018SHZDZX01), Research Start-up Fund of Huashan Hospital (2022QD002), Excellence 2025 Talent Cultivation Program at Fudan University (3030277001), Shanghai Talent Development Funding for The Project (2019074), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (21QA1408700), 111 Project (B18015), ZHANGJIANG LAB, Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute, the State Key Laboratory of Neurobiology and Frontiers Center for Brain Science of Ministry of Education, and Shanghai Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Technology, Fudan University. We want to thank all the participants and researchers from the cohorts, including UKB, FinnGen, IPDGC, MEGASTROKE, PGC and CLOZUK.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Ya-Ru Zhang, Yue-Ting Deng, Yu-Zhu Li.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Neurology and Institute of Neurology, Huashan Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology and MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, National Center for Neurological Diseases, Shanghai, China

Ya-Ru Zhang, Yue-Ting Deng, Rui-Qi Zhang, Kevin Kuo, Yi-Jun Ge, Bang-Sheng Wu, Wei Cheng & Jin-Tai Yu

Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Yu-Zhu Li, Wei Zhang, Barbara J. Sahakian, Jian-Feng Feng & Wei Cheng

Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

A. David Smith

Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

John Suckling & Barbara J. Sahakian

Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China

Jian-Feng Feng & Wei Cheng

Fudan ISTBI—ZJNU Algorithm Centre for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China

MOE Frontiers Center for Brain Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Jian-Feng Feng

Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Center, Shanghai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors had full access to the data in the study and accepted responsibility to submit them for publication. J.-T.Y. designed the study. Y.-R.Z. and Y.-T.D. conducted the primary analyses and drafted the manuscript. Y.-Z.L., R.-Q.Z., Y.-J.G., B.-S.W., W.Z. and K.K. contributed to imaging, SEM and genetic data analyses. J.-T.Y., W.C., J.-F.F., B.J.S., J.S. and A.D.S. critically revised the manuscript, and all authors approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Cheng or Jin-Tai Yu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Mental Health thanks M. Hughes, A. Ibanez and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Tables 1–9.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhang, YR., Deng, YT., Li, YZ. et al. Personality traits and brain health: a large prospective cohort study. Nat. Mental Health 1 , 722–735 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00119-8

Download citation

Received : 09 February 2023

Accepted : 04 August 2023

Published : 04 September 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00119-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 05 May 2020

Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in Lebanese universities medical students

• Radwan El Othman 1 ,
• Rola El Othman 2 ,
• Rabih Hallit 1 , 3 , 4   na1 ,
• Sahar Obeid 5 , 6 , 7   na1 &
• Souheil Hallit 1 , 5 , 7   na1  

BMC Psychology volume  8 , Article number:  46 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

56k Accesses

30 Citations

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study aims to assess the impact of personality traits on emotional intelligence (EI) and decision-making among medical students in Lebanese Universities and to evaluate the potential mediating role-played by emotional intelligence between personality traits and decision-making styles in this population.

This cross-sectional study was conducted between June and December 2019 on 296 general medicine students.

Higher extroversion was associated with lower rational decision-making style, whereas higher agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with a higher rational decision-making style. More extroversion and openness to experience were significantly associated with a higher intuitive style, whereas higher agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with lower intuitive style. More agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with a higher dependent decision-making style, whereas more openness to experience was significantly associated with less dependent decision-making style. More agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significantly associated with less spontaneous decision-making style. None of the personality traits was significantly associated with the avoidant decision-making style. Emotional intelligence seemed to fully mediate the association between conscientiousness and intuitive decision-making style by 38% and partially mediate the association between extroversion and openness to experience with intuitive decision-making style by 49.82 and 57.93% respectively.

Our study suggests an association between personality traits and decision-making styles. The results suggest that EI showed a significant positive effect on intuitive decision-making style and a negative effect on avoidant and dependent decision-making styles. Additionally, our study underlined the role of emotional intelligence as a mediator factor between personality traits (namely conscientiousness, openness, and extroversion) and decision-making styles.

Peer Review reports

Decision-making is a central part of daily interactions; it was defined by Scott and Bruce in 1995 as «the learned habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation. It is not a personality trait, but a habit-based propensity to react in a certain way in a specific decision context» [ 1 ]. Understanding how people make decisions within the moral domain is of great importance theoretically and practically. Its theoretical value is related to the importance of understanding the moral mind to further deepen our knowledge on how the mind works, thus understanding the role of moral considerations in our cognitive life. Practically, this understanding is important because we are highly influenced by the moral decisions of people around us [ 2 ]. According to Scott and Bruce (1995), there are five distinct decision-making styles (dependent, avoidant, spontaneous, rational, intuitive) [ 1 ] and each individuals’ decision-making style has traits from these different styles with one dominant style [ 3 ].

The dependent decision-making style can be regarded as requiring support, advice, and guidance from others when making decisions. Avoidant style is characterized by its tendency to procrastinate and postpone decisions if possible. On the other hand, spontaneous decision-making style is hallmarked by making snap and impulsive decisions as a way to quickly bypass the decision-making process. In other words, spontaneous decision-makers are characterized by the feeling of immediacy favoring to bypass the decision-making process rapidly without employing much effort in considering their options analytically or relying on their instinct. Rational decision-making style is characterized by the use of a structured rational approach to analyze information and options to make decision [ 1 ]. In contrast, intuitive style is highly dependent upon premonitions, instinct, and feelings when it comes to making decisions driving focus toward the flow of information rather than systematic procession and analysis of information, thus relying on hunches and gut feelings. Several studies have evaluated the factors that would influence an individual’s intuition and judgment. Rand et al. (2016) discussed the social heuristics theory and showed that women and not men tend to internalize altruism _ the selfless concern for the well-being of others_ in their intuition and thus in their intuitive decision-making process [ 4 ]. Additionally, intuitive behavior honesty is influenced by the degree of social relationships with individuals affected by the outcome of our decision: when dishonesty harms abstract others, intuition promotion causes more dishonesty. On the contrary, when dishonesty harms concrete others, intuition promotion has no significant effect on dishonesty. Hence, the intuitive appeal of pro-sociality may cancel out the intuitive selfish appeal of dishonesty [ 5 ]. Moreover, the decision-making process and styles have been largely evaluated in previous literature. Greene et al. (2008) and Rand (2016) showed that utilitarian moral judgments aiming to minimize cost and maximize benefits across concerned individuals are driven by controlled cognitive process (i.e. rational); whereas, deontological moral judgments _where rights and duties supersede utilitarian considerations_ are dictated by an automatic emotional response (e.g. spontaneous decision-making) [ 6 , 7 ]. Trémolière et al. (2012) found that mortality salience makes people less utilitarian [ 8 ].

Another valuable element influencing our relationships and career success [ 9 ] is emotional intelligence (EI) a cardinal factor to positive patient experience in the medical field [ 10 ]. EI was defined by Goleman as «the capacity of recognizing our feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions both in us and in our relationships» [ 11 ]. Hence, an important part of our success in life nowadays is dependent on our ability to develop and preserve social relationships, depict ourselves positively, and control the way people descry us rather than our cognitive abilities and traditional intelligence measured by IQ tests [ 12 ]. In other words, emotional intelligence is a subtype of social intelligence involving observation and analyses of emotions to guide thoughts and actions. Communication is a pillar of modern medicine; thus, emotional intelligence should be a cornerstone in the education and evaluation of medical students’ communication and interpersonal skills.

An important predictor of EI is personality [ 13 ] defined as individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving [ 14 ]. An important property of personality traits is being stable across time [ 15 ] and situations [ 16 ], which makes it characteristic of each individual. One of the most widely used assessment tools for personality traits is the Five-Factor model referring to «extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism». In fact, personality traits have an important impact on individuals’ life, students’ academic performance [ 17 ] and decision-making [ 18 ].

Extroversion is characterized by higher levels of self-confidence, positive emotions, enthusiasm, energy, excitement seeking, and social interactions. Openness to experience individuals are creative, imaginative, intellectually curious, impulsive, and original, open to new experiences and ideas [ 19 ]. Agreeableness is characterized by cooperation, morality, sympathy, low self-confidence, high levels of trust in others, and tend to be happy and satisfied because of their close interrelationships [ 19 ]. Conscientiousness is characterized by competence, hard work, self-discipline, organization, strive for achievement and goal orientation [ 20 ] with a high level of deliberation making conscientious individuals capable of analyzing the pros and cons of a given situation [ 21 ]. Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, anger, insecurity, impulsiveness, self-consciousness,and vulnerability [ 20 ]. High neurotic individuals have higher levels of negative affect, are easily irritated, and more likely to turn to inappropriate coping responses, such as interpersonal hostility [ 22 ].

Multiple studies have evaluated the impact of personality traits on decision-making styles. Narooi and Karazee (2015) studied personality traits, attitude to life, and decision-making styles among university students in Iran [ 23 ]. They deduced the presence of a strong relationship between personality traits and decision-making styles [ 23 ]. Riaz and Batool (2012) evaluated the relationship between personality traits and decision-making among a group of university students (Fig. 1 ). They concluded that «15.4 to 28.1% variance in decision-making styles is related to personality traits» [ 24 ]. Similarly, Bajwa et al. (2016) studied the relationship between personality traits and decision-making among students. They concluded that conscientiousness personality trait is associated with rational decision-making style [ 25 ]. Bayram and Aydemir (2017) studied the relationship between personality traits and decision-making styles among a group of university students in Turkey [ 26 ]. Their work yielded to multiple conclusion namely a significant association between rational and intuitive decision-making styles and extroversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness personality traits [ 26 ]. The dependent decision-making style had a positive relation with both neuroticism and agreeableness. The spontaneous style had a positive relation with neuroticism and significant negative relation with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Extroversion personality traits had a positive effect on spontaneous style. Agreeableness personality had a positive effect on the intuitive and dependent decision-making style. Conscientiousness personality had a negative effect on avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style and a positive effect on rational style. Neuroticism trait had a positive effect on intuitive, dependent and spontaneous decision-making style. Openness to experience personality traits had a positive effect on rational style [ 26 ].

Schematic representation of the effect of the big five personality types on decision-making styles [ 24 ]

Furthermore, several studies have evaluated the relationship between personality traits and emotional intelligence. Dawda and Hart (2000) found a significant relationship between emotional intelligence and all Big Five personality traits [ 27 ]. Day and al. (2005) found a high correlation between emotional intelligence and extroversion and conscientiousness personality traits [ 28 ]. A study realized by Avsec and al. (2009) revealed that emotional intelligence is a predictor of the Big Five personality traits [ 29 ]. Alghamdi and al. (2017) investigated the predictive role of EI on personality traits among university advisors in Saudi Arabia. They found that extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience emerged as significant predictors of EI. The study also concluded that conscientiousness and neuroticism have no impact on EI [ 13 ].

Nonetheless, decision-making is highly influenced by emotion making it an emotional process. The degree of emotional involvement in a decision may influence our choices [ 30 ] especially that emotions serve as a motivational process for decision-making [ 31 ]. For instance, patients suffering from bilateral lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (interfering with normal processing of emotional signals) develop severe impairments in personal and social decision-making despite normal cognitive capabilities (intelligence and creativity); highlighting the guidance role played by emotions in the decision-making process [ 32 ]. Furthermore, EI affects attention, memory, and cognitive intelligence [ 33 , 34 ] with higher levels of EI indicating a more efficient decision-making [ 33 ]. In one study, Khan and al. concluded that EI had a significant positive effect on rational and intuitive decision-making styles and negative effect on dependent and spontaneous decision-making styles among a group of university students in Pakistan [ 35 ].

This study aims to assess the impact of personality traits on both emotional intelligence and decision-making among medical students in Lebanese Universities and to test the potential mediating role played by emotional intelligence between personality and decision-making styles in this yet unstudied population to our knowledge. The goal of the present research is to evaluate the usefulness of implementing such tools in the selection process of future physicians. It also aimed at assessing the need for developing targeted measures, aiming to ameliorate the psychosocial profile of Lebanese medical students, in order to have a positive impact on patients experience and on medical students’ career success.

Study design

This cross-sectional study was conducted between June and December 2019. A total of 296 participants were recruited from all the 7 faculties of medicine in Lebanon. Data collection was done through filling an anonymous online or paper-based self-administered English questionnaire upon the participant choice. All participants were aware of the purpose of the study, the quality of data collected and gave prior informed consent. Participation in this study was voluntary and no incentive was given to the participants. All participants were General medicine students registered as full-time students in one of the 7 national schools of medicine aged 18 years and above regardless of their nationality. The questionnaire was only available in English since the 7 faculties of medicine in Lebanon require a minimum level of good English knowledge in their admission criteria. A pilot test was conducted on 15 students to check the clarity of the questionnaire. To note that these 15 questionnaires related data was not entered in the final database. The methodology used in similar to the one used in a previous paper [ 36 ]

Questionnaire and variables

The questionnaire assessed demographic and health characteristics of participants, including age, gender, region, university, current year in medical education, academic performance (assessed using the current cumulative GPA), parental highest level of education, and health questions regarding the personal history of somatic, and psychiatric illnesses.

The personality traits were evaluated using the Big Five Personality Test, a commonly used test in clinical psychology. Since its creation by John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991) [ 37 ], the five factor model was widely used in different countries including Lebanon [ 38 ]; it describes personality in terms of five board factors: extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism according to an individual’s response to a set of 50 questions on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). A score for each personality trait is calculated in order to determine the major trait(s) in an individual personality (i.e. the trait with the highest score). The Cronbach’s alpha values were as follows: total scale (0.885), extroversion (0.880), openness to experience (0.718), agreeableness (0.668), conscientiousness (0.640), and neuroticism (0.761).

Emotional intelligence was assessed using the Quick Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment scale [ 38 ]. The scale is divided into four domains: «emotional alertness, emotional control, social-emotional awareness, and relationship management». Each domain is composed of 10 questions, with answers measured on a 5-point Likert scale: 0 (never) to 4 (always). Higher scores indicate higher emotional intelligence [ 38 ] (α Cronbach  = 0.950).

The decision-making style was assessed using the Scott and Bruce General Decision-Making Style Inventory commonly used worldwide since its creation in 1995 for this purpose [ 1 ]. The inventory consists of 25 questions answered according to a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) intended to evaluate the importance of each decision-making style among the 5 styles proposed by Scott and Bruce: dependent, avoidant, spontaneous, rational and intuitive. The score for each decision-making style is computed in order to determine the major style for each responder (α Cronbach total scale  = 0.744; α Cronbach dependent style  = 0.925; α Cronbach avoidant style  = 0.927; α Cronbach spontaneous style  = 0.935; α Cronbach rational style  = 0.933; α Cronbach intuitive style  = 0.919).

Sample size calculation

The Epi info program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Epi Info™) was employed for the calculation of the minimal sample size needed for our study, with an acceptable margin of error of 5% and an expected variance of decision-making styles that is related to personality types estimated by 15.4 to 28.1% [ 24 ] for 5531 general medicine student in Lebanon [ 39 ]. The result showed that 294 participants are needed.

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23 was used for the statistical analysis. The Student t-test and ANOVA test were used to assess the association between each continuous independent variable (decision-making style scores) and dichotomous and categorical variables respectively. The Pearson correlation test was used to evaluate the association between two continuous variables. Reliability of all scales and subscales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

Mediation analysis

The PROCESS SPSS Macro version 3.4, model four [ 40 ] was used to calculate five pathways (Fig.  2 ). Pathway A determined the regression coefficient for the effect of each personality trait on emotional intelligence, Pathway B examined the association between EI and each decision-making style, independent of the personality trait, and Pathway C′ estimated the total and direct effect of each personality trait on each decision-making style respectively. Pathway AB calculated the indirect intervention effects. To test the significance of the indirect effect, the macro generated bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (CI) [ 40 ]. A significant mediation was determined if the CI around the indirect effect did not include zero [ 40 ]. The covariates that were included in the mediation model were those that showed significant associations with each decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Summary of the pathways followed during the mediation analysis

Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the participants

The mean age of the participants was 22.41 ± 2.20 years, with 166 (56.1%) females. The mean scores of the scales used were as follows: emotional intelligence (108.27 ± 24.90), decision-making: rationale style (13.07 ± 3.17), intuitive style (16.04 ± 3.94), dependent style (15.53 ± 4.26), spontaneous style (13.52 ± 4.22), avoidant style (12.44 ± 4.11), personality trait: extroversion (21.18 ± 8.96), agreeableness (28.01 ± 7.48), conscientiousness (25.20 ± 7.06), neuroticism (19.29 ± 8.94) and openness (27.36 ± 7.81). Other characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table  1 .

Bivariate analysis

Males vs females, having chronic pain compared to not, originating from South Lebanon compared to other governorates, having an intermediate income compared to other categories, those whose mothers had a primary/complementary education level and those whose fathers had an undergraduate diploma vs all other categories had higher mean rationale style scores. Those fathers, who had a postgraduate diploma, had a higher mean intuitive style scores compared to all other education levels. Those who have chronic pain compared to not and living in South Lebanon compared to other governorates had higher dependent style scores. Those who have chronic pain compared to not, those who take medications for a mental illness whose mothers had a primary/complementary education level vs all other categories and those whose fathers had a postgraduate diploma vs all other categories had higher spontaneous style scores (Table  2 ).

Higher agreeableness and conscientiousness scores were significantly associated with higher rational style scores, whereas higher extroversion and neuroticism scores were significantly associated with lower rational style scores. Higher extroversion, openness and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with higher intuitive scores, whereas higher agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism scores were significantly associated with lower intuitive style scores. Higher agreeableness and conscientiousness were associated with higher dependent style scores, whereas higher openness and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with lower dependent styles scores. Higher agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with lower spontaneous style scores. Finally, higher extroversion, neuroticism and emotional intelligence scores were significantly associated with lower avoidant style scores (Table  3 ).

Post hoc analysis: rationale style: governorate (Beirut vs Mount Lebanon p  = 0.022; Beirut vs South p  < 0.001; Mount Lebanon vs South p  = 0.004; South vs North p  = 0.001; South vs Bekaa p  = 0.047); monthly income (intermediate vs high p  = 0.024); mother’s educational level (high school vs undergraduate diploma p  = 0.048); father’s education level (undergraduate vs graduate diploma p = 0.01).

Intuitive style: father’s education level (high school vs postgraduate diploma p  = 0.046).

Dependent style: governorate (Beirut vs Mount Lebanon p  = 0.006; Beirut vs South p  = 0.003);

Avoidant style: mother’s educational level (high school vs undergraduate diploma p  = 0.008; undergraduate vs graduate diploma p  = 0.004; undergraduate vs postgraduate diploma p  = 0.001).

Mediation analysis was run to check if emotional intelligence would have a mediating role between each personality trait and each decision-making style, after adjusting overall covariates that showed a p  < 0.05 with each decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Rational decision-making style (Table  4 , model 1)

Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 0.91, 95% BCa CI [0.60, 1.23], t = 5.71, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.31). Higher extroversion was significantly associated with lower rational decision-making even with EI in the model, b = − 0.06, 95% BCa CI [− 0.11, − 0.02], t = − 2.81, p  = 0.003; EI was not significantly associated with rational decision-making, b = 0.02, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.93, p  = 0.054 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, higher extroversion was significantly associated with lower rational decision-making, b = − 0.05, 95% BCa CI [− 0.09, − 0.01], t = − 2.43, p  = 0.015 (R2 = 0.28). The mediating effect of EI was 21.22%.

Higher agreeableness was not significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.05, 95% BCa CI [− 0.40, 0.31], t = − 0.26, p  = 0.798 (R2 = 0.31). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher rational decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.07, 95% BCa CI [0.02, 0.11], t = 2.89, p  = 0.004; EI was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making, b = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.92, p  = 0.055 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher rational decision-making, b = 0.07, 95% BCa CI [0.02, 0.11], t = 2.86, p = 0.004 (R2 = 0.28). The mediating effect of EI was 0.10%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.40, 95% BCa CI [1.04, 1.76], t = 7.62, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.31). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with the rational decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.09, 95% BCa CI [0.04, 0.14], t = 3.55, p < 0.001; EI was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making, b = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.93, p  = 0.055 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, conscientiousness was significantly associated with the rational decision-making style, b = 0.11, 95% BCa CI [0.07, 0.16], t = 4.76, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.28). The mediating effect of EI was 22.47%.

Higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower EI, b = − 0.50, 95% BCa CI [− 0.80, − 0.20], t = − 3.26, p  = 0.001 (R2 = 0.31). Neuroticism was not significantly associated with rational decision-making style with EI in the model, b = − 0.09, 95% BCa CI [− 0.05, 0.03], t = − 0.43, p  = 0.668; EI was not significantly associated with rational decision-making, b = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.0003, 0.03], t = 1.93, p  = 0.055 (R2 = 0.29). When EI was not in the model, neuroticism was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making style, b = − 0.02, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.02], t = − 0.81, p  = 0.418 (R2 = 0.28).

No calculations were done for the openness to experience personality traits since it was not significantly associated with the rational decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Intuitive decision-making style (Table 4 , model 2)

Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 0.86, 95% BCa CI [0.59, 1.13], t = 6.28, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.41). Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making even with EI in the model, b = 0.05, 95% BCa CI [0.002, 0.11], t = 2.03, p  = 0.043; EI was significantly associated with intuitive decision-making style, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.003 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making, b = 0.08, 95% BCa CI [0.03, 0.13], t = 3.21, p  = 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 49.82%.

Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.33, 95% BCa CI [− 0.65, − 0.02], t = − 2.06, p  = 0.039 (R2 = 0.41). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower intuitive decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.15, 95% BCa CI [− 0.21, − 0.10], t = − 5.16, p  < 0.001; higher EI was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.004 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower intuitive decision-making, b = − 0.17, 95% BCa CI [− 0.22, − 0.11], t = − 5.48, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 6.80%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.18, 95% BCa CI [0.85, 1.51], t = 7.06, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.41). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with lower intuitive decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.10, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.03], t = − 2.95, p  = 0.003; higher EI was also significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.004 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, conscientiousness was not significantly associated with the intuitive decision-making style, b = − 0.06, 95% BCa CI [− 0.12, 0.0004], t = − 1.95, p  = 0.051 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 38%.

Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.44, 95% BCa CI [1.13, 1.75], t = 9.11, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.41). Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with higher intuitive decision-making style with EI in the model, b = 0.08, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.14], t = 2.38, p  = 0.017; higher EI was also significantly associated with intuitive decision-making style, b = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [0.01, 0.05], t = 2.91, p  = 0.004 (R2 = 0.21). When EI was not in the model, higher openness to experience was significantly associated with intuitive decision-making style, b = 0.12, 95% BCa CI [0.06, 0.18], t = 4.22, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 57.93%.

No calculations were done for neuroticism personality trait since it was not significantly associated with the intuitive decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Dependent decision-making style (Table 4 , model 3)

Agreeableness was not significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.15, 95% BCa CI [− 0.49, 0.17], t = − 0.94, p  = 0.345 (R2 = 0.32). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher dependent decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.29, 95% BCa CI [0.23, 0.34], t = 10.51, p  < 0.001; higher EI was significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, − 0.02], t = − 4.50, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.40). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with higher dependent decision-making, b = 0.29, 95% BCa CI [0.24, 0.35], t = 10.44, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.18). The mediating effect of EI was 2.38%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.04, 95% BCa CI [0.69, 1.38], t = 5.93, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.32). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher dependent decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = 0.15, 95% BCa CI [0.09, 0.20], t = 4.88, p  < 0.001; higher EI was also significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, − 0.02], t = − 4.50, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.40). When EI was not in the model, higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with a higher dependent decision-making style, b = 0.10, 95% BCa CI [0.04, 0.16], t = 3.49, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.36). The mediating effect of EI was 30.25%.

Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.37, 95% BCa CI [1.05, 1.69], t = 8.41, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.32). Higher openness to experience was significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.13, 95% BCa CI [− 0.19, − 0.08], t = − 4.55, p < 0.001; higher EI was also significantly associated with dependent decision-making style, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.19, − 0.08], t = − 4.50, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.40). When EI was not in the model, higher openness to experience was significantly associated with lower dependent decision-making style, b = − 0.19, 95% BCa CI [− 0.24, − 0.14], t = − 7.06, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.36). The mediating effect of EI was 43.69%.

No calculations were done for neuroticism and extroversion personality traits since they were not significantly associated with the dependent decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

Spontaneous decision-making style (Table 4 , model 4)

Agreeableness was not significantly associated with EI, b = 0.17, 95% BCa CI [− 0.19, 0.53], t = 0.91, p  = 0.364 (R2 = 0.17). Higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.10, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.03], t = − 3.07, p  = 0.002; EI was not significantly associated with spontaneous decision-making, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.03, 0.01], t = − 0.71, p  = 0.476 (R2 = 0.15). When EI was not in the model, higher agreeableness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making, b = − 0.10, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.04], t = − 3.11, p = 0.002 (R2 = 0.15). The mediating effect of EI was 1.25%.

Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 1.26, 95% BCa CI [0.88, 1.64], t = 6.56, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.17). Higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.16, 95% BCa CI [− 0.23, − 0.09], t = − 4.51, p  < 0.001; EI was not significantly associated with spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.03, 0.01], t = − 0.71, p  = 0.476 (R2 = 0.15). When EI was not in the model, higher conscientiousness was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.17, 95% BCa CI [− 0.23, − 0.10], t = − 5.11, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). The mediating effect of EI was 5.64%.

Neuroticism was not significantly associated with EI, b = − 0.22, 95% BCa CI [− 0.53, 0.08], t = − 1.43, p  = 0.153 (R2 = 0.17). Higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.11, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.06], t = − 4.05, p  < 0.001; EI was not significantly associated with spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.03, 0.01], t = − 0.71, p = 0.476 (R2 = 0.15). When EI was not in the model, higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower spontaneous decision-making style, b = − 0.11, 95% BCa CI [− 0.16, − 0.05], t = − 4.01, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). The mediating effect of EI was 1.49%.

No calculations were done for openness to experience and extroversion personality traits since they were not significantly associated with the spontaneous decision-making style in the bivariate analysis .

Avoidant decision-making style (Table 4 , model 5)

Higher extroversion was significantly associated with higher EI, b = 0.88, 95% BCa CI [0.54, 1.21], t = 5.18, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). Extroversion was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.01, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.05], t = − 0.27, p  = 0.790; higher EI was significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.03], t = − 4.79, p  < 0.001 (R2 = 0.25). When EI was not in the model, extroversion was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.05, 95% BCa CI [− 0.1, 0.08], t = − 1.69, p  = 0.092 (R2 = 0.19).

Higher neuroticism was significantly associated with lower EI, b = − 0.59, 95% BCa CI [− 0.91, − 0.27], t = − 3.60, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.15). Neuroticism was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style even with EI in the model, b = − 0.03, 95% BCa CI [− 0.09, 0.02], t = − 1.34, p  = 0.182; higher EI was significantly associated with lower avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.04, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, − 0.03], t = − 4.79, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.25). When EI was not in the model, neuroticism was not significantly associated with avoidant decision-making style, b = − 0.09, 95% BCa CI [− 0.06, 0.04], t = − 0.33, p  = 0.739 (R2 = 0.19).

No calculations were done for openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality traits since they were not significantly associated with the avoidant decision-making style in the bivariate analysis.

This study examined the relationship between personality traits and decision-making styles, and the mediation role of emotional intelligence in a sample of general medicine students from different medical schools in Lebanon.

Agreeableness is characterized by cooperation, morality, sympathy, low self-confidence, high levels of trust in others and agreeable individuals tend to be happy and satisfied because of their close interrelationships [ 19 , 20 ]. Likewise, dependent decision-making style is characterized by extreme dependence on others when it comes to making decisions [ 1 ]. Our study confirmed this relationship similarly to Wood (2012) [ 41 ] and Bayram and Aydemir (2017) [ 26 ] findings of a positive relationship between dependent decision-making style and agreeableness personality trait and a negative correlation between this same personality trait and spontaneous decision-making style. In fact, this negative correlation can be explained by the reliance and trust accorded by agreeable individuals to their surroundings, making them highly influenced by others opinions when it comes to making a decision; hence, avoiding making rapid and snap decisions on the spur of the moment (i.e. spontaneous decision-making style); in order to explore the point of view of their surrounding before deciding on their own.

Conscientiousness is characterized by competence, hard work, self-discipline, organization, strive for achievement, and goal orientation [ 20 ]. Besides, conscientious individuals have a high level of deliberation making them capable of analyzing the pros and cons of a given situation [ 21 ]. Similarly, rational decision-makers strive for achievements by searching for information and logically evaluating alternatives before making decisions; making them high achievement-oriented [ 20 , 42 ]. This positive relationship between rational decision-making style and conscientiousness was established by Nygren and White (2005) [ 43 ] and Bajwa et al. (2016) [ 25 ]; thus, solidifying our current findings. Furthermore, we found that conscientiousness was positively associated with dependent decision-making; this relationship was not described in previous literature to our knowledge and remained statistically significant after adding EI to the analysis model. This relationship may be explained by the fact that conscientious individuals tend to take into consideration the opinions of their surrounding in their efforts to analyze the pros and cons of a situation. Further investigations in similar populations should be conducted in order to confirm this association. Moreover, we found a positive relationship between conscientiousness and intuitive decision-making that lost significance when EI was removed from the model. Thus, solidifying evidence of the mediating role played by EI between personality trait and decision-making style with an estimated mediation effect of 38%.

Extroversion is characterized by higher levels of self-confidence, positive emotions, enthusiasm, energy, excitement seeking, and social interactions. Similarly, intuitive decision-making is highly influenced by emotions and instinct. The positive relationship between extroversion and intuitive decision-making style was supported by Wood (2012) [ 41 ], Riaz et al. (2012) [ 24 ] and Narooi and Karazee (2015) [ 23 ] findings and by our present study.

Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, anger, self-consciousness, and vulnerability [ 20 ]. High neurotic individuals have higher levels of negative affect, depression, are easily irritated, and more likely to turn to inappropriate coping responses, such as interpersonal hostility [ 22 ]. Our study results showed a negative relationship between neuroticism and spontaneous decision-making style.

Openness to experience individuals are creative, imaginative, intellectually curious, impulsive and original, open to new experiences and ideas [ 19 , 20 ]. One important characteristic of intuitive decision-making style is tolerance for ambiguity and the ability to picture the problem and its potential solution [ 44 ]. The positive relationship between openness to experience and intuitive decision-making style was established by Riaz and Batool (2012) [ 24 ] and came in concordance with our study findings. Additionally, our results suggest that openness personality trait is negatively associated with dependent decision-making style similar to previous findings [ 23 ]. Openness to experience individuals are impulsive and continuously seek intellectual pursuits and new experiences; hence, they tend to depend to a lesser extent on others’ opinions when making decisions since they consider the decision-making process a way to uncover new experiences and opportunities.

Our study results showed that EI had a significant positive effect on intuitive decision-making style. Intuition can be regarded as an interplay between cognitive and affective processes highly influenced by tactic knowledge [ 45 ]; hence, intuitive decision-making style is the result of personal and environmental awareness [ 46 , 47 , 48 ] in which individuals rely on the overall context without much concentration on details. In other words, they depend on premonitions, instinct, and predications of possibilities focusing on designing the overall plan [ 49 ] and take responsibility for their decisions [ 46 ]. Our study finding supports the results of Khan and al. (2016) who concluded that EI and intuitive decision-making had a positive relationship [ 35 ]. On the other hand, our study showed a negative relationship between EI and avoidant and dependent decision-making styles. Avoidant decision-making style is defined as a continuous attempt to avoid decision-making when possible [ 1 ] since they find it difficult to act upon their intentions and lack personal and environmental awareness [ 50 ]. Similarly to our findings, Khan and al. (2016) found that avoidant style is negatively influenced by EI [ 35 ]. The dependent decision-making style can be regarded as requiring support, advice, and guidance from others when making decisions. In other words, it can be described as an avoidance of responsibility and adherence to cultural norms; thus, dependent decision-makers tend to be less influenced by their EI in the decision-making process. Our conclusion supports Avsec’s (2012) findings [ 51 ] on the negative relationship between EI and dependent decision-making style.

Practical implications

The present study helps in determining which sort of decision is made by which type of people. This study also represents a valuable contribution to the Lebanese medical society in order to implement such variables in the selection methods of future physicians thus recruiting individuals with positively evaluated decision-making styles and higher levels of emotional intelligence; implying better communication skills and positively impacting patients’ experience. Also, the present study may serve as a valuable tool for the medical school administration to develop targeted measures to improve students’ interpersonal skills.

Limitations

Even though the current study is an important tool in order to understand the complex relationship between personality traits, decision-making styles and emotional intelligence among medical students; however, it still carries some limitations. This study is a descriptive cross-sectional study thus having a lower internal validity in comparison with experimental studies. The Scott and Bruce General Decision-Making Style Inventory has been widely used internationally for assessing decision-making styles since 1995 but has not been previously validated in the Lebanese population. In addition, the questionnaire was only available in English taking into consideration the mandatory good English knowledge in all the Lebanese medical schools; however, translation, and cross-language validation should be conducted in other categories of Lebanese population. Furthermore, self-reported measures were employed in the present research where participants self-reported themselves on personality types, decision-making styles and emotional intelligence. Although, all used scales are intended to be self-administered; however, this caries risk of common method variance; hence, cross-ratings may be employed in the future researches in order to limit this variance.

The results suggest that EI showed a significant positive effect on intuitive decision-making style and a negative effect on avoidant and dependent decision-making styles. In addition, our study showed a positive relationship between agreeableness and dependent decision-making style and a negative correlation with spontaneous decision-making style. Furthermore, conscientiousness had a positive relationship with rational and dependent decision-making style and extroversion showed a positive relationship with intuitive decision-making style. Neuroticism had a negative relationship with spontaneous style and openness to experience showed a positive relationship with intuitive decision-making style and a negative relationship with dependent style. Additionally, our study underlined the role of emotional intelligence as a mediation factor between personality traits and decision-making styles namely openness to experience, extroversion, and conscientiousness personality traits with intuitive decision-making style. Personality traits are universal [ 20 ]; beginning in adulthood and remaining stable with time [ 52 ]. Comparably, decision-making styles are stable across situations [ 1 ]. The present findings further solidify a previously established relationship between personality traits and decision-making and describes the effect of emotional intelligence on this relationship.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available to maintain the privacy of the individuals’ identities. The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Scott SG, Bruce RA. Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(5):818–31.

Article   Google Scholar  

Capraro V, Everett JA, Earp BD. Priming intuition disfavors instrumental harm but not impartial beneficence. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2019;83:142–9.

Allwood CM, Salo I. Decision-making styles and stress. Int J Stress Manag. 2012;19(1):34.

Rand DG, Brescoll VL, Everett JA, Capraro V, Barcelo H. Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016;145(4):389–96.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kobis NC, Verschuere B, Bereby-Meyer Y, Rand D, Shalvi S. Intuitive honesty versus dishonesty: meta-analytic evidence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019;14(5):778–96.

Greene JD, Morelli SA, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition. 2008;107(3):1144–54.

Rand DG. Cooperation, fast and slow: meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychol Sci. 2016;27(9):1192–206.

Tremoliere B, Neys WD, Bonnefon JF. Mortality salience and morality: thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition. 2012;124(3):379–84.

Brown C, George-Curran R, Smith ML. The role of emotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-making process. J Career Assess. 2003;11(4):379–92.

Clancy C. The importance of emotional intelligence. Nursing Management (2014+). 2014;21(8):15.

Goleman D. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam; 1998.

Google Scholar  

Cotruş A, Stanciu C, Bulborea AA. EQ vs. IQ which is Most important in the success or failure of a student? Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;46:5211–3.

Alghamdi NG, Aslam M, Khan K. Personality traits as predictor of emotional intelligence among the university teachers as advisors. Educ Res Int. 2017;2017:1–6 https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9282565 .

Kazdin AE. Encyclopedia of psychology, vol. Vol 8. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000.

Bleidorn W, Klimstra TA, Denissen JJ, Rentfrow PJ, Potter J, Gosling SD. Personality maturation around the world: a cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(12):2530–40.

Borkenau P, Riemann R, Spinath FM, Angleitner A. Genetic and environmental influences on person× situation profiles. J Pers. 2006;74(5):1451–80.

Hazrati-Viari A, Rad AT, Torabi SS. The effect of personality traits on academic performance: the mediating role of academic motivation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;32:367–71.

Proceedings of the international conference on multiple academic disciplines. HanoiISBN: 978–1–943579-61-7 Hai Phong - . . Paper ID: VM714. 18–19, August: Vietnam (MAD17Vietnam Conference); 2017.

McCrae RR, John OP. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Pers. 1992;60(2):175–215.

McCrae R, Costa P Jr. Personality in adulthood. In: O envelhecimento. Uma abordagem psicológica . New York: Guilford; 1990. p. 2.

Johnson JA. Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.) Handbook of personality psychology : Elsevier; 1997. p. 73–93.

Camps J, Stouten J, Euwema M. The relation between supervisors’ big five personality traits and employees’ experiences of abusive supervision. Front Psychol. 2016;7:112.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Narooi ZS, Karazee F. Investigating the relationship among personality traits, decision-making styles, and attitude to life (Zahedan branch of Islamic Azad University as case study in Iran). Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2015;6(6 S6):311.

Riaz MN, Riaz MA, Batool N. Personality types as predictors of decision making styles. J Behav Sci. 2012;22(2):100–14.

Bajwa RS, Batool I, Asma M, Ali H, Ajmal A. Personality traits and decision making styles among university students (Pakistan). Pakistan J Life Soc Sci. 2016;14(1):38–41.

Bayram N, Aydemir M. Decision-making styles and personality traits. Int J Recent Adv Organizational Behaviour Decision Sci. 2017;3:905–15.

Dawda D, Hart SD. Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of the Bar-on emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personal Individ Differ. 2000;28(4):797–812.

Day AL, Therrien DL, Carroll SA. Predicting psychological health: assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelligence beyond personality, type a behaviour, and daily hassles. Eur J Personality. 2005;19(6):519–36.

Avsec A, Takšić V, Mohorić T. The relationship of trait emotional intelligence with the big five in Croatian and Slovene university student samples. Psihološka obzorja/Horizons Psychol. 2009;18(3):99–110.

Spicer DP, Sadler-Smith E. An examination of the general decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. J Manag Psychol. 2005;20(2):137–49.

Zeelenberg M, Pieters R. Feeling is for doing: a pragmatic approach to the study of emotions in decision-makingManuscript under review; 2005.

Bechara A, Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behavior. 2005;52(2):336–72.

Kustubayeva A, Bagayeva E. Emotional intelligence and decision making. RUDN J Psychol Pedagogics. 2011;S5:104–9.

Jaušovec N, Jaušovec K. Sex differences in brain activity related to general and emotional intelligence. Brain Cogn. 2005;59(3):277–86.

Khan E, Riaz M, Batool N, Riaz M. Emotional intelligence as a predictor of decision making styles among university students. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2016;6(4S):93–9.

Sarkis A. Hallit S. Hajj A. Lebanese students’ motivation in medical school: does it change throughout the years? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 20, 94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02011-w .

John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality; 1991.

Mohapel P. The quick emotional intelligence self-assessment: San Diego City College MESA Program; 2015.

Soueid M, Ghanem S, Hariri Z, Yamout N, Nehme R. Analysis of Lebanon's education sector: BankMed Market & Economic Research Divisionupdated Nov 10; cited 2015 Apr 6; 2014. Available from: http://www.bankmed.com.lb/BOMedia/subservices/categories/News/20150515170635891.pdf . Accessed 17 Jan 2020.

Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Thomas E. Nygren, Rebecca J. White; 2005. Relating Decision Making Styles to Predicting Selfefficacy and a Generalized Expectationof Success and Failure. Article in Human Factors andErgonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 49(3):432–34.

Baiocco R, Laghi F, D'Alessio M. Decision-making style among adolescents: relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. J Adolesc. 2009;32(4):963–76.

Nygren TE, White RJ. Relating decision making styles to predicting selfefficacy and a generalized expectation of success and failure. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2005.

Bergstrand B. Situating the estimate: naturalistic decision-making as an alternative to analytical decision making in the Canadian forcesunpublished article. n. pag. http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/irc/nh/nh9798/0021.html ; 2001. p. 24.

Sinclair M, Ashkanasy NM. Intuition: myth or a decision-making tool? Manag Learn. 2005;36(3):353–70.

Harren VA. A model of career decision making for college students. J Vocat Behav. 1979;14(2):119–33.

Hablemitoglu S, Yildirim F. The relationship between perception of risk and decision making styles of Turkish university students: a descriptive study of individual differences. World Appl Sci J. 2008;4(2):214–24.

Singh R, Greenhaus JH. The relation between career decision-making strategies and person–job fit: a study of job changers. J Vocat Behav. 2004;64(1):198–221.

Miller CC, Ireland RD. Intuition in strategic decision making: friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century? Acad Manag Perspect. 2005;19(1):19–30.

Phillips SD, Pazienza NJ, Ferrin HH. Decision-making styles and problem-solving appraisal. J Couns Psychol. 1984;31(4):497.

Avsec A. Do emotionally intelligent individuals use more adaptive decision-making styles? Stud Psychol. 2012;54(3):209.

Soldz S, Vaillant GE. The big five personality traits and the life course: a 45-year longitudinal study. J Res Pers. 1999;33(2):208–32.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all students who agreed to participate in this study.

Author information

Rabih Hallit, Sahar Obeid and Souheil Hallit are last co-authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon

Radwan El Othman, Rabih Hallit & Souheil Hallit

Department of Pediatrics, Bahman Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon

Rola El Othman

Department of Infectious Disease, Bellevue Medical Center, Mansourieh, Lebanon

Rabih Hallit

Department of Infectious Disease, Notre Dame des Secours University Hospital Center, Byblos, Lebanon

Research and Psychology departments, Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, P.O. Box 60096, Jal Eddib, Lebanon

Sahar Obeid & Souheil Hallit

Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik (USEK), Jounieh, Lebanon

Sahar Obeid

INSPECT-LB: Institut National de Santé Publique, Epidémiologie Clinique et Toxicologie – Liban, Beirut, Lebanon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

REO and REO were responsible for the data collection and entry and drafted the manuscript. SH and SO designed the study; SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; RH assisted in drafting and reviewing the manuscript; All authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent; SO, SH and RH were the project supervisors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sahar Obeid or Souheil Hallit .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Holy Spirit University of Kaslik – School of Medicine and Medical Sciences ethics committee approved the study protocol. A written consent was obtained from each student.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

El Othman, R., El Othman, R., Hallit, R. et al. Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in Lebanese universities medical students. BMC Psychol 8 , 46 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4

Download citation

Received : 27 January 2020

Accepted : 12 April 2020

Published : 05 May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Personality traits
• Decision-making
• Decision-making style
• Emotional intelligence
• Medical students

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Personality traits and academic performance: Correcting self-assessed traits with vignettes

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

• Johan Coenen, 
• Bart H. H. Golsteyn, 
• Tom Stolp, 
• Dirk Tempelaar

• Published: March 25, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629
• Reader Comments

In this study, we investigate whether Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Risk Preference relate to student performance in higher education. We employ anchoring vignettes to correct for heterogeneous scale use in these non-cognitive skills. Our data are gathered among first-year students at a Dutch university. The results show that Conscientiousness is positively related to student performance, but the estimates are strongly biased upward if we use the uncorrected variables. We do not find significant relationships for Emotional Stability but find that the point estimates are larger when using the uncorrected variables. Measured Risk Preference is negatively related to student performance, yet this is fully explained by heterogeneous scale use. These results indicate the importance of using more objective measurements of personality traits.

Citation: Coenen J, Golsteyn BHH, Stolp T, Tempelaar D (2021) Personality traits and academic performance: Correcting self-assessed traits with vignettes. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0248629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629

Editor: Nikolaos Askitas, IZA - Institute of Labor Economic, GERMANY

Received: October 20, 2020; Accepted: March 3, 2021; Published: March 25, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Coenen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The DOI associated with the data underlying our study's findings is https://doi.org/10.34894/LVXSKZ .

Funding: BG received funding by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (VIDI grant 452-16-006). URL of this organization: https://www.nwo.nl/en The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Personality is an important predictor of life outcomes (see, e.g., [ 1 , 2 ]). Personality is typically measured by asking individuals to evaluate self-reflective statements on subjective scales. One important issue with this approach is that people may systematically differ in scale use. If differences in scale use are correlated to outcomes, the relationship between measures of personality traits and such outcomes can be biased.

In this paper, we study whether people differ systematically in the values they attach to personality item scales and whether these systematic differences bias the relationship between measured personality traits and academic performance. We study biases with respect to Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Risk Preference. The first two are personality traits from the Big Five Inventory. Risk Preference is an economic preference parameter and not a personality trait. However, for the sake of brevity, we refer in this paper to Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Risk Preference as “personality.”

Scale use biases the relationship between self-reported personality and academic performance if it is related both to self-reported personality and to academic performance. The relationship between scale use and self-reported personality is obvious. The relationship between scale use and academic performance can occur, for instance, if students who score higher on achievement tests have different comparison groups in mind when completing the survey on personality traits than students who score lower on achievement tests.

To separate true differences in personality from differences in scale use, we employ anchoring vignettes (see [ 3 , 4 ]). We first ask questions to measure Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Risk Preference. Then, we ask the same questions for a fictive hairdresser, surgeon, firefighter, and bus driver. We use the answers on the latter questions to identify heterogeneity in scale use. In a final step, we analyze whether correlations with academic performance differ for the uncorrected and corrected answers on personality traits.

The main result of our analysis is that the relationship between uncorrected personality and academic outcomes is overestimated if differences in scale use are not taken into account. This conclusion holds for all traits we investigate.

There is a vast literature on the relationship between personality traits and academic performance. For an overview, see, e.g., [ 1 , 5 – 7 ]. Fig 3 in [ 1 ] (p. 1007) summarizes some of the main conclusions from this literature; of the Big Five traits, Conscientiousness is most strongly related to college grades. There is no strong correlation between Emotional Stability and grades. There is no consensus in the literature concerning the relationship between Risk Preference and academic performance (see the overviews in [ 1 , 8 ]).

Our paper contributes to the literature which studies whether answers on subjective scales differ from objectively measured indicators. For instance [ 9 ], investigate why workers in different Western countries report very different rates of work disability. They show that Dutch respondents have a lower threshold in reporting whether they have a work disability than American respondents [ 10 ] investigate the difference between stated physical activity and physical activity measured by accelerometers across different countries. The self-reported data show minor differences across countries while the accelerometer data show that the Dutch and English appeared to be much more physically active than Americans. Regarding life satisfaction [ 11 ], show that Americans are more likely to use the extremes of the scale than the Dutch, who are more inclined to stay in the middle of the scale.

As proposed in [ 12 ], an important challenge in personality psychology is finding objective measures or vignettes for personality traits to correct for bias due to scale use. Some previous research has applied anchoring vignettes to measure personality traits more accurately. [ 13 ] show that self-reports of non-cognitive skills are sensitive to survey administration conditions. Providing information about the importance of non-cognitive skills to students, for instance, directly affects their responses. [ 14 ] use anchoring vignettes to compare measures of Conscientiousness across 21 countries and show that country rankings of self-reported Conscientiousness to some degree result from differences in response styles. [ 15 ] show that the reliability of scales assessing Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience increases when using anchoring vignettes in a study of 12th-grade students in Brazil. [ 16 ] employ anchoring vignettes for the Big Five Inventory in Rwanda and the Philippines. They show that adjusted scores have better measurement properties relative to scores based on the original Likert scale. In their study, correlations of the Big Five personality factors with life satisfaction were essentially unchanged after the vignette-adjustment while correlations with counterproductive behavior were noticeably lower. We contribute to this literature by focusing on the relationship between personality traits and academic performance.

Our findings have important policy implications. The predictive power of personality and preferences for academic achievement found in earlier research may serve as a tool for policy makers. Personality and preferences can serve as signals for future performance and, therefore, policy makers can help children with adverse personality traits or preferences, e.g. by providing more support to such children. Virtually all papers studying the relationship between personality and achievement have used subjective measures of personality. Our paper indicates that the predictive power of subjective measures of personality may be overestimated. The correlations between personality and academic performance will be more useful for policy makers if more objective measures of personality traits are employed.

The set-up of this paper is as follows. Section 2 discusses the data. Section 3 shows the empirical strategy. Section 4 reports the results. Section 5 concludes.

2.1. Ethics statement

Ethics approval was obtained by the Ethical Review Committee Inner City faculties of Maastricht University (ERCIC_044_14_07). Participants of the research all provided written consent.

2.2. Sample

We collected data among students at a Dutch Economics and Business school in the first course of the first year. In the Netherlands, curricula of Economics and Business programs typically share several introductory courses, giving rise to classes counting 1000 students or more. The data collection consisted of two parts. The first was held as a mandatory assignment in an introductory course in quantitative methods. This implied that all active students participated in the survey. In this first part, questions about Risk Preference were included. As a result, we have information on Risk Preference of 1056 students. We also have information on the grade obtained in this course of all these students. Risk Preference was measured twice: in week 1 and week 6 of the seven-weeks course. Because we measure Risk Preference vignettes in week 6, we also use data on Risk Preference from week 6. Using the data on Risk Preference from week 1, however, yields very similar results. This implies that Risk Preference remains relatively stable during this education period (the correlation between the measures is 0.555, p<0.0000) and therefore, that reverse causality does not appear to play a role. In the analyses on Risk Preference, we furthermore restrict the sample to those who also answered the questions on Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability in order to show estimations on the same sample for all traits. If we do not restrict the sample, we again find very similar results.

A second survey was held one week after the course ended. Participation in this survey was voluntary. We gave every fifth participant 10 euros and held a lottery among all participants with a 1000 euros prize. In total, 625 students participated. We have information about these students on their Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability.

Table A in S1 File , presents summary statistics on the differences between respondents who participated in the first and second survey and respondents who participated in the first but not the second survey. For the observables we investigate, the groups appear to be comparable although grades are significantly higher in the in-sample and there are slightly more women in the in-sample than in the out of sample group. Note that we cannot compare the level of Conscientiousness or Neuroticism between these two groups since this information was only collected in the second survey.

2.3. Measuring personality

We follow the non-parametric approach developed by [ 3 ] and in more detail described by [ 4 ]. In their non-parametric approach, they use anchoring vignettes to adjust for respondents’ scale use. In this way, it is possible to recode variables such that respondents’ answers are on the same scale.

We first measure personality of a respondent. For Conscientiousness, we pose the statement: “I am always prepared.” For Emotional Stability, we pose the statement “I get stressed out easily.” For Risk Preference, we ask: “Are you generally willing to take risks, or do you try to avoid risks?” Response categories on all statements and questions range from 1 “I fully disagree” to 7 “I fully agree.” The question we use to measure Risk Preference is taken from the German Socio-Economic Panel and validated by [ 17 ]. They show that responses to the survey question predict behavior in incentivized choices under risk. The items we use to measure Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability are taken from standard questionnaires to measure Big Five constructs [ 18 ]. In personality psychology, it is common to use more than one question to measure a trait. However, it is important to assess the differences in scale use for personality items separately. Different items may induce different response mechanisms. The wording of items can evoke different interpretations between groups, for example. Grouping items together to reduce measurement error presupposes a common error structure (e.g., all measurement error is independent) of the items. In this paper, we argue the opposite and focus on the item-level to analyze scale use that is specific to the item. As such, we need a vignette for each question we pose. Due to space limitations in the survey, we can therefore only include one item to measure the trait.

Secondly, we ask the same questions, but for fictive persons. For instance, for Conscientiousness, we state the following: “Imagine a surgeon. To what extent does the following statement apply: A surgeon is always prepared.” We have two vignettes for this item of Conscientiousness: “A hairdresser/surgeon is always prepared.” For Emotional Stability, we have two vignettes on one item of the trait: “A hairdresser/surgeon gets stressed out easily.” For Risk Preference, we have three vignettes: “Is a bus driver/firefighter/hairdresser generally willing to take risks, or does (s)he try to avoid risks?”

We then use the answers for the fictive persons as anchoring vignettes for the answers on the subjective question about oneself. The idea is that the way in which subjects report about their own latent trait coincides with the way they report about the latent trait of a “generic” other (e.g. hairdresser). For example, individuals may differ in their interpretation of the trait or answer categories as described in the self-assessment. As the vignette contains the same description of the trait, the vignette presumably captures the same scale use as the self-assessment. In addition, the tendency to agree with statements independent of their content–i.e. acquiescence bias–is captured by both types of assessments. Moreover, the use of vignettes allows us to correct for reference bias. In particular, an individual may evaluate his or her personality in comparison to a reference group (e.g., those who are close like friends, family and colleagues) such that the response portrays an individual’s stance within the reference group. If personality traits in the group are correlated, then someone might report a low score even though they have a high value at the population-level. By introducing a vignette, such errors are corrected.

To do so, we assume a logical order of the vignettes. In the case of Conscientiousness, we assume that surgeons are more conscientious than hairdressers. For the respondents who rated the vignettes in this logical order, we can correct the personality trait by recoding the variable in the following way: C = 1 if y < v1; C = 2 if y = v1; C = 3 if v1 < y < v2; C = 4 if v1 < y = v2; C = 5 if y > v2, where y is the respondents’ self-assessment on the personality trait, v 1 is the response for the same respondent for a fictive hairdresser and v 2 is the response for the fictive surgeon. For Emotional Stability, we assume that a surgeon is emotionally more stable than a hairdresser. For Risk Preference, we assume that a firefighter is more willing to take risks than a bus driver.

In principle, it is an interesting question whether surgeons are observed to be on average more conscientious/emotionally stable. However, for our paper, this is not very important. Crucial for our analyses is that students perceive surgeons to be more conscientious/emotionally stable than hairdressers, or at least they perceive themselves to be on a different level of Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability than those occupations, because the vignettes are mainly about putting everyone’s answers on the same scale. The following percentage of the students indeed do perceive the surgeons to be more conscientious/emotionally stable than the hairdressers: 79.6% of the sample (Conscientiousness) and 56.2% (Emotional Stability). When we allow for a different ordering, these percentages increase to: 94.8% of the sample (Conscientiousness) and 86.0% (Emotional Stability).

Perceptions of the vignettes may differ depending on the occupation of the respondent. E.g., a hairdresser might perceive a hairdresser’s Conscientiousness differently than a surgeon. These influences may be somewhat weaker in the sample, as the respondents are economics students. This firstly means that they are very much alike such that they would all suffer the same “misperception.” Differences between students can then still be interpreted as differences in scale use. Secondly, because we focus on first-year students of Economics and Business, these respondents are not in an occupation yet, besides some small jobs on the side, which are very unlikely to include hairdressing, let alone work as a surgeon. Therefore, we expect that the vast majority of the students will indeed consider service occupations and medical occupations in general.

Respondents do not always follow the intended rank of the vignettes: i.e., either they tie vignettes (e.g., hairdressers are equally conscientious as surgeons) or they misplace them (e.g., surgeons are less conscientious as hairdressers). This leads to the 13 options in Table 1 . For Risk Preference, we show two sets of two vignettes in this table: (A) bus driver and firefighter; and (B) hairdresser and firefighter. Alternatively, we can use all three vignettes, but we do not show this in Table 1 since using three vignettes yields 75 ordering options.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t001

The bottom rows of the table show how many respondents order vignettes in a logical way. Using the strictest definition of logical order, 80.6% of the respondents ordered the vignettes for the Conscientiousness item “Always prepared” in a logical way. For Risk Preference, both sets of vignettes are ordered logically by almost all respondents (94.4% for set A and 93.4% for set B). For Emotional Stability, we find that fewer respondents logically order their answers. A reason may be that some respondents do not think about a person when answering the questions but about a profession. So, they think for instance, about surgeons working in a stressful environment instead of that a surgeon may be more stress-resistant.

This rescaling technique uses the ordering of the answer relative to the vignettes, which is more objective than the answers on the subjective question. The anchoring corrected personality trait has 5 values: the value 1 if row 1 applies, 2 if row 2 applies, etc.

Besides the most logical ordering of the first five rows, rows 6, 8, 9, and 13 may also be plausible answers since the own value and the vignettes are also separable in these rows. In rows 6 and 8, respondents value the vignettes similarly, but because the own value is above (below) both vignettes, one can still conclude that the own value is lower (higher) than both vignettes. Therefore, for these rows, we can scale the anchoring corrected variable to 1 (5). In rows 9 and 13, the vignettes have been reversed by the respondent, but because the own value is lower (higher) than both vignettes, one can conclude that this is lower (higher) than both vignettes, and therefore we can rescale the answer to 1 (5).

Using this additional insight, we define two samples. The baseline sample contains only respondents with answers 1–5, and the extended sample additionally includes rows 6, 8, 9, and 13. All other answers are less plausible and will be excluded from the analyses.

Tables B-D in S1 File , give summary statistics of the samples for respectively Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Risk Preference.

3. Empirical strategy

3.1. subjective and anchoring vignette corrected measures of personality.

We run this type of regressions separately for subjective personality traits, and for anchoring vignette corrected personality measures. We do this both for the baseline and the extended sample. We make use of ordered probit models due to the ordinal nature of the dependent variable. The results indicate if relationships between subjective personality and explanatory variables are robust when using the anchoring vignette corrected personality measures.

3.2. Relation between grade and personality

The first part of the empirical results shows whether the student characteristics are related differently to corrected and uncorrected personality measures. Tables 2 – 4 give the results of two regressions: One between the uncorrected personality measures and characteristics X′, and another between the corrected personality measures and X′. By doing so, we follow [ 3 ] and [ 9 ] who show that background characteristics explain both the latent trait and scale use. It follows that scale use can differ structurally between individuals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t004

In the tables, column 1 shows the results for the full sample. We focus on comparing results of corrected and uncorrected measures of the personality traits in the baseline (columns 2 and 3) and the extended sample (columns 4 and 5). Regarding the results for Emotional Stability ( Table 3 ), for instance, Column 2 shows that Belgian students report lower scores of Emotional Stability than Dutch students in the baseline sample (given other characteristics). However, column 3 reveals that this relationship is not robust when using the corrected measure for Emotional Stability. In the extended sample, we also find that this relationship is less strong when using the corrected measure than when we use the uncorrected measure.

These results are important as they reveal that people differ in their scale use systematically. For example, nationality may affect how you interpret the scale or the text that describes traits and behaviors. If such systematic differences exist, it becomes questionable whether the relationship between uncorrected personality measures and outcomes such as academic performance represents the true underlying relationship. Academic performance in itself may alter one’s scale use, for example, such that the linear relation is under- or overestimated. Moreover, any other covariates used to predict academic performance may yield biased estimates as they covary both with the latent trait and scale use. In sum, showing that people differ in scale use depending on their background characteristics provides evidence that using uncorrected measures as predictors may be unwarranted.

Tables 5 – 7 report the relationships between grades and personality traits. For instance, Table 7 , column 2, shows that willingness to take risks appears to be strongly related to grades. One standard deviation higher willingness to take risks is related to a grade around 0.26 points lower on a scale of 1–10. However, column 3 reveals that the relationship is no longer significant when using the corrected measure of Risk Preference. Therefore, there is a large overestimation (i.e., in absolute sense) of the relationship of Risk Preference and grades if the vignette is not used. These results also hold if we use the extended sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.t007

Tables 5 and 6 show the results for Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability. Comparing columns 2 and 3 in these tables reveals a similar pattern as we find for Risk Preference; the point estimates of the relationships between these personality traits and grades are much larger if the vignette is not used than if it is used.

In this analysis, we allow “incorrect” orderings by students to be included. In Tables 5 – 7 we compare (a) the original Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference measure for all respondents, (b) the original Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference measure for those respondents with the correct ordering on the vignette (Conscientiousness: 79.6% of the sample; Emotional Stability: 56.2%; Risk Preference: 94.0%), (c) the new vignette-adjusted measure of Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference for those respondents with the correct ordering on the vignette (Same proportion as (b)), (d) the original Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference measure for the respondents from (b) plus those respondents with a more lenient ordering on the vignette (‘mistakes’ are allowed as long as a clear separation between own answer and the vignettes can still be made; Conscientiousness: 94.8% of the sample; Emotional Stability: 86.0%; Risk Preference: 97.4%), and (e) the new vignette-adjusted measure of Conscientiousness/Emotional Stability/Risk Preference for those respondents with the correct ordering on the vignette plus those respondents with a more lenient ordering on the vignette (Same proportion as (d)).

The results remain robust independent of the usage of the baseline sample or the extended sample, with the exception of Conscientiousness, for which the coefficient becomes somewhat larger and the p-value turns below 0.05 (reassuringly, the two coefficients are not statistically different from each other).

5. Conclusions

This paper investigates the relationship between student performance in higher education and Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Risk Preference. We employ anchoring vignettes to correct for heterogeneous scale use in these non-cognitive skills. Our main result is that if scale use is not taken into account, the relationship between academic achievement and personality traits is overestimated. This holds for all traits we investigated.

Our results have important implications for the literature studying the relationship between personality and outcomes such as school achievement. Previous research has shown strong correlations between personality and such outcomes, but our paper suggests that these correlations may be overestimated. Using vignettes or more objective personality measures is important to get unbiased estimates of the predictive power of personality for outcomes in life.

One of our research limitations is that our sample of college students is not representative of the full Dutch population. Future research is needed to see if the results are robust in representative samples. A second limitation is that the anchors we use may in themselves also be subject to bias. For instance, students who have hairdressers in their direct environment may judge hairdressers’ personality traits to be different from students who do not have hairdressers in their direct environment. Moreover, having a hairdresser in the direct environment may be related to their academic outcomes. In this case, the relationship between corrected traits and academic outcomes may be biased. We control for parental education levels so this issue may not lead to much bias in our estimations, but the example does point out that future work needs to focus on finding anchors which are more objective than ours and are not susceptible to structural differences in vignette perception. Finding the perfect anchors has not been our focus. Our work, instead, serves as a first step in investigating the extent to which using more objective measures of personality traits influences the estimated relationships between traits and outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 file. appendix..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248629.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Arjan Non and seminar participants at Maastricht University for their valuable comments.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Almlund M, Duckworth AL, Heckman JJ, Kautz T. Personality psychology and economics. In: Hanushek E, Machin S, Woessman L, editors. Handbook of the economics of education. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. pp. 1–181.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 11. Kapteyn A, Smith J, van Soest A. Life satisfaction. In: Diener E, Helliwell JE, Kahneman D, editors. International differences in well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 70–104.

AI-based personality prediction for human well-being from text data: a systematic review

• Published: 17 October 2023

Cite this article

• Simarpreet Singh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4168-8556 1 &
• Williamjeet Singh 1  

429 Accesses

Explore all metrics

In recent years, people have preferred interacting on social media instead of physical meetings. Researchers have explored social media text data to predict user personality using AI techniques automatically. To date, no comprehensive analysis offers a unified view of the literature in the area. To help researchers better understand the state-of-the-art, we summarise datasets, feature selection, text mapping, and AI techniques for personality prediction from text data. The standard systematic literature review protocol was followed, and the articles published between 2016 and 2022 were selected for the review. Measuring all the personality traits with a single AI model is quite difficult. The contribution of this systematic literature review shows that the increased efforts in personality prediction will surely help measure the Subjective Well-Being of an individual or a group. We conclude our work by providing an extensive discussion pointing requirement of labelled datasets, multiple personality dimensions, and advanced AI-based technologies to make an optimal system to predict personality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A survey on sentiment analysis methods, applications, and challenges

Mayur Wankhade, Annavarapu Chandra Sekhara Rao & Chaitanya Kulkarni

A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text

Pansy Nandwani & Rupali Verma

Artificial intelligence in E-Commerce: a bibliometric study and literature review

Ransome Epie Bawack, Samuel Fosso Wamba, … Shahriar Akter

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Singh S, Deep Kaur P (2016) Subjective well-being prediction from social networks: a review. In: 2016 4th international conference on parallel, distributed and grid computing, PDGC 2016, pp 90–95

Ramicic M, Bonarini A (2019) Towards learning agents with personality traits: modeling openness to experience. Cognit Syst Res 55:124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.01.006

Halim Z, Atif M, Rashid A, Edwin CA (2019) Profiling players using real-world datasets: clustering the data and correlating the results with the big-five personality traits. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 10(4):568–584. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2751602

Article   Google Scholar  

Singh S, Kaur PD (2017) Social media trends and prediction of subjective well-being: a literature Review. Adv Intell Syst Comput 553:741–751. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-10-3770-2_70

Diener E, Lucas RE, Scollon CN (2006) Beyond the hedonic treadmill: revising the adaptation theory of well-being. Am Psychol 61(4):305

Halim Z, Rehan M (2020) On identification of driving-induced stress using electroencephalogram signals: a framework based on wearable safety-critical scheme and machine learning. Inf Fusion 53:66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.06.006

Halim Z, Zouq A (2021) On identification of big-five personality traits through choice of images in a real-world setting. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11419-5

Mehta Y, Majumder N, Gelbukh A, Cambria E (2020) Recent trends in deep learning based personality detection. Artif Intell Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09770-z . arXiv:1908.03628

Rahman AU, Halim Z (2022) Predicting the big five personality traits from hand-written text features through semi-supervised learning. Multimed Tools Appl 81(23):33671–33687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13114-5

Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance a meta analysis. Personnel Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Isabel Myers PM (2010) Gifts differing: understanding personality type

Marston WM (2011) Emotions of normal people

Vinciarelli A, Mohammadi G (2014) A survey of personality computing. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 5(3):273–91

Ragab M, Nasr M, Kamal F (2019) A survey of psychological personality classification approaches. Future Comput Inf J 4(2):79–89

Google Scholar  

Sun X, Liu B, Meng Q, Cao J, Luo J, Yin H (2020) Group-level personality detection based on text generated networks. World Wide Web 23(3):1887–1906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-019-00729-2

Majumder N, Poria S, Gelbukh A, Cambria E (2017) Deep learning-based document modeling for personality detection from text. IEEE Intell Syst 32(2):74–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2017.23

Li Y, Kazameini A, Mehta Y, Cambria E (2021) Multitask learning for emotion and personality detection, vol 1(1). arXiv:2101.02346

Yang W, Yuan T, Wang L (2020) Micro-blog sentiment classification method based on the personality and bagging algorithm. Future Int 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/FI12040075

Zhang Q, Yang LT, Chen Z, Li P (2018) A survey on deep learning for big data. Inf Fusion 1(42):146–57

Otter DW, Medina JR, Kalita JK A survey of the usages of deep learning in natural language processing

Artha Agastya IM, Dwi Handayani DO, Mantoro T (2019) A systematic literature review of deep learning algorithms for personality trait recognition. In: 5th international conference on computing engineering and design, ICCED 2019

Ragab M, Nasr M, Kamal F (2019) A survey of psychological personality classification approaches. Future Comput Informat J 4:79–89

Ahmad H, Asghar MZ, Khan AS, Habib A (2020) A systematic literature review of personality trait classification from textual content. Open Comput Sci. https://doi.org/10.1515/comp-2020-0188

Remaida A, Abdellaoui B, Moumen A, Idrissi YEBE (2020) Personality traits analysis using artificial neural networks: a literature survey. In: 2020 1st international conference on innovative research in applied science, engineering and technology, IRASET 2020. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc

Sharma E, Mahajan R, Mahajan R, Mansotra V (2021) Automated personality prediction of social media users: a decade review. Turkish J Comput Math Educ 12(14):5225–5237

Azucar D, Marengo D, Settanni M (2018) Predicting the Big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: a meta-analysis. Personal Individ Differ 124:150–159

Feizi-Derakhshi AR, Feizi-Derakhshi MR, Ramezani M, Nikzad-Khasmakhi N, Asgari-Chenaghlu M, Akan T et al Text-based automatic personality prediction: a bibliographic review. Springer. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42001-022-00178-4

Kahlon NK, Singh W (2021) Machine translation from text to sign language: a systematic review. Universal Access in the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00823-1

Singh J, Behal S (2020) Detection and mitigation of DDoS attacks in SDN: a comprehensive review, research challenges and future directions. Comput Sci Rev 37:100279

Lukito LC, Erwin A, Purnama J, Danoekoesoemo W (2017) Social media user personality classification using computational linguistic. In: Proceedings of 2016 8th international conference on information technology and electrical engineering: empowering technology for better future, ICITEE 2016

Farnadi G, Sitaraman G, Sushmita S, Celli F, Kosinski M, Stillwell D et al (2016) Computational personality recognition in social media. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 26(2–3):109–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-016-9171-0

Bharadwaj S, Sridhar S, Choudhary R, Srinath R (2018) Persona traits identification based on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI) - a text classification approach. In: 2018 international conference on advances in computing, communications and informatics, ICACCI 2018, pp 1076–1082

Akhtar R, Winsborough D, Ort U, Johnson A, Chamorro-Premuzic T (2018) Detecting the dark side of personality using social media status updates. Personal Individual Differences 132:90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.026

Tadesse MM, Lin H, Xu B, Yang L (2018) Personality predictions based on user behavior on the facebook social media platform. IEEE Access 6:61959–61969. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2876502

Gjurković M, Šnajder J (2018) Reddit: a gold mine for personality prediction, pp 87–97

Mishra NK, Singh A, Singh PK (2022) Multi-label personality trait identification from text. Multimed Tools Appl 81(15):21503–21519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12548-1

Rahman AU, Al-Obeidat F, Tubaishat A, Shah B, Anwar S, Halim Z (2022) Discovering the correlation between phishing susceptibility causing data biases and big five personality traits using C-GAN. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2022.3201153

Hernández Y, Martínez A, Estrada H, Ortiz J, Acevedo C (2022) Machine learning approach for personality recognition in Spanish texts. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 12(6):2985. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12062985

Siddique FB, Fung P (2017) Bilingual word embeddings for cross-lingual personality recognition using convolutional neural nets. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the international speech communication association, INTERSPEECH. vol 2017-Augus, pp 3271–3275

Pradhan T, Bhansali R, Chandnani D, Pangaonkar A (2020) Analysis of personality traits using natural language processing and deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on inventive research in computing applications, ICIRCA 2020, pp 457–461

Doval Y, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Vilares J (2016) Shallow recurrent neural network for personality recognition in source code. CEUR Workshop Proc 1737:33–37

Chhabra GS, Sharma A, Murali Krishnan N (2019) Deep learning model for personality traits classification from text emphasis on data slicing. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol 495

Su MH, Wu CH, Zheng YT (2016) Exploiting turn-taking temporal evolution for personality trait perception in Dyadic conversations. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio, Speech, Lang Process 24(4):733–744. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2016.2531286

Liu F, Perez J, Nowson S (2017) A language-independent and compositional model for personality trait recognition from short texts. In: 15th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics, EACL 2017 - proceedings of conference, vol 1, pp 754–764

Yu J, Markov K (2017) Deep learning based personality recognition from Facebook status updates. In: Proceedings - 2017 IEEE 8th international conference on awareness science and technology, iCAST 2017, vol 2018-Janua, pp 383–387

Pereira Junior RA, Inkpen D (2017) Using cognitive computing to get insights on personality traits from twitter messages. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics)

Xue D, Wu L, Hong Z, Guo S, Gao L, Wu Z et al (2018) Deep learning-based personality recognition from text posts of online social networks. Appl Intell 48(11):4232–4246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1212-4

Salminen J, Rao RG, gyo Jung S, Chowdhury SA, Jansen BJ (2020) Enriching social media personas with personality traits: a deep learning approach using the big five classes. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNCS, vol 12217, pp 101–120

Zhu Y (2020) The prediction model of personality in social networks by using data mining deep learning algorithm and random walk model. Int J Elect Eng Educ. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720920936839

Jeremy NH, Suhartono D (2021) Automatic personality prediction from Indonesian user on twitter using word embedding and neural networks. Proc Comput Sci 179:416–422

Arnoux PH, Xu A, Boyette N, Mahmud J, Akkiraju R, Sinha V (2017) 25 tweets to know you: a new model to predict personality with social media. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on web and social media, ICWSM 2017, pp 472–475

Tandera T, Hendro Suhartono D, Wongso R, Prasetio YL (2017) Personality prediction system from facebook users. Proc Comput Sci 116:604–611

Rayne H, Ian Scott K Predicting Myers-Briggs type indicator with text classification. Available from: https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs224n/cs224n.1184/reports/6839354.pdf

An G, Levitan R (2018) Lexical and acoustic deep learning model for personality recognition. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of the international speech communication association, INTERSPEECH. vol 2018-Septe, pp 1761–1765

Sun X, Liu B, Cao J, Luo J, Shen X (2018) Who am i? Personality detection based on deep learning for texts. In: IEEE international conference on communications, vol 2018-May

Jiang H, Zhang X, Choi JD (2020) Automatic text-based personality recognition on monologues and multiparty dialogues using attentive networks and contextual embeddings (student abstract). Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 34:13821–13822

Darliansyah A, Naeem MA, Mirza F, Pears R (2019) Sentipede: a smart system for sentiment-based personality detection from short texts. J Universal Comput Sci 25(10):1323–1352

Kazameini A, Fatehi S, Mehta Y, Eetemadi S, Cambria E Personality trait detection using bagged SVM over BERT word embedding ensembles. Available from: arXiv:2010.01309

Sun J, Tian Z, Fu Y, Geng J, Liu C (2020) Digital twins in human understanding: a deep learning-based method to recognize personality traits. Int J Comput Integrated Manufac. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2020.1757155

Xue X, Feng J, Sun X (2021) Semantic-enhanced sequential modeling for personality trait recognition from texts. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02277-7

Wei H, Zhang F, Yuan NJ, Cao C, Fu H, Xie X, et al (2017) Beyond the words: predicting user personality from heterogeneous information. In: WSDM 2017 - proceedings of the 10th ACM international conference on web search and data mining; 2017, pp 305–314

Ramezani M, Feizi-Derakhshi MR, Balafar MA, Asgari-Chenaghlu M, Feizi-Derakhshi AR, Nikzad-Khasmakhi N, et al Automatic personality prediction; an enhanced method using ensemble modeling. Available from: arXiv:2007.04571

Christian H, Suhartono D, Chowanda A, Zamli KZ (2021) Text based personality prediction from multiple social media data sources using pre-trained language model and model averaging. J Big Data 8(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00459-1

El-Demerdash K, El-Khoribi RA, Ismail Shoman MA, Abdou S (2022) Deep learning based fusion strategies for personality prediction. Egypt Informat J 23(1):47–53

Albawi S, Mohammed TA, Al-Zawi S (2018) Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In: Proceedings of 2017 international conference on engineering and technology, ICET 2017. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., vol 2018-Janua, pp 1–6

Tian L, Wong DF, Chao LS, Quaresma P, Oliveira F, Lu Y, et al (2014) UM-Corpus: a large English-Chinese parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on language resources and evaluation, LREC 2014

Luong T, Pham H, Manning CD (2015) Bilingual word representations with monolingual quality in mind

Jieba Jieba Segmenter. Available from: https://github.com/fxsjy/jieba

Wikipedia Chinese-Wikipedia Dump

Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J (2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In: 1st International conference on learning representations, ICLR 2013 - workshop track proceedings

Kosinski M, Matz SC, Gosling SD, Popov V, Stillwell D (2015) Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences. Am Psychol

Biel JI, Gatica-Perez D (2013) The youtube lens: crowdsourced personality impressions and audiovisual analysis of vlogs. IEEE Trans Multimed. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2012.2225032

Zhang Y, Liu J, Hu J, Xie X, Huang S (2017) Social personality evaluation based on prosodic and acoustic features. In: ACM international conference proceeding series

Huang CL, Chung CK, Hui N, Lin YC, Seih YT, Lam BCP et al (2012) The development of the Chinese linguistic inquiry and word count dictionary. Chinese J Psychol 54(2):185–201

Briggs KC (1987) Myers-Briggs type indicator. Form G. Palo Alto, Calif.: consulting psychologists press, [1987] 1987;. Available from: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999608100402121

Personality cafe. Available from: https://www.personalitycafe.com/

Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP (2011) SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res 16:321–357. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953 . arXiv:1106.1813

Kulkarni A, Shivananda A (2019) Converting text to features. In: Natural language processing recipes

Uther W, Mladenić D, Ciaramita M, Berendt B, Kołcz A, Grobelnik M et al (2011) TF-IDF. In: Encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer US, pp 986–987. Available from: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_832

Flask. Available from: https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/1.1.x/

Connor JT, Martin RD, Atlas LE (1994) Recurrent neural networks and robust time series prediction. IEEE Trans Neural Netw. https://doi.org/10.1109/72.279188

Schuster M, Paliwal KK (1997) Bidirectional recurrent neural networks. IEEE Trans Signal Process. https://doi.org/10.1109/78.650093

Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735

Stammatatos E, Daelemans W, Verhoeven B, Juola P, López-López A, Potthast M et al (2015) Overview of the 3rd author profiling task at PAN 2015. CLEF 2015 labs and workshops, notebook papers ceur workshop proceedings

Cavnar WB (1994) Using an N-Gram-based document representation with a vector processing retrieval model. undefined

Tseng SC (2004) Processing Mandarin spoken corpora. Traitement Automatique des Langes 45(2):89–108

Rammstedt B, John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and german. J Res Personal 41(1):203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

CKIP Lab Publications. Available from: https://ckip.iis.sinica.edu.tw/publication

Owoputi O, O’Connor B, Dyer C, Gimpel K, Schneider N, Smith NA (2013) Improved part-of-speech tagging for online conversational text with word clusters. In: NAACL HLT 2013 - 2013 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, proceedings of the main conference

Tipping ME, Bishop CM (1999) Probabilistic principal component analysis. J Royal Stat Soc: Series B (Stat Methodol) 61(3):611–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00196

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Celli F, Pianesi F, Stillwell D, Kosinski M (2013) Workshop on computational personality recognition: shared task. In: AAAI workshop - technical report, vol WS-13-01:2–5

Pennebaker JW, King LA (1999) Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. J Personal Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296

Mairesse F, Walker MA, Mehl MR, Moore RK (2007) Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. J Artif Intell Res. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2349

Mohammad SM, Turney PD (2013) Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Comput Intell 29:436–465

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Kosinski, Michal, Stillwell D, Graepel T (2013) Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. In: National academy of sciences of the united states of America, pp 5802–5805

Pennebaker JW, Boyd RL, Jordan K, Blackburn K (2015) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

Le Q, Mikolov T (2014) Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In: 31st international conference on machine learning, ICML 2014, vol 4, pp 2931–2939

AlJazeera.: Al Jazeera media network. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish

Lee DD, Seung HS (1999) Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/44565

Ong V, Rahmanto ADS, Williem W, Suhartono D, Nugroho AE, Andangsari EW et al (2017) Personality prediction based on Twitter information in Bahasa Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 2017 federated conference on computer science and information systems, FedCSIS 2017, pp 367–372

West J, Ventura D, Warnick S (2007) Spring research presentation: a theoretical foundation for inductive transfer. Brigham Young University, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences

Popov V, Kosinski M, Stillwell D, Kielczweski B (2015) Apply magic sauce. Psychometrics Center of the University of Cambridge, pp 1–11

Pennebaker JW, Francis ME, Booth RJ (2001) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 71(2001):2001

Moffitt KC, Giboney JS, Ehrhardt E, Burgoon JK, Nunamaker JF (2012) Structured programming for linguistic cue extraction (SPLICE). In: Proceedings of the rapid screening technologies, deception detection and credibility assessment symposium

Pennington J, Socher R, Manning C (2014) Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: association for computational linguistics, pp 1532–1543. Available from: http://aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162

J M (MBTI) Myers-Briggs personality type dataset. Available from: https://www.kaggle.com/datasnaek/mbti-type

Levitan SI, Mishra T, Bangalore S (2016) Automatic identification of gender from speech. In: Proceedings of the international conference on speech prosody

Low LSA, Maddage NC, Lech M, Sheeber L, Allen N (2010) Influence of acoustic low-level descriptors in the detection of clinical depression in adolescents. In: ICASSP, IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing - proceedings, pp 5154–5157

Whissell CM (1989) The dictionary of affect in language. In: The measurement of emotions. Elsevier, pp 113–131

Mikolov T, Grave E, Bojanowski P, Puhrsch C, Joulin A (2018) Advances in pre-training distributed word representations. In: LREC 2018 - 11th international conference on language resources and evaluation, pp 52–55

El Saddik A (2018) Digital twins: the convergence of multimedia technologies. IEEE Multimed 25(2):87–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2018.023121167

Finn C, Abbeel P, Levine S (2017) Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In: 34th International conference on machine learning, ICML 2017, vol 3, pp 1856–1868

Dietterich TG (2000) Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics). LNCS, vol 1857, pp 1–15

Anari MS, Rezaee K, Ahmadi A (2022) TraitLWNet: a novel predictor of personality trait by analyzing Persian handwriting based on lightweight deep convolutional neural network. Multimed Tools Appl 81(8):10673–10693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12295-3

Rahaman MA, Mahin M, Ali MH, Hasanuzzaman M (2019) BHCDR: real-time Bangla handwritten characters and digits recognition using adopted convolutional neural network. In: 1st international conference on advances in science, engineering and robotics technology 2019, ICASERT 2019

Josan G, Kaur J (2017) Personality prediction from Facebook posts in Gurmukhi script. 3:31–40

Chen KJ, Huang CR, Chang LP, Hsu HL (1996) SINICA CORPUS: design methodology for balanced Corpora. Language, Information and Computation(PACLIC 11), vol 11(Paclic 11), pp 167–176

Speer R, Chin J, Havasi C (2016) ConceptNet 5.5: an open multilingual graph of general knowledge. arXiv:1612.03975

Sinaga KP, Yang MS (2020) Unsupervised K-means clustering algorithm. IEEE Access 8:80716–80727. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988796

Thelwall M, Buckley K, Paltoglou G, Cai D, Kappas A (2010) Sentiment in short strength detection informal text. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61(12):2544–2558. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21416

O’Malley AJ, Marsden PV (2008) The analysis of social networks. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 8(4):222–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-008-0041-z

Moffitt K (2010) Structured programming for linguistic cue extraction \(\bullet \) linguistic tools. In: Spring, pp 1–16

Mastorakis NE (1999) Positive singular value decomposition. Recent Adv Signal Process Commun 7–17

Hutto CJ, Gilbert E (2014) VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on weblogs and social media, ICWSM 2014, pp 216–225

Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K (2019) BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Available from: https://github.com/tensorflow/tensor2tensor

Perozzi B, Al-Rfou R, Skiena S (2014) DeepWalk: Online learning of social representations. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 701–710

Adhikari A, Ram A, Tang R, Lin J (2019) DocBERT: BERT for document classification. arXiv:1904.08398

Harary F (2018) Graph theory

Doosti B, Naha S, Mirbagheri M, Crandall DJ (2020) Hope-Net: a graph-based model for hand-object pose estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 6607–6616

Tang J, Qu M, Wang M, Zhang M, Yan J, Mei Q (2015) LINE: large-scale information network embedding. WWW 2015 - proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 1067–1077. https://doi.org/10.1145/2736277.2741093 . arXiv:1503.03578

Grover A, Leskovec J (2016) Node2vec: scalable feature learning for networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, vol 13-17-Augu; 2016, pp 855–864

He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, vol 2016-Decem; 2016, pp 770–778

Liu Y, Ott M, Goyal N, Du J, Joshi M, Chen D et al (2019) RoBERTa: a robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. Available from: https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq

Qaiser S, Ali R (2018) Text mining: use of TF-IDF to examine the relevance of words to documents. Int J Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2018917395

Howard J, Ruder S (2018) Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. ACL 2018 - 56th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, proceedings of the conference (long papers), vol 1, pp 328–339. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p18-1031 . arXiv:1801.06146

Yang Z, Dai Z, Yang Y, Carbonell J, Salakhutdinov R, Le QV (2019) XLNet: generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 32

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Punjabi University, Rajpura Road, Patiala, Punjab, 147002, India

Simarpreet Singh & Williamjeet Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simarpreet Singh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Singh, S., Singh, W. AI-based personality prediction for human well-being from text data: a systematic review. Multimed Tools Appl (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17282-w

Download citation

Received : 04 December 2022

Revised : 07 July 2023

Accepted : 22 September 2023

Published : 17 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17282-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Personality measurement
• Human well-being
• Transfer learning
• Systematic review
• Deep learning
• Text classification
• Natural language processing

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Has Your Birth Order Shaped Who You Are?

Does it matter if you’re the firstborn, the middle child, the youngest or somewhere in between?

By Jeremy Engle

Where do you fall in the family birth order? Are you the eldest? The middle child? The youngest? Or are you an only child? Do you think your placement has affected your life and how your family sees and treats you?

In “ Why Your Big Sister Resents You, ” Catherine Pearson explores the question of whether birth order shapes who we are or not:

In a TikTok video that has been watched more than 6 million times, Kati Morton, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Santa Monica, Calif., lists signs that she says can be indicative of “eldest daughter syndrome.” Among them: an intense feeling of familial responsibility, people-pleasing tendencies and resentment toward your siblings and parents. On X, a viral post asks : “are u happy or are u the oldest sibling and also a girl.” Firstborn daughters are having a moment in the spotlight , at least online, with memes and think pieces offering a sense of gratification to responsible, put-upon big sisters everywhere. But even mental health professionals like Ms. Morton — herself the youngest in her family — caution against putting too much stock in the psychology of sibling birth order, and the idea that it shapes personality or long-term outcomes. “People will say, ‘It means everything!’ Other people will say, ‘There’s no proof,’” she said, noting that eldest daughter syndrome (which isn’t an actual mental health diagnosis) may have as much to do with gender norms as it does with birth order. “Everybody’s seeking to understand themselves, and to feel understood. And this is just another page in that book.”

The article examines what the research says about birth order:

The stereotypes are familiar to many of us: Firstborn children are reliable and high-achieving; middle children are sociable and rebellious (and overlooked); and youngest children are charming and manipulative. Studies have indeed found ties between a person’s role in the family lineup and various outcomes, including educational attainment and I.Q . (though those scores are not necessarily reliable measures of intelligence ), financial risk tolerance and even participation in dangerous sports . But many studies have focused on a single point in time, cautioned Rodica Damian, a social-personality psychologist at the University of Houston. That means older siblings may have appeared more responsible or even more intelligent simply because they were more mature than their siblings, she said, adding that the sample sizes in most birth order studies have also been relatively small. In larger analyses, the link between birth order and personality traits appears much weaker. A 2015 study looking at more than 20,000 people in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States found no link between birth order and personality characteristics — though the researchers did find evidence that older children have a slight advantage in I.Q. (So, eldest daughters, take your bragging rights where you can get them.) Dr. Damian worked on a different large-scale study , also published in 2015, that included more than 370,000 high schoolers in the United States. It found slight differences in personality and intelligence, but the differences were so small, she said, that they were essentially meaningless. Dr. Damian did allow that cultural practices such as property or business inheritance (which may go to the firstborn) might affect how birth order influences family dynamics and sibling roles.

Students, read the entire article and then tell us:

How has birth order shaped who you are? What do you see as the burdens and benefits of being a child in your birth position?

If you’re an only child, how do you think not having siblings has shaped who you are? How might your personality be different if you had a brother or a sister?

What in the article resonates most with your own experiences? Have you ever noticed patterns of behavior based on birth order in your own family? Ms. Pearson writes, “The stereotypes are familiar to many of us: Firstborn children are reliable and high-achieving; middle children are sociable and rebellious (and overlooked); and youngest children are charming and manipulative.” Do you think there is any truth to these stereotypes? Or are they meaningless generalizations — or even harmful?

The article describes the pitfalls of “eldest daughter syndrome.” Have you ever felt hemmed in or saddled by certain expectations because of your birth order? What would you like your siblings — and your parents — to know about what your particular position in the family is like?

How much stock should we put into the psychology of birth order? Is it an illuminating way to understand our families and ourselves? Or too broad to describe or predict an individual’s personality?

Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public and may appear in print.

Find more Student Opinion questions here. Teachers, check out this guide to learn how you can incorporate these prompts into your classroom.

Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country. More about Jeremy Engle

• Starting a Business
• Growing a Business
• Small Business Guide
• Business News
• Science & Technology
• Money & Finance
• For Subscribers
• Write for Entrepreneur
• Entrepreneur Store
• United States
• Asia Pacific
• Middle East
• South Africa

Copyright © 2024 Entrepreneur Media, LLC All rights reserved. Entrepreneur® and its related marks are registered trademarks of Entrepreneur Media LLC

These Are the 6 Personality Traits That Set Women Leaders Apart I have the honor of working with many thriving women entrepreneurs. Here's what I've noticed about their leadership styles.

By Heather McLeod • Apr 16, 2024

Key Takeaways

• The road to leadership for women looks a little different — but most women leaders I have the privilege of working with consistently demonstrate these six essential qualities.
• Women leaders are resilient and set an example in times of uncertainty or struggle.

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

I spent much of March traveling the country doing one of my favorite things — spending time with franchise professionals. Each opportunity to dig into the nitty gritty with franchise owners is reinvigorating. One of the lessons I haven't been able to stop thinking about is the incredible strength women can bring to leadership roles . The history of women in franchising is long. In fact, the modern franchising model was created by a woman — Martha Matilda Harper — in 1891. These days, women make up about 30% of franchise owners.

It was an honor to spend Women's History Month connecting one-on-one with so many impressive women — now I want to help them all connect. I returned from my travels and set the wheels in motion to create a new network within Authority Brands to connect and empower women franchise professionals through peer-to-peer learning and community building.

The women leaders I have the privilege of working with consistently demonstrate these key qualities:

Related: These Women-Founded Franchises Surpassed a Major Milestone — Against the Odds. Here's How They Did It.

1. Resilience

Resilience is a watchword of our era, and it's one of the top qualities I see in the women shaping franchising. A 2023 SAS survey reveals that 97% of executives think resilience is important for their business, but less than half (47%) consider their organization resilient. Women are uniquely qualified to fill that resiliency gap — they likely had to be resilience experts to reach leadership roles.

According to the Pew Research Center , most Americans agree that women have to do more to prove themselves. The Harvard Business Review found that "no age was the right age to be a woman leader. There was always an age-based excuse to not take women seriously, to discount their opinions, or to not hire or promote them."

Women leaders can face many challenges, but the resilience we learn along the way is a superpower.

2. Authenticity

The women leaders who inspire me all have a very strong sense of self. They know who they are, what they believe in, what they're great at and what they need to work on. And they'll tell you without hesitation.

Women who understand personality, values, and vision have the opportunity to set an example as authentic leaders. There is an important relationship between authentic leadership and employees' workplace performance. We're all human, and leading with that understanding has amazing outcomes.

Authenticity can be uncomfortable sometimes. I make it a point to encourage my team to ask for help daily. Our willingness to lean on each other, give and take support and share wins makes us great.

Related: 3 Big Reasons Why Leaders Should Embrace the Joy of Missing Out

3. Positive communicators

A recent study from S&P Global found that female leaders consistently communicate more positively than their male counterparts. Women were more likely to use words relating to empathy, diversity, and adaptability, while men were more likely to use language associated with transactions, growth, and performance. Positivity and emphasis on empathy, diversity, and adaptability impact every element of a team and can help attract and retain top talent.

To be our best, we need to draw from the full spectrum of communication styles.

Related: 14 Proven Ways to Improve Your Communication Skills

Every time I speak with one of our women franchise owners, I see how their empathy helps them empower their employees and understand their customers.

Franchising has never just been about business — it's about people, too. And people remember how you make them feel even more than they remember the words you say. Whether you call it empathy , emotional intelligence , or something else, great women leaders always have it. This strength isn't about being nice, it's about truly understanding people you interact with, and using that to find the best way forward.

The more leaders show empathy and genuinely seek to understand the wants and needs of employees, the happier their teams will be.

Related: 8 Ways To Empower the Next Generation of Women Leaders

5. Collaborative

At our latest Authority Brands board meeting, I snapped a photo of all the women sitting together at a dinner table. Having enough women leaders to fill a table is still rare, but we're changing that.

Bringing together a group of women leaders is a study in collaboration. They understand the power of relationships across all levels. Building strong relationships is especially powerful in franchising because our system is so large, and there is an endless amount to learn from other business owners.

The impressive women leaders I meet are just as interested in learning from and empowering others as they are in growing in their own leadership journey. I think Martha Matilda Harper would be proud.

6. Action-oriented

A perfect vision is only worth so much. The women leaders around me have a keen understanding of this. They're decisive because they know there's no time to waste. It took a lot of time and hard work to get where they are, so they don't hesitate to take the necessary steps to reach the next level.

All of the strengths I've outlined are present in women leaders' decision-making. Their focus on positive collaboration and empathetic understanding results in decisions that are trusted by their team. Their resilience sets an example in times of uncertainty or struggle.

The road to leadership for women looks a little different. Time and understanding is changing that, but for now the challenges we face along the way can help shape us into leaders that women of the future will be proud to share a legacy with.

Entrepreneur Leadership Network® Contributor

Chief Growth Officer of Authority Brands

Want to be an Entrepreneur Leadership Network contributor? Apply now to join.

Editor's Pick Red Arrow

• Bantam Bagels' Founder Fell Into a Mindset Trap 'People Don't Talk About' After Selling the Now-Defunct Business for $34 Million — Here's What Happened
• Lock This Startup Wants to Grow Your Side Hustle for You , While Cutting You a Monthly Check
• I Designed My Dream Home for Free With an AI Architect — Here's How It Works
• Renowned Psychologist Adam Grant Says This 3-Step Leadership Method Will Help Fight Employee Burnout
• Lock Most Americans Don't Think Higher Education Is Worth the Cost — But This State-By-State Breakdown of College Graduates' Salaries Tells a Different Story
• Lock Watch Now: Tapping into Your Unconventional Thinking and Using It to Create a Million-Dollar Business

Most Popular Red Arrow

Build a better resume with this $35 subscription.

AI Resume Builder promises to help you apply to jobs twice as fast.

He Took His Side Hustle Full-Time After Being Laid Off From Meta in 2023 — Now He Earns About $200,000 a Year: 'Sweet, Sweet Irony'

When Scott Goodfriend moved from Los Angeles to New York City, he became "obsessed" with the city's culinary offerings — and saw a business opportunity.

I Got Over 225,000 Views in Just 3 Months With Short-Form Video — Here's Why It's the New Era of Marketing

Thanks to our new short-form video content strategy, we've amassed over 225,000 video views in just three months. Learn how to increase brand awareness through short-form video content.

Samsung Makes 6 Day Workweeks Mandatory for Executives as the Company Enters 'Emergency Mode'

Samsung said its performance "fell short of expectations" last year. Now executives are required to work weekends.

6 Habits That Help Successful People Maximize Their Time

There aren't enough hours in the day, but these tips will make them feel slightly more productive.

You Won't Have a Strong Leadership Presence Until You Master These 5 Attributes

If you are a poor leader internally, you will be a poor leader externally.

Successfully copied link

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Power of Personality

Brent w. roberts.

University of Illinois

Nathan R. Kuncel

University of Minnesota

Rebecca Shiner

Colgate University

Avshalom Caspi

Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London, United Kingdom

Duke University

Lewis R. Goldberg

Oregon Research Institute

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.

Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field ( Pervin & John, 1999 ). However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or useful—one would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and longevity, marital success, and educational and occupational attainment. In fact, two recent reviews have shown that different personality traits are associated with outcomes in each of these domains ( Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005 ; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006 ). But simply showing that personality traits are related to health, love, and attainment is not a stringent test of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be the result of “third” variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), that account for the patterns but have not been controlled for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies reviewed were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the methodological rigor to show the predictive validity of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality traits can be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show the incremental validity of personality traits over and above other factors.

The analyses reported in this article test whether personality traits are important, practical predictors of significant life outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each domain, we evaluate empirical evidence using the gold standard of prospective longitudinal studies—that is, those studies that can provide data about whether personality traits predict life outcomes above and beyond well-known factors such as SES and cognitive abilities. To guide the interpretation drawn from the results of these prospective longitudinal studies, we provide benchmark relations of SES and cognitive ability with outcomes from these three domains. The review proceeds in three sections. First, we address some misperceptions about personality traits that are, in part, responsible for the idea that personality does not predict important life outcomes. Second, we present a review of the evidence for the predictive validity of personality traits. Third, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and recommendations for future work in this area.

THE “PERSONALITY COEFFICIENT”: AN UNFORTUNATE LEGACY OF THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE

Before we embark on our review, it is necessary to lay to rest a myth perpetrated by the 1960s manifestation of the person–situation debate; this myth is often at the root of the perspective that personality traits do not predict outcomes well, if at all. Specifically, in his highly influential book, Walter Mischel (1968) argued that personality traits had limited utility in predicting behavior because their correlational upper limit appeared to be about .30. Subsequently, this .30 value became derided as the “personality coefficient.” Two conclusions were inferred from this argument. First, personality traits have little predictive validity. Second, if personality traits do not predict much, then other factors, such as the situation, must be responsible for the vast amounts of variance that are left unaccounted for. The idea that personality traits are the validity weaklings of the predictive panoply has been reiterated in unmitigated form to this day (e.g., Bandura, 1999 ; Lewis, 2001 ; Paul, 2004 ; Ross & Nisbett, 1991 ). In fact, this position is so widely accepted that personality psychologists often apologize for correlations in the range of .20 to .30 (e.g., Bornstein, 1999 ).

Should personality psychologists be apologetic for their modest validity coefficients? Apparently not, according to Meyer and his colleagues ( Meyer et al., 2001 ), who did psychological science a service by tabling the effect sizes for a wide variety of psychological investigations and placing them side-by-side with comparable effect sizes from medicine and everyday life. These investigators made several important points. First, the modal effect size on a correlational scale for psychology as a whole is between .10 and .40, including that seen in experimental investigations (see also Hemphill, 2003 ). It appears that the .30 barrier applies to most phenomena in psychology and not just to those in the realm of personality psychology. Second, the very largest effects for any variables in psychology are in the .50 to .60 range, and these are quite rare (e.g., the effect of increasing age on declining speed of information processing in adults). Third, effect sizes for assessment measures and therapeutic interventions in psychology are similar to those found in medicine. It is sobering to see that the effect sizes for many medical interventions—like consuming aspirin to treat heart disease or using chemotherapy to treat breast cancer—translate into correlations of .02 or .03. Taken together, the data presented by Meyer and colleagues make clear that our standards for effect sizes need to be established in light of what is typical for psychology and for other fields concerned with human functioning.

In the decades since Mischel’s (1968) critique, researchers have also directly addressed the claim that situations have a stronger influence on behavior than they do on personality traits. Social psychological research on the effects of situations typically involves experimental manipulation of the situation, and the results are analyzed to establish whether the situational manipulation has yielded a statistically significant difference in the outcome. When the effects of situations are converted into the same metric as that used in personality research (typically the correlation coefficient, which conveys both the direction and the size of an effect), the effects of personality traits are generally as strong as the effects of situations ( Funder & Ozer, 1983 ; Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975 ). Overall, it is the moderate position that is correct: Both the person and the situation are necessary for explaining human behavior, given that both have comparable relations with important outcomes.

As research on the relative magnitude of effects has documented, personality psychologists should not apologize for correlations between .10 and .30, given that the effect sizes found in personality psychology are no different than those found in other fields of inquiry. In addition, the importance of a predictor lies not only in the magnitude of its association with the outcome, but also in the nature of the outcome being predicted. A large association between two self-report measures of extraversion and positive affect may be theoretically interesting but may not offer much solace to the researcher searching for proof that extraversion is an important predictor for outcomes that society values. In contrast, a modest correlation between a personality trait and mortality or some other medical outcome, such as Alzheimer’s disease, would be quite important. Moreover, when attempting to predict these critical life outcomes, even relatively small effects can be important because of their pragmatic effects and because of their cumulative effects across a person’s life ( Abelson, 1985 ; Funder, 2004 ; Rosenthal, 1990 ). In terms of practicality, the −.03 association between taking aspirin and reducing heart attacks provides an excellent example. In one study, this surprisingly small association resulted in 85 fewer heart attacks among the patients of 10,845 physicians ( Rosenthal, 2000 ). Because of its practical significance, this type of association should not be ignored because of the small effect size. In terms of cumulative effects, a seemingly small effect that moves a person away from pursuing his or her education early in life can have monumental consequences for that person’s health and well-being later in life ( Hardarson et al., 2001 ). In other words, psychological processes with a statistically small or moderate effect can have important effects on individuals’ lives depending on the outcomes with which they are associated and depending on whether those effects get cumulated across a person’s life.

PERSONALITY EFFECTS ON MORTALITY, DIVORCE, AND OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Selection of predictors, outcomes, and studies for this review.

To provide the most stringent test of the predictive validity of personality traits, we chose to focus on three objective outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Although we could have chosen many different outcomes to examine, we selected these three because they are socially valued; they are measured in similar ways across studies; and they have been assessed as outcomes in studies of SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits. Mortality needs little justification as an outcome, as most individuals value a long life. Divorce and marital stability are important outcomes for several reasons. Divorce is a significant source of depression and distress for many individuals and can have negative consequences for children, whereas a happy marriage is one of the most important predictors of life satisfaction ( Myers, 2000 ). Divorce is also linked to disproportionate drops in economic status, especially for women ( Kuh & Maclean, 1990 ), and it can undermine men’s health (e.g., Lund, Holstein, & Osler, 2004 ). An intact marriage can also preserve cognitive function into old age for both men and women, particularly for those married to a high-ability spouse ( Schaie, 1994 ).

Educational and occupational attainment are also highly prized ( Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004 ). Research on subjective well-being has shown that occupational attainment and its important correlate, income, are not as critical for happiness as many assume them to be ( Myers, 2000 ). Nonetheless, educational and occupational attainment are associated with greater access to many resources that can improve the quality of life (e.g., medical care, education) and with greater “social capital” (i.e., greater access to various resources through connections with others; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ; Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ). The greater income resulting from high educational and occupational attainment may also enable individuals to maintain strong life satisfaction when faced with difficult life circumstances ( Johnson & Krueger, 2006 ).

To better interpret the significance of the relations between personality traits and these outcomes, we have provided comparative information concerning the effect of SES and cognitive ability on each of these outcomes. We chose to use SES as a comparison because it is widely accepted to be one of the most important contributors to a more successful life, including better health and higher occupational attainment (e.g., Adler et al., 1994 ; Gallo & Mathews, 2003 ; Galobardes, Lynch, & Smith, 2004 ; Sapolsky, 2005 ). In addition, we chose cognitive ability as a comparison variable because, like SES, it is a widely accepted predictor of longevity and occupational success ( Deary, Batty, & Gottfredson, 2005 ; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998 ). In this article, we compare the effect sizes of personality traits with these two predictors in order to understand the relative contribution of personality to a long, stable, and successful life. We also required that the studies in this review make some attempt to control for background variables. For example, in the case of mortality, we looked for prospective longitudinal studies that controlled for previous medical conditions, gender, age, and other relevant variables.

We are not assuming that personality traits are direct causes of the outcomes under study. Rather, we were exclusively interested in whether personality traits predict mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment and in their modal effect sizes. If found to be robust, these patterns of statistical association then invite the question of why and how personality traits might cause these outcomes, and we have provided several examples in each section of potential mechanisms and causal steps involved in the process.

The Measurement of Effect Sizes in Prospective Longitudinal Studies

Before turning to the specific findings for personality, SES, and cognitive ability, we must first address the measurement of effect sizes in the studies reviewed here. Most of the studies that we reviewed used some form of regression analysis for either continuous or categorical outcomes. In studies with continuous outcomes, findings were typically reported as standardized regression weights (beta coefficients). In studies of categorical outcomes, the most common effect size indicators are odds ratios, relative risk ratios, or hazard ratios. Because many psychologists may be less familiar with these ratio statistics, a brief discussion of them is in order. In the context of individual differences, ratio statistics quantify the likelihood of an event (e.g., divorce, mortality) for a higher scoring group versus the likelihood of the same event for a lower scoring group (e.g., persons high in negative affect versus those low in negative affect). An odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of the event for one group over the odds of the same event for the second group. The risk ratio compares the probabilities of the event occurring for the two groups. The hazard ratio assesses the probability of an event occurring for a group over a specific window of time. For these statistics, a value of 1.0 equals no difference in odds or probabilities. Values above 1.0 indicate increased likelihood (odds or probabilities) for the experimental (or numerator) group, with the reverse being true for values below 1.0 (down to a lower limit of zero). Because of this asymmetry, the log of these statistics is often taken.

The primary advantage of ratio statistics in general, and the risk ratio in particular, is their ease of interpretation in applied settings. It is easier to understand that death is three times as likely to occur for one group than for another than it is to make sense out of a point-biserial correlation. However, there are also some disadvantages that should be understood. First, ratio statistics can make effects that are actually very small in absolute magnitude appear to be large when in fact they are very rare events. For example, although it is technically correct that one is three times as likely (risk ratio = 3.0) to win the lottery when buying three tickets instead of one ticket, the improved chances of winning are trivial in an absolute sense.

Second, there is no accepted practice for how to divide continuous predictor variables when computing odds, risk, and hazard ratios. Some predictors are naturally dichotomous (e.g., gender), but many are continuous (e.g., cognitive ability, SES). Researchers often divide continuous variables into some arbitrary set of categories in order to use the odds, rate, or hazard metrics. For example, instead of reporting an association between SES and mortality using a point-biserial correlation, a researcher may use proportional hazards models using some arbitrary categorization of SES, such as quartile estimates (e.g., lowest versus highest quartiles). This permits the researcher to draw conclusions such as “individuals from the highest category of SES are four times as likely to live longer than are groups lowest in SES.” Although more intuitively appealing, the odds statements derived from categorizing continuous variables makes it difficult to deduce the true effect size of a relation, especially across studies. Researchers with very large samples may have the luxury of carving a continuous variable into very fine-grained categories (e.g., 10 categories of SES), which may lead to seemingly huge hazard ratios. In contrast, researchers with smaller samples may only dichotomize or trichotomize the same variables, thus resulting in smaller hazard ratios and what appear to be smaller effects for identical predictors. Finally, many researchers may not categorize their continuous variables at all, which can result in hazard ratios very close to 1.0 that are nonetheless still statistically significant. These procedures for analyzing odds, rate, and hazard ratios produce a haphazard array of results from which it is almost impossible to discern a meaningful average effect size. 1

One of the primary tasks of this review is to transform the results from different studies into a common metric so that a fair comparison could be made across the predictors and outcomes. For this purpose, we chose the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. We used a variety of techniques to arrive at an accurate estimate of the effect size from each study. When transforming relative risk ratios into the correlation metric, we used several methods to arrive at the most appropriate estimate of the effect size. For example, the correlation coefficient can be estimated from reported significance levels ( p values) and from test statistics such as the t test or chi-square, as well as from other effect size indicators such as d scores ( Rosenthal, 1991 ). Also, the correlation coefficient can be estimated directly from relative risk ratios and hazard ratios using the generic inverse variance approach ( The Cochrane Collaboration, 2005 ). In this procedure, the relative risk ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are first transformed into z scores, and the z scores are then transformed into the correlation metric.

For most studies, the effect size correlation was estimated from information on relative risk ratios and p values. For the latter, we used the r equivalent effect size indicator ( Rosenthal & Rubin, 2003 ), which is computed from the sample size and p value associated with specific effects. All of these techniques transform the effect size information to a common correlational metric, making the results of the studies comparable across different analytical methods. After compiling effect sizes, meta-analytic techniques were used to estimate population effect sizes in both the risk ratio and correlation metric ( Hedges & Olkin, 1985 ). Specifically, a random-effects model with no moderators was used to estimate population effect sizes for both the rate ratio and correlation metrics. 2 When appropriate, we first averaged multiple nonindependent effects from studies that reported more than one relevant effect size.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Mortality

Before considering the role of personality traits in health and longevity, we reviewed a selection of studies linking SES and cognitive ability to these same outcomes. This information provides a point of reference to understand the relative contribution of personality. Table 1 presents the findings from 33 studies examining the prospective relations of low SES and low cognitive ability with mortality. 3 SES was measured using measures or composites of typical SES variables including income, education, and occupational status. Total IQ scores were commonly used in analyses of cognitive ability. Most studies demonstrated that being born into a low-SES household or achieving low SES in adulthood resulted in a higher risk of mortality (e.g., Deary & Der, 2005 ; Hart et al., 2003 ; Osler et al., 2002 ; Steenland, Henley, & Thun, 2002 ). The relative risk ratios and hazard ratios ranged from a low of 0.57 to a high of 1.30 and averaged 1.24 (CIs = 1.19 and 1.29). When translated into the correlation metric, the effect sizes for low SES ranged from −.02 to .08 and averaged .02 (CIs = .017 and .026).

SES and IQ Effects on Mortality/Longevity

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r rr = Correlation estimated from the rate ratio; r hr = correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r e = r equivalent —correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size; BMI = body mass index; FEV = forced expiratory volume; ADLs = activities of daily living; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; CPS = Cancer Prevention Study; RIFLE = risk factors and life expectancy.

Through the use of the relative risk metric, we determined that the effect of low IQ on mortality was similar to that of SES, ranging from a modest 0.74 to 2.42 and averaging 1.19 (CIs = 1.10 and 1.30). When translated into the correlation metric, however, the effect of low IQ on mortality was equivalent to a correlation of .06 (CIs = .03 and .09), which was three times larger than the effect of SES on mortality. The discrepancy between the relative risk and correlation metrics most likely resulted because some studies reported the relative risks in terms of continuous measures of IQ, which resulted in smaller relative risk ratios (e.g., St. John, Montgomery, Kristjansson, & McDowell, 2002 ). Merging relative risk ratios from these studies with those that carve the continuous variables into subgroups appears to underestimate the effect of IQ on mortality, at least in terms of the relative risk metric. The most telling comparison of IQ and SES comes from the five studies that include both variables in the prediction of mortality. Consistent with the aggregate results, IQ was a stronger predictor of mortality in each case (i.e., Deary & Der, 2005 ; Ganguli, Dodge, & Mulsant, 2002 ; Hart et al., 2003 ; Osler et al., 2002 ; Wilson, Bienia, Mendes de Leon, Evans, & Bennet, 2003 ).

Table 2 lists 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/longevity. 4 In most of these studies, multiple factors such as SES, cognitive ability, gender, and disease severity were controlled for. We organized our review roughly around the Big Five taxonomy of personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience; Goldberg, 1993b ). For example, research drawn from the Terman Longitudinal Study showed that children who were more conscientious tended to live longer ( Friedman et al., 1993 ). This effect held even after controlling for gender and parental divorce, two known contributors to shorter lifespans. Moreover, a number of other factors, such as SES and childhood health difficulties, were unrelated to longevity in this study. The protective effect of Conscientiousness has now been replicated across several studies and more heterogeneous samples. Conscientiousness was found to be a rather strong protective factor in an elderly sample participating in a Medicare training program ( Weiss & Costa, 2005 ), even when controlling for education level, cardiovascular disease, and smoking, among other factors. Similarly, Conscientiousness predicted decreased rates of mortality in a sample of individuals suffering from chronic renal insufficiency, even after controlling for age, diabetic status, and hemoglobin count ( Christensen et al., 2002 ).

Personality Traits and Mortality

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r rr = correlation estimated from the rate ratio; r hr = correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r B = correlation estimated from a beta weight and standard error; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); FEV = forced expiratory volume; CHD = coronary heart disease; SES =socioeconomic status; BMI =body-ass index; ADLs =activities of daily living; MMSE =Mini Mental State Examination.

Similarly, several studies have shown that dispositions reflecting Positive Emotionality or Extraversion were associated with longevity. For example, nuns who scored higher on an index of Positive Emotionality in young adulthood tended to live longer, even when controlling for age, education, and linguistic ability (an aspect of cognitive ability; Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, 2001 ). Similarly, Optimism was related to higher rates of survival following head and neck cancer ( Allison, Guichard, Fung, & Gilain, 2003 ). In contrast, several studies reported that Neuroticism and Pessimism were associated with increases in one’s risk for premature mortality ( Abas, Hotopf, & Prince, 2002 ; Denollet et al., 1996 ; Schulz, Bookwala, Knapp, Scheier, & Williamson, 1996 ; Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Bienias, Evans, & Bennett, 2004 ). It should be noted, however, that two studies reported a protective effect of high Neuroticism ( Korten et al., 1999 ; Weiss & Costa, 2005 ).

The domain of Agreeableness showed a less clear association to mortality, with some studies showing a protective effect of high Agreeableness ( Wilson et al., 2004 ) and others showing that high Agreeableness contributed to mortality ( Friedman et al., 1993 ). With respect to the domain of Openness to Experience, two studies showed that Openness or facets of Openness, such as creativity, had little or no relation to mortality ( Osler et al., 2002 ; Wilson et al., 2004 ).

Because aggregating all personality traits into one overall effect size washes out important distinctions among different trait domains, we examined the effect of specific trait domains by aggregating studies within four categories: Conscientiousness, Positive Emotion/Extraversion, Neuroticism/Negative Emotion, and Hostility/Disagreeableness. 5 Our Conscientiousness domain included four studies that linked Conscientiousness to mortality. Because only two of these studies reported the information necessary to compute an average relative risk ratio, we only examined the correlation metric. When translated into a correlation metric, the average effect size for Conscientiousness was −.09 (CIs = −.12 and −.05), indicating a protective effect. Our Extraversion/Positive Emotion domain included six studies that examined the effect of extraversion, positive emotion, and optimism. The average relative risk ratio for the low Extraversion/Positive Emotion was 1.04 (CIs = 1.00 and 1.10) with a corresponding correlation effect size for high Extraversion/Positive Emotion being −.07 (−.11, −.03), with the latter showing a statistically significant protective effect of Extraversion/Positive Emotion. Our Negative Emotionality domain included twelve studies that examined the effect of neuroticism, pessimism, mental instability, and sense of coherence. The average relative risk ratio for the Negative Emotionality domain was 1.15 (CIs = 1.04 and 1.26), and the corresponding correlation effect size was .05 (CIs = .02 and .08). Thus, Neuroticism was associated with a diminished life span. Nineteen studies reported relations between Hostility/Disagreeableness and all-cause mortality, with notable heterogeneity in the effects across studies. The risk ratio population estimate showed an effect equivalent to, if not larger than, the remaining personality domains (risk ratio = 1.14; CIs = 1.06 and 1.23). With the correlation metric, this effect translated into a small but statistically significant effect of .04 (CIs = .02 and .06), indicating that hostility was positively associated with mortality. Thus, the specific personality traits of Conscientiousness, Positive Emotionality/Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Hostility/Disagreeableness were stronger predictors of mortality than was SES when effects were translated into a correlation metric. The effect of personality traits on mortality appears to be equivalent to IQ, although the additive effect of multiple trait domains on mortality may well exceed that of IQ.

Why would personality traits predict mortality? Personality traits may affect health and ultimately longevity through at least three distinct processes ( Contrada, Cather, & O’Leary, 1999 ; Pressman & Cohen, 2005 ; Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, 1999 ; T.W. Smith, 2006 ). First, personality differences may be related to pathogenesis or mechanisms that promote disease. This has been evaluated most directly in studies relating various facets of Hostility/Disagreeableness to greater reactivity in response to stressful experiences (T.W. Smith & Gallo, 2001 ) and in studies relating low Extraversion to neuroendocrine and immune functioning ( Miller, Cohen, Rabin, Skoner, & Doyle, 1999 ) and greater susceptibility to colds ( Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003a , 2003b ). Second, personality traits may be related to physical-health outcomes because they are associated with health-promoting or health-damaging behaviors. For example, individuals high in Extraversion may foster social relationships, social support, and social integration, all of which are positively associated with health outcomes ( Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000 ). In contrast, individuals low in Conscientiousness may engage in a variety of health-risk behaviors such as smoking, unhealthy eating habits, lack of exercise, unprotected sexual intercourse, and dangerous driving habits ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). Third, personality differences may be related to reactions to illness. This includes a wide class of behaviors, such as the ways individuals cope with illness (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1993 ), reduce stress, and adhere to prescribed treatments ( Kenford et al., 2002 ).

These processes linking personality traits to physical health are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, different personality traits may affect physical health via different processes. For example, facets of Disagreeableness may be most directly linked to disease processes, facets of low Conscientiousness may be implicated in health-damaging behaviors, and facets of Neuroticism may contribute to ill-health by shaping reactions to illness. In addition, it is likely that the impact of personality differences on health varies across the life course. For example, Neuroticism may have a protective effect on mortality in young adulthood, as individuals who are more neurotic tend to avoid accidents in adolescence and young adulthood ( Lee, Wadsworth, & Hotopf, 2006 ). It is apparent from the extant research that personality traits influence outcomes at all stages of the health process, but much more work remains to be done to specify the processes that account for these effects.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Divorce

Next, we considered the role that SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits play in divorce. Because there were fewer studies examining these issues, we included prospective studies of SES, IQ, and personality that did not control for many background variables.

In terms of SES and IQ, we found 11 studies that showed a wide range of associations with divorce and marriage (see Table 3 ). 6 For example, the SES of the couple in one study was unsystematically related to divorce ( Tzeng & Mare, 1995 ). In contrast, Kurdek (1993) reported relatively large, protective effects for education and income for both men and women. Because not all these studies reported relative risk ratios, we computed an aggregate using the correlation metric and found the relation between SES and divorce was −.05 (CIs = −.08 and − .02), which indicates a significant protective effect of SES on divorce across these studies. Contradictory patterns were found for the two studies that predicted divorce and marital patterns from measures of cognitive ability. Taylor et al. (2005) reported that IQ was positively related to the possibility of male participants ever marrying but was negatively related to the possibility of female participants ever marrying. Data drawn from the Mills Longitudinal study ( Helson, 2006 ) showed conflicting patterns of associations between verbal and mathematical aptitude and divorce. Because there were only two studies, we did not examine the average effects of IQ on divorce.

SES and IQ Effects on Divorce

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r z = correlation estimated from the z score and sample size; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r B = correlation estimated from the reported unstandardized beta weight and standard error; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; NLSY = National Longitudinal Study of Youth; NLSYM = National Longitudinal Study of Young Men; NLSYW = National Longitudinal Study of Young Women.

Table 4 shows the data from thirteen prospective studies testing whether personality traits predicted divorce. Traits associated with the domain of Neuroticism, such as being anxious and overly sensitive, increased the probability of experiencing divorce ( Kelly & Conley, 1987 ; Tucker, Kressin, Spiro, & Ruscio, 1998 ). In contrast, those individuals who were more conscientious and agreeable tended to remain longer in their marriages and avoided divorce ( Kelly & Conley, 1987 ; Kinnunen & Pulkkenin, 2003 ; Roberts & Bogg, 2004 ). Although these studies did not control for as many factors as the health studies, the time spans over which the studies were carried out were impressive (e.g., 45 years). We aggregated effects across these studies for the trait domains of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness with the correlation metric, as too few studies reported relative risk outcomes to warrant aggregating. When so aggregated, the effect of Neuroticism on divorce was .17 (CIs = .12 and .22), the effect of Agreeableness was − .18 (CIs = −.27 and −.09), and the effect of Conscientiousness on divorce was −.13 (CIs = −.17 and −.09). Thus, the predictive effects of these three personality traits on divorce were greater than those found for SES.

Personality Traits and Marital Outcomes

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r d = Correlation estimated from the d score; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IHS = Institute of Human Development.

Why would personality traits lead to divorce or conversely marital stability? The most likely reason is because personality traits help shape the quality of long-term relationships. For example, Neuroticism is one of the strongest and most consistent personality predictors of relationship dissatisfaction, conflict, abuse, and ultimately dissolution ( Karney & Bradbury, 1995 ). Sophisticated studies that include dyads (not just individuals) and multiple methods (not just self reports) increasingly demonstrate that the links between personality traits and relationship processes are more than simply an artifact of shared method variance in the assessment of these two domains ( Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004 ; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000 ; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000 ). One study that followed a sample of young adults across their multiple relationships in early adulthood discovered that the influence of Negative Emotionality on relationship quality showed cross-relationship generalization; that is, it predicted the same kinds of experiences across relationships with different partners ( Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002 ).

An important goal for future research will be to uncover the proximal relationship-specific processes that mediate personality effects on relationship outcomes ( Reiss, Capobianco, & Tsai, 2002 ). Three processes merit attention. First, personality traits influence people’s exposure to relationship events. For example, people high in Neuroticism may be more likely to be exposed to daily conflicts in their relationships ( Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995 ; Suls & Martin, 2005 ). Second, personality traits shape people’s reactions to the behavior of their partners. For example, disagreeable individuals may escalate negative affect during conflict (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998 ). Similarly, agreeable people may be better able to regulate emotions during interpersonal conflicts ( Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001 ). Cognitive processes also factor in creating trait-correlated experiences ( Snyder & Stukas, 1999 ). For example, highly neurotic individuals may overreact to minor criticism from their partner, believe they are no longer loved when their partner does not call, or assume infidelity on the basis of mere flirtation. Third, personality traits evoke behaviors from partners that contribute to relationship quality. For example, people high in Neuroticism and low in Agreeableness may be more likely to express behaviors identified as detrimental to relationships such as criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling ( Gottman, 1994 ).

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Educational and Occupational Attainment

The role of personality traits in occupational attainment has been studied sporadically in longitudinal studies over the last few decades. In contrast, the roles of SES and IQ have been studied exhaustively by sociologists in their programmatic research on the antecedents to status attainment. In their seminal work, Blau and Duncan (1967) conceptualized a model of status attainment as a function of the SES of an individual’s father. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin added what they considered social-psychological factors ( Sewell, Haller, & Portes, 1969 ). In this Wisconsin model, attainment is a function of parental SES, cognitive abilities, academic performance, occupational and educational aspirations, and the role of significant others ( Haller & Portes, 1973 ). Each factor in the model has been found to be positively related to occupational attainment ( Hauser, Tsai, & Sewell, 1983 ). The key question here is to what extent SES and IQ predict educational and occupational attainment holding constant the remaining factors.

A great deal of research has validated the structure and content of the Wisconsin model ( Sewell & Hauser, 1980 ; Sewell & Hauser, 1992 ), and rather than compiling these studies, which are highly similar in structure and findings, we provide representative findings from a study that includes three replications of the model ( Jencks, Crouse, & Mueser, 1983 ). As can be seen in Table 5 , childhood socioeconomic indicators, such as father’s occupational status and mother’s education, are related to outcomes, such as grades, educational attainment, and eventual occupational attainment, even after controlling for the remaining variables in the Wisconsin model. The average beta weight of SES and education was .09. 7 Parental income had a stronger effect, with an average beta weight of .14 across these three studies. Cognitive abilities were even more powerful predictors of occupational attainment, with an average beta weight of .27.

SES, IQ, and Status Attainment

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.

Do personality traits contribute to the prediction of occupational attainment even when intelligence and socioeconomic background are taken into account? As there are far fewer studies linking personality traits directly to indices of occupational attainment, such as prestige and income, we also included prospective studies examining the impact of personality traits on related outcomes such as long-term unemployment and occupational stability. The studies listed in Table 6 attest to the fact that personality traits predict all of these work-related outcomes. For example, adolescent ratings of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness predicted occupational status 46 years later, even after controlling for childhood IQ ( Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999 ). The weighted-average beta weight across the studies in Table 6 was .23 (CIs = .14 and .32), indicating that the modal effect size of personality traits was comparable with the effect of childhood SES and IQ on similar outcomes. 8

Personality Traits and Occupational Attainment

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; IHD = Institute of Human Development.

Why are personality traits related to achievement in educational and occupational domains? The personality processes involved may vary across different stages of development, and at least five candidate processes deserve research scrutiny ( Roberts, 2006 ). First, the personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “attraction” effects or “active niche-picking,” whereby people choose educational and work experiences whose qualities are concordant with their own personalities. For example, people who are more conscientious may prefer conventional jobs, such as accounting and farming ( Gottfredson, Jones, & Holland, 1993 ). People who are more extraverted may prefer jobs that are described as social or enterprising, such as teaching or business management ( Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ). Moreover, extraverted individuals are more likely to assume leadership roles in multiple settings ( Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002 ). In fact, all of the Big Five personality traits have substantial relations with better performance when the personality predictor is appropriately aligned with work criteria ( Hogan & Holland, 2003 ). This indicates that if people find jobs that fit with their dispositions they will experience greater levels of job performance, which should lead to greater success, tenure, and satisfaction across the life course ( Judge et al., 1999 ).

Second, personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “recruitment effects,” whereby people are selected into achievement situations and are given preferential treatment on the basis of their personality characteristics. These recruitment effects begin to appear early in development. For example, children’s personality traits begin to influence their emerging relationships with teachers at a young age ( Birch & Ladd, 1998 ). In adulthood, job applicants who are more extraverted, conscientious, and less neurotic are liked better by interviewers and are more often recommended for the job ( Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000 ).

Third, personality traits may affect work outcomes because people take an active role in shaping their work environment ( Roberts, 2006 ). For example, leaders have tremendous power to shape the nature of the organization by hiring, firing, and promoting individuals. Cross-sectional studies of groups have shown that leaders’ conscientiousness and cognitive ability affect decision making and treatment of subordinates ( LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997 ). Individuals who are not leaders or supervisors may shape their work to better fit themselves through job crafting ( Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ) or job sculpting ( Bell & Staw, 1989 ). They can change their day-to-day work environments through changing the tasks they do, organizing their work differently, or changing the nature of the relationships they maintain with others ( Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ). Presumably these changes in their work environments lead to an increase in the fit between personality and work. In turn, increased fit with one’s environment is associated with elevated performance ( Harms, Roberts, & Winter, 2006 ).

Fourth, some personality-to-achievement associations emerge as consequences of “attrition” or “deselection pressures,” whereby people leave achievement settings (e.g., schools or jobs) that do not fit with their personality or are released from these settings because of their trait-correlated behaviors ( Cairns & Cairns, 1994 ). For example, longitudinal evidence from different countries shows that children who exhibit a combination of poor self-control and high irritability or antagonism are at heightened risk of unemployment ( Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998 ; Kokko, Bergman, & Pulkkinen, 2003 ; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000 ).

Fifth, personality-to-achievement associations may emerge as a result of direct effects of personality on performance. Personality traits may promote certain kinds of task effectiveness; there is some evidence that this occurs in part via the processing of information. For example, higher positive emotions facilitate the efficient processing of complex information and are associated with creative problem solving ( Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999 ). In addition to these effects on task effectiveness, personality may directly affect other aspects of work performance, such as interpersonal interactions ( Hurtz & Donovan, 2000 ). Personality traits may also directly influence performance motivation; for example, Conscientiousness consistently predicts stronger goal setting and self-efficacy, whereas Neuroticism predicts these motivations negatively ( Erez & Judge, 2001 ; Judge & Ilies, 2002 ).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is abundantly clear from this review that specific personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as mortality, divorce, and success in work. Depending on the sample, trait, and outcome, people with specific personality characteristics are more likely to experience important life outcomes even after controlling for other factors. Moreover, when compared with the effects reported for SES and cognitive abilities, the predictive validities of personality traits do not appear to be markedly different in magnitude. In fact, as can be seen in Figures 1 – 3 , in many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that personality traits predict these outcomes better than SES does. Despite these impressive findings, a few limitations and qualifications must be kept in mind when interpreting these data.

Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low IQ, low Conscientiousness (C), low Extraversion/Positive Emotion(E/PE), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on mortality. Error bars represent standard error.

Average effects (in the standardized beta weight metric) of high socioeconomic status (SES), high parental income, high IQ, and high personality trait scores on occupational outcomes.

The requirement that we only examine the incremental validity of personality measures after controlling for SES and cognitive abilities, though clearly the most stringent test of the relevance of personality traits, is also arbitrarily tough. In fact, controlling for variables that are assumed to be nuisance factors can obscure important relations ( Meehl, 1971 ). For example, SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits may determine life outcomes through indirect rather than direct pathways. Consider cognitive abilities. These are only modest predictors of occupational attainment when “all other factors are controlled,” but they play a much more important, indirect role through their effect on educational attainment. Students with higher cognitive abilities tend to obtain better grades and go on to achieve more in the educational sphere across a range of disciplines ( Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2007 ; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001 , 2004 ); in turn, educational attainment is the best predictor of occupational attainment. This observation about cumulative indirect effects applies equally well to SES and personality traits.

Furthermore, the effect sizes associated with SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits were all uniformly small-to-medium in size. This finding is entirely consistent with those from other reviews showing that most psychological constructs have effect sizes in the range between .10 and .40 on a correlational scale ( Meyer et al., 2001 ). Our hope is that reviews like this one can help adjust the norms researchers hold for what the modal effect size is in psychology and related fields. Studies are often disparaged for having small effects as if it is not the norm. Moreover, small effect sizes are often criticized without any understanding of their practical significance. Practical significance can only be determined if we ground our research by both predicting consequential outcomes, such as mortality, and by translating the results into a metric that is clearly understandable, such as years lost or number of deaths. Correlations and ratio statistics do not provide this type of information. On the other hand, some researchers have translated their results into metrics that most individuals can grasp. As we noted in the introduction, Rosenthal (1990) showed that taking aspirin prevented approximately 85 heart attacks in the patients of 10,845 physicians despite the meager −.03 correlation between this practice and the outcome of having a heart attack. Several other studies in our review provided similar benchmarks. Hardarson et al., (2001) showed that 148 fewer people died in their high education group (out of 869) than in their low education group, despite the effect size being equal to a correlation of −.05. Danner et al. (2001) showed that the association between positive emotion and longevity was associated with a gain of almost 7 years of additional life, despite having an average effect size of around .20. Of course, our ability to draw these types of conclusions necessitates grounding our research in more practical outcomes and their respective metrics.

There is one salient difference between many of the studies of SES and cognitive abilities and the studies focusing on personality traits. The typical sample in studies of the long-term effect of personality traits was a sample of convenience or was distinctly unrepresentative. In contrast, many of the studies of SES and cognitive ability included nationally representative and/or remarkably large samples (e.g., 500,000 participants). Therefore, the results for SES and cognitive abilities are generalizable, whereas it is more difficult to generalize findings from personality research. Perhaps the situation will improve if future demographers include personality measures in large surveys of the general population.

Recommendations

One of the challenges of incorporating personality measures in large studies is the cost–benefit trade off involved with including a thorough assessment of personality traits in a reasonably short period of time. Because most personality inventories include many items, researchers may be pressed either to eliminate them from their studies or to use highly abbreviated measures of personality traits. The latter practice has become even more common now that most personality researchers have concluded that personality traits can be represented within five to seven broad domains ( Goldberg, 1993b ; Saucier, 2003 ). The temptation is to include a brief five-factor instrument under the assumption that this will provide good coverage of the entire range of personality traits. However, the use of short, broad bandwidth measures can lead to substantial decreases in predictive validity ( Goldberg, 1993a ), because short measures of the Big Five lack the breadth and depth of longer personality inventories. In contrast, research has shown that the predictive validity of personality measures increases when one uses a well-elaborated measure with many lower order facets ( Ashton, 1998 ; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988 ; Paunonen, 1998 ; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001 ).

However, research participants do not have unlimited time, and researchers may need advice on the selection of optimal measures of personality traits. One solution is to pay attention to previous research and focus on those traits that have been found to be related to the specific outcomes under study instead of using an omnibus personality inventory. For example, given the clear and consistent finding that the personality trait of Conscientiousness is related to health behaviors and mortality (e.g., Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ; Friedman, 2000 ), it would seem prudent to measure this trait well if one wanted to control for this factor or include it in any study of health and mortality. Moreover, it appears that specific facets of this domain, such as self-control and conventionality, are more relevant to health than are other facets such as orderliness ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). If researchers are truly interested in assessing personality traits well, then they should invest the time necessary for the task. This entails moving away from expedient surveys to more in-depth assessments. Finally, if one truly wants to assess personality traits well, then researchers should use multiple methods for this purpose and should not rely solely on self-reports ( Eid & Diener, 2006 ).

We also recommend that researchers not equate all individual differences with personality traits. Personality psychologists also study constructs such as motivation, interests, emotions, values, identities, life stories, and self-regulation (see Mayer, 2005 , and Roberts & Wood, 2006 , for reviews). Moreover, these different domains of personality are only modestly correlated (e.g., Ackerman & Heggested, 1997 ; Roberts & Robins, 2000 ). Thus, there are a wide range of additional constructs that may have independent effects on important life outcomes that are waiting to be studied.

Conclusions

In light of increasingly robust evidence that personality matters for a wide range of life outcomes, researchers need to turn their attention to several issues. First, we need to know more about the processes through which personality traits shape individuals’ functioning over time. Simply documenting that links exist between personality traits and life outcomes does not clarify the mechanisms through which personality exerts its effects. In this article, we have suggested a number of potential processes that may be at work in the domains of health, relationships, and educational and occupational success. Undoubtedly, other personality processes will turn out to influence these outcomes as well.

Second, we need a greater understanding of the relationship between personality and the social environmental factors already known to affect health and development. Looking over the studies reviewed above, one can see that specific personality traits such as Conscientiousness predict occupational and marital outcomes that, in turn, predict longevity. Thus, it may be that Conscientiousness has both direct and indirect effects on mortality, as it contributes to following life paths that afford better health, and may also directly affect the ways in which people handle health-related issues, such as whether they exercise or eat a healthy diet ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). One idea that has not been entertained is the potential synergistic relation between personality traits and social environmental factors. It may be the case that the combination of certain personality traits and certain social conditions creates a potent cocktail of factors that either promotes or undermines specific outcomes. Finally, certain social contexts may wash out the effect of individual difference factors, and, in turn, people possessing certain personality characteristics may be resilient to seemingly toxic environmental influences. A systematic understanding of the relations between personality traits and social environmental factors associated with important life outcomes would be very helpful.

Third, the present results drive home the point that we need to know much more about the development of personality traits at all stages in the life course. How does a person arrive in adulthood as an optimistic or conscientious person? If personality traits affect the ways that individuals negotiate the tasks they face across the course of their lives, then the processes contributing to the development of those traits are worthy of study ( Caspi & Shiner, 2006 ; Caspi & Shiner, in press ; Rothbart & Bates, 2006 ). However, there has been a tendency in personality and developmental research to focus on personality traits as the causes of various outcomes without fully considering personality differences as an outcome worthy of study ( Roberts, 2005 ). In contrast, research shows that personality traits continue to change in adulthood (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ) and that these changes may be important for health and mortality. For example, changes in personality traits such as Neuroticism have been linked to poor health outcomes and even mortality ( Mroczek & Spiro, 2007 ).

Fourth, our results raise fundamental questions about how personality should be addressed in prevention and intervention efforts. Skeptical readers may doubt the relevance of the present results for prevention and intervention in light of the common assumption that personality is highly stable and immutable. However, personality traits do change in adulthood ( Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ) and can be changed through therapeutic intervention ( De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006 ). Therefore, one possibility would be to focus on socializing factors that may affect changes in personality traits, as the resulting changes would then be leveraged across multiple domains of life. Further, the findings for personality traits should be of considerable interest to professionals dedicated to promoting healthy, happy marriages and socioeconomic success. Some individuals will clearly be at a heightened risk of problems in these life domains, and it may be possible to target prevention and intervention efforts to the subsets of individuals at the greatest risk. Such research can likewise inform the processes that need to be targeted in prevention and intervention. As we gain greater understanding of how personality exerts its effects on adaptation, we will achieve new insights into the most relevant processes to change. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that it may be possible to improve individuals’ lives by targeting those processes without directly changing the personality traits driving those processes (e.g., see Rapee, Kennedy, Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005 , for an interesting example of how this may occur). In all prevention and intervention work, it will be important to attend to the possibility that most personality traits can have positive or negative effects, depending on the outcomes in question, the presence of other psychological attributes, and the environmental context ( Caspi & Shiner, 2006 ; Shiner, 2005 ).

Personality research has had a contentious history, and there are still vestiges of doubt about the importance of personality traits. We thus reviewed the comparative predictive validity of personality traits, SES, and IQ across three objective criteria: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. We found that personality traits are just as important as SES and IQ in predicting these important life outcomes. We believe these metaanalytic findings should quell lingering doubts. The closing of a chapter in the history of personality psychology is also an opportunity to open a new chapter. We thus invite new research to test and document how personality traits “work” to shape life outcomes. A useful lead may be taken from cognate research on social disparities in health ( Adler & Snibbe, 2003 ). Just as researchers are seeking to understand how SES “gets under the skin” to influence health, personality researchers need to partner with other branches of psychology to understand how personality traits “get outside the skin” to influence important life outcomes.

Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on divorce. Error bars represent standard error.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by National Institute of Aging Grants AG19414 and AG20048; National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH49414, MH45070, MH49227; United Kingdom Medical Research Council Grant G0100527; and by grants from the Colgate Research Council. We would like to thank Howard Friedman, David Funder, George Davie Smth, Ian Deary, Chris Fraley, Linda Gottfredson, Josh Jackson, and Ben Karney for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

1 This situation is in no way particular to epidemiological or medical studies using odds, rate, and hazard ratios as outcomes. The field of psychology reports results in a Babylonian array of test statistics and effect sizes also.

2 The population effects for the rate ratio and correlation metric were not based on identical data because in some cases the authors did not report rate ratio information or did not report enough information to compute a rate ratio and a CI.

3 Most of the studies of SES and mortality were compiled from an exhaustive review of the literature on the effect of childhood SES and mortality ( Galobardes et al., 2004 ). We added several of the largest studies examining the effect of adult SES on mortality (e.g., Steenland et al., 2002 ), and to these we added the results from the studies on cognitive ability and personality that reported SES effects. We also did standard electronic literature searches using the terms socioeconomic status, cognitive ability , and all-cause mortality . We also examined the reference sections from the list of studies and searched for papers that cited these studies. Experts in the field of epidemiology were also contacted and asked to identify missing studies. The resulting SES data base is representative of the field, and as the effects are based on over 3 million data points, the effect sizes and CIs are very stable. The studies of cognitive ability and mortality represent all of the studies found that reported usable data.

4 We identified studies through electronic searches that included the terms personality traits, extroversion, agreeableness, hostility, conscientiousness, emotional stability, neuroticism, openness to experience , and all-cause mortality . We also identified studies through reference sections of the list of studies and through studies that cited each study. A number of studies were not included in this review because we focused on studies that were prospective and controlled for background factors.

5 We did not examine the domain of Openness to Experience because there were only two studies that tested the association with mortality.

6 We identified studies using electronic searches including the terms divorce, socioeconomic status , and cognitive ability . We also identified studies through examining the reference sections of the studies and through studies that cited each study.

7 We did not transform the standardized beta weights into the correlation metric because almost all authors failed to provide the necessary information for the transformation (CIs or standard errors). Therefore, we averaged the results in the beta weight metric instead. As the sampling distribution of beta weights is unknown, we used the formula for the standard error of the partial correlation (√ N −k−2) to estimate CIs.

8 In making comparisons between correlations and regression weights, it should be kept in mind that although the two are identical for orthogonal predictors, most regression weights tend to be smaller than the corresponding zero-order validity correlations because of predictor redundancy (R.A. Peterson & Brown, 2005 ).

• Abas M, Hotopf M, Prince M. Depression and mortality in a high-risk population. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2002; 181 :123–128. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abelson RP. A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin. 1985; 97 :129–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ackerman PL, Heggestad ED. Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 121 :219–245. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adler NE, Boyce T, Chesney MA, Cohen S, Folkman S, Kahn RL, Syme SL. Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :15–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adler NE, Snibbe AC. The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2003; 12 :119–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison PJ, Guichard C, Fung K, Gilain L. Dispositional optimism predicts survival status 1 year after diagnosis in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003; 21 :543–548. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almada SJ, Zonderman AB, Shekelle RB, Dyer AR, Daviglus ML, Costa PT, Stamler J. Neuroticism and cynicism and risk of death in middle-aged men: The Western Electric Study. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1991; 53 :165–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Rogers SJ. A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997; 59 :612–624. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review. 1999; 106 :529–550. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton MC. Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19 :289–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of personality. In: Pervin LA, John OR, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 154–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. Hostility, CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1983; 45 :59–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Dodge KA, Peterson BL, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. The Cook-Medley hostility scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1989; 51 :46–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Larsen S, von der Lieth L, Schroll M. Hostility, incidence of acute myocardial infarction, and mortality in a sample of older Danish men and women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1995; 142 :477–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Maynard KE, Beckham JC, Brummett BH, Hooker K, Siegler IC. Trust, health, and longevity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1998; 21 :517–526. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot JC, Siegler IC, Nowlin JB, Peterson BL, Haney TL, Williams RB. Suspiciousness, health, and mortality: A follow-up stuffy of 500 older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1987; 49 :450–457. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassuk SS, Berkman LF, Amick BC. Socioeconomic status and mortality among the elderly: Findings from four U.S. Communities. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 155 :520–533. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beebe-Dimmer J, Lynch JW, Turrell G, Lustgarten S, Raghunathan T, Kaplan GA. Childhood and adult socioeconomic conditions and 31-year mortality risk in women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 159 :481–490. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell NE, Staw BM. People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In: Arthur MB, Hall DT, Lawrence BS, editors. Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. pp. 232–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1978; 46 :1053–1070. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health. Social Science Medicine. 2000; 51 :843–857. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch SH, Ladd GW. Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology. 1998; 34 :934–946. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau PM, Duncan OD. The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130 :887–919. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolger N, Zuckerman A. A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :890–902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornstein RF. Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment. 1999; 11 :48–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosworth HB, Schaie KW. Survival effects in cognitive function, cognitive style, and sociodemographic variables in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Experimental Aging Research. 1999; 25 :121–139. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Barefoot JC. Hostility, age, and mortality in a sample of cardiac patients. American Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 96 :64–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Helms MJ, Barefoot JC. Hostility as a predictor of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2004; 66 :629–632. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53 :371–399. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bucher HC, Ragland DR. Socioeconomic indicators and mortality from coronary heart disease and cancer: A 22-year follow-up of middle-aged men. American Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85 :1231–1236. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cairns RB, Cairns BD. Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology. 1987; 23 :308–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology. 1988; 24 :824–831. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner R. Personality development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2005; 56 :453–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Shiner RL. Personality development. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 300–365. (Vol. Ed.) [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Shiner RL. Temperament and personality. In: Rutter M, Bishop D, Pine D, Scott S, Stevenson J, Taylor E, Thapar A, editors. Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry. 5th ed. London: Blackwell; (in press) [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Wright BR, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Preview. 1998; 63 :424–451. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christensen AJ, Ehlers SL, Wiebe JS, Moran PJ, Raichle K, Ferneyhough K, Lawton WJ. Patient personality and mortality: A 4-year prospective examination of chronic renal insufficiency. Health Psychology. 2002; 21 :315–320. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Claussen B, Davey-Smith G, Thelle D. Impact of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position on cause specific mortality: The Oslo Mortality Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003; 57 :40–45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. 2005 May; Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf .
• Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003a; 65 :652–657. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Sociability and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychological Science. 2003b; 14 :389–395. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :175–199. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Contrada RJ, Cather C, O’Leary A. Personality and health: Dispositions and processes in disease susceptibility and adaptation to illness. In: Pervin LA, John OR, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 576–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook KW, Vance CA, Spector RE. The relation of candidate personality with selection-interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2000; 30 :867–885. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis S, Southall H, Congdon P, Dodgeon B. Area effects on health variation over the life-course: Analysis of the longitudinal study sample in England using new data on are of residence in childhood. Social Science & Medicine. 2004; 58 :57–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danner DD, Snowden DA, Friesen WV. Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the Nun Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :804–813. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, Hole D. Adverse socioeconomic conditions in childhood and cause specific adult mortality: Prospective observational study. British Medical Journal. 1998; 316 :1631–1635. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deary IJ, Batty D, Gottfredson LS. Human hierarchies, health, and IQ: Comment. Science. 2005; 309 :703. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deary IJ, Der G. Reaction time explains IQ’s association with death. Psychological Science. 2005; 16 :64–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Fruyt F, Denollet J. Type D personality: A five-factor model perspective. Psychology and Health. 2002; 17 :671–683. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Bagby RM, Rolland J, Rouillon F. Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological Assessment. 2006; 18 :71–80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denollet J, Sys SU, Stroobant N, Rombouts H, Gillebert TC, Brutsaert DL. Personality as independent predictor of long-term mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1996; 347 :417–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnellan MB, Conger RD, Bryant CM. The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality. 2004; 38 :481–504. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doornbos G, Kromhout D. Educational level and mortality in a 32-year follow-up study of 18-year old men in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1990; 19 :374–379. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eid M, Diener E. Handbook of psychological assessment: A multimethod perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erez A, Judge TA. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86 :1270–1279. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Everson SA, Kauhanen J, Kaplan GA, Goldberg DE, Julkunen J, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT. Hostility and increased risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction: The mediating role of behavioral risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1997; 146 :142–152. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Shannon FT. A proportional hazards model of family breakdown. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1984; 46 :539–549. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiscella K, Franks P. Individual income, income inequality, health, and mortality: What are the relationships? Health Services Research. 2000; 35 :307–318. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman HS. Long-term relations of personality and health: Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :1089–1108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Schwartz JE, Wingard DL, Criqui MH. Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 65 :176–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funder DC. The personality puzzle. New York: Norton; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44 :107–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallo LC, Matthews KA. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :10–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Smith GD. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific mortality in adulthood: Systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2004; 26 :7–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ganguli M, Dodge HH, Mulsant BH. Rates and predictors of mortality in an aging, rural, community-based cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002; 59 :1046–1052. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giltay EJ, Geleijnse JM, Zitman EG, Hoekstra T, Schouten EG. Dispositional optimism and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004; 61 :1126–1135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg LR. The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In: Funder DC, Parke RD, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Widaman K, editors. Studying lives through time: Personality and development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993a. pp. 169–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist. 1993b; 48 :26–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson GD, Jones EM, Holland JL. Personality and vocational interests: The relation of Holland’s six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1993; 40 :518–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM. What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM, Coan J, Carrere S, Swanson C. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998; 60 :5–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossarth-Maticek R, Bastianns J, Kanazir DT. Psychosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality from cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1985; 29 :167–176. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haller AO, Portes A. Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education. 1973; 46 :51–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardarson T, Gardarsdottir M, Gudmundsson KT, Thorgeirsson G, Sigvaldason H, Sigfusson N. The relationship between educational level and mortality: The Reykjavik Study. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2001; 249 :495–502. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harms PD, Roberts BW, Winter D. Becoming the Harvard man: Person-environment fit, personality development, and academic success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006; 32 :851–865. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart CL, Taylor MD, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Starr JM, Hole DJ, et al. Childhood IQ, social class, deprivation, and their relationships with mortality and morbidity risk in later life: Prospective observational study linking the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan Studies. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003; 65 :877–883. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser RM, Tsai S, Sewell WH. A model of stratification with response error in social and psychological variables. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56 :20–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hearn MD, Murray DM, Luepker RV. Hostility, coronary heart disease, and total mortality: A 33-year follow-up study of university students. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1989; 12 :105–121. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helson R. [Unpublished data from the Mills Longitudinal Study] Berkeley: University of California; 2006. Unpublished raw data. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helson R, Roberts BW. Personality of young adult couples and wives’ work patterns. Journal of Personality. 1992; 60 :575–597. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helson R, Roberts BW, Agronick G. Enduringness and change in creative personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :1173–1183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist. 2003; 58 :78–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heslop P, Smith GD, Macleod J, Hart C. The socioeconomic position of employed women, risk factors and mortality. Social Science and Medicine. 2001; 53 :477–485. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirokawa K, Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Shimizu H. The relationships of a rationality/antiemotionality personality scale to mortalities of cancer and cardiovascular disease in a community population in Japan. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2004; 56 :103–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan J, Holland B. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 :100–112. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holley P, Yabiku S, Benin M. The relationship between intelligence and divorce. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27 :1723–1748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollis JF, Connett JE, Stevens VJ, Greenlick MR. Stressful life events, Type A behavior, and the prediction of cardiovascular and total mortality over six years. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1990; 13 :263–280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hosegood V, Campbell OMR. Body mass index, height, weight, arm circumference, and mortality in rural Bangladeshi women: A 19-year longitudinal study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003; 77 :341–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurtz GM, Donovan JJ. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85 :869–879. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, George LJ. The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :237–252. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iribarren C, Jacobs DR, Kiefe CI, Lewis CE, Matthews KA, Roseman JM, Hulley SB. Causes and demographic, medical, lifestyle and psychosocial predictors of premature mortality: the CARDIA study. Social Science & Medicine. 2005; 60 :471–482. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jalovaara M. Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991–1993. Population Studies. 2001; 55 :119–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jencks C, Crouse J, Mueser P. The Wisconsin model of status attainment: A national replication with improved measures of ability and aspiration. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56 :3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality. 2001; 69 :323–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jockin V, McGue M, Lykken DT. Personality and divorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 71 :288–299. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson W, Krueger RF. How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90 :680–691. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :765–780. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR. The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology. 1999; 52 :621–652. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :797–807. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan GA, Wilson TW, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wu M, Salonen JT. Social functioning and overall mortality: Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Epidemiology. 1994; 5 :495–500. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 118 :3–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52 :27–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenford SL, Smith SS, Wetter DW, Jorenby DE, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Predicting relapse back to smoking: Contrasting affective and physical models of dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2002; 70 :216–227. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khang Y, Kim HR. Explaining socioeconomic inequality in mortality among South Koreans: An examination of multiple pathways in a nationally representative longitudinal study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 34 :630–637. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kinnunen U, Pulkkinen L. Childhood socio-emotional characteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality. European Psychologist. 2003; 8 :223–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokko K, Bergman LR, Pulkkinen L. Child personality characteristics and selection into long-term unemployment in Finnish and Swedish longitudinal samples. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2003; 27 :134–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokko K, Pulkkinen L. Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and some protective factors. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36 :463–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korten AE, Jorm AF, Jaio Z, Letenneur L, Jacomb PA, Henderson AS, et al. Health, cognitive, and psychosocial factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community sample. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999; 53 :83–88. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J, Rose RJ, Kesaniemi A, Sarna S, Heikkila K, Langinvainio H. Hostility as a risk factor for mortality and ischemic heart disease in men. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1988; 50 :330–340. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh D, Hardy R, Langenberg C, Richards M, Wadsworth MEJ. Mortality in adults aged 26–54 years related to socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood: Post war birth cohort study. British Medical Journal. 2002; 325 :1076–1080. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh D, Maclean M. Women’s childhood experience of parental separation and their subsequent health and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Journal of Biosocial Science. 1990; 22 :121–135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh D, Richards M, Hardy R, Butterworth S, Wadsworth MEJ. Childhood cognitive ability and deaths up until middle age: A post-war birth cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 :408–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel NR, Crede M, Thomas LL. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2007; 6 :51–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127 :162–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 86 :148–161. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64 :221–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998; 279 :1703–1708. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence E, Bradbury TN. Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15 :135–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee WE, Wadsorth MEJ, Hotopf M. The protective role of trait anxiety: S longitudinal cohort study. Psychological Medicine. 2006; 36 :345–351. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LePine JA, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Hedlund J. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g . Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997; 82 :803–811. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis M. Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12 :67–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loeb J. The personality factor in divorce. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1966; 30 :562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lund R, Holstein BE, Osler M. Marital history from age 15 to 40 years and subsequent 10-year mortality: A longitudinal study of Danish males born in 1953. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 :389–397. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luster T, McAdoo H. Family and child influences on educational attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool data. Developmental Psychology. 1996; 32 :26–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wilson TW, Smith NL, Salonen JT. Childhood and adult socioeconomic status as predictors of mortality in Finland. Lancet. 1994; 343 :424–527. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maier H, Smith J. Psychological predictors of mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1999; 54B :44–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin LT, Friedman HS. Comparing personality scales across time: An illustrative study of validity and consistency in life-span archival data. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :85–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin LT, Kubzansky LD. Childhood cognitive performance and risk of mortality: A prospective cohort study of gifted individuals. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 162 :887–890. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maruta T, Colligan RC, Malinchoc M, Offord KP. Optimists vs. pessimists: Survival rate among medical patients over a 30-year period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2000; 75 :140–143. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maruta T, Hamburgen ME, Jennings CA, Offord KP, Colligan RC, Frye RL, Malinchoc M. Keeping hostility in perspective: Coronary heart disease and the hostility scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1993; 68 :109–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer JD. A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology? American Psychologist. 2005; 60 :294–307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarron P, Gunnell D, Harrison GL, Okasha M, Davey-Smith G. Temperament in young adulthood and later mortality: Prospective observational study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003; 57 :888–892. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCranie EW, Kahan J. Personality and multiple divorce. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1986; 174 :161–164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrainie EW, Watkins LO, Brandsma JM, Sisson BD. Hostility, coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence, and total mortality: Lack of association in a 25-year follow-up study of 478 physicians. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1986; 9 :119–125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meehl RE. High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1971; 77 :143–148. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mershon B, Gorsuch RL. Number of factors in personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 55 :675–680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde LD, Kay GG, Moreland KL, Dies RR, et al. Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist. 2001; 56 :128–165. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller GE, Cohen S, Rabin BS, Skoner DR, Doyle WJ. Personality and tonic cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune parameters. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 1999; 13 :109–123. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mroczek DK, Spiro A. Personality change influences mortality in older men. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :371–376. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murberg TA, Bru E, Aarsland T. Personality as predictor of mortality among patients with congestive heart failure: A two-year follow-up study. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001; 30 :749–757. [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers DG. The American paradox: Spiritual hunger in an age of plenty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orbuch TL, Veroff J, Hassan H, Horrocks J. Who will divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of black couples and white couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2002; 19 :179–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osler M, Andersen AN, Due P, Lund R, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE. Socioeconomic position in early life, birth weight, childhood cognitive function, and adult mortality. A longitudinal study of Danish men born in 1953. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. 2003; 57 :681–686. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osler M, Prescott E, Gronbaek M, Christensen U, Due P, Enghorn G. Income inequality, individual income, and mortality in Danish adults: Analysis of pooled data from two cohort studies. British Medical Journal. 2002; 324 :1–4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozer DJ, Benet-Martinez V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006; 57 :401–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul AM. The cult of personality. New York: Free Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paunonen SV. Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74 :538–556. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paunonen SV, Ashton MC. Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81 :524–539. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pervin LA, John OP. Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson C, Seligman MER, Yurko KH, Martin LR, Friedman HS. Catastrophizing and untimely death. Psychological Science. 1998; 2 :127–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson RA, Brown SR. On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90 :175–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131 :925–971. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pudaric S, Sundquist J, Johansson S. Country of birth, instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated health and mortality: A Swedish population-based survey of people aged 55–74. Social Science and Medicine. 2003; 56 :2439–2503. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rapee RM, Kennedy S, Ingram M, Edwards S, Sweeney L. Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in inhibited preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005; 73 :488–497. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiss HT, Capobianco A, Tsai FT. Finding the person in personal relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70 :813–850. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW. Blessings, banes, and possibilities in the study of childhood personality. Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51 :367–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW. Personality development and organizational behavior. In: Staw BM, editor. Research on organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press; 2006. pp. 1–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Bogg T. A 30-year longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness-related traits, and the family structure and health-behavior factors that affect health. Journal of Personality. 2004; 72 :325–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Caspi A, Moffitt T. Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84 :582–593. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Robins RW. Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of the Big Five dimensions and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26 :1284–1296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Walton K, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2006; 132 :1–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts BW, Wood D. Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In: Mroczek D, Little T, editors. Handbook of personality development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 11–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of a relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 79 :251–259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. It’s not just who you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70 :925–964. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roisman GE, Masten AS, Coatsworth D, Tellegen A. Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development. 2004; 75 :123–133. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist. 1990; 45 :775–777. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical research. In: Bicman L, editor. Validity and social experimentation: Don Campbell’s legacy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2000. pp. 121–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. R equivalent : A simple effect size indicator. Psychological Methods. 2003; 8 :492–496. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross L, Nisbett RE. The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbart MK, Bates JE. Temperament. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 99–166. (Vol. Ed.) [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozanski A, Blumenthal JA, Kaplan J. Impact of psychological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease and implications for therapy. Circulation. 1999; 99 :2192–2217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapolsky RM. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science. 2005; 308 :648–652. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarason IG, Smith RE, Diener E. Personality research: Components of variance attributable to the person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975; 32 :199–204. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saucier G. An alternative multi-language structure for personality attributes. European Journal of Personality. 2003; 76 :179–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaie KW. The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :304–313. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheier MF, Carver CS. On the power of positive thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1993; 2 :26–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 124 :262–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulz R, Bookwala J, Knapp JE, Scheier M, Williamson GM. Pessimism, age, and cancer mortality. Psychology and Aging. 1996; 11 :304–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Crant JM. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology. 2001; 54 :845–874. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. The educational and early occupational process. American Sociological Review. 1969; 34 :82–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. 1980; 1 :59–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The influence of The American Occupational Structure on the Wisconsin model. Contemporary Sociology. 1992; 21 :598–603. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shiner RL. An emerging developmental science of personality: Current progress and future prospects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51 :379–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shipley BA, Der G, Taylor MD, Deary IJ. Cognition and all-cause mortality across the entire adult age range: Health and lifestyle survey. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2006; 68 :17–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skolnick A. Married lives: Longitudinal perspectives on marriage. In: Eichorn DH, Clausen JA, Haan N, Honzik MP, Mussen PH, editors. Present and past in midlife. New York: Academic Press; 1981. pp. 270–300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith AW, Meitz JEG. Vanishing supermoms and other trends in marital dissolution, 1969–1978. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1985; 47 :53–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TW. Personality as risk and resilience in physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2006; 15 :227–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TW, Gallo L. Personality traits as risk factors for physical illness. In: Baum A, Evenson T, Singer J, editors. Handbook of health psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 139–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder M, Stukas A. Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999; 50 :273–303. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steenland K, Henley J, Thun M. All-cause and cause-specific death rates by educational status for two million people in two American Cancer Society cohorts, 1959–1996. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 156 :11–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• St. John PD, Montgomery PR, Kristjansson B, McDowell I. Cognitive scores, even with the normal range, predict death and institutionalization. Age and Ageing. 2002; 31 :373–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suls J, Martin R. The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality. 2005; 73 :1485–1509. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Day NE, Khaw K. Prospective cohort study of hostility and the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. International Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 100 :155–161. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Khaw K, Day NE. Sense of coherence and mortality in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk United Kingdom prospective cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 158 :1202–1209. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor MD, Hart CL, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Hole DJ, Wilson V, Deary IJ. Childhood IQ and marriage by mid-life: The Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 38 :1621–1630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenconi MT, Devoti G, Comelli M RIFLE Research Group. Role of socioeconomic indicators in the prediction of all causes and coronary heart disease mortality in over 12,000 men—The Italian RIFLE pooling project. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2000; 16 :565–571. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tharenou P. Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44 :1005–1017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker JS, Kressin NR, Spiro A, Ruscio J. Intrapersonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998; 15 :211–225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzeng JM, Mare RD. Labor market and socioeconomic effects on marital stability. Social Science Research. 1995; 24 :329–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vagero D, Leon D. Effect of social class in childhood and adulthood on adult mortality. Lancet. 1994; 343 :1224–1225. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson D, Hubbard B, Wiese D. General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self-and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :413–449. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiss A, Costa PT. Domain and facet personality predictors of all-cause mortality among Medicare patients aged 65 to 100. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67 :1–10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whalley LJ, Deary IJ. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. British Medical Journal. 2001; 322 :1–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Bienias JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA, Bennet DA. Negative affect and mortality in older persons. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 9 :827–835. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Gu L, Bienas JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA. Neuroticism, extraversion, and mortality in a defined population of older persons. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67 :841–845. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RS, Mendes de Leon CF, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA. Personality and mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 2004; 59 :110–116. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review. 2001; 26 :179–201. [ Google Scholar ]

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Human Interest

What Are the Personality Traits of a Taurus? A Complete Guide to the Zodiac Sign

The season of the bull arrives on April 19 and will last until May 20

Nicole Briese is a contributing writer at PEOPLE. She has been working at PEOPLE since 2022. Her work has previously appeared in Us Weekly, Brides and MTV News.

Chloe Jeong/PEOPLE

As Aries season comes to a close, Taurus season begins. Unlike its predecessor, however, which aligned with the spring equinox, Taurus’ reign comes halfway through the season.

“This zodiac sign occurs in the middle of spring,” astrologist Aliza Kelly of The Practice tells PEOPLE.

A fixed sign in astrology, Taurus is not one that’s prone to change, characterized instead by its steadfast nature. “Broadly, it would ... show up as someone who is very grounded, very loyal and very dependable,” Kelly says.

You don’t have to have Taurus in your sun sign (your birthday sign) to identify with the zodiac, either. According to the astrologer, anyone born with the constellation of Taurus in a “big three placement” of their birth chart — a.k.a. a placement in their sun, which represents the zodiac sign the sun was in when they were born; their moon , which represents the constellation the moon was in at their time of birth; or their rising , which represents the zodiac sign that was on the Eastern horizon when they were born — will have a “strong Taurian influence in their life.”

“Those Taurus qualities are gonna be ... very close to the surface in terms of the structure of [their] personality,” she adds.

Keep reading to find out more about the Taurus, its personality traits and its most and least compatible partners.

What are the Taurus dates?

In 2024, Taurus season will begin on April 19 and end on May 20, when the sun will transition into Gemini.

As Kelly explains, the start date differs from the 2023 Taurus season, which ran from April 20 to May 20. "[There are] 360 degrees in the zodiac and 365 calendar days, so there’s always gonna be a little variation,” she explains to PEOPLE.

What are the key personality traits of the Taurus?

As the first Earth sign of the zodiac, those with Taurus in their big three are often very grounded. “They like when things are stable, when things are solid, when things are reliable, steady [and] consistent,” Kelly tells PEOPLE of Taurians.

Those same traits are also what gives the bull a reputation for being what Kelly says can be perceived as “stubborn” or “hard-headed.”

As Kelly explains, there’s a reason for their obstinance. “It comes from a place of preference and not wanting to feel forced to have something taken away that they know they enjoy,” she says. “If they know that they like to go to the movies on Sunday matinees, then why would we go on Friday night? Why would we change that? There’s a method to that madness.”

In addition to craving stability, Kelly says those with Taurus in their sign are very entwined with the physical material world. “Tauruses are very committed to their physical and body experience here,” Kelly tells PEOPLE. “They’re very sensual and ... they really are connected to their sensory experiences.”

As such, Kelly says Taurus signs take their “physical wellness and their ... comforts very seriously.”

What zodiac signs are most compatible with Taurus?

According to Kelly, the most compatible signs for the bull are fellow Earth signs Virgo and Capricorn.

“All of the Earth signs share a common trait around wanting things to be ... real and rooted in reality as opposed to ... based on emotion ... or passion alone,” she says. “Because of that, the Taurus has a strong connection to the other Earth signs that also share that ... grounded sensibility.”

What zodiac signs are least compatible with Taurus?

When it comes to signs born under other elements, Kelly says that the Fire signs of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius and the Air signs of Gemini, Libra and Aquarius are the least compatible with Taurus. “[There can be] challenges with Fire and Air,” she says. “Fire is ... spontaneous. It very much moves towards its passion, towards its will, toward its desires.”

As for the Air signs, Kelly says they’re much more theoretical, intellectual and flighty than the steady Taurus would prefer.

“Both of those elements, the Air signs and the Fire signs, are not really anchored in the same way as Tauruses, which makes it a little more challenging for Taurus to be able to connect with them,” she says.

Which celebrities are Taurus?

 Gilbert Flores/Variety/Getty ; Gilbert Flores/Variety/Penske Media via Getty ; Stefanie Keenan/The Hollywood Reporter/Getty

Famous Taurians include Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson , Megan Fox , Adele , Jessica Alba , George Clooney and Channing Tatum .

Kelly calls Johnson a “very core Taurus.” “Being called ‘The Rock’ ... is just peak Taurus energy,” she says.

What should Taurians be prepared for in 2024?

During Taurus season, those with the zodiac sign in their birth charts can expect to feel a sense of revitalization, regardless of where the sign may land in their chart. “When you’re in the season of your sun sign or rising sign or your moon sign, [there’s a strong influence in your chart,” Kelly explains. “There’s a sense of renewal.”

She continues: “You’re entering a beginning stage. It’s almost like the clock resets and you have a chance to establish new patterns, new habits, new intentions that support the next year.”

The 2024 Taurus season is particularly special. According to Kelly, one of the most important astrological happenings of the year takes place on April 20, when Jupiter will conjunct Uranus for the first time in 12 years. “Jupiter is the planet of luck and expansion and Uranus is the planet of breakthrough and rebellion, so this cosmic alignment ... signifies new auspicious beginnings surrounding our ability to come up with new ideas and solutions,” she says.

According to the astrologer, Taurus signs will feel the impact of this “very astutely." She explains, "Jupiter and Uranus are both in the sign of Taurus as well, so there’s a strong Taurian nature to this.”

Related Articles

15 Clashing Personality Traits That Make Couples Totally Incompatible

Posted: February 3, 2024 | Last updated: February 3, 2024

1. The Committer vs. Eternal Bachelor

2. The Problem-Solver vs. The Problem Avoider

3. The Neat Freak vs. The Messy

4. The Risk-Taker vs. The Safety-Seeker

5. The Traditionalist vs. The Innovator

6. The Emotional Expresser vs. The Reserved

7. The Pessimist vs. The Optimist

8. The Tech Wizard vs. The Tech-Challenged

9. The High Energy vs. The Laid-Back

10. The Extrovert vs. The Introvert

11. The Dreamer vs. The Realist

12. The Intellectual vs. The Practical

13. The Saver vs. The Spender

14. The Social Butterfly vs. The Homebody

15. The Planner vs. The Spontaneous

More for you.

Grammy-winning American Idol star Mandisa dies aged 47

Donald Trump Could Lose Secret Service Protection Under New Bill

‘CSI: Vegas' and ‘So Help Me Todd' Canceled at CBS

One of the best British spy dramas of all time is finally streaming on Netflix

Black undercover police officer beaten up by his own colleagues awarded $23.5m

Space Rock Slammed Into Moon - The Explosion Was Seen From Japan

Microsoft was recently hit by a 'Mike-rosoft' catastrophe — here's everything that transpired with insider emails and Copilot AI

Donald Trump Trial 'Much More Serious' Than Expected: Legal Analyst

5 Things You Need To Stop Doing If Your Car Has An Automatic Transmission

Iranian-American journalist blasts progressives, urges Michelle Obama, Oprah to help Iranian women

Crows vs. Ravens: 7 Ways To Tell the Corvid Cousins Apart

This Tiny Island Nation's Beaches Were Just Named the Best in the World for 2024

'FBI' Showrunner Stepping Down After 6 Seasons

20 random things that are normal in Europe but weird in the U.S.A.

Owner of Jeep and Dodge Coldly Lays Off 400 Employees by Completely Locking Them Out of Their Systems and Emails

'We got it wrong': WeightWatchers CEO on weight loss

‘It can happen again’: Judge set to preside over Trump trial delivers her toughest Jan. 6 sentence to date

People Who Don’t Show Empathy Usually Have These 18 Traits

20 TV characters who died because the actor who played them died in real life

The 25 Most Dangerous Cities to Drive In