Openness to Experience and Creative Achievement

By Scott Barry Kaufman | November 25, 2013 | 1

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email

Print

Openness to experience the drive for cognitive exploration of inner experience is

the personality trait most consistently associated with creativity.
But there are many different forms of cognitive exploration.
Just to name a few, openness to experience comprises intellectual curiosity, complex
problem solving and reasoning, imagination, artistic and aesthetic interests, and
emotional and fantasy richness.
Recent research suggests that the various forms of engagement that comprise
openness to experience can be broken down into two main aspects:
o

Intellect: cognitive engagement with abstract and semantic information

primarily through reasoning.

Openness: cognitive engagement with sensory and perceptual information.

But can we break down openness to experience even further, and are the distinctions
useful for our understanding of creative achievement?
I think so.
Four Factors of Openness to Experience

That was the main question motivating my recent paper Opening up Openness to
Experience: A Four-Factor Model and Relations to Creative Achievement in the Arts
and Sciences.
I administered multiple measures of cognitive ability, personality, and thinking styles
to 146 British high school students. I intentionally used a wide-ranging test battery,
including measures of verbal, spatial, and fluid reasoning, working memory, the NEO
Personality Inventory, Big Five Aspect Scales, and Rational-Experiential Inventory.
Using a statistical technique called the Bass-Ackwards technique, I found that
openness to experience can be most parsimoniously broken down into four factors:

Explicit Cognitive Ability: This factor consisted primarily of traditional

measures of intelligence (i.e., IQ tests), including fluid reasoning, mental rotation,
verbal analogical reasoning, and working memory. I called this factor Explicit
Cognitive Ability instead of Intelligence because I dont think that traditional
measures of intelligence do a good job capturing implicit forms of cognition. For
instance, Ive shown that implicit learning ability is not well correlated with
performance on traditional measures of intelligence (see Implicit Learning as an
Ability). This factor didnt show any relations to any personality variables other than
openness to experience.

Intellectual Engagement: The essence of this factor was a drive to engage

in ideas, rational thought, and the search for truth. Those scoring high on this factor

tended to be more industrious, assertive, and persevering dispositions associated

with goal-directed behavior. Note that there was no correlation between this factor
and compassion.
o

Affective Engagement: The essence of this factor was a preference for

using emotions, gut feelings, and empathy to make decisions. Those scoring high on
this factor tended to be more volatile, compassionate, enthusiastic, assertive, and
impulsive. In fact, the correlation between this factor and compassion was quite
high .64.

Aesthetic Engagement: The essence of this factor was a preference for

aesthetics, fantasy, and emotional absorption in artistic and cultural stimuli. A
common theme of this factor was a search for beauty. Those scoring high on this
factor tended to be more compassionate, enthusiastic, assertive, and impulsive, but
they also tended to be less conscientious particularly less industrious and orderly.
Also, this factor wasnt as strongly related to compassion as affective engagement.
Creative Achievement
Now that we have a good feel for the flavor of these four factors, lets see how they are
related to different forms of creative achievement.
I investigated ten different domains of creativity: Visual Arts, Music, Dance,
Architectural design, Creative writing, Humor, Inventions, Scientific Discovery,
Theater and film, and Culinary Arts.
Collapsing across the arts and sciences, this is what I found:

The two main factors most strongly associated with Intellect Intellectual
Engagement and Explicit Cognitive Ability were more relevant to creative
achievement in the sciences than the arts, whereas the two main factors most strongly
associated with Openness Affective Engagement and Aesthetic Engagement were

more relevant to creative achievement in the arts than the sciences. Whats more,
these results suggest that Affective Engagement may be detrimental to creative
achievement in the sciences.
Interestingly, when I considered all four factors at the same time, I found that
Intellectual Engagement was a better predictor of scientific creative achievement than
Explicit Cognitive Ability.
Implications
I think these findings have some important implications. The first thing that jumped
out at me is the importance of separating IQ from intellectual curiosity. While
Explicit Cognitive Ability and Intellectual Engagement were related, the more
important variable driving high levels of creative achievement in the sciences was
Intellectual Engagement. These findings are consistent with the work of Sophie von
Stumm and colleagues who found that a hungry mind was a core predictor of
academic achievement.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the different associations with
compassion. The two factors that were most strongly associated with compassion
Affective Engagement and Aesthetic Engagement were also the factors most
strongly associated with creative achievement in the arts. Id like to see much
more research on the linkages among openness to experience, compassion, and
creativity, including a wider range of creative domains (e.g., leadership, social
entrepreneurship).
My findings also have implications for dual-process theories of human
cognition.
In recent years, dual-process theories of cognition have become increasingly required
for explaining cognitive, personality, and social processes. Although the precise
specifications of the theories differ, there are some unifying themes.
Type 1 processes consist of a grab-bag of different (and not necessarily correlated)
processes, including affect, intuition, evolutionary evolved modules, implicit learning,
latent inhibition, and the firing of learned associations. According toKeith Stanovich
and Maggie Toplak, the defining feature of Type 1 processing is autonomy: the
execution of Type 1 processes is mandatory when their triggering stimuli are
encountered, and they are not dependent on input from high-level control systems.
In contrast, the defining feature of Type 2 processes is the ability to sustain
decoupled representationsin other words, to sustain thinking while keeping realworld representations separate from cognitive representations. According to
Stanovich and Toplak, decoupling processes enable one to distance oneself from

representations of the world so that they can be reflected upon and potentially
improved.
The results of my study suggest that Intellect Explicit Cognitive Ability and
Intellectual Engagement is more strongly related to Type 2 processing relative to
Type 1 processing, whereas Openness Affective Engagement and Aesthetic
Engagement is more strongly related to Type 1 processing relative to Type 2
processing. Although one notable exception is engagement with fantasy and
imagination, which most certainly recruits more of a balanced mix of Type 1 and Type
2 processes.
It might be fruitful for researchers to place openness to experience within this dualprocess framework.
Conclusion
These results support the need to separate different forms of cognitive engagement
when trying to predict creative achievement. Different forms of engagement are
related to different modes of information processing. Whats more, people differ in
their drive to engage in various aspects of the human experience, and these drives are
related to different forms of creative achievement.

Openness to Experience and Intellectual Ability

On Openness to Experience and the Maintenance of Intellectual Abilities
Published on November 10, 2012 by Michael Hogan, Ph.D in In One Lifespan

4
inShare

People who are high on Openness to experience are generally receptive to entertaining new and
challenging facets of cultural life, as well as personal thoughts and emotions (McCrae & Costa,
2003), and studies have reported a positive relationship between Openness to experience and
performance on tests of intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Gignac, Stough, &
Loukomitis, 2004). Specifically, in a meta-analysis of studies that examined relationships
between personality and intelligence, Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) found Openness
correlated positively with both general intelligence (r = .33) and crystallized intelligence (r = .30).
Gignac, Stough, and Loukomitis (2004) similarly reported a positive correlation between
Openness and general intelligence (r = .43).

One possibility is that Openness has a positive impact on levels of activity engagement, which in
turn may facilitate the preservation of intellectual function in old age (Ball et al., 2002).
Furthermore, in line with Ackermans theory of cognitive aging, which assumes that fluid
intelligence (or problem solving ability) cumulatively invested over time transforms into
crystallized intelligence (or knowledge) and that the intensity of investment is determined by a
persons Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE, Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Ackerman, 1994, 1996;
Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), a related possibility is that any effects of Openness and TIE on
maintenance of cognitive abilities in older adults is greater for intellectual abilities that belong to
the domain of crystallized intelligence (Ackerman, 1994).
Related Links

Intelligence, Spatial Ability, and Creativity

Openness to Experience and Intellectual Ability

Transhumanism

Three Recent Studies on Emotional Intelligence (EI)

Three Recent Studies on Emotional Intelligence (EI)

Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.
City or Zip

Find Local:

Acupuncturists

Chiropractors

Massage Therapists

Dentists

and more!
City or Zip

We recently examined the relationship between Openness to experience, activity engagement,

and cognitive change over time (i.e., across three waves of the Aberdeen Longitudinal Study)
using latent growth modeling (LGM). We controlled for the effects of childhood intelligence (age
11 years) and other dimensions of personality in this analysis. Consistent with previous research
and theory, we investigated five related hypotheses: (1) that Openness would predict higher
scores on tests of cognitive ability (LGM intercept) in older adults; (2) that a positive relationship
between Openness and cognitive ability (intercept) in older adults would be mediated in part by
activity engagement; (3) that age-related cognitive decline (LGM slope), if present, would be
lower in older adults who reported both higher Openness and higher activity engagement and
that the positive effect of openness on the rate of cognitive decline would be mediated in part by
higher activity engagement; (4) that the positive effects of high activity engagement on cognitive
ability (LGM intercept and slope) would be greater for measures of crystallized intelligence (i.e.,
reading ability) when compared with measures of fluid intelligence (i.e., inductive
reasoning, memory, and speed of processing); (5) that the positive effects of Openness and
activity on cognitive ability (LGM intercept and slope) would be significant even after controlling

for individual differences in childhood intelligence and individual differences in Neuroticism,

Agreeableness,Conscientiousness, and Extraversion.
Adults from the local community who were born in 1936 were recruited between 2000 and 2001.
All had participated in the Scottish Mental Survey of 1947 when about 95% of children born in
1936 and at school in Scotland on 1st June 1947 were tested using the Moray House Test
(Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1949). Participants were assessed across three
testing occasions from 2000 to 2005 when aged 64 to 68 years. Data for 406 participants were
included in the current analysis (see Whalley et al., 2011, for a detailed description of the
sample).
Notably, we found evidence in favor of four of the five hypotheses proposed. Specifically, higher
Openness predicted better performance on three of the four tests of cognitive ability included in
the study; the positive relationship between Openness and reading ability was mediated in part
by activity engagement; the positive effects of high activity engagement on cognitive ability were
greater for measures of reading ability when compared with measures of inductive reasoning,
memory, and speed of processing; and the positive effects of Openness on ability were significant
even after controlling for individual differences in childhood intelligence, Neuroticism,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion.
Ackermans theory of cognitive aging assumes that fluid intelligence cumulatively invested over
time transforms into crystallized intelligence (or knowledge) and that the intensity of investment is
determined by Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE, Ackerman, 1994, 1996; Ackerman &
Heggestad, 1997). At the same time, our results suggest that this intensity of investment may be
a function of higher Openness and higher Conscientiousness, as both Openness and
Conscientiousness predicted higher activity levels. Nevertheless, the positive effects of Openness
on performance over-and-above both childhood intelligence and activity levels in the current
study suggests that there may be some unique effects of Openness on cognitive ability in late
adulthood.
Notably, the construct of Openness to experience measures the tendency to fantasize, an
aesthetic sensitivity, awareness of ones emotions, preference for novelty, intellectual curiosity,
and preference for nontraditional values (McCrae & Costa, 2003). As such, Openness is broader
in scope than TIE (Ackerman, 1996), which measures individuals intellectual curiosity and
preference to engage in cognitively demanding or challenging leisure tasks and activities, such as
reading, problem solving, and abstract thinking. The artistic imagination, aesthetic, independent
and nonconforming aspects of Openness (Deraad, Hendriks, & Hofstee, 1992; Johnson, 1994)
may be critical drivers of broader patterns of cognitive activity and experience that help to sustain
higher levels of cognitive complexity throughout adulthood. This is consistent with research by
Parisi and colleagues (2009) who have reported a positive relationship between self-reported
measures of alertness to novelty and intellectual complexity and performance on tests of fluid
intelligence.
The implications of our results are as follows. Overall, both Openness and activity engagement
appear related to preserved higher cognitive ability in older adults, with Openness having a direct
effect on marker tests of fluid ability and with the combined influence of both Openness and
activity being particularly important for marker tests of crystallized intelligence. Given that we did

not observe significant cognitive decline in our sample, further research and follow-up on the
Aberdeen cohort is needed to clarify if higher Openness and higher levels of activity engagement
predict slower rates of cognitive decline. Further empirical and theoretical work is also needed to
better understand the mechanisms through which openness positively influences cognitive ability.
To the extent that openness is amenable to experimental manipulation, researchers can begin to
investigate specific mechanisms through which openness influences cognitive ability. This
research may also have implications for the future development of cognitive training programmes
for older adults. For example, the preference for novelty which is a defining feature of openness
may be akin to what Ellen Langer has described asmindfulness, or noticing novelty, drawing
novel distinctions, a process that is both amenable to experimental manipulation and positively
related to cognitive performance in some situations (Chanowitz & Langer, 1981). Experimental
insights can be used to inform future longitudinal research that examines, for example, the
neuroscientific basis of the link between openness to experience and cognitive ability across the
lifespan. This work will help researchers to derive a more comprehensive theory explaining the
link between openness and both fluid and crystallized intelligence.

The Knowledgeable Personality

General knowledge is most strongly related to openness to experience
Published on August 9, 2013 by Scott A. McGreal, MSc. in UniqueLike Everybody Else

This post is a response to Why There Are Sex Differences in General Knowledge by Scott A.
McGreal, MSc.
11
inShare

Individual differences in general knowledge about the world is a subject of particular interest to
researchers in personality and intelligence. Some people have argued that having fundamental
background information about ones own culture is important to success in life (Gallo & Pickel,
2005). E.D. Hirsch coined the term cultural literacy to describe having this knowledge, and
argued that comprehending written literature is very difficult without it. A number
of studies suggest that students who possess adequate general knowledge required for cultural
literacy have better educational and occupational outcomes than those who are less
knowledgeable.
Related Links

The Knowledgeable Personality

Increasing Emotional Intelligence, Decreasing Procrastination

Increasing Emotional Intelligence, Decreasing Procrastination

Conservatives Are Dumber, and Smarter, Than Liberals

An Important New Genetic Study

Find a Therapist

Search for a mental health professional near you.

City or Zip

Find Local:

Acupuncturists

Chiropractors

Massage Therapists

Dentists

and more!
City or Zip

Knowledge Wins--American Library Association Advocacy during World War I

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30976576@N07/5436848814/

Some psychologists consider acquired knowledge as an important component of intelligence,

particularly in adult life. The concept ofcrystallised intelligence explicitly includes how much
information a person has acquired in their life, and a number of IQ batteries, such as the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales include measures of general knowledge.
Although general knowledge is related to individual differences in intelligence, there is also
evidence relating to differences in personality traits as well. A number of different studies have
looked at correlations between general knowledge and personality traits, particularly those
belonging to the Big Five model of personality. This model comprises the five broad traits of
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,neuroticism, and openness to experience. To the
best of my knowledge, the correlations between general knowledge and big five personality traits
have been reported in eight different papers, reporting the results of 10 different studies. (A
detailed summary of the findings is provided in a table here, an earlier version of this article). One
of these studies (Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001) examined only two of the Big Five
(openness to experience and extraversion), whereas the remaining studies reported results for all
five traits.
The trait most consistently correlated with general knowledge is openness to experience, which
had positive correlations in all ten studies. Openness to experience is known to be positively
correlated with measures of IQ and is characterised by intellectual curiosity and interest in
learning. Hence its connection with general knowledge does not seem surprising. Findings in
relation to other personality traits have been less consistent. Some researchers have proposed
that extraversion (Ackerman, et al., 2001) and neuroticism (Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, &
Ackerman, 2006) would be negatively correlated with general knowledge. Extravertedpeople with
strong social inclinations might invest less time in non-social activities associated with learning.
High neuroticism is associated with test anxiety and hence with poorer performance on ability
tests. Others (Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006) have argued thatconscientiousness might
have a relationship with general knowledge, although whether this should be positive or negative
is unclear. Research has found that conscientiousness has a modest negative relationship with
intelligence, hence people high in conscientiousness might be less knowledgeable. On the other
hand, students high in conscientiousness achieve higher grades than their less conscientious
counterparts and might be expected therefore to learn more. However, extraversion, neuroticism,
and conscientiousness have had inconsistent correlations with general knowledge across the
studies I have reviewed, as there is a mixture of positive and negative correlations for each of
them.
In order to obtain a more accurate estimate of the true correlations between each of the five
personality traits and general knowledge, I computed a weighted average of the correlations for
each study taking into account the sample size.[1] The total number of participants for all ten
studies was 1786, for the nine studies examining all of the Big Five (this excludes Ackerman et
al.) it was 1466. The results are shown in the table below.

Personality correlates of general knowledge

Created on my computer

Openness to experience is the only personality trait with a substantial correlation with general
knowledge. Correlations of about .30 are generally considered to be of moderate strength,
although it has been suggested that they are actually large compared to most effects found in
psychology studies (Richard, Bond Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, 2003). Extraversion and neuroticism had
quite small negative correlations. These are in the direction predicted by Ackerman et al. (2001)
and Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2006) but the effect sizes are much smaller than expected.
Conscientiousness has a very small positive effect, suggesting that it tends to be an inconsistent
predictor at best. The effect of agreeableness is negligible.
Nine of the ten studies used tests designed to assess knowledge in a wide spectrum of nonspecialist domains. However, the study by Ackerman et al. assessed more specialised forms of
knowledge, specifically from 19 domains of academic study encompassing sciences, humanities,
and civics. In this study, general knowledge was defined as a composite of these 19 domains.
From this it appears that the general knowledge assessed in this study was of a more
specialised and advanced type than that tested in the other nine studies. Interestingly, the
correlation found for extraversion in the Ackerman et al. study was substantially larger (r = -.24)
than the correlations for extraversion in the other nine studies. When I excluded this study from
my analysis, the weighted mean correlation between extraversion and general knowledge
became almost negligible (r = -.02), whereas the correlation between openness to experience
and general knowledge barely changed (r = .31).
These results indicate that as far as the Big Five are concerned, characteristics associated with
openness to experience, such as general curiosity and enjoyment of the life of the mind, are the
most relevant to how much knowledge of the world a person acquires. Traits such as sociability
(extraversion), emotional stability (low neuroticism), and achievement orientation
(conscientiousness) appear to be much less important. When considering the findings of the
study by Ackerman et al., it seems possible that extraversion might be unrelated to relatively nonspecialised forms of knowledge, but becomes somewhat more important when considering more
advanced levels of knowledge usually acquired with special study. That is, people who are highly
extraverted may have as much non-specialist knowledge as the average person, but acquire less
knowledge at a university level than their more introvertedcounterparts. Studies comparing nonspecialist and more advanced forms of knowledge within the same samples would help to resolve
this issue.
Results from quite a number of previous studies found substantial genderdifferences in general
knowledge, with men tending to have greater knowledge than women (e.g. Ackerman, Bowen,
Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Furnham, Christopher, Garwood, & Martin, 2007; Gallo & Pickel,
2005; Lynn, Irwing, & Cammock, 2002). The results presented here would suggest that the

reason for gender differences in general knowledge probably lie outside the big five personality
traits. Women tend to score higher than men in neuroticism and to a lesser extent extraversion
and conscientiousness (Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008) but the correlations between
these traits and general knowledge appear far too small to account for the substantial gender
difference in general knowledge. Furthermore, men and women do not tend to differ on their
overall scores on openness to experience.
Openness to experience is usually considered to consist of a number of narrower facets,
including openness to ideas, values, feelings, aesthetics, actions, and fantasy. There is evidence
that men tend to be higher on openness to ideas whist women tend to be higher on openness to
feelings (Schmitt, et al., 2008). Whether or not openness to ideas is more strongly related to
general knowledge than the other facets has never been examined. Openness to ideas has a
very strong conceptual similarity to a construct called typical intellectual engagement (Mussell,
2010). A number of studies (Chamorro-Premuzic, et al., 2006; Furnham, et al., 2009; Furnham, et
al., 2008) found that typical intellectual engagement had positive correlations with general
knowledge. However, a study by Furnham et al. (2008) found that overall openness to experience
was a stronger predictor of general knowledge than the narrower trait of typical intellectual
engagement. This finding might indicate that the broad tendency to be open to new experiences
generally, rather than a specific facet of openness, supports the acquisition of general knowledge.
In a previous post I argued that gender differences in general knowledge may be related to a
greater male interest in things as opposed to a greater female interest in people. Elsewhere I
have suggested that gender stereotypes could play a role as well. Future research could explore
the respective contributions of gender typical interests, stereotypes, and possible differences in
openness facets to sex differences in general knowledge.

Why Are Older People More Conservative?

Decoding the politics of aging.
Published on October 11, 2014 by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Ph.D. in Mr. Personality

824
inShare

Older and younger generations have always clashed about values. Typically, these clashes result
from younger people being more liberal, and older people more conservative. This is somewhat
ironic since older people were also quite liberal when they were young, and younger people will
become more conservative when they grow old. So what explains age differences in
conservatism, and why do people become more right wing, authoritarian, and rigid as they age?
The first reason is personality. Indeed, a review of 92 scientific studies shows that intellectual
curiosity tends to decline in old age, and that this decline explains age-related increases in
conservatism. At any age, people differ in their typical levels of curiosity, and these differences
have been attributed to the broader personality trait of Openness to Experience. Higher levels of
Openness have been associated not only with aesthetic and cultural interests, but also with a
general tendency to seek emotionally stimulating and adrenalizing activities (e.g., from scuba
diving to bungee jumping; from drugs to unprotected sex). Furthermore, open people are also

more likely to display counter-conformist attitudes, challenge the status quo and disrespect
authority. Although these qualities make high Openness a potential threat to society, Openness is
also the source of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as an intellectual antidote
to totalitarianism, injustice and prejudice.
Related Links

Wisdom of the Aged

How to Live to 110

Getting Older

Grappling With Aging

Do You Know Your Fitness Age?

Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.
City or Zip

Find Local:

Acupuncturists

Chiropractors

Massage Therapists

Dentists

and more!
City or Zip

The second is judgment, in particular information-processing capacity. In most people (and Im

sorry to break the news) the speed of information-processing, a core ingredient of judgment
and intelligence, peaks around the mid 20s. To make matters worse, most people become
considerably slower after their mid 40s, with a substantial deceleration after their 60s. The good
news, however, is that slower does not necessarily mean dumber. In fact, older people are better
able to rely on knowledge, experience and expertise, so they are not as affected by slower
information-processing capacity. However, in order to retrieve knowledge more efficiently it is
essential that they economize thinking, and seeing things in more categorical or black-or-white
terms does make for more frugal and efficient thinking. In line, a review of 88 studies in 12
countries shows that older people are generally less tolerant of ambiguity, and have a higher
need for closure and structure. This is often manifested by their stronger set of principles and
rules, and a tendency to dismiss information that conflicts with their views. In addition, older
people are also more likely to make categorical judgments about events, things, or people. This
often involves acting in more prejudiced ways to pre-judge means to judge before really judging
because in older ages preserving old knowledge is more important than acquiring new
knowledge.
The third and final reason is familiarity. As we grow older, our experiences become more
constrained and predictable. This is partly adaptive; order and structure enable us to navigate the
world in autopilot, whereas change requires proactive adaptation, effort, and improvisation. In

fact, at any point in life change is disruptive and taxing, but it is especially stressful when we are
old. Thus, conservatism increases familiarity, which in turn increases conservatism. In
line, research has shown that in older age conservatism is positively related to self-esteem. The
implication is that remaining open minded when you are old may cause not only
counterproductive uncertainty, but also insecurity and self-doubt.
Of course, all these are just generalizations and they do not apply to all individuals, young or old.
To some extent, every individual is unique, and the developmental patterns of change and
stability in personality and political orientation will never be identical for any two individuals.
Interestingly, there is also compelling evidence for the idea that people become more
exaggerated versions of themselves when they age. In that sense, people are just like wine: the
good ones get better with age; the bad ones worse.

Gender differences in the Big Five personality development: A

longitudinal investigation from late adolescence to emerging
adulthood

Michele Vecchione, ,
Guido Alessandri,
Claudio Barbaranelli,
Gianvittorio Caprara
Show more

Choose an option to locate/access this article:

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution
Check access
Purchase $35.95

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.033
Get rights and content

Abstract
The present study aims to investigate gender differences in the mean-level change of the Big Five
from late adolescence to emerging adulthood. We analyzed longitudinal self-report data from 192
males and 211 females, using multigroup Latent Growth Modeling. Gender differences were found in
the shape of the trajectory, as well as in the mean and in the variance of the growth curve parameters
(i.e. the initial level and the rate of change). At time 1 (Age 16), females scored significantly higher on
measures of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. Males, in contrast, scored higher

than females on a measure of Emotional stability. In both males and females, Conscientiousness and
Openness increased linearly from age 16 to age 20, whereas Energy/Extraversion remained stable.
Emotional stability slightly increased in males and remained stable in females. Agreeableness
increased linearly in males and showed a quadratic trend in females, first increasing and then
declining over time. Finally, females showed higher interindividual variability than males on the
trajectories of Conscientiousness and Emotional stability.

Highlights
We assessed gender differences in the change of the Big 5 from adolescence through young
adulthood. Conscientiousness and Openness increased linearly from age 16 to age 20 in both
males and females. Energy/extraversion remained stable over the 4-year period. Emotional
stability increased in males and remained stable in females. Agreeableness increased linearly in
males, while showed a quadratic trend in females.

Dream recall frequency and openness to experience: a negative

finding

Michael Schredl,
Show more

Choose an option to locate/access this article:

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution
Check access
Purchase $35.95

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00013-2
Get rights and content

Abstract
The question of whether personality dimensions explain the interindividual differences in dream recall
frequency has often been investigated by dream researchers. Previous research has shown that traits
such as absorption, hypnotic susceptibility and thin boundaries which are related to the openness-toexperience factor of the Five-Factor-Model of personality correlate substantially with dream recall
frequency. The present study, however, was unable to demonstrate a relationship between openness
and the six facet scales and dream recall frequency. It may be hypothesized that other factors such as
visual memory, sleep behavior or creativity explain the interindividual differences in dream recall.

Associations between hallucinations and personality structure in a

non-clinical sample: Comparison between young and elderly
samples

Frank Laria, , ,
Filip DeFruytb,
Jim van Osc, d,
Andr Alemane,
Martial Van der Lindena, f
Show more

Choose an option to locate/access this article:

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution
Check access
Purchase $35.95

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.001
Get rights and content

Abstract
Few studies have explored the prevalence of hallucinations in the non-clinical, elderly population. Also,
the association between personality structure and hallucinations remains poorly investigated. The
aims of the present study were twofold. First, to explore the influence of age on the prevalence of
hallucination-proneness, and second, to examine the association between personality and
hallucination-proneness in young and elderly subjects. A sample of young (n = 230) and elderly adults
(n = 183) completed an elaborated and validated version of the LaunaySlade Hallucinations Scale
(LSHS; Lari, Marczewski, & Van der Linden, 2004) and the Five Factor Inventory version of the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa, & McCrae, 1992). Differences were found between elderly and
young subjects depending on the type of hallucination. Analyses of associations between personality
domains and hallucination-proneness revealed differing associations for the young and elderly groups.
For the young sample, there were significant associations between LSHS-scores and Openness to
Experience and Neuroticism domains. For elderly subjects, only the Openness to Experience domain
was significantly associated with LSHS-scores. Furthermore, in the young sample, Neuroticism was
significantly associated with the presence of both auditory hallucinations and vivid daydreaming.

The fifth factor in lexical studies of trait adjectives is commonly interpreted as Intellect, whereas the corresponding
factor derived from questionnaire studies is typically identified as Openness to Experience. Intellect as a construct
is problematic because it erroneously suggests an equivalence of Factor V with intelligence, describes aspects of
Factor III (Conscientiousness) as well as of Factor V, and fails to suggest the diverse psychological correlates that
Factor V is known to have. By contrast, Openness to Experience is a broader construct that implies both

receptivity to many varieties of experience and a fluid and permeable structure of consciousness. Data from
analyses of adjectives, established personality questionnaires, and Hartmann's (1991) new Boundary
Questionnaire support these interpretations. The construct of Openness can be transported across geographical
and cultural boundaries to function as a universal dimension of personality structure.