Showing posts with label Big Five. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Five. Show all posts

Monday, November 3, 2014

Cannabis Use and Psychosis: The Still Difficult Question of Causality

ResearchBlogging.org
Many studies have linked adolescent cannabis use and risk of becoming psychotic later in life. However, the question of whether cannabis use actually causes some people to become psychotic is a difficult one to answer and the evidence remains inconclusive. Although it is possible that cannabis use could be a direct cause of mental illness, it is also possible that both usage and mental illness are caused by an underlying third factor. In support of this latter theory, a recently published study comparing family history of mental illness in people with schizophrenia who either have or have not used cannabis, suggests that heavy cannabis use and risk of mental illness are both related to an underlying genetic predisposition. Furthermore, long-term studies on cannabis use have generally not considered that personality characteristics that have been linked to mental illness might also prompt a person’s decision to use drugs such as cannabis.



Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana and also by many other names, is one of the most popular recreational drugs in the world. Although many people try it without apparent ill effects, a large amount of evidence exists that individuals who engage in heavy cannabis use before the age of 18 have an increased risk of developing a psychotic mental disorder later in life (McLaren, Silins, Hutchinson, Mattick, & Hall, 2010). Testing whether or not cannabis use actually causes people to become psychotic is difficult to do, because the only truly conclusive way to do so would involve experimenting on a bunch of people and randomly assigning them to either be users or non-users for a long period of time, and assessing their mental health status before and after. Due to ethical constraints this is not possible (especially in the current climate of political correctness) so researchers have had to make do with alternative study methods. The strongest evidence for a causal role of cannabis comes from prospective cohort studies in which very large groups of people are initially assessed in regards to their mental health and drug use, preferably in adolescence, and then reassessed over a period of years. A review of 10 studies involving seven cohorts in six different countries showed that all but one of these studies found that there was an association between cannabis use and later risk of psychosis (McLaren, et al., 2010). For example, the first such study, and one the largest, assessed over 45,000 Swedish male conscripts aged 18 and then tracked how many were admitted to hospital for schizophrenia over the next 15 years. This study found that those who had used cannabis between 10 and 50 times before the age of 18 were three times more likely to be hospitalised for schizophrenia compared to non-users, while those who had used more than 50 times before age 18 had a six-fold risk compared to non-users. Several other cohort studies also found that heavier usage was associated with increased risk. To put this in perspective, schizophrenia occurs in less than 1% of the general population (van Os & Kapur, 2009), so even if with increased risk associated with heavy use, only a small minority of cannabis users would be affected.

While these prospective studies are consistent with the idea of cannabis causing later psychosis, insofar as usage preceded the development of symptoms and heavier usage was associated with higher risk, alternative explanations for the relationship between cannabis usage and psychosis cannot be ruled out. It is also possible that people who are at greater risk of becoming mentally ill are also more inclined towards cannabis usage, or that there is some third factor underlying both. For example, a limitation of the Swedish cohort study was that it did not assess whether participants who became mentally ill had also used other drugs after the age of 18, such as amphetamines, that might lead to psychotic symptoms (McLaren, Silins, Hutchinson, Mattick, & Hall, 2010). Furthermore, cohort studies mostly have not considered genetic factors or personality traits that are associated with heavy use of cannabis and with risk of psychotic disorder.[1] People who choose to engage in heavy cannabis usage might do so because they have characteristics that also predispose them to eventually become psychotic.

Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia

The authors of a recent study have argued that that the genetic/familial risk of schizophrenia is what accounts for the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia (Proal, Fleming, Galvez-Buccollini, & DeLisi, 2014). That is, cannabis use is probably not the cause of schizophrenia but itself a manifestation of the underlying genetic factors that also case schizophrenia. This study compared people diagnosed with schizophrenia, who either did or did not have a history of heavy cannabis use in adolescence prior to the onset of their illness, with two comparison groups of people who did not have schizophrenia and who either did or did not have a history of heavy cannabis use in adolescence.[2] They then determined how many people in each group had first degree relatives who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. This was done in order to assess the genetic/familial risk of schizophrenia for members of each group. If cannabis has a special causative effect in the development of psychosis that goes beyond pre-existing genetic risk, then cannabis users who had become psychotic would be expected to have a lower genetic risk compared to non-users who had become psychotic. What the authors found was that, compared to the two comparison groups, people with schizophrenia had the same elevated level of familial/genetic risk regardless of whether they had or had not used cannabis. Hence, they argued that it is the genetic risk that is most likely the cause of schizophrenia, and that cannabis use is unlikely to be the cause, although they admitted that it might hasten the onset of symptoms. Additionally, relatives of the two cannabis-using groups, had high rates of drug use in general, which is in line with research indicating that some people have a genetic predisposition to use drugs.

As well as family history of mental illness, certain psychological characteristics are associated with an increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms. Specifically, some people who are not clinically disturbed have certain tendencies that resemble mild psychotic symptoms, such as experiencing unusual perceptions (e.g. feeling that strangers can read you mind) and holding peculiar beliefs about the nature of reality (e.g. that aliens are influencing events on earth). Psychologists refer to these tendencies as schizotypy, because of their resemblance to more extreme symptoms observed in people with schizophrenia. People with high levels of schizotypy have an elevated risk of becoming fully psychotic later in life, although it is important to note that this only occurs in a minority of people with these tendencies[3] (Chapman, Chapman, Kwapil, Eckblad, & Zinser, 1994). Many research studies have found that heavy users of cannabis also tend to be high in schizotypy traits compared to non-users (Fridberg, Vollmer, O'Donnell, & Skosnik, 2011). Additionally, older users tend to have more severe schizotypy traits compared to younger users, suggesting that symptoms might increase over time in users. Once again, it is difficult to say whether having schizotypy traits predisposes people to use cannabis, or whether using cannabis increases schizotypy. It is also possible there could be a two-way relationship. However, there is some evidence that schizotypy traits in heavy users tend to emerge before they first start using. One survey of users tested this by asking participants who indicated that they had schizotypy symptoms to estimate when they first noticed them occurring, and to state when they first began to use cannabis (Schiffman, Nakamura, Earleywine, & LaBrie, 2005). In the majority of cases, participants said that they had first noticed having schizotypy symptoms a few years before ever using cannabis. Of course this does not necessarily mean that schizotypy causes people to use cannabis, but it may well be a factor. More to the point, it is possible that heavy cannabis users may have an increased risk of psychosis because they naturally tend to be higher in schizotypy traits, rather than because of their drug use. However, it is also possible that the two act in combination and may be mutually reinforcing. 

Schizotypy also tends to be associated with other personality traits that may be relevant to mental health, such as high neuroticism, and low conscientiousness and agreeableness. Neuroticism has been identified as an independent risk factor for schizophrenia in prospective studies (van Os & Jones, 2001) and for mental disorders in general (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005). Although heavy cannabis users tend to be higher in schizotypy than non-users, they do not tend to be higher on neuroticism, although they do tend to be lower than non-users in conscientiousness and agreeableness, as well as higher in openness to experience (Fridberg, et al., 2011). The majority of users, even heavy users, do not go on to develop psychotic mental disorders, so perhaps there is a particular subset of users who are most at risk. Fridberg et al. suggested that those who are not only high in schizotypy but also high in neuroticism and openness to experience as well as low in conscientiousness and agreeableness might be particularly vulnerable. People who have a family history of mental illness would also be of particular concern. 

To reiterate, determining the nature of the causal connection between cannabis use and psychosis is very difficult. It is possible that cannabis use during adolescence has a direct causal role, perhaps due to the drug’s influence on the developing brain. However, the reasons that a person chooses to take up cannabis use in the first place may reflect pre-existing risk factors for psychosis, such as such as genetic/familial risk and schizotypy traits. Future research studies should take these factors into account in order to better help identify individuals who may be at the greatest risk of harm.

Footnotes 

[1] One cohort study using a genetic test found that in heavy users with a specific genetic polymorphism had an increased risk of psychosis compared to heavy users without it (Caspi et al.). However, a later study failed to confirm this result (McLaren, et al., 2010a).
[2] The authors were careful to include only people who had not used any other illicit drugs.
[3] In fact, some people with schizotypal tendencies are otherwise well-adjusted. Schizotypy is often associated with creativity and professional artists and stand-up comedians tend to be high in these traits. 

Image Credits

Mystic Weed Rose by MorbidKittyCorpse at Deviant Art 

Schizophrenia/Internal Symmetry by Craig Finn courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Use of these artworks is permitted by the Creative Commons Licence and does not imply endorsement by the artists. 

Please consider following me on Facebook, Google Plus, or Twitter.

© Scott McGreal. Please do not reproduce without permission. Brief excerpts may be quoted as long as a link to the original article is provided. 


This article also appears on Psychology Today on my blog Unique - Like Everybody Else.

Posts I have written about psychedelic drugs (which are not linked to psychosis)


References
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Cannon, M., McClay, J., Murray, R., Harrington, H., . . . Craig, I. W. Moderation of the Effect of Adolescent-Onset Cannabis Use on Adult Psychosis by a Functional Polymorphism in the Catechol-O-Methyltransferase Gene: Longitudinal Evidence of a Gene X Environment Interaction. Biological Psychiatry, 57(10), 1117-1127. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.026 
Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., Kwapil, T. R., Eckblad, M., & Zinser, M. C. (1994). Putatively Psychosis-Prone Subjects 10 Years Later. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(2), 171-183.
Fridberg, D. J., Vollmer, J. M., O'Donnell, B. F., & Skosnik, P. D. (2011). Cannabis users differ from non-users on measures of personality and schizotypy. Psychiatry Research, 186(1), 46-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.07.035 
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Schutte, N. S. (2005). The Relationship Between the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Symptoms of Clinical Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(2), 101-114.
McLaren JA, Silins E, Hutchinson D, Mattick RP, & Hall W (2010). Assessing evidence for a causal link between cannabis and psychosis: a review of cohort studies. The International journal on drug policy, 21 (1), 10-9 PMID: 19783132
Proal, A. C., Fleming, J., Galvez-Buccollini, J. A., & DeLisi, L. E. (2014). A controlled family study of cannabis users with and without psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 152(1), 283-288.
Schiffman, J., Nakamura, B., Earleywine, M., & LaBrie, J. (2005). Symptoms of schizotypy precede cannabis use. Psychiatry Research, 134(1), 37-42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2005.01.004
van Os, J., & Jones, P. B. (2001). Neuroticism as a risk factor for schizophrenia. Psychol Med, 31, 1129 - 1134.
van Os, J., & Kapur, S. (2009). Schizophrenia. The Lancet, 374(9690), 635-645. 

Friday, December 27, 2013

Life History Strategy and the Allure of the Dark Side: Evidence against a General Factor of Personality

ResearchBlogging.org
In a previous post, I discussed evidence for and against a general factor of personality (GFP). Existing theories of personality organise personality traits in a hierarchical structure, in which a small number of broad factors, say five or six, subsume a vast number of narrower traits. Some psychologists have proposed a higher order general factor that combines all the broad traits into one super-factor composed of all the socially desirable features of personality. According to one theory, the general factor of personality represents an evolved “slow” life history strategy associated with long-term mating as opposed to a "fast" strategy associated with short-term mating. However, a recent study suggests that both slow and fast life history strategies each combine mixtures of desirable and undesirable traits. The findings of this study might help explain not only why so many people have “dark personalities” embodying socially undesirable traits, but why these traits can actually attractive. The so-called general factor of personality might represent an imagined ideal that few people embody rather than a single underlying dimension of human personality variation.   

The Dark Side has a strange allure for many people

Currently, the most widely accepted model of personality traits model is the Big Five, which consists of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, all of which are considered to be separate and distinct from each other. A more recent model which has become increasingly popular, the HEXACO, adds a sixth factor of honesty-humility to the Big Five.[1] Although they disagree about the exact number, both of these models agree that the top of the personality hierarchy consists of multiple and distinct factors. However, some psychologists, have argued that these broad factors are not actually independent and that there is higher order super-factor atop the personality hierarchy that combines all of them into one (Musek, 2007). For example, Rushton and Irwin (2011) argued that this general factor is a dimension of “good personality” as opposed to a “difficult personality”, with desirable traits manifested at one end, e.g. someone who is friendly, cooperative, relaxed, reliable, and clever compared to someone who does not get along with others, and is selfish, manipulative, irritable and dense. Studies on the GFP have found that it is positively correlated with subjective well-being, self-esteem, trait emotional intelligence, and even general intelligence apparently. Perhaps, this combination of traits should be called the “best” personality rather than merely “good”?  

Rushton and Irwing proposed that this general factor of personality reflects a single broad dimension that has been selected for in human evolution they call the K-factor. This K-factor supposedly applies to a whole range of human characteristics that are said to have co-evolved, including altruism, intelligence, attachment styles, growth, longevity, sexuality, and fecundity and which “form a coherent whole” (Rushton & Irwing, 2011). The idea of a K-factor is the basis for what is called life history theory which looks at individual differences in human reproductive strategies. According to this theory, people with a “slow” life history strategy (characterised by a preference for long-term mating) exhibit a high K-factor, whereas people with a “fast” life history strategy (characterised by a preference for short-term mating and promiscuity) exhibit a low K-factor.

According to a number of studies, slow life history strategy is associated with better mental and physical health and subjective well-being and with greater relationship satisfaction. On the other, fast life history strategy has been linked with socially undesirable characteristics, such as criminality and antisocial behaviour including sexual coercion (Sherman, Figueredo, & Funder, 2013). If this is true, then it would seem that from an evolutionary standpoint the slow strategy is desirable in every way, while the fast strategy is completely undesirable. This is problematic because if one strategy is “better” in every way, the alternative strategy should have died out long ago for failure to compete. However, the fact that so many people still utilise a fast strategy suggests that it may be adaptive under some circumstances.

In spite of the alleged global adaptive superiority of the slow strategy, there is evidence that this strategy involves costs as well as benefits and conversely that the fast strategy enjoys its own advantages, in spite of its drawbacks. This is because socially desirable behaviours are generally those that are good for other people but not necessarily oneself, while socially undesirable behaviours inflict costs on other people rather than on the self. Social norms then tend to favour behaviour that is closer to the slow end of the continuum. Hence, even though the slow strategy is desirable from the viewpoint of society, it is not always in the interests of the individual. For example, being honest and altruistic benefits society but may be costly to the individual. Conversely, lying and cheating are costly to society but may benefit the individual, at least in the short term. The slow strategy might be smarter in the long-term, but generally requires individuals to make sacrifices for the good of others.

This might be taking the slow strategy a bit too far

Recently Sherman et al. (2013) tested the idea that the slow and fast strategies respectively combine both adaptive and maladaptive traits. Previous studies on life history strategy that found that the slow strategy was associated with just about every benefit one could want have been based on self-report measures of behaviour and personality. Similarly, most studies that have been used to validate a GFP have relied on self-report as well. A problem with self-report measures is that people’s responses may reflect evaluative biases. Because the slow strategy is so socially normative, people’s responses may be biased towards reporting what is considered “normal”. This could explain to some extent why the slow strategy is supposed to be associated with physical and mental health, considering that the latter are also normative. Sherman et al.’s research therefore used studies based on direct observations of behaviour as well as participants’ reports of their behaviour in the last 24 hours to overcome some of the limitations of self-report measures. Trained raters were asked to assess how closely individual participants matched a template for either a slow or fast life history strategy based on assessments of their behavior. The template for the slow pattern included qualities such as responsible, warm, compassionate and capable of close relationships. The fast template included qualities of unpredictable, deceitful, manipulative, and non-conforming. The resulting pattern that emerged was that those who more closely matched the slow template were described as kind, considerate, and hard working, yet also socially awkward, insecure, shy, lacking expressiveness and emotionally over-controlled. Those who more closely matched the fast template were described as unpredictable, hostile, moody, manipulative and impulsive, yet also talkative, socially skilled, dominant, assertive charming and interesting.

What these results suggest is that both the slow and fast strategies have their respective strengths and weaknesses. This is consistent with the idea that each one may be adaptive under some circumstances, yet maladaptive under others. On the other hand, the results appear to contradict the notion that one strategy is globally better than the other. Furthermore, in terms of personality traits expressed, neither strategy appears to fit in with the notion of a general factor of personality which combines all socially desirable traits in a uniform way. Participants who demonstrated a slow strategy could be described as agreeable, conscientious, and honest, yet also introverted and to a certain extent neurotic. On the other hand, those who demonstrated a fast strategy showed the opposite pattern of disagreeableness, dishonesty, and low conscientiousness, but were also more extraverted and emotionally stable. The fast life history strategy also seems consistent with a group of socially undesirable traits known as the “dark triad” of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. One study found that people who are high in “dark triad” traits tend to manifest a pattern of being selfish, disagreeable and low in conscientiousness, yet also extraverted, confident and socially dominant (Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010). This particular pattern of traits may allow people to successfully exploit others for selfish reasons and yet escape social punishment due to their social skills and charms. The authors of this paper compared this personality configuration to James Bond. Another real life example is the Italian adventurer Casanova. This fascinating fellow, notorious for his many love affairs, was noted as a sparkling conversationalist who stated that the chief business of his life was cultivating sensory pleasure. He also admitted to swindling people who he managed to convince that he had magical powers.  

Why do bad boys have all the fun?

Researchers have argued that “dark triad” traits may have evolved to facilitate short-term mating. Evidence for this comes from a study which found that women rated men with dark triad traits as having more attractive personalities than men who were low in these traits (Carter, Campbell, & Muncer). Another study found that men who were high in psychopathic traits (one of the components of the dark triad) were rated by female observers as being more physically attractive than men who were low in these traits (Visser, Pozzebon, Bogaert, & Ashton, 2010). Perhaps, these findings might help to explain why so many people are so fascinated by “dark” characters both from fiction and real life. Casanova for example was not the most moral person but he knew how to live in style!

What these findings suggest that the traits associated with the slow life history strategy represent a “good” personality in the traditional sense of being unselfish and of respecting society’s rules of good behaviour but not in a global sense of being generally better implied by JP Rushton. However, people who follow a slow strategy seem to be less socially skilled and may not experience as much immediate pleasure as their more selfish fast strategy counterparts, who are more focused on having a good time, often at the expense of other people. One of the differences that emerged between the two strategies, is that people with the slow style appear over-controlled and lacking expressiveness, whereas those with the fast style are more lively and impulsive. This suggests that one of the key differences may be in how much people inhibit expression of their impulses. Some people may be overly concerned with not doing anything that might give offense to others, whereas other people are more focused on expressing themselves, being less anxious about what other people might think.

The findings from Sherman et al. suggest that neither a fast nor a slow life history strategy is associated with a complete set of desirable traits that a general factor of personality would entail. In my previous post, I suggested that a general factor of personality might not represent a unitary dimension underlying all personality traits, but instead a particular cluster of separate traits combined in a way that maximises a person’s well-being. Perhaps this entails a personality type that can strike a balance between the conflicting demands of expressing the self on the one hand and exercising the self-control needed to comply with social expectations and rules for getting along with other people.

Footnote

[1] Another minor difference from the Big Five is that in the HEXACO model neuroticism is replaced with “emotionality”. 
     
 Please consider following me on Facebook, Google Plus, or Twitter.

This article also appears on Psychology Today on my blog Unique - Like Everybody Else.

© Scott McGreal. Please do not reproduce without permission. Brief excerpts may be quoted as long as a link to the original article is provided. Any version of this article appearing on sites other than Eye on Psych or my blog at Psychology Today has been ripped off without my consent.

Further reading: 
What is an Intelligent Personality? - discusses the relationship between personality and various concepts of intelligence, particularly in regard to claims that a general factor of personality is correlated with general intelligence. 

Image Credits

Darth Vader by Dualspades at DeviantArt

Sacrifice poster created at http://diy.despair.com/ using image from Flickr

Sean Connery as James Bond from Wikia

 References

Carter, G. L., Campbell, A. C., & Muncer, S. The Dark Triad personality: Attractiveness to women. Personality and Individual Differences(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.021
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. (2010). Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as an Agentic Social Style. Individual Differences Research, 8(2), 111-120.
Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(6), 1213-1233.
Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2011). The General Factor of Personality: Normal and Abnormal. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. v. Stumm & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences ( First ed.): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sherman RA, Figueredo AJ, & Funder DC (2013). The behavioral correlates of overall and distinctive life history strategy. Journal of personality and social psychology, 105 (5), 873-88 PMID: 23915038
Visser, B. A., Pozzebon, J. A., Bogaert, A. F., & Ashton, M. C. (2010). Psychopathy, sexual behavior, and esteem: It’s different for girls. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(7), 833-838. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.008

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Twitter versus the Grim Reaper: Extraverts but not introverts use Twitter to ward off existential anxiety


ResearchBlogging.org
As Twitter has grown in popularity, a number of research studies have examined motivations for using this microblogging platform. A recent study drawing on the framework of Terror Management Theory, made the intriguing finding that when confronted with a reminder of one’s eventual death, extraverts increased their Twitter usage while introverts avoided it altogether. Extraverts and introverts appear to have different ways of coping with existential threats that could affect their use of social networking. This might shed some light on the purpose of a large amount of apparently “pointless” communication that occurs on this site.

Grappling with ultimate concerns in 140 characters or less?

Twitter differs other social networking sites such as Facebook in that messages are restricted to very short lengths (up to 140 characters) and messages are generally immediately visible to the general public, not just a user’s followers. This contrasts with typical Facebook usage, where users generally only allow mutual “friends” to see their status updates and their personal profiles. Thus people’s Facebook profiles tend to be more private, whereas typically a person’s Twitter profile can be viewed by anybody.

So what exactly are people on Twitter sharing with the wider world? According to one survey of Twitter, the most common type of content shared (over 40% of all tweets) was “pointless babble,” that is, banal updates about day-to-day activities (e.g. “ate a salad”). Some commentators have disputed this description, arguing that such updates are better described as “social grooming” or “peripheral social awareness.” That is, even though they may seem pointless to outside observers these messages may fulfil some meaningful function for the person. What exactly this function is remains unclear. A recent study explored two possible functions that Twitter usage might serve: restoring a sense of social inclusion after ostracism, and alleviating existential threat (Qiu et al., 2010).

This study involved two experiments, in both of which participants were given access to a pre-existing Twitter account with 30 followers and given opportunities to send brief messages if they wished. The experimenter created the impression that other users were currently online and able to read the participants’ messages by sending two updates about mundane activities (e.g. “helping a friend”). Additionally, participants were assessed on their Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience).

The first experiment tested whether participants who had been experimentally ostracised would send more tweets compared to those who had not. Most people experience ostracism, or deliberate social exclusion as highly aversive and following ostracism people become motivated to restore a sense of social connection. However, the experimenters found that ostracised participants sent no more tweets than non-ostracised ones, contrary to expectations. The authors thought this indicated that sending brief messages to strangers does not satisfy a person’s need for social inclusion after being ostracised. Perhaps this is because users do not expect random strangers to respond to their tweets. After all, is there a point to communicating if others do not respond? The second experiment suggested another possibility.

The purpose of the second experiment was to test the effects of a reminder of one’s own mortality on Twitter usage. A large body of research known as Terror Management Theory (TMT) has found that being reminded of the fact that one will eventually die creates a sense of existential threat that people attempt to cope with in a number of ways (Hart, Shaver, & Goldenberg, 2005). The most well-researched coping methods are cultural worldview defence (e.g. “My country, my people, are really great!”), bolstering self-esteem (“ I'm great!”) and seeking closeness with loved ones (“someone cares about me”). These coping methods seem to provide a buffer against existential anxiety by reinforcing a sense that one is special, important, and connected with something larger than one’s self, and not merely an insignificant creature with a fleeting existence.

Qiu et al. argued that Twitter usage could help alleviate existential anxiety by providing participants with a means to affirm their own existence, that is, to announce to the world in effect “I am alive!” To test this, participants were asked to write either a brief essay about their own death (mortality salience condition) or about a neutral topic (control condition). Then they were provided with a series of opportunities to tweet messages if they wished. What the researchers found was that there was an effect of mortality salience but this depended on the personality trait of extraversion. Specifically, after mortality salience highly extraverted participants sent more tweets (nearly 10 on average) compared to their counterparts in the control condition  whereas highly introverted participants sent less (about zero on average). In the control condition there was no difference between extraverted and introverted participants in number of tweets sent (3 – 4 on average).  
Qiu et al. did not attempt to explain why extraverted and introverted participants responded to existential threat so differently, or even why their Twitter usage did not differ in the control condition. Extraversion is associated with greater sociability so the fact that in the control condition extraverts did not make greater usage of this social networking tool seems a little surprising. However, previous research has found that social motives do not predict how much time a person spends using Twitter (Johnson & Yang, 2009), suggesting that under routine circumstances a person’s sociability may not be that important to how much they use this medium. However, this might change when a person experiences an existential threat. Extraverts might see Twitter usage as a good way to proclaim their existence to other people, even if these others are complete strangers who may have little interest in the minutiae of one’s life. Introverts appear to adopt a different strategy, so perhaps they feel a need to turn inward and be within themselves as a way of reaffirming their own existence. For introverts experiencing an existential threat, sending banal messages to strangers might seem like a superficial distraction from deeper concerns. For extraverts, such a distraction might be just what they need. The fact that they are strangers might seem less important to them than that they are a potential audience.  

Some limitations of the study are worth noting. Participants were assigned a pre-existing Twitter account with random strangers as followers. This may not adequately reflect how people use the service in real life. Additionally, the researchers assessed participants on five personality traits yet presented results relevant to only one of them. With five sets of results, the odds are increased that statistically significant findings could occur by chance alone. Additionally, the outcome measure was the number of tweets sent and their content was not assessed. It would be interesting to explore whether message content after mortality salience differed from the control condition based on personality traits. For example, people high in neuroticism might have been more disturbed than others by writing about death and their tweets might perhaps have reflected this (e.g. “I’m freaking out about this experiment!”). Additionally, it would have been interesting to see if participants’ messages after mortality salience involved efforts to bolster self-esteem or defend their cultural world-view, which are also known to help buffer against existential threat.

This study is the first one that I know of to apply principles of TMT to social networking usage. As social networking continues to gain in popularity I would welcome more such research. I think this study shows that what may appear to some to be “pointless babble” may actually serve a deeper purpose, depending on one’s personality and momentary needs.

Other articles concerning social media:

Is there something wrong with people who don't use Facebook? What research really says about non-users. One of my most popular posts!
The Misunderstood Personality Profile of Wikipedia Members Contrary to a widely reported study, Wikipedians are not close-minded at all. 


Follow me on Facebook, Google Plus, or Twitter.

© Scott McGreal. Please do not reproduce without permission. Brief excerpts may be quoted as long as a link to the original article is provided. 

This article also appears on Psychology Today on my blog Unique - Like Everybody Else.

 
References

Johnson, P. and Yang, S. , 2009-08-05 "Uses and Gratifications of Twitter: An Examination of User Motives and Satisfaction of Twitter Use" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Sheraton Boston, Boston, MA Online. 2012-06-20 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p376367_index.html

Qiu L, Leung AK, Ho JH, Yeung QM, Francis KJ, & Chua PF (2010). Understanding the psychological motives behind microblogging. Studies in health technology and informatics, 154, 140-4 PMID: 20543286

Monday, September 24, 2012

General knowledge and personality


In recent years researchers have been interested in the correlates of individual differences in general knowledge. Some psychologists consider acquired knowledge as an important component of intelligence. The concept of crystallised 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. There is evidence that general knowledge is a solid predictor of academic performance (Furnham, Monsen, & Ahmetoglu, 2009).

A number of researchers have studied how general knowledge is correlated with 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. As far as I am aware, 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 summary of the findings is provided in the table below. The first paper (Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001) examined only two of the Big Five (openness to experience and extraversion), whereas the remaining papers reported results for all five traits.

Eight of the ten studies used a general knowledge test developed by Irwing, Cammock and Lynn (2001). These authors defined general knowledge as consisting of culturally valued knowledge available through a range of non-specialist sources. The test they developed was intended to provide a comprehensive sample of the full range of domains of human knowledge. The test used in the study by Schaefer et al. (2004) was also intended to assess a wide spectrum of non-specialist knowledge. The study by Ackerman et al. (2001) assessed more specialised forms of knowledge, specifically from 19 domains of academic study encompassing sciences, humanities, and civics. Additionally, tests in each domain were designed so that questions were presented with increasing levels of difficulty and once a participant was unable to answer three consecutive questions each test was terminated. 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. One possible implication of this will be addressed later.  

The trait most consistently correlated with general knowledge is openness to experience, which had a positive correlation in all 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. Extraverted people 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 that conscientiousness 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 have less general knowledge. On the other hand, students high in conscientiousness achieve higher grades than their less conscientious counterparts and might be expected therefore to have more general knowledge. However, the studies shown in Table 1 reveal that extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness have inconsistent correlations with general knowledge, as there is a mixture of positive and negative correlations for each of them.

Table 1. Correlations between Big Five personality traits and general knowledge in 10 studies


Study authors
N
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness to experience
Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer (2001)
320
-.24**
-
-
-
.34**
Schaefer, Williams, Goodie, & Campbell (2004)
104
.05
.00
.08
.07
.34*
Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Ackerman (2006)
201
-.16*
.02
-.05
-.18*
.16*
Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic (2006)







Study 1
118
.06
.05
.40**
.14
.36**
Study 2
92
.01
-.12
.10
.01
.25
Study 3
108
.09
.19
.23*
-.11
.50**
Furnham, Christopher, Garwood, & Martin (2007)
430
-.08
-.07
-.12**
-.07
.31**
Furnham, Swami, Arteche, & ChamorroPremuzic (2008)
101
.09
.01
.08
.11
.40**
Furnham, Monsen, & Ahmetoglu (2009)
212
-.02
.04
.00
-.08
.40**
Batey, Furnham, & Safiullina (2010)
100
-.01
-.09
.23*
-.01
.10







Weighted mean correlation
1786/
1466
-.07
-.01
.04
-.04
.32

Key: *p < .05; **p < .01 

In order to obtain a more accurate estimate of the true correlations between each of the five personality traits and general knowledge, a weighted average of the correlations for each study was computed taking into account the sample size.[1] The results are shown at the bottom of the table. Openness to experience is the only personality trait with a substantial correlation with general knowledge, with what could be considered a moderate sized effect. 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. The effect of agreeableness is nearly negligible. As noted previously, the study by Ackerman et al. appears to assess a somewhat more specialist and advanced type of knowledge than the other studies. When this study is excluded from the analysis, the weighted mean correlation between extraversion and general knowledge becomes almost negligible (r = -.02), whereas the correlation between openness to experience and general knowledge barely changes (r = .31).


These results indicate that as far as the Big Five are concerned, characteristics associated with openness to experience, such as general curiosity, are the most relevant to how much knowledge of the world a person acquires. Traits such as sociability, emotional stability, and achievement orientation appear to be much less important. When considering the findings of the study by Ackerman et al., it seems possible that extraversion might have little or no relationship with relatively non-specialised forms of knowledge, but that this relationship is different for 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 introverted counterparts. Studies comparing non-specialist and more advanced forms of knowledge within the same samples would help to determine if this is true.

Previous research has found a substantial gender difference in general knowledge, with men tending to have greater knowledge than women (Lynn, Irwing, & Cammock, 2002). The results presented here would suggest that gender differences in general knowledge are probably not due to differences in 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 research evidence that men tend to be higher on openness to ideas whilst 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) have found that typical intellectual engagement has 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 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 article 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.


Follow me on Facebook, Google Plus, or Twitter.

© Scott McGreal. Please do not reproduce without permission. Brief excerpts may be quoted as long as a link to the original article is provided.  



References
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 797–825. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.797
Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 532-535. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. L. (2006). Ability and personality correlates of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 419-429. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.036
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). Personality, intelligence and general knowledge Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 79-90 DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.002 Furnham, A., Christopher, A. N., Garwood, J., & Martin, G. N. (2007). Approaches to learning and the acquisition of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1563-1571. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.013
Furnham, A., Christopher, A. N., Garwood, J., & Martin, G. N. (2007). Approaches to learning and the acquisition of general knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1563-1571. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.013
Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 769-782. doi: 10.1348/978185409x412147
            Furnham, A., Swami, V., Arteche, A., & Chamorro‐Premuzic, T. (2008). Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general knowledge.  Educational Psychology, 28 (4), 427-431 DOI: 10.1080/01443410701727376
            Mussell, Patrick (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity Personality and Individual Differences, 49 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overconfidence and the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 473-480. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2003.09.010
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182.
ResearchBlogging.org



[1] This is based on the theory that larger sample sizes should be given more weight as they are more likely to provide an accurate estimate than smaller samples. When the results were compared to the unweighted mean correlations there was very little difference between them.