Body mass predicts personality development across 18 years in middle to older adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Various personality traits have longitudinal relations with body mass index (BMI), a measure of body weight and a risk factor for numerous health concerns. We tested these associations' compatibility with causality in either direction. METHOD: = 53.33 at baseline), we tested how accurately the Five-Factor Model personality domains and their items could collectively predict BMI and change in it with elastic net models. With multilevel models, we tested (a) bidirectional and (b) within-person associations between BMI and personality traits. RESULTS: The five domains were able to predict concurrent (r = 0.08), but not future BMI. Twenty-nine personality items predicted concurrent and future BMI at r = 0.21 and r = 0.16 to 0.25, respectively. Neither the domains nor items could collectively predict change in BMI. Similarly, no individual trait predicted change in BMI, but BMI predicted changes in Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and several items (|b*| = 0.03 to 0.08). BMI had within-person correlations with these same traits; time-invariant third factors like genetics or childhood environments therefore could not (fully) account for their relations. CONCLUSIONS: Body weight may contribute to adults' personality development, but the reverse appears less likely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".