Personality traits vary in their association with brain activity across situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human cognition supports complex behaviour across a range of situations, and traits (such as personality) influence how we react in these different contexts. Although viewing traits as situationally grounded is common in social sciences it is often overlooked in neuroscience. Often studies focus on linking brain activity to trait descriptions of humans examine brain-trait associations in a single task, or, under passive conditions like wakeful rest. These studies, often referred to as brain wide association studies (BWAS) have recently become the subject of controversy because results are often unreliable even with large sample sizes. Although there are important statistical reasons why BWAS yield inconsistent results, we hypothesised that results are inconsistent because the situation in which brain activity is measured will impact the power in detecting a reliable link to a specific trait. To examine this possibility, we performed a state-space analysis in which tasks from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) were organized into a low-dimensional space based on how they activated different large-scale neural systems. We examined how individuals’ observed brain activity across these different contexts related to their personality. Our analysis found that for multiple personality traits (including Agreeableness, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness) stronger associations with brain activity emerge in some tasks than others. These data establish that for specific personality traits there are situations in which reliable associations with brain activity can be identified with greater accuracy, highlighting the importance of context-bound views of understanding how brain activity links to trait variation in human behaviour. Significance statement As a species humans act efficiently in many contexts, however, as individuals our personality makes us more specialised in some situations than others. This “if-then” view of personality is widely accepted in the social sciences but is often overlooked in neuroscience. Here we show adopting a situationally bound view of human traits provides more meaningful descriptions of a brain-trait associations than are possible in traditional brain wide association studies (BWAS) that measure brain activity in a single situation. Our results demonstrate multiple personality traits (including Agreeableness, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness) show stronger associations with brain activity in some tasks than others, explaining why studies focusing on changes in brain activity at rest can lead to weak or contradictory results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".