Genetic contributions to two special factors of neuroticism are associated with affluence, higher intelligence, better health, and longer life

Higher scores on the personality trait of neuroticism, the tendency to experience negative emotions, are associated with worse mental and physical health. Studies examining links between neuroticism and health typically operationalize neuroticism by summing the items from a neuroticism scale. However, neuroticism is made up of multiple heterogeneous facets, each contributing to the effect of neuroticism as a whole. A recent study showed that a 12-item neuroticism scale described one broad trait of general neuroticism and two special factors, one characterizing the extent to which people worry and feel vulnerable, and the other characterizing the extent to which people are anxious and tense. This study also found that, although individuals who were higher on general neuroticism lived shorter lives, individuals whose neuroticism was characterized by worry and vulnerability lived longer lives. Here, we examine the genetic contributions to the two special factors of neuroticism—anxiety/tension and worry/vulnerability—and how they contrast with that of general neuroticism. First, we show that, whereas the polygenic load for neuroticism is associated with the genetic risk of coronary artery disease, lower intelligence, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and poorer self-rated health, the genetic variants associated with high levels of anxiety/tension, and high levels of worry/vulnerability are associated with genetic variants linked to higher SES, higher intelligence, better self-rated health, and longer life. Second, we identify genetic variants that are uniquely associated with these protective aspects of neuroticism. Finally, we show that different neurological pathways are linked to each of these neuroticism phenotypes.</p

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

Open Peer Commentary and Author's Response

Mõttus alerts us to the widespread predictive heterogeneity of different indicators of the same trait. This heterogeneity violates the assumption that traits have causal unity in their developmental antecedents and effects on outcomes. I would go a step further: broader traits are useful units for description and prediction but not for explaining personality development and personality effects. In most cases, the measured trait indicators are closer to relevant causal mechanisms, and within a network perspective on personality, broader traits as entities with causal potential can be dismissed completely. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psycholog

How to Reap the CSR Fruits: The Crucial Role Played by Customers

In times of unprecedented relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), companies need to gain a deeper understanding of actual and prospective customers, shedding light on the antecedents of their behavioral choices as to better address their needs and ambitions, in order to get a competitive edge. By adopting a chronological approach, the present chapter provides an overview of the development of research on responsible consumers over time. From early studies focusing on market segmentation based on socio-demographic and psychographic variables, the focus shifts to sophisticated models based either on cognitive processes or on habits, or on a mixture of both. Given the complexity of the phenomenon and its dynamic and ever-evolving nature, the chapter ends with a discussion of cutting-edge perspectives of analysis that represent the latest advancements of the discipline. These new streams of studies focus on the need to adopt holistic, dynamic, crosscultural, and trust-based approaches, and pave the way for future research