This article was downloaded by: [95.10.55.

248] On: 28 February 2013, At: 08:39 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncen20

Five-Factor Personality Dimensions, Mood States, and Cognitive Performance in Older Adults
Jane E. Booth
c a b c a b

, John A. Schinka
c

a c

, Lisa M. Brown , James A.

Mortimer & Amy R. Borenstein

James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tx, USA

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Version of record first published: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Jane E. Booth , John A. Schinka , Lisa M. Brown , James A. Mortimer & Amy R. Borenstein (2006): Five-Factor Personality Dimensions, Mood States, and Cognitive Performance in Older Adults, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28:5, 676-683 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803390590954209

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28:676683, 2006 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1380-3395 DOI: 10.1080/13803390590954209

Journal 0000-0000 1380-3395 NCEN of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology Vol. 28, No. 05, February 2006: pp. 00 Neuropsychology,

Five-Factor Personality Dimensions, Mood States, and Cognitive Performance in Older Adults
JANE E. BOOTH,1,2 JOHN A. SCHINKA,1,3 LISA M. BROWN,3 JAMES A. MORTIMER,3 AND AMY R. BORENSTEIN3
1 2

J.E. Factor al. Five Booth etPersonality

James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tx, USA 3 University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

In this study we examined the impact of personality traits and negative mood state on performance in several cognitive domains in a sample of 398 elderly community-dwelling individuals. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the variance in cognitive measures explained by state depression and anxiety after controlling for the effects of demographic characteristics and five-factor model personality traits. Personality traits were found to contribute significantly to cognitive function, explaining 27% of the variance in ability across domains. Examination of the contributions of individual five-factor traits showed that Openness had a significant relationship with all indexes of verbal memory and with general cognitive ability. State anxiety and depression variables were found to play a very small part, however, in contributing to cognitive function.

Introduction
State anxiety has been consistently found to produce decrements in cognitive performance (e.g., Wetherell, Reynolds, Gatz & Pedersen., 2002), although under certain optimal conditions it may facilitate cognitive function (Katahn,1966). Other negative mood states, such as depression, have also been shown to have deleterious effects on cognition (e.g., Deptula, Singh, & Pomara, 1993; Kizilbash, Vanderploeg, & Curtiss, 2002). The impact of these mood states on cognitive performance may be expected to be greater in older adults, because of already-reduced working memory and processing resources. Deptula et al. (1993), for example, found that self-ratings of state anxiety and depression were negatively related to recall performance on a selective reminding task in an older adult sample but not in a younger adult sample matched for education and estimated IQ. In addition to the impact of state variables such as anxiety and depression, trait characteristics have also been shown to be associated with cognitive performance. Recent models of health change hypothesize that dispositional personality factors can affect health and cognitive status via long-term intermediate influences on behavioral and physiological pathways such as health maintenance behaviors, immune and metabolic functions, and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical and sympathetic adrenal-medullary axes (Gallo & Matthews, 2003). Supporting data for such models include the fact that measures of neuroticism account for over five per cent of the variance in individual differences in
Received 1 April 2004; accepted 27 July 2004. Address correspondence to John A. Schinka, Haley VA Medical Center/116B, 13000 B.B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612. E-mail: jschinka@hsc.usf.edu

676

Five Factor Personality

677

the ratio of brain to intracranial volume (Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong, & Hommer, 2001). There is an abundance of data showing a relationship between personality factors and cognition in cohorts of young and middle-aged adults, the majority of which address personality trait domains of neuroticism and extraversion and the ability domains of fluid and crystallized intelligence. The meta-analysis of personality traits and cognitive abilities conducted by Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) revealed that personality features in the domain of neuroticism/negative emotion have negative correlations with fluid and crystallized abilities, while those in the domain of extraversion/positive emotion tend to have positive correlations with both types of abilities. A much smaller number of studies have examined correlations of abilities with other personality traits, such as the other domain traits (besides neuroticism and extraversion) included in the five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990): agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Of the other FFM domain traits, the Ackerman and Heggestad meta-analysis shows only openness to correlate significantly with ability measures. Notably, however, the estimated population correlation for openness with fluid and crystallized intelligence based on these few studies exceeds .30. Because personality, at least as measured by instruments based on the FFM, appears to be quite stable across the adult life span (Small, Hertzog, Hultsch, & Dixon, 2003), it is tempting to assume that the pattern of personality trait-cognitive ability correlations of younger adulthood would also hold in samples of elderly adults. While few studies have examined all five domains of the FFM, there are supporting data for some domains in studies of the elderly. Neuroticism has been found to be negatively associated with performance on measures of reaction time (for women) and of speed of information-processing, episodic memory, and global cognitive ability (for men) in a study of community-dwelling elderly (Jorm, Mackinnon, Christensen, & Henderson, 1993). Meier, Pasqualina, and Perrig (2002) also reported a negative correlation of neuroticism with episodic memory; in addition, they showed a positive correlation of extraversion for episodic memory. The analysis of baseline relationships among multiple measures of cognitive factors and all five FFM personality domains revealed a number of significant correlations between measures of recall, verbal/ language function, and cognitive speed and the FFM domains of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness in a study reported by Hultsch, Hertzog, Small, and Dixon (1999). Conflicting data do exist, however. Jelicic et al., (2002) failed to show relationships between neuroticism and measures of several cognitive domains in an analysis of cross-sectional data. While it appears clear that both negative mood states and stable personality traits such as those defined in the FFM can have an impact on cognitive performance in the elderly, no study has reported analyses of the joint impact of these state and trait factors. Joint consideration of personality dispositions and mood state is important because trait and state factors combine to produce mood expression. These two factors do not act independently, however. Trait factors are dispositions that influence the frequency and intensity of state moods. Those who are high in trait anger, for example, are expected to experience more frequent and more intense episodes of state anger in response to anger-provoking situations than those who are low in trait anger Spielberger (1988). Thus, anger expression reflects both the stable level of trait anger and situationally produced level of state anger. More precisely, trait anger influences both state anger and the expression of anger, while state anger only directly influences anger expression. The trait-state model indicates that individuals who are higher in neuroticism would be expected to experience more frequent and more intense episodes of state anxiety and depression, although neuroticism would not be hypothesized to be the sole contributing source of these mood states (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Support for this model can be seen in the moderate

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

678

J.E. Booth et al. Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all variables and correlations of predictor variables with dependent variables r M SD 9 .10 .05 .61 .32 .17 .14 .26 10 11 12 13 14 .12 .22 .11 .13 .22 .14 .11 .17 .19 15 .11 .17 .13 .14 .23 .13 .10 .15 .18 16 .13 .35 .17 .16 .14 .11 .20 .18 .23 17 .16 .30 .28 .22 .16 .10 .21 .28 .31

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

1. Education 14.3 5.2 2. Age 72.0 6.2 3. N 14.9 6.7 5. E 26.2 5.5 6. O 28.0 5.7 7. A 33.8 5.3 8. C 35.0 5.9 9. Anx 15.3 5.1 10. Dep 14.8 4.3 11. 3MS 92.5 5.6 12. HVLT Trial 1 4.8 1.7 13. HVLT Trials 13 20.5 5.3 14. HVLT Delay 7.7 2.7 15. HVLT Cued 8.6 2.3 16. Stroop C-W 28.9 9.4 17. Trails B time 113.6 59.9

.07 .23 .06 .11 .24 .26 .19 .21 .57 .15 .09 .15 .32 .13 .18 .19 .17 .25 .20 .26 .13 .03 .11 .13 .34 .09 .08 .09 .70 .16 .12 .14 .20 .20 .21

Note. Educ = years of education; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; Anx = state anxiety; dep = state depression; 3MS = Modified Mini Mental Status Exam; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; Stroop C-W = Stroop Color-Word test; Trails B time = Trail-Making Test, time to complete part B. p < .01 if coefficient .13; p < .05 if coefficient .10.

correlations (.40.60) between a standard measure of neuroticism and measures of state anxiety and depression (Table 98; Morey, 1991). Because trait domains within the FFM can also show moderate negative associations with state measures (e.g., extraversion correlation with state depression = .45; see Table I-1; Morey, 1991), it is also possible that personality traits might mitigate the effects of negative mood states on cognitive performance. In this study we examined the effect of FFM personality trait factors and of state depression and anxiety on the performance of elderly individuals on measures of several cognitive domains. Because trait variables are hypothesized to influence the experience of state variables and cognitive performance, and mood states are believed to influence cognitive performance and not personality traits, we examined the impact of state variables on cognition after controlling for the contributions of personality trait variables as well as of common demographic factors.

Method
Participants and Procedure Data were obtained from the Charlotte County Healthy Aging Study (CCHAS), a population-based, cross-sectional study of individuals, aged 6085, living in two census tracts of

Five Factor Personality

679

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

Charlotte County, Florida. Sequential sampling procedures in the CCHAS identified 808 individuals who were eligible for participation in the study. Of these, 466 (58%) individuals consented to participate and completed the study protocol. Protocol information including demographic variables, personal and family medical history, depression, anxiety, social support, work history, physical and mental exercise, and risk factors for dementia was obtained by structured interviews with participants. Participants also completed a battery of cognitive measures. Complete information on CCHAS participant selection and data collection is provided in Small et al. (2000). Exploratory analyses were conducted to identify outliers in the distributions of scores for cognitive, personality, and state mood measures, and cases with missing data. Data for 21 participants were dropped as a result of these analyses (3 identified as outliers, 18 for missing data). Cases were also excluded if they reported a history of any of the following: endarterectomy, transient ischemic attacks, cerebrovascular accidents, Parkinsons disease, or traumatic head injury with loss of consciousness and retrograde amnesia. A total of 47 cases were dropped for meeting one or more of these criteria. The final data set available for analysis consisted of 398 individuals, 186 men and 212 women. The mean age of the participants was 72.0 (SD = 6.2) and the mean number of years of formal education was 14.3 (SD = 5.2). The sample was 98% White.

Measures Cognitive measures included measures of general cognitive ability, executive function, and memory. The general ability measure was the Modified Mini-Mental Status Exam (3MS; Teng & Chui, 1987), designed to provide a more reliable and sensitive measure of overall ability than the Mini Mental Status Exam (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975). Executive ability and processing speed were measured by the Stroop Test (Golden, 1978) color-word trials and the Trail Making Test (Reitan, 1958) Trial B time. Memory was assessed by the revised Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT; Benedict, Schretlen, Goninger, & Brandt, 1998), a list learning task in which subjects are presented with three learning trials, followed by delayed recall, cued recall, and recognition trials. Because of a ceiling effect on the distribution of scores, the recognition trial was not examined in this study. The FFM trait personality dimensions of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were assessed by scales of the same name contained in the NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Mood state was assessed by the State Anxiety and State Depression scales of the State-Trait Personality Inventory (Speilberger, 1995).

Analyses Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted for each cognitive measure with entry of sets of variables in this sequence of steps: 1) demographic control variables, 2) personality trait variables, and 3) mood state variables. For each cognitive measure, three analyses were conducted. In the first analysis, all variables in each step were entered simultaneously to estimate the variance explained by each complete set of variables. The change in R2 was used to estimate variance contributions at the sequential steps in the regression analyses (i.e, after entry of each of the three sets of variables). In the second

680

J.E. Booth et al.

analysis, the set of demographic variables was entered on step 1, followed by the personality trait variables in stepwise fashion on step 2, and then the mood state variables as a set on step 3. In the third analysis, the mood state variables were entered in stepwise fashion on step 3 following simultaneous entry of the demographic and personality variables on steps 1 and 2. The second and third analyses allowed determination of the variance contributions of individual variables.

Results
Descriptive data for all predictor and dependent variables are presented in Table 1. Table 1 also presents the matrix of bivariate correlations for predictor variables with cognitive measures. Table 2 presents the significant results of regression analyses examining the contributions of all predictor variables (demographic, personality trait, and mood state). The control set of demographic variables explained 1014% of the variance in performance across the cognitive measures. After controlling for the influence of demographic variables, the set of personality trait scales showed significant relationships with all cognitive measures, explaining up to 6.9% of the variance in performance. Of the five scales, Openness was the most frequent predictor of cognitive performance, contributing significantly to variance in scores on the 3MS and all of the memory tasks. Neuroticism was only a significant predictor for HVLT Trial 1 and time to complete the Trail-Making B task. Extraversion did not explain a significant amount of variance in any cognitive task. The only additional finding was that Conscientiousness explained 2.6% of performance on the Stroop Color-Word score. Residual variance in cognitive performance measures at this point in the analyses was minimally explained by mood variables. The Depression scale explained a small amount of variance (1.4%) in HVLT Trial 1 scores; while the Anxiety scale explained a small amount of variance in HVLT delayed recall (1.1%) and Trail-Making B time (1.7%).

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

Table 2 Percentage of variance in cognitive measures explained by demographic, personality, and state mood variables Measure 3MS HVLT trial 1 HVLT 1 3 HVLT delay HVLT cued Stroop C-W Trails B time Dem 11.4 10.8 14.2 11.6 10.1 13.2 10.9 FFM 3.0 2.3 4.1 2.6 3.3 3.7 6.9 N E O 3.0 1.5 2.9 1.8 2.4 2.6 5.7 1.9 1.7 A C State 1.4 1.2 1.2 Anx Dep 1.4

1.1

Note. Dem = set of demographic variables; FFM = set of Five-Factor Model variables; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; State = set of mood state variables; Anx = state anxiety; dep = state depression; 3MS = Modified Mini Mental Status Exam; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; Stroop C-W = Stroop Color-Word test; Trails B time = Trail-Making Test, time to complete part B. All values are significant at p < .05 or less.

Five Factor Personality

681

Discussion
In this study we examined the influence of state variables on cognition in the elderly after controlling for the contributions of personality trait variables and common demographic factors. Examination of the simple bivariate correlation matrix of all measures revealed patterns of relationships that are consistent with previous studies. These included substantial correlations (.57.72) among the measures of neuroticism, state anxiety, and state depression (e.g., see Morey, 1991) and significant, but small, correlations between cognitive measures and almost all of the personality trait and mood state measures (e.g., see Hultsch et al., 1999; Kizilbash et al., 2002). As expected, demographic characteristics explained significant and substantial (10 14%) amounts of variance in cognition, regardless of the domain of ability. After controlling for the contributions of demographic factors, the set of FFM personality traits still explained significant portions of variance in the cognitive performance, with small effect sizes ranging from approximately 2 to 7%. Examination of the contributions of individual FFM trait scales showed that Openness had a significant relationship with all indexes of verbal memory and with general cognitive ability. The elements of openness are imagination, intellectual curiosity, and a preference for variety and mental stimulation. These characteristics likely promote lifelong patterns of involvement in activities such as educational pursuits or hobbies (e.g., college life-long learning courses, playing bridge). Thus, these results may link with other recent research (e.g., Wilson et al., 1999) showing that individuals who have histories marked by involvement with cognitive activities are better able to maintain their cognitive status as they age. With the exception of a significant and relatively sizable contribution to Trails B time, the neuroticism measure was not found to be a robust or frequent contributor to cognitive performance. Extraversion did not contribute to variance in any cognitive measure. Although these two traits have reliably been shown to correlate with fluid and crystallized abilities in younger adults, they have not been consistently linked to cognitive abilities in the elderly. Our results agree with those of Jelicic et al. (2003) in failing to find a major role for neuroticism in explaining variance in cognitive performance. The residual impact of state anxiety and depression together on cognitive performance was negligible, with no analysis in which as much as 2% of the variance was explained. Thus, it appears that for elderly individuals the more stable and enduring aspects of personality have an appreciably larger and more pervasive influence on cognition, as measured by commonly used clinical measures, than do negative mood states such as anxiety and depression. However, the size of the effects for personality variables was small, and the clinical significance of these findings requires further investigation. Several limitations of this study deserve comment. Participants in the study were largely drawn from higher socioeconomic neighborhoods. Thus, although the sample was not screened for psychiatric disorder, we doubt that there were a substantial number of participants who suffered from levels of depression and anxiety that would be characteristic of diagnosed psychiatric disorders. The results of our study are therefore not inconsistent with previous work reporting the impact of disorders such as major depressive disorder on cognition. Additionally, negative mood states may have more potential to influence cognition in heterogeneous samples. Replication of our study with lower socioeconomic samples would be especially welcome. Finally, although we did use cognitive measures tapping several domains, other potential domains were not investigated. In an elderly sample, for example, Wetherell et al. (2002) have reported significant but small

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

682

J.E. Booth et al.

correlations between state anxiety and measures of visuoconstruction and visual-spatial rotation. Inclusion of a broader spectrum of cognitive domains would help to define more exactly the impact of negative mood state on performance in the elderly.

References
Ackerman, Phillip A. & Heggestad, Eric D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219245. Benedict, R.H., Schretlen, D., Goninger, L., & Brandt, J. (1998). Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised: Normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clinical Neuropsychology, 12, 4355. Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Professional manual for the revised NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Deptula, D., Singh, R., & Pomara, N. (1993). Aging, emotional states, and memory. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 429434. Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417440. Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189198. Gallo, L.C., & Matthews, K.A. (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129, 1051. Golden, C.J. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test. Chicago: Stoelting. Hultsch, D.F., Hertzog, C., Small, B.J., & Dixon, R.A. (1999). Use it or lose it: Engaged lifestyle as a buffer of cognitive decline in aging? Psychology & Aging, 14, 245263. Jelicic, M., Bosma, H., Ponds, R.W.H.M., Van Boxtel, M.P.J., Houx, P.J., & Jolles, J. (2003). Neuroticism does not affect cognitive functioning in later life. Experimental Aging Research, 29, 7378. Jorm, A.F., Mackinnon, A.J., Christensen, H., Henderson, S. (1993). Cognitive functioning and neuroticism in an elderly community sample. Personality & Individual Differences, 15, 721723. Katahn, M. (1996). Interaction of anxiety and ability in complex learning situations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 3, 475479. Kizilbash, A.H., Vanderploeg, R.D., & Curtiss, G. (2002). The effects of depression and anxiety on memory performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17, 5767. Knutson, B., Momenen, R., Rawlings, R.R., Fong, G.W., & Hommer, D. (2001). Negative association of neuroticism with brain volume ratio in healthy humans. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 685690. Meier, B., Pasqualina, P.C., Perrig, W. (2002). Personality and memory in old age. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 9, 135144. Morey, L.C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Reitan, R.M. (1958). Validity of the Trail-Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271276. Small, B.J., Graves, A.B., McEvoy, C.L., Crawford, F.C., Mullan, M., & Mortimer, J.A. (2000). Is Apolipoprotein E a risk factor for cognitive impairment in normal aging? Evidence from a population-based sample of older adults. Neurology, 54, 20822088. Small, B.J., Hertzog, C., Hultsch, D.F., & Dixon, R.A. (2003). Stability and change in adult personality over 6 years: Findings from the Victoria Longitudinal Study. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, P16676. Spielberger, C.D. (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Odessa, FL Psychological Assessment Resources. Spielberger, C.D. (1995). State-Trait Personality Inventory, Form Y 1. Palo Alto: Mind Garden.

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013

Five Factor Personality

683

Teng, E.L., & Chui, H.C. (1987). The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) Examination. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 48, 314318. Wetherell, J.L., Reynolds, C.A., Gatz, M., & Pedersen, N.L. (2002). Anxiety, cognitive performance, and cognitive decline in normal aging. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 57B, P246P255. Wilson, R.S., Bennett, D.A., Beckett, L.A., Morris, M.C., Gilley, D.W., Bienias, J.L., Scherr, P.A., & Evans, D.A. (1999). Cognitive activity in older persons from a geographically defined population. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54(B), 155160.

Downloaded by [95.10.55.248] at 08:39 28 February 2013