Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:52:54.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“Nothing to see here”: No structural brain differences as a function of the Big Five personality traits from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2022

Yen-Wen Chen
Affiliation:
Program in Integrative Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
Turhan Canli*
Affiliation:
Program in Integrative Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Turhan Canli Email: turhan.canli@stonybrook.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Personality reflects social, affective, and cognitive predispositions that emerge from genetic and environmental influences. Contemporary personality theories conceptualize a Big Five Model of personality based on the traits of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Starting around the turn of the millennium, neuroimaging studies began to investigate functional and structural brain features associated with these traits. Here, we present the first study to systematically evaluate the entire published literature of the association between the Big Five traits and three different measures of brain structure. Qualitative results were highly heterogeneous, and a quantitative meta-analysis did not produce any replicable results. The present study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the literature and its limitations, including sample heterogeneity, Big Five personality instruments, structural image data acquisition, processing, and analytic strategies, and the heterogeneous nature of personality and brain structures. We propose to rethink the biological basis of personality traits and identify ways in which the field of personality neuroscience can be strengthened in its methodological rigor and replicability.

Type
Review Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Personality traits reflect stable emotional and motivational individual attributes and predispositions (Eysenck, Reference Eysenck1967; McCrae & Costa, Reference McCrae and Costa1997). Particularly, influential models of personality derived their structure from descriptive terms that led to the formulation of the five-factor model (FFM) (Costa & McCrae, Reference Costa and McCrae1992; McCrae & John, Reference McCrae and John1992), which includes the traits of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (“openness”) and which have been well-replicated across ages and cultures (Allemand et al., Reference Allemand, Zimprich and Hertzog2007; McCrae & Terracciano, Reference McCrae and Terracciano2005). Personality traits have been associated with various internalizing and externalizing psychopathologies. For example, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness have been robustly reported to be positively or negatively associated with depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders among clinically diagnosed populations (Kotov et al., Reference Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt and Watson2010), as well as among non-clinical populations (Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019), whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness were reported to be negatively associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviors (Vize et al., Reference Vize, Miller and Lynam2018).

The emergence of non-invasive imaging technologies that could be sensitive to individual differences in functional and structural brain features gave rise to neuroimaging-based personality neuroscience (Canli, Reference Canli and Canli2006; Canli & Amin, Reference Canli and Amin2002). For example, Canli et al. (Reference Canli, Zhao, Desmond, Kang, Gross and Gabrieli2001, Reference Canli, Sivers, Whitfield, Gotlib and Gabrieli2002) reported differential associations of neuroticism and extraversion in response to negative and positive emotional stimuli in frontal and subcortical regions, respectively, using task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). More recently, Yang et al. (Reference Yang, Yu, Wang and Qiu2021) reported negative association between neuroticism and frontal activation using an implicit emotional paradigm. The Big Five personality model (Costa & McCrae, Reference Costa and McCrae1992; McCrae & John, Reference McCrae and John1992) received particular attention in the emergent field. Adelstein et al. (Reference Adelstein, Shehzad, Mennes, DeYoung, Zuo, Kelly and Milham2011) reported non-overlapping functional networks as a function of different Big Five personality traits using resting-state fMRI. In one of the earliest structural imaging studies, Omura et al. (Reference Omura, Constable and Canli2005) examined gray matter volume (GMV) and gray matter concentration (GMC) as a function of the Big Five traits. More recently, Hyatt et al. (Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019) further revealed differential associations between the Big Five and different brain structural indices, including GMV, cortical thickness (CT), and cortical surface area (SA).

As the personality neuroscience imaging literature grew, the number of mixed and highly heterogeneous findings began to accumulate. However, to our knowledge, only few studies attempted to systematically summarize the relevant literature. Montag et al. (Reference Montag, Eichner, Markett, Quesada, Schoene-Bake, Melchers and Reuter2013) observed highly heterogeneous associations between neuroticism and regional brain structures using a qualitative review approach. Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019) observed highly heterogeneous associations between extraversion and regional GMV using a qualitative systematic review approach.

Specific contributors to heterogeneous study results may reflect differences in methodologies (e.g., measurement, image data acquisition and processing, statistical approach), as well as differences in the selection of study samples (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011; Montag, Reuter, et al., Reference Montag, Reuter, Jurkiewicz, Markett and Panksepp2013).

Age may be one sample-related variable affecting brain measures of personality traits. Although on the one hand Big Five personality traits are thought to be relatively stable over time (Terracciano et al., Reference Terracciano, McCrae and Costa2010; Wängqvist et al., Reference Wängqvist, Lamb, Frisén and Hwang2015), studies have pointed to age-related cross-sectional differences, as well as within-individual longitudinal changes over time (Allemand et al., Reference Allemand, Zimprich and Hertzog2007; Donnellan & Lucas, Reference Donnellan and Lucas2008; Roberts & Mroczek, Reference Roberts and Mroczek2008), such that aging is associated with increased agreeableness and conscientiousness, and with reduced neuroticism, extraversion, and openness.

Sex may be another sample-related variable affecting brain measures of personality traits. For example, a large population-based study (Soto et al., Reference Soto, John, Gosling and Potter2011) showed that females, on average, reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did males in mid-adolescence and middle adulthood, whereas openness showed the opposite sex trend, with males reporting slightly higher trait levels from early adulthood.

Indeed, both age- and sex-related group differences were observed in brain structures. For example, studies reported smaller regional GMV in frontal, temporal, and parietal regions among older, relative to the younger, cohorts (Good et al., Reference Good, Johnsrude, Ashburner, Henson, Friston and Frackowiak2001; Gur et al., Reference Gur, Gunning-Dixon, Turetsky, Bilker and Gur2002; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Chebrolu, Wekstein, Schmitt and Markesbery2007), and Potvin et al. (Reference Potvin, Dieumegarde and Duchesne2017, Reference Potvin, Dieumegarde and Duchesne2018) suggested that age is an important predictor for regional volumes. On the other hand, studies with regard to sex differences in brain structures are mixed. For example, a large-scale study with more than 5,000 participants reported greater regional GMV in the isthmus of the cingulate gyrus in males and greater regional GMV in the superior parietal lobule in females (Ritchie et al., Reference Ritchie, Cox, Shen, Lombardo, Reus, Alloza and Deary2018); however, inconsistent observations from other studies have been noted (Eliot et al., Reference Eliot, Ahmed, Khan and Patel2021). In summary, both age and sex have been suggested to be associated with Big Five personality traits and brain structures; therefore, they could potentially contribute to the association between personality and brain structure.

Considering the large and heterogeneous neuroimaging literature on the Big Five, and only a small number of attempts to apply analytic tools to identify sources of heterogeneity in this literature, we set out to conduct a comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review of the structural imaging literature on the Big Five, to identify and quantify sources of variance, and to derive from this analysis our prescription for strengthening the field of personality neuroscience going forward.

1. Method

1.1. Literature search strategy

The current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) (Liberati et al., Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gøtzsche, Ioannidis and Moher2009). The present review searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science up to March 4, 2020, using the following search terms: (personality OR “personality trait” OR “personality traits” OR “big five” OR “big five personality” OR neuroticism OR extraversion OR agreeableness OR openness OR conscientiousness OR “five-factor personality model” OR “NEO-Five Factor Inventory” OR “NEO-FFI” OR “five factor model”) AND (MRI OR “magnetic resonance imaging” OR “structural magnetic resonance imaging” OR “structural MRI” OR “gray matter volume” OR GMV OR VBM OR “voxel-based morphometry” OR SBM OR “surface-based morphometry” OR “cortical thickness” OR “cortical thinning” OR “cortical surface area” OR “surface area” OR “cortical folding” OR “brain structure” OR neuroimaging OR “brain imaging” OR imaging). To limit the search results to human-related studies, we used the term “human” as a filter, if applicable. In addition, we manually searched articles from relevant reviews and reference lists. Two coders (Y.-W. C. and R. A.) independently conducted the literature search, the selection of eligible studies, and study result recording for meta-analysis studies. The results of included studies and data recording were compared, and a consensus was reached through discussion for any inconsistencies.

1.2. Literature inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included in this systematic review, the inclusion criteria were (1) peer-reviewed empirical studies, (2) published in English, (3) measuring self-reported Big Five personality traits, (5) measuring gray matter volume (GMV), cortical thickness (CT), and/or surface area (SA) using T1-weighted structural MRI, (6) measuring and reporting the association between Big Five traits and brain structural measures (including non-significant results), (7) results from cross-sectional data (if a study had more than one time point, only results from one time point (baseline results were prioritized if applicable) would be included). In addition to the abovementioned criteria, to be included in the meta-analysis, a study needed to (1) conduct whole-brain voxel-based morphometry (VBM) or surface-based morphometry (SBM), (2) the same threshold was applied throughout the whole brain within each study, (3) report result coordinates of significant clusters in Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) or Talairach space. Based on the sample sizes of previous structural neuroimaging meta-analyses using SDM (Du et al., Reference Du, Liu, Chen, Huang, Li, Kuang and Gong2014; Kimmel et al., Reference Kimmel, Alhassoon, Wollman, Stern, Perez-Figueroa, Hall, Rompogren and Radua2016; Lai et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019; Li et al., Reference Li, He, Zhuang, Wu, Sun, Wei and Qiu2020; Wise et al., Reference Wise, Radua, Via, Cardoner, Abe, Adams and Arnone2017) and the recommended minimum of 10 studies to adequately test the heterogeneity of meta-analysis results (Sterne et al., Reference Sterne, Sutton, Ioannidis, Terrin, Jones, Lau and Higgins2011), we only conducted meta-analyses on samples of at least 10 studies, as was the case for GMV studies, but not CT (n = 9 across five traits) and SA (n = 6 across five traits) studies. In addition to the Big Five global traits, we also included results from trait facets, based on the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, Reference Costa and McCrae1992).

1.3. Data recording for meta-analysis

We first reviewed and recorded demographic characteristics (e.g., sample size, number of females and males, age of the sample (mean, standard deviation, and range), whether participants came from a larger project/data pool), and behavioral and imaging methodological information, such as personality instruments, image acquisition parameters (e.g., scanner magnetic field strength, voxel size), image processing methodologies (e.g., VBM or SBM, smoothing kernel), and statistical analyses (e.g., statistical threshold, correction of whole-brain multiple comparison). Second, we recorded the results for meta-analysis, including coordinates of significant clusters and measures of effect size (e.g., t scores, Z scores, and/or p values) (Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Fullana, et al., Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Fullana, Ioannidis, Fusar-Poli, Torrent and Radua2019).

1.4. Quality assessment

The present study used a 10-item checklist to assess the quality of each study included in the meta-analysis. The checklist was adopted and modified from previous structural imaging studies (Brambilla et al., Reference Brambilla, Hardan, Ucelli Di Nemi, Perez, Soares and Barale2003; Du et al., Reference Du, Liu, Chen, Huang, Li, Kuang and Gong2014; Li et al., Reference Li, He, Zhuang, Wu, Sun, Wei and Qiu2020). Assessed items included the reported characteristics of the participants, behavioral and imaging methodologies, results, and discussion (detailed description for items was listed in Table S1). Each item was scored 1, 0.5, or 0 if the study fulfilled, partially fulfilled, or did not fulfil the criteria, respectively, and only studies with summed scores greater than 6 were included in the meta-analysis (Li et al., Reference Li, He, Zhuang, Wu, Sun, Wei and Qiu2020). Note that this checklist is not designed as an assessment tool nor as a standardized measurement; however, it provides an objective indication of the rigor and transparency of each study. The inter-rater reliability of quality assessment for meta-analysis studies was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and good reliability between two coders was observed (ICC = .91).

1.5. Meta-analysis

We conducted the meta-analysis using seed-based d mapping with permutation of subject images software (SDM-PSI, version 6.21) (Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, & Radua, Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes and Radua2019; Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Fullana, et al., Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Fullana, Ioannidis, Fusar-Poli, Torrent and Radua2019; Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Vieta, et al., Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Vieta and Radua2019) (the software is publicly available at https://www.sdmproject.com/). The SDM-PSI procedure included the followings steps: First, it used the coordinates and effect size (t values) of the cluster peaks that showed association with personality traits. If a study provided Z, r, or p values instead of t values, we first converted them into corresponding t values. Note that if a study did not report the exact effect size, according to SDM-PSI manual recommendation, the study’s threshold (p value) was then used as conservative measure of the effect size. Second, during preprocessing step, SDM-PSI converts the effect sizes into Hedge’s g and the peak coordinates and effect sizes were used to create maps of the lower and upper bounds of the potential effect sizes for each study. We used the existing mask from SDM-PSI to restrict the analysis to gray matter. Third, SDM-PSI estimated the likely effect size and its standard error using maximum likelihood estimation and multiple imputations for each study. For the group analysis, SDM-PSI conducted a random-effects model, which was weighted by the sample size, within- and between-study heterogeneity. We set the imputation at the default of 20. Finally, SDM-PSI used Rubin’s rules to combine the imputed datasets. We used the commonly used SDM threshold (voxel-wise p < .005, SDM-Z > 1, cluster size greater than 10 voxels) and presented the result peak clusters in MNI coordinates.

1.5.1. Heterogeneity testing for potential moderators

To explore the potential moderators in the relation between Big Five traits and GMV, we conducted a series of heterogeneity tests. First, to investigate the heterogeneities in sample population, GMV processing, and Big Five personality instruments, we conducted a series of sub-group analyses by excluding (1) patient studies; (2) studies measuring gray matter density; (3) studies measuring T1w/T2w ratio; (4) studies preprocessing without segmentation; (5) studies using non-NEO instruments. We used the same threshold as in the main meta-analysis (voxel-wise p < .005, SDM-Z > 1, cluster size greater than 10 voxels) for these sub-group analyses. Second, to investigate the heterogeneities in sample characteristics, structural image data acquisition and processing strategies, statistical approach and statistical significance threshold, and quality, we conducted a series of meta-regression analyses with the following variables: Mean age of the samples, percentage of females, scanner magnetic field strength, processing method (VBM (as reference) versus SBM), smooth kernel, threshold correction (uncorrected versus cluster-level correction versus voxel-/vertex-level correction), covariates used in the analysis, and quality scores. Meta-regression in SDM-PSI examines whether a moderator correlates with the values of the activation voxels (i.e., robust peaks across studies). It uses permutation at the study level and implements the Freedman-Lane procedure for optimal parameter estimates (Albajes-Eizagirre et al., Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Vieta and Radua2019; Freedman & Lane, Reference Freedman and Lane1983; Winkler et al., Reference Winkler, Ridgway, Webster, Smith and Nichols2014). We used the commonly used threshold for meta-regression (voxel-wise p < .0005, SDM-Z > 1, cluster size greater than 10 voxels) to minimize the probability of false positives (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019; Li et al., Reference Li, He, Zhuang, Wu, Sun, Wei and Qiu2020).

2. Result

2.1. Included studies and study characteristics: General description

Figures 13 represent the flowcharts of the process of the literature search and selection of eligible studies. Across three databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science), the search resulted in 19 493 unique articles, of which 127 articles were eligible for the full article assessment across five personality traits and three brain indices. After full article assessment, across five traits, we identified 70 studies of GMV, 20 studies of CT, and 9 studies of SA. The sample characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis are summarized in Table 1. The full list of included studies can be found in the supplementary materials.

Figure 1. Flowchart of Gray Matter Volume Literature Search and Selection of Eligible Studies. The Flowchart was modified from Liberati et al. (Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gøtzsche, Ioannidis and Moher2009).

Figure 2. Flowchart of Cortical Thickness Literature Search and Selection of Eligible Studies. The Flowchart was modified from Liberati et al. (Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gøtzsche, Ioannidis and Moher2009).

Figure 3. Flowchart of Surface Area Literature Search and Selection of Eligible Studies. The Flowchart was modified from Liberati et al. (Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gøtzsche, Ioannidis and Moher2009).

Table 1. Summary of studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis

Note. Among the systematic review studies, some studies (Joffe et al., Reference Joffe, Gatt, Kemp, Grieve, Dobson-Stone, Kuan and Williams2009; Nair et al., Reference Nair, Beniwal-Patel, Mbah, Young, Prabhakaran and Saha2016; Yang, Hou, et al., Reference Yang, Hou, Wei, Wang, Li and Qiu2017) did not report the demographic information for the final sample; this was the case when, for example, only some participants contributed personality trait and/or structural image data, but a study only reported the demographic information for the total sample.

2.2. Study result reporting principles

To provide a comprehensive summary of the literature, we listed all results reported from each study, including results from alternative analytic approaches within the same study. However, to avoid double-counting the results from the same study using multiple alternative analytic approaches, the summaries presented in this Result section follow the principles listed here: (1) If a study had both whole-brain and ROI approaches, results from the whole-brain analysis were prioritized; (2) If a study used both voxel- or vertex-based ROI and mean ROI approaches, results from voxel- or vertex-based analysis were prioritized; (3) If a study reported results from both corrected and uncorrected thresholds, results from corrected threshold were prioritized; (4) If a study included more than one group, results from the largest sample size within that study were prioritized.

The following sections below summarize systematic review and meta-analysis (only applicable for GMV studies) results separately by each of the Big Five personality traits for GMV, CT, and SA. If none of the included studies measured the specific associations, such as trait facets, global brain indices, it would be denoted as “None” in the corresponding result section.

2.3. Neuroticism

2.3.1. Gray matter volume studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table 2 (meta-analysis studies) and Table S2 (systematic review studies). In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

Table 2. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with neuroticism (17 studies)

Note. Threshold: The threshold denotes the threshold p value, correction level (voxel-/vertex- versus cluster-level), and correction method used in the study; Result t range: The range of the absolute t value for significant peaks reported by each study was presented in the Result column. If only one value was presented, it suggests only one significant peak from the study result. For studies with effect sizes as “NS (not specified),” meta-analysis was conducted with converting the threshold used in the study. Abbreviation used in the table can be found in Supplementary Table S20.

2.3.1.1. Gray matter volume systematic review: Global gray matter indices

Of the 51 included studies, nine studies examined the association between neuroticism and global GMV indices, including total GMV (TGMV), total brain volume (TBV), neocortical volume (NCV), and total brain/gray matter ratio (TBR/TGMR), five studies reported negative associations with TGMV (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Balota and Head2011; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013; Tuerk et al., Reference Tuerk, Zhang, Sachdev, Lord, Brodaty, Wen and Delbaere2016) and TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001), and four studies reported no association with TGMV (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Schwartz, Duberstein, Healy, Hoogs, Bergsland and Zivadinov2013; Cremers et al., Reference Cremers, van Tol, Roelofs, Aleman, Zitman, van Buchem and van der Wee2011; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Kunz et al., Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017) and NCV (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Hussein, Englert, Dwyer, Abdelrahman, Cox, Munschauer and Zivadinov2008). Moreover, two additional studies that measured the specific facets of neuroticism (depression, anxiety) reported no association with TGMV and TBV (Schutter et al., Reference Schutter, Meuwese, Bos, Crone and Peper2017; Wei et al., Reference Wei, Du, Li, Chen, Li, Hao and Qiu2015).

2.3.1.2. Gray matter volume systematic review: Regional gray matter volume

Of the 51 included studies, 11 whole-brain analysis (WBA) studies reported no association between neuroticism and regional GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017), and 19 ROI analysis studies reported no association between neuroticism and regional GMV, including one study that used gray matter density (GMD) (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu and Gong2019), one study that examined GMV as a function of BDNF genotype (Joffe et al., Reference Joffe, Gatt, Kemp, Grieve, Dobson-Stone, Kuan and Williams2009), and five patient cohort studies (Hayano et al., Reference Hayano, Nakamura, Asami, Uehara, Yoshida, Roppongi and Hirayasu2009; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Kim, Gwak, Kim, Kang, Na and Park2016; Moayedi et al., Reference Moayedi, Weissman-Fogel, Crawley, Goldberg, Freeman, Tenenbaum and Davis2011; Nair et al., Reference Nair, Beniwal-Patel, Mbah, Young, Prabhakaran and Saha2016; Nickson et al., Reference Nickson, Chan, Papmeyer, Romaniuk, Macdonald, Stewart and Whalley2016). Of the 19 studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported (i.e., two or more studies reporting significant associations for the same region) for the bilateral OFC, SFG and right MFG, left STG, left LOG, and left CNS (note that the last two regions were from studies with non-independent samples: Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017), and positive associations were consistently reported for the left AMY. Associations in opposite directions were reported across studies for the right PRC, left MTG, right FSF, and right CRB.

2.3.1.3. Gray matter volume systematic review: Neuroticism facets

Of the 51 included studies, three studies that examined these six facets of neuroticism. Six additional studies examined one or more specific facets, without examining the global neuroticism trait. Study characteristics and results of neuroticism facets are displayed in Table S2. Of the five studies examining the anxiety facet, two studies reported negative associations with TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001), and three studies reported no association with global or regional GMV (Schutter et al., Reference Schutter, Koolschijn, Peper and Crone2012; Weber et al., Reference Weber, Giannakopoulos, Delaloye, de Bilbao, Moy, Moussa and Canuto2010; Wei et al., Reference Wei, Du, Li, Chen, Li, Hao and Qiu2015). Of the seven studies examining the depression facet, five studies reported negative associations with TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013) and regional GMV in frontal, ACC, THA, and CRB (Gustin et al., Reference Gustin, Peck, Macey, Murray and Henderson2013; Schutter et al., Reference Schutter, Koolschijn, Peper and Crone2012) and positive associations in frontal, HIP, and INS (Gustin et al., Reference Gustin, Peck, Macey, Murray and Henderson2013; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Liu, Wei, Liu, Meng, Wang and Qiu2016; Yang, Yin, et al., Reference Yang, Yin, Wei, Wang, Li and Qiu2017) (note that two studies from Yang et al. might include non-independent samples from the same project data), and two studies reported no association with global or regional GMV (Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Weber et al., Reference Weber, Giannakopoulos, Delaloye, de Bilbao, Moy, Moussa and Canuto2010). Of the three studies examining the Self-consciousness facet, two studies reported negative associations with TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001), and one study reported no association with regions GMV (Weber et al., Reference Weber, Giannakopoulos, Delaloye, de Bilbao, Moy, Moussa and Canuto2010). Of the three studies examining the impulsiveness facet, only one study reported a negative association with TBV. Of the three studies examining the vulnerability facet, one study reported a negative association with TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013) and another study reported a positive association with left AMY (Weber et al., Reference Weber, Giannakopoulos, Delaloye, de Bilbao, Moy, Moussa and Canuto2010). Of the three studies examining the hostility facet, only one study reported a negative association with TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013).

2.3.1.4. Gray matter volume meta-analysis

To examine robustness and replication of the results across studies, we conducted a meta-analysis using SDM-PSI, independently for each of the Big Five traits. Neuroticism and GMV studies are summarized in Table 2. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis of neuroticism and GMV, including one patient cohort study (Rivera-Bonet et al., Reference Rivera-Bonet, Hermann, Cook, Hwang, Dabbs, Nair and Meyerand2019), one study that measured GMD (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu and Gong2019), one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017), and one study that did not use segmentation (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010). Four studies (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Toschi & Passamonti, Reference Toschi and Passamonti2019) that met the meta-analysis criteria included non-independent samples, as all four studies used data from Human Connectome Project (HCP), and therefore, only the study with the largest sample size (i.e., Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) was included in the meta-analysis. One study (Tuerk et al., Reference Tuerk, Zhang, Sachdev, Lord, Brodaty, Wen and Delbaere2016) that met the meta-analysis criteria was not included because we were unable to obtain region coordinates from the publication or its authors; thus, this study was excluded from the meta-analysis, leaving 17 studies for meta-analytic study. The meta-analysis revealed no robustly significant regions associated with neuroticism (mean Hedge’s g = 0.0048 (−0.1077 – 0.0883)), although we observed a negative trend (at p < .05, k > 10, SDM-Z > 1) in the right SFG.

2.3.2. Cortical thickness studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S7. In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

2.3.2.1. Cortical thickness systematic review: Global cortical thickness indices

Of the 19 included studies, only one study (Sweeney et al., Reference Sweeney, Tsapanou and Stern2019) examined the association between neuroticism and global CT measure and reported no association between neuroticism and total CT.

2.3.2.2. Cortical thickness systematic review: Regional cortical thickness

Of the 19 included studies, four WBA studies reported no association between neuroticism and regional CT and four ROI analysis studies reported no association between neuroticism and regional CT. Of the 11 studies that reported significant associations, positive associations were consistently reported for the left SFG and MFG (note that both two regions were from studies with non-independent samples: Castagna, Reference Castagna2019; Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Wang, Cao, Zhang and Qiu2020). No negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. On the other hand, associations in opposite directions were reported across studies for the right SFG. In addition, two studies comparing patients and healthy participants reported opposite associations for the left INS and right FSF (Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Zheng and Castellanos2017), and left OFC (Moayedi et al., Reference Moayedi, Weissman-Fogel, Crawley, Goldberg, Freeman, Tenenbaum and Davis2011).

2.3.2.3. Cortical thickness systematic review: Neuroticism facets

None.

2.3.3. Surface area studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S12.

2.3.3.1. Surface area systematic review: Global surface area indices

None.

2.3.3.2. Surface area systematic review: Regional surface area

Of the eight included studies, three WBA studies reported no association between neuroticism and regional SA, but no ROI analysis studies reported association between neuroticism and regional SA. Of the 5 studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported for the bilateral SFG, left LOG, and left CNS (note that all those regions were from studies with non-independent samples: Castagna, Reference Castagna2019; Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Wang, Cao, Zhang and Qiu2020). No positive associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. No association in opposite directions was reported across studies.

2.3.3.3. Surface area systematic review: Neuroticism facets

Of the eight included studies, one study conducted a post hoc facet analysis to determine the contribution of six facets and reported that the anxiety, depression, and vulnerability to stress facets had the greatest contribution to the negative association between global neuroticism and cingulate, frontal, and temporal GMV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013) (Table S12). We identified no additional study that examined neuroticism facets without examining global neuroticism.

2.4. Extraversion

2.4.1. Gray matter volume studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table 3 (meta-analysis studies) and Table S3 (systematic review studies). In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

Table 3. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with extraversion (18 studies)

Note. Threshold: The threshold denotes the threshold p value, correction level (voxel-/vertex- versus cluster-level), and correction method used in the study; Result t range: The range of the absolute t value for significant peaks reported by each study was presented in the Result column. If only one value was presented, it suggests only one significant peak from the study result. For studies with effect sizes as “NS (not specified),” meta-analysis was conducted with converting the threshold used in the study. Abbreviation used in the table can be found in Supplementary Table S20.

2.4.1.1. Gray matter volume systematic review: Global gray matter indices

Of the 47 included studies, nine studies examined the association between extraversion and global GMV indices. Two studies reported a positive association with TGMV (Cremers et al., Reference Cremers, van Tol, Roelofs, Aleman, Zitman, van Buchem and van der Wee2011; Kunz et al., Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017), one study reported a positive association with NCV among patients with MS (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Hussein, Englert, Dwyer, Abdelrahman, Cox, Munschauer and Zivadinov2008), and six studies reported no association with TGMV (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Schwartz, Duberstein, Healy, Hoogs, Bergsland and Zivadinov2013; Forsman et al., Reference Forsman, de Manzano, Karabanov, Madison and Ullen2012; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Balota and Head2011; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013) or TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001).

2.4.1.2. Gray matter volume systematic review: Regional gray matter volume

Of the 47 included studies, nine WBA studies reported no association between extraversion and regional GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017), and 16 ROI analysis studies reported no association between extraversion and regional GMV, including one study that examined GMV as a function of BDNF genotype (Joffe et al., Reference Joffe, Gatt, Kemp, Grieve, Dobson-Stone, Kuan and Williams2009) and five patient cohort studies (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Kim, Gwak, Kim, Kang, Na and Park2016; Nair et al., Reference Nair, Beniwal-Patel, Mbah, Young, Prabhakaran and Saha2016; Nickson et al., Reference Nickson, Chan, Papmeyer, Romaniuk, Macdonald, Stewart and Whalley2016; Onitsuka et al., Reference Onitsuka, Nestor, Gurrera, Shenton, Kasai, Frumin and McCarley2005; Weber et al., Reference Weber, Giannakopoulos, Delaloye, de Bilbao, Moy, Moussa and Canuto2010). Of the 20 studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported for the left DLPFC, right IFG, right MTG, and right PHC. No positive associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. On the other hand, associations in opposite directions were reported across studies for a wide set of regions, including frontal (bilateral OFC and MFG, left SFG, right PRC), temporal (left STG and PHC), left SPL, left IOG, and subcortical (bilateral PUT and right CAD) regions.

2.4.1.3. Gray matter volume systematic review: Extraversion facets

Of the 47 included studies, two studies examined these six facets of extraversion. We identified no additional study that examined extraversion facets without measuring the global extraversion trait. Study characteristics and results of extraversion facets are displayed in Table S3. Of the two studies that examined facets of extraversion, one study reported no association between the six extraversion facets and any of the prior defined regional GMV among patients with EOD (Weber et al., Reference Weber, Giannakopoulos, Delaloye, de Bilbao, Moy, Moussa and Canuto2010), and another study reported that the gregariousness facet had the greatest contribution to the positive association between global extraversion and bilateral CAD (M. Li et al., Reference Li, Wei, Yang, Zhang and Qiu2019).

2.4.1.4. Gray matter volume meta-analysis

Extraversion and GMV studies are summarized in Table 3. Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis of extraversion and GMV, including one study that measured GMD (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu and Gong2019), one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017), and one study that did not use segmentation (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010). Four studies (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Toschi & Passamonti, Reference Toschi and Passamonti2019) that met meta-analysis criteria included non-independent samples, as all four studies used data from HCP, and therefore, only the study with the largest sample size (Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) was included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis with all included 18 studies revealed no robustly significant regions associated with extraversion (mean Hedge’s g = 0.0038 (−0.0445 – 0.0855)), even at a more liberal threshold (p < .05, k > 10, SDM-Z > 1).

2.4.2. Cortical thickness studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S8. In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

2.4.2.1. Cortical thickness systematic review: Global cortical thickness indices

None.

2.4.2.2. Cortical thickness systematic review: Regional cortical thickness

Of the 12 included studies, three WBA studies reported no association between extraversion and regional CT and three ROI analysis studies reported no association between extraversion and regional CT. Of the six studies that reported significant associations, no positive or negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies, nor associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.4.2.3. Cortical thickness systematic review: Extraversion facets

Of the 12 included studies, only one study conducted a post hoc facet analysis and reported that the excitement-seeking facet had the greatest contribution to the negative association between global extraversion and IFG CT (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013) (Table S8). We identified no additional study that examined extraversion facets without examining global extraversion was identified.

2.4.3. Surface area studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S13.

2.4.3.1. Surface area systematic review: Global surface area indices

None.

2.4.3.2. Surface area systematic review: Regional surface area

Of the seven included studies, four WBA studies reported no association between extraversion and regional SA, but no ROI analysis studies reported association between extraversion and regional SA. Of the three studies that reported significant associations, no positive or negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies, nor associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.4.3.3. Surface area systematic review: Extraversion facets

None.

2.5. Agreeableness

2.5.1. Gray matter volume studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table 4 (meta-analysis studies) and Table S4 (systematic review studies). In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

Table 4. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with agreeableness (12 studies)

Note. Threshold: The threshold denotes the threshold p value, correction level (voxel-/vertex- versus cluster-level), and correction method used in the study; Result t range: The range of the absolute t value for significant peaks reported by each study was presented in the Result column. If only one value was presented, it suggests only one significant peak from the study result. For studies with effect sizes as “NS (not specified),” meta-analysis was conducted with converting the threshold used in the study. Abbreviation used in the table can be found in Supplementary Table S20.

2.5.1.1. Gray matter volume systematic review: Global gray matter indices

Of the 32 included studies and one Trust facet study, six studies examined the association between agreeableness and global GMV indices. One study reported a positive association with NCV among patients with MS (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Hussein, Englert, Dwyer, Abdelrahman, Cox, Munschauer and Zivadinov2008), four studies (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Kunz et al., Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013), and one Trust facet study (Haas et al., Reference Haas, Ishak, Anderson and Filkowski2015) reported no association with TGMV or TBV.

2.5.1.2. Gray matter volume systematic review: Regional gray matter volume

Of the 32 included studies, nine WBA studies reported no association between agreeableness and regional GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017), and 10 ROI analysis studies reported no association between agreeableness and regional GMV, including one study that used GMD (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu and Gong2019). Of the 10 studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported for the right SFG, left MFG, left STG, left PHC, left SFG, and left MFG (note that the last two regions were from studies with non-independent samples: Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Zhu et al. Reference Zhu, Wang, Cao, Zhang and Qiu2020). No positive associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. On the other hand, associations in opposite directions were reported across studies for the left posterior cingulate region.

2.5.1.3. Gray matter volume systematic review: Agreeableness facets

None of the included studies examined specific facets of agreeableness. One additional study examined the Trust facet and reported positive and negative associations with regional GMV in a wide set of regions (Haas et al., Reference Haas, Ishak, Anderson and Filkowski2015) (Table S4).

2.5.1.4. Gray matter volume meta-analysis

Agreeableness and GMV studies are summarized in Table 4. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis of agreeableness and GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017) and one study that did not use segmentation (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010). Four studies (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Toschi & Passamonti, Reference Toschi and Passamonti2019) that met the meta-analysis criteria included non-independent samples, as all four studies used data from HCP, and therefore, only the study with the largest sample size (Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) was included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis with all included 12 studies revealed no robustly significant regions associated with agreeableness (mean Hedge’s g = 0.0052 (−0.1212 – 0.1281)), even at a more liberal threshold (p < .05, k > 10, SDM-Z > 1).

2.5.2. Cortical thickness studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S9. In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

2.5.2.1. Cortical thickness systematic review: Global cortical thickness indices

None.

2.5.2.2. Cortical thickness systematic review: Regional cortical thickness

Of the 11 included studies, six WBA studies reported no association between agreeableness and regional CT, and one ROI analysis studies reported no association between agreeableness and regional CT. Of the four studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported for the left SFG and MFG (note that both two regions were from studies with non-independent samples: Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Zhu et al. Reference Zhu, Wang, Cao, Zhang and Qiu2020). No positive associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. No associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.5.2.3. Cortical thickness systematic review: Agreeableness facets

None.

2.5.3. Surface area studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S14.

2.5.3.1. Surface area systematic review: Global surface area indices

None.

2.5.3.2. Surface area systematic review: Regional surface area

Of the seven included studies, four WBA studies reported no association between agreeableness and regional SA, and one ROI analysis studies reported no association between agreeableness and regional SA. Of the two studies that reported significant associations, no positive or negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies, nor associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.5.3.3. Surface area systematic review: Agreeableness facets

None.

2.6. Conscientiousness

2.6.1. Gray matter volume studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table 5 (meta-analysis studies) and Table S5 (systematic review studies). In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

Table 5. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis Studies with conscientiousness (12 studies)

Note. Threshold: The threshold denotes the threshold p value, correction level (voxel-/vertex- versus cluster-level), and correction method used in the study; Result t range: The range of the absolute t value for significant peaks reported by each study was presented in the Result column. If only one value was presented, it suggests only one significant peak from the study result. For studies with effect sizes as “NS (not specified),” meta-analysis was conducted with converting the threshold used in the study. Abbreviation used in the table can be found in Supplementary Table S20.

2.6.1.1. Gray matter volume systematic review: Global gray matter indices

Of the 34 included studies, seven studies examined the association between conscientiousness and global GMV indices. All seven studies reported no association with TGMV (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Schwartz, Duberstein, Healy, Hoogs, Bergsland and Zivadinov2013; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Balota and Head2011; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Kunz et al., Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013), TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001), or NCV (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Hussein, Englert, Dwyer, Abdelrahman, Cox, Munschauer and Zivadinov2008).

2.6.1.2. Gray matter volume systematic review: Regional gray matter volume

Of the 34 included studies, nine WBA studies reported no association between conscientiousness and regional GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017), and 12 ROI analysis studies reported no association between conscientiousness and regional GMV, including one study that used GMD (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu and Gong2019), one study that examined GMV as a function of BDNF genotype (Joffe et al., Reference Joffe, Gatt, Kemp, Grieve, Dobson-Stone, Kuan and Williams2009), and another that examined GMV as a function of APOE genotype (Kunz et al., Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017). Of the 11 studies that reported significant associations, no positive or negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. On the other hand, associations in opposite directions were reported across studies for the left ACC and left SPL.

2.6.1.3. Gray matter volume systematic review: Conscientiousness facets

None.

2.6.1.4. Gray matter volume meta-analysis

Conscientiousness and GMV studies are summarized in Table 5. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis of conscientiousness and GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017) and one study that did not use segmentation (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010). Four studies (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Toschi & Passamonti, Reference Toschi and Passamonti2019) that met the meta-analysis criteria included non-independent samples, as all four studies used data from HCP, and therefore, only the study with the largest sample size (Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) was included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis with all included 12 studies revealed no robustly significant regions associated with conscientiousness (mean Hedge’s g = 0.0040 (−0.1240 – 0.1159)), even at a more liberal threshold (p < .05, k > 10, SDM-Z > 1).

2.6.2. Cortical thickness studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S10. In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

2.6.2.1. Cortical thickness systematic review: Global cortical thickness indices

None.

2.6.2.2. Cortical thickness systematic review: Regional cortical thickness

Of the 11 included studies, five WBA studies reported no association between conscientiousness and regional CT, and two ROI analysis studies reported no association between conscientiousness and regional CT. Of the four studies that reported significant associations, positive associations were consistently reported for the right OFC. No negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. No associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.6.2.3. Cortical thickness systematic review: Conscientiousness facets

None.

2.6.3. Surface Area Studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S15.

2.6.3.1. Surface area systematic review: Global surface area indices

None.

2.6.3.2. Surface area systematic review: Regional surface area

Of the seven included studies, three WBA studies reported no association between conscientiousness and regional SA, but no ROI analysis studies reported association between conscientiousness and regional SA. Of the four studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported for the left MTG (note that this region was from studies with non-independent samples: Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019). No positive associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. No associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.6.3.3. Surface area systematic review: Conscientiousness facets

Of the seven included studies, one study conducted a post hoc facet analysis and reported that the achievement striving and self-discipline facets had the greatest contribution to the negative association between global conscientiousness and STG SA (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013) (Table S15). We identified no additional study that examined conscientiousness facets without examining global conscientiousness was identified.

2.7. Openness

2.7.1. Gray matter volume studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table 6 (meta-analysis studies) and Table S6 (systematic review studies). In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

Table 6. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with openness (11 studies)

Note. Threshold: The threshold denotes the threshold p value, correction level (voxel-/vertex- versus cluster-level), and correction method used in the study; Result t range: The range of the absolute t value for significant peaks reported by each study was presented in the Result column. If only one value was presented, it suggests only one significant peak from the study result. For studies with effect sizes as “NS (not specified),” meta-analysis was conducted with converting the threshold used in the study. Abbreviation used in the table can be found in Supplementary Table S20.

2.7.1.1. Gray matter volume systematic review: Global gray matter indices

Of the 32 included studies, six studies examined the association between openness and global GMV indices. All six studies reported no association with TGMV (Jauk et al., Reference Jauk, Neubauer, Dunst, Fink and Benedek2015; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Kunz et al., Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013), TBV (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001), or NCV (Benedict et al., Reference Benedict, Hussein, Englert, Dwyer, Abdelrahman, Cox, Munschauer and Zivadinov2008).

2.7.1.2. Gray matter volume systematic review: Regional gray matter volume

Of the 32 included studies, eight WBA studies reported no association between regional GMV and openness, including one study that that did not use segmentation (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010), and 10 ROI analysis studies reported no association between regional GMV and openness, including one study that used GMD (Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu, et al., Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Qiu and Gong2019), one study that examined GMV as a function of BDNF genotype (Joffe et al., Reference Joffe, Gatt, Kemp, Grieve, Dobson-Stone, Kuan and Williams2009), and one patient cohort study (Leutgeb et al., Reference Leutgeb, Ille, Wabnegger, Schienle, Schoggl, Weber and Fink2016). Of the 13 studies that reported significant associations, positive associations were consistently reported for the PHC, bilateral CAD, and left ITG (note that the last region was from studies with non-independent samples: Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017) regions, and negative associations were consistently reported for the left MFG and right ACC. On the other hand, associations in opposite directions were reported across studies for the right INS, right PCC, left STG, left PSC, and right PCN.

2.7.1.3. Gray matter volume systematic review: Openness facets

None.

2.7.1.4. Gray matter volume meta-analysis

Openness and GMV studies are summarized in Table 6. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis of openness and GMV, including one study that used a T1w/T2w ratio signal (Yasuno et al., Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017) and one study that did not use segmentation (DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010). Four studies (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017; Toschi & Passamonti, Reference Toschi and Passamonti2019) that met the meta-analysis criteria included non-independent samples, as all four studies used data from HCP, and therefore, only the study with the largest sample size (Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) was included in the meta-analysis. One study (Vartanian et al., Reference Vartanian, Wertz, Flores, Beatty, Smith, Blackler and Jung2018) that met the meta-analysis criteria was not included because we were unable to obtain region coordinates from the publication or its authors; thus, this study was excluded from the meta-analysis, leaving 11 studies for meta-analytic study. Meta-analysis with all included 11 studies revealed no significant regions associated with openness (mean Hedge’s g = 0.0039 (−0.0914 – 0.0426)), although we observed a negative trend (p < .05, k > 10, SDM-Z > 1) in the right PCN was observed.

2.7.2. Cortical thickness studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S11. In addition, Table S17 summarizes patient studies across five traits and three brain indices.

2.7.2.1. Cortical thickness systematic review: Global cortical thickness indices

None.

2.7.2.2. Cortical thickness systematic review: Regional cortical thickness

Of the 11 included studies, five WBA studies reported no association between openness and regional CT, but no ROI analysis studies reported association between openness and regional CT. Of the six studies that reported significant associations, negative associations were consistently reported for the bilateral MFG, right SFG, and left SPL (note that this region was from studies with non-independent samples: Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017). No positive associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. No associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.7.2.3. Cortical thickness systematic review: Openness facets

None.

2.7.3. Surface area studies

Study characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table S16.

2.7.3.1. Surface area systematic review: Global surface area indices

None.

2.7.3.2. Surface area systematic review: Regional surface area

Of the eight included studies, five WBA studies reported no association between openness and regional SA, but no ROI analysis studies reported association between openness and regional SA. Of the three studies that reported significant associations, positive associations were consistently reported for the left ITG (note that this region was from studies with non-independent samples: Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019; Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017). No negative associations were consistently reported for the same region across studies. No associations in opposite directions were reported across studies.

2.7.3.3. Surface area systematic review: Openness facets

None.

2.8. Age differences

This section summarizes studies examined age differences in three brain structural indices, five personality traits, and association between personality trait and brain structural indices.

2.8.1. Age differences in brain structural indices

Seven studies examined the association between age and brain structure. Table S18 summarizes studies examining age differences in GMV, CT, and/or SA.

2.8.2. Age-dependent associations between the big five and brain structure

Table S18 also summarizes studies examining age differences in five personality traits and in the association between personality and brain structural indices.

2.8.2.1. Neuroticism

Of the three studies that examined age-dependent associations between neuroticism and brain structure, one study reported no neuroticism x age interaction on regional GMV (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Balota and Head2011), one study reported no age difference in association between composite neuroticism anxiety and depression facets and CRB GMV (Schutter et al., Reference Schutter, Meuwese, Bos, Crone and Peper2017), and another study reported a three-way neuroticism x age x sex interaction for the ACC CT, in which that older, relative to younger, females who reported higher levels of neuroticism had thinner CT, whereas older, relative to younger, males who reported higher levels of neuroticism had thicker CT (Sweeney et al., Reference Sweeney, Tsapanou and Stern2019).

2.8.2.2. Extraversion

Only one study examined age-dependent associations between extraversion and brain structure and reported no extraversion x age interaction on regional GMV (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Balota and Head2011).

2.8.2.3. Agreeableness

We identified no study examined age-dependent associations between agreeableness and brain structure.

2.8.2.4. Conscientiousness

Only one study examined age-dependent associations between conscientiousness and brain structure and reported a conscientiousness x age interaction for the AMY and PHC GMV, in which individuals who reported higher levels of conscientiousness had smaller age-related cross-sectional decline in GMV (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Balota and Head2011).

2.8.2.5. Openness

Only one study examined age-dependent associations between openness and brain structure and reported that GMV mediated the negative association between openness and age (Kitamura et al., Reference Kitamura, Yasuno, Yamamoto, Kazui, Kudo, Matsuoka and Kishimoto2016).

2.9. Sex differences

This section summarizes studies examined sex differences in three brain structural indices, five personality traits, and association between personality trait and brain structural indices.

2.9.1. Sex differences in brain structural indices

Four studies examined sex differences in brain structure. Table S19 summarizes studies examining sex differences in GNV, CT, and/or SA.

2.9.2. Sex-dependent associations between the big five and brain structure

Table S19 also summarizes studies examining sex differences in five personality traits and in the association between personality and brain structural indices.

2.9.2.1. Neuroticism

Of the 13 studies examined sex-dependent associations between neuroticism and brain structure, three studies reported sex-dependent associations between neuroticism and regional GMV for the ACC (Blankstein et al., Reference Blankstein, Chen, Mincic, McGrath and Davis2009), HIP (Montag, Eichner, et al., Reference Montag, Eichner, Markett, Quesada, Schoene-Bake, Melchers and Reuter2013), POS, and FSF (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017), one study reported a three-way neuroticism x age x sex interaction for the ACC CT (Sweeney et al., Reference Sweeney, Tsapanou and Stern2019), and eleven studies reported no sex-dependent associations between neuroticism and GMV, CT, and/or SA.

2.9.2.2. Extraversion

Of the nine studies examined sex-dependent associations between extraversion and brain structure, three studies reported sex-dependent associations between extraversion and regional GMV for the ACC (Cremers et al., Reference Cremers, van Tol, Roelofs, Aleman, Zitman, van Buchem and van der Wee2011), POS, FSF, THA, and CRB (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017), and medFG (Blankstein et al., Reference Blankstein, Chen, Mincic, McGrath and Davis2009), and six studies reported no sex-dependent associations between extraversion and GMV, CT, and/or SA.

2.9.2.3. Agreeableness

Of the five studies examined sex-dependent associations between agreeableness and brain structure, one study reported sex-dependent associations between agreeableness and GMV for the right CRB (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011), and four studies reported no sex-dependent associations between agreeableness and GMV, CT, and/or SA.

2.9.2.4. Conscientiousness

Of the six studies examined sex-dependent associations between conscientiousness and brain structure, one study reported sex-dependent associations between conscientiousness and regional GMV for the left PCN/POS (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017), and five studies reported no sex-dependent associations between conscientiousness and GMV, CT, and/or SA.

2.9.2.5. Openness

Of the five studies examined sex-dependent associations between openness and brain structure, one study reported sex-dependent associations between openness and regional GMV for the supOFC (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011), and four studies reported no sex-dependent associations between openness and GMV, CT, and/or SA.

2.10. Meta-analysis heterogeneity testing

To explore potential heterogeneities across studies, we first conducted a series of sub-group analyses excluding studies (1) with patients (n = 1 across five traits); (2) measuring gray matter density (n = 1); (3) measuring T1w/T2w ratio (n = 1); (4) preprocessing without segmentation (n = 1); (5) using non-NEO instruments (n = 5). With regard to the heterogeneity in Big Five instruments, the majority of studies included in the meta-analysis used the NEO (NEO-PI-R (n = 7) or NEO-FFI (n = 11)). None of the sub-group meta-analyses revealed significant results at the set threshold (p < .005, k > 10). Table 7 summarizes the mean and range of the voxel-wise effect sizes (Hedge’s g) for main and sub-group meta-analysis results. Second, we conducted a series of meta-regression analyses with the following variables: Mean age of the samples, the percentage of females, scanner magnetic field strength, processing method (VBM versus SBM), smooth kernel, threshold correction (uncorrected versus cluster-level correction versus voxel-/vertex-level correction), covariates used in the analysis, and quality scores. With regard to the heterogeneity in the covariates used in the study analysis, we examined the influence of (1) the inclusion of ICV (n = 8 across five traits), that is, studies that did not include ICV as covariate as the reference; (2) the inclusion of total GMV (n = 6), that is, studies that did not include total GMV as covariate as the reference; (3) the inclusion of any global brain indices (n = 17, including ICV, total GMV, and TBV), that is, studies that did not include any global brain indices as covariate as the reference; (4) the inclusion of other personality traits as covariates (n = 7), that is, studies that did not include other personality traits as covariate as the reference; and (5) the total number of covariates (an average of 4.4 covariates across five traits ranging from 0 to 18 covariates), respectively. All the above variables, except the total number of covariates, showed no effect on the meta-analysis results for the associations of Big Five personality traits and GMV. The total number of covariates yielded a positive significant result (p < .0005, k > 10) in conscientiousness at right superior frontal gyrus ([8, 42, 56], SDM-Z = 3.35, p = .0004, k = 11). However, this significant result was driven by a single study (Kapogiannis et al., Reference Kapogiannis, Sutin, Davatzikos, Costa and Resnick2013) that included 18 covariates. The effect of total number of covariates became non-significant after excluding this outlier study. Table 8 summarizes the mean and range of the voxel-wise effect sizes (Hedge’s g) for meta-regression results.

Table 7. Voxel-wise effect sizes (hedge’s g) of the main meta-analysis and sub-group meta-analysis results

Note. Results marked as NA indicate that the included studies did not have such characteristic. For example, only Neuroticism studies included one study with patients and no study with patients included in other traits.

Table 8. Voxel-wise effect sizes (hedge’s g) of the meta-regression results

Note. The reporting range of the effect size is rounded to 2 decimals, and therefore, some values are displayed as 0.00; however, all voxels have non-zero effect sizes. A, Agreeableness; Age, mean age of the studied sample; C, Conscientiousness; E, Extraversion; Global, the inclusion of any global brain indices (ICV, TGMV, TBV) as covariate (study that did not include any global indices as covariate as the reference); ICV, the inclusion of ICV as covariate (study that did not include ICV as covariate as the reference); ImPros, image processing method (VBM (reference) versus SBM); N, Neuroticism; O, Openness; OtTrait, the inclusion of other Big Five personality traits as covariate (study that did not include other personality traits as covariate as the reference); Scan, scanner magnetic field strength; Sex, percentage of females in the study; Smooth, smooth kernel; QA, quality score; TGMV, the inclusion of TGMV as covariate (study that did not include TGMV as covariate as the reference); ThrCor, threshold correction (uncorrected versus cluster-level correction versus voxel-/vertex-level correction); #CV, total number of covariates.

3. Discussion

MRI studies have come under criticism for reporting under-powered and non-replicable findings (Button et al., Reference Button, Ioannidis, Mokrysz, Nosek, Flint, Robinson and Munafò2013; Szucs & Ioannidis, Reference Szucs and Ioannidis2017). Here, we used a systematic review and a meta-analysis approach to discern which findings, if any, would replicate reported associations between personality and brain measures. Surprisingly, we found no evidence for robust associations between any of the Big Five traits and brain structural indices (i.e., GMV, CT, and SA). Although we observed some consistent results from the qualitative systematic review, these findings failed confirmation when we used a quantitative meta-analytic approach.

3.1. Comparison with previous systematic review and/or meta-analysis studies

To our knowledge, only three studies used a systematic review and/or quantitative meta-analytic approach to evaluate the replicability of associations between personality traits and brain structural indices. One meta-analysis (Mincic, Reference Mincic2015) examined the association between GMV and a broad composite meta-trait named “negative emotionality” and included studies that measured one of these traits: Behavioral inhibition, harm avoidance, trait anxiety, or neuroticism.

Two other studies restricted their analyses to single “Big Five” traits only. One review by Montag, Reuter and colleague (Reference Montag, Reuter, Jurkiewicz, Markett and Panksepp2013) focused on GMV and neuroticism. These investigators reported heterogeneous findings across studies but noted consistent negative associations with neuroticism in prefrontal regions that included SFG and MFG and the OFC. This observation is consistent with our systematic review. However, Montag and colleagues did not subject their reviewed studies to a quantitative meta-analysis to determine the robustness of this observation, whereas our meta-analysis failed to confirm this observed association.

The second study was conducted by Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019) to examine the association between GMV and extraversion, using both a systematic review and meta-analytic approach. Based on quantitative meta-analysis, these investigators reported positive associations in the medOF and PRC, and negative associations in PHC, SMG, ANG, and MFG. The results contradicted our null meta-analysis result for extraversion. The discrepancies might derive from, first, the difference in the studies that were included across the two meta-analyses. First, Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019) only included VBM studies, whereas the present study included both VBM (n = 14) and SBM (n = 4) studies. Thus, four studies using SBM were not included in Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019). Second, Grodin and White (Reference Grodin and White2015) were excluded from the present study due to the personality instrument this study used. This study used two subscales (Social Potency and Social Closeness) from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Brief Form as proxy of extraversion. However, we determined that this instrument does not align with the same conceptual structure of the global extraversion of the Big Five and therefore excluded this study. Third, two studies that used different image processing were by DeYoung et al. (Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010) (which did not perform segmentation in the preprocessing) and by Yasuno et al. (Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017) (which used a T1w/T2w ratio signal), and were not included in Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019). In addition, Nostro et al. (Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017), which was included in Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019), were excluded from the present study due to non-independent samples overlapping with another larger study (Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019). The second difference between the present study and Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019) is the meta-analytic software versions used. Lai et al. (Reference Lai, Wang, Zhao, Zhang, Yang and Gong2019) used the previous version of SDM, Anisotropy Effect-Size Seed-based d Mapping (AES-SDM) (Radua et al., Reference Radua, Mataix-Cols, Phillips, El-Hage, Kronhaus, Cardoner and Surguladze2012, Reference Radua, Rubia, Canales-Rodríguez, Pomarol-Clotet, Fusar-Poli and Mataix-Cols2014), whereas the present study used the latest version, SDM-PSI. The major improvement of SDM-PSI is the implementation of multiple imputations of study images to avoid the bias from the single imputation and a less biased estimation of population effect size, and it is considered more robust than AES-SDM (Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Vieta, et al., Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Vieta and Radua2019).

3.2. Possible explanations of heterogeneous findings

Several possible explanations may account for discrepancies across the studies, including, but not limited to, (1) sample heterogeneity, (2) Big Five personality instruments, (3) structural image data acquisition, processing, and analytic strategies, (4) statistical approach and statistical significance threshold, and (5) the heterogeneous nature of personality and brain structure. The following sections discuss the above-listed factors in greater detail.

3.2.1. Sample heterogeneity

Sample characteristics that potentially contribute to highly heterogeneous results across the literature include mean age and age range, sex, and the inclusion of patient cohorts and different levels of personality traits across samples.

3.2.1.1. Age

From the systematic review, age correlated negatively with neuroticism, extraversion, and openness, but positively with agreeableness (note that not all studies that examined association between age and personality traits reported significant associations, as shown in Table S18). Those qualitative observations are consistent with previous population-based cross-sectional and mean-level studies (Allemand et al., Reference Allemand, Zimprich and Hertzog2007; Donnellan & Lucas, Reference Donnellan and Lucas2008). We examined whether age could account for heterogeneous meta-analysis results for all five traits using meta-regression, but we did not observe any significant age effect on any of the meta-analyses for five traits. However, the lack of a significant effect may be due, in part, to a narrow age range across the samples, which mainly consisted of adults aged 18 – 40 (Figure 4). This may hinder the generalizability of the results. Only one study (Nickson et al., Reference Nickson, Chan, Papmeyer, Romaniuk, Macdonald, Stewart and Whalley2016) examined longitudinal changes of personality traits and two studies (Nickson et al., Reference Nickson, Chan, Papmeyer, Romaniuk, Macdonald, Stewart and Whalley2016; Taki et al., Reference Taki, Thyreau, Kinomura, Sato, Goto, Wu and Fukuda2013) examined longitudinal changes of GMV. Nickson et al. (Reference Nickson, Chan, Papmeyer, Romaniuk, Macdonald, Stewart and Whalley2016) observed no association between AMY GMV changes and neuroticism and extraversion changes over an average of two-year interval among a mixed sample of patients with major depressive disorder and healthy controls. However, considering the small-to-moderate sample size and heterogeneous composition of the sample, future research with longitudinal study design is required to explore the causal relationship between age, personality traits, and brain structures. Furthermore, none of the included studies considered non-linear associations between age and personality traits, despite evidence in support of such a relation (Donnellan & Lucas, Reference Donnellan and Lucas2008; Terracciano et al., Reference Terracciano, McCrae, Brant and Costa2005). For example, a curvilinear association was reported between age and conscientiousness, such that the highest scores were observed in middle adulthood (Donnellan & Lucas, Reference Donnellan and Lucas2008). Future research with the consideration of non-linear nature of age and personality traits is required to delineate the relationship.

Figure 4. Sample Mean Age and Age Range Distribution of Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis across Big Five Personality Traits and Three Brain Indices.

Note. The study (y-axis) was ordered by the mean age (dot) from each study. Studies were separately labeled as “(hc)/(pt)/(hc/pt)” indicating results from the given study were reported separately for healthy and patient groups or combining healthy and patient groups. Not all studies provided the information for mean age or age range, thus, data from those studies were presented incompletely or not presented. Two red dashed vertical lines indicating the age of 18 and 65

3.2.1.2. Sex

From our systematic review, females reported higher levels of personality measures across all five traits, with the exception of extraversion from Omura et al. (Reference Omura, Constable and Canli2005) and openness from Gray et al. (Reference Gray, Owens, Hyatt and Miller2018) (note that not all studies that examined sex difference in personality traits reported significant difference, as shown in Table S19), and this observation is consistent with a previous population-based cross-sectional study (Soto et al., Reference Soto, John, Gosling and Potter2011). Interestingly, we observed that the mean ages of the participants were younger in Omura et al. (Reference Omura, Constable and Canli2005) and Gray et al. (Reference Gray, Owens, Hyatt and Miller2018), compared to other studies that reported higher levels of extraversion and openness in females. This observation is also partially consistent with the observations from Soto et al. (Reference Soto, John, Gosling and Potter2011), which showed that, on average, sex differences in personality traits vary across difference ages. Among all included studies in the systematic review (across five traits and three brain indices), 14 studies examined sex-dependent associations between the Big Five and brain structure. Two main approaches were used, including conducting trait–brain analysis separately for females and males and conducting sex-by-trait interaction analysis. As summarized in the previous section, the results are inconsistent across those studies, such that some studies reported trait–brain associations only in females (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011), only in males (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011; Montag, Eichner, et al., Reference Montag, Eichner, Markett, Quesada, Schoene-Bake, Melchers and Reuter2013; Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017), or in neither group (Knutson et al., Reference Knutson, Momenan, Rawlings, Fong and Hommer2001; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Williams, Feczko, Barrett, Dickerson, Schwartz and Wedig2006, Reference Wright, Feczko, Dickerson and Williams2007), and interaction analyses produced similarly conflicting results ((Blankstein et al., Reference Blankstein, Chen, Mincic, McGrath and Davis2009; Cremers et al., Reference Cremers, van Tol, Roelofs, Aleman, Zitman, van Buchem and van der Wee2011; Sweeney et al., Reference Sweeney, Tsapanou and Stern2019) versus (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; J. C. Gray et al., Reference Gray, Owens, Hyatt and Miller2018; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Dickie, Cox, Karama, Evans, Starr and Deary2018; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Zhao, Li, Wang, Luo and Gong2019)). We then examined whether sex (using the proportion of females) could account for heterogeneous meta-analysis results for all five traits using meta-regression, but again we did not observe significant effects. The potential explanations for sex difference include sex-related hormonal variability (De Vries, Reference De Vries2004), early biological and social developmental trajectory (Blankstein et al., Reference Blankstein, Chen, Mincic, McGrath and Davis2009; Goldstein et al., Reference Goldstein, Seidman, Horton, Makris, Kennedy, Caviness and Tsuang2001), and social processing differences in response to the environment (Wager et al., Reference Wager, Phan, Liberzon and Taylor2003). However, due to the mixed results from the literature, future research should take sex difference into account when examining the association between personality traits and brain structures.

3.2.1.3. Inclusion of patient cohorts and different levels of personality traits across samples

From the systematic review studies (across five traits and three brain indices), 14 studies included patient cohorts, as summarized in Table S17. Most studies reported higher mean level of neuroticism and lower mean level of extraversion and conscientiousness in patient cohorts, compared to healthy individuals (note that not all studies reported group differences in these three traits, as shown in Table S17), whereas no mean-level differences were reported for agreeableness and openness. Among those 14 patient cohort studies, three studies reported group differences in trait–brain associations, noting opposite associations between patients and healthy participants. It is possible that different levels of personality traits between patient and healthy groups contribute to the conflicting trait–brain associations. For example, a higher mean level of neuroticism was observed among patients with alcohol use disorder, compared to healthy participants (Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Zheng and Castellanos2017). However, no group mean-level difference was observed in Nair et al. (Reference Nair, Beniwal-Patel, Mbah, Young, Prabhakaran and Saha2016) and Moayedi et al. (Reference Moayedi, Weissman-Fogel, Crawley, Goldberg, Freeman, Tenenbaum and Davis2011). Alternative explanations include symptoms associated with the given medical or psychiatric conditions and brain structural differences underlying those conditions. To remove the potential effect from patient cohorts for meta-analysis, we conducted a sub-group meta-analysis excluding patient cohort studies and the result from neuroticism (this is the only trait that with patient cohort study in meta-analysis) remained unchanged.

Considering the potential influence of levels of personality traits across studies among non-patient studies, we compared the mean scores of personality trait measures among systematic review studies that reported contradictory associations. For example, two included studies reported associations in opposite directions between openness and PCC GMV, with higher mean level of openness reported in Yasuno et al. (Reference Yasuno, Kudo, Yamamoto, Matsuoka, Takahashi, Iida and Kishimoto2017) compared to Kitamura et al. (Reference Kitamura, Yasuno, Yamamoto, Kazui, Kudo, Matsuoka and Kishimoto2016). On the other hand, another two studies that reported associations in opposite directions between extraversion and MFG GMV reported comparable mean-level extraversion scores (Blankstein et al., Reference Blankstein, Chen, Mincic, McGrath and Davis2009; Coutinho et al., Reference Coutinho, Sampaio, Ferreira, Soares and Gonçalves2013). However, due to differences in personality trait instruments and scoring methods (e.g., some studies reported raw score, whereas some studies reported T scores), lacking reporting of personality scores in some studies, it is difficult to determine whether the levels of personality traits might play a role in conflicting results we observed from the included studies.

3.2.2. Heterogeneity in big five trait instruments

The use of different personality trait instruments might contribute to discrepancies across included studies. The most commonly used instruments were the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness Personality Inventory – Revised (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, short version of NEO-PI-R). Other instruments included the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), Big Five Inventory (BFI), Big Five Structure Inventory (BFSI), Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS), and 16 Personality Factor test (16 PF). Although studies showed high correlations between different instruments, some trait scales showed only low-to-moderate correlations (Gow et al., Reference Gow, Whiteman, Pattie and Deary2005). We examined whether the use of different instruments (NEO versus non-NEO) could account for heterogeneous meta-analysis results using sub-group analysis with only studies using NEO (either NEO-PI-R or NEO-FFI), but we did not observe significant results for all five traits. In addition, all the instruments listed were self-report questionnaires. Studies suggested combined observation- and interview-based, informant report (Connolly et al., Reference Connolly, Kavanagh and Viswesvaran2007; Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019) or to use physiological responses (Taib et al., Reference Taib, Berkovsky, Koprinska, Wang, Zeng and Li2020) to better capture the complex construct of personality and avoid the bias from self-report.

3.2.3. Heterogeneity in structural image data acquisition, processing, and analytic strategies

The heterogeneities of the structural image data acquisition, (pre)processing, and analytic strategies may also have contributed to discrepancies across studies.

3.2.3.1. Structural image data acquisition and processing

The use of different MRI scanners, scanner magnetic field strength, voxel size, and smoothing kernel could result in differences in image spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, the use of VBM versus SBM processing methods might lead to inconsistent results. Although Kunz et al. (Reference Kunz, Reuter, Axmacher and Montag2017) reported highly correlated total GMV results between VBM and SBM processing methods, none of the included studies directly compared VBM and SBM for regional structural results. However, the small number (18 VBM and 5 SBM studies across five traits) of studies we could include in the meta-regression limits any strong conclusions.

3.2.3.2. Structural image data analytic approaches

Different levels of structural analysis, whole-brain versus region-of-interest (ROI), could contribute to the heterogeneous results. Note that only studies using whole-brain voxel-/vertex-wise analysis and the same threshold across the whole brain were included in the meta-analysis to avoid the bias derived from regions with more liberal threshold (i.e., a prior ROI analysis) (Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Fullana, et al., Reference Albajes-Eizagirre, Solanes, Fullana, Ioannidis, Fusar-Poli, Torrent and Radua2019; Q. Li et al., Reference Li, He, Zhuang, Wu, Sun, Wei and Qiu2020), which makes a direct comparison between whole-brain and ROI studies difficult. Li et al. (Reference Li, Yan, Li, Wang, Li, Li and Li2017) made a direct comparison between whole-brain vertex-wise and whole-brain regional parcellation-based analyses and reported inconsistent results (i.e., different traits were associated with different brain indices in different regions) from the same group of participants. The authors suggested that the two approaches provide different advantages, such that vertex-wise approach could potentially give more accurate localizations, whereas parcellation-based approach could potentially achieve higher test-retest reliability across populations/studies. Furthermore, the selection of the atlas to label brain region for a given peak coordinates (for whole-brain voxel-/vertex-wise studies) or to extract mean value for pre-defined ROIs (for ROI studies) adds another layer of heterogeneity, as the same voxel/vertex coordinates may be labeled differently across atlases. Atlas used by the included studies can be found in Supplementary Tables S2 - S16. Future research should utilize alternative approaches, such as voxel-/vertex-based and parcellation-based approaches, to evaluate the reliability of the results.

The present study was limited to studies examining brain structure using T1-weighted structural MRI. Alternatively, brain structure can be measured by diffusion MRI. By measuring diffusivity of the water molecules, diffusion imaging allows an indirect way to measure white matter fiber structure (Mori & Zhang, Reference Mori and Zhang2006) and it has been implemented in the field of personality neuroscience (e.g., Avinun et al., Reference Avinun, Israel, Knodt and Hariri2020; Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; Privado et al., Reference Privado, Román, Saénz-Urturi, Burgaleta and Colom2017; Ueda et al., Reference Ueda, Kakeda, Watanabe, Sugimoto, Igata, Moriya and Korogi2018; Xu & Potenza, Reference Xu and Potenza2012). Furthermore, beyond single voxel/vertex and single parcellated region, connectome and network approaches may offer promising alternative ways to investigate patterns of brain structures and their associations with personality (Markett et al., Reference Markett, Montag and Reuter2018). Network approaches not only measure characteristics of nodes (brain regions) and edges (connections between brain regions) within and between the brain networks but also measure the local and global organization of the brain networks (Sporns & Zwi, Reference Sporns and Zwi2004). An optimal connectome approach may be achieved by implementing both high-resolution structural and diffusion MRI images (Gong et al., Reference Gong, He, Chen and Evans2012; Sporns et al., Reference Sporns, Tononi and Kötter2005).

3.2.4. Heterogeneity in statistical approach and statistical significance threshold

The use of different statistical approaches and statistical significance thresholds might contribute to discrepancies across studies.

3.2.4.1. Covariates in model specification

For model specification, commonly used covariates include age, sex, and global brain indices. Among the included studies in the systematic review (across five traits and three brain indices), covariates included age (n = 55 studies), sex (n = 47), TGMV/mean CT (n = 13), total brain volume (TBV) (n = 9), intracranial volume (ICV) (n = 26). Other covariates included intelligence (n = 7) and education (n = 3). Studies have directly examined influence of the covariates and suggested that the associations between personality traits and brain structures change dramatically (Hu et al., Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011; Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Crowe, Carter, Lynam and Miller2020). For example, Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Erb, Ackermann, Martin, Grodd and Reiterer2011) reported different trait–GMV associations when controlling for different combinations of age, sex, and TGMV, and Hyatt et al. (Reference Hyatt, Owens, Crowe, Carter, Lynam and Miller2020) reported remarked changes from the inclusion of ICV as covariate in statistical significance of the relation between various psychological variables (e.g., personality, psychopathology, cognitive processing) and regional GMV. In addition to demographic covariates, some studies also controlled for other personality traits (n = 15 across five traits among systematic review studies). Statistically speaking, the “unique association” of a given trait by including the other traits as covariates seemed to be reasonable, but whether the inclusion of other traits as covariates is still under debate, as some studies argued that the interpretation of “partial association” might not be straightforward (Lynam et al., Reference Lynam, Hoyle and Newman2006; Sleep et al., Reference Sleep, Lynam, Hyatt and Miller2017) and might fail to capture the inter-correlations between personality traits (e.g., Gray et al., Reference Gray, Owens, Hyatt and Miller2018; Holmes et al., Reference Holmes, Lee, Hollinshead, Bakst, Roffman, Smoller and Buckner2012; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Weber, Reuter, Markett, Chu and Montag2013). Profile- or cluster-based approaches have been proposed as an alternative way to capture the inter-dependency of personality traits (e.g., Gerlach et al., Reference Gerlach, Farb, Revelle and Nunes Amaral2018; Y. Li et al., Reference Li, He, Zhuang, Wu, Sun, Wei and Qiu2020; Mulders et al., Reference Mulders, Llera, Tendolkar, van Eijndhoven and Beckmann2018). To assess whether the inclusion of different covariates could account for heterogeneous meta-analysis results, we conducted a series of meta-regression analyses with the inclusion of (1) ICV, (2) TGMV, (3) any global brain indices (ICV, TGMV, or TBV), (4) other personality traits as covariates, and (5) the total number of covariates. Our results did not change as a function of any of these variables, although this may also reflect the small number of studies that fulfilled relevant selection criteria. We suggest that future research and future synthesis work should take the inclusion of covariates into account.

3.2.4.2. Significance threshold and multiple comparison correction

The choice of statistical significance threshold for reporting results should also be considered. Various levels of threshold were used among the included studies, including uncorrected versus corrected for multiple comparison, voxel-/vertex-level versus cluster-level correction, and different multiple comparison correction methods (e.g., family-wise error, Monte Carlo simulated, non-stationary, false discovery rate). Meta-analytic null results from this study may be due, in part, to positive results from studies that applied liberal statistical thresholds to data with small effect sizes, which were not robust enough to be replicable.

3.2.5. Heterogeneous nature of personality and brain structure

3.2.5.1. Replication challenges

Direct replication efforts in studies of personality and brain structure remain scarce to date. Replication was directly assessed in Owens et al. (Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) by comparing results with their earlier study (Riccelli et al., Reference Riccelli, Toschi, Nigro, Terracciano and Passamonti2017), using data from the same dataset (i.e., HCP). Owens et al. (Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019) demonstrated that not all results were replicated from the replication sample or the full sample. The sample characteristics, personality and image data acquisition, and processing were almost identical across those two studies, suggesting that other explanations than differences in sample characteristic and methodologies should be considered, according to Owens et al. (Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019).

3.2.5.2. Heterogeneous nature and individual difference

Finally, we consider the complex and heterogeneous nature of both personality and brain structures. First, a large number of brain regions were reported to be associated with one or more personality traits, and this observation might suggest that personality is constructed by many small effects from different brain regions (M. Li et al., Reference Li, Wei, Yang, Zhang and Qiu2019; Montag, Reuter, et al., Reference Montag, Reuter, Jurkiewicz, Markett and Panksepp2013; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Hyatt, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Miller and Sweet2019). Second, most conclusions from the literature were drawn from group mean levels, which ignored individual differences. Studies have demonstrated the influences of individual differences on cross-sectional and longitudinal changes in personality traits (Allemand et al., Reference Allemand, Zimprich and Hertzog2007; Lüdtke et al., Reference Lüdtke, Trautwein and Husemann2009). Both genetic and environment factors have been suggested to contribute to the heterogeneities. For example, heritability of personality and regional brain structures has been suggested to contribute to heterogeneous associations between the two (Nostro et al., Reference Nostro, Müller, Reid and Eickhoff2017; Valk et al., Reference Valk, Hoffstaedter, Camilleri, Kochunov, Yeo and Eickhoff2020). On the other hand, ample research has also demonstrated that both personality and brain structure are susceptible to change by the environment and experiences (e.g., Montag, Reuter, et al., Reference Montag, Reuter, Jurkiewicz, Markett and Panksepp2013; Roberts & Mroczek, Reference Roberts and Mroczek2008). Third, considering the highly heterogeneous nature and individual differences shaped by genetic and environment in personality traits, it is also possible that the global dimension of the Big Five personality traits is too broad to have the universal representation in the brain. Based on NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, Reference Costa and McCrae1992), each of the five personality traits is constructed by six facets. Studies have demonstrated that some trait facets contribute stronger, relative to the remaining facets for a given global trait, to the association between a certain global trait and brain structure (Bjørnebekk et al., Reference Bjørnebekk, Fjell, Walhovd, Grydeland, Torgersen and Westlye2013; M. Li et al., Reference Li, Wei, Yang, Zhang and Qiu2019). However, only a few studies included in the systematic review conducted additional facet analysis. Future research is recommended to examine the facets and variances of personality traits and brain structures and studies with regular follow-up are needed to evaluate the longitudinal changes.

3.2.5.3. Considerations of statistical approach and power

The highly heterogeneous nature of personality and brain structure also raises the concern of statistical power of the previous literature to detect reliable associations between psychological phenotype and brain structure (Masouleh et al., Reference Masouleh, Eickhoff, Hoffstaedter and Genon2019). An important aspect of statistical power relates to the image data analytic approach used. Although a voxel- or vertex-based approach could potentially provide more precise localization (T. Li et al., Reference Li, Yan, Li, Wang, Li, Li and Li2017), this also raises the concern of overestimating the statistical effect based on a peak voxel/vertex (Allen & DeYoung, Reference Allen, DeYoung and Widiger2017; DeYoung et al., Reference DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray2010). On the other hand, with the advantage of improving signal-to-noise ratio, improving test-retest reliability, and reducing the number of variables, the use of whole-brain parcellation-based approach has been increased (e.g., Eickhoff et al., Reference Eickhoff, Constable and Yeo2018; Hyatt et al., Reference Hyatt, Owens, Gray, Carter, MacKillop, Sweet and Miller2019; T. Li et al., Reference Li, Yan, Li, Wang, Li, Li and Li2017). Future research should carefully weigh the advantages and limitations of different image analytic approaches and possibly report on the congruency of their findings across multiple analysis methodologies.

3.3. Does a meaningful relation between the big five and brain structure really exist?

Having addressed several plausible factors contributing to heterogeneous findings and replication failure, we also consider the possibility that there is no meaningful relation between the Big Five personality traits and brain structure. Indeed, consistent null-to-very-small associations between the Big Five personality and brain structures have been reported by recent large-scale studies with over 1,100 participants (Avinun et al., Reference Avinun, Israel, Knodt and Hariri2020; Gray et al., Reference Gray, Owens, Hyatt and Miller2018). For example, Avinun et al. (Reference Avinun, Israel, Knodt and Hariri2020) investigated both global and facet levels of Big Five personality with structural indices from whole-brain parcellation (cortical CT, cortical SA, and subcortical GMV) and reported only conscientiousness (R 2  = .0044) (and its dutifulness facet (R 2  = .0062)) showed a small association with regional SA in superior temporal region. A recent study by Hyatt et al. (Reference Hyatt, Sharpe, Owens, Listyg, Carter, Lynam and Miller2021) of different levels of personality (from meta-traits, global Big Five traits, facets, and individual NEO-FFI items) and different levels of structural measures (from global brain measures to regional cortical and subcortical parcellations) reported that even the largest association (between Intellect facet of openness and global brain measures) yielded a mean effect size that was less than .05 (estimated by R 2 ). As we discussed above, alternative ways to assess brain structural features, such as connectome and network approaches, exist, and these may be better suited to map correspondences to complex traits than traditional approaches.

Our review of the literature was limited to studies of the Big Five personality model, which emerged from lexical analyses. The model serves the descriptive purpose but is not necessary explanatory (Deyoung & Gray, Reference Deyoung, Gray, Corr and Matthews2009; Montag & Davis, Reference Montag and Davis2018). Thus, there is no a priori reason why these constructs should map neatly onto biological systems, although the Big Five traits are associated with biologically based constructs such as Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) and Behavioral Inhibition and Approach System (BIS/BAS) (McNaughton & Corr, Reference McNaughton and Corr2004), Panksepp’s Affective Neuroscience Theory (ANT) (Montag et al., Reference Montag, Elhai and Davis2021; Montag & Davis, Reference Montag and Davis2018), and the dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism in Eysenck’s model (Eysenck, Reference Eysenck1967). For example, Vecchione and colleagues (Reference Vecchione, Ghezzi, Alessandri, Dentale and Corr2021), applied a latent-variable analysis approach to a sample of 330 adults who completed both Carver and White’s BIS/BAS and the Big Five Inventory. These authors found that BIS correlated with emotional stability (inverse of neuroticism) and that BAS correlated with extraversion, after controlling for higher-order factors. Moreover, Montag and Panksepp (Reference Montag and Panksepp2017) demonstrated that seven ANT primary emotional systems are respectively associated with at least one global dimension of the Big Five, such as FEAR, ANGER, and SADNESS with neuroticism, PLAY with extraversion, CARE and ANGER with agreeableness, and SEEKING with openness. Considering that Big Five model closely maps onto biological motivational and emotional systems, future work should include side-by-side comparisons and integrate across conceptual models of personality structure (such as Big Five, RST, and ANT) to provide a comprehensive picture of personality. This could be an iterative process by which future personality models would continue to be refined by neural data and guide the next generation of imaging and other biological (e.g., genetic) studies.

3.4. Limitations

Some limitations should be noted when interpreting the present systematic review and meta-analysis results. First, one of the major challenges of meta-analysis is the trade-off between meta-analysis power and homogeneity of the included studies (Müller et al., Reference Müller, Cieslik, Laird, Fox, Radua, Mataix-Cols and Eickhoff2018). Although no study, to our knowledge, has empirically evaluated the minimal number of studies required for meta-analysis using SDM, Eickhoff et al. (Reference Eickhoff, Nichols, Laird, Hoffstaedter, Amunts, Fox and Eickhoff2016) suggested that between 17 to 20 studies are required to achieve adequate power using activation likelihood estimator (ALE) meta-analysis, although whether this result is transferrable to SDM meta-analysis remains to be determined. From the present meta-analysis for five personality traits and GMV studies, we maximized the number of studies by including heterogeneous studies such that studies with patient cohorts, measuring GMD, using T1w/T2w ratio signals, and so on, and we demonstrated that the results remained unchanged with more homogeneous sub-group meta-analysis by excluding the abovementioned studies. Second, the present meta-analysis results were derived from the reported peaks, rather than raw data, and this limits our evaluation of variability within each individual study. Lastly, the present review only included peer-reviewed articles. “Grey literature,” which refers to studies not captured by traditional database and/or commercial publishers, should be also considered to avoid bias when synthesizing the literature (Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Hedges and Valentine2009). Previous review has found that the peer-reviewed published works had average greater effects and more significant results, compared to unpublished works like theses and dissertations (McLeod & Weisz, Reference McLeod and Weisz2004; Webb & Sheeran, Reference Webb and Sheeran2006). It is therefore unlikely that our general conclusions of lacking associations between the Big Five and structural brain measures would be altered by the inclusion of unpublished studies. Future researchers are encouraged to include studies from various sources and to carefully evaluate the quality of all works to provide reliable review.

3.5. Implication and conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate the entire published literature of the association between the Big Five personality traits and three brain structural indices, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative results suggested highly heterogeneous findings, and the quantitative results found no replicable results across studies. Our discussion pointed out methodological limitations, the dearth of direct replications, as well as gaps in the extant literature, such as limited data on trait facets, on brain-personality associations across the life span, and on sex differences.

When it comes to the relation of Big Five personality and structural brain measures, the field of Personality Neuroscience may have come to a crossroads. In fact, the challenge of finding meaningful and replicable brain–behavior relations is not unique to Big Five personality traits. The same challenge has also emerged in other psychological constructs, including, but not limited to, intelligence and cognition (e.g., attention, executive function), psychosocial processes (e.g., political orientation, moral), and psychopathology (e.g., anxiety, internalizing, externalizing) (Boekel et al., Reference Boekel, Wagenmakers, Belay, Verhagen, Brown and Forstmann2015; Genon et al., Reference Genon, Wensing, Reid, Hoffstaedter, Caspers, Grefkes and Eickhoff2017; Marek et al., Reference Marek, Tervo-Clemmens, Calabro, Montez, Kay, Hatoum and Dosenbach2020; Masouleh et al., Reference Masouleh, Eickhoff, Hoffstaedter and Genon2019). On the one hand, the lack of any significant associations discourages further efforts down this path, as resources may be better spent on following other leads. On the other hand, we suggested several ways to strengthen future work investigating personality–brain structure associations. Consilience may be attained by parallel processing: Expanding upon next-generation structural imaging and analysis approaches, while developing new models of personality informed by cutting-edge data prescribing biological constraints. This may be best accomplished by coming to a consensus as a field on how we can best strengthen methodological rigor and replicability and creating an incentive structure that rewards large-scale consortia building in parallel to smaller-scale creative innovations in methods and constructs.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2021.5

Acknowledgements

We thank all the authors who respond to our requests for clarification and providing data to make our study as comprehensive as possible. We also thank the undergraduate research assistant, Richard Adam, for his contribution as our second coder.

Funding statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

Adelstein, J. S., Shehzad, Z., Mennes, M., DeYoung, C. G., Zuo, X.-N., Kelly, C., … Milham, M. P. (2011). Personality is reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional architecture. PLoS ONE, 6, e27633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027633 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albajes-Eizagirre, A., Solanes, A., Fullana, M. A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fusar-Poli, P., Torrent, C., … Radua, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of voxel-based neuroimaging studies using seed-based d mapping with permutation of subject images (SDM-PSI). Journal of Visualized Experiments, e59841. https://doi.org/10.3791/59841 Google Scholar
Albajes-Eizagirre, A., Solanes, A., & Radua, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of non-statistically significant unreported effects. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 28, 37413754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280218811349 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albajes-Eizagirre, A., Solanes, A., Vieta, E., & Radua, J. (2019). Voxel-based meta-analysis via permutation of subject images (PSI): Theory and implementation for SDM. NeuroImage, 186, 174184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.077 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hertzog, C. (2007). Cross-sectional age differences and longitudinal age changes of personality in middle adulthood and old age. Journal of Personality, 75, 323358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00441.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, T. A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Personality neuroscience and the five factor model. In Widiger, T. A. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 319349). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199352487.013.26 Google Scholar
Andari, E., Schneider, F. C., Mottolese, R., Vindras, P., & Sirigu, A. (2014). Oxytocin’s fingerprint in personality traits and regional brain volume. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 479486. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs328 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avinun, R., Israel, S., Knodt, A. R., & Hariri, A. R. (2020). Little evidence for associations between the Big Five personality traits and variability in brain gray or white matter. NeuroImage, 220, 117092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117092 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedict, R. H. B., Hussein, S., Englert, J., Dwyer, M. G., Abdelrahman, N., Cox, J. L., Munschauer, F. E., … Zivadinov, R. (2008). Cortical atrophy and personality in multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychology, 22, 432441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.4.432 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedict, R. H. B., Schwartz, C. E., Duberstein, P., Healy, B., Hoogs, M., Bergsland, N., … Zivadinov, R. (2013). Influence of personality on the relationship between gray matter volume and neuropsychiatric symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Psychosomatic Medicine, 75, 253261. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31828837cc CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjørnebekk, A., Fjell, A. M., Walhovd, K. B., Grydeland, H., Torgersen, S., & Westlye, L. T. (2013). Neuronal correlates of the five factor model (FFM) of human personality: Multimodal imaging in a large healthy sample. NeuroImage, 65, 194208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankstein, U., Chen, J. Y. W. W., Mincic, A. M., McGrath, P. A., & Davis, K. D. (2009). The complex minds of teenagers: Neuroanatomy of personality differs between sexes. Neuropsychologia, 47, 599603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.014 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boekel, W., Wagenmakers, E. J., Belay, L., Verhagen, J., Brown, S., & Forstmann, B. U. (2015). A purely confirmatory replication study of structural brain-behavior correlations. Cortex, 66, 115133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.11.019 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brambilla, P., Hardan, A., Ucelli Di Nemi, S., Perez, J., Soares, J. C., & Barale, F. (2003). Brain anatomy and development in autism: Review of structural MRI studies. Brain Research Bulletin, 61, 557569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2003.06.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canli, T. (2006). Biology of personality and individual differences (Canli, T. (ed.)). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Canli, T., & Amin, Z. (2002). Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: Scientific evidence and ethical considerations. Brain and Cognition, 50, 414431. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2626(02)00517-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canli, T., Sivers, H., Whitfield, S. L., Gotlib, I. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Amygdala response to happy faces as a function of extraversion. Science, 296, 2191. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1068749 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canli, T., Zhao, Z., Desmond, J. E., Kang, E., Gross, J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2001). An fMRI study of personality influences on brain reactivity to emotional stimuli. Behavioral Neuroscience, 115, 3342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.115.1.33 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castagna, P. J. (2019). Structure related to function: Prefrontal surface area has an indirect effect on the relationship between amygdala volume and trait neuroticism. Brain Structure & Function, 224, 33093320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01974-x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, C., Mao, Y., Luo, J., He, L., & Jiang, Q. (2018). Regional gray matter volume mediates the relationship between conscientiousness and expressive suppression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 301. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00301 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00371.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. J., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Coutinho, J. F., Sampaio, A., Ferreira, M., Soares, J. M., & Gonçalves, O. F. (2013). Brain correlates of pro-social personality traits: A voxel-based morphometry study. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 7, 293299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-013-9227-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cremers, H., van Tol, M. J., Roelofs, K., Aleman, A., Zitman, F. G., van Buchem, M. A., … van der Wee, N. J. A. (2011). Extraversion is linked to volume of the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala. PLoS ONE, 6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028421 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vries, G. J. (2004). Minireview: Sex differences in adult and developing brains: Compensation, compensation, compensation. Endocrinology, 145, 10631068. https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2003-1504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition. In Corr, P. J. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 323346). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511596544.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five. Psychological Science, 21, 820828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610370159 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the big five across the life span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23, 558566. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012897 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du, M., Liu, J., Chen, Z., Huang, X., Li, J., Kuang, W., … Gong, Q. (2014). Brain grey matter volume alterations in late-life depression. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 39, 397406. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.130275 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eickhoff, S. B., Constable, R. T., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2018). Topographic organization of the cerebral cortex and brain cartography. NeuroImage, 170, 332347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eickhoff, S. B., Nichols, T. E., Laird, A. R., Hoffstaedter, F., Amunts, K., Fox, P. T., … Eickhoff, C. R. (2016). Behavior, sensitivity, and power of activation likelihood estimation characterized by massive empirical simulation. NeuroImage, 137, 7085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.072 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eliot, L., Ahmed, A., Khan, H., & Patel, J. (2021). Dump the “dimorphism”: Comprehensive synthesis of human brain studies reveals few male-female differences beyond size. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 667697. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2021.02.026 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
Forsman, L. J., de Manzano, O., Karabanov, A., Madison, G., & Ullen, F. (2012). Differences in regional brain volume related to the extraversion-introversion dimension—A voxel based morphometry study. Neuroscience Research, 72, 5967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2011.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D., & Lane, D. (1983). A nonstochastic interpretation of reported significance levels. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1, 292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1391660 Google Scholar
Genon, S., Wensing, T., Reid, A., Hoffstaedter, F., Caspers, S., Grefkes, C., … Eickhoff, S. B. (2017). Searching for behavior relating to grey matter volume in a-priori defined right dorsal premotor regions: Lessons learned. NeuroImage, 157, 144156. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2017.05.053 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. In Nature Human Behaviour (Vol. 2, Issue 10, pp. 735742). Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. M., Seidman, L. J., Horton, N. J., Makris, N., Kennedy, D. N., Caviness, V. S., … Tsuang, M. T. (2001). Normal sexual dimorphism of the adult human brain assessed by in vivo magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 490497. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/11.6.490 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, G., He, Y., Chen, Z. J., & Evans, A. C. (2012). Convergence and divergence of thickness correlations with diffusion connections across the human cerebral cortex. NeuroImage, 59, 12391248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.017 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Good, C. D., Johnsrude, I. S., Ashburner, J., Henson, R. N. A., Friston, K. J., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (2001). A voxel-based morphometric study of ageing in 465 normal adult human brains. NeuroImage, 14, 2136. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0786 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s “IPIP” Big-Five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. C., Owens, M. M., Hyatt, C. S., & Miller, J. D. (2018). No evidence for morphometric associations of the amygdala and hippocampus with the five-factor model personality traits in relatively healthy young adults. PloS One, 13, e0204011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodin, E. N., & White, T. L. (2015). The neuroanatomical delineation of agentic and affiliative extraversion. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 321334. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0331-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, R. C., Gunning-Dixon, F. M., Turetsky, B. I., Bilker, W. B., & Gur, R. E. (2002). Brain region and sex differences in age association with brain volume: A quantitative MRI study of healthy young adults. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 7280. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019442-200201000-00009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gustin, S. M., Peck, C. C., Macey, P. M., Murray, G. M., & Henderson, L. A. (2013). Unraveling the effects of plasticity and pain on personality. The Journal of Pain, 14, 16421652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.08.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haas, B. W., Ishak, A., Anderson, I. W., & Filkowski, M. M. (2015). The tendency to trust is reflected in human brain structure. NeuroImage, 107, 175181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.060 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayano, F., Nakamura, M., Asami, T., Uehara, K., Yoshida, T., Roppongi, T., … Hirayasu, Y. (2009). Smaller amygdala is associated with anxiety in patients with panic disorder. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 63, 266276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.01960.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, A. J., Lee, P. H., Hollinshead, M. O., Bakst, L., Roffman, J. L., Smoller, J. W., & Buckner, R. L. (2012). Individual differences in amygdala-medial prefrontal anatomy link negative affect, impaired social functioning, and polygenic depression risk. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 1808718100. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2531-12.2012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, X., Erb, M., Ackermann, H., Martin, J. A., Grodd, W., & Reiterer, S. M. (2011). Voxel-based morphometry studies of personality: Issue of statistical model specification-effect of nuisance covariates. NeuroImage, 54, 19942005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.024 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyatt, C. S., Sharpe, B. M., Owens, M. M., Listyg, B. S., Carter, N. T., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2021). Searching high and low for mea ningful and replicable morphometric correlates of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000402Google Scholar
Hyatt, C. S., Owens, M. M., Crowe, M. L., Carter, N. T., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2020). The quandary of covarying: A brief review and empirical examination of covariate use in structural neuroimaging studies on psychological variables. NeuroImage, 205, 116225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116225 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyatt, C. S., Owens, M. M., Gray, J. C., Carter, N. T., MacKillop, J., Sweet, L. H., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Personality traits share overlapping neuroanatomical correlates with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128, 111. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000391 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, J., Balota, D. A., & Head, D. (2011). Exploring the relationship between personality and regional brain volume in healthy aging. Neurobiology of Aging, 32, 21622171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.12.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jauk, E., Neubauer, A. C., Dunst, B., Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2015). Gray matter correlates of creative potential: A latent variable voxel-based morphometry study. NeuroImage, 111, 312320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joffe, R. T., Gatt, J. M., Kemp, A. H., Grieve, S., Dobson-Stone, C., Kuan, S. A., … Williams, L. M. (2009). Brain derived neurotrophic factor Val66Met polymorphism, the five factor model of personality and hippocampal volume: Implications for depressive illness. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 12461256. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20592 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kapogiannis, D., Sutin, A., Davatzikos, C., Costa, P., & Resnick, S. (2013). The five factors of personality and regional cortical variability in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 28292840. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22108 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimmel, C. L., Alhassoon, O. M., Wollman, S. C., Stern, M. J., Perez-Figueroa, A., Hall, M. G., Rompogren, J., & Radua, J. (2016). Age-related parieto-occipital and other gray matter changes in borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis of cortical and subcortical structures. Psychiatry Research – Neuroimaging, 251, 1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.04.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitamura, S., Yasuno, F., Yamamoto, A., Kazui, H., Kudo, T., Matsuoka, K., … Kishimoto, T. (2016). A structural model of age, grey matter volumes, education, and personality traits. Psychogeriatrics, 16, 4653. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutson, B., Momenan, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01220-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koelsch, S., Skouras, S., & Jentschke, S. (2013). Neural correlates of emotional personality: A structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging study. PLoS ONE, 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077196 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “Big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 768821. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0020327 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunz, L., Reuter, M., Axmacher, N., & Montag, C. (2017). Conscientiousness is negatively associated with grey matter volume in young APOE epsilon 4-Carriers. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 56, 11351144. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, H., Wang, S., Zhao, Y., Qiu, C., & Gong, Q. (2019). Neurostructural correlates of optimism: Gray matter density in the putamen predicts dispositional optimism in late adolescence. Human Brain Mapping, 41, 14591471. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24888 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lai, H., Wang, S., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Yang, C., & Gong, Q. (2019). Brain gray matter correlates of extraversion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies. Human Brain Mapping, 40, 40284057. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24684 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Y. J., Kim, S., Gwak, A. R., Kim, S. J., Kang, S.-G., Na, K.-S., … Park, J. (2016). Decreased regional gray matter volume in suicide attempters compared to suicide non-attempters with major depressive disorders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 67, 5965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.02.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leutgeb, V., Ille, R., Wabnegger, A., Schienle, A., Schoggl, H., Weber, B., … Fink, A. (2016). Creativity and borderline personality disorder: Evidence from a voxel-based morphometry study. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 21, 242255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2016.1182904 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, G. J., Dickie, D. A., Cox, S. R., Karama, S., Evans, A. C., Starr, J. M., … Deary, I. J. (2018). Widespread associations between trait conscientiousness and thickness of brain cortical regions. NeuroImage, 176, 2228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.033 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, M., Wei, D., Yang, W., Zhang, J., & Qiu, J. (2019). Neuroanatomical correlates of extraversion: A test–retest study implicating gray matter volume in the caudate nucleus. NeuroReport, 30, 953959. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000001306 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Q., Zhao, Y., Chen, Z., Long, J., Dai, J., Huang, X., … Gong, Q. (2020). Meta-analysis of cortical thickness abnormalities in medication-free patients with major depressive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 45, 703712. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-019-0563-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, T., Yan, X., Li, Y., Wang, J., Li, Q., Li, H., & Li, J. (2017). Neuronal correlates of individual differences in the big five personality traits: Evidences from cortical morphology and functional homogeneity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 414. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00414 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Y., He, L., Zhuang, K., Wu, X., Sun, J., Wei, D., & Qiu, J. (2020). Linking personality types to depressive symptoms: A prospective typology based on neuroticism, extraversion and conscientiousness. Neuropsychologia, 136, 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107289 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, W. Y., Weber, B., Reuter, M., Markett, S., Chu, W. C., & Montag, C. (2013). The Big Five of personality and structural imaging revisited: A VBM – DARTEL study. NeuroReport, 24, 375380. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328360dad7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, F., Huo, Y., Li, M., Chen, H. H., Liu, F., Wang, Y., … Chen, H. H. (2014). Relationship between personality and gray matter volume in healthy young adults: A voxel-based morphometric study. PloS ONE, 9, e88763. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088763 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Husemann, N. (2009). Goal and personality trait development in a transitional period: Assessing change and stability in personality development. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 428441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynam, D. R., Hoyle, R. H., & Newman, J. P. (2006). The perils of partialling: Cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy. Assessment, 13, 328341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106290562 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marek, S., Tervo-Clemmens, B., Calabro, F. J., Montez, D. F., Kay, B. P., Hatoum, A. S., … Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2020). Towards reproducible brain-wide association studies. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.21.257758 Google Scholar
Markett, S., Montag, C., & Reuter, M. (2018). Network neuroscience and personality. Personality Neuroscience, 1, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2018.12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masouleh, S. K., Eickhoff, S. B., Hoffstaedter, F., & Genon, S. (2019). Empirical examination of the replicability of associations between brain structure and psychological variables. ELife, 8, e43464. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.43464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLeod, B. D., & Weisz, J. R. (2004). Using dissertations to examine potential bias in child and adolescent clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 235251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.235 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 285305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mincic, A. M. (2015). Neuroanatomical correlates of negative emotionality-related traits: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia, 77, 97118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moayedi, M., Weissman-Fogel, I., Crawley, A. P., Goldberg, M. B., Freeman, B. V, Tenenbaum, H. C., & Davis, K. D. (2011). Contribution of chronic pain and neuroticism to abnormal forebrain gray matter in patients with temporomandibular disorder. NeuroImage, 55, 277286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, C., & Davis, K. L. (2018). Affective neuroscience theory and personality: An update. Personality Neuroscience, 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2018.10 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, C., Eichner, M., Markett, S., Quesada, C. M., Schoene-Bake, J.-C., Melchers, M., … Reuter, M. (2013). An interaction of a NR3C1 polymorphism and antenatal solar activity impacts both hippocampus volume and neuroticism in adulthood. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00243 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, C., Elhai, J. D., & Davis, K. L. (2021). A comprehensive review of studies using the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales in the psychological and psychiatric sciences. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 160167. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2021.02.019 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montag, C., & Panksepp, J. (2017). Primary emotional systems and personality: An evolutionary perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 464. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2017.00464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montag, C., Reuter, M., Jurkiewicz, M., Markett, S., & Panksepp, J. (2013). Imaging the structure of the human anxious brain: A review of findings from neuroscientific personality psychology. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 24, 167190. https://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2012-0085 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mori, S., & Zhang, J. (2006). Principles of diffusion tensor imaging and its applications to basic neuroscience research. Neuron, 51, 527539. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2006.08.012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulders, P., Llera, A., Tendolkar, I., van Eijndhoven, P., & Beckmann, C. (2018). Personality profiles are associated with functional brain networks related to cognition and emotion. Scientific Reports, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32248-x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, V. I., Cieslik, E. C., Laird, A. R., Fox, P. T., Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., … Eickhoff, S. B. (2018). Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 151161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nair, V. A., Beniwal-Patel, P., Mbah, I., Young, B. M., Prabhakaran, V., & Saha, S. (2016). Structural imaging changes and behavioral correlates in patients with Crohn’s Disease in remission. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 460. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00460 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickson, T., Chan, S. W. Y., Papmeyer, M., Romaniuk, L., Macdonald, A., Stewart, T., … Whalley, H. C. (2016). Prospective longitudinal voxel-based morphometry study of major depressive disorder in young individuals at high familial risk. Psychological Medicine, 46, 23512361. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716000519 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nostro, A. D., Müller, V. I., Reid, A. T., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2017). Correlations between personality and brain structure: A crucial role of gender. Cerebral Cortex, 27, 36983712. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw191 Google ScholarPubMed
Omura, K., Constable, R. T., & Canli, T. (2005). Amygdala gray matter concentration is associated with extraversion and neuroticism. Neuroreport, 16, 19051908. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000186596.64458.76 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onitsuka, T., Nestor, P. G., Gurrera, R. J., Shenton, M. E., Kasai, K., Frumin, M., … McCarley, R. W. (2005). Association between reduced extraversion and right posterior fusiform gyrus gray matter reduction in chronic schizophrenia. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 599601. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.3.599 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, M. M., Hyatt, C. S., Gray, J. C., Carter, N. T., MacKillop, J., Miller, J. D., & Sweet, L. H. (2019). Cortical morphometry of the five-factor model of personality: Findings from the Human Connectome Project full sample. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14, 381395. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz017 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potvin, O., Dieumegarde, L., & Duchesne, S. (2017). Normative morphometric data for cerebral cortical areas over the lifetime of the adult human brain. NeuroImage, 156, 315339. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2017.05.019 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potvin, O., Dieumegarde, L., & Duchesne, S. (2018). Corrigendum to ‘Normative morphometric data for cerebral cortical areas over the lifetime of the adult human brain’ [NeuroImage 156 (2017) 315–339]. NeuroImage, 183, 996998. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2018.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Privado, J., Román, F. J., Saénz-Urturi, C., Burgaleta, M., & Colom, R. (2017). Gray and white matter correlates of the Big Five personality traits. Neuroscience, 349, 174184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.02.039 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., Phillips, M. L., El-Hage, W., Kronhaus, D. M., Cardoner, N., & Surguladze, S. (2012). A new meta-analytic method for neuroimaging studies that combines reported peak coordinates and statistical parametric maps. European Psychiatry, 27, 605611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.04.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radua, J., Rubia, K., Canales-Rodríguez, E. J., Pomarol-Clotet, E., Fusar-Poli, P., & Mataix-Cols, D. (2014). Anisotropic kernels for coordinate-based meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riccelli, R., Toschi, N., Nigro, S., Terracciano, A., & Passamonti, L. (2017). Surface-based morphometry reveals the neuroanatomical basis of the five-factor model of personality. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12, 671684. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw175 Google ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, S. J., Cox, S. R., Shen, X., Lombardo, M. V, Reus, L. M., Alloza, C., … Deary, I. J. (2018). Sex differences in the adult human brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank participants. Cerebral Cortex, 28, 29592975. https://doi.org/10.1093/CERCOR/BHY109 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera-Bonet, C. N., Hermann, B., Cook, C. J., Hwang, G., Dabbs, K., Nair, V., … Meyerand, M. E. (2019). Neuroanatomical correlates of personality traits in temporal lobe epilepsy: Findings from the Epilepsy Connectome Project. Epilepsy & Behavior, 98, 220227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.07.025 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 3135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schutter, D. J. L. G., Koolschijn, P. C. M. P., Peper, J. S., & Crone, E. A. (2012). The cerebellum link to neuroticism: A volumetric MRI association study in healthy volunteers. PloS One, 7, e37252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037252 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schutter, D. J. L. G., Meuwese, R., Bos, M. G. N., Crone, E. A., & Peper, J. S. (2017). Exploring the role of testosterone in the cerebellum link to neuroticism: From adolescence to early adulthood. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 78, 203212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.01.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sleep, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Miller, J. D. (2017). Perils of partialing redux: The case of the Dark Triad. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 939950. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000278 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. D., Chebrolu, H., Wekstein, D. R., Schmitt, F. A., & Markesbery, W. R. (2007). Age and gender effects on human brain anatomy: A voxel-based morphometric study in healthy elderly. Neurobiology of Aging, 28, 10751087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.05.018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporns, O., Tononi, G., & Kötter, R. (2005). The human connectome: A structural description of the human brain. PLOS Computational Biology, 1, e42. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.0010042 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sporns, O., & Zwi, J. D. (2004). The small world of the cerebral cortex. Neuroinformatics 2004 2:2, 2, 145162. https://doi.org/10.1385/NI:2:2:145 Google ScholarPubMed
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 343, 18. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.D4002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, M., Tsapanou, A., & Stern, Y. (2019). Regional cortical thickness and neuroticism across the lifespan. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 286, 3944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2019.03.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLOS Biology, 15, e2000797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taib, R., Berkovsky, S., Koprinska, I., Wang, E., Zeng, Y., & Li, J. (2020). Personality sensing: Detection of personality traits using physiological responses to image and video stimuli. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 10, 132. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taki, Y., Thyreau, B., Kinomura, S., Sato, K., Goto, R., Wu, K., … Fukuda, H. (2013). A longitudinal study of the relationship between personality traits and the annual rate of volume changes in regional gray matter in healthy adults. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 33473353. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22145 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T. Jr (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psychology and Aging, 20, 493506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.493 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). Intra-individual change in personality stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 3137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toschi, N., & Passamonti, L. (2019). Intra-cortical myelin mediates personality differences. Journal of Personality, 87, 889902. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12442 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuerk, C., Zhang, H., Sachdev, P., Lord, S. R., Brodaty, H., Wen, W., & Delbaere, K. (2016). Regional gray matter volumes are related to concern about falling in older people: A voxel-based morphometrics study. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 71, 138144. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueda, I., Kakeda, S., Watanabe, K., Sugimoto, K., Igata, N., Moriya, J., … Korogi, Y. (2018). Brain structural connectivity and neuroticism in healthy adults. Scientific Reports, 8, 16491. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34846-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valk, S. L., Hoffstaedter, F., Camilleri, J. A., Kochunov, P., Yeo, B. T. T., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2020). Personality and local brain structure: Their shared genetic basis and reproducibility. NeuroImage, 220, 117067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117067 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vartanian, O., Wertz, C. J., Flores, R. A., Beatty, E. L., Smith, I., Blackler, K., … Jung, R. E. (2018). Structural correlates of Openness and Intellect: Implications for the contribution of personality to creativity. Human Brain Mapping, 39, 29872996. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24054 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vecchione, M., Ghezzi, V., Alessandri, G., Dentale, F., & Corr, P. J. (2021). BIS and BAS sensitivities at different levels of personality description: A latent-variable approach with self- and informant-ratings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103, 246257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1743709 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2018). FFM facets and their relations with different forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 6775. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCRIMJUS.2018.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wager, T. D., Phan, K. L., Liberzon, I., & Taylor, S. F. (2003). Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brain anatomy in emotion: A meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 19, 513531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00078-8 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S., Zhao, Y., Li, J., Wang, X., Luo, K., & Gong, Q. (2019). Brain structure links trait conscientiousness to academic performance. Scientific Reports, 9, 12168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48704-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wängqvist, M., Lamb, M. E., Frisén, A., & Hwang, C. P. (2015). Child and adolescent predictors of personality in early adulthood. Child Development, 86, 12531261. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12362 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, K., Giannakopoulos, P., Delaloye, C., de Bilbao, F., Moy, G., Moussa, A., … Canuto, A. (2010). Volumetric MRI changes, cognition and personality traits in old age depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 124, 275282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.11.016 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, D., Du, X., Li, W., Chen, Q., Li, H., Hao, X., … Qiu, J. (2015). Regional gray matter volume and anxiety-related traits interact to predict somatic complaints in a non-clinical sample. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 122128. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, A. M., Ridgway, G. R., Webster, M. A., Smith, S. M., & Nichols, T. E. (2014). Permutation inference for the general linear model. NeuroImage, 92, 381397. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2014.01.060 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wise, T., Radua, J., Via, E., Cardoner, N., Abe, O., Adams, T. M., … Arnone, D. (2017). Common and distinct patterns of grey-matter volume alteration in major depression and bipolar disorder: Evidence from voxel-based meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 22, 14551463. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2016.72 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, C. I., Feczko, E., Dickerson, B., & Williams, D. (2007). Neuroanatomical correlates of personality in the elderly. NeuroImage, 35, 263272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.039 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, C. I., Williams, D., Feczko, E., Barrett, L. F., Dickerson, B. C., Schwartz, C. E., & Wedig, M. M. (2006). Neuroanatomical correlates of extraversion and neuroticism. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 18091819. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj118 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, J., & Potenza, M. N. (2012). White matter integrity and five-factor personality measures in healthy adults. NeuroImage, 59, 800807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.040 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J., Hou, X., Wei, D., Wang, K., Li, Y., & Qiu, J. (2017). Only-child and non-only-child exhibit differences in creativity and agreeableness: Evidence from behavioral and anatomical structural studies. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11, 493502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-016-9530-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J., Liu, H., Wei, D., Liu, W., Meng, J., Wang, K., … Qiu, J. (2016). Regional gray matter volume mediates the relationship between family socioeconomic status and depression-related trait in a young healthy sample. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 5162. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0371-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J., Yin, P., Wei, D., Wang, K., Li, Y., & Qiu, J. (2017). Effects of parental emotional warmth on the relationship between regional gray matter volume and depression-related personality traits. Social Neuroscience, 12, 337348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1174150 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J., Yu, Y., Wang, W., & Qiu, J. (2021). Atypical neural activation associated with implicit negative emotional facial processing in fMRI tasks in individuals with neuroticism personality traits. Current Psychology 2021, 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-021-01486-0 Google Scholar
Yasuno, F., Kudo, T., Yamamoto, A., Matsuoka, K., Takahashi, M., Iida, H., … Kishimoto, T. (2017). Significant correlation between openness personality in normal subjects and brain myelin mapping with T1/T2-weighted MR imaging. Heliyon, 3, e00411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00411 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, Y., Zheng, Z.-L., & Castellanos, F. X. (2017). Analysis of alcohol use disorders from the Nathan Kline Institute-Rockland Sample: Correlation of brain cortical thickness with neuroticism. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 170, 6673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.10.040 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, X., Wang, K., Cao, A., Zhang, Y., & Qiu, J. (2020). Personality traits and negative affect mediate the relationship between cortical thickness of superior frontal cortex and aggressive behavior. Neuroscience Letters, 718, 134728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2019.134728 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zou, L., Su, L., Qi, R., Zheng, S., & Wang, L. (2018). Relationship between extraversion personality and gray matter volume and functional connectivity density in healthy young adults: An fMRI study. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 281, 1923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2018.08.018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flowchart of Gray Matter Volume Literature Search and Selection of Eligible Studies. The Flowchart was modified from Liberati et al. (2009).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Flowchart of Cortical Thickness Literature Search and Selection of Eligible Studies. The Flowchart was modified from Liberati et al. (2009).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Flowchart of Surface Area Literature Search and Selection of Eligible Studies. The Flowchart was modified from Liberati et al. (2009).

Figure 3

Table 1. Summary of studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis

Figure 4

Table 2. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with neuroticism (17 studies)

Figure 5

Table 3. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with extraversion (18 studies)

Figure 6

Table 4. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with agreeableness (12 studies)

Figure 7

Table 5. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis Studies with conscientiousness (12 studies)

Figure 8

Table 6. Characteristics of gray matter volume meta-analysis studies with openness (11 studies)

Figure 9

Table 7. Voxel-wise effect sizes (hedge’s g) of the main meta-analysis and sub-group meta-analysis results

Figure 10

Table 8. Voxel-wise effect sizes (hedge’s g) of the meta-regression results

Figure 11

Figure 4. Sample Mean Age and Age Range Distribution of Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis across Big Five Personality Traits and Three Brain Indices.Note. The study (y-axis) was ordered by the mean age (dot) from each study. Studies were separately labeled as “(hc)/(pt)/(hc/pt)” indicating results from the given study were reported separately for healthy and patient groups or combining healthy and patient groups. Not all studies provided the information for mean age or age range, thus, data from those studies were presented incompletely or not presented. Two red dashed vertical lines indicating the age of 18 and 65

Supplementary material: File

Chen and Canli supplementary material

Chen and Canli supplementary material 1

Download Chen and Canli supplementary material(File)
File 38.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chen and Canli supplementary material

Chen and Canli supplementary material 2

Download Chen and Canli supplementary material(File)
File 45.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chen and Canli supplementary material

Chen and Canli supplementary material 3

Download Chen and Canli supplementary material(File)
File 21.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chen and Canli supplementary material

Chen and Canli supplementary material 4

Download Chen and Canli supplementary material(File)
File 17.4 KB