Biological basis of personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (December 2012) This article relies on references to primary sources. (December 2012)

The biological basis of personality is the theory that personality is influenced by the biology of the brain. Though closely related to personality psychology, the biological basis of personality focuses on why or how personality traits manifest through biology, in addition to identifying personality traits. This is investigated by correlating personality traits with scientific data from experimental methods such as brain imaging and molecular genetics. Much of the current understanding of personality from a neurobiological perspective places an emphasis on the biochemistry of the behavioral systems of reward, motivation, and punishment. This has led to a few biologically based personality theories such as ysenck!s three factor model of personality, "rey!s reinforcement sensitivity theory #$%T&, and'loninger!s model of personality. The Big Five model of personality is not biologically based( yet some research in the differences in brain structures provided biological support also for this model.
Contents
)hide*

+ ,efining -ersonality in Biological 'ontext . /istory of Biology0Based -ersonality $esearch

 o o o o o o o

1 xperimental Techni2ues 3 "enetic 4 Molecular 'orrelations to -ersonality 3.+ 5eurotransmitters 3.. "enes 3.1 %ynaptic -lasticity 6 -ersonality Theories with Biological Basis 6.+ ysenck!s Three Factor Model of -ersonality 6.. "ray!s $einforcement %ensitivity Theory #$%T& 6.1 'loninger Model of -ersonality 6.3 Five Factor Model of -ersonality 7 %ee also 8 $eferences

,efining -ersonality in Biological 'ontext)edit*

-ersonality can be defined as a set of characteristics or traits that drive individual differences in human behavior. From a biological perspective, these traits can be traced back to brain structures and neural mechanisms. /owever, this definition and theory of biological basis is not universally accepted. There are many conflicting theories of personality in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, and neuroscience. 9 few examples of this are the nature vs. nurture debate and how the idea of a !soul! fits into biological theories of personality.)+*

/istory of Biology0Based -ersonality $esearch)edit*

/ans ysenck

%ince the time of the 9ncient "reeks, humankind has attempted to explain personality through spiritual beliefs, philosophy, and psychology. /istorically, studies of personality have traditionally come from the social sciences and humanities, but in the past two decades neuroscience has begun to be more influential in the understanding of human personality. ).* /owever, the most cited and influential figures in publishing the first biology0based personality theories are /ans ysenck and :effrey 9lan "ray. ysenck used both behavioral and psychophysiological methodologies to test and develop his theories. )1* /e published a book in +;38 called Dimensions of Personality, describing the personality dimensions of xtraversion and 5euroticism. "ray, a student of ysenck, studied personality traits as individual differences in sensitivity to rewarding and punishing stimuli.)1* The significance of "ray!s work and theories was his use of biology to define behavior, which stimulated a lot of subse2uent research.)3* The idea of biology0based personality research is relatively new, but growing in interest and number of publications.)6* <n 9ugust .==3, there was a conference specifically on the topic, called the The Biological Basis of Personality and Individual Differences.)7* This allowed for presenting and sharing of ideas between psychologists, psychiatrists, molecular geneticists, and neuroscientists, and eventually gave birth to the book under the same title.)7* The book is a collection of current research #as of .==7& in the field contributed by many authors and edited by Turhan 'anli. $ecently, psychology professor 'olin ". ,e>oung has even named the idea as the field of !-ersonality 5euroscience!. )citation needed*

xperimental Techni2ues)edit*
There are many experimental techni2ues for measuring the biology of the brain, but there are five main methods used to investigate the biological basis of personality. )8* The biological data from these methods are commonly correlated with personality traits. These personality traits are often determined by personality

2uestionnaires. /owever, personality 2uestionnaires may be biased because they are self0reported. 9s a result, scientists emphasi?e using several different measures of personality, )8*)@* rather than solely self0reported measures of personality. For example, another measure of personality traits is observation of behavior. Both humans and animals have been observed to measure personality traits, but animals are particularly useful for studying the long0term behavioral0biological relationship of personality. );*

Method

Function

Significance

!efore the advent of brain imaging This method measures electrical activity on Electroencephalography(EEG technology, the only method to measure the surface of the brain through the scalp, ) brain activity "as [ ] and has the high temporal resolution. electroencephalography (EEG).[ ]

!rain #maging

The method allo"s for vie"ing the $% structure of the brain. &unctional brain imaging allo"s for vie"ing $% brain activity, sho"n as flo" of blood or chemicals in the brain. 'pecific e(amples of machines are Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and )agnetic *esonance #maging ()*#), "hich both have highspatial resolution.

The development of brain imaging technology has not only allo"ed for, but has served as a catalyst to the investigation of ho" the brain contributes to personality. [$]

)olecular Genetics

This method is used to analy+e a gene,trait The use of molecular genetics in lin-, by measuring the structure and function biology,based personality research is of genes in the brain.[ ] e(pected to gro".[.]

)olecular /ssays

This method is used to analy+e the amount of psychoactive substances, such as hormones and neurotransmitters.

Pharmacological )anipulation

This method is used to alter the levels of biochemicals, and observe the effects on behavior.

Together, these t"o methods can specifically 0uantify, define, and manipulate the effects of brain molecules on behavior and personality traits. This has great clinical significance for treatment ofpersonality disorders.

"enetic 4 Molecular 'orrelations to -ersonality)edit*

Neurotransmitters)edit*

,opamine and %erotonin pathways

The biology0based personality theories #discussed below& are based on correlating personality traits with behavioral systems related to motivation, reward, and punishment. An a broad level, this involves the autonomic nervous system, fear0processing circuits in theamygdala, the reward pathway from the ventral tegmental area #BT9& to the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex. 9ll of these circuits heavily rely on neurotransmitters and their precursors, but there has been the most research support for dopamine and serotonin pathwaysC

,opamineC ,opamine is a monoamine neurotransmitter that has been found to promote exploratory behavior.)+=* ,opaminergic pathways have been specifically correlated with the extraversion trait of the Five Factor Model of -ersonality. )8* The monoamine oxidase#M9A& en?yme has a preferential affinity for dopamine, and is correlated with sensation seeking.)@*

%erotoninC %erotonin is a monoamine neurotransmitter, and has been found to promote avoidance behavior through inhibitory pathways. )+=* %pecifically, serotonin has been associated with 5euroticism, 9greeableness, and 'onscientiousness #traits defined by the Five Factor Model of -ersonality&. )8*

Genes)edit*
-revious studies show that genes account for at most 6= percent of a given trait. )+* /owever, it is widely accepted that variance in gene se2uence affect behavior, and genes are a significant risk factor for personality disorders.)++* With the growing interest in using molecular genetics in tracing the biological basis of personality,
)7*

there may be more gene0trait links found in the future.

Barying polymorphisms and se2uence repeats in the gene for dopamine receptor ,3 and serotonin transporter gene 60/TTD-$, have both been found to influence the extraversion trait in adults. %pecifically, study participants with at least one copy of the 80repeat variant of the dopamine receptor ,3 gene had higher scores of self0reported extraversion.)7* This suggests that dopamine and serotonin interact to regulate the conflicting behavioral traits of careless exploration vs. cautious inhibition.)+=*

Synaptic Plasticity)edit*
%ynaptic plasticity refers to the ability of neurons to strengthen or weaken the connections between them. 9ccording to /ebbian theory, these connections are strengthened and maintained through repeated stimulation between neurons. %pecifically, there is an emphasis on long0term potentiation #DT-&, which is the prolonged strengthening of synaptic connections that facilitate learning from experience. An a larger scale, there are many pathways and brain regions that are interdependent and contribute to a cohesive, stable personality. For example, the amygdala and hippocampus of the limbic system mediate emotional intensity and consolidate memory of these experiences. But the basic mechanism by which these pathways and brain regions perform these functions, is synaptic plasticity. Eltimately, it boils down to this feature of neurons that allows the brain to learn from repeated experiences, retain memories, and ultimately maintain personality. )+.* :oseph De,oux, an award0winning neuroscientist, asserts that although humans share the same brain systems, it is the uni2ue wiring of neurons that is different in each person and makes their personality.)+.*

-ersonality Theories with Biological Basis)edit*

There are many theories of personality that on the identification of a set of traits that encompass human personality. Few however, are biologically based. This section will describe some theories of personality that have a biological basis. 9dditionally, it will present biological support for a popular non0biologically based personality theory, the Five Factor Model.

Eysenck's Three Factor Model of Personality)edit*

ysenck!s Three0Factor Model of -ersonality was a causal theory of personality based on activation of reticular formation and limbic system. The reticular formation is a region in the brainstem that is involved in mediating arousal and consciousness. The limbic systemis involved in mediating emotion, behavior, motivation, and long0 term memory. +. xtraversion # & 0 degree to which people are outgoing and are interactive with people, which is mediated by the activation of the reticular formation. .. 5euroticism #5& 0 degree of emotional instability, which is associated with the limbic system. 1. -sychoticism #-& 0 degree of aggression and interpersonal hostility.

Gray's

einforcement Sensiti!ity Theory " ST#)edit*

"ray!s $%T in based on the idea that there are three brain systems that all differently respond to rewarding and punishing stimuli.)1*

+. Fight0Flight0Free?e %ystem #FFF%& 0 mediates the emotion of fear #not anxiety& and active avoidance of dangerous situations. The personality traits associated with this system is fear0proneness and avoidance. .. Behavioral <nhibition %ystem #B<%& 0 mediates the emotion of anxiety and cautious risk0assessment behavior when entering dangerous situations due to conflicting goals. The personality traits associated with this system is worry0proneness and anxiety. 1. Behavioral 9pproach %ystem #B9%& 0 mediates the emotion of !anticipatory pleasure,! resulting from reactions to desirable stimuli. The personality traits associated with this system is optimism, reward0 orientation, and impulsivity.

'loninger!s biological dimensions of personality

Cloninger Model of Personality)edit*

This model of personality is based on the idea that different responses to punishing, rewarding, and novel stimuli is caused by an interaction of the three dimensions belowC )citation needed* +. 5ovelty %eeking #5%& 0 degree to which people are impulsive, correlated with lowdopamine activity. .. /arm 9voidance #/9& 0 degree to which people are anxious, correlated with highserotonin activity.

3. $eward ,ependence #$,& 0 degree to which people are approval seeking, correlated with
low norepinephrine activity. <n one M$< study,)+1* 5ovelty %eeking correlated with increased grey matter volume in regions of the cingulate cortex, /arm 9voidance correlated with decreased grey matter volume in the orbitofrontal, occipital, and parietal cortex. $eward ,ependence correlated with decreased grey matter volume in the caudate nucleus.

Fi!e Factor Model of Personality)edit*

The Five Factor Model is widely used personality assessment that describes five core traits that a person possessesC +. Apenness 0 degree to which people enFoy experiencing new stimuli .. 'onscientiousness 0 degree to which people are dutiful and goal0oriented 1. xtraversion 0 degree to which people seek stimuli outside of themselves

3. 9greeableness 0 degree to which people aim to cooperate and please others

5. 5euroticism 0 degree to which people are emotionally unstable

Esing an M$<, one study)+3* found correlation between the volumes of certain brain areas with each of the five traits in the Five Factor Model. Their results found that ApennessG<ntellect did not have any significant correlation with the volume of any brain structures. 'onscientiousness was associated with increased volume in the lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior. xtraversion was associated with increased volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in processing reward information. 9greeableness was associated with increased volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals. 5euroticism was associated with increased volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative emotions.

%ee also)edit*

/ypostatic model of personality 5eural basis of self -ersonality -sychology -sychophysiology

$eferences)edit*
+. H :ump up toCa b De,oux, :. #.==1&. IThe %elfI. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences $%%$ #+&C .;6J 1=3. -M<, +37.617@. .. &ump up' ,avidson, $. :. #.==+&. IToward a biology of personality and emotionI #-,F&. Ann N Y Acad Sci ()*C +;+J.=8.

1. H :ump up toCa b c d 'orr, -hilip :.( -erkins, 9dam M. #.==7&. IThe role of theory in the psychophysiology of personalityC From <van -avlov to :effrey "rayI. International Journal of Psycho hysiology +, #1&C 178J 187. doiC+=.+=+7GF.iFpsycho..==7.=+.==6. <%%5 =+780@87=. 3. &ump up' Fowles, ,on #.==7&. I'hapter .C :effrey "ray!s 'ontributions to Theories of 9nxiety, -ersonality, and -sychopathologyI. <n 'anli, Turhan.Biology of ersonality and individual differences. "uilford -ress. <%B5 +6;[email protected].. 6. H :ump up toCa b 'anli, Turhan #.==7&. I'hapter 6C "enomic <maging of xtraversionI. <n 'anli, Turhan. Biology of ersonality and individual differences. "uilford -ress. <%B5 +6;[email protected].. 7. H :ump up toCa b c d 'anli, Turhan #.==7&. I'hapter +C <ntroductionI. <n 'anli, Turhan. Biology of ersonality and individual differences. "uilford -ress.<%B5 +6;[email protected].. 8. H :ump up toCa b c d e f g ,e>oung, 'olin ". #.=+=&. I-ersonality 5euroscience and the Biology of TraitsI. Social and Personality Psychology !om ass- #+.&C ++76J++@=. doiC+=.++++GF.+86+0 ;==3..=+=.==1.8.x. <%%5 +86+0;==3. @. H :ump up toCa b Kuckerman, Marvin #.==7&. I'hapter 1C Biosocial Bases of %ensation %eekingI. <n 'anli, Turhan. Biology of ersonality and individual differences. "uilford -ress. <%B5 +6;[email protected].. ;. &ump up' Mehta, -ranFal( "osling, %amuel #.==7&. I'hapter .=C /ow 'an 9nimal %tudies 'ontribute to $esearch on the Biological Bases of -ersonalityI. <n 'anli, Turhan. Biology of ersonality and individual differences. "uilford -ress. <%B5 +6;[email protected].. +=. H :ump up toCa b c bstein, $ichard -.( 9uerbach, :udith ". #.==.&. I,opamine ,3 receptor and serotonin transporter promoter polymorphisms and temperament in early childhoodI. "olecular #enetics and the $uman PersonalityC +18J+3;. ++. &ump up' Whittle, %., 9llen, 5. B., Dubman, ,. <., 4 >ucel, M. #.==7&. 5eurobiological basis of temperamentC Towards a better understanding of psychopathology. 5euroscience and Biobehavioral $eviews, 1=#3&, 6++06.6. +.. H :ump up toCa b De,oux, :. . #.==1&. %ynaptic %elfC /ow Aur Brains Become Who We 9reC -enguin Books. +1. &ump up' "ardini, %imona( 'loninger, '. $obert( Benneri, 9nnalena #.==;&. I<ndividual differences in personality traits reflect structural variance in specific brain regionsI. Brain %esearch Bulletin .( #6&C .76J .8=. doiC+=.+=+7GF.brainresbull..==;.=1.==6. <%%5 =17+0;.1=.-M<, +;3@=;@7.

+3. &ump up' ,e>oung, '. ".( /irsh, :. B.( %hane, M. %.( -apademetris, L.( $aFeevan, 5.( "ray, :. $. #.=+=&. ITesting -redictions From -ersonality 5euroscienceC Brain %tructure and the Big FiveI. Psychological Science ,$ #7&C @.=J@.@. doiC+=.++88G=;678;87+=18=+6;.

'ategoriesC

-sychology 5euroscience /ereditarianism -sychological theories

B<ADA"<'9D 95, " 5 T<' T/ A$< % AF - $%A59D<T>

B<ADA"<'9D /N0 " 5 T<' T1E2 3ES 4 T1E 5/6 5E / E M/0E 3N1373T32N /N0 / 28S/9 5hy do e:tra!erts seek e:citement; <n +;78 ysenck developed inhibition theory. /e argued that individual differences in extraversionJintroversion are strongly determined by heredity and have their origins in the central nervous system. 9ccording to this theory, information from the environment is transmitted from the sense organs along neural pathways to the brain, where excitatory and inhibitory cortical processes result in either the facilitation or inhibition of behavioural and cognitive responses, in certain specific ways. ysenck maintained that extraverts have relatively strong inhibitory processes and weak excitatory processes. Their MstrongN nervous system enables them to tolerate a high degree of stimulation. The brainNs slower and weaker reaction to stimuli creates a hunger or desire for strong sensory stimulation. %o extraverts seek excitement from the environment. <ntroverts, on the other hand, have strong excitory processes and weak inhibitory process. Their nervous systems are MweakN, but they have brains that react more 2uickly and strongly to stimuli. %o they can tolerate only relatively small amounts of stimulation. ,eveloping the theory ysenck and ysenck #+;@6& redeveloped inhibition theory to formulate arousal theory, which identifies the physiological systems underlying introversionJextraversion. The differences in the behaviour of extraverts and introverts are traced to various parts of the ascending reticular activating system #9$9%& J a network of fibres travelling upwards from the lower brain stem to the thalamus and cortex. %timulation of the 9$9% results in increases in alertness and arousal of the cortex. Ather fibres descending from the lower brain stem influence bodily musculature and the autonomic nervous system. 9t the same time, fibres descending from the cortex can modulate the activity of the brain stem, increasing or inhibiting the excitability of the 9$9%. %o the relationship between the 9$9% and the cortex is reciprocal. The high cortical arousability of introverts is supposed to amplify incoming stimulation. 9ccording to this framework, very high and very low levels of stimulation are considered to produce negative hedonic tone, which is experienced as negative feelings and negative evaluation of the experience. -ositive hedonic tone occurs only at intermediate levels of sensory stimulation. The levels at which negative and positive hedonic tone occur will be different for introverts and extraverts. Testing the theory Esing this theoretical formulation psychologists have been able to make predictions about the behaviour of introverts and extraverts in experiments ranging from sensory deprivation to studentsN study habits. For example, 'ampbell and /awley #+;@.& predicted that introverts would prefer study locations that minimi?e intense external stimulation #such as study carrels& whereas extraverts would prefer large, open reading areas where sociali?ing is permitted and both auditory and visual stimulation is high. These researchers gave students the -O, noted their preferred

seating areas in a campus library, and asked them to fill out a study habits 2uestionnaire. Their predictions turned out to be correct. They also found that extraverts took more study breaks, looking and walking around the room, going out for coffee etc. ,avies and -arasuraman #+;@.& found that extraverts also make more errors than introverts on long vigilance tasks. ysenck explained this finding by suggesting that extraverts generate reactive inhibition #fatigue& more 2uickly and at greater levels than introverts when they are performing long tasks. ,espite evidence that appears to support ysenckNs theory, a comprehensive review by %telmack #+;;=& showed that introverts and extraverts show no difference in brain0wave activity when at rest or asleep. <t therefore seems likely that extraverts and introverts differ in terms of their sensitivity to stimulation, rather than in base rate levels of cortical activity. Stress and performance There has not been much direct investigation of how neuroticism affects performance, but many studies have examined the effect of anxiety J one of the component traits of neuroticism. 9ccording to ysenck, the adverse effects of anxiety on performance are attributable to task0 irrelevant processing activities, such as worry. 'onsistent with this, ysenck and ysenck #+;@6& found that students who report high levels of worry perform less well on tests. 9nd when highly anxious people do perform well, it is at the expense of more effort and distress. Sensation seeking The differences between those who prefer bungee0Fumping and those who world rather watch a good movie can also be addressed using a biological theory of personality. Kuckerman #+;;3& conducted research into sensation seeking over a 1=0year period, developing a 2uestionnaire to measure the phenomenon and a biological theory to explain it. Kuckerman, Polin, -rice and Koob #+;73& identified four aspects of sensation seekingC +. thrill and adventure seeking #risky sport& .. experience seeking #desire for novelty& 1. disinhibition #stimulation through social activity& 3. boredom susceptibility #low tolerance for repetitive events& %ensation seekers are more likely to have more sexual partners, use illegal drugs, take part in risky sport, be more complex, original and creative, and have more liberal and nonconforming attitudes. Kuckerman #+;;3& explained differences in sensation seeking in terms of level of arousal in the catecholamine system. #This system comprises neurons communicating via catecholamines, which include epinephrine, or adrenaline, norepinephrine and dopamine( see chapter 1.& 9ccording to Kuckerman, those with a low optimal level in this system work to reduce the stimulation in their environment, whereas those with a high optimal level seek to increase it. GENET3CS <S= EN<3 2NMENT $ecent work in behavioural genetics has examined the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to human behaviour. 9 good example of this approach is represented by the twin studies of intelligence. vidence for and against genetic influence <n +;87 Doehlin and 5icholls examined the scores on self0report personality 2uestionnaires of @== pairs of twins. 5early all traits showed moderate genetic influence, with mono?ygotic #identical& twins being much more similar than di?ygotic #fraternal or non0identical& twins. 9 more extensive study #Doehlin, +;;.& of .3,=== twin pairs in many different countries confirmed that mono?ygotic twins are much more similar than di?ygotic twins on the Big Five personality dimensions. $iemann, 9ngleitner and %trelau #+;;8& found the same results when twins were rated by their friends on the same factors. %tudies of genetically unrelated family members #parents and their adopted children& show no similarity in personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism #Doehli n, +;;.&. This suggests that family environment itself does not contribute to similarities in personality between family members. <nterestingly, recent studies have also shown only very slight similarities in personality between adopted children and their biological parents. 9 study by -lomin, 'orley, 'aspi, Fulker and ,eFries #+;;@& found some evidence for a genetic basis for sociability, but almost no similarities in emotionality between biological parents and their adopted0away children, or between adoptive

parents and their adopted children. Thus both adoption studies and twin studies are consistent with a genetic influence on personality. Anly identical twins have exactly the same combinations of genes( di?ygotic twins, Fust like ordinary siblings, will each inherit a different random sampling of half of each parentNs genes. <t is also possible that research findings from twin studies are partly explained by the uni2ue circumstances of being a twin. For example, twins who look similar may be encouraged t act in a similar way, whereas non0identical twins may be encouraged to behave differently.