Research links personality to immune health

[user9876]

121 subjects gives an average of only 24 people with each of the five personality types, which makes this a small study.

Personality seems like quite a complex thing can it really be summarized with any accuracy in just 5 types.

 

[adreno]

121 subjects gives an average of only 24 people with each of the five personality types

Sorry, but this is not correct. There are no personality types, each individual is rated on 5 dimensions (scales) of personality. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

 

[Sasha]

But my cat had to be put down today so I'm in a foul mood and might not be giving this research a fair crack.

Sorry about your cat, @Simon. A very rough day for you.

 

[adreno]

I suspect they haven't corrected for multiple comparisons (which increase the chance of false positives)

Can you explain this more clearly?

 

[Simon]

Sorry, but this is not correct. There are no personality types, each individual is rated on 5 dimensions (scales) of personality.

Thanks for the correction, that's the problem with stomping around in a bad mood . I've modified my post accordingly, but my conclusion that these findings are unlikely to replicate or be biologically relevant ramains.

[correcting for mulitple comparisons]Can you explain this more clearly?

The usual p<0.05 statistical test in research means that there is a chance of no more than 5% of the result being a false positive. But that's on the basis of testing just one item, eg correlating neuroticism score with expression levels of pro-inflammatory genes.

Each additional test increases the chance of a false positive eg correlating neuroticism with expresssion of pro-inflammatory genes AND Interferon genes. In this study they looked at 5 different personality traits correlating with 2 different sets of genes. So that's 10 different comparisons. The chances of a false positive from so many comparisons is (1-0.95^10)=40%, if I have the maths right - and not 5% ie there is a much higher chance of a false positive from many comparisons. Which makes the results less reliable.

There's a lot of debate over the best way to correct for multiple comparisons but the point is the issue needs addressing.
Multiple comparisons problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dreambirdie]

It's a fascinating book, actually. It makes that case that in the US, particularly, extraversion is socially favoured, to the detriment of society as a whole - with educational practices geared to the liking of extraverts (group work) that are poor in terms of learning for both extraverts and introverts. Lots of interesting stuff in there.

I started a thread on the Power of Introverts after reading Susan Cain's book last March: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/the-power-of-introverts.22511/

I had studied Jung's work both as an undergrad and a grad student, but hadn't read anything this good on the topic of Jung's two attitudes for a long time. She really did a good job.

 

[adreno]

Thanks for the correction, that's the problem with stomping around in a bad mood . I've modified my post accordingly, but my conclusion that these findings are unlikely to replicate or be biologically relevant ramains.

I agree with your criticisms. However, I do not find it unlikely that there could be associations between personality and immunity. Genes code for immunity, and genes code for personality. So it seems logical that there must exist certain genotypes, both with regard to immunity and personality. In other words, genes that code for say, high baseline inflammation, would also influence personality formation. Patterns of immunological "configuration" as well as patterns of personality.

Personality is just a higher level of phenotypical expression than the immune system. Anatomy (structure), biochemistry, personality, behavior - these are all phenotypical expressions of the same system, but described at different levels. The system is a whole. Personality cannot be separated from physiology. Of course, I'm just talking theory now.

Each additional test increases the chance of a false positive

Ok, I understand. This I believe is also known as "going fishing" in the data. If you pair enough variables, you will inevitably find correlations.

 

[TheWig]

@Beyond (and others) - you might be interested in Susan Cain's 'Quiet: The power of introversion in a world that can't stop talking'.

I recently read this book actually. It was quite well done and well worth a read. I did however find it quite bias, toward the introvert of course. Not necessarily a bad thing, I mean, that's what it was written for right!

 

[MeSci]

But my cat had to be put down today so I'm in a foul mood and might not be giving this research a fair crack.

I'm very sorry to hear this, @Simon. It's always hard, and I still miss a long-term dear furry friend whom I lost over a year ago.

Although this is probably of lesser importance to you right now, you actually clarified a lot in your post - really informative - thanks.

 

[eafw]

There is a theory that introverts (by definition, if you think about it) have a higher SNS activity. This would be a factor in immune response, via cortisol or some other mechanism.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886986901054


ETA another similar study which looks at the effect at different times of day.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900086

 

[Snow Leopard]

The finding is interesting, but quite shallow. Are the findings due to particular behaviour, eg going out more (and being exposed to more bugs) or working harder/more psychological stress or sleeping less, or dietary differences etc?

Blood samples were then collected from each volunteer for gene expression analysis and their typical smoking, drinking, and exercise behaviors were also recorded for control purposes.

There are many more interesting variables they could have studied, but...