Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Openness to experience—the enjoyment of novel experiences and ideas—has many connections to cognitive processes. People high in openness to experience, for example, tend to be more creative and have broader general knowledge than people low in openness to experience. In the current study, we use a network science approach to examine if the organization of semantic memory differs between high and low groups of openness to experience. A sample of 516 adults completed measures of openness to experience (from the NEO Five–Factor Inventory–3 and Big Five Aspect Scales) and a semantic verbal fluency task. Next, the sample was split into half to form high (n = 258) and low (n = 258) openness to experience groups. Semantic networks were then constructed on the basis of their verbal fluency responses. Our results revealed that the high openness to experience group's network was more interconnected, flexible, and had better local organization of associations than the low openness to experience group. We also found that the high openness to experience group generated more responses on average and provided more unique responses than the low openness to experience group. Taken together, our results indicate that openness to experience is related to semantic memory structure. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

openness to experience semantic memory network analysis semantic networks

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

J. T.

, Austerweil

J. L.

, & Griffiths

T. L.

(2015). Random walks on semantic networks can resemble optimal foraging. Psychological Review, 122, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038693.

Ackerman

P. L.

, & Heggestad

E. D.

(1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.121.2.219.

Agresti

(2003). Categorical data analysis 482. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Anderson

J. R.

(1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022–5371(83)90201–3.

Ardila

, Ostrosky–Solís

, & Bernal

(2006). Cognitive testing toward the future: The example of semantic verbal fluency (ANIMALS). International Journal of Psychology, 41, 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590500345542.

Baronchelli

, Ferrer–i–Cancho

, Pastor–Satorras

, Chater

, & Christiansen

M. H.

(2013). Networks in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.010.

Beaty

R. E.

, Kenett

Y. N.

, Christensen

A. P.

, Rosenberg

M. D.

, Benedek

, Chen

, … Silvia

P. J.

(2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713532115.

Benedek

, Kenett

Y. N.

, Umdasch

, Anaki

, Faust

, & Neubauer

A. C.

(2017). How semantic memory structure and intelligence contribute to creative thought: A network science approach. Thinking & Reasoning, 23, 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1278034.

Bertail

(1997). Second–order properties of an extrapolated bootstrap without replacement under weak assumptions. Bernoulli, 3, 149–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/3318585.

10.

Borge–Holthoefer

, & Arenas

(2010). Semantic networks: Structure and dynamics. Entropy, 12, 1264–1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/e12051264.

11.

Borodkin

, Kenett

Y. N.

, Faust

, & Mashal

(2016). When pumpkin is closer to onion than to squash: The structure of the second language lexicon. Cognition, 156, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.014.

12.

Christensen

A. P.

(2018). NetworkToolbox: Methods and measures for brain, cognitive, and psychometric network analysis in R. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6KMAV.

13.

Christensen

A. P.

, Cotter

K. N.

, & Silvia

P. J.

(2018). Reopening openness to experience: A network analysis of four openness to experience inventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1467428.

14.

Christensen

A. P.

, Kenett

Y. N.

, Aste

, Silvia

P. J.

, & Kwapil

T. R.

(2018). Network structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales–Short Forms: Examining psychometric network filtering approaches. Behavior Research Methods, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–018–1032–9.

15.

Christensen

A. P.

, Silvia

P. J.

, Nusbaum

E. C.

, & Beaty

R. E.

(2018). Clever people: Intelligence and humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000109.

16.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

17.

Collins

A. M.

, & Loftus

E. F.

(1975). A spreading–activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295X.82.6.407.

18.

De Deyne

, Kenett

Y. N.

, Anaki

, Faust

, & Navarro

D. J.

(2016). Large–scale network representations of semantics in the mental lexicon. In Jones

M. N.

(Ed.), Big data in cognitive science: From methods to insights (pp. 174–202). New York, NY: Psychology Press: Taylor & Francis.

19.

DeYoung

C. G.

, Grazioplene

R. G.

, & Peterson

J. B.

(2012). From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003.

20.

DeYoung

C. G.

, Quilty

L. C.

, & Peterson

J. B.

(2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.93.5.880.

21.

Efron

(1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552.

22.

Epskamp

, Borsboom

, & Fried

E. I.

(2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 195–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–017–0862–1.

23.

Erdös

, & Rényi

(1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Science, 5, 17–61.

24.

Faust

, & Kenett

Y. N.

(2014). Rigidity, chaos and integration: Hemispheric interaction and individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00511.

25.

Fayn

, MacCann

, Tiliopoulos

, & Silvia

P. J.

(2015). Aesthetic emotions and aesthetic people: Openness predicts sensitivity to novelty in the experiences of interest and pleasure. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1877. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01877.

26.

Feist

G. J.

(1998). A meta–analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5.

27.

Finke

R. A.

, Ward

T. B.

, & Smith

S. M.

(1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28.

Finn

(1997). Origins of media exposure: Linking personality traits to TV, radio, print, and film use. Communication Research, 24, 507–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005003.

29.

Fortunato

(2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486, 75–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002.

30.

Goñi

, Arrondo

, Sepulcre

, Martincorena

, Vélez de Mendizábal

, Corominas–Murtra

, … Villoslada

(2011). The semantic organization of the animal category: Evidence from semantic verbal fluency and network theory. Cognitive Processing, 12, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339–010–0372–x.

31.

Guilford

J. P.

(1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.

32.

Hennessey

B. A.

, & Amabile

T. M.

(2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416.

33.

Hills

T. T.

, Maouene

, Sheya

, & Smith

(2009). Longitudinal analysis of early semantic networks: Preferential attachment or preferential acquisition? Psychological Science, 20, 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2009.02365.x.

34.

Jauk

, Benedek

, & Neubauer

A. C.

(2014). The road to creative achievement: A latent variable model of ability and personality predictors. European Journal of Personality, 28, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1941.

35.

Johnson

J. A.

(1994). Clarification of factor five with the help of the AB5C model. European Journal of Personality, 8, 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080408.

36.

Karuza

E. A.

, Thompson–Schill

S. L.

, & Bassett

D. S.

(2016). Local patterns to global architectures: Influences of network topology on human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.003.

37.

Kashdan

T. B.

, Rose

, & Fincham

F. D.

(2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05.

38.

Kaufman

S. B.

, DeYoung

C. G.

, Gray

J. R.

, Jiménez

, Brown

, & Mackintosh

(2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011.

39.

Kaufman

S. B.

, Quilty

L. C.

, Grazioplene

R. G.

, Hirsh

J. B.

, Gray

J. R.

, Peterson

J. B.

, & DeYoung

C. G.

(2016). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12156.

40.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Anaki

, & Faust

(2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks in low and high creative persons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00407.

41.

Kenett

Y. N.

, & Austerweil

J. L.

(2016). Examining search processes in low and high creative individuals with random walks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.

42.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Beaty

R. E.

, Silvia

P. J.

, Anaki

, & Faust

(2016). Structure and flexibility: Investigating the relation between the structure of the mental lexicon, fluid intelligence, and creative achievement. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000056.

43.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Gold

, & Faust

(2016). The hyper–modular associative mind: A computational analysis of associative responses of persons with Asperger syndrome. Language and Speech, 59, 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915589397.

44.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Kenett

D. Y.

, Ben–Jacob

, & Faust

(2011). Global and local features of semantic networks: Evidence from the Hebrew mental lexicon. PLoS ONE, 6, e23912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023912.

45.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Levi

, Anaki

, & Faust

(2017). The semantic distance task: Quantifying semantic distance with semantic network path length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1470–1489. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000391.

46.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Levy

, Kenett

D. Y.

, Stanley

H. E.

, Faust

, & Havlin

(2018). Flexibility of thought in high creative individuals represented by percolation analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717362115.

47.

Kenett

Y. N.

, Wechsler–Kashi

, Kenett

D. Y.

, Schwartz

R. G.

, Ben Jacob

, & Faust

(2013). Semantic organization in children with cochlear implants: Computational analysis of verbal fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00543.

48.

Kwantes

P. J.

, Derbentseva

, Lam

, Vartanian

, & Marmurek

H. H. C.

(2016). Assessing the Big Five personality traits with latent semantic analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.010.

49.

Landauer

T. K.

, & Dumais

S. T.

(1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295X.104.2.211.

50.

Maniaci

M. R.

, & Rogge

R. D.

(2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008.

51.

Marupaka

, & Minai

A. A.

(2011). Connectivity and creativity in semantic neural networks. Paper presented at the Neural Networks (IJCNN), The 2011 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

52.

Massara

G. P.

, Di Matteo

, & Aste

(2016). Network filtering for big data: Triangulated maximally filtered graph. Journal of Complex Networks, cnw015. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnw015.

53.

McCrae

R. R.

, & Costa

P. T.

(1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Hogan

, Johnson

J. A.

, & Briggs

S. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978–012134645–4/50032–9.

54.

McCrae

R. R.

, & Costa

P. T.

(2007). Brief versions of the NEO–PI–3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614–0001.28.3.116.

55.

McCrae

R. R.

, Costa

P. T.

, & Martin

T. A.

(2005). The NEO–PI–3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05.

56.

McGrew

K. S.

(2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004.

57.

McKibben

W. B.

, & Silvia

P. J.

(2016). Inattentive and socially desirable responding: Addressing subtle threats to validity in quantitative counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 7, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150137815613135.

58.

McKibben

W. B.

, & Silvia

P. J.

(2017). Evaluating the distorting effects of inattentive responding and social desirability on self–report scales in creativity and the arts. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.86.

59.

McManus

I. C.

, & Furnham

(2006). Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences of education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 555–587. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X101088.

60.

McRae

, & Jones

M. N.

(2013). Semantic memory. In Reisberg

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 206–219). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

61.

Mõttus

(2016). Towards more rigorous personality trait–outcome research. European Journal of Personality, 30, 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2041.

62.

Muthén

L. K.

, & Muthén

B. O.

(2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables, user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

63.

Newman

M. E. J.

(2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 103, 8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103.

64.

Oleynick

V. C.

, DeYoung

C. G.

, Hyde

, Kaufman

S. B.

, Beaty

R. E.

, & Silvia

P. J.

(2017). Openness/intellect: The core of the creative personality. In Fiest

G. J.

, Reiter–Palmon

, & Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 9–27). Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316228036.002.

65.

Politis

D. N.

, & Romano

J. P.

(1994). A general theory for large sample confidence regions based on subsamples under minimal assumptions. Annals of Statistics, 22, 2031–2050. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176325770.

66.

Prabhakaran

, Green

A. E.

, & Gray

J. R.

(2014). Thin slices of creativity: Using single–word utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 641–659. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–013–0401–7.

67.

R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/.

68.

Ritter

S. M.

, Damian

R. I.

, Simonton

D. K.

, van Baaren

R. B.

, Strick

, Derks

, & Dijksterhuis

(2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 961–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009.

69.

Rossman

, & Fink

(2010). Do creative people use shorter association pathways? Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 891–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.025.

70.

Shannon

, Markiel

, Ozier

, Baliga

N. S.

, Wang

J. T.

, Ramage

, … Ideker

(2003). cytoscape: A software for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Research, 13, 2498–2504. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.1239303.

71.

Shao

(2003). Impact of bootstrap on sample surveys. Statistical Science, 18, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1063994974.

72.

Siew

C. S. Q.

(2013). Community structure in the phonological network. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 553. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00553.

73.

Silvia

P. J.

, & Sanders

C. E.

(2010). Why are smart people curious? Fluid intelligence, openness to experience, and interest. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.006.

74.

Simmons

J. P.

, Nelson

L. D.

, & Simonsohn

(2011). False–positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.

75.

Steyvers

, & Tenenbaum

J. B.

(2005). The large scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analysis and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3.

76.

Sutin

A. R.

, Terracciano

, Kitner–Triolo

M. H.

, Uda

, Schlessinger

, & Zonderman

A. B.

(2011). Personality traits prospectively predict verbal fluency in a lifespan sample. Psychology and Aging, 26, 994–999. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024276.

77.

van Wijk

B. C. M.

, Stam

C. J.

, & Daffertshofer

(2010). Comparing brain networks of different size and connectivity density using graph theory. PLoS ONE, 5, e13701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013701.

78.

Vitevitch

M. S.

, Chan

K. Y.

, & Goldstein

(2014). Insights into failed lexical retrieval from network science. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.10.002.

79.

Vitevitch

M. S.

, Chan

K. Y.

, & Roodenrys

(2012). Complex network structure influences processing in long–term and short–term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.008.

80.

Vitevitch

M. S.

, Goldstein

, & Johnson

(2016). Path–length and the misperception of speech: Insights from network science and psycholinguistics. In Mehler

, Lücking

, Banisch

, Blanchard

, & Job

(Eds.), Towards a theoretical framework for analyzing complex linguistic networks (pp. 29–45). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–662–47238–5_2.

81.

von Stumm

(2018). Better open than intellectual: The benefits of investment personality traits for learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 562–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217744526.

82.

Watts

D. J.

, & Strogatz

S. H.

(1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small–world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918.

83.

Zemla

J. C.

, & Austerweil

J. L.

(2018). Estimating semantic networks of groups and individuals from fluency data. Psyarxiv. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KG45R.

84.

Zemla

J. C.

, Kenett

Y. N.

, Jun

K.–S.

, & Austerweil

J. L.

(2016). U–INVITE: Estimating individual semantic networks from fluency data. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.

85.

Zillig

L. M. P.

, Hemenover

S. H.

, & Dienstbier

R. A.

(2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289013.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB

0.63 MB

Remotely Close Associations: Openness to Experience and Semantic Memory Structure

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material