人格特质及脑功能连接对社交网络的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01335

心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (12): 1335-1347.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01335

人格特质及脑功能连接对社交网络的影响

李依蔓¹^,³, 刘程¹, 庄恺祥¹, 霍腾宾¹, 徐鹏飞⁵, 罗跃嘉³^,⁴^,⁵^,⁶, 邱江¹^,²()

¹西南大学心理学部, 重庆 400715
²认知与人格教育部重点实验室, 重庆 400715
³深圳大学心理学院, 深圳 518060
⁴深圳大学脑疾病与认知科学研究中心, 深圳 518060
⁵北京师范大学心理学部, 北京 100875
⁶齐鲁师范学院教师教育学院, 心理学与认知神经科学研究所, 济南 250200

收稿日期:2021-01-11 发布日期:2021-10-26 出版日期:2021-12-25
通讯作者: 邱江 E-mail:qiuj318@swu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31771231);重庆市自然科学基金项目(cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0520);重庆市社会科学规划项目(2018PY80);中央高校基本科研业务专项资金(SWU119007);国家社科重大项目(20&ZD153);广东省科技项目(2019A050510048)

The influence of personality traits and brain functional connectivity on social networks

LI Yiman¹^,³, LIU Cheng¹, ZHUANG Kaixiang¹, HUO Tengbin¹, XU Pengfei⁵, LUO Yuejia³^,⁴^,⁵^,⁶, QIU Jiang¹^,²()

¹School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
²Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Chongqing 400715, China
³School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
⁴Center for Brain Disorders and Cognitive Sciences, Shenzhen 518060, China
⁵Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
⁶Teacher Education College, Qilu Normal University; Institute of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Jinan 250200, China

Received:2021-01-11 Online:2021-10-26 Published:2021-12-25
Contact: QIU Jiang E-mail:qiuj318@swu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用网络分析的方法, 本研究从个体受欢迎程度和个体间亲密程度两方面探究了人格特质对社交网络的影响, 并在此基础上进一步探究了个体间大脑静息态功能连接相似性和社交网络的关系。结果发现：(1)高尽责性的个体在需要“值得信任”特质的社交网络中更受欢迎, 高宜人性的个体在需要“共享时光”的社交网络中更受欢迎; (2)在需要“相同兴趣”特质的社交网络中, 个体间人格相似性和社会距离呈显著负相关关系; (3)同样在需要“相同兴趣”特质的社交网络中, 个体间部分功能连接相似性与社会距离呈显著负相关关系, 这些功能连接主要集中在额顶控制网络以及背侧注意网络; 同时, 部分节点功能连接相似性与社会距离呈显著正相关关系, 这些功能连接主要集中在默认网络。研究结果揭示了人格特质对不同社交网络结构的影响, 以及个体间人格特质相似性和静息态脑网络相似性与社会距离的关系。本研究对理解社交网络的结构, 形成规律以及其中的信息传播规律有着重要启示意义。

关键词: 社交网络, 人格特质, 静息态功能连接

Abstract:

Humans are a social species that are constantly involved in complex relationships, reacting to the actions of others, and intentionally or unintentionally changing our own behavior. Personality traits reflect the behavioral pattern of an individual's response to the environment, which also includes social behavior. In addition, the brain is also an important factor when discussing social networks. The brain provides biological mechanisms for human behavior, while social networks provide external triggers for these behaviors. Linking personality traits and brain activity to social networks can help us better understand the structure of group relationships, improve our understanding of individual human beings, and help us better predict individual social behaviors and find the rules of information transmission in interpersonal relationships. From the perspective of a network, we collected nine social networks from 94 undergraduate students in the same grade according to their different social needs. We used the graph theory and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging to explore the influence of personality traits on social networks based on individual popularity and closeness between individuals and the relationship between the similarity of brain resting-state functional connectivity and social distance between individuals. Specifically, regression analysis was carried out, with personality traits as the independent variables and the different degrees of social networks as the dependent variables. Then, a correlation analysis was performed for the social distance and similarity of personality traits. Finally, the correlation between the similarity of the brain networks and social distance was calculated.
The results showed that (1) individuals with high conscientiousness were more popular in social networks requiring "trust" traits, while individuals with high agreeableness were more popular in social networks requiring "fun" traits. These findings showed that in the same group, there are different social networks according to social needs, and the popularity of individuals in different social networks is not similar as it will be affected by the corresponding personality traits; (2) In the social networks requiring "shared interests & values, " personality similarity and social distance between individuals were significantly negatively correlated. Personality similarity promotes interpersonal communication between individuals, which may be realized through interpersonal attraction induced by the similarity of values and interests; (3) In the same social network, there is a significantly negative correlation between similarities in functional connections (FCs) and social distance among individuals, and these FCs are mainly concentrated in the fronto-parietal task control network and the dorsal attention network. The similarity of resting brain FCs among individuals may promote interpersonal communication, possibly due to the similarity of individuals in cognitive control and environmental processing bias, which increases the interpersonal attraction and shortening the social distance between individuals. The results revealed the influence of personality traits on the structure of different social networks, the relationship between personality trait similarity among individuals, and the similarity between resting brain networks and social distance, which has important implications for understanding the structure of social networks, the formation rules, and the information transmission rules among them. In addition, this study discussed the relationship between the similarity of resting-state FC and social distance, providing new evidence for studies on brain synchronization in interpersonal communication and brain imaging evidence for the study of the relationship between the similarity of personality traits and social distance.

Key words: social networks, personality traits, resting-state functional connectivity

中图分类号:

李依蔓, 刘程, 庄恺祥, 霍腾宾, 徐鹏飞, 罗跃嘉, 邱江. (2021). 人格特质及脑功能连接对社交网络的影响. 心理学报, 53(12), 1335-1347.

LI Yiman, LIU Cheng, ZHUANG Kaixiang, HUO Tengbin, XU Pengfei, LUO Yuejia, QIU Jiang. (2021). The influence of personality traits and brain functional connectivity on social networks. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1335-1347.

图/表 14

参考文献 52

[1]	Alahyane N., Brien D. C., Coe B. C., Stroman P. W., & Munoz D. P.(2014). Developmental improvements in voluntary control of behavior: Effect of preparation in the fronto-parietal network? Neuroimage, 98, 103-117. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.008 pmid: 24642280
[2]	Berger C. R., & Calabrese R. J.(1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. doi: 10.1111/hcre.1975.1.issue-2 URL
[3]	Blakemore S.(2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 267-277. doi: 10.1038/nrn2353 URL
[4]	Borgatti S. P., Mehra A., Brass D. J., & Labianca G.(2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892-896. doi: 10.1126/science.1165821 pmid: 19213908
[5]	Clore G. L., & Byrne D.(1974). A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction, 143- 170.
[6]	Costa P. T., & McCrae R. R.(1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5 URL
[7]	Ely R. J., & Thomas D. A. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229- 273. doi: 10.2307/2667087 URL
[8]	Falk E. B., & Bassett D. S.(2017). Brain and social networks: Fundamental building blocks of human experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9), 674-690. doi: 10.1016/j.tics. 2017.06.009 doi: 10.1016/j.tics. 2017.06.009 URL
[9]	Fassbender C., Simoes-Franklin C., Murphy K., Hester R., Meaney J., Robertson I. H., & Garavan H.(2006). The role of a right fronto-parietal network in cognitive control. Journal of Psychophysiology, 20(4), 286-296. doi: 10.1027/ 0269-8803.20.4.286 doi: 10.1027/ 0269-8803.20.4.286 URL
[10]	Feiler D. C., & Kleinbaum A. M.(2015). Popularity, similarity, and the network extraversion bias. Psychological Science, 26(5), 593-603. doi: 10.1177/0956797615569580 doi: 10.1177/0956797615569580 URL
[11]	Fingelkurts A. A., & Fingelkurts A. A.(2011). Persistent operational synchrony within brain default-mode network and self-processing operations in healthy subjects. Brain and Cognition, 75(2), 79-90. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.11. 015 doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.11.015 pmid: 21172727
[12]	Furler K., Gomez V., & Grob A.(2013). Personality similarity and life satisfaction in couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 369-375. doi: 10.1016/j. jrp.2013.03.002 doi: 10.1016/j. jrp.2013.03.002 URL
[13]	Gattis K. S., Berns S., Simpson L. E., & Christensen A.(2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 564-574. doi: 10. 1037/0893-3200.18.4.564 doi: 10. 1037/0893-3200.18.4.564 URL
[14]	Goldberg L. R.(1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 URL
[15]	Goldin P. R., Ziv M., Jazaieri H., Weeks J., Heimberg R. G., & Gross J. J.(2014). Impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder on the neural bases of emotional reactivity to and regulation of social evaluation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 62, 97-106. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2014.08.005 doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2014.08.005 URL
[16]	Graziano W. G., Habashi M. M., Sheese B. E., & Tobin R. M.(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583 pmid: 17892333
[17]	Graziano W. G., & Tobin R. M.(2010). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social desirability artifact?. Journal of Personality, 70(5), 695-728. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.05021 URL
[18]	Greicius M. D., Supekar K., Menon V., & Dougherty R. F.(2009). Resting-state functional connectivity reflects structural connectivity in the default mode network. Cereb Cortex, 19(1), 72-78. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn059 doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn059 pmid: 18403396
[19]	Harrison D. A., Price K. H., & Bell M. P.(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.
[20]	Humbad M. N., Donnellan M. B., Iacono W. G., McGue M., & Burt S. A.(2010). Is spousal similarity for personality a matter of convergence or selection? Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 827-830. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.010 URL
[21]	Hyon R., Kleinbaum A. M., & Parkinson C.(2019). Social network proximity predicts similar trajectories of psychological states: Evidence from multi-voxel spatiotemporal dynamics. Neuroimage, 116492. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116492 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116492
[22]	Jaaskelainen I. P., Pajula J., Tohka J., Lee H. J., Kuo W. J., & Lin F. H.(2016). Brain hemodynamic activity during viewing and re-viewing of comedy movies explained by experienced humor. Scientific Reports, 6, 27741. doi: 10. 1038/srep27741 doi: 10. 1038/srep27741 URL
[23]	Jensen-Campbell L. A., Adams R., Perry D. G., Workman K. A., Furdella J. Q., & Egan S. K.(2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(3), 224-251. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348 doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348 URL
[24]	Jensen-Campbell L. A., & Graziano W. G.(2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69:2.
[25]	Jensen-Campbell L. A., & Graziano W. G.(2005). The two faces of temptation: Differing motives for self-control. Merrill-Palmer, 51, 287-314.
[26]	Kaplan S. C., Levinson C. A., Rodebaugh T. L., Menatti A., & Weeks J. W.(2015). Social anxiety and the big five personality traits: The interactive relationship of trust and openness. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44(3), 212-222. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2015.1008032 doi: 10.1080/16506073.2015.1008032 URL
[27]	Klein K. J., Lim B.-C., Saltz J. L., & Mayer D. M.(2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952-963. doi: 10.2307/20159634 doi: 10.2307/20159634
[28]	Landis B.(2016). Personality and social networks in organizations: A review and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S107-S121. doi: 10.1002/job.2004 doi: 10.1002/job.2004
[29]	Maarten S., Susan B., & Wim M.(2007). Similarity in adolescent best friendships: The role of gender. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63(2), 42-48. doi: 10.1007/bf03061061 doi: 10.1007/bf03061061 URL
[30]	Massen J. J. M., & Koski S. E.(2014). Chimps of a feather sit together: Chimpanzee friendships are based on homophily in personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.08.008 doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.08.008 URL
[31]	McKinney A. P.(2013). What lies ahead: Emerging trends in the diversity pipeline among new entrants in the workforce. Journal of Business Diversity, 13(1/2), 83-95.
[32]	McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., & Cook J. M.(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Reviews, 27, 415-444.
[33]	Morelli S. A., Leong Y. C., Carlson R. W., Kullar M., & Zaki J.(2018). Neural detection of socially valued community members. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(32), 8149-8154. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712811115 URL
[34]	Morelli S. A., Ong D. C., Makati R., Jackson M. O., & Zaki J.(2017). Empathy and well-being correlate with centrality in different social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(37), 9843-9847. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702155114 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702155114 URL
[35]	Nummenmaa L., Glerean E., Viinikainen M., Jaaskelainen I. P., Hari R., & Sams M.(2012). Emotions promote social interaction by synchronizing brain activity across individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(24), 9599-9604. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1206095109 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1206095109 pmid: 22623534
[36]	Parkinson C., Kleinbaum A. M., & Wheatley T.(2018). Similar neural responses predict friendship. Nature Communications, 9(1), 332. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02722-7 doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02722-7 pmid: 29382820
[37]	Power J. D., Cohen A. L., Nelson S. M., Wig G. S., Barnes K. A., Church J. A., … Petersen S. E.(2011). Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron, 72(4), 665-678. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.006 URL
[38]	Roberts B. W., Chernyshenko O. S., Stark S., & Goldberg L. R.(2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139. doi: 10.1111/peps.2005.58.issue-1 URL
[39]	Rothbart M. K., Ahadi S. A., & Evans D. E.(2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 122. pmid: 10653510
[40]	Schaffer B. S.(2019). Examining reactions to workplace diversity: The role of dissimilarity-attraction in teams. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 36(1), 57-69. doi: 10.1002/cjas.1476 doi: 10.1002/cjas.1476 URL
[41]	Selfhout M., Burk W., Branje S., Denissen J., van Aken M., & Meeus W.(2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and big five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 509-538. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00625. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00625.x pmid: 20433629
[42]	Sestieri C., Corbetta M., Romani G. L., & Shulman G. L.(2011). Episodic memory retrieval, parietal cortex, and the default mode network: Functional and topographic analyses. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(12), 4407-4420. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3335-10.2011 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3335-10.2011 URL
[43]	Simon S. S., Varangis E., & Stern Y.(2020). Associations between personality and whole-brain functional connectivity at rest: Evidence across the adult lifespan. Brain and Behavior, 10(2), e01515. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1515 doi: 10.1002/brb3.1515
[44]	Vogel A. C., Miezin F. M., Petersen S. E., & Schlaggar B. L.(2012). The putative visual word form area is functionally connected to the dorsal attention network. Cereb Cortex, 22(3), 537-549. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr100 doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr100 URL
[45]	Vogeley K., & Fink G. R.(2003). Neural correlates of the first-person-perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 38-42. pmid: 12517357
[46]	Vohs K. D., & Baumeister R. F.(2016). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Publications.
[47]	Wig G. S.(2017). Segregated systems of human brain networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 981-996. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.006 URL
[48]	Wolfer R., Cortina K. S., & Baumert J.(2012). Embeddedness and empathy: How the social network shapes adolescents' social understanding. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1295-1305. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.015 doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.015 URL
[49]	Wu J., Dong D., Jackson T., Wang Y., Huang J., & Chen H.(2015). The neural correlates of optimistic and depressive tendencies of self-evaluations and resting-state default mode network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 618. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00618 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00618
[50]	Wu X. R., He H., Shi L., Xia Y. M., Zuang K. X., Feng Q. Y., … Qiu J.(2019). Personality traits are related with dynamic functional connectivity in major depression disorder: A resting-state analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 1032-1042. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.002 URL
[51]	Yang W. J., Cun L. L., Du X., Yang J. Y., Wang Y. Q., Wei D. T., … Qiu J.(2015). Gender differences in brain structure and resting-state functional connectivity related to narcissistic personality. Scientific Reports, 5(1). doi: 10.1038/srep10924 doi: 10.1038/srep10924
[52]	Zanto T. P., & Gazzaley A.(2013). Fronto-parietal network: flexible hub of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(12), 602-603. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.001 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.001 URL

社交网络	r	p
亲近朋友	0.13	0.03
日常活动	-0.02	0.26
社交建议	0.00	0.46
寻求帮助	0.01	0.33
消息分享	0.10	0.04
支持给予	0.01	0.39
善解人意	0.07	0.12
积极感受	0.04	0.16

社交网络	r	p
亲近朋友	0.13	0.03
日常活动	-0.02	0.26
社交建议	0.00	0.46
寻求帮助	0.01	0.33
消息分享	0.10	0.04
支持给予	0.01	0.39
善解人意	0.07	0.12
积极感受	0.04	0.16

NO.	脑区	半球	脑网络	MNI坐标			r	p
NO.	脑区	半球	脑网络	x	y	z	r	p
22	Precuneus_R	R	Sensory/somatomotor Hand	8	-48	69	0.12	0.04
97	Frontal_Sup_R	R	Default mode	21	27	50	0.15	0.03
101	Frontal_Mid_R	R	Default mode	20	33	42	0.13	0.06
110	Cingulum_Ant_R	R	Default mode	7	37	0	0.19	0.00
124	Lingual_L	L	Default mode	-25	-41	-8	0.17	0.00
126	Fusiform_L	L	Default mode	-32	-39	-15	0.16	0.00
194	Occipital_Mid_R	R	Fronto-parietal Task Control	35	-66	38	0.12	0.02
193	Frontal_Mid_R	R	Fronto-parietal Task Control	29	9	57	-0.16	0.03
204	Angular_R	R	Salience	52	-47	36	-0.13	0.01

NO.	脑区	半球	脑网络	MNI坐标			r	p
NO.	脑区	半球	脑网络	x	y	z	r	p
22	Precuneus_R	R	Sensory/somatomotor Hand	8	-48	69	0.12	0.04
97	Frontal_Sup_R	R	Default mode	21	27	50	0.15	0.03
101	Frontal_Mid_R	R	Default mode	20	33	42	0.13	0.06
110	Cingulum_Ant_R	R	Default mode	7	37	0	0.19	0.00
124	Lingual_L	L	Default mode	-25	-41	-8	0.17	0.00
126	Fusiform_L	L	Default mode	-32	-39	-15	0.16	0.00
194	Occipital_Mid_R	R	Fronto-parietal Task Control	35	-66	38	0.12	0.02
193	Frontal_Mid_R	R	Fronto-parietal Task Control	29	9	57	-0.16	0.03
204	Angular_R	R	Salience	52	-47	36	-0.13	0.01

NO.	脑区	半球	脑网络	MNI坐标			r	p
NO.	脑区	半球	脑网络	x	y	z	r	p
21	Precentral_R	R	Sensory/somatomotor Hand	26	-21	69	0.10	0.00
34	Postcentral_L	L	Sensory/somatomotor Hand	-21	-34	58	0.12	0.00
39	Paracentral_Lobule_L	R	Sensory/somatomotor Hand	1	-31	58	0.10	0.01
67	Rolandic_Oper_R	R	Auditory	41	-26	21	0.09	0.01
77	Lingual_L	L	Default mode	-12	-41	1	0.12	0.00
82	Temporal_Pole_Sup_R	R	Default mode	44	12	-24	0.09	0.02
97	Frontal_Sup_R	R	Default mode	21	27	50	0.10	0.02
124	Lingual_L	L	Default mode	-25	-41	-8	0.07	0.04
126	Fusiform_L	L	Default mode	-32	-39	-15	0.08	0.02
136	Precuneus_R	R	Memory retrieval	3	-50	48	0.08	0.01
242	Frontal_Inf_Tri_L	L	Ventral attention	-47	21	2	0.07	0.02
251	Precuneus_R	R	Dorsal attention	8	-63	57	0.08	0.03
261	Precentral_L	L	Dorsal attention	-32	-5	53	0.08	0.01

人格特质及脑功能连接对社交网络的影响

The influence of personality traits and brain functional connectivity on social networks

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 52

相关文章 11

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李彧, 位东涛, 邱江. 抑郁症的人格类型及其脑功能连接基础[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(5): 740-751.
[2]	李为, 边子茗, 陈曦梅, 王俊杰, 罗一君, 刘永, 宋诗情, 高笑, 陈红. 9~12岁儿童应激与额颞区的关联: 来自多模态脑影像的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(4): 572-587.
[3]	王铭, 孙启武, 柳静, 任志洪, 江光荣. PTSD易感性人格特质、工作记忆能力和创伤期间认知加工对模拟创伤闪回的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(2): 168-181.
[4]	蔡惠燕, 苗心, 王鹏飞, 林志为, 王孟成, 杨文登, 麻彦坤, 曾红. 长期戒断海洛因成瘾者冲动性相关脑区的结构及功能特征[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(8): 861-874.
[5]	黄敏学;雷蕾;朱华伟. 谈钱还是谈情：企业如何引导消费者分享自媒体营销[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(2): 211-220.
[6]	姚若松;陈怀锦;苗群鹰. 公交行业一线员工人格特质对工作绩效影响的实证分析[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(10): 1163-1178.
[7]	黄敏儿,吴钟琦,唐淦琦. 服务行业员工的人格特质、情绪劳动策略与心理健康的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(12): 1175-1189.
[8]	范为桥,张妙清,张树辉,梁觉. 香港中学生人格特质的性别差异及其发展性分析[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(09): 1002-1012.
[9]	夏凌翔,黄希庭 . 青少年学生的自立人格[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(03): 382-391.
[10]	王道阳,张更立,姚本先. 大学生性别角色观的差异[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(05): 658-664.
[11]	李育辉,张建新. 中学生人格特质、主观应激与应对风格之间的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2004, 36(01): 71-77.