ArticleCognitive processing2025
Exploring the impact of the Big Five personality traits on cognitive performance in scientific reasoning: an ordered network analysis.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific reasoning is essential for developing learners' higher-order thinking skills. Learners with different personality traits exhibit distinct behaviors and cognitive patterns in reasoning processes. However, school education often overlooks the cognitive patterns involved in scientific reasoning and rarely considers the impact of varying levels of personality traits on cognitive processes. This study aims to explore the impact of different personality traits on cognitive processes in scientific reasoning. We analyzed discussions from 70 university students during scientific reasoning tasks. Using ordered network analysis, we visualized epistemic networks to examine how personality traits shape cognitive processes during scientific reasoning. Significant differences emerged across the Big Five personality traits: For neuroticism, the low group adopted a bottom-up reasoning approach, beginning with concrete evidence before forming hypotheses, while the high group took a top-down, hypothesis-driven approach. For extraversion, the low group preferred independent problem-solving, whereas the high group actively engaged in social interactions to enhance reasoning. For openness, the low group showed a conservative style, contrasted by the high group's innovative thinking. For agreeableness, the low group was more independent, while the high group showed cooperation and attentiveness to others' views. Lastly, for conscientiousness, the low group exhibited a casual cognitive style, whereas the high group demonstrated goal-oriented thinking. These findings provide insights for incorporating personality factors into group formation, which is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of collaborative learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40392395What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.