Strategy Use Mediates the Relation between Openness to Experience and Episodic Memory in Younger and Older Adults

Abstract

Previous research has shown that people with higher levels of Openness to Experience show higher levels of cognitive functioning. However, the mechanisms underlying this personality-cognition relation are not well understood. The goal of the current project was to examine whether strategy use mediates the relation between Openness to experience and retrospective memory, and whether the role of strategy use in the Openness-memory relation was the same in younger and older adults. Method: Two studies were conducted. In each of them, younger and older adults were administered a retrospective memory task (29 younger and 27 older in Study 1, 43 adults of all ages in Study 2). They were asked to report the strategies they used during the task, and to complete an Openness to Experience scale. Results: Consistent with previous reports, higher scores of Openness to experience and greater use of efficient memory strategies were associated with higher levels of memory performance. In addition, individual differences in memory strategy use mostly mediated the relation between Openness and memory performance. Results did not support a mediation model moderated by age. That is, the role of memory strategy use in the relation between Openness and memory was the same in younger and older adults. Conclusion: Higher levels of Openness are associated with better memory performance, mostly because people with higher levels of Openness use more efficient memory strategies.

Keywords

Openness to experience memory strategy use age Big Five

Introduction

There have been numerous reports of positive relations between the personality trait of Openness to Experience and several cognitive measures. Higher levels of Openness to experience have been shown to be associated with higher levels of IQ (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008), memory (Jackson et al., 2020; Soubelet & Salthouse, 2010), speed of processing (Soubelet & Salthouse , 2010), and executive functions (DeYoung et al., 2005). In addition, higher levels of Openness to experience have been supposed to be a protective factor of cognitive aging (Chapman et al., 2012; Gregory et al., 2010). However, mechanisms through which people more open to experience have better cognitive functioning remain unclear (Curtis et al., 2015, for a review).

It has been suggested that people with higher levels of Openness may engage in more cognitively stimulating activities, which in turn may increase their level of cognitive functioning (Soubelet & Salthouse , 2010). Consistent with this idea of a significant involvement of cognitive activity engagement in the Openness-cognition relation, people with higher scores in Openness have reported more engagement in cognitively stimulating activities (Kraaykamp & van Eijck, 2005), and people reporting higher levels of engagement in cognitive activities have exhibited higher levels of cognitive performance (Jopp & Hertzog, 2007). However, the mediating role of cognitive activity in the Openness-cognition relation has not been empirically supported (Soubelet & Salthouse , 2010).

Several empirical and theoretical arguments make it likely that executive functioning is implicated in the relation between Openness and memory. First, higher levels of Openness are related to higher performance on executive functions tasks (DeYoung et al., 2005), and executive functioning is related to memory (Van der Linden et al., 2000). Second, the neurobiological theory of Openness (DeYoung et al., 2005) posits that individual differences in Openness are related to individual differences in dopaminergic neurotransmission. Consistent with this idea, Openness has been shown to be associated with increased functional connectivity within dopamine-rich mesocortical networks (Passamonti et al., 2015). Recently, pharmacological manipulation by Käckenmester et al., (2019) also provided evidence that individual differences in Openness are related to individual differences in dopaminergic activity. And, dopaminergic projections from the midbrain to the frontal lobes primarily influence the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is involved in executive functions abilities such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, or ideational fluency (Yuan & Raz, 2014). Regarding memory, one may argue that the personality trait Openness, which includes curiosity and interest for intellectual activities (McCrae, 1994), favors a more frequent mobilization of memory, especially during schooling, allowing people to discover different memory strategies and to develop greater expertise in their selection and execution.

A strategy is “a procedure or set of procedures for achieving a higher-level goal or task” (Lemaire & Reder, 1999). Several memory strategies have been identified, and they differ on how efficient they are, and on cognitive resources they require. For example, the strategy of mental imagery - which consists in creating a mental image of the word to encode - is very efficient but require strong cognitive resources. Conversely, repetition - which consists in self-repeating the words to encode - requires fewer cognitive resources but is not very efficient. Lemaire and Siegler (1995) proposed a model with four dimensions: strategy repertory -set of strategies available to each participant-, strategy selection -choosing a strategy from the repertory-, strategy distribution -percentage of use of each strategy-, and strategy execution-quality with which these strategies are used.

The question of whether individual differences in Openness of Experience are related to individual differences in memory strategy use has not directly been studied. A few studies have investigated the associations between students’ levels of Openness to experience and approaches to learning for exams. Results have shown that more open students used deeper approaches to learning (Duff et al., 2004; Marcela, 2015; Ruffing et al., 2015) such as translating information in other words to better memorize, or using visual imagination (Marcela, 2015).

Because Openness is associated with better memory and deeper learning, the primary objective of the current project was to examine whether the use of memory strategies mediates the link between Openness and memory performance. The mediation model is shown in Figure 1. We expected that higher levels of Openness would be associated with better strategy use, which in turn would improve memory performance.

Figure 1.

The mediation model: Strategy use as a mediator of the relation between Openness to experience and memory (model 4).

In addition, because age is associated with less frequent use of efficient strategies (Tournier & Postal, 2011; Wegesin et al., 2000), less efficient strategies execution (Taconnat et al., 2009), lower levels of memory performance (Salthouse, 2019), but weak decline over time in Openness (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), a secondary objective was to explore whether the role of strategy use in the Openness-memory relation was the same at different ages. Personality is a significant predictor of cognitive aging, among other factors such as stereotype threat (Lemaire et al., 2018; Nicolas et al., 2020) or effect of prior-task success (Lemaire et al., 2019). Identifying if the mechanisms involved in the personality-cognition relation over age are the same could pave the way for research on the links between more other factors and cognitive aging.

Study 1

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 29 younger (ranging from 20 to 31 years of age, mean age = 24.48, SD = 2.52) and 27 older participants (ranging from 60 to 87, mean age = 72.56, SD = 8.50). The participants were recruited via advertisement on social networks and word of mouth. The younger group had an average of 15.45 (SD = 1.82) years of education, an average of self-rated health of 7.93 (on a scale ranging from 0 “very poor health” to 10 “excellent health”) (SD = 1.49), a Mill Hill mean score of 29.07 (SD = 3.28) and a Letter-Number task mean score of 15.59 (SD = 3.33). 62.07% were females. In the older group: the mean number of years of education was 13.11 (SD = 2.82); the mean self-rated health score was 6.44 (SD = 1.99); the Mill Hill mean score was 32.44 (SD = 1.58); the Letter-Numbers mean score was 11.22 (SD = 2.98); 59.26% were females. To minimize the risk for including people with pathological cognitive aging, participants in the older age group additionally completed the Mini Mental State Examination (Folstein et al., 1975). Their average score was 29.89 (SD = 0.32), meaning that the sample was very likely exhibiting a typical cognitive aging

Materials and procedure

Retrospective episodic memory

This task was based on a list of twenty pairs of words locally developed. The words were chosen on the basis of four dimensions - concreteness, imagery, frequency and emotional valence – and were extracted from the list developed by Bonin et al., (2003). All words were relatively frequent, emotionally neutral, composed of two syllables, favorable to the use of imagery and concrete. Two words from the same pair did not come from the same semantic category. Each pair was presented on a computer screen for 8 seconds for the elderly and 6 for the youth, to neutralize the effect of cognitive differences in speed of processing associated with age (following Hinault et al., 2017). Memory tasks in the form of word pairs have been used in previous studies (e.g., Hinault et al., 2017; Tournier & Postal, 2011). The following instruction was shown on the screen: “You are going to see pairs of words (e.g. cat tree), that you are asked to memorize. After the presentation of each pair, we will ask you which strategy you used to memorize the pair of words. For example, some people notice morphological characteristics of the words in order to remember them (for example, remembering that the first letter is the same for both words in the pair). Other people self-repeat words several times to remember them. It is also possible to create a sentence with the two words of the pair, or to create a mental picture of the words. You may not use the same strategy for all pairs of words, so you will be asked for the strategy used after each pair. Once all pairs presented, you will be asked to recall as many pairs as possible. Please, concentrate. Are you ready to start?”. The question of the strategies used was asked after each item and not at the end of the task, to avoid time-related forgetting or generalization (Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2001) and then allow a more precise measurement of the strategy use. Dunlosky & Hertzog (2001) have compared concurrent to retrospective reports and have shown that concurrent reports did not affect the memory task. For the recall phase, the first word of each pair was presented, and the participant pressed a key on the keyboard when he/she had recalled the expected word, or she/he thought she/he would not reach to recall it. Recall times and false recalls were not collected.

Strategy use

The strategies used were coded according to their effectiveness and the cognitive resources they require (0 for no strategy, 1 for strategy based on the morphological characteristics of words, 2 for repetition, 3 for sentence construction and 4 for mental imagery). The mean percentage of use of each strategy, as well as the number of strategies used were also calculated for the analyses (Chevalère et al., 2020).

Openness to experience

The trait (Cronbach’s α alpha = .74) was evaluated using the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991, validated in French by Plaisant et al., 2010). This questionnaire is composed of 45 questions, 10 of which evaluate Openness (e.g “I see myself as someone who is interested in many subjects”; “I see myself as someone who is inventive”).

Vocabulary

The vocabulary was assessed with the Mill Hill vocabulary test, part B (Deltour, 1998). Participants were asked to find the synonym of 33 words.

Working memory

The working memory was assessed with the Letter-number sequence subtest of the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008).

Results

The analyses were carried out using the SPSS software. The mean recall score (calculated by giving 1 point for each correct recalled word and summing) was 10.64 (SD = 5.52) words for the whole sample. It was 13.28 (SD = 5.27) for the younger group, and 7.81 (SD = 4.30) for the older group. Regarding Openness, the mean score for the whole sample was 35.16 (SD = 7.66), 37.34 (SD = 6.96) for the younger group, and 32.81 (SD = 7.81) for the older group. When summing the strategies used (coded from 0 to 4 according to their effectiveness), the mean strategies scores were 58.16 (SD = 17.41) for the whole sample, 61.48 (SD = 17.59) for the younger group, and 54.59 (SD = 16.80) for the older group. On average, participants used 1.71 strategies (SD = 0.82) (younger group: M = 1.72, SD = 0.84; older group: M = 1.70, SD = 0.82). The mostly used strategy was the imagery strategy (whole sample: M = 41.16% of items, SD = 42.50; younger group: M = 49.14%, SD = 43.20; older group: M = 32.60%, SD= 40.80), followed by repetition (whole sample: M = 33.66%, SD = 42.00; younger group: M = 31.55%, SD = 40.64; older group: M = 35.93%, SD = 44.07), sentence construction (whole sample: M = 18.75%, SD = 32.67; younger group: M = 14.48%, SD = 27.14; older group: M = 23.33%, SD = 37.72), no strategy use (whole sample: M = 3.84%, SD = 12.14; younger group: M = 0.52%, SD = 2.79; older group: M = 7.41%, SD = 16.66), and strategies based on morphological characteristics of words (whole sample: M = 2.59%, SD = 13.52; younger group: M = 4.31%, SD = 18.70; older group: M = 0.74%, SD= 1.81). .

Correlations among all the variables included in the study were examined. Consistent with previous reports, there was a positive correlation between Openness and memory performance (r = .56, p < .01), between Openness and strategy use (r = .56, p < .01), and between strategy use and memory performance (r = .75, p < .01). MANOVA showed significant differences between the younger group and the older group on memory performance (F (1.54) = 17.90; ηp² = .25; p < .01), and Openness (F (1.54) = 5.27; ηp² = .09; p < .05). However, younger and older people did not significantly differ in terms of strategy use.

The difference between the two age groups have also been tested for the number of strategies used, the percentage of use of each strategy, as well as the percentage of no strategy. Because these variables did not follow a normal distribution, Brown-Forsythe tests were used. They showed that only the percentage of no strategy was significantly different between the two groups, in the direction that older people were more likely to choose not to use any strategies: Brown-Forsythe robust F(1, 27.35) = 4.50, p = .043).

A two-factor MANOVA 2 (Age) x 2 (Openness groups based on the median) was performed on the number of strategies used, percentage of use of each strategy, and mean percentage of recall. Interaction effects of age and Openness were not significant.

The first mediation analyses consisted of testing the mediation model 4 from Hayes (2018), in Figure 1.

The bootstrapping procedure (Preacher et al., 2007) was used to estimate indirect effects and generate 95% confidence intervals for them. Analyses were carried out with the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018). The bootstrap sample used was 5000. This set of analyses consisted of testing whether at least some of the Openness related differences in the memory task might be attributable to strategy use differences. In the mediation analyses, “Openness” was entered as the independent variable, “recall” was entered as the dependent variable, “strategy use” was entered as the mediator variable.

Results of simple mediation analyses are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mediation model of Study 1 (model 4; Hayes, 2018).

	Directs and total effects (simple linear regressions)
	Effect of Openness on strategy use				Effect of strategy use on memory				Direct effect of Openness on memory				Total effect of Openness on memory
	Unstand. β	SE	t	p	Unstand. β	SE	t	p	Unstand. β	SE	t	p	Unstand. β	SE	t	p
Strategy use (coded from 0 to 4)	1.26	.26	4.90	.0001	.24	.03	8.28	.0001	.16	.08	2.05	.05	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
% of use of no strategy	−.27	.21	−1.26	.21	−.03	.06	−.48	.64	.41	.08	4.96	.0001	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
% of use of strategies based on the morphological characteristics of words	−.08	.24	−.34	.74	−.09	.05	−1.56	.12	.40	.08	5.02	.0001	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
% of use of repetition	−1.97	.70	−2.82	.007	−.09	.01	−6.37	.0001	.27	.07	3.85	.0001	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
% of use of the sentence construction strategy	−1.05	.56	−1.88	.07	.008	.02	.34	.74	.44	.08	5.39	.0001	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
% of use of imagery	3.37	.61	5.62	.0001	.09	.01	7.13	.0001	.16	.09	1.87	.07	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
Number of strategies	<.01	.02	−.03	.98	1.08	.90	1.20	.24	.41	.08	5.08	.0001	.41	.08	5.02	.0001
	Bootstrap results for indirect effects of Openness on memory
	Value				SE				LL 95%CI				UL 95%CI
Strategy use (coded from 0 to 4)	.25				.05				.16				.37
% of use of no strategy	−.004				.01				−.03				.01
% of use of strategies based on the morphological characteristics of words	.006				.01				−.02				.03
% of use of repetition	.13				.05				.05				.26
% of use of the sentence construction strategy	−.04				.03				−.13				.003
% of use of imagery	.25				.06				.14				.37
Number of strategies	−.0005				.02				−.05				.04

In order to determine the magnitude of the mediation of the relation between Openness and memory by strategy use, the relation between Openness and memory was examined before and after controlling for strategy use. First, the total effect of Openness on memory was calculated using a simple linear regression (reported in Table 1). Second, the direct effect of Openness on memory was determined using a simple linear regression while controlling for the variance associated with strategy use (this result is also reported in Table 1). Third, the percentage of the total effect explained by the direct effect was calculated. The remaining variance corresponded to the mediating effect. The result supported that the relation between Openness to experience and memory is strongly mediated by strategy use, with strategy use accounting for 62% of this relation.

The number of strategies used, the percentage of use of each strategy, as well as the percentage of no strategy, were also tested as mediators. The results are reported in Table 1. Both the percentage of use of imagery and the percentage of use of repetition significantly mediated the relationship between Openness and memory. They account respectively for 60% and 33% of this relation.

Finally, we examined whether mediation was similar in younger adults and in older adults. Two moderated mediation models have next been investigated: one tested whether age operates on the relation between Openness and strategy use (model 7 in Hayes, 2018); the other tested whether age was a moderator of the strategy-memory relation (model 14 in Hayes, 2018). There was no significant moderation effect, and results were similar whatever the indicator of strategy use entered in the model.

Discussion

Consistent with previous works, we found that more open people had better episodic memory performance (Jackson et al., 2020; Soubelet & Salthouse, 2010). Moreover, our hypothesis that some of the Openness-memory relation is mediated by strategy use was supported. In particular, results were consistent with the idea that more open people had better memory performance because they use strategies that require deeper processing of information. The mediation effect was found to be similar in the two age groups.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore whether the relation between the personality trait of Openness and memory was mediated by cognitive strategies. However, the small sample size and the dichotomic nature of the age variable were some limitations to the generalization of these results (Berk & Freedman, 2003; MacCallum et al., 2002). The second study was conducted to provide a second test to our hypotheses while overcoming these limitations.

Study 2

Method

Sample

The sample of this study consisted of 43 participants ranging from 19 to 86 years of age (mean age = 36.44; SD = 16.31). Data were collected on the Internet: the recruitment was done via advertisements on the social networks and via word of mouth. In general, the participants were highly educated, averaging 15.56 (SD = 1.94) years of formal education. 72.09% were female. The average score on the standardized Mill Hill vocabulary test was 25.14 (SD = 3.80). The average score on the Pattern Comparison task was 38.37 (SD = 9.24).

Materials and procedure

Materials and procedure were the same as those used in study 1, apart from a few adjustments necessary to conduct the study online.

Retrospective episodic memory. The task was the same as in Study 1. Similar to the procedure used in Study 1, each pair was presented on the computer screen for 8 seconds for the elderly (>60), and 6 for the youth (<40). For those aged between 40 and 59.99, each pair was presented for 7 seconds.

Strategy use. As in Study 1, the strategies used were coded according to their effectiveness and the cognitive resources they require (0 for no strategy, 1 for strategy based on the morphological characteristics of words, 2 for repetition, 3 for sentence construction and 4 for mental imagery). The mean percentage of use of each strategy, as well as the number of strategies used were also calculated for the analyses (Chevalère et al., 2020).

Openness to experience. The trait (Cronbach’s α alpha = .74) was evaluated using the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991, validated in French by Plaisant et al., 2010). Cronbach’s alpha was .76. This questionnaire is composed of 45 questions, 10 of which evaluate Openness (e.g., “I see myself as someone who is interested in many subjects”; “I see myself as someone who is inventive”).

Vocabulary

The vocabulary was assessed with the Mill Hill vocabulary test, part B (Deltour, 1998). Participants were asked to find the synonym of 33 words.

Processing speed

Speed was assessed with the Pattern Comparison test (i.e, Salthouse & Babcock, 1991) which consisted of classifying pairs of line patterns as same or different.

Results

The mean recall score (calculated by giving 1 point for each correct recalled word and summing) was 11.95 words (SD = 4.63) for the whole sample. Regarding Openness, the mean score was 38.14 (SD = 5.36). When summing the strategies used (coded from 0 to 4 according to their effectiveness), the whole sample average score was 55.16 (SD = 14.36). On average, participants used 3.21 strategies (SD = 0.77). The mostly used strategy was the imagery strategy (on average 41.28% of items, SD = 26.07). The second mostly used strategy was repetition (M = 26.16%, SD = 23.47), followed by sentence construction (M = 17.79%, SD = 16.98), no strategy use (M = 9.53%, SD = 18.73), and strategies based on morphological characteristics of words (M = 5.23%, SD = 5.56).

Correlations among all the variables included in the study were examined. Consistent with previous reports, there was a positive correlation between Openness and memory scores (r = .31, p < .05), between Openness and strategy use (r = .32, p < .05), and between strategy use and memory performance (r = .68, p < .01). Consistent with results from study 1, there was no age effects on strategy use. The age – memory correlation was −.28 (p < .06). There was neither no significant age effect on Openness.

The first mediation analyses consisted of testing the mediation model 4 from Hayes (2018). The statistical procedure was the same as in Study 1. Results of simple mediation analyses are reported in Table 2. They supported that the relation between Openness to experience and memory is strongly mediated by strategy use, with strategy use accounting for 67% of this relation.

Table 2.

Mediation model of Study 2 (model 4, Hayes, 2018).

	Directs and total effects (simple linear regressions)
	Effect of Openness on strategy use				Effect of strategy use on memory				Direct effect of Openness on memory				Total effect of Openness on memory
	Unstand. β	SE	t	p	Unstand. β	SE	t	p	Unstand. β	SE	t	p	Unstand. β	SE	t	p
Strategy use (coded from 0 to 4)	.86	.40	2.17	.04	.22	.04	5.86	.0001	.09	.11	.82	.42	.26	.13	2.06	.046
% of use of no strategy	−1.18	.51	−2.30	.03	−.10	.04	−2.77	.01	.17	.13	1.28	.21	.26	.13	2.06	.046
% of use of strategies based on the morphological characteristics of words	−.18	.16	−1.10	.28	−.15	.13	−1.20	.24	.25	.13	1.87	.07	.26	.13	2.06	.046
% of use of repetition	.28	.68	.41	.68	−.06	.03	−2.10	.04	.28	.12	2.32	.03	.26	.13	2.06	.046
% of use of the sentence construction strategy	.43	.49	.88	.38	−.02	.04	−.36	.73	.28	.13	2.12	.04	.26	.13	2.06	.046
% of use of imagery	.65	.75	.86	.39	.11	.02	5.35	.0001	.19	.10	1.92	.06	.26	.13	2.06	.046
Number of strategies	−.009	.02	−.42	.68	−.42	.93	−.45	.65	.26	.13	2.01	.05	.26	.13	2.06	.046
	Bootstrap results for indirect effects of Openness on memory
	Value				SE				LL 95%CI				UL 95%CI
Strategy use (coded from 0 to 4)	.18				.09				.04				.38
% of use of no strategy	.10				.07				.02				.28
% of use of strategies based on the morphological characteristics of words	.02				.03				−.01				.12
% of use of repetition	−.02				.05				−.13				.06
% of use of the sentence construction strategy	−.01				.03				−.12				.02
% of use of imagery	.07				.09				−.09				.26
Number of strategies	.003				.03				−.03				.11

The number of strategies used, the percentage of use of each strategy, as well as the percentage of no strategy, were also tested as mediators. The results are reported in Table 2. They showed that the absence of strategy significantly mediated the relation between Openness and memory by the percentage of absence of strategy. It accounted for 37% of the shared variance between Openness and memory. There was no other significant mediator.

The two moderated mediation models tested in Study 1 have been tested in Study 2, with age entered as a continuous moderating variable. There was no significant moderation effect, suggesting that the mediating role of executive strategies in the Openness-memory relation was the same at different ages. For comparison purposed with the sample from Study 1, the same analyses were conducted after dichotomizing the age variable (split at the median value of 28 or at 50 for comparison purposes with Study 1). Results were similar.

Discussion

Study 2 was an attempt to replicate results from Study 1. Consistent with results from Study 1, we found that higher levels of Openness were related to both higher levels of memory performance, and to more frequent use of efficient strategies to memorize, although to a lesser extent than in Study 1. Results have also supported that most of the relation between the personality trait of Openness to Experience and memory performance was mediated by executive strategies. In addition, the mediation effect was found to be the same as a function of age.

General discussion

Consistent with previous reports, results from the two studies showed that more open people had better episodic memory performance (Jackson et al., 2020; Soubelet & Salthouse, 2010). We also found that more open people had better cognitive strategies to memorize, relying on more demanding – but also more efficient – memory strategies. These results are consistent with the idea that Openness is not only a marker of cognitive functioning (e.g., Jackson et al., 2020; Soubelet & Salthouse, 2010) but also a marker of executive functioning, the latter being mostly implicated in memory performance. Finally, our key hypothesis, that some of the Openness-memory relation might be attributable to strategy use, was supported. We found that strategy use is an important and significant factor accounting for most of the Openness-memory relation. In Study 1, the model supported the hypothesis that more open people have better memory performance because they use more often the imagery strategy, which is the most efficient strategy to memorize. Contrary to our expectations, the repetition strategy also mediated this relation, but to a lesser extent. In study 2, the model supported the hypothesis that more open people exhibit better memory performance because they less often use no strategy to memorize. That is, they less often try to memorize without elaborating an executive and efficient cognitive strategy to do it.

Results from both studies are consistent with the idea that executive functioning, that is decisions made and adopted behaviors regarding the strategy to use, is one of the major cognitive mechanism through which the Openness-memory relation operates. Indeed, strategy use was found to account for more than 60% of the relation between the personality trait of Openness to experience and episodic memory.

Several explanations we recommend addressing in future research may account for this finding of the mediation of the relation between Openness and memory through strategy use. First, the positive relation between Openness and executive functions may be explained by increased dopaminergic activation that has been observed in more open people (Passamonti et al., 2015), then enhancing the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-related functions (De Young et al., 2005).

Second, because more open people are particularly interested in intellectual activities (McCrae, 1994), it is possible that they engage in more activities that stimulate memory, which give them more opportunities to discover memory strategies and to develop greater expertise in using them. Jackson et al., (2020) showed for older adults, consistent with Soubelet & Salthouse, (2010), that time spent on cognitively stimulating activities did not mediate the relation between Openness and cognition. However, they found that diversity of activities was a mediator of this relation.

Also, the Broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) posits that the tendency to feel positive emotions brings benefits by widening action and thought, allowing to develop more social and cognitive resources. A positive association has been found between Openness to experience and positive affects (Mitte & Kämpfe, 2008; Shiota et al., 2006). It is then possible that this propensity to feel positive emotions contribute to the relation between this personality trait and memory, by facilitating creativity in learning and allowing discovering of better memory strategies.

Results have also shown that strategy use was a strong mediator of the relation between Openness and memory both in the younger group and in the older group. This result suggest that the co-variations of personality trait and cognition are stable over time, and that mechanisms involved in this personality-cognition relation may be the same at different ages.

To the best of our knowledge, there have not been any prior studies in which the role of strategy use in the Openness-related differences in episodic memory has been investigated. Furthermore, these studies have several strengths, including an accurate measurement of the strategies used by participants, acceptable level of internal consistency reliability of the personality trait, and powerful analyses.

However, there are also some limitations. First, the use of a single measure of retrospective episodic memory does not allow to generalize to other tasks. Second, the relations between Openness and memory, and Openness and strategy use appear less important in Study 2 than in Study 1, and there was some divergence between the two studies in terms of effect sizes and the significance of some of the mediators. Replications are therefore necessary in order to better know the strengths of relations and of mediation effects. Finally, because it has been shown that strategy use is not specific to memory and is involved in others cognitive tasks (Lemaire, 2016), the relations explored here could then be considered in other tasks, such as numerical cognition tasks.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-prx-10.1177_0033294120981938 - Supplemental material for Strategy Use Mediates the Relation between Openness to Experience and Episodic Memory in Younger and Older Adults

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-prx-10.1177_0033294120981938 for Strategy Use Mediates the Relation between Openness to Experience and Episodic Memory in Younger and Older Adults by Elisabeth Talpain and Andrea Soubelet in Psychological Reports

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Elisabeth Talpain

Author Biographies

Elisabeth Talpain has a Master degree in psychology, and is a PhD student at the University of Cote d'Azur, in France. She conducts research on the relationships between various personality traits and cognition.

Andrea Soubelet is a researcher and lecturer in psychology, who currently works at the University of Cote d'Azur, in France. She conducted research on individual differences in memory.

References

Berk

R. A.

Freedman

D. A.

(2003). Statistical assumptions as empirical commitments. Law, Punishment, and Social Control: Essays in Honor of Sheldon Messinger, 2, 235–254.

Bonin

Méot

Aubert

L.-F.

Malardier

Niedenthal

P. M.

Capelle-Toczek

M.-C.

(2003). Normes de concrétude, de valeur d'imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots [Translation results Concreteness, imagery value, subjective frequency, and emotional valence standards for 866 words]. L'année Psychologique, 103(4), 655–694. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2003.29658

Chamorro-Premuzic

Furnham

(2008). Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1596–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.003

Chapman

Duberstein

Tindle

H. A.

Sink

K. M.

Robbins

Tancredi

D. J.

Franks

, & Gingko Evaluation of Memory Study Investigators. (2012). Personality predicts cognitive function over 7 years in older persons. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: Official Journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(7), 612–621. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e31822cc9cb

Chevalère

Lemaire

Camos

(2020). Age-related changes in verbal working memory strategies. Experimental Aging Research, 46(2), 93–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2020.1716152

Curtis

R. G.

Windsor

T. D.

Soubelet

(2015). The relationship between big-5 personality traits and cognitive ability in older adults—A review. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22(1), 42–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2014.888392

Deltour

J. J.

(1998). Echelle de vocabulaire de mill hill. Adaptation française [Mill hill vocabulary scale. French-language adaptation]. EAP.

DeYoung

C. G.

Peterson

J. B.

Higgins

D. M.

(2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 825–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x

Duff

Boyle

Dunleavy

Ferguson

(2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1907–1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.020

10.

Dunlosky

Hertzog

(2001). Measuring strategy production during associative learning: The relative utility of concurrent versus retrospective reports. Memory & Cognition, 29(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194918

11.

Folstein

M. F.

Folstein

S. E.

McHugh

P. R.

(1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

12.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300

13.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.3

14.

Gregory

Nettelbeck

Wilson

(2010). Openness to experience, intelligence, and successful ageing. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 895–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.017

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. The Guildford Press.

16.

Hinault

Lemaire

Touron

(2017). Aging effects in sequential modulations of poorer strategy effects during execution of memory strategies. Memory (Hove, England), 25(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1146300

17.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000500673

18.

Jackson

J. J.

Hill

P. L.

Payne

B. R.

Parisi

J. M.

Stine-Morrow

E. A.

(2020). Linking openness to cognitive ability in older adulthood: The role of activity diversity. Aging & Mental Health, 24(7), 1079–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1655705

19.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The big five inventory–versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

20.

Jopp

Hertzog

(2007). Activities, self-referent memory beliefs, and cognitive performance: Evidence for direct and mediated relations. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 811–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.811

21.

Käckenmester

Bott

Wacker

(2019). Openness to experience predicts dopamine effects on divergent thinking. Personality Neuroscience, 2: e3, 1--7. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2019.3

22.

Kraaykamp

van Eijck

(2005). Personality, media preferences, and cultural participation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1675–1688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.002

23.

Lemaire

(2016). Cognitive aging: The role of strategies. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781138121386

24.

Lemaire

Reder

(1999). What affects strategy selection in arithmetic? an example of parity and five effects on product verification. Memory & Cognition, 22, 364–382. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211420

25.

Lemaire

Siegler

R. S.

(1995). Four aspects of strategic change: Contributions to children’s learning of multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.83

26.

Lemaire

Brun

Regner

(2018). Negative aging stereotypes disrupt both the selection and execution of strategies in older adults. Gerontology, 64(4), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486756

27.

Lemaire

Gouraud

Nicolas

(2019). When older adults outperform young adults: Effects of Prior-Task success in arithmetic. Gerontology, 65(6), 649–658.

28.

MacCallum

R. C.

Zhang

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

(2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19

29.

Marcela

(2015). Learning strategy, personality traits and academic achievement of university students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3473–3478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1021

30.

McCrae

R. R.

(1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080404

31.

Mitte

Kämpfe

(2008). Personality and the four faces of positive affect: A multitrait-multimethod analysis using self-and peer-report. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1370–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.004

32.

Nicolas

Lemaire

Régner

(2020). When and how stereotype threat influences older adults’ arithmetic performance: Insight from a strategy approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 149(2), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000647

33.

Passamonti

Terracciano

Riccelli

Donzuso

Cerasa

Vaccaro

Novellino

Fera

Quattrone

(2015). Increased functional connectivity within mesocortical networks in open people. NeuroImage, 104, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.017

34.

Plaisant

Courtois

Réveillère

Mendelsohn

G. A.

John

O. P.

(2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du big five inventory français (BFIFr). analyse convergente avec le NEOPIR [Validation by factorial analysis of the French big five inventory (BFIFr). convergent analysis with NEOPIR]. Annales Médicopsychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique, 168(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003

35.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

36.

Roberts

B. W.

Mroczek

(2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x

37.

Ruffing

Hahn

Spinath

F. M.

Brünken

Karbach

(2015). Predicting students’ learning strategies: The contribution of chronotype over personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.048

38.

Salthouse

T. A.

(2019). Trajectories of normal cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000288

39.

Salthouse

T. A.

Babcock

R. L.

(1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.763

40.

Shiota

M. N.

Keltner

John

O. P.

(2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with big five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833

41.

Soubelet

Salthouse

T. A.

(2010). The role of activity engagement in the relations between openness/intellect and cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 896–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.026

42.

Taconnat

Raz

Toczé

Bouazzaoui

Sauzéon

Fay

Isingrini

(2009). Ageing and organisation strategies in free recall: The role of cognitive flexibility. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(2–3), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802296413

43.

Tournier

Postal

(2011). Strategy selection and aging: Impact of item concreteness in paired associate task. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 18(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2010.525623

44.

Van der Linden

Meulemans

Marczewski

Collette

(2000). The relationships between episodic memory, working memory, and executive functions: The contribution of the prefrontal cortex. Psychologica Belgica, 40(4), 275–297.

45.

Wechsler

(2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (4th ed.). Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15169-000

46.

Wegesin

D. J.

Jacobs

D. M.

Zubin

N. R.

Ventura

P. R.

Stern

(2000). Source memory and encoding strategy in normal aging. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(4), 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1076/1380-3395(200008)22:4;1-0;FT455

47.

Yuan

Raz

(2014). Prefrontal cortex and executive functions in healthy adults: A meta-analysis of structural neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 180–192.

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

0.08 MB