All 38 Traits: The Strongest Personality Differences

One Study Design for Every Trait

• High group: score 75–100 on the grouping trait. Low group: score 0–25. These are score ranges, not population quartiles.
• Minimum sample: at least 500 people on each side in each random half. All 38 grouping traits met this requirement.
• Adjustment: subtract each outcome's fitted quadratic age, recorded gender and relationship-status values, with gender-by-age and gender-by-status interactions. Compare the groups' average residuals.
• Effect-size screen: absolute adjusted gap at least .50 whole-cohort SD, at least .40 in each half, and the same direction in both halves.
• Ranking: sort by absolute adjusted gap divided by the other trait's whole-cohort SD, not by p-value or raw point gap.

“SD” is the other trait's standard deviation in the whole adult cohort, not a conventional high/low pooled-group Cohen's d. Equal score cutoffs select differently sized and differently extreme groups across traits, so rankings should be read as descriptive contrasts, not an absolute hierarchy of psychological importance.

Strongest Differences Across All Traits

362 of 1,406 directional contrasts meet the effect-size and repeatability criteria. These cover 201 distinct unordered pairings. The main ranking shows each pairing once, retaining the direction with the larger absolute standardized gap. Both directions are available in the full results.

Low and high means are raw 0–100 score averages. The adjusted gap compares demographic-model residual averages, so it need not equal high mean minus low mean. Half A / B gaps are independently fitted estimates from the two random halves.

Five Main Patterns

Social Openness, Distance and Mistrust

The strongest contrast links outgoing disclosure with less emotional distance. Some of this is unsurprising because the short scales address related social behavior. Mistrust also travels with greater distance and lower emotional calm, while distance is associated with less acceptance of help. Together these describe a broader pattern of interpersonal guardedness.

Appearance, Money and Self-Evaluation

Money importance, appearance importance and expensive consumption form another set of substantial associations; money importance is also associated with less putting others first. Self-rated superiority links to wanting leadership and to self-rated attractiveness. Appearance importance and wanting power both relate to distress at being ignored, but the power-oriented groups differ little in emotional calm. These are overlapping self-reports, not one interchangeable trait.

Organization, Caution and Self-Control

Orderliness is associated with work orientation and cautiousness, but also with saving/spending control and less aversion to adult responsibilities. This pattern is broader than being tidy or following a schedule, and its connections are relatively stable under the broad-score check below.

Theoretical, Artistic and Unconventional Interests

Theoretical interests are associated with artistic interests, humanitarian concern and mystical/paranormal interests. The last connection is positive, not an opposition between the two scores. Desire to be different also aligns with artistic and unconventional interests. This describes an interest pattern, not intelligence or a demonstrated psychological mechanism.

Care, Family and Religious Commitment

Putting others first is associated with stronger family orientation and humanitarian concern. Religious faith relates to family orientation and lower alcohol/tobacco scores, but the high- and low-faith groups show little adjusted difference in theoretical interests. The pattern is selective rather than a uniform contrast between religious and intellectual interests; a small observed difference is not proof that the groups are equivalent.

These are descriptive groupings of associated scores, not formally established factors. The exact rankings and all smaller connections remain available below.

Which Connections Survive Additional Checks?

Every one of the 703 continuous pairings has raw and demographic-adjusted correlations, separate random-half estimates, and separate recorded-female and recorded-male estimates. The additional broad-score check is applied to all 703 correlations and all 1,406 high/low contrasts.

For each pairing, the broad-score check controls the mean of the other 36 non-music traits, excluding both traits being compared. This asks how much of the connection remains after accounting for a general tendency to score high across other dimensions. It can also remove real shared personality structure, so it is a sensitivity check, not an established correction for response bias.

Of the 362 contrasts passing the main screen, 269 also retain the same direction and meet the effect-size thresholds after this additional adjustment. Rankings use the demographic-adjusted differences; broad-score estimates are shown separately.

For example, the mistrust–distance association changes little, while the power/leadership–attention-distress association becomes smaller. The amount of attenuation indicates how much an association overlaps with the other measured traits.

Gender checks concern continuous correlations within those groups, not gender-specific high/low mean gaps. Split checks concern repeatability, not external replication. Broad-score results for every pairing, including half and gender-group correlations, are included in the downloadable data.

Sample Coverage

Full Trait Reference

Each of the 38 traits has all 37 other outcomes below, including those too small to pass the screen. The combined table gives its mean differences, split checks, raw/adjusted correlations, gender-group correlations and broad-score sensitivity results in one place. Rows are ordered by absolute standardized gap.