Jump to a section
Methodology Framework Map Social Energy Dominance Empathy Self-Access Reactivity Stimulation Curiosity Absorption Processing Mode Thinking Scale Self-Control Bibliography

Research Foundation

Explore the Science

Each of the 11 dimensions in this framework draws from established personality research. This section documents those foundations — the research traditions, construct definitions, instruments, and key findings that justify including each dimension.

Disclaimer: This is a layperson's synthesis of publicly available personality research — not a peer-reviewed paper, not a clinical assessment tool, and not a replacement for formal psychological evaluation. The author has no formal psychology training. Findings are for self-reflection only. The bibliography at the end of this page points to the original peer-reviewed sources.

Overview

Selection Methodology

The 11 dimensions were selected by surveying the major personality research frameworks — Big Five / OCEAN, HEXACO, the Interpersonal Circumplex, Cloninger's Biosocial Model, Tellegen's MPQ, and Epstein's Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory — and asking a consistent question: which constructs appear across multiple frameworks with independent measurement support and observable behavioral correlates?

An initial survey across 48 personality frameworks produced 101 entries. These were collapsed by identifying which framework-specific dimensions measure the same underlying construct (using empirical convergence, predictive redundancy, and conceptual equivalence criteria), reducing to 26 genuinely independent dimensions. A dependency analysis then asked whether each construct's behavioral predictions could be reconstructed from other dimensions already on the list, cutting to 15. A final pruning against a temperamental grounding criterion — evidence of early-childhood antecedents and moderate-to-high heritability (≈ .40+) — produced the final 11.

What a Dimension Must Satisfy

  1. Independence. The dimension must capture variance that is not reconstructable from other dimensions already on the list.
  2. Stability. The dimension must be substantially stable across adulthood — not immutable, but stable enough to be a recognizable feature of a person over years and across contexts.
  3. Behavioral consequence. The dimension must predict observable differences in behavior, relationships, or life outcomes that matter.
  4. Temperamental grounding. Preference was given to dimensions with evidence of early-childhood antecedents and moderate-to-high heritability (≈ .40+), indicating that the dimension reflects something about how the person's nervous system is wired, not just what they learned.

Key Decompositions

Big Five Agreeableness was split into Dominance Motivation and Affective Empathy — preserving the off-diagonal types (high-Dominance/high-Empathy advocates; low-Dominance/low-Empathy cold deferrers) that the Agreeableness composite collapses. Big Five Openness was split into Intellectual Curiosity and Attentional Absorption. Big Five Conscientiousness was reduced to its executive-attention core: Self-Control.

Overview

Cross-Framework Mapping

How the 11 dimensions correspond to constructs in established frameworks. "≈" means the mapping is close but not identical.

# Dimension Big Five HEXACO MBTI Overlap Other
1Social Energy≈ Extraversion≈ Extraversion≈ E/IMPQ Sociability
2Dominance Motivation≈ low Agreeableness (partial)≈ low Honesty-Humility—Interpersonal Circumplex: Dominance; MPQ Social Potency
3Affective Empathy≈ Agreeableness (partial)≈ Emotionality (partial)≈ F (partial)Distinct from cognitive empathy
4Emotional Self-Access———Alexithymia research (TAS-20)
5Emotional Reactivity≈ Neuroticism≈ Emotionality—Negative Affectivity (Watson & Clark); Harm Avoidance (Cloninger)
6Stimulation Appetite≈ Extraversion (partial)——Sensation Seeking (Zuckerman); Novelty Seeking (Cloninger)
7Intellectual Curiosity≈ Openness / Intellect≈ Openness (partial)≈ N/S (partial)Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty)
8Attentional Absorption≈ Openness (aesthetic facet)≈ Openness (partial)—Tellegen Absorption Scale; Self-Transcendence (Cloninger, partial)
9Information Processing Mode——≈ T/F (partial)CEST: Rational vs. Experiential (Epstein)
10Thinking Scale——≈ N/S (partial)Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman)
11Self-Control≈ Conscientiousness (core)≈ Conscientiousness≈ J/P (partial)Effortful Control (Rothbart); Persistence (Cloninger, partial)

Social & Interpersonal

Dimensions 1–3: Social & Interpersonal

1. Social Energy (Extraversion)
Derived from: Big Five Extraversion [1], Eysenck's E factor, MBTI E/I.
Heritability: ≈ .50–.60 (meta-analytic estimate across twin studies).
Early childhood antecedent: Surgency/positive emotionality temperament dimension (Rothbart).

What it captures: The direction and magnitude of social energy flow — whether social interaction is energizing or depleting. Encompasses sociability, positive emotionality, and approach behavior toward social stimulation.

Unique contribution: Predicts social behavior, positive affect, and leadership emergence independently of all other dimensions on the list. The strongest predictor of subjective well-being among personality traits.

2. Dominance Motivation
Derived from: Wiggins' (1979) Interpersonal Circumplex Agency/Dominance axis [2]; HEXACO Honesty-Humility (Ashton & Lee, 2007) [3], inverted; Social Potency (MPQ).
Heritability: ≈ .40–.50 (estimated from Agency scales and related measures; testosterone sensitivity contributes a biological pathway).
Biological grounding: Testosterone levels, hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis sensitivity, and hierarchy-sensitive neural systems (amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex).

What it captures: The drive toward status, leadership, and having one's preferences prevail. Separated from Affective Empathy to avoid the Agreeableness conflation — Big Five Agreeableness bundles cooperation (low Dominance) with warmth (high Empathy), losing the people who are high on both or low on both.

Unique contribution: Predicts status-seeking behavior, leadership style, and competitive drive independently of Social Energy. Combined with Affective Empathy, reconstructs what the Big Five calls Agreeableness while preserving the off-diagonal types.

3. Affective Empathy
Derived from: Davis' (1983) multidimensional empathy model [7] — specifically the Empathic Concern and Personal Distress subscales of the IRI.
Heritability: ≈ .30–.50 across twin studies. Knafo et al. (2008) [25]: h² ≈ .25–.36 in early childhood; Melchers et al. (2016) [26]: h² ≈ .52 in adults.
Neurological basis: Mirror neuron system, anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex (Decety & Jackson, 2004) [15].

What it captures: Whether other people's emotions transfer as felt experience. The "experience sharing" component of empathy.

Unique contribution: Dissociates from both Dominance Motivation and Emotional Self-Access. Predicts caregiving behavior, burnout risk in helping professions, and moral distress independently. The separation from cognitive empathy (which tracks general intelligence and social learning) is critical — they dissociate neurologically (mirror neuron system vs. mentalizing network) and behaviorally.

Emotional Life

Dimensions 4–5: Emotional Life

4. Emotional Self-Access
Derived from: Bagby, Parker, & Taylor's (1994) alexithymia construct [6] — the TAS-20 measures the low end of this dimension. The dimension was reframed as a spectrum (low access ↔ high access) rather than retaining the clinical label.
Heritability: ≈ .30–.40 (lowest on the list; retained because early-childhood evidence for emotional vocabulary development suggests a capacity-like property, not just a learned skill).

What it captures: The capacity to notice, identify, name, and articulate one's own emotional states. Independent of feeling intensity (Emotional Reactivity) — a person can feel a great deal and yet be unable to identify what they feel.

Unique contribution: The strongest personality-level predictor of poor psychotherapy response, psychosomatic symptom presentation, and difficulty in intimate relationships that involves emotional communication. About 10% of the population falls in the clinical-low range (alexithymia).

5. Emotional Reactivity (Neuroticism)
Derived from: Big Five Neuroticism [1], Eysenck's N, HEXACO Emotionality.
Heritability: ≈ .45–.55 (meta-analytic).
Early childhood antecedent: Negative affectivity temperament (Rothbart). Measurable in infants.

What it captures: The sensitivity and intensity of the negative emotional alarm system — how fast and hard the system fires in response to threat, loss, or frustration.

Unique contribution: The single strongest predictor of subjective distress frequency. Predicts worry, rumination, catastrophizing, and psychosomatic symptoms independently of all other dimensions. Interacts with Self-Access (#4) to determine whether distress is experienced as nameable emotion or as diffuse somatic complaint.

Experience & Engagement

Dimensions 6–7: Experience & Engagement

6. Stimulation Appetite (Sensation Seeking)
Derived from: Zuckerman's (1994) Sensation Seeking construct [4] and the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS-V).
Heritability: ≈ .58–.65 (one of the highest heritabilities among personality constructs).
Biological basis: Dopaminergic system function, MAO-B levels, cortical arousal patterns (Zuckerman's biosocial model).

What it captures: The optimal level of intensity, novelty, and risk needed to feel engaged. High-appetite people are understimulated by calm environments; low-appetite people are overstimulated by intense ones.

Unique contribution: Predicts extreme sports participation, substance use risk, entrepreneurial behavior, career choice (emergency services, war reporting), and boredom susceptibility independently of Social Energy. Crucially, it is independent of introversion/extraversion — introverted high-appetite people pursue intensity solo.

7. Intellectual Curiosity
Derived from: The Intellect facet of Big Five Openness (DeYoung's Big Five aspect model [11]); Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982 [22]).
Heritability: ≈ .50–.57 (estimated from Openness/Intellect facet twin data).

What it captures: The intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful thinking for its own sake — finding ideas, puzzles, and abstract problems inherently rewarding. Distinguished from intelligence (a capacity) — two people with identical IQs can sit on opposite ends of this dimension.

Unique contribution: Predicts voluntary reading, autodidactic behavior, preference for complex over simple tasks, and career satisfaction in intellectually demanding roles. Independent of Attentional Absorption (which captures depth of engagement) and Information Processing Mode (which captures the channel of processing).

Cognitive Style

Dimensions 8–10: Cognitive Style

8. Attentional Absorption
Derived from: Tellegen & Atkinson's (1974) Absorption construct [5], measured by the Tellegen Absorption Scale (TAS).
Heritability: ≈ .50–.55.
Neurological basis: Default mode network deactivation during absorption; anterior prefrontal cortex engagement patterns during flow states.

What it captures: The capacity to become fully absorbed in an experience such that self-awareness recedes — the depth-of-engagement mechanism. Absorbs the aesthetic/experiential-responsiveness component of Big Five Openness.

Unique contribution: The strongest single predictor of hypnotic susceptibility. Predicts flow-state frequency, meditation depth, strength of aesthetic response, and placebo responsiveness. Independent of Intellectual Curiosity — a person can be narrow in their interests but completely absorbed in them.

9. Information Processing Mode
Derived from: Epstein's Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST) [8] and the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI). Also points at the real signal behind MBTI's T/F dichotomy — stripped of MBTI's conflation with interpersonal value preferences.
Heritability: ≈ .20–.40 (lower than temperamental dimensions; processing defaults are more shaped by education and professional training).

What it captures: Which internal processing system fires first by default — gut/pattern recognition (Feeling mode) or step-by-step reasoning (Thinking mode). Both modes exist in everyone; the dimension captures which runs first under default conditions.

Unique contribution: Predicts decision-making style under uncertainty, speed of person-reading, ability to articulate reasoning, and performance in structured vs. unstructured environments. Independent of Intellectual Curiosity (which is about motivation to think, not about which mode of thinking runs first).

10. Thinking Scale (Construal Level)
Derived from: Trope & Liberman's (2010) Construal Level Theory [9].
Heritability: ≈ .20–.40 (heavily influenced by education and professional context).

What it captures: The scale at which the mind defaults to operating — abstract/big-picture (high-level construal: categories, principles, long-term implications) vs. concrete/specifics (low-level construal: particulars, immediate situations, specific examples).

Unique contribution: Predicts communication style, planning horizon, susceptibility to framing effects, and performance in roles requiring different levels of abstraction. Independent of Intellectual Curiosity (curiosity is about motivation to engage; construal level is about what scale you engage at).

Self-Regulation

Dimension 11: Self-Regulation

11. Self-Control
Derived from: The executive-attention core of Big Five Conscientiousness; Rothbart & Bates' (2006) Effortful Control [10]; operationalized in adults by Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone (2004) [18] with the Brief Self-Control Scale.
Heritability: ≈ .45–.55.
Early childhood antecedent: Effortful Control (Rothbart); measurable by age 3–4 via delay-of-gratification paradigms.

What it captures: The capacity to inhibit a prepotent response in service of a non-dominant goal — stopping yourself from doing what you feel like doing in favor of what you decided to do. Distinguished from discipline (a habit) and from conscientiousness (which bundles Self-Control with Industriousness and Orderliness).

Unique contribution: Predicts academic performance, savings behavior, substance use, relationship stability, and criminal behavior independently of all other dimensions. Measurable in toddlers (delay of gratification, attention persistence) and stable into adulthood.

Replication caveat: Mischel's (1989) [19] foundational marshmallow-test findings have been substantially qualified by Watts, Duncan, & Quan (2018) [27]. The long-term predictive effect on adolescent outcomes was less than half the originally reported magnitude and largely attenuated after controlling for family background, early cognitive ability, and home environment. The construct of self-control as a temperamental dimension remains well supported, but specific causal claims about preschool delay of gratification predicting adult outcomes should be cited with this qualification.

Appendix

Heritability Estimates

Population-level estimates from twin-study meta-analyses. Heritability ≈ .50 means roughly half the variation in that trait across a population is attributable to genetic differences. It does not mean the trait is 50% "caused by genes" in any individual, nor that it is immutable. The estimates lean heavily on twin studies, which systematically yield higher heritability than family or adoption designs; treat them as upper bounds.

# Dimension Heritability (h²) Evidence Quality Notes
1Social Energy.50–.60StrongAmong the most heritable personality traits
2Dominance Motivation.40–.50ModerateComposite estimate; testosterone pathway provides biological mechanism
3Affective Empathy.30–.50ModerateKnafo et al. (2008): .25–.36 in early childhood; Melchers et al. (2016): ~.52 in adults
4Emotional Self-Access.30–.40ModerateLowest heritability on the list; retained for capacity-like early-development evidence
5Emotional Reactivity.45–.55StrongMeasurable in infants via negative affectivity
6Stimulation Appetite.58–.65StrongAmong the highest heritabilities; MAO-B and dopaminergic pathways
7Intellectual Curiosity.50–.57Moderate-to-strongHigher for Intellect facet than for Aesthetics facet
8Attentional Absorption.50–.55ModerateStable across adulthood
9Information Processing Mode.20–.40LimitedMost environment-influenced dimension on the list
10Thinking Scale.20–.40LimitedHeavily shaped by education and professional context
11Self-Control.45–.55StrongMeasurable in toddlers; delay-of-gratification paradigm

Appendix

Measurement Instruments

Validated instruments for assessing each dimension, listed in order of preference (most established first).

# Dimension Primary Instrument Items Additional Instruments
1Social EnergyNEO-PI-R Extraversion scale48BFI-2 Extraversion (12 items); IPIP-NEO Extraversion
2Dominance MotivationInterpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS) — Dominance axisVariesMPQ Social Potency scale; HEXACO Honesty-Humility (inverted, partial)
3Affective EmpathyInterpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) — Empathic Concern + Personal Distress subscales14 (7+7)Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) — Affective subscale
4Emotional Self-AccessToronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)20Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)
5Emotional ReactivityNEO-PI-R Neuroticism scale48BFI-2 Negative Emotionality (12 items); HEXACO Emotionality
6Stimulation AppetiteSensation Seeking Scale Form V (SSS-V)40Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS, 8 items); UPPS-P Sensation Seeking subscale
7Intellectual CuriosityNeed for Cognition Scale (NCS-18)18BFI-2 Intellectual Curiosity facet; DeYoung's BFAS Intellect scale
8Attentional AbsorptionTellegen Absorption Scale (TAS)34Modified Tellegen Absorption Scale (MODTAS, 34 items, modernized wording)
9Information Processing ModeRational-Experiential Inventory (REI-40)40REI-10 (short form)
10Thinking ScaleBehavioral Identification Form (BIF)25No widely adopted dedicated scale; researchers typically use task-based measures
11Self-ControlBrief Self-Control Scale (BSCS)13Effortful Control scale (ATQ, developmental); NEO-PI-R Conscientiousness (broader)

References

Bibliography

  1. [1] Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. — Big Five framework. Empirical backbone for Social Energy (#1), Emotional Reactivity (#5), Self-Control (#11), and Intellectual Curiosity (#7). ↩1 ↩2
  2. [2] Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. — The Interpersonal Circumplex. Foundational for Dominance Motivation (#2). DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395 ↩
  3. [3] Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. — The HEXACO model. DOI: 10.1177/1088868306294907 ↩
  4. [4] Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge University Press. — Stimulation Appetite (#6). The SSS-V instrument remains the standard measure. ↩
  5. [5] Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277. — Attentional Absorption (#8). DOI: 10.1037/h0036681 ↩
  6. [6] Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23–32. — Emotional Self-Access (#4). DOI: 10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1 ↩
  7. [7] Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. — Affective Empathy (#3). DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 ↩
  8. [8] Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. — Information Processing Mode (#9). DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390 ↩
  9. [9] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. — Thinking Scale (#10). DOI: 10.1037/a0018963 ↩
  10. [10] Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 99–166). Wiley. — Self-Control (#11) and Emotional Reactivity (#5). ↩
  11. [11] 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(5), 880–896. — Big Five aspect model; Intellect/Openness distinction. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880 ↩
  12. [12] John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Guilford Press. — Comprehensive review of Big Five history and cross-cultural replication.
  13. [13] Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets. Journal of Personality, 64(3), 577–591. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x
  14. [14] Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785. — Meta-analysis across 134 studies; weighted overall heritability ≈ .40, with twin studies ≈ .47. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000017
  15. [15] Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. — Neurological dissociation of affective and cognitive empathy. ↩
  16. [16] Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999–1029. — Extended biosocial model linking sensation seeking to dopaminergic function.
  17. [17] Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (1997). Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness. Cambridge University Press. — Comprehensive treatment of alexithymia as a dimensional construct.
  18. [18] Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. — Introduced the Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS). DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x ↩
  19. [19] Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938. — The "marshmallow test" longitudinal evidence. DOI: 10.1126/science.2658056 ↩
  20. [20] Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26–30. — Attachment heritability and developmental pathways.
  21. [21] Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. — IAS instrument manual.
  22. [22] Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. — Established Need for Cognition as a stable individual difference. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 ↩
  23. [23] Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671. — The Behavioral Identification Form (BIF). DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660
  24. [24] Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. — Regulatory Focus Theory. Evaluated for inclusion; excluded. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
  25. [25] Knafo, A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Van Hulle, C., Robinson, J. L., & Rhee, S. H. (2008). The developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy. Emotion, 8(6), 737–752. DOI: 10.1037/a0014179 ↩
  26. [26] Melchers, M., Montag, C., Reuter, M., Spinath, F. M., & Hahn, E. (2016). How heritable is empathy? Motivation and Emotion, 40(5), 720–730. — Adult twin study; h² ≈ .52 for affective empathy. DOI: 10.1007/s11031-016-9573-7 ↩
  27. [27] Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the marshmallow test. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1159–1177. — Conceptual replication of Mischel et al. (1989); effects substantially attenuated by controls. DOI: 10.1177/0956797618761661 ↩
  28. [28] Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961/1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225–251. — Original five-factor discovery. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x
  29. [29] Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. — Coined "Big Five." DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
  30. [30] Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31(3), 243–273. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012294324713
  31. [31] Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and Environment in Personality Development. Sage Publications. — Classic synthesis of twin and adoption study evidence.
  32. [32] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. — Influential synthesis of dual-process theory underlying Information Processing Mode (#9).
  33. [33] Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685
  34. [34] Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(12), 975–990. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008
  35. [35] Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057