CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderPersonality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

ADHD and personality: a meta-analytic review

Gomez, Rapson, Corr, Philip J.·2014·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.05.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We report a meta-analysis of up to 40 data sets that examined the personality dimensions in the Five-Factor Model (FFM) and the integrated Five-Factor Model (IFFM) in relation to ADHD symptom domains of inattention (IA) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (HI). The IFFM incorporated the dimensions of other personality models (in particular, those of Eysenck, Tellegen, and Cloninger, as well as the FFM). Major findings were: (1) IA and HI were both associated with low conscientious inhibition/conscientiousness, and low agreeable inhibition/agreeableness, and with high negative emotionality/neuroticism; (2) conscientious inhibition and conscientiousness were more strongly related to IA than HI; (3) agreeable inhibition and agreeableness were more strongly related to HI than IA; and (4) the association of conscientious inhibition and conscientiousness with HI was moderated by age group and source from where participants were recruited (associations were stronger in children than adults, and clinical samples than community samples). These findings are discussed in relation to single and multiple pathway theories, underlying factors and processes for the personality-ADHD link, and clinical implications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.05.002

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Extraversion and agreeableness tend to be lower in ADHD, though the associations are less strong.

    “Though the associations between ADHD and extraversion and agreeableness are less strong, both traits tend to be lower in ADHD (20, 21, 23–26).”

    From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Integrated Five-Factor Model section reports a negative, medium-sized association between ADHD and agreeable inhibition (the agreeableness-related dimension). But the paper describes findings for extraversion as mixed—positive, negative, and absent—and reports a small negative association for positive emotionality only in clinical samples, not community samples. It therefore does not establish that extraversion generally tends to be lower in ADHD. Page numbers were not available in the supplied copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Agreeableness and openness were relatively high in the current sample at baseline while previous studies reported a negative or no relationship between ADHD symptoms and agreeableness and openness, respectively.

    “In contrast, agreeableness and openness were relatively high in the current sample at baseline while previous studies reported a negative or no relationship between ADHD symptoms and agreeableness and openness, respectively (20, 23, 24, 26).”

    From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

    The passage near Table 1 (page unavailable) says ADHD generally has a negative association with agreeableness, supporting that part of the claim. It says findings for openness are mixed—positive, negative, and no associations—so describing the prior evidence simply as showing no relationship omits an important qualification. The current sample’s baseline scores are not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals diagnosed with ADHD score generally lower on conscientiousness and higher on neuroticism compared to controls.

    “Individuals diagnosed with ADHD score generally lower on conscientiousness and higher on neuroticism compared to controls (20–24).”

    From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Openness is generally unrelated to ADHD.

    “Openness is generally unrelated to ADHD (20, 23, 24).”

    From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

  • The reported baseline conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism scores were in line with previously reported associations between ADHD and personality traits.

    “The reported baseline conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism scores were in line with previously reported associations between ADHD and personality traits (20, 21, 25).”

    From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to metaanalysis . Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  2. Gray, J. A. (1975) Elements of a two-process theory of learning . London: Academic Press.
  3. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry in to the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2000). Practical meta-analysis: Vol. 49. Applied social research methods series . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Tellegen, A. (2000). Manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gomez, R., & Corr, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Federation University (AU)
  • City, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Gomez, Rapson
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
376-388
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2014.05.002
OpenAlex
W2139360040
Cited by
151
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, personality, Big Five personality traits, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, conscientiousness, agreeableness, negative affectivity, neuroticism, age differences, clinical versus community samples
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Humans, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Inventory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review