Personality profiles and meteoropathy intensity: A comparative study between young and older adults.

OBJECTIVES: This study's main aims were to investigate the Big Five personality trait heterogeneity of study participants in two age groups and to examine whether these traits' heterogeneity can explain possible individual differences in meteoropathy intensity.
METHOD: The sample was comprised of 758 participants divided into two age groups: 378 young adults (18-30 years old) and 380 older adults (60+ years old). The participants filled out online or paper versions of the METEO-Q questionnaire and the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI).
RESULTS: A latent profile analysis of the completed inventories showed various personality profiles differ in meteoropathy intensity. However, personality's differentiating effect on meteoropathy was observed only among the young adult group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study's results indicate that there is no one personality trait pattern that fits all individuals regarding sensitivity to weather changes. This issue is especially visible when considering age differences.

Introduction

Starting with Hippocrates’s theoretical observations in the book Airs, Waters, and Places [1], a large body of empirical evidence has shown the relationship between environmental factors, such as climate and weather changes, and human health and disease [see for review 2–4]. However, it was not until the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries when researchers began to systematically study a new syndrome consisting of negative psychophysical symptoms related to meteorological factors, that is, meteoropathy [5-7]. Specifically, meteoropathy refers to “a group of symptoms and pathological reactions in response to gradual or sudden changes in meteorological factors in a specific area interacting, presumably, through natural electromagnetic influences covering a wide range of frequencies and amplitudes” [6, p. 46]. These reactions, which last a few days and are strictly related to weather changes, include depressive symptoms, irritability, numbness, sleep problems, muscles pain, and a general desire to remain indoors [7]. Propensity to the aforementioned symptoms stems from meteorosensitivity, or the body and mind’s biological susceptibility to atmospheric changes [6]. Some studies have observed that two demographic factors particularly contribute to individual differences in meteorosensitivity, which are age [middle- and especially old-aged individuals; e.g., 8, 9] and gender, with an overrepresentation of women in this regard [10, 11]. Not all meteorosensitive people develop the pathological reactions that compose meteoropathy; nevertheless, until very recently the mechanism responsible for meteoropathology at all was not entirely known [12].

In the last few years, some researchers found that superior vestibular nucleus activity may be linked to meteoropathy in mice and probably in humans [13]. More concretely, they claimed that the hypothalamus and amygdala nucleus can contribute to meteoropathy development, meaning the human psychophysical propensity toward weather changes that induce stress may be a derivative of individual differences in brain mechanisms responsible for emotional regulation. In addition, it should be underscored that many signs of meteoropathy reflect some mood disorders symptoms [7]. In line with this argument, it is vital to investigate the role of personality as a potential correlate of meteoropathy [12], especially from the Big Five taxonomy.

Dozens of studies have demonstrated the role of Big Five traits in emotional regulation [see for review 14] and affective disorders in particular, which share similar biological dispositions [15]. These studies highlighted the significance of neuroticism as predictor of maladaptive emotional regulation and risk factor for mood disorders, as well as extraversion and conscientiousness as buffering factors acting in the opposite way. However, Rammstedt et al. [16] found that there can be just one Big Five trait that explains meteoropathy: openness to experience. Specifically, this trait strongly correlates with mood seasonality, and people attuned to openness are among those who are most sensitive to perceived environmental changes, including weather changes [16].

In our study, we investigated the role of the Big Five personality traits in the meteoropathy intensity of two age groups: young and older adults. The methodological novelty of our study featured the application of a person-centered perspective focused on the search for unique participant profiles within the study variables. In the personality context, our person-centered perspective enabled us to better understand the organization and functions of personality within individuals’ real lives [17]. This is most crucial, as all of the aforementioned meteoropathy studies applied a variable-centered approach, which neglects the issue of participant heterogeneity regarding the examined variables.

Current study

Taking the aforementioned research gaps into consideration, the aim of our study was twofold: First, we investigated the heterogeneity of the study participants’ Big Five personality traits. Second, we assessed if these traits’ heterogeneity can explain the possible individual differences in meteoropathy intensity within the two participant age groups while controlling for their sociodemographic data. To the best of our knowledge, there were no extant studies that may have proven helpful as direct sources of research hypotheses in the case of this special study design and particular outcome variable (i.e., meteoropathy). Therefore, this study mainly employed an exploratory approach. Nevertheless, based on extant literature conducted under the variable-centered approach, we expected our study samples to have heterogeneous Big Five personality traits and the observed participant profiles within these traits to declare different meteoropathy levels. Specifically, we hypothesized that the personality profiles of participants low in emotional stability and high in openness would on average have higher meteoropathy intensity, while the profiles of participants high in extraversion and high in conscientiousness would on average have lower meteoropathy intensity. We also assumed that older adults would have higher meteoropathy intensity compared to young adults. Additionally, we expected that female participants would suffer more from meteoropathy symptoms compared to male participants, regardless of age group.

Method

Participants and procedure

Our study sample was comprised of 758 participants divided into two nearly equinumerous age groups: 378 young adults (18–30 years old) and 380 older adults (60+ years old). The young adults were recruited from the general population via the online recruitment platform, where they filled out online versions of the study inventories (see the Measures section); there were no particular inclusion or exclusion criteria apart from falling under the young adult age bracket. The older adults were recruited by students from the various Universities of the Third Age in Warsaw, with their inventories gathered via lectures in paper format (see n = 123), as well as via the Facebook, where the participants had access to the online versions of our inventories (n = 257). Specifically, each of the University of the Third Age in Warsaw, where the study was conducted had its fan-page on Facebook, where we include the online link to our study. The older adults’ inclusion criterion encompassed being at least 60 years old. The exclusion criterion included exhibited signs of dementia, which were screened for by clinical psychologists employed at the Universities of the Third Age, where this research was conducted via Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Specifically, we choose those participants, who scored more at least 24 points in MMSE.

This study was anonymous, voluntary, and there was no renumeration for its participation. Informed consent was collected from all participants in the written form, which was included at the beginning of the study inventories both in the paper and pencil and in the online format of study questionnaires. The protocol of this study was accepted by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw.

Measures

Meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy were assessed via the Polish adaptation of the METEO-Q questionnaire [7]. This inventory consisted of 11 items that evaluate meteorosensitivity (5 items) and meteoropathy (6 items). The participants answered each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Absent) to 3 (Severe). The Cronbach’s alphas for the young and older adult samples are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Values of analyzed variables in the young and older adult groups with the values of student’s independent sample t-test.

	Young Adults			Older Adults
Variables	M	SD	α	M	SD	α	t	df	p	d
Emotional stability	6.38	3.31	.75	9.23	2.96	.62	-12.48	743.34	.001	-.91
Extroversion	8.77	3.26	.75	11.25	2.77	.69	-11.29	732.45	.001	-.82
Openness to experience	9.30	2.47	.74	9.32	2.55	.62	-0.11	754	.910	-.01
Agreeableness	10.30	2.58	.60	11.34	2.42	.61	-5.72	754	.001	-.42
Conscientiousness	9.30	3.18	.76	11.48	2.59	.61	-10.35	721.25	.001	-.75
Meteorosensitivity	8.46	3.53	.82	13.93	3.56	.83	-21.23	754	.001	-1.54
Meteoropathy	7.29	3.81	.76	12.37	3.45	.79	-19.20	744.98	.001	-1.40

Note: M = mean value; SD = standard deviation; t = independent sample Student’s t-test; α = Cronbach’s alpha; df = degrees of freedom; p = statistical significance; d = Cohen’s effect size measure.

The Big Five personality traits were examined with the Polish adaptation of the Ten Item Personality Inventory [TIPI; 18]. The TIPI measured each of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness) in 2 items, with each assessed on a 7-point scale that ranged from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly). The Cronbach’s alphas for the young and older adult samples are presented in Table 3.

Data analysis

Our data analysis consisted of three steps. First, the demographic characteristics of the analyzed sample, descriptive statistics, intercorrelations between analyzed variables, and differences between the young and older adult groups were computed. Deviation from normality was assessed with the skewness and kurtosis measures. In the next step, a latent profile analysis was performed to extract potential respondent subgroups and verify the first hypothesis [19]. The fit of models was assessed using the Aikake information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The acquired profiles were centered to foster clear interpretations. The final step involved examining the differences between the extracted classes in the young and older adult groups.

The descriptive statistics of the sample, analyzed variables, as well as the correlation analysis and differences between the young and older adult groups were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 software. The latent profile analysis was computed with the tidy LPA package, working in the R Statistics 4.0.1 environment.

Results

Sociodemographic data of the two samples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Sociodemographic variables in the studied sample (N = 758).

	Young Adults	Older Adults	p
	(N = 378)	(N = 380)
Variable	N (%)	N (%)
Gender
Male	94 (24.8%)	40 (10.5%)	.001
Female	284 (75.2%)	340 (89.5%)
Age in years (M ± SD)	21.07 ± 2.31	67.58 ± 6.05	.001
Marital status
Married	14 (3.8%)	135 (35.5%)	.001
Single	364 (96.2%)	23 (6.1%)
Informal relationship	0	222 (58.4%)
Education
Elementary	83 (21.9%)	13(3.5%)	.001
Secondary	281 (74.3%)	189 (49.7%)
Higher education	14 (3.8%)	178 (46.8%)
Place of residence
Village, small town up to 20,000 residents	93 (24.6%)	64 (16.8%)	.010
City, 21,000–100,000 residents	64 (17.0%)	60 (15.8%)
City, 101,000–500,000 residents	34 (9.0%)	56 (14.7%)
City, over 500,000 residents	187 (49.4%)	200 (52.6%)

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; p = p-value of chi-squared test for independence or Student’s independent sample t-test of participant age.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics (mean values, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis measures, and intercorrelations between the analyzed variables) for the analyzed variables. None of the skewness or kurtosis measures exceeded the values of 1 or -1; we therefore assumed a normal analyzed variable distribution.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and pearson correlation coefficients between analyzed variables in the full participant sample (N = 758).

Variables	M	SD	S	K	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Emotional stability	7.82	3.45	0.08	-0.92	-
2. Extroversion	10.02	3.27	-0.61	-0.64	.471**	-
3. Openness to experience	9.31	2.51	-0.35	0.20	.105**	.322**	-
4. Agreeableness	10.82	2.55	-0.78	0.18	.245**	.283**	.107**	-
5. Conscientiousness	10.40	3.09	-0.73	-0.38	.238**	.380**	.065	.302**	-
6. Meteorosensitivity	11.21	4.48	-0.21	-0.34	.060	.213**	-.019	.153**	.224**	-
7. Meteoropathy	9.85	4.43	-0.15	-0.50	.043	.207**	-.048	.144**	.263**	.844**	-

Note: M = mean value; SD = standard deviation; S = skewness; K = kurtosis; * p < .05

** p < .01.

Table 3 presents the mean values of the analyzed variables in the young and older adult groups from Student’s t-test.

According to the Student’s t-test values for the independent samples, there was a statistical difference between men and women regarding meteorosensitivity (t(754) = 7.94, p < .001) and meteoropathy (t(754) = 9.22, p < .001). For women, meteorosensitivity (M = 11.78, SD = 4.26) and meteoropathy (M = 10.50, SD = 4.16) were significantly higher than for men, for whom the mean meteorosensitivity value was 8.51 (SD = 4.52) and that of meteoropathy 6.78 (SD = 4.43).

Next, we executed a latent profile analysis to estimate distinct personality profiles and extract subgroups of respondents differing in meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy. The analysis was performed separately for the young and older adult groups. According to an analytic hierarchy process and based on the fit indices AIC, AWE, BIC, CLC, and KIC [20], the best solution for the young adult group was a 3-class model with differing variances and covariances. The fit statistics values were AIC = 5,050.55 and BIC = 5,294.19. Fig 1 presents the mean values of the standardized variables in the three acquired classes.

Fig 1

Profiles of personality acquired in the group of young adults.

In the first class, the acquired profile was characterized by average levels of all personality traits (profile 1). In the second class, the acquired profile was characterized by a high level of conscientiousness (profile 2). In the third class, the acquired profile was characterized by low emotional stability (profile 3).

In the older adult group, according to an analytic hierarchy process and based on the fit indices AIC, AWE, BIC, CLC, and KIC, the best solution was a 2-class model with differing variances and covariances. The fit statistics values were AIC = 4,834.64 and BIC = 4,996.19. Fig 2 presents the mean values of the standardized variables in the acquired classes.

Fig 2

Profiles of personality acquired in the group of older adults.

In the first class, the acquired profile was characterized by low levels of extroversion and conscientiousness (profile 1). In the second class, the acquired profile was characterized by high levels of extroversion and conscientiousness (profile 2).

The three extracted young adult classes were compared in terms of meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy. Taking into account the participants’ genders, an analysis of covariance was performed. Between groups, differences were statistically significant for both meteorosensitivity (F(2,372) = 7.68, p < .01, η2 = .04) and meteoropathy (F(2,372) = 3.54, p < .05, η2 = .02). According to the values of a multiple comparison test with Bonferroni adjustment, the third class (profile 3) significantly differed from the first (p < .01) and the second (p < .05). The mean meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy values were significantly higher in the third class, with the participants having lower levels of emotional stability (see Fig 3).

Fig 3

Mean values of meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy.

Acquired in the extracted classes in the group of young adults.

In the older adult group, the differences between extracted classes were statistically insignificant regarding both meteorosensitivity (F(1,377) = 1.33, p > .01) and meteoropathy (F(1,377) = .10, p > .05).

Discussion

Our study’s results were consistent with our first hypothesis to a point, as, on the one hand, we managed to observe Big Five personality trait heterogeneity across our two study samples. On the other hand, though, the extracted personality profiles differed with regard to meteoropathy intensity only within the young adult sample. Specifically, in this age group, we found three personality profiles: participants with average levels of all five personality traits (profile 1), participants with very high conscientiousness levels and average levels of other traits (profile 2), and participants with low emotional stability and average levels of other traits (profile 3). Interestingly, we observed significant differences between these profiles in both meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy. Namely, young adults from profile 3 declared much higher meteorosensitivity levels than those from the other two profiles, as well as much higher meteoropathy levels than those from profile 1. It seems that contrary to our hypothesis, among young people, only one personality trait matters with regard to meteoropathy: neuroticism. This finding is not as obvious as it seems at first glance, as while research on weather sensitivity, particularly on seasonal affective disorders, has indeed highlighted neuroticism’s strong predictive role [21, 22], especially how this trait is characterized by the experience of strong mood variability [23], more recent daily diary studies have identified that personality traits cannot account for weather sensitivity [24]. According to these latter authors, weather sensitivity is somehow an individual difference factor by itself, as people can have different weather sensitivity thresholds regardless of their personality traits. Furthermore, these authors claimed the same of sociodemographic data, including especially age and gender. Still, each of these studies applied a variable-centered approach, so they assumed a priori their study samples’ homogeneity. We believe that following a person-centered perspective can provide a more realistic look at the interrelationships between variables, which was the focus of our research.

The picture of the association between personality and meteoropathy in the older adult group was very different compared to the young adult group. We observed two personality profiles among the older adults: participants with low extraversion and conscientiousness intensity and average levels of other traits (profile 1) and participants with high extraversion and conscientiousness intensity and average levels of other traits (profile 2). Among the older adults, however, the extracted personality profiles did not differ in meteorosensitivity or meteoropathy. Still, it should be noted that the older adults declared much higher meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy severity in comparison to the young adults, which was in line with our second hypothesis and other studies in this area [8, 9, 12, 25]. The effect sizes of these differences were quite large (see Table 3), so we carefully assume that while personality profiles differed in both meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy levels in the young adult group, among older adults, meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy severity is high, and the seniors themselves vary so little with regard to these constructs that personality traits no longer matter.

Lastly, we found higher meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy intensity among the female participants in both age groups. This result is not only consistent with our final hypothesis, but also reflects other authors’ observations [11, 26] for example, Connolly [10] showed that women are more prone to reacting to environmental factors, which relates especially to poor life satisfaction. Interestingly, low life satisfaction from several domains of functioning (e.g., job and health situation) is the worst on rainy days. Despite our results, the gender and non-clinical sample mechanisms in this regard are still not entirely known and require further examination.

Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths, including its innovative methodology and hypothesis-driven design utilizing several understudied constructs in a large sample of two age groups. However, it is vital to pinpoint some of our research’s limitations. First, in the older adult group, we did not thoroughly screen our participants’ actual health statuses, although we excluded patients exhibiting signs of dementia. Second, in the young adult group, we did not control for potential mental disorders or substance abuse. Thirdly, our study samples significantly differed across analyzed socio-demographic characteristics. Furthermore, not every participant underwent the psychometric assessment through the same modality (paper and pencil format versus online version), which could raise some potential bias in the obtained results. One final limitation is this study’s cross-sectional and self-report measures.

Conclusion

Even with these limitations, our study’s results may shed new perspective on the link between personality and the still much understudied syndrome meteoropathy. In light of our findings, it seems there is no one personality trait pattern that fits all individuals in the context of sensitivity to weather changes. This latter issue is especially visible when we take age differences into account.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-20771

Personality Profiles and Meteoropathy Intensity: A Comparative Study between Young and Older Adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rzeszutek,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Geilson Lima Santana, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for informed written consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very intersting study investigating personality trait heterogeneity

in two age groups (young and older adults) and examining whether traits’ heterogeneity can

explain possible individual differences in meteoropathy intensity.

The research is well conducted and clear.

a minor comment:

page 5 section Current Study "we expected, we expected..." please correct

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy have progressively become an issue of increasing interest, with the goal of better understanding the underlining biological and psychopathological features and developing targeted intervention strategies in the feature.

First, the covered topic is of course timely, and the sample size is adequate. As well, the main strength of the paper is the special study design focusing on personality profiles, with interesting results. However, some point-to-point issues must be acknowledged to carry out your revision.

Methods:

-Middle-aged and, above all, old-aged individuals are at greater risk of meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy, as mentioned in the Introduction. Why did you chose to analyze young adults (18-30 years old) in your study, as well as to exclude adults ranging from 30 to 60 years old? Please justify your choice in the response to reviewers (rather than in the paper).

-Have the METEO-Q and TIPI instruments been validated in Polish? If not, this is a potential source of flaw and it should be included in the study limitations.

-Not every participant underwent the psychometric assessment through the same modality (paper format vs. online version), rising further potential bias that should be mentioned in the limitations paragraph.

-Study recruitment in the older adults group is not entirely clear. Please, clarify methods about the use of Facebook to get the psychometric assessment and concomitant screening of dementia signs by the University psychologists.

-The two groups significantly differed in all their socio-demographic characteristics, with no express mention in the text. Moreover, Table 1 about sociodemographic data of the two samples should be moved to the Results section.

Discussion:

As pointed out in the manuscript, to date there is a lack of sufficient data on both personality traits and meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy to formulate a clear hypothesis about the common biological mechanisms of these phenomena. However, we would like to recommend the following studies in order to deepen the strength of your discussion:

- Di Nicola M, Mazza M, Panaccione I, Moccia L, Giuseppin G, Marano G, Grandinetti P, Camardese G, De Berardis D, Pompili M, Janiri L. Sensitivity to Climate and Weather Changes in Euthymic Bipolar Subjects: Association With Suicide Attempts. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Mar 5;11:95. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00095. PMID: 32194448; PMCID: PMC7066072;

- Cianconi P, Betrò S, Grillo F, Hanife B, Janiri L. Climate shift and mental health adjustment [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 6]. CNS Spectr. 2020;1-2. doi:10.1017/S1092852920001261.

In general, the authors should tone down the speculation on the hypotheses by which certain personality traits may relate or not to meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy (e.g., “we agree with Denissen … but related only to the older adult group”).

Some inconsistencies between text and reference list should be solved too (e.g., Gossling et al., 2003, Akogul and Erisoglu, 2017; they are cited in the manuscript, but they are not reported in the References section). We also recommend checking out all the other ones.

To conclude, an extensive revision by a native speaker with technical-scientific linguistic skills is desirable.

Best regards.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Marianna Mazza

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

5 Sep 2020

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers,

thank you very much for suggestions and remarks concerning our article titled “Personality Profiles and Meteoropathy Intensity: A Comparative Study between Young and Older Adults”, which we would like to publish in PLOS One. We referred to all reviewers’ remarks. Below we cite every remark and comment of the reviewers and provide the answers to them in parentheses. All the changes in the revised text are marked with red font.

Editor remarks

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Thank you very much for reminder. We double checked that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.]

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for informed written consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

[Thank you very much for this remark. In the revised version of the manuscript we provided more details on participant consent. More specifically, informed consent was collected from all participants in the written form, which was included at the beginning of the study inventories both in the paper and pencil and online format of study questionnaires. The ethics committee did not underline the particular form of informed consent (i.e. verbal or written), but only underscore the necessity for obtaining it either in written or verbal mode.]

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

[Thank you very much for these positive, general, evaluation of our manuscript. As far as the remark of the Reviewer 2 on not sufficiently professional level of English, we would like to underline the fact that before sending our manuscript to PLOS ONE, we sent our manuscript to the professional English proofreading service. However, regarding your criticism, once again we sent the revised version of our manuscript to another Native English speaker, who corrected some additional language errors. Thus, please bear in mind that we did our utmost to prepare our manuscript in the best English version as we can.]

Reviewer #1:

This is a very interesting study investigating personality trait heterogeneity

in two age groups (young and older adults) and examining whether traits’ heterogeneity can

explain possible individual differences in meteoropathy intensity.

The research is well conducted and clear. A minor comment:

page 5 section Current Study "we expected, we expected..." please correct

[Thank you very much for so positive feedback on our manuscript. We really appreciated it. Regarding this minor remark, we corrected this small typo in the current study – thanks for paying attention on this.]

Reviewer #2:

Dear Authors,

meteorosensitivity and meteoropathy have progressively become an issue of increasing interest, with the goal of better understanding the underlining biological and psychopathological features and developing targeted intervention strategies in the feature.

First, the covered topic is of course timely, and the sample size is adequate. As well, the main strength of the paper is the special study design focusing on personality profiles, with interesting results. However, some point-to-point issues must be acknowledged to carry out your revision.

[Thank you very much for generally positive feedback on our manuscript.]

Methods:-Middle-aged and, above all, old-aged individuals are at greater risk of meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy, as mentioned in the Introduction. Why did you chose to analyze young adults (18-30 years old) in your study, as well as to exclude adults ranging from 30 to 60 years old? Please justify your choice in the response to reviewers (rather than in the paper).

[Thank you very much for your question. There was one particular reason explaining why we choose this two, contrasting age group were two-fold - it was about the comparison of extreme groups or more differentiated in terms of age according to the paradigm of individual differences and the studies on that syndrome. The group of young and old 60+ should be supposed to be the most different in terms of meteorosensitivity and, of course, meteoropathy.]

-Have the METEO-Q and TIPI instruments been validated in Polish? If not, this is a potential source of flaw and it should be included in the study limitations.

[Yes, the METEO-Q was validated in Poland by Oniszczenko – in one unpublishe paper from 2019, as well in published paper below:

Oniszczenko, W. (2020), Affective temperaments and meteoropathy among women: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 15, e0232725. doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0232725

And the TIPI by: Sorokowska, A., Słowińska A., Zbieg A., Sorokowski, P. (2014). Polska adaptacja testu Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) – TIPI-PL – wersja standardowa i internetowa. Wrocław: WrocLab (page 25). [in Polish]

However, as we stated in the cover letter, details information regarding Polish adaptations of questionnaires used in the study were not included in the submitted version of the manuscript in order to support a truly blind reviewing process. However, in the final version of the manuscript in PLOS ONE we can reveal all these details.]

-Not every participant underwent the psychometric assessment through the same modality (paper format vs. online version), rising further potential bias that should be mentioned in the limitations paragraph.

[It is very important remark. Due to our wish to get access to the wide variety of study participants, which was especially related of older adults (which are not always “online-familiar”), we combined the paper-and pencil format with online modality. However, we agree that it could potentially lead to bias, which we mentioned in the limitations section.]

-Study recruitment in the older adults group is not entirely clear. Please, clarify methods about the use of Facebook to get the psychometric assessment and concomitant screening of dementia signs by the University psychologists.

[Thank you very much for this question. In the revised version of the manuscript we specified that the older adults were recruited by students from the various Universities of the Third Age in Warsaw, with their inventories gathered via lectures in paper format (see n = 123), as well as via the Facebook, where the participants had access to the online versions of our inventories (n = 257). Specifically, each of the University of the Third Age in Warsaw, where the study was conducted had its fan-page on Facebook, where we include the online link to our study. As far as the possible signs of dementia, they were screened for by clinical psychologists employed at the Universities of the Third Age, where this research was conducted via Mini-Mental State Examination.]

-The two groups significantly differed in all their socio-demographic characteristics, with no express mention in the text. Moreover, Table 1 about sociodemographic data of the two samples should be moved to the Results section.

[It is very important remark. Due to the significant age differences, the socio-demographic data cannot be the same or even similar across these two samples. However, we mentioned about thus fact in the study limitations. We also moved the Table 1to the Results section, in accordance to your suggestion.]

Discussion:

As pointed out in the manuscript, to date there is a lack of sufficient data on both personality traits and meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy to formulate a clear hypothesis about the common biological mechanisms of these phenomena. However, we would like to recommend the following studies in order to deepen the strength of your discussion:

- Di Nicola M, Mazza M, Panaccione I, Moccia L, Giuseppin G, Marano G, Grandinetti P, Camardese G, De Berardis D, Pompili M, Janiri L. Sensitivity to Climate and Weather Changes in Euthymic Bipolar Subjects: Association With Suicide Attempts. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Mar 5;11:95. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00095. PMID: 32194448; PMCID: PMC7066072;

- Cianconi P, Betrò S, Grillo F, Hanife B, Janiri L. Climate shift and mental health adjustment [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 6]. CNS Spectr. 2020;1-2. doi:10.1017/S1092852920001261.

[Thank you for this literature, We included aforementioned studies in the revised version of manuscript.]

In general, the authors should tone down the speculation on the hypotheses by which certain personality traits may relate or not to meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy (e.g., “we agree with Denissen … but related only to the older adult group”).

[Yes – you were right to tone down with this speculations – we improved this part to avoid speculative remarks.]

Some inconsistencies between text and reference list should be solved too (e.g., Gossling et al., 2003, Akogul and Erisoglu, 2017; they are cited in the manuscript, but they are not reported in the References section). We also recommend checking out all the other ones.

To conclude, an extensive revision by a native speaker with technical-scientific linguistic skills is desirable.

[Thank you for paying our attention on these inconsistencies -we improved this errors in references. As far as the remark of on the language, we would like to underline again the fact that before sending our manuscript to PLOS ONE, we sent our manuscript to the professional English proofreading service. However, regarding your criticism, once again we sent the revised version of our manuscript to another Native English speaker, who corrected some additional language errors. Thus, please bear in mind that we did our utmost to prepare our manuscript in the best English version as we can.]

________________________________________

To sum up, I would like to thank Editor and Reviewers for their time and effort. We found all the comments very useful and I believe that they helped me and my co-authors to improve the manuscript quality. I deeply appreciate a chance you gave us to revise and submit it to be considered for publication in PLOS One.

30 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-20771R1

Personality Profiles and Meteoropathy Intensity: A Comparative Study between Young and Older Adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rzeszutek,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 14 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Geilson Lima Santana, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, we have read and appreciated your manuscript’s improvements. Finally, further efforts are required as follows:

- To be clearer, the phrase at lines 83-85 could be adjusted in this way: “These studies highlighted the significance of neuroticism as predictor of maladaptive emotional regulation and risk factor for mood disorders, as well as extraversion and conscientiousness as buffering factors acting in the opposite way.”

- At line 132, please specify the MMSE cut-off score which was used to detect/exclude patients with dementia (e.g., MMSE <26)

- Please, “The sociodemographic data of the two samples are presented in Table 1. [Insert Table 1 about here]” at lines 137-139 should be moved to Results section, as previously requested.

- Di Nicola et al., 2020 (“Sensitivity to Climate and Weather Changes in Euthymic Bipolar Subjects: Association With Suicide Attempts.”) should be moved to lines 254-258, in relation to meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy intensity among female subjects.

- Please, be sure to include references about Polish validations of the psychometric instruments (METEO-Q and TIPI) in the final version of your manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Marianna Mazza

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Oct 2020

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers,

thank you very much for another suggestions and remarks concerning our article titled “Personality Profiles and Meteoropathy Intensity: A Comparative Study between Young and Older Adults”, which we would like to publish in PLOS One. We referred to all reviewers’ remarks. Below we cite every remark and comment of the reviewers and provide the answers to them in parentheses. All the changes in the revised text are marked with red font.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, we have read and appreciated your manuscript’s improvements.

[Thank you for kind words.]

Finally, further efforts are required as follows:

- To be clearer, the phrase at lines 83-85 could be adjusted in this way: “These studies highlighted the significance of neuroticism as predictor of maladaptive emotional regulation and risk factor for mood disorders, as well as extraversion and conscientiousness as buffering factors acting in the opposite way.”

[We changed this sentence according to your wish.]

- At line 132, please specify the MMSE cut-off score which was used to detect/exclude patients with dementia (e.g., MMSE <26).

[We included the cut-off score for our participants.]

- Please, “The sociodemographic data of the two samples are presented in Table 1. [Insert Table 1 about here]” at lines 137-139 should be moved to Results section, as previously requested.

[Thank you for this remark – we moved the Table 1 to the Results section.]

- Di Nicola et al., 2020 (“Sensitivity to Climate and Weather Changes in Euthymic Bipolar Subjects: Association With Suicide Attempts.”) should be moved to lines 254-258, in relation to meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy intensity among female subjects.

[Thank you for this remark – we moved this paper in relation to meteorosensitivity/meteoropathy intensity among female subjects.]

- Please, be sure to include references about Polish validations of the psychometric instruments (METEO-Q and TIPI) in the final version of your manuscript.

[Of course – in the final version of the article we will include the Polish validations of the psychometric instruments.]

To sum up, I would like to thank Editor and Reviewers for their time and effort. We found all the comments very useful and I believe that they helped me and my co-authors to improve the manuscript quality. I deeply appreciate a chance you gave us to revise and submit it to be considered for publication in PLOS One.

21 Oct 2020

Personality Profiles and Meteoropathy Intensity: A Comparative Study between Young and Older Adults

PONE-D-20-20771R2

Dear Dr. Rzeszutek,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Geilson Lima Santana, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Marianna Mazza

Reviewer #2: No

10 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-20771R2

Personality Profiles and Meteoropathy Intensity:A Comparative Study between Young and Older Adults

Dear Dr. Rzeszutek:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Geilson Lima Santana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE