The Power of Personality The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits Socioeconomic Status and Cognitive Ability For Predicting Important Life Outcomes

P ERS PE CT IVE S ON PS YC HOLOGIC AL SC IENC E
The Power of Personality

The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits,
Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting
Important Life Outcomes
Brent W. Roberts,1 Nathan R. Kuncel,2 Rebecca Shiner,3 Avshalom Caspi,4,5 and
Lewis R. Goldberg6
1
University of Illinois, 2University of Minnesota, 3Colgate University, 4Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London,
United Kingdom, 5Duke University, and 6Oregon Research Institute
ABSTRACT—The ability of personality traits to predict im- tainment. In fact, two recent reviews have shown that different
portant life outcomes has traditionally been questioned personality traits are associated with outcomes in each of
because of the putative small effects of personality. In this these domains (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Ozer & Benet-
article, we compare the predictive validity of personality Martinez, 2006). But simply showing that personality traits
traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cogni- are related to health, love, and attainment is not a stringent test
tive ability to test the relative contribution of personality of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be
traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, the result of ‘‘third’’ variables, such as socioeconomic status
divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from (SES), that account for the patterns but have not been controlled
prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addi- for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies
tion, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies reviewed were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the meth-
that controlled for important background factors. Results odological rigor to show the predictive validity of personality
showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality
traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment traits can be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show
was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive the incremental validity of personality traits over and above
ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the other factors.
influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, The analyses reported in this article test whether personality
highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures traits are important, practical predictors of significant life
of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality,
further research about the developmental origins of per- divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each
sonality traits and the processes by which these traits in- domain, we evaluate empirical evidence using the gold standard
fluence diverse life outcomes. of prospective longitudinal studies—that is, those studies that
can provide data about whether personality traits predict
life outcomes above and beyond well-known factors such as SES
Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound
and cognitive abilities. To guide the interpretation drawn
renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and
from the results of these prospective longitudinal studies, we
intellectually stimulating field (Pervin & John, 1999). However,
provide benchmark relations of SES and cognitive ability with
just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is
outcomes from these three domains. The review proceeds in
practical or useful—one would need to show that personality
three sections. First, we address some misperceptions about
traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and lon-
personality traits that are, in part, responsible for the idea that
gevity, marital success, and educational and occupational at-
personality does not predict important life outcomes. Second,
we present a review of the evidence for the predictive validity of
Address correspondence to Brent W. Roberts, Department of Psy-
personality traits. Third, we conclude with a discussion of the
chology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East
Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820; e-mail: broberts@cyrus. implications of our findings and recommendations for future
psych.uiuc.edu. work in this area.
Volume 2—Number 4 Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Science 313

The Comparative Predictive Validity of Personality Traits
THE ‘‘PERSONALITY COEFFICIENT’’: AN the results are analyzed to establish whether the situational
UNFORTUNATE LEGACY OF THE PERSON–SITUATION manipulation has yielded a statistically significant difference in
DEBATE the outcome. When the effects of situations are converted into
the same metric as that used in personality research (typically
Before we embark on our review, it is necessary to lay to rest a the correlation coefficient, which conveys both the direction and
myth perpetrated by the 1960s manifestation of the person– the size of an effect), the effects of personality traits are generally
situation debate; this myth is often at the root of the perspective as strong as the effects of situations (Funder & Ozer, 1983;
that personality traits do not predict outcomes well, if at all. Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975). Overall, it is the moderate
Specifically, in his highly influential book, Walter Mischel position that is correct: Both the person and the situation are
(1968) argued that personality traits had limited utility in pre- necessary for explaining human behavior, given that both have
dicting behavior because their correlational upper limit ap- comparable relations with important outcomes.
peared to be about .30. Subsequently, this .30 value became As research on the relative magnitude of effects has docu-
derided as the ‘‘personality coefficient.’’ Two conclusions were mented, personality psychologists should not apologize for
inferred from this argument. First, personality traits have little correlations between .10 and .30, given that the effect sizes
predictive validity. Second, if personality traits do not predict found in personality psychology are no different than those
much, then other factors, such as the situation, must be re- found in other fields of inquiry. In addition, the importance of a
sponsible for the vast amounts of variance that are left unac- predictor lies not only in the magnitude of its association with
counted for. The idea that personality traits are the validity the outcome, but also in the nature of the outcome being pre-
weaklings of the predictive panoply has been reiterated in un- dicted. A large association between two self-report measures of
mitigated form to this day (e.g., Bandura, 1999; Lewis, 2001; extraversion and positive affect may be theoretically interesting
Paul, 2004; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). In fact, this position is so but may not offer much solace to the researcher searching for
widely accepted that personality psychologists often apologize proof that extraversion is an important predictor for outcomes
for correlations in the range of .20 to .30 (e.g., Bornstein, 1999). that society values. In contrast, a modest correlation between a
Should personality psychologists be apologetic for their personality trait and mortality or some other medical outcome,
modest validity coefficients? Apparently not, according to such as Alzheimer’s disease, would be quite important. More-
Meyer and his colleagues (Meyer et al., 2001), who did psy- over, when attempting to predict these critical life outcomes,
chological science a service by tabling the effect sizes for a wide even relatively small effects can be important because of their
variety of psychological investigations and placing them side- pragmatic effects and because of their cumulative effects across
by-side with comparable effect sizes from medicine and every- a person’s life (Abelson, 1985; Funder, 2004; Rosenthal, 1990).
day life. These investigators made several important points. In terms of practicality, the .03 association between taking
First, the modal effect size on a correlational scale for psy- aspirin and reducing heart attacks provides an excellent ex-
chology as a whole is between .10 and .40, including that seen in ample. In one study, this surprisingly small association resulted
experimental investigations (see also Hemphill, 2003). It in 85 fewer heart attacks among the patients of 10,845 physi-
appears that the .30 barrier applies to most phenomena in cians (Rosenthal, 2000). Because of its practical significance,
psychology and not just to those in the realm of personality this type of association should not be ignored because of the
psychology. Second, the very largest effects for any variables in small effect size. In terms of cumulative effects, a seemingly
psychology are in the .50 to .60 range, and these are quite rare small effect that moves a person away from pursuing his or her
(e.g., the effect of increasing age on declining speed of infor- education early in life can have monumental consequences for
mation processing in adults). Third, effect sizes for assessment that person’s health and well-being later in life (Hardarson et al.,
measures and therapeutic interventions in psychology are sim- 2001). In other words, psychological processes with a statisti-
ilar to those found in medicine. It is sobering to see that the cally small or moderate effect can have important effects on
effect sizes for many medical interventions—like consuming individuals’ lives depending on the outcomes with which they
aspirin to treat heart disease or using chemotherapy to treat are associated and depending on whether those effects get cu-
breast cancer—translate into correlations of .02 or .03. Taken mulated across a person’s life.
together, the data presented by Meyer and colleagues make clear
that our standards for effect sizes need to be established in light PERSONALITY EFFECTS ON MORTALITY, DIVORCE,
of what is typical for psychology and for other fields concerned AND OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT
with human functioning.
In the decades since Mischel’s (1968) critique, researchers Selection of Predictors, Outcomes, and Studies
have also directly addressed the claim that situations have a for This Review
stronger influence on behavior than they do on personality traits. To provide the most stringent test of the predictive validity of
Social psychological research on the effects of situations typi- personality traits, we chose to focus on three objective outcomes:
cally involves experimental manipulation of the situation, and mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Although we
314 Volume 2—Number 4

Brent W. Roberts et al.
could have chosen many different outcomes to examine, we ested in whether personality traits predict mortality, divorce,
selected these three because they are socially valued; they are and occupational attainment and in their modal effect sizes. If
measured in similar ways across studies; and they have been found to be robust, these patterns of statistical association then
assessed as outcomes in studies of SES, cognitive ability, and invite the question of why and how personality traits might cause
personality traits. Mortality needs little justification as an out- these outcomes, and we have provided several examples in each
come, as most individuals value a long life. Divorce and marital section of potential mechanisms and causal steps involved in the
stability are important outcomes for several reasons. Divorce is process.
a significant source of depression and distress for many indi-
viduals and can have negative consequences for children,
whereas a happy marriage is one of the most important predic- The Measurement of Effect Sizes in Prospective
tors of life satisfaction (Myers, 2000). Divorce is also linked to Longitudinal Studies
disproportionate drops in economic status, especially for women Before turning to the specific findings for personality, SES, and
(Kuh & Maclean, 1990), and it can undermine men’s health (e.g., cognitive ability, we must first address the measurement of effect
Lund, Holstein, & Osler, 2004). An intact marriage can also sizes in the studies reviewed here. Most of the studies that we
preserve cognitive function into old age for both men and reviewed used some form of regression analysis for either con-
women, particularly for those married to a high-ability spouse tinuous or categorical outcomes. In studies with continuous
(Schaie, 1994). outcomes, findings were typically reported as standardized re-
Educational and occupational attainment are also highly gression weights (beta coefficients). In studies of categorical
prized (Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004). Re- outcomes, the most common effect size indicators are odds ra-
search on subjective well-being has shown that occupational tios, relative risk ratios, or hazard ratios. Because many psy-
attainment and its important correlate, income, are not as chologists may be less familiar with these ratio statistics, a brief
critical for happiness as many assume them to be (Myers, 2000). discussion of them is in order. In the context of individual
Nonetheless, educational and occupational attainment are as- differences, ratio statistics quantify the likelihood of an event
sociated with greater access to many resources that can improve (e.g., divorce, mortality) for a higher scoring group versus the
the quality of life (e.g., medical care, education) and with greater likelihood of the same event for a lower scoring group (e.g.,
‘‘social capital’’ (i.e., greater access to various resources through persons high in negative affect versus those low in negative
connections with others; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Conger & affect). An odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of the event for one
Donnellan, 2007). The greater income resulting from high group over the odds of the same event for the second group. The
educational and occupational attainment may also enable risk ratio compares the probabilities of the event occurring for
individuals to maintain strong life satisfaction when faced with the two groups. The hazard ratio assesses the probability of an
difficult life circumstances (Johnson & Krueger, 2006). event occurring for a group over a specific window of time. For
To better interpret the significance of the relations between these statistics, a value of 1.0 equals no difference in odds or
personality traits and these outcomes, we have provided com- probabilities. Values above 1.0 indicate increased likelihood
parative information concerning the effect of SES and cognitive (odds or probabilities) for the experimental (or numerator)
ability on each of these outcomes. We chose to use SES as a group, with the reverse being true for values below 1.0 (down to a
comparison because it is widely accepted to be one of the most lower limit of zero). Because of this asymmetry, the log of these
important contributors to a more successful life, including better statistics is often taken.
health and higher occupational attainment (e.g., Adler et al., The primary advantage of ratio statistics in general, and the
1994; Gallo & Mathews, 2003; Galobardes, Lynch, & Smith, risk ratio in particular, is their ease of interpretation in applied
2004; Sapolsky, 2005). In addition, we chose cognitive ability as settings. It is easier to understand that death is three times as
a comparison variable because, like SES, it is a widely accepted likely to occur for one group than for another than it is to make
predictor of longevity and occupational success (Deary, Batty, & sense out of a point-biserial correlation. However, there are also
Gottfredson, 2005; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). In this article, we some disadvantages that should be understood. First, ratio sta-
compare the effect sizes of personality traits with these two tistics can make effects that are actually very small in absolute
predictors in order to understand the relative contribution of magnitude appear to be large when in fact they are very rare
personality to a long, stable, and successful life. We also re- events. For example, although it is technically correct that one is
quired that the studies in this review make some attempt to three times as likely (risk ratio 5 3.0) to win the lottery when
control for background variables. For example, in the case of buying three tickets instead of one ticket, the improved chances
mortality, we looked for prospective longitudinal studies that of winning are trivial in an absolute sense.
controlled for previous medical conditions, gender, age, and Second, there is no accepted practice for how to divide con-
other relevant variables. tinuous predictor variables when computing odds, risk, and
We are not assuming that personality traits are direct causes of hazard ratios. Some predictors are naturally dichotomous (e.g.,
the outcomes under study. Rather, we were exclusively inter- gender), but many are continuous (e.g., cognitive ability, SES).
Volume 2—Number 4 315

Researchers often divide continuous variables into some arbi- metric, making the results of the studies comparable across
trary set of categories in order to use the odds, rate, or hazard different analytical methods. After compiling effect sizes, meta-
metrics. For example, instead of reporting an association be- analytic techniques were used to estimate population effect
tween SES and mortality using a point-biserial correlation, a sizes in both the risk ratio and correlation metric (Hedges &
researcher may use proportional hazards models using some Olkin, 1985). Specifically, a random-effects model with no
arbitrary categorization of SES, such as quartile estimates (e.g., moderators was used to estimate population effect sizes for both
lowest versus highest quartiles). This permits the researcher to the rate ratio and correlation metrics.2 When appropriate, we
draw conclusions such as ‘‘individuals from the highest category first averaged multiple nonindependent effects from studies that
of SES are four times as likely to live longer than are groups reported more than one relevant effect size.
lowest in SES.’’ Although more intuitively appealing, the odds
statements derived from categorizing continuous variables
The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Mortality
makes it difficult to deduce the true effect size of a relation,
Before considering the role of personality traits in health and
especially across studies. Researchers with very large samples
longevity, we reviewed a selection of studies linking SES and
may have the luxury of carving a continuous variable into very
cognitive ability to these same outcomes. This information
fine-grained categories (e.g., 10 categories of SES), which may
provides a point of reference to understand the relative contri-
lead to seemingly huge hazard ratios. In contrast, researchers
bution of personality. Table 1 presents the findings from 33
with smaller samples may only dichotomize or trichotomize the
studies examining the prospective relations of low SES and low
same variables, thus resulting in smaller hazard ratios and what
cognitive ability with mortality.3 SES was measured using
appear to be smaller effects for identical predictors. Finally,
measures or composites of typical SES variables including in-
many researchers may not categorize their continuous variables
come, education, and occupational status. Total IQ scores were
at all, which can result in hazard ratios very close to 1.0 that are
commonly used in analyses of cognitive ability. Most studies
nonetheless still statistically significant. These procedures for
demonstrated that being born into a low-SES household or
analyzing odds, rate, and hazard ratios produce a haphazard
achieving low SES in adulthood resulted in a higher risk of
array of results from which it is almost impossible to discern a
mortality (e.g., Deary & Der, 2005; Hart et al., 2003; Osler et al.,
meaningful average effect size.1
2002; Steenland, Henley, & Thun, 2002). The relative risk ratios
One of the primary tasks of this review is to transform the
and hazard ratios ranged from a low of 0.57 to a high of 1.30 and
results from different studies into a common metric so that a fair
averaged 1.24 (CIs 5 1.19 and 1.29). When translated into the
comparison could be made across the predictors and outcomes.
correlation metric, the effect sizes for low SES ranged from .02
For this purpose, we chose the Pearson product-moment cor-
to .08 and averaged .02 (CIs 5 .017 and .026).
relation coefficient. We used a variety of techniques to arrive at
Through the use of the relative risk metric, we determined that
an accurate estimate of the effect size from each study. When
the effect of low IQ on mortality was similar to that of SES,
transforming relative risk ratios into the correlation metric, we
ranging from a modest 0.74 to 2.42 and averaging 1.19 (CIs 5
used several methods to arrive at the most appropriate estimate
1.10 and 1.30). When translated into the correlation metric,
of the effect size. For example, the correlation coefficient can be
however, the effect of low IQ on mortality was equivalent to a
estimated from reported significance levels (p values) and from
correlation of .06 (CIs 5 .03 and .09), which was three times
test statistics such as the t test or chi-square, as well as from
larger than the effect of SES on mortality. The discrepancy
other effect size indicators such as d scores (Rosenthal, 1991).
between the relative risk and correlation metrics most likely
Also, the correlation coefficient can be estimated directly from
resulted because some studies reported the relative risks in
relative risk ratios and hazard ratios using the generic inverse
terms of continuous measures of IQ, which resulted in smaller
variance approach (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2005). In this
procedure, the relative risk ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) 2
The population effects for the rate ratio and correlation metric were not
are first transformed into z scores, and the z scores are then based on identical data because in some cases the authors did not report rate
transformed into the correlation metric. ratio information or did not report enough information to compute a rate ratio
and a CI.
For most studies, the effect size correlation was estimated 3
Most of the studies of SES and mortality were compiled from an exhaustive
from information on relative risk ratios and p values. For the review of the literature on the effect of childhood SES and mortality (Galobardes
latter, we used the requivalent effect size indicator (Rosenthal & et al., 2004). We added several of the largest studies examining the effect of
adult SES on mortality (e.g., Steenland et al., 2002), and to these we added the
Rubin, 2003), which is computed from the sample size and results from the studies on cognitive ability and personality that reported SES
p value associated with specific effects. All of these techniques effects. We also did standard electronic literature searches using the terms
transform the effect size information to a common correlational socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and all-cause mortality. We also exam-
ined the reference sections from the list of studies and searched for papers that
cited these studies. Experts in the field of epidemiology were also contacted and
asked to identify missing studies. The resulting SES data base is representative
1
This situation is in no way particular to epidemiological or medical studies of the field, and as the effects are based on over 3 million data points, the effect
using odds, rate, and hazard ratios as outcomes. The field of psychology reports sizes and CIs are very stable. The studies of cognitive ability and mortality
results in a Babylonian array of test statistics and effect sizes also. represent all of the studies found that reported usable data.

TABLE 1
SES and IQ Effects on Mortality/Longevity
Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r
Volume 2—Number 4
Abas et al., 2002 2,584 members of All-cause 11 years Low scores on the New HR 5 0.94 (0.86, 1.02) rhr 5 .03a
the Medical mortality Adult Reading Test (IQ) p 5 .16 re 5 .03a
Research Council Low scores on Raven’s HR 5 0.97 (0.88, 1.06) rhr 5 .01a
Elderly Progressive Matrices p 5 .53 re 5 .01a
Hypertension Trial (IQ)
Bassuk, Berkman, & 9,025 men from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 1.32 (0.95, 1.83) rhr 5 .02
Amick, 2002 Boston mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR 5 0.94 (0.65, 1.34) rhr 5 .00
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR 5 1.09 (0.86, 1.39) rhr 5 .01
provider, number of chronic prestige
conditions, depressive symptoms,
cognitive function, physical
function, health status
6,518 women from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 0.74 (0.53, 1.04) rhr 5 .02
Boston mortality consumption, activity level, social p < .10 re 5 .02
ties, having a regular health care Low adult income HR 5 0.80 (0.52, 1.23) rhr 5 .01
provider, number of chronic Low adult occupational HR 5 0.74 (0.57, 0.98) rhr 5 .03
conditions, depressive symptoms, prestige p < .05 re 5 .02
12,235 men from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 .77 (.56, 1.07) rhr 5 .01
Iowa mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR 5 1.18 (0.89, 1.58) rhr 5 .01
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR 5 0.93 (0.69, 1.27) rhr 5 .00
provider, number of chronic prestige
9,248 women from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 0.87 (0.61, 1.23) rhr 5 .01
Iowa mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR 5 1.03 (.76, 1.41) rhr 5 .00
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR 5 .57 (.36, .92) rhr 5 .02
provider, number of chronic prestige p < .05 re 5 .02
10,081 men from All-cause 9 years Age, race, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 1.30 (0.96, 1.75) rhr 5 .02
Connecticut mortality consumption, activity level, social p < .10 re 5 .02
ties, having a regular health care Low adult income HR 5 1.62 (1.17, 2.23) rhr 5 .03
provider, number of chronic p < .005 re 5 .03
conditions, depressive symptoms, Low adult occupational HR 5 1.20 (0.94, 1.53) rhr 5 .01
cognitive function, physical prestige
317
Table 1. (Cont’d.)
318
7,331 women from All-cause 9 years Age, race, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 0.96 (0.64, 1.44) rhr 5 .00
Connecticut mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR 5 1.90 (1.09, 3.32) rhr 5 .03
ties, having a regular health care p < .05 re 5 .02
provider, number of chronic Low adult occupational HR 5 1.15 (0.83, 1.59) rhr 5 .01
conditions, depressive symptoms, prestige
11,977 men from All-cause 9 years age, race, smoking, degree of Low adult education HR 5 1.18 (0.84, 1.64) rhr 5 .01
North Carolina mortality urbanization, BMI, alcohol Low adult income HR 5 1.42 (1.01, 1.84) rhr 5 .02
consumption, social ties, having a p < .01 re 5 .02
regular health care provider, Low adult occupational HR 5 1.01 (.78, 1.32) rhr 5 .00
number of chronic conditions, prestige
depressive symptoms, cognitive
function, physical function, health
status
8,836 women from All-cause 9 years Age, race, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR 5 1.04 (0.84, 1.30) rhr 5 .00
North Carolina mortality consumption, social ties, having a Low adult income HR 5 1.52 (1.11, 2.08) rhr 5 .03
regular health care provider, p < .01 re 5 .03
number of chronic conditions, Low adult occupational HR 5 1.21 (0.97, 1.51) rhr 5 .02
depressive symptoms, cognitive prestige p < .10 re 5 .02
function, physical function, health
status
Beebe-Dimmer 3,087 women from All-cause 30 years Age, income, education, Low childhood SES HR 5 1.12 (0.99, 1.27) rhr 5 .03
et al., 2004 the Alameda County mortality occupation, smoking, BMI, Low adult education HR 5 1.17 (0.99, 1.39) rhr 5 .03
Study physical activity Manual occupation HR 5 1.06 (0.87, 1.30) rhr 5 .01
Low adult income HR 5 1.35 (1.14, 1.60) rhr 5 .06
Bosworth & Schaie, 1,218 members of All-cause 7 years Sex, age, education Low verbal IQ F(1, 1,174) 5 17.58, rF 5 .12
1999 the Seattle mortality p < .001 re 5 .10

Longitudinal Study Low math IQ F(1, 1,198) 5 3.75, rF 5 .06
p < .05 re 5 .06
Low spatial IQ F(1, 1,119) 5 3.72, rF 5 .06
p < .05 re 5 .06
Bucher & Ragland, 3,154 middle-aged All-cause 22 years Systolic blood pressure, Low adult SES RR 5 1.45 (1.17, 1.81) rrr 5 .06
1995 men from the mortality cholesterol, smoking, height
Western
Collaborative Group
Study
Clausen, Davey- 128,723 Oslo All-cause 30 years Age, adult income Low index of inequality RR men 5 2.48 rrr 5 .03
Smith, & Thelle, natives mortality (1.94, 3.16)
2003 RR women 5 1.47 rrr 5 .01
Volume 2—Number 4
(1.06, 2.04)
Curtis, Southall, 23,311 men and All-cause 10 years Age, sex, marital status, Low adult social class OR men 5 1.26 (1.10, ror 5 .02
Congdon, & 35,295 women of the mortality employment status 1.46)
Dodgeon, 2004 National Statistics OR women 5 .90 (.77, ror 5 .01
Longitudinal Study 1.06)
Davey Smith, Hart, 5,766 men aged 35– All-cause 25 years Age, adult SES, deprivation, car, Low father’s social class HR 5 1.19 (1.04, 1.37) rhr 5 .03
Volume 2—Number 4
Blane, & Hole, 1998 64 in 1970 mortality risk factors p 5 .042 re 5 .03
Deary & Der, 2005 898 members of the All-cause 24 years Sex, smoking, social class, years of Low IQ HR 5 1.38 (1.15, 1.67) rhr 5 .15
Twenty-07 Study mortality education p 5 .0006 re 5 .11
Sex, smoking, years of education, Low social class HR 5 1.13 (1.01, 1.26) rhr 5 .07
IQ p 5 .027 re 5 .07
Sex, smoking, social class, IQ Low education HR 5 1.06 (0.97, 1.12) rhr 5 .04
p 5 .20 re 5 .04
Doornbos & 78,505 Dutch All-cause 32 years Height, health High education level RR 5 0.69a (0.57, 0.81) rhr 5 .01a
Kromhout, 1990 Nationals mortality p < .0001 re 5 .01a
Fiscella & Franks, 13,332 National All-cause 12 years Age, sex, morbidity, income High income HR 5 0.80a (0.77, 0.83) rhr 5 .10a
2000 Health and mortality inequality, depression, self-rated
Nutrition health
Examination Survey
participants
Ganguli et al., 2002 1,064 members of All-cause 10 years Age, sex, education, functional Low education RR 5 .99 re 5 .002
the Monongahela mortality disability, self-rated health, p 5 .94
Valley Independent depression, Number of drugs Low cognitive RR 5 1.55, re 5 .09
Elders Survey taken, depression self-rated functioning (MMSE p 5 .002
health interaction score)
Hardarson et al., 9,773 women and All-cause 3–30 Height, weight, cholesterol, High education Men’s HR 5 0.77 (0.66, rhr 5 .05
2001 9,139 men from the mortality years triglycerides, systolic blood 0.88)
Reykjavik Study pressure, blood sugar, smoking High education Women’s HR 5 1.29 (.56, rhr 5 .01
1.35)
Hart et al., 2003 922 members of the All-cause 25 years Sex, social class, deprivation Low IQ RR 5 1.26 (0.94, 1.70) rhr 5 .05
Midspan Study who mortality p 5 .038 re 5 .07
also participated in Sex, IQ, deprivation Low social class RR 5 1.22 (0.88, 1.68) rhr 5 .04
the Scottish Mental p 5 .35 re 5 .03
Survey of 1932
Heslop, Smith, 958 Women from All-cause 25 years Age, blood pressure, cholesterol, Low lifetime social class HR 5 1.48 (1.04, 2.09) rhr 5 .07
Macleod, & Hart, Western Scotland mortality BMI, FEV, smoking, exercise, p 5 .037 re 5 .07
2001 alcohol
Hosegood & 1,888 women from All-cause 19 years Age No education p 5 .005 re 5 .06
Campbell, 2003 rural Bangladesh mortality
Khang & Kim, 2005 5,437 South All-cause 5 years Age, gender, urbanization, number Low annual household RR 5 2.24 (1.40, 3.60) rrr 5 .05
Koreans aged 30 mortality of family members, biological risk income
years and older factors
Korten et al., 1999 897 subjects aged All-cause 3.5 years Age, sex, general health, ADLs, Low IQ HR 5 2.42 rhr 5 .09
70 years and older mortality illness, blood pressure, Symbol– (1.27, 4.62)
319
Letter Modalities Test
320

Kuh, Hardy, 2,547 women and All-cause 46 years Sex, adult SES, education Low father’s social class HR 5 1.90 (1.30, 2.70) rhr 5 .06
Langenberg, 2,812 men from the mortality p< .001 re 5 .05
Richards, & Medical Research
Wadsworth, 2002 Council national
survey
Kuh, Richards, 2,547 women and All-cause 46 years Sex, adult SES, education Low IQ HR men 5 1.80 (1.10, rhr 5 .05
Hardy, Butterworth, 2,812 men from the mortality 2.70) re 5 .05
& Wadsworth, 2004 Medical Res. p < .013
Council national Low IQ HR women 5 0.90 (0.52, rhr 5 .01
survey 1.60) re 5 .01
p 5 .70
Lantz et al., 1998 3,617 subjects aged All-cause 7.5 years Age, sex, race, residence Low education HR 5 1.08 (0.76, 1.54) rhr 5 .01
25 years and older mortality Low income HR 5 3.22 (2.01, 5.16) rhr 5 .08
Lynch et al., 1994 2,636 Finnish men All-cause 8 years Age Low childhood SES RR 5 2.39 (1.28, 4.44) rrr 5 .05
mortality
Maier & Smith, 513 members of the All-cause 4.5 years Age, SES, health Low perceptual speed RR 5 1.53 (1.29, 1.81) rrr 5 .22
1999 Berlin Aging Study mortality Low reasoning RR 5 1.37 (1.19, 1.71) rrr 5 .15
aged 70 years and Low memory RR 5 1.39 (1.19, 1.63) rrr 5 .18
older Low knowledge RR 5 1.33 (1.15, 1.54) rrr 5 .17
Low fluency RR 5 1.50 (1.27, 1.78) rrr 5 .21
Martin & 659 gifted children All-cause 48 years Father’s occupation, poor health in Less high IQb HR 5 0.73 (0.59, 0.90) rhr 5 .11
Kubzansky, 2005 from Terman Life mortality childhood, Sex Father’s occupation HR 5 0.99 (0.90, 1.08) rhr 5 .01
Cycle Study
Osler et al., 2003 7,308 members of All-cause 49 years IQ, birth weight Working class status HR 5 1.30 (1.08, 1.57) rhr 5 .03
Project Metropolit in mortality
Copenhagen SES, birth weight Low Harnquist IQ test HR 5 1.53 (1.19, 1.97) rhr 5 .04
a
Osler et al., 2002 25,728 citizens of All-cause 24–34 Smoking status, activity level, High household income Men’s HR 5 0.64 (0.57, rhr 5 .06a
Copenhagen mortality years BMI, alcohol consumption, 0.73) re 5 .02a
(12,715 men & education, household structure, p < .01
13,013 women) Percent of households with Women’s HR 5 0.68a rhr 5 .04a
children (0.65, 0.89) re 5 .02a
p < .01
Pudaric, Sundquist, 8,959 members of All-cause 7–12 Age, health status Low education RR 5 1.22 (1.07, 1.38) rhr 5 .03
& Johansson, 2003 the Swedish Survey mortality years
of Living Conditions
Shipley, Der, Taylor, 6,424 members of All-cause 19 years Age, sex, social class, education, High verbal memory HR 5 0.95 (0.92, 0.99) rhr 5 .03
& Deary, 2006 the UK Health and mortality health behaviors, FEV, blood p < .0052 re 5 .03
Lifestyle Survey pressure, BMI High visual spatial HR 5 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) rhr 5 .01
ability p 5 .66 re 5 .00
Volume 2—Number 4
Steenland et al., 550,888 men from All-cause 26 years Age, smoking, BMI, diet, alcohol, Low education level Men’s RR 5 1.14 (1.12, rrr 5 .02
2002 the CPS-I cohort mortality hypertension, menopausal status 1.16)
(women)
553,959 women Women’s rrr 5 .02
Volume 2—Number 4
from the CPS-I RR 5 1.24 (1.21, 1.28)
cohort
625,663 men from All-cause 16 years Age, smoking, BMI, diet, alcohol, Low education level Men’s rrr 5 .03
the CPS-II cohort mortality hypertension, menopausal status RR 5 1.28 (1.25, 1.31)
(women)
767,472 women Women’s rrr 5 .01
from the CPS-II RR 5 1.18 (1.15, 1.22)
cohort
St. John et al., 2002 8,099 Seniors from Mortality 5 years Age, sex, education, marital High MMSE scores OR 5 0.95 (0.93, 0.97) ror 5 .05a
the Canadian Study status, functional status, self-rated
of Health and Aging health
Tenconi, Devoti, 12,361 Italian men All-cause 7 years Age, systolic blood pressure, Low adult education RR 5 0.76 (0.56, 1.01) rrr 5 .02
Comelli, & RIFLE from the RIFLE mortality cholesterol, smoking level p 5 .122 re 5 .01
Research Group, pooling project Low adult occupational RR 5 1.30 (1.04, 1.63) rrr 5 .02
2000 level p 5 .022 re 5 .02
Vagero & Leon, 404,450 Swedish Mortality 36 years Adulthood social class Low childhood social OR 5 1.52 (1.32, 1.76) ror 5 .01
1994 men born in 1946– class
1955
Whalley & Deary, 722 Members of the Life 76 years Father’s SES, overcrowding High Moray House test Partial r 5 .19 r 5 .19
2001 Scottish mental expectancy scores (IQ)
survey of 1932
Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES 5 socioeconomic status; HR 5 hazard ratio; RR 5 relative risk ratio; OR 5 odds ratio; rrr 5 Correlation estimated from the rate ratio; rhr 5 correlation
estimated from the hazard ratio; ror 5 correlation estimated from the odds ratio; rF 5 correlation estimated from F test; re 5 requivalent—correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size; BMI 5
body mass index; FEV 5 forced expiratory volume; ADLs 5 activities of daily living; MMSE 5 Mini Mental State Examination; CPS 5 Cancer Prevention Study; RIFLE 5 risk factors and life expectancy.
a
The sign of the ratios and correlations based on high SES and high IQ were reversed before these effect sizes were aggregated with remaining effect sizes.
b
IQ scores are referred to as ‘‘less high’’ because the lowest IQ score in the sample was 135.
321
relative risk ratios (e.g., St. John, Montgomery, Kristjansson, & & Williamson, 1996; Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Bienias, Evans,
McDowell, 2002). Merging relative risk ratios from these studies & Bennett, 2004). It should be noted, however, that two studies
with those that carve the continuous variables into subgroups reported a protective effect of high Neuroticism (Korten et al.,
appears to underestimate the effect of IQ on mortality, at least in 1999; Weiss & Costa, 2005).
terms of the relative risk metric. The most telling comparison of The domain of Agreeableness showed a less clear association
IQ and SES comes from the five studies that include both vari- to mortality, with some studies showing a protective effect of
ables in the prediction of mortality. Consistent with the aggre- high Agreeableness (Wilson et al., 2004) and others showing
gate results, IQ was a stronger predictor of mortality in each case that high Agreeableness contributed to mortality (Friedman et
(i.e., Deary & Der, 2005; Ganguli, Dodge, & Mulsant, 2002; Hart al., 1993). With respect to the domain of Openness to Experi-
et al., 2003; Osler et al., 2002; Wilson, Bienia, Mendes de Leon, ence, two studies showed that Openness or facets of Openness,
Evans, & Bennet, 2003). such as creativity, had little or no relation to mortality (Osler et
Table 2 lists 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/ al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2004).
longevity.4 In most of these studies, multiple factors such as SES, Because aggregating all personality traits into one overall
cognitive ability, gender, and disease severity were controlled effect size washes out important distinctions among different
for. We organized our review roughly around the Big Five tax- trait domains, we examined the effect of specific trait domains by
onomy of personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness, Extraver- aggregating studies within four categories: Conscientiousness,
sion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience; Positive Emotion/Extraversion, Neuroticism/Negative Emotion,
Goldberg, 1993b). For example, research drawn from the Ter- and Hostility/Disagreeableness.5 Our Conscientiousness do-
man Longitudinal Study showed that children who were more main included four studies that linked Conscientiousness to
conscientious tended to live longer (Friedman et al., 1993). This mortality. Because only two of these studies reported the infor-
effect held even after controlling for gender and parental di- mation necessary to compute an average relative risk ratio, we
vorce, two known contributors to shorter lifespans. Moreover, a only examined the correlation metric. When translated into a
number of other factors, such as SES and childhood health correlation metric, the average effect size for Conscientiousness
difficulties, were unrelated to longevity in this study. The pro- was .09 (CIs 5 .12 and .05), indicating a protective effect.
tective effect of Conscientiousness has now been replicated Our Extraversion/Positive Emotion domain included six studies
across several studies and more heterogeneous samples. Con- that examined the effect of extraversion, positive emotion, and
scientiousness was found to be a rather strong protective factor optimism. The average relative risk ratio for the low Extraver-
in an elderly sample participating in a Medicare training pro- sion/Positive Emotion was 1.04 (CIs 5 1.00 and 1.10) with a
gram (Weiss & Costa, 2005), even when controlling for educa- corresponding correlation effect size for high Extraversion/
tion level, cardiovascular disease, and smoking, among other Positive Emotion being .07 (.11, .03), with the latter
factors. Similarly, Conscientiousness predicted decreased rates showing a statistically significant protective effect of Extraver-
of mortality in a sample of individuals suffering from chronic sion/Positive Emotion. Our Negative Emotionality domain in-
renal insufficiency, even after controlling for age, diabetic sta- cluded twelve studies that examined the effect of neuroticism,
tus, and hemoglobin count (Christensen et al., 2002). pessimism, mental instability, and sense of coherence. The av-
Similarly, several studies have shown that dispositions re- erage relative risk ratio for the Negative Emotionality domain
flecting Positive Emotionality or Extraversion were associated was 1.15 (CIs 5 1.04 and 1.26), and the corresponding corre-
with longevity. For example, nuns who scored higher on an index lation effect size was .05 (CIs 5 .02 and .08). Thus, Neuroticism
of Positive Emotionality in young adulthood tended to live was associated with a diminished life span. Nineteen studies
longer, even when controlling for age, education, and linguistic reported relations between Hostility/Disagreeableness and all-
ability (an aspect of cognitive ability; Danner, Snowden, & cause mortality, with notable heterogeneity in the effects across
Friesen, 2001). Similarly, Optimism was related to higher rates studies. The risk ratio population estimate showed an effect
of survival following head and neck cancer (Allison, Guichard, equivalent to, if not larger than, the remaining personality do-
Fung, & Gilain, 2003). In contrast, several studies reported that mains (risk ratio 5 1.14; CIs 5 1.06 and 1.23). With the cor-
Neuroticism and Pessimism were associated with increases in relation metric, this effect translated into a small but statistically
one’s risk for premature mortality (Abas, Hotopf, & Prince, significant effect of .04 (CIs 5 .02 and .06), indicating that
2002; Denollet et al., 1996; Schulz, Bookwala, Knapp, Scheier, hostility was positively associated with mortality. Thus, the
specific personality traits of Conscientiousness, Positive Emo-
tionality/Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Hostility/Disagree-
4
We identified studies through electronic searches that included the terms ableness were stronger predictors of mortality than was SES
personality traits, extraversion, agreeableness, hostility, conscientiousness, emo-
tional stability, neuroticism, openness to experience, and all-cause mortality. We when effects were translated into a correlation metric. The effect
also identified studies through reference sections of the list of studies and
through studies that cited each study. A number of studies were not included in
5
this review because we focused on studies that were prospective and controlled We did not examine the domain of Openness to Experience because there
for background factors. were only two studies that tested the association with mortality.

TABLE 2
Personality Traits and Mortality
Study N Outcome Length of study Controls Predictors Outcome Est. ra
Allison et al., 2003 101 survivors of head and Mortality 1 year Age, disease stage, High Optimism
Volume 2—Number 4
OR 5 1.12 (1.01, 1.24) ror 5 .22
neck cancer cohabitation status
Almada et al., 1991 1,871 members of the All-cause mortality 25 years Age, blood pressure, High Neuroticism RR 5 1.20 (1.00, 1.40) rrr 5 .05
Western Electric Study smoking, cholesterol, High Cynicism RR 5 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) rrr 5 .09
alcohol consumption
Barefoot, Dahlstrom, & 255 medical students All-cause mortality 25 years High Hostility p 5 .005 re 5 .18
Williams, 1983
Barefoot, Dodge, Peterson, 128 law Students 29 years Age High Hostility p 5 .012 re 5 .22
Dahlstrom, & Williams,
1989
Barefoot, Larsen, von der 730 residents of Glostrup All-cause mortality 27 years Age, sex, blood pressure, High Hostility RR 5 1.36 (1.06, 1.75) rrr 5 .09
Lieth, & Schroll, 1995 born in 1914 smoking, triglycerid, FEV
Barefoot et al., 1998 100 Older men and women All-cause mortality 14 years Sex, age High Trust RR 5 0.46 (0.24, 0.91) rrr 5 .23
p < .03 re 5 .22
Barefoot et al., 1987 500 members of the second All-cause mortality 15 years Age, sex, cholesterol levels, Suspiciousness p 5 .02 re 5 .10
Duke longitudinal study smoking, physician ratings
of health
Boyle et al., 2005 1,328 Duke University All-cause mortality 15 years Sex, age, tobacco High Hostility HR 5 1.25 (1.06, 1.47) rhr 5 .07
Medical Center patients consumption, p < .007 re 5 .07
hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, number of
coronary arteries narrowed,

left ventricular ejection
fraction, artery bypass
surgery
Boyle et al., 2004 936 Duke University All-cause mortality 15 years Sex, age, tobacco High Hostility HR 5 1.28 (1.06, 1.55) rhr 5 .08
Medical Center patients consumption, p < .02 re 5 .08
hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, number of
coronary arteries narrowed,
left ventricular ejection
fraction, artery bypass
surgery
Christensen et al., 2002 174 chronic renal Mortality 4 years Age, diabetic status, High Conscientiousness HR 5 0.94, B 5 .066 rB 5 .17
insufficiency patients hemoglobin (.03) re 5 .15
p < .05
High Neuroticism HR 5 1.05, B 5 .047 rhr 5 .15
(.023) re 5 .15
p < .05
Danner et al., 2001 180 nuns Longevity 63 years Age, education, linguistic High Positive Emotion HR 5 2.50 (1.20, 5.30) rhr 5 .18
323
ability (sentences) p < .01 re 5 .19
High Positive Emotion HR 5 3.20 (1.50, 6.80) rhr 5 .22
(words) p < .01 re 5 .19
324
Different Positive Emotions HR 5 4.30 (1.70, rhr 5 .24

10.40) re 5 .19
p < .01
Denollet et al., 1996 303 CHD patients Mortality 8 years CHD, age, social Type D personalityb HR 5 4.10 (1.90, 8.80) rhr 5 .21
alienation, depression, use p 5 .0004 re 5 .20
of benzodiazepines
Everson et al., 1997 2,125 men from the Kuopio All-cause mortality 9 years Age, SES Cynical distrust HR 5 1.97 (1.26, 3.09) rhr 5 .06
Eschemic Heart Disease
Risk Factor Study
Friedman et al., 1993 1,178 members of the Longevity 71 years Sex, IQ High Conscientiousness HR 5 .33, B 5 1.11 rhr 5 .09
Terman Lifecycle Study (0.37) re 5 .08
p < .01
High Cheerfulnessc HR 5 1.21, B 5 .19 rhr 5 .08
(.07) re 5 .06
p < .05
Giltay, Geleijnse, Zitman, 397 men and 418 women of All-cause mortality 9 years Age, smoking, alcohol, Dispositional optimism Men’s HR 5 0.58 (0.37, rhr 5 .12
Hoekstra, & Schouten, the Arnhem Elderly Study education, activity level, 0.91) re 5 .13
2004 SES, and marital status p 5 .01
Women’s HR 5 0.80 rhr 5 .05
(0.51–1.25) re 5 .04
p 5 .39
Grossarth-Maticek, 1,335 inhabitants of Mortality 10 years Age High Rationalityd p < .001 re 5 .09
Bastianns, & Kanazir, 1985 Crvenka, Yugoslavia
Hearn, Murray, & Luepker, 1,313 University of All-cause mortality 33 years Age High Hostility p 5 .72 re 5 .01
1989 Minnesota students
Hirokawa, Nagata, 12,417 males and 14,133 7 years Age, smoking, marital High Rationalityd Men’s HR 5 0.96 (0.83, rhr 5 .01
Takatsuka, & Shimizu, females of the Takayama status, BMI, exercise, 1.09) rhr 5 .02
2004 Study alcohol, education, and Women’s HR 5 0.82, re 5 .02

number of children (0.70, 0.96)
p < .05
Hollis, Connett, Stevens, & 12,866 men from the All-cause mortality 6 years Study group assignment, High Type A personality RR 5 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) rhr 5 .02
Greenlick, 1990 Multiple Risk Factor age, cigarettes, blood p < .01 re 5 .02
Intervention Trial pressure, cholesterol
Iribarren et al., 2005 5,115 members of the Non-AIDS, non- 16 years Age, sex, race High Hostility RR 5 2.02 (1.07, 3.81) rrr 5 .03
CARDIA study homicide-related
mortality
Kaplan et al., 1994 2,464 men from the Kuopio All-cause mortality 6 years Age, income Shyness HR 5 1.01 (0.63, 1.62) rhr 5 .00
Eschemic Heart Disease
Risk Factor Study
Korten et al., 1999 897 subjects aged 70 years Mortality 4 years Age, sex, general health, High Neuroticism HR 5 0.53 (0.31, 0.90) rhr 5 .08
and older ADLs, illness, blood
Volume 2—Number 4
pressure, Symbol–Letter
Modalities Test, MMSE
Kuskenvuo et al., 1988 3,750 Finnish male twins All-cause mortality 3 years Age High Hostility RR 5 2.98 (1.31, 6.77) rrr 5 .04
Maruta, Colligan, 839 patients from the Mayo All-cause mortality 29 years Sex, age, expected survival Pessimism HR 5 1.20 (1.04, 1.38) rhr 5 .09
Malinchoc, & Offard, 2000 Clinic p 5 .01 re 5 .09
Maruta et al., 1993 620 from the Mayo Clinic All-cause mortality 20 years Age, sex, hypertension, High Hostility p 5 .069 re 5 .07
weight
Volume 2—Number 4
McCarron, Gunnell, 8,385 former male students All-cause mortality 41 years Smoking, father’s SES, Mental instability RR 5 2.05 (1.36–3.09) rrr 5 .04
Harrison, Okasha, & BMI, maternal and paternal p < .01 re 5 .03
Davey-Smith, 2003 vital status
McCranie, Watkins, 478 physicians All-cause mortality 25 years High Hostility p 5 .789 re 5 .01
Brandsma, & Sisson, 1986
Murberg, Bru, & Aarsland, 119 heart failure patients Mortality 2 years Age, sex, disease severity Neuroticism HR 5 1.140 (1.027, rhr 5 .23
2001 1.265) re 5 .24
p 5 .01
Osler et al., 2003 7,308 members of Project All-cause mortality 49 years IQ, birth weight, SES Creativity HR 5 1.17 (0.89, 1.54) rhr 5 .01
Metropolit in Copenhagen,
Denmark
C. Peterson, Seligman, 1,179 members of the Mortality 51 Years Global pessimism OR 5 1.26, p < .01 re 5 .08
Yurko, Martin, & Terman Lifecycle Study
Friedman, 1998
Schulz et al., 1996 238 cancer patients Cancer mortality 8 months Site of cancer, physical Pessimism OR 5 1.07, B 5 .07 rB 5 .08
symptoms, age (.05)
Pessimism Age OR 5 0.88, B 5 .12 rB 5 .11
interaction (.06), re 5 .13
p < .05
Surtees, Wainwright, 20,550 members of the Mortality 6 years Age, disease, cigarette Hostility Men’s RR 5 1.06 (0.99, rrr 5 .02
Luben, Day, & Khaw, 2005 EPIC-Norfolk study (8,950 smoking history 1.14)
men and 11,600 women) Women’s RR 5 1.00 rrr 5 .00
(.91, 1.09)
Surtees, Wainwright, 18,248 members of the Mortality 6 years Age, disease, social class, Strong sense of coherence RR 5 0.76 (0.65, 0.87) rhr 5 .03
Luben, Khaw, & Day, 2003 EPIC-Norfolk study cigarette smoking history p < .0001 (taken from re 5 .03
abstract)
Weiss & Costa, 2005e 1,076 members of the All-cause mortality 5 years Gender, age, education, Conscientiousness HR 5 0.51 (0.31, 0.85) rhr 5 .08
Medicare Primary and diabetic status, p < .05 re 5 .06
Consumer-Directed Care cardiovascular disease,
Demonstration functional limitations, self-
rated health, cigarette
smoking, depression,
Neuroticism,
Agreeableness
Gender, age, education Neuroticism HR 5 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) rhr 5 .04
diabetic status, p < .05 re 5 .06
cardiovascular disease,
functional limitations, self-
325
326
Conscientiousness,
Agreeableness
Gender, age, education, Agreeableness HR 5 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) rhr 5 .06
diabetic status,
cardiovascular disease,
functional limitations, self-
Neuroticism,
Conscientiousness
Wilson et al., 2003 851 members of the All-cause mortality 5 years Age, sex, education, health Trait anxiety RR 5 1.04 (0.99, 1.09) rrr 5 .05
Religious Orders Study p 5 .01 (unadjusted) re 5 .09
Trait anger RR 5 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) rrr 5 .02
p 5 .64 (unadjusted) re 5 .02
Wilson et al., 2005 6,158 members (aged 65 All-cause mortality 6 years Age, sex, race, education Neuroticism RR 5 1.016 (1.010, rrr 5 .07
years and older) of the 1.020)
Chicago Health and Aging Extraversion RR 5 0.984 (0.978, rrr 5 .05
Project 0.991)
Wilson et al., 2004 883 members of the All-cause mortality 5 years Age, gender, education, Neuroticism RR 5 1.04 (1.02, 1.08) rrr 5 .12
Religious Orders Study remaining personality traits p < .02 (unadjusted) re 5 .09
Extraversion RR 5 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) rrr 5 .08
p < .001 (unadjusted) re 5 .11
Openness RR 5 1.005 (0.970, rrr 5 .01
1.040) re 5 .08
p 5 .014
Agreeableness RR 5 0.964 (0.930, rrr 5 .06
1.000) re 5 .09
p 5 .011
Conscientiousness RR 5 0.968 (0.94, rrr 5 .07

0.99) re 5 .11
p < .001
Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR 5 hazard ratio; RR 5 relative risk ratio; OR 5 odds ratio; rrr 5 correlation estimated from the rate ratio; rhr 5 correlation estimated from the hazard
ratio; ror 5 correlation estimated from the odds ratio; rB 5 correlation estimated from a beta weight and standard error; re 5 requivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); FEV 5
forced expiratory volume; CHD 5 coronary heart disease; SES 5 socioeconomic status; BMI 5 body–mass index; ADLs 5 activities of daily living; MMSE 5 Mini Mental State Examination.
a
The direction of the correlation was derived by choosing a positive pole for each dimension (high Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness) and assuming that each dimension,
with the exception of Neuroticism, would be negatively related to mortality in its positive manifestation.
b
Type D personality was categorized as a Neuroticism measure as it correlates more consistently with high Neuroticism (De Fruyt & Denollet, 2002), though it should be noted that it has strong correlations with
low Extraversion, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness.
c
On the basis of the correlations presented in Martin and Friedman (2000), cheerfulness was categorized as a measure of Agreeableness.
d
Rationality was not categorized into the Big Five because it measures suppression of aggression, which does not easily fall into one of the five broad domains.
e
The discrepancy in the Hazard ratios results from the fact that the Neuroticism scores were continuous and the Conscientiousness scores were trichotomized.
Volume 2—Number 4
of personality traits on mortality appears to be equivalent to IQ, In terms of SES and IQ, we found 11 studies that showed a
although the additive effect of multiple trait domains on mor- wide range of associations with divorce and marriage (see Table
tality may well exceed that of IQ. 3).6 For example, the SES of the couple in one study was un-
Why would personality traits predict mortality? Personality systematically related to divorce (Tzeng & Mare, 1995). In
traits may affect health and ultimately longevity through at least contrast, Kurdek (1993) reported relatively large, protective
three distinct processes (Contrada, Cather, & O’Leary, 1999; effects for education and income for both men and women.
Pressman & Cohen, 2005; Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, Because not all these studies reported relative risk ratios, we
1999; T.W. Smith, 2006). First, personality differences may be computed an aggregate using the correlation metric and found
related to pathogenesis or mechanisms that promote disease. the relation between SES and divorce was .05 (CIs 5 .08 and
This has been evaluated most directly in studies relating various .02), which indicates a significant protective effect of SES on
facets of Hostility/Disagreeableness to greater reactivity in divorce across these studies. Contradictory patterns were found
response to stressful experiences (T.W. Smith & Gallo, 2001) for the two studies that predicted divorce and marital patterns
and in studies relating low Extraversion to neuroendocrine and from measures of cognitive ability. Taylor et al. (2005) reported
immune functioning (Miller, Cohen, Rabin, Skoner, & Doyle, that IQ was positively related to the possibility of male partic-
1999) and greater susceptibility to colds (Cohen, Doyle, Turner, ipants ever marrying but was negatively related to the possibility
Alper, & Skoner, 2003a, 2003b). Second, personality traits may of female participants ever marrying. Data drawn from the Mills
be related to physical-health outcomes because they are asso- Longitudinal study (Helson, 2006) showed conflicting patterns
ciated with health-promoting or health-damaging behaviors. For of associations between verbal and mathematical aptitude and
example, individuals high in Extraversion may foster social divorce. Because there were only two studies, we did not ex-
relationships, social support, and social integration, all of which amine the average effects of IQ on divorce.
are positively associated with health outcomes (Berkman, Glass, Table 4 shows the data from thirteen prospective studies
Brissette, & Seeman, 2000). In contrast, individuals low in testing whether personality traits predicted divorce. Traits as-
Conscientiousness may engage in a variety of health-risk be- sociated with the domain of Neuroticism, such as being anxious
haviors such as smoking, unhealthy eating habits, lack of ex- and overly sensitive, increased the probability of experiencing
ercise, unprotected sexual intercourse, and dangerous driving divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987; Tucker, Kressin, Spiro, & Rus-
habits (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). Third, personality differences cio, 1998). In contrast, those individuals who were more con-
may be related to reactions to illness. This includes a wide class scientious and agreeable tended to remain longer in their
of behaviors, such as the ways individuals cope with illness (e.g., marriages and avoided divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987; Kin-
Scheier & Carver, 1993), reduce stress, and adhere to pre- nunen & Pulkkenin, 2003; Roberts & Bogg, 2004). Although
scribed treatments (Kenford et al., 2002). these studies did not control for as many factors as the health
These processes linking personality traits to physical health studies, the time spans over which the studies were carried out
are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, different personality traits were impressive (e.g., 45 years). We aggregated effects across
may affect physical health via different processes. For example, these studies for the trait domains of Neuroticism, Agreeable-
facets of Disagreeableness may be most directly linked to dis- ness, and Conscientiousness with the correlation metric, as too
ease processes, facets of low Conscientiousness may be impli- few studies reported relative risk outcomes to warrant aggre-
cated in health-damaging behaviors, and facets of Neuroticism gating. When so aggregated, the effect of Neuroticism on divorce
may contribute to ill-health by shaping reactions to illness. In was .17 (CIs 5 .12 and .22), the effect of Agreeableness was
addition, it is likely that the impact of personality differences on .18 (CIs 5 .27 and .09), and the effect of Conscientious-
health varies across the life course. For example, Neuroticism ness on divorce was .13 (CIs 5 .17 and .09). Thus, the
may have a protective effect on mortality in young adulthood, as predictive effects of these three personality traits on divorce
individuals who are more neurotic tend to avoid accidents in were greater than those found for SES.
adolescence and young adulthood (Lee, Wadsworth, & Hotopf, Why would personality traits lead to divorce or conversely
2006). It is apparent from the extant research that personality marital stability? The most likely reason is because personality
traits influence outcomes at all stages of the health process, but traits help shape the quality of long-term relationships. For
much more work remains to be done to specify the processes that example, Neuroticism is one of the strongest and most consistent
account for these effects. personality predictors of relationship dissatisfaction, conflict,
abuse, and ultimately dissolution (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Divorce Sophisticated studies that include dyads (not just individuals)
Next, we considered the role that SES, cognitive ability, and and multiple methods (not just self reports) increasingly
personality traits play in divorce. Because there were fewer
6
studies examining these issues, we included prospective studies We identified studies using electronic searches including the terms divorce,
socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability. We also identified studies through
of SES, IQ, and personality that did not control for many examining the reference sections of the studies and through studies that cited
background variables. each study.

TABLE 3
328
SES and IQ Effects on Divorce
Length of
Study N Outcome study Control variables Predictor Results Est. r
Amato & Rogers, 1997 1,742 couples from the Panel Divorce 12 years Age at marriage, prior Wife’s income p 5 .01 re 5 .06
Study of Marital Instability cohabitation, ethnicity,
over the Life Course years married, church
attendance, education,
employment, husband’s
income, remarriage,
parents divorced
Bentler & Newcomb, 1978 77 couples (53 males, 24 Divorce 4 years Women’s education p 5 .05 re 5 .22
females) occupation p 5 .05 re 5 .22
Fergusson, Horwood, & Shannon, 1,002 families from the Family breakdown 5 years Maternal age, family size, SES T 5 2.86 rt 5 .09
1984 Christchurch Child church attendance,
Development Study marriage type, length of
marriage, planning of
pregnancy
Helson, 2006 98 women Divorce 31 years SAT Verbal r 5 .06
SAT Math r 5 .08
Holley, Yabiku, & Benin, 2006 670 mothers from the Divorce 13 years Age at marriage, religion, Similarities subtest t 5 3.02 rt 5 .12
Intergenerational Study of church attendance, from WAIS
Parents and Children previous cohabitation,
number of children
Jalovaara, 2001 766,637 first marriages from Divorce 2 years Duration of marriage, wife’s Wife’s high HR 5 0.69 rhr 5 .02
Finland age at marriage, family education (0.66, 0.73)
composition, degree of Wife’s low HR 5 1.34 rhr 5 .01
urbanization occupational class (1.27, 1.42)
Wife’s high income HR 5 1.03 rhr 5 .00
(0.92, 1.14)
Husband’s high HR 5 0.66 rhr 5 .02
education (0.63, 0.69)
Husband’s low HR 5 1.51 rhr 5 .02
occupational class (1.44, 1.58)
Husband’s high HR 5 0.55 rhr 5 .02
income (0.51, 0.58)
Kurdek, 1993 286 couples Divorce 5 years High education F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .31
(husband) 30.28, re 5 .34
p<
.0000000008
High income F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .18
(husband) 9.32, re 5 .18
Volume 2—Number 4
p 5 .0025
High income (wife) F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .13
5.11, re 5 .13
p 5 .025
Orbuch, Veroff, Hassan, & 373 couples Divorce 14 years Race Years education B 5 .33 (.06) rB 5 .28
Horrocks, 2002 (wife) p 5 .001 re 5 .17
Volume 2—Number 4
Household income B 5 .00 (.01) rB 5 .00
Years of education B 5 .20 (.06) rB 5 .17
(husband) p 5 .001 re 5 .17
A.W. Smith & Meitz, 1985 3,737 families from the Panel Divorce 10 years Education level p 5 .001 re 5 .05
Study of Income Dynamics
Taylor et al., 2005 883 from the Scottish Mental Ever married 39 years Social class IQ OR men 5 1.21 ror 5 .04
Survey and Midspan studies (0.85–1.73) re 5 .04
p 5 .23
OR women 5 ror 5 .17
0.50 (0.32–0.78) re 5 .17
p 5 .002
IQ Social class OR men 5 1.25 ror 5 .06
(0.92–1.68) re 5 .06
p 5 .15
OR women 5 ror 5 .14
0.67 (0.49–0.92) re 5 .13
p 5 .015
Tzeng & Mare, 1995 17,024 from NLSY, NLSYM, Annual probability 9–15 Years Age at marriage, presence Couple education Z 5 6.8 rz 5 .05
and NLSYW studies of marital disruption of children, family status
while growing up, number
of marriages, race, cohort

Couple income Z 5 .51 rz 5 .00
Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES 5 socioeconomic status; HR 5 hazard ratio; RR 5 relative risk ratio; OR 5 odds ratio; rz 5 correlation estimated from the z score and sample size; ror 5
correlation estimated from the odds ratio; rF 5 correlation estimated from F test; rB 5 correlation estimated from the reported unstandardized beta weight and standard error; re 5 requivalent (correlation estimated from
the reported p value and sample size); WAIS 5 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; NLSY 5 National Longitudinal Study of Youth; NLSYM 5 National Longitudinal Study of Young Men; NLSYW 5
National Longitudinal Study of Young Women.
329
TABLE 4
330
Personality Traits and Marital Outcomes
Study N Outcome Time Controls Predictors Results Est. r

Bentler & Newcomb, 77 couples (53 males, Divorce 4 years Men’s p 5 .05 re 5 .27
1978 24 females) extraversion p 5 .05 re 5 .27
orderliness
Women’s p 5 .05 re 5 .40
clothes consciousness
Congeniality p 5 .05 re 5 .40
Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 87 men from the Divorce 31 years Childhood ill-temperedness p 5 .02 re 5 .25
1987 Berkeley Guidance
Study
Huston, Caughlin, 152 couples Early divorce Few months after Gender, affectional Responsiveness F(4, 147) 5 rF 5 .17
Houts, Smith, & marriage expression, love, (Agreeableness) 4.49, re 5 .21
George, 2001 contrariness, p < .01
ambivalence, negativity
Gender, affectional Contrariness (Neuroticism) F(4, 147) 5 rF 5 .09
expression, love, 1.29, (p
contrariness, values not
ambivalence, negativity available)
Jockin, McGue, & 1,490 female and 696 Ever divorced Cross-sectional Positive Emotionality (women) d 5 .23 rd 5 .11
Lykken, 1996 male twins p < .01 re 5 .07
Positive Emotionality (men) d 5 .21 rd 5 .10
p < .01 re 5 .10
Negative Emotionality d 5 .21 rd 5 .10
(women) p < .01 re 5 .10
Negative Emotionality (men) d 5 .20 rd 5 .10
p < .01 re 5 .10
Constraint (women) d 5 .34 rd 5 .17
p < .01 re 5 .10

Constraint (men) d 5 .20 rd 5 .10
p < .01 re 5 .10
Kelly & Conley, 1987 556 married men and Marital 45 years Husband’s Neuroticism r 5 .27 r 5 .27
women compatibility Husband’s impulse control r 5 .25 r 5 .25
(divorced versus Wife’s Neuroticism r 5 .38 r 5 .38
happily married)
Volume 2—Number 4
Kinnunen & Pulkkinen, 108 women and 109 Divorced versus 28, 22, or 9 years Women’s age 8 Aggression d 5 .69 rd 5 .30
2003 men from the Jyvaskyla intact marriage Women’s age 8 Lability d 5 .43 rd 5 .19
Longitudinal Study of at age 36 Women’s age 27 d 5 .12 rd 5 .05
Personality and Social Conscientiousness
Development Women’s age 27 Agreeableness d 5 .54 rd 5 .24
Volume 2—Number 4
Men’s age 8 Aggression d 5 .68 rd 5 .26
Men’s age 8 Compliance d 5 .59 rd 5 .23
Men’s age 14 Aggression d 5 .57 rd 5 .22
Men’s age 14 Compliance d 5 .74 rd 5 .28
Men’s age 27 d 5 .82 rd 5 .31
Conscientiousness
Men’s age 27 Agreeableness d 5 .61 rd 5 .24
Kurdek, 1993 286 couples Divorce 5 years Neuroticism (husband) F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .25
17.34, re 5 .24
p 5 .000005
Neuroticism (wife) F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .22
14.21, re 5 .22
p 5 .0002
Conscientiousness (husband) F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .10
2.78, re 5 .10
p 5 .096
Conscientiousness (wife) F(1, 284) 5 rF 5 .12
4.16, re 5 .12
p 5 042
Positive Emotionality d 5 .21 rd 5 .10
(husband) p < .01 re 5 .10
Lawrence & Bradbury, 60 couples from Los Divorce 4 years Aggressiveness OR 5 2.37 re 5 .24
2001 Angeles p 5 .06 ro 5 .23
Loeb, 1966 639 college students Divorce 13 years Women’s MMPI psychopathic p < .025 re 5 .13
deviancy
Men’s MMPI psychopathic p < .025 re 5 .13
deviancy
Men’s MMPI hypochondriasis p < .005 re 5 .16
Men’s MMPI hysteria p < .025 re 5 .13
Men’s MMPI schizophrenia p < .05 re 5 .11
McCranie & Kahan, 431 physicians Number of 25 years MMPI psychopathic deviancy r 5 .13 r 5 .13
1986 divorces
Roberts & Bogg, 2004 99 women from the Ever divorced 22 years Responsibility r 5 .21 r 5 .21
Mills Longitudinal
Study
Skolnick, 1981 122 members of the Divorce versus Cognitively invested p 5 .06 re 5 .17
IHD longitudinal satisfied Emotionally aggressive p 5 .08 re 5 .16
studies marriage Nurturant p 5 .06 re 5 .17
Under controlled p 5 .008 re 5 .24
331
332
Study N Outcome Time Controls Predictors Results Est. r
Tucker et al., 1998 773 from the Normative Divorce 26 years Age at marriage, Inadequacy OR 5 2.40 ror 5 .11
Aging Study education (1.36, 4.35) re 5 .09
p < .01
Anxiety OR 5 2.80 ror 5 .12
(1.55, 5.15) re 5 .12
p < .001
Sensitivity OR 5 2.80 ror 5 .12
(1.50, 5.25) re 5 .09
p < .01
Anger OR 5 2.70 ror 5 .13
(1.54, 4.71) re 5 .12
p < .001
Tension OR 5 1.20 ror 5 .02
(0.61, 2.51)
968 members of the Divorce 53 to 78 years Sex, education, age at Conscientiousness OR parent ror 5 .07
Terman Life Cycle marriage rating 5 0.92
Study (0.84, 1.01)
OR teacher ror 5 .08
rating 5 0.92
(0.83, 1.01)
Perseverance OR parent ror 5 .01
rating 5 1.01
(0.92, 1.11)
rating 5 0.95
(0.86, 1.05)
Sympathy OR parent ror 5 .06
rating 5 0.94
(0.85, 1.02)
rating 5 0.95
(0.84, 1.07)
Not egotistical OR parent ror 5 .05
rating 5 0.95
(0.87, 1.03)
rating 5 0.96
(0.87, 1.05)
Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR 5 hazard ratio; RR 5 relative risk ratio; OR 5 odds ratio; rd 5 Correlation estimated from the d score; ror 5 correlation estimated from the odds ratio;
rF 5 correlation estimated from F test; re 5 requivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); MMPI 5 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IHS 5 Institute of Human
Development.
Volume 2—Number 4
demonstrate that the links between personality traits and rela- ment (Hauser, Tsai, & Sewell, 1983). The key question here is to
tionship processes are more than simply an artifact of shared what extent SES and IQ predict educational and occupational
method variance in the assessment of these two domains (Don- attainment holding constant the remaining factors.
nellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000; A great deal of research has validated the structure and
Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). One study that followed a content of the Wisconsin model (Sewell & Hauser, 1980; Sewell
sample of young adults across their multiple relationships in & Hauser, 1992), and rather than compiling these studies, which
early adulthood discovered that the influence of Negative are highly similar in structure and findings, we provide repre-
Emotionality on relationship quality showed cross-relationship sentative findings from a study that includes three replications of
generalization; that is, it predicted the same kinds of experi- the model (Jencks, Crouse, & Mueser, 1983). As can be seen in
ences across relationships with different partners (Robins, Table 5, childhood socioeconomic indicators, such as father’s
Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002). occupational status and mother’s education, are related to out-
An important goal for future research will be to uncover the comes, such as grades, educational attainment, and eventual
proximal relationship-specific processes that mediate person- occupational attainment, even after controlling for the remain-
ality effects on relationship outcomes (Reiss, Capobianco, & ing variables in the Wisconsin model. The average beta weight of
Tsai, 2002). Three processes merit attention. First, personality SES and education was .09.7 Parental income had a stronger
traits influence people’s exposure to relationship events. For effect, with an average beta weight of .14 across these three
example, people high in Neuroticism may be more likely to be studies. Cognitive abilities were even more powerful predictors
exposed to daily conflicts in their relationships (Bolger & of occupational attainment, with an average beta weight of .27.
Zuckerman, 1995; Suls & Martin, 2005). Second, personality Do personality traits contribute to the prediction of occupa-
traits shape people’s reactions to the behavior of their partners. tional attainment even when intelligence and socioeconomic
For example, disagreeable individuals may escalate negative background are taken into account? As there are far fewer
affect during conflict (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, studies linking personality traits directly to indices of occupa-
1998). Similarly, agreeable people may be better able to regulate tional attainment, such as prestige and income, we also included
emotions during interpersonal conflicts (Jensen-Campbell & prospective studies examining the impact of personality traits on
Graziano, 2001). Cognitive processes also factor in creating related outcomes such as long-term unemployment and occu-
trait-correlated experiences (Snyder & Stukas, 1999). For ex- pational stability. The studies listed in Table 6 attest to the fact
ample, highly neurotic individuals may overreact to minor that personality traits predict all of these work-related outcomes.
criticism from their partner, believe they are no longer loved For example, adolescent ratings of Neuroticism, Extraversion,
when their partner does not call, or assume infidelity on the basis Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness predicted occupational
of mere flirtation. Third, personality traits evoke behaviors from status 46 years later, even after controlling for childhood IQ
partners that contribute to relationship quality. For example, (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). The weighted-
people high in Neuroticism and low in Agreeableness may be average beta weight across the studies in Table 6 was .23 (CIs 5
more likely to express behaviors identified as detrimental to .14 and .32), indicating that the modal effect size of personality
relationships such as criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and traits was comparable with the effect of childhood SES and IQ
stonewalling (Gottman, 1994). on similar outcomes.8
Why are personality traits related to achievement in educa-
tional and occupational domains? The personality processes
The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for involved may vary across different stages of development, and at
Educational and Occupational Attainment least five candidate processes deserve research scrutiny (Rob-
The role of personality traits in occupational attainment has erts, 2006). First, the personality-to-achievement associations
been studied sporadically in longitudinal studies over the last may reflect ‘‘attraction’’ effects or ‘‘active niche-picking,’’
few decades. In contrast, the roles of SES and IQ have been whereby people choose educational and work experiences
studied exhaustively by sociologists in their programmatic re- whose qualities are concordant with their own personalities. For
search on the antecedents to status attainment. In their seminal
work, Blau and Duncan (1967) conceptualized a model of status 7
We did not transform the standardized beta weights into the correlation
attainment as a function of the SES of an individual’s father. metric because almost all authors failed to provide the necessary information for
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin added what they the transformation (CIs or standard errors). Therefore, we averaged the results
considered social-psychological factors (Sewell, Haller, & in the beta weight metric instead. As the sampling distribution of beta weights is
unknown,
p we used the formula for the standard error of the partial correlation
Portes, 1969). In this Wisconsin model, attainment is a function ( Nk2) to estimate CIs.
of parental SES, cognitive abilities, academic performance, 8
In making comparisons between correlations and regression weights, it
occupational and educational aspirations, and the role of sig- should be kept in mind that although the two are identical for orthogonal
predictors, most regression weights tend to be smaller than the corresponding
nificant others (Haller & Portes, 1973). Each factor in the model zero-order validity correlations because of predictor redundancy (R.A. Peterson
has been found to be positively related to occupational attain- & Brown, 2005).

TABLE 5
SES, IQ, and Status Attainment
Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

Jencks, 1,789 Occupational 7 years Father and mother’s Father’s SES b 5 .15
Crouse, & attainment SES, earnings, aptitude, Mother’s education b 5 .09
Meuser, 1983 grades, friends Parental income b 5 .11
education plans, IQ b 5 .31
educational and
occupational
aspirations, education
Earnings Father’s SES b 5 .01
Mother’s education b 5 .01
Parent’s income b 5 .16
IQ b 5 .14
Education Father’s SES b 5 .13
Mothers education b 5 .13
Parent’s income b 5 .14
IQ b 5 .37
Note. SES 5 socioeconomic status.
example, people who are more conscientious may prefer con- Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997). Individuals who are not
ventional jobs, such as accounting and farming (Gottfredson, leaders or supervisors may shape their work to better fit them-
Jones, & Holland, 1993). People who are more extraverted may selves through job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) or
prefer jobs that are described as social or enterprising, such as job sculpting (Bell & Staw, 1989). They can change their day-
teaching or business management (Ackerman & Heggestad, to-day work environments through changing the tasks they do,
1997). Moreover, extraverted individuals are more likely to as- organizing their work differently, or changing the nature of the
sume leadership roles in multiple settings (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & relationships they maintain with others (Wrzesniewski & Dut-
Gerhardt, 2002). In fact, all of the Big Five personality traits ton, 2001). Presumably these changes in their work environ-
have substantial relations with better performance when the ments lead to an increase in the fit between personality and
personality predictor is appropriately aligned with work criteria work. In turn, increased fit with one’s environment is associated
(Hogan & Holland, 2003). This indicates that if people find jobs with elevated performance (Harms, Roberts, & Winter, 2006).
that fit with their dispositions they will experience greater levels Fourth, some personality-to-achievement associations emerge
of job performance, which should lead to greater success, ten- as consequences of ‘‘attrition’’ or ‘‘deselection pressures,’’
ure, and satisfaction across the life course (Judge et al., 1999). whereby people leave achievement settings (e.g., schools or
Second, personality-to-achievement associations may reflect jobs) that do not fit with their personality or are released from
‘‘recruitment effects,’’ whereby people are selected into these settings because of their trait-correlated behaviors (Cairns
achievement situations and are given preferential treatment on & Cairns, 1994). For example, longitudinal evidence from
the basis of their personality characteristics. These recruitment different countries shows that children who exhibit a combina-
effects begin to appear early in development. For example, tion of poor self-control and high irritability or antagonism are at
children’s personality traits begin to influence their emerging heightened risk of unemployment (Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, &
relationships with teachers at a young age (Birch & Ladd, 1998). Silva, 1998; Kokko, Bergman, & Pulkkinen, 2003; Kokko &
In adulthood, job applicants who are more extraverted, consci- Pulkkinen, 2000).
entious, and less neurotic are liked better by interviewers and Fifth, personality-to-achievement associations may emerge as
are more often recommended for the job (Cook, Vance, & a result of direct effects of personality on performance. Per-
Spector, 2000). sonality traits may promote certain kinds of task effectiveness;
Third, personality traits may affect work outcomes because there is some evidence that this occurs in part via the processing
people take an active role in shaping their work environment of information. For example, higher positive emotions facilitate
(Roberts, 2006). For example, leaders have tremendous power to the efficient processing of complex information and are associ-
shape the nature of the organization by hiring, firing, and pro- ated with creative problem solving (Ashby, Isen, & Turken,
moting individuals. Cross-sectional studies of groups have 1999). In addition to these effects on task effectiveness, per-
shown that leaders’ conscientiousness and cognitive ability af- sonality may directly affect other aspects of work performance,
fect decision making and treatment of subordinates (LePine, such as interpersonal interactions (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).

TABLE 6
Personality Traits and Occupational Attainment
Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

Caspi et al., 1987 182 members of the Occupational attainment 31 years IQ, education Childhood ill-
Volume 2—Number 4
b 5 .10
Berkeley Guidance Study temperedness
Erratic work life 31 years IQ, education, Childhood ill- b 5 .45
occupational attainment temperedness
Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 73 men from the Berkeley Age at entry into a stable 11 years SES, education, Childhood shyness b 5 .27
1988 Guidance Study career childhood ill-
temperedness
Occupational attainment 11 years Age at entry into stable Childhood shyness b 5 .05
career, education,
childhood ill-
temperedness
83 women from the Stable participation in the 11 years SES, education, Childhood shyness b 5 .19
Berkeley Guidance Study labor market childhood ill-
temperedness
Helson & Roberts, 1992 63 women from the Mills Occupational attainment 16 years Work aspirations, Individuality b 5 .34
Longitudinal Study husband’s individuality
Helson, Roberts, & 120 women from the Mills Occupational creativity 31 years SAT Verbal scores, status Creative temperament b 5 .44
Agronick, 1995 Longitudinal Study aspirations
Judge et al., 1999 118 Members from the IHD Extrinsic career success 46 years IQ Neuroticism b 5 .21
longitudinal studies Extraversion b 5 .27
Agreeableness b 5 .32
Conscientiousness b 5 .44
Kokko & Pulkkinen, 311 members of the Long-term unemployment 19 years Aggression, child- Age 8 prosociality b 5 .37
2000 Jyvaskyla Longitudinal between ages 27 and 36 centered parenting, (emotionally stable,
Study school maladjustment, reliable, friendly)
problem drinking, lack of
occupational alternatives
at age 27
Luster & McAdoo, 1996 123 members of the Perry Age 27 income 22 years Mother’s education, Age 5 personal behavior b 5 .23
Preschool sample maternal involvement in (teacher ratings of not lying
kindergarten, preschool and cheating, not using
attendance, academic obscene words)
motivation, IQ score, 8th
grade achievement,
educational attainment at
age 27
Roberts, Caspi, & 859 members of the Occupational attainment 8 years IQ, SES Negative Emotionality b 5 .17
Moffitt, 2003a Dunedin Longitudinal Constraint b 5 .18
Study Positive Emotionality b 5 .13
335
Personality traits may also directly influence performance mo-

tivation; for example, Conscientiousness consistently predicts
Results
stronger goal setting and self-efficacy, whereas Neuroticism
r 5 .11 predicts these motivations negatively (Erez & Judge, 2001;
r 5 .05
Judge & Ilies, 2002).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It is abundantly clear from this review that specific personality

Proactive personality
Predictor
traits predict important life outcomes, such as mortality, divorce,

and success in work. Depending on the sample, trait, and out-
Masculinity
come, people with specific personality characteristics are more

likely to experience important life outcomes even after con-
trolling for other factors. Moreover, when compared with the
effects reported for SES and cognitive abilities, the predictive
validities of personality traits do not appear to be markedly
male hierarchy, transition
education level, training,
managerial promotions,
managerial aspirations,
changed organizations,
career encouragement,
mentor career support,
different in magnitude. In fact, as can be seen in Figures 1–3, in

Organizational sector,
Control variables
marriage, number of
gender, age, tenure,

children, relocated,
many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that person-

challenging work,
organization size,
occupation type,
ality traits predict these outcomes better than SES does. Despite
these impressive findings, a few limitations and qualifications
must be kept in mind when interpreting these data.
level
The requirement that we only examine the incremental va-

—
lidity of personality measures after controlling for SES and

cognitive abilities, though clearly the most stringent test of the

Time span
relevance of personality traits, is also arbitrarily tough. In fact,

controlling for variables that are assumed to be nuisance factors
2 years
can obscure important relations (Meehl, 1971). For example,

SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits may determine
life outcomes through indirect rather than direct pathways.
Consider cognitive abilities. These are only modest predictors of
occupational attainment when ‘‘all other factors are controlled,’’
Salary progression
Outcome
but they play a much more important, indirect role through their
Advancement in
effect on educational attainment. Students with higher cognitive

management
Note. SES 5 socioeconomic status; IHD 5 Institute of Human Development.
0.30
0.25
2,431 Australian managers
Midwestern University
0.20
Correlation
180 alumni from
N
0.15
0.10
0.05
Seibert, Kraimer, &
0
Tharenou, 2001
SES IQ C E/PE N A
Crant, 2001
Fig. 1. Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic

status (SES), low IQ, low Conscientiousness (C), low Extraversion/
Study
Positive Emotion(E/PE), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on

mortality. Error bars represent standard error.

0.30 this one can help adjust the norms researchers hold for what the
modal effect size is in psychology and related fields. Studies are
0.25 often disparaged for having small effects as if it is not the norm.
Moreover, small effect sizes are often criticized without any
0.20
understanding of their practical significance. Practical signifi-
cance can only be determined if we ground our research by both
Correlation
predicting consequential outcomes, such as mortality, and by

0.15
translating the results into a metric that is clearly understand-
able, such as years lost or number of deaths. Correlations and
0.10 ratio statistics do not provide this type of information. On the
other hand, some researchers have translated their results into
0.05 metrics that most individuals can grasp. As we noted in the
introduction, Rosenthal (1990) showed that taking aspirin pre-
0
vented approximately 85 heart attacks in the patients of 10,845
SES C N A physicians despite the meager .03 correlation between this
practice and the outcome of having a heart attack. Several other
Fig. 2. Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic
status (SES), low Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and low
studies in our review provided similar benchmarks. Hardarson
Agreeableness (A) on divorce. Error bars represent standard error. et al., (2001) showed that 148 fewer people died in their high
education group (out of 869) than in their low education group,
despite the effect size being equal to a correlation of .05.
Danner et al. (2001) showed that the association between pos-
abilities tend to obtain better grades and go on to achieve more in itive emotion and longevity was associated with a gain of almost
the educational sphere across a range of disciplines (Kuncel, 7 years of additional life, despite having an average effect size of
Crede, & Thomas, 2007; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001, 2004); around .20. Of course, our ability to draw these types of con-
in turn, educational attainment is the best predictor of occu- clusions necessitates grounding our research in more practical
pational attainment. This observation about cumulative outcomes and their respective metrics.
indirect effects applies equally well to SES and personality There is one salient difference between many of the studies of
traits. SES and cognitive abilities and the studies focusing on per-
Furthermore, the effect sizes associated with SES, cognitive sonality traits. The typical sample in studies of the long-term
abilities, and personality traits were all uniformly small-to- effect of personality traits was a sample of convenience or was
medium in size. This finding is entirely consistent with those distinctly unrepresentative. In contrast, many of the studies of
from other reviews showing that most psychological constructs SES and cognitive ability included nationally representative
have effect sizes in the range between .10 and .40 on a corre- and/or remarkably large samples (e.g., 500,000 participants).
lational scale (Meyer et al., 2001). Our hope is that reviews like Therefore, the results for SES and cognitive abilities are gen-
eralizable, whereas it is more difficult to generalize findings from
0.30 personality research. Perhaps the situation will improve if future
demographers include personality measures in large surveys of
0.25 the general population.
Standardized Beta Weight
0.20
Recommendations
One of the challenges of incorporating personality measures in
0.15
large studies is the cost–benefit trade off involved with including
a thorough assessment of personality traits in a reasonably short
0.10 period of time. Because most personality inventories include
many items, researchers may be pressed either to eliminate them
0.05 from their studies or to use highly abbreviated measures of
personality traits. The latter practice has become even more
0
common now that most personality researchers have concluded
SES Parental income IQ Personality Traits that personality traits can be represented within five to seven
broad domains (Goldberg, 1993b; Saucier, 2003). The tempta-
Fig. 3. Average effects (in the standardized beta weight metric) of high
socioeconomic status (SES), high parental income, high IQ, and high tion is to include a brief five-factor instrument under the as-
personality trait scores on occupational outcomes. sumption that this will provide good coverage of the entire range

of personality traits. However, the use of short, broad bandwidth Second, we need a greater understanding of the relationship
measures can lead to substantial decreases in predictive validity between personality and the social environmental factors al-
(Goldberg, 1993a), because short measures of the Big Five lack ready known to affect health and development. Looking over the
the breadth and depth of longer personality inventories. In studies reviewed above, one can see that specific personality
contrast, research has shown that the predictive validity of traits such as Conscientiousness predict occupational and
personality measures increases when one uses a well-elaborated marital outcomes that, in turn, predict longevity. Thus, it may be
measure with many lower order facets (Ashton, 1998; Mershon that Conscientiousness has both direct and indirect effects on
& Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen, 1998; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). mortality, as it contributes to following life paths that afford
However, research participants do not have unlimited time, better health, and may also directly affect the ways in which
and researchers may need advice on the selection of optimal people handle health-related issues, such as whether they exer-
measures of personality traits. One solution is to pay attention to cise or eat a healthy diet (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). One idea that
previous research and focus on those traits that have been found has not been entertained is the potential synergistic relation be-
to be related to the specific outcomes under study instead of tween personality traits and social environmental factors. It may
using an omnibus personality inventory. For example, given the be the case that the combination of certain personality traits and
clear and consistent finding that the personality trait of Con- certain social conditions creates a potent cocktail of factors that
scientiousness is related to health behaviors and mortality (e.g., either promotes or undermines specific outcomes. Finally, certain
Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Friedman, 2000), it would seem prudent social contexts may wash out the effect of individual difference
to measure this trait well if one wanted to control for this factor or factors, and, in turn, people possessing certain personality char-
include it in any study of health and mortality. Moreover, it acteristics may be resilient to seemingly toxic environmental
appears that specific facets of this domain, such as self-control influences. A systematic understanding of the relations between
and conventionality, are more relevant to health than are other personality traits and social environmental factors associated with
facets such as orderliness (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). If re- important life outcomes would be very helpful.
searchers are truly interested in assessing personality traits Third, the present results drive home the point that we need to
well, then they should invest the time necessary for the task. know much more about the development of personality traits at
This entails moving away from expedient surveys to more all stages in the life course. How does a person arrive in
in-depth assessments. Finally, if one truly wants to assess per- adulthood as an optimistic or conscientious person? If person-
sonality traits well, then researchers should use multiple ality traits affect the ways that individuals negotiate the tasks
methods for this purpose and should not rely solely on self- they face across the course of their lives, then the processes
reports (Eid & Diener, 2006). contributing to the development of those traits are worthy of
We also recommend that researchers not equate all individual study (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; Caspi & Shiner, in press; Rothbart
differences with personality traits. Personality psychologists & Bates, 2006). However, there has been a tendency in per-
also study constructs such as motivation, interests, emotions, sonality and developmental research to focus on personality
values, identities, life stories, and self-regulation (see Mayer, traits as the causes of various outcomes without fully considering
2005, and Roberts & Wood, 2006, for reviews). Moreover, these personality differences as an outcome worthy of study (Roberts,
different domains of personality are only modestly correlated 2005). In contrast, research shows that personality traits con-
(e.g., Ackerman & Heggested, 1997; Roberts & Robins, 2000). tinue to change in adulthood (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Vie-
Thus, there are a wide range of additional constructs that may chtbauer, 2006) and that these changes may be important for
have independent effects on important life outcomes that are health and mortality. For example, changes in personality traits
waiting to be studied. such as Neuroticism have been linked to poor health outcomes
and even mortality (Mroczek & Spiro, 2007).
Conclusions Fourth, our results raise fundamental questions about how
In light of increasingly robust evidence that personality matters personality should be addressed in prevention and intervention
for a wide range of life outcomes, researchers need to turn their efforts. Skeptical readers may doubt the relevance of the present
attention to several issues. First, we need to know more about the results for prevention and intervention in light of the common
processes through which personality traits shape individuals’ assumption that personality is highly stable and immutable.
functioning over time. Simply documenting that links exist be- However, personality traits do change in adulthood (Roberts,
tween personality traits and life outcomes does not clarify the Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) and can be changed through
mechanisms through which personality exerts its effects. In this therapeutic intervention (De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby,
article, we have suggested a number of potential processes that Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006). Therefore, one possibility would be
may be at work in the domains of health, relationships, and to focus on socializing factors that may affect changes in per-
educational and occupational success. Undoubtedly, other sonality traits, as the resulting changes would then be leveraged
personality processes will turn out to influence these outcomes across multiple domains of life. Further, the findings for per-
as well. sonality traits should be of considerable interest to professionals

dedicated to promoting healthy, happy marriages and socio- Abelson, R.P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is
economic success. Some individuals will clearly be at a a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.
heightened risk of problems in these life domains, and it may be Ackerman, P.L., & Heggestad, E.D. (1997). Intelligence, personality,
and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological
possible to target prevention and intervention efforts to the
Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
subsets of individuals at the greatest risk. Such research can Adler, N.E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M.A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn,
likewise inform the processes that need to be targeted in pre- R.L., & Syme, S.L. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The
vention and intervention. As we gain greater understanding of challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49, 15–24.
how personality exerts its effects on adaptation, we will achieve Adler, N.E., & Snibbe, A.C. (2003). The role of psychosocial processes
new insights into the most relevant processes to change. More- in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status and
health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 119–123.
over, it is essential to recognize that it may be possible to im- Allison, P.J., Guichard, C., Fung, K., & Gilain, L. (2003). Dispositional
prove individuals’ lives by targeting those processes without optimism predicts survival status 1 year after diagnosis in
directly changing the personality traits driving those processes head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21,
(e.g., see Rapee, Kennedy, Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005, 543–548.
for an interesting example of how this may occur). In all pre- Almada, S.J., Zonderman, A.B., Shekelle, R.B., Dyer, A.R., Daviglus,
vention and intervention work, it will be important to attend to M.L., Costa, P.T., & Stamler, J. (1991). Neuroticism and cynicism
and risk of death in middle-aged men: The Western Electric
the possibility that most personality traits can have positive or Study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 165–175.
negative effects, depending on the outcomes in question, the Amato, P.R., & Rogers, S.J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital
presence of other psychological attributes, and the environ- problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the
mental context (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; Shiner, 2005). Family, 59, 612–624.
Personality research has had a contentious history, and there Ashby, F.G., Isen, A.M., & Turken, A.U. (1999). A neuropsychological
theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psycho-
are still vestiges of doubt about the importance of personality
logical Review, 106, 529–550.
traits. We thus reviewed the comparative predictive validity of Ashton, M.C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The impor-
personality traits, SES, and IQ across three objective criteria: tance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,
mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. We found that 289–303.
personality traits are just as important as SES and IQ in pre- Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L.A.
dicting these important life outcomes. We believe these meta- Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). New York: Guilford Press.
analytic findings should quell lingering doubts. The closing of a
Barefoot, J.C., Dahlstrom, W.G., & Williams, R.B. (1983). Hostility,
chapter in the history of personality psychology is also an op- CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of
portunity to open a new chapter. We thus invite new research to 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicine, 45, 59–63.
test and document how personality traits ‘‘work’’ to shape life Barefoot, J.C., Dodge, K.A., Peterson, B.L., Dahlstrom, W.G., & Wil-
outcomes. A useful lead may be taken from cognate research on liams, R.B. (1989). The Cook–Medley hostility scale: Item con-
social disparities in health (Adler & Snibbe, 2003). Just as re- tent and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51,
46–57.
searchers are seeking to understand how SES ‘‘gets under the
Barefoot, J.C., Larsen, S., von der Lieth, L., & Schroll, M. (1995).
skin’’ to influence health, personality researchers need to part- Hostility, incidence of acute myocardial infarction, and mortality
ner with other branches of psychology to understand how per- in a sample of older Danish men and women. American Journal of
sonality traits ‘‘get outside the skin’’ to influence important life Epidemiology, 142, 477–484.
outcomes. Barefoot, J.C., Maynard, K.E., Beckham, J.C., Brummett, B.H.,
Hooker, K., & Siegler, I.C. (1998). Trust, health, and longevity.
Acknowledgments—Preparation of this paper was supported Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21, 517–526.
by National Institute of Aging Grants AG19414 and AG20048; Barefoot, J.C., Siegler, I.C., Nowlin, J.B., Peterson, B.L., Haney, T.L.,
National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH49414, & Williams, R.B. (1987). Suspiciousness, health, and mortality:
MH45070, MH49227; United Kingdom Medical Research A follow-up stuffy of 500 older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine,
49, 450–457.
Council Grant G0100527; and by grants from the Colgate Re- Bassuk, S.S., Berkman, L.F., & Amick, B.C. (2002). Socioeconomic
search Council. We would like to thank Howard Friedman, status and mortality among the elderly: Findings from four U.S.
David Funder, George Davie Smth, Ian Deary, Chris Fraley, Communities. American Journal of Epidemiology, 155, 520–533.
Beebe-Dimmer, J., Lynch, J.W., Turrell, G., Lustgarten, S., Raghuna-
Linda Gottfredson, Josh Jackson, and Ben Karney for their
than, T., & Kaplan, G.A. (2004). Childhood and adult socioeco-
comments on earlier drafts of this article. nomic conditions and 31-year mortality risk in women. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 159, 481–490.
REFERENCES Bell, N.E., & Staw, B.M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture:
The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In
Abas, M., Hotopf, M., & Prince, M. (2002). Depression and mortality M.B. Arthur, D.T. Hall, & B.S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of
in a high-risk population. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, career theory (pp. 232–251). New York: Cambridge University
123–128. Press.

Bentler, P.M., & Newcomb, M.D. (1978). Longitudinal study of marital Christensen, A.J., Ehlers, S.L., Wiebe, J.S., Moran, P.J., Raichle, K.,
success and failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- Ferneyhough, K., & Lawton, W.J. (2002). Patient personality and
chology, 46, 1053–1070. mortality: A 4-year prospective examination of chronic renal
Berkman, L.F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T.E. (2000). From insufficiency. Health Psychology, 21, 315–320.
social integration to health. Social Science Medicine, 51, 843– Claussen, B., Davey-Smith, G., & Thelle, D. (2003). Impact of child-
857. hood and adulthood socioeconomic position on cause specific
Birch, S.H., & Ladd, G.W. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors mortality: The Oslo Mortality Study. Journal of Epidemiology and
and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology, Community Health, 57, 40–45.
34, 934–946. The Cochrane Collaboration. (2005, May). Cochrane handbook for
Blau, P.M., & Duncan, O.D. (1967). The American occupational systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. Retrieved June 1, 2006,
structure. New York: Wiley. from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B.W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health be- Cohen, S., Doyle, W.J., Turner, R.B., Alper, C.M., & Skoner, D.P.
haviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to (2003a). Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold.
mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 652–657.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying per- Cohen, S., Doyle, W.J., Turner, R.B., Alper, C.M., & Skoner, D.P.
sonality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social (2003b). Sociability and susceptibility to the common cold.
Psychology, 69, 890–902. Psychological Science, 14, 389–395.
Bornstein, R.F. (1999). Criterion validity of objective and projective Conger, R.D., & Donnellan, M.B. (2007). An interactionist perspective
dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual
prediction. Psychological Assessment, 11, 48–57. Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199.
Bosworth, H.B., & Schaie, K.W. (1999). Survival effects in cognitive Contrada, R.J., Cather, C., & O’Leary, A. (1999). Personality and
function, cognitive style, and sociodemographic variables in the health: Dispositions and processes in disease susceptibility and
Seattle Longitudinal Study. Experimental Aging Research, 25, adaptation to illness. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Hand-
121–139. book of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 576–604).
Boyle, S.H., Williams, R.B., Mark, D.B., Brummett, B.H., Siegler, I.C., New York: Guilford Press.
& Barefoot, J.C. (2005). Hostility, age, and mortality in a Cook, K.W., Vance, C.A., & Spector, P.E. (2000). The relation of
sample of cardiac patients. American Journal of Cardiology, 96, candidate personality with selection-interview outcomes. Journal
64–66. of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 867–885.
Boyle, S.H., Williams, R.B., Mark, D.B., Brummett, B.H., Siegler, I.C., Curtis, S., Southall, H., Congdon, P., & Dodgeon, B. (2004). Area
Helms, M.J., & Barefoot, J.C. (2004). Hostility as a predictor of effects on health variation over the life-course: Analysis
survival in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic of the longitudinal study sample in England using new data on
Medicine, 66, 629–632. are of residence in childhood. Social Science & Medicine, 58,
Bradley, R.H., & Corwyn, R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child 57–74.
development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. Danner, D.D., Snowden, D.A., & Friesen, W.V. (2001). Positive emo-
Bucher, H.C., & Ragland, D.R. (1995). Socioeconomic indicators and tions in early life and longevity: Findings from the Nun Study.
mortality from coronary heart disease and cancer: A 22-year Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 804–813.
follow-up of middle-aged men. American Journal of Public Davey-Smith, G., Hart, C., Blane, D., & Hole, D. (1998). Adverse
Health, 85, 1231–1236. socioeconomic conditions in childhood and cause specific adult
Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, B.D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of mortality: Prospective observational study. British Medical
youth in our time. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Journal, 316, 1631–1635.
University Press. Deary, I.J., Batty, D., & Gottfredson, L.S. (2005). Human hierarchies,
Caspi, A., Elder, G.H., & Bem, D.J. (1987). Moving against the world: health, and IQ: Comment. Science, 309, 703.
Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psy- Deary, I.J., & Der, G. (2005). Reaction time explains IQ’s association
chology, 23, 308–313. with death. Psychological Science, 16, 64–69.
Caspi, A., Elder, G.H., & Bem, D.J. (1988). Moving away from the De Fruyt, F., & Denollet, J. (2002). Type D personality: A five-factor
world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psy- model perspective. Psychology and Health, 17, 671–683.
chology, 24, 824–831. De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., Bagby, R.M., Rolland, J., & Rouillon, F.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B.W., & Shiner, R. (2005). Personality develop- (2006). Assessing and interpreting personality change and con-
ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. tinuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological
Caspi, A., & Shiner, R.L. (2006). Personality development. In W. Assessment, 18, 71–80.
Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Denollet, J., Sys, S.U., Stroobant, N., Rombouts, H., Gillebert, T.C., &
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and Brutsaert, D.L. (1996). Personality as independent predictor of
personality development (6th ed., pp. 300–365). New York: Wiley. long-term mortality in patients with coronary heart disease.
Caspi, A., & Shiner, R.L. (in press), Temperament and personality. In Lancet, 347, 417–421.
M. Rutter, D. Bishop, D. Pine, S. Scott, J. Stevenson, E. Taylor, & Donnellan, M.B., Conger, R.D., & Bryant, C.M. (2004). The Big Five
A. Thapar (Eds.), Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry (5th and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
ed.). London: Blackwell. 481–504.
Caspi, A., Wright, B.R., Moffitt, T.E., & Silva, P.A. (1998). Early failure Doornbos, G., & Kromhout, D. (1990). Educational level and mor-
in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of un- tality in a 32-year follow-up study of 18-year old men in
employment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology, 19,
Review, 63, 424–451. 374–379.

Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006). Handbook of psychological assessment: ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective
A multimethod perspective. Washington, DC: American Psycho- study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29, 167–176.
logical Association. Haller, A.O., & Portes, A. (1973). Status attainment processes. Soci-
Erez, A., & Judge, T.A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to ology of Education, 46, 51–91.
goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Hardarson, T., Gardarsdottir, M., Gudmundsson, K.T., Thorgeirsson,
Psychology, 86, 1270–1279. G., Sigvaldason, H., & Sigfusson, N. (2001). The relationship
Everson, S.A., Kauhanen, J., Kaplan, G.A., Goldberg, D.E., Julkunen, between educational level and mortality: The Reykjavı́k Study.
J., Tuomilehto, J., & Salonen, J.T. (1997). Hostility and increased Journal of Internal Medicine, 249, 495–502.
risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction: The mediating Harms, P.D., Roberts, B.W., & Winter, D. (2006). Becoming the Har-
role of behavioral risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology, vard man: Person-environment fit, personality development, and
146, 142–152. academic success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., & Shannon, F.T. (1984). A propor- 32, 851–865.
tional hazards model of family breakdown. Journal of Marriage Hart, C.L., Taylor, M.D., Davey-Smith, G., Whalley, L.J., Starr, J.M.,
and the Family, 46, 539–549. Hole, D.J., et al. (2003). Childhood IQ, social class, deprivation,
Fiscella, K., & Franks, P. (2000). Individual income, income in- and their relationships with mortality and morbidity risk in later
equality, health, and mortality: What are the relationships? life: Prospective observational study linking the Scottish Mental
Health Services Research, 35, 307–318. Survey 1932 and the Midspan Studies. Psychosomatic Medicine,
Friedman, H.S. (2000). Long-term relations of personality and health: 65, 877–883.
Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of Personality, 68, Hauser, R.M., Tsai, S., & Sewell, W.H. (1983). A model of stratification
1089–1108. with response error in social and psychological variables. Soci-
Friedman, H.S., Tucker, J.S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J.E., ology of Education, 56, 20–46.
Wingard, D.L., & Criqui, M.H. (1993). Does childhood person- Hearn, M.D., Murray, D.M., & Luepker, R.V. (1989). Hostility, coro-
ality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psy- nary heart disease, and total mortality: A 33-year follow-up study
chology, 65, 176–185. of university students. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 105–
Funder, D.C. (2004). The personality puzzle. New York: Norton. 121.
Funder, D.C., & Ozer, D.J. (1983). Behavior as a function of the sit- Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
uation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 107– San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
112. Helson, R. (2006). [Unpublished data from the Mills Longitudinal
Gallo, L.C., & Matthews, K.A. (2003). Understanding the association Study]. Unpublished raw data, University of California, Berkeley.
between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative Helson, R., & Roberts, B.W. (1992). Personality of young adult couples
emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129, 10–51. and wives’ work patterns. Journal of Personality, 60, 575–597.
Galobardes, B., Lynch, J.W., & Smith, G.D. (2004). Childhood socio- Helson, R., Roberts, B.W., & Agronick, G. (1995). Enduringness and
economic circumstances and cause-specific mortality in adult- change in creative personality and the prediction of occupational
hood: Systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiologic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
Reviews, 26, 7–21. 1173–1183.
Ganguli, M., Dodge, H.H., & Mulsant, B.H. (2002). Rates and pre- Hemphill, J.F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitude of correlation co-
dictors of mortality in an aging, rural, community-based cohort. efficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–79.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1046–1052. Heslop, P., Smith, G.D., Macleod, J., & Hart, C. (2001). The socio-
Giltay, E.J., Geleijnse, J.M., Zitman, F.G., Hoekstra, T., & Schouten, economic position of employed women, risk factors and mortality.
E.G. (2004). Dispositional optimism and all-cause and cardio- Social Science and Medicine, 53, 477–485.
vascular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch Hirokawa, K., Nagata, C., Takatsuka, N., & Shimizu, H. (2004). The
men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 1126– relationships of a rationality/antiemotionality personality scale to
1135. mortalities of cancer and cardiovascular disease in a community
Goldberg, L.R. (1993a). The structure of personality traits: Vertical population in Japan. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56,
and horizontal aspects. In D.C. Funder, R.D. Parke, C. Tomlin- 103–111.
son-Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality
Personality and development (pp. 169–188). Washington, DC: and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective.
American Psychological Association. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993b). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Holley, P., Yabiku, S., & Benin, M. (2006). The relationship between in-
American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. telligence and divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1723–1748.
Gottfredson, G.D., Jones, E.M., & Holland, J.L. (1993). Personality Hollis, J.F., Connett, J.E., Stevens, V.J., & Greenlick, M.R. (1990).
and vocational interests: The relation of Holland’s six interest Stressful life events, Type A behavior, and the prediction of
dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of cardiovascular and total mortality over six years. Journal of Be-
Counseling Psychology, 40, 518–524. havioral Medicine, 13, 263–280.
Gottman, J.M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between Hosegood, V., & Campbell, O.M.R. (2003). Body mass index, height,
marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. weight, arm circumference, and mortality in rural Bangladeshi
Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting women: A 19-year longitudinal study. American Journal of
marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Clinical Nutrition, 77, 341–347.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5–22. Hurtz, G.M., & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
Grossarth-Maticek, R., Bastianns, J., & Kanazir, D.T. (1985). Psy- The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
chosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality from cancer, 869–879.

Huston, T.L., Caughlin, J.P., Houts, R.M., Smith, S.E., & George, L.J. Korten, A.E., Jorm, A.F., Jaio, Z., Letenneur, L., Jacomb, P.A., Hen-
(2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of derson, A.S., et al. (1999). Health, cognitive, and psychosocial
marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community sample.
Social Psychology, 80, 237–252. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 83–88.
Iribarren, C., Jacobs, D.R., Kiefe, C.I., Lewis, C.E., Matthews, K.A., Koskenvuo, M., Kaprio, J., Rose, R.J., Kesaniemi, A., Sarna, S., He-
Roseman, J.M., & Hulley, S.B. (2005). Causes and demographic, ikkila, K., & Langinvainio, H. (1988). Hostility as a risk factor for
medical, lifestyle and psychosocial predictors of premature mortality and ischemic heart disease in men. Psychosomatic
mortality: the CARDIA study. Social Science & Medicine, 60, Medicine, 50, 330–340.
471–482. Kuh, D., Hardy, R., Langenberg, C., Richards, M., & Wadsworth,
Jalovaara, M. (2001). Socio-economic status and divorce in first mar- M.E.J. (2002). Mortality in adults aged 26–54 years related to
riages in Finland 1991–1993. Population Studies, 55, 119–133. socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood: Post war
Jencks, C., Crouse, J., & Mueser, P. (1983). The Wisconsin model of birth cohort study. British Medical Journal, 325, 1076–1080.
status attainment: A national replication with improved measures Kuh, D., & Maclean, M. (1990). Women’s childhood experience of
of ability and aspiration. Sociology of Education, 56, 3–19. parental separation and their subsequent health and socioeco-
Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Graziano, W.G. (2001). Agreeableness as a nomic status in adulthood. Journal of Biosocial Science, 22, 121–
moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 135.
323–361. Kuh, D., Richards, M., Hardy, R., Butterworth, S., & Wadsworth,
Jockin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D.T. (1996). Personality and di- M.E.J. (2004). Childhood cognitive ability and deaths up until
vorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social middle age: A post-war birth cohort study. International Journal
Psychology, 71, 288–299. of Epidemiology, 33, 408–413.
Johnson, W., & Krueger, R.F. (2006). How money buys happiness: Kuncel, N.R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L.L. (2007). A comprehensive
Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Man-
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, agement Admission Test (GMAT) and undergraduate grade point
680–691. average (UGPA). Academy of Management Learning and Edu-
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality cation, 6, 51–68.
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Kuncel, N.R., Hezlett, S.A., & Ones, D.S. (2001). A comprehensive
Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780. meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., & Barrick, M.R. (1999). Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and
The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162–181.
success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. Kuncel, N.R., Hezlett, S.A., & Ones, D.S. (2004). Academic perfor-
Judge, T.A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one
mance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 797–807. Psychology, 86, 148–161.
Kaplan, G.A., Wilson, T.W., Cohen, R.D., Kauhanen, J., Wu, M., & Kurdek, L.A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year pro-
Salonen, J.T. (1994). Social functioning and overall mortality: spective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of
Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 221–242.
Risk Factor Study. Epidemiology, 5, 495–500. Lantz, P.M., House, J.S., Lepkowski, J.M., Williams, D.R., Mero, R.P.,
Karney, B.R., & Bradbury, T.N. (1995). The longitudinal course of & Chen, J. (1998). Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and mortality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279,
research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. 1703–1708.
Kelly, E.L., & Conley, J.J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A Lawrence, E., & Bradbury, T.N. (2001). Physical aggression and
prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40. Psychology, 15, 135–154.
Kenford, S.L., Smith, S.S., Wetter, D.W., Jorenby, D.E., Fiore, M.C., & Lee, W.E., Wadsorth, M.E.J., & Hotopf, M. (2006). The protective role
Baker, T.B. (2002). Predicting relapse back to smoking: Con- of trait anxiety: S longitudinal cohort study. Psychological Med-
trasting affective and physical models of dependence. Journal of icine, 36, 345–351.
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 216–227. LePine, J.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., & Hedlund, J. (1997).
Khang, Y., & Kim, H.R. (2005). Explaining socioeconomic inequality Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierar-
in mortality among South Koreans: An examination of multiple chical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of
pathways in a nationally representative longitudinal study. In- Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811.
ternational Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 630–637. Lewis, M. (2001). Issues in the study of personality development.
Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Childhood socio-emotional Psychological Inquiry, 12, 67–83.
characteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality. Loeb, J. (1966). The personality factor in divorce. Journal of Con-
European Psychologist, 8, 223–237. sulting Psychology, 30, 562.
Kokko, K., Bergman, L.R., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Child personality Lund, R., Holstein, B.E., & Osler, M. (2004). Marital history from age
characteristics and selection into long-term unemployment in 15 to 40 years and subsequent 10-year mortality: A longitudinal
Finnish and Swedish longitudinal samples. International Journal study of Danish males born in 1953. International Journal of
of Behavioral Development, 27, 134–144. Epidemiology, 33, 389–397.
Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2000). Aggression in childhood and long- Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and child influences on ed-
term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and ucational attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope
some protective factors. Developmental Psychology, 36, 463–472. Perry preschool data. Developmental Psychology, 32, 26–39.

Lynch, J.W., Kaplan, G.A., Cohen, R.D., Kauhanen, J., Wilson, T.W., weight, childhood cognitive function, and adult mortality. A
Smith, N.L., & Salonen, J.T. (1994). Childhood and adult socio- longitudinal study of Danish men born in 1953. Journal of
economic status as predictors of mortality in Finland. Lancet, Epidemiology Community Health, 57, 681–686.
343, 424–527. Osler, M., Prescott, E., Gronbaek, M., Christensen, U., Due, P., &
Maier, H., & Smith, J. (1999). Psychological predictors of mortality in Enghorn, G. (2002). Income inequality, individual income, and
old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 54B, 44– mortality in Danish adults: Analysis of pooled data from two
54. cohort studies. British Medical Journal, 324, 1–4.
Martin, L.T., & Friedman, H.S. (2000). Comparing personality scales Ozer, D.J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction
across time: An illustrative study of validity and consistency in of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57,
life-span archival data. Journal of Personality, 68, 85–110. 401–421.
Martin, L.T., & Kubzansky, L.D. (2005). Childhood cognitive perfor- Paul, A.M. (2004). The cult of personality. New York: Free Press.
mance and risk of mortality: A prospective cohort study of gifted Paunonen, S.V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and
individuals. American Journal of Epidemiology, 162, 887–890. prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Maruta, T., Colligan, R.C., Malinchoc, M., & Offord, K.P. (2000). chology, 74, 538–556.
Optimists vs. pessimists: Survival rate among medical patients Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets
over a 30-year period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 75, 140–143. and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Maruta, T., Hamburgen, M.E., Jennings, C.A., Offord, K.P., Colligan, Psychology, 81, 524–539.
R.C., Frye, R.L., & Malinchoc, M. (1993). Keeping hostility in Pervin, L.A., & John, O.P. (1999). Handbook of personality theory and
perspective: Coronary heart disease and the hostility scale on the research. New York: Guilford Press.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Mayo Clinic Pro- Peterson, C., Seligman, M.E.P., Yurko, K.H., Martin, L.R., & Fried-
ceedings, 68, 109–114. man, H.S. (1998). Catastrophizing and untimely death. Psycho-
Mayer, J.D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality logical Science, 2, 127–130.
help integrate psychology? American Psychologist, 60, 294–307. Peterson, R.A., & Brown, S.P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in
McCarron, P., Gunnell, D., Harrison, G.L., Okasha, M., & Davey- meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 175–181.
Smith, G. (2003). Temperament in young adulthood and later Pressman, S.D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence
mortality: Prospective observational study. Journal of Epidemio- health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925–971.
logy and Community Health, 57, 888–892. Pudaric, S., Sundquist, J., & Johansson, S. (2003). Country of birth,
McCranie, E.W., & Kahan, J. (1986). Personality and multiple divorce. instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated health and
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 161–164. mortality: A Swedish population-based survey of people aged 55–
McCrainie, E.W., Watkins, L.O., Brandsma, J.M., & Sisson, B.D. 74. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 2439–2503.
(1986). Hostility, coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence, and Rapee, R.M., Kennedy, S., Ingram, M., Edwards, S., & Sweeney, L.
total mortality: Lack of association in a 25-year follow-up study of (2005). Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in
478 physicians. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 119–125. inhibited preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Meehl, P.E. (1971). High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Psychology, 73, 488–497.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 143–148. Reiss, H.T., Capobianco, A., & Tsai, F.T. (2002). Finding the person in
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1988). Number of factors in personality personal relationships. Journal of Personality, 70, 813–850.
sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real life Roberts, B.W. (2005). Blessings, banes, and possibilities in the
criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675– study of childhood personality. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 51,
680. 367–378.
Meyer, G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D., Kay, G.G., Moreland, K.L., Dies, Roberts, B.W. (2006). Personality development and organizational
R.R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological as- behavior. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research on organizational behavior
sessment. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165. (pp. 1–41). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Miller, G.E., Cohen, S., Rabin, B.S., Skoner, D.P., & Doyle, W.J. Roberts, B.W., & Bogg, T. (2004). A 30-year longitudinal study of the
(1999). Personality and tonic cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, relationships between conscientiousness-related traits, and the
and immune parameters. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 13, family structure and health-behavior factors that affect health.
109–123. Journal of Personality, 72, 325–354.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Roberts, B.W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2003). Work experiences and
Mroczek, D.K., & Spiro, A. (2007). Personality change influences personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Person-
mortality in older men. Psychological Science, 18, 371–376. ality and Social Psychology, 84, 582–593.
Murberg, T.A., Bru, E., & Aarsland, T. (2001). Personality as predictor Roberts, B.W., & Robins, R.W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad as-
of mortality among patients with congestive heart failure: A two- pirations: The intersection of the Big Five dimensions and major
year follow-up study. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–
749–757. 1296.
Myers, D.G. (2000). The American paradox: Spiritual hunger in an age Roberts, B.W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of
of plenty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A
Orbuch, T.L., Veroff, J., Hassan, H., & Horrocks, J. (2002). Who will meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin,
divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of black couples and white 132, 1–25.
couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 179– Roberts, B.W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the
202. context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In D.
Osler, M., Andersen, A.N., Due, P., Lund, R., Damsgaard, M.T., & Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development
Holstein, B.E. (2003). Socioeconomic position in early life, birth (pp. 11–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Robins, R.W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2000). Two personalities, one Shiner, R.L. (2005). An emerging developmental science of person-
relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of ality: Current progress and future prospects. Merrill-Palmer
a relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, Quarterly, 51, 379–387.
251–259. Shipley, B.A., Der, G., Taylor, M.D., & Deary, I.J. (2006). Cognition
Robins, R.W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2002). It’s not just who you’re and all-cause mortality across the entire adult age range: Health
with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship experiences and lifestyle survey. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 17–24.
across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality, 70, 925– Skolnick, A. (1981). Married lives: Longitudinal perspectives on
964. marriage. In D.H. Eichorn, J.A. Clausen, N. Haan, M.P. Honzik,
Roisman, G.E., Masten, A.S., Coatsworth, D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). & P.H. Mussen (Eds.), Present and past in midlife (pp. 270–300).
Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to New York: Academic Press.
adulthood. Child Development, 75, 123–133. Smith, A.W., & Meitz, J.E.G. (1985). Vanishing supermoms and other
Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology. American trends in marital dissolution, 1969–1978. Journal of Marriage
Psychologist, 45, 775–777. and the Family, 47, 53–65.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research Smith, T.W. (2006). Personality as risk and resilience in physical
(Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 227–231.
Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical re- Smith, T.W., & Gallo, L. (2001). Personality traits as risk factors for phys-
search. In L. Bicman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation: ical illness. In A. Baum, T. Evenson, & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook
Don Campbell’s legacy (pp. 121–139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. of health psychology (pp. 139–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (2003). Requivalent: A simple effect size Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The inter-
indicator. Psychological Methods, 8, 492–496. play of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The person and the situation: Per- interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.
spectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Steenland, K., Henley, J., & Thun, M. (2002). All-cause and cause-
Company. specific death rates by educational status for two million people
Rothbart, M.K., & Bates, J.E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon & R. in two American Cancer Society cohorts, 1959–1996. American
Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child Journal of Epidemiology, 156, 11–21.
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development St. John, P.D., Montgomery, P.R., Kristjansson, B., & McDowell, I.
(6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley. (2002). Cognitive scores, even with the normal range, predict
Rozanski, A., Blumenthal, J.A., & Kaplan, J. (1999). Impact of psy- death and institutionalization. Age and Ageing, 31, 373–378.
chological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the garden-variety
and implications for therapy. Circulation, 99, 2192–2217. neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and
Sapolsky, R.M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73, 1485–1509.
health. Science, 308, 648–652. Surtees, P.G., Wainwright, N.W.J., Luben, R., Day, N.E., & Khaw, K.
Sarason, I.G., Smith, R.E., & Diener, E. (1975). Personality research: (2005). Prospective cohort study of hostility and the risk of car-
Components of variance attributable to the person and the situ- diovascular disease mortality. International Journal of Cardiol-
ation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 199–204. ogy, 100, 155–161.
Saucier, G. (2003). An alternative multi-language structure for per- Surtees, P.G., Wainwright, N.W.J., Luben, R., Khaw, K., & Day, N.E.
sonality attributes. European Journal of Personality, 76, 179– (2003). Sense of coherence and mortality in men and women in
205. the EPIC-Norfolk United Kingdom prospective cohort study.
Schaie, K.W. (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158, 1202–1209.
American Psychologist, 49, 304–313. Taylor, M.D., Hart, C.L., Davey-Smith, G., Whalley, L.J., Hole, D.J.,
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking. Wilson, V., & Deary, I.J. (2005). Childhood IQ and marriage by
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. mid-life: The Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan
Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of se- studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1621–1630.
lection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoret- Tenconi, M.T., Devoti, G., Comelli, M., & RIFLE Research Group.
ical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological (2000). Role of socioeconomic indicators in the prediction of all
Bulletin, 124, 262–274. causes and coronary heart disease mortality in over 12,000
Schulz, R., Bookwala, J., Knapp, J.E., Scheier, M., & Williamson, G.M. men—The Italian RIFLE pooling project. European Journal of
(1996). Pessimism, age, and cancer mortality. Psychology and Epidemiology, 16, 565–571.
Aging, 11, 304–309. Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up? Do traits and informal social processes
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Crant, J.M. (2001). What do proactive predict advancing in management? Academy of Management
people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality Journal, 44, 1005–1017.
and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874. Tucker, J.S., Kressin, N.R., Spiro, A., & Ruscio, J. (1998). Intraper-
Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., & Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early sonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A prospective
occupational process. American Sociological Review, 34, 82–92. investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,
Sewell, W.H., & Hauser, R.M. (1980). The Wisconsin longitudinal 211–225.
study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and Tzeng, J.M., & Mare, R.D. (1995). Labor market and socioeconomic
achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Social- effects on marital stability. Social Science Research, 24, 329–351.
ization, 1, 59–101. Vagero, D., & Leon, D. (1994). Effect of social class in childhood and
Sewell, W.H., & Hauser, R.M. (1992). The influence of The American adulthood on adult mortality. Lancet, 343, 1224–1225.
Occupational Structure on the Wisconsin model. Contemporary Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of per-
Sociology, 21, 598–603. sonality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate

relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Wilson, R.S., Krueger, K.R., Gu, L., Bienas, J.L., Mendes de Leon,
Personality, 68, 413–449. C.F., & Evans, D.A. (2005). Neuroticism, extraversion, and
Weiss, A., & Costa, P.T. (2005). Domain and facet personality pre- mortality in a defined population of older persons. Psychosomatic
dictors of all-cause mortality among Medicare patients aged 65 to Medicine, 67, 841–845.
100. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 1–10. Wilson, R.S., Mendes de Leon, C.F., Bienias, J.L., Evans, D.A., &
Whalley, L.J., & Deary, I.J. (2001). Longitudinal cohort study of Bennett, D.A. (2004). Personality and mortality in old age.
childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. British Medical Journal, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59, 110–
322, 1–5. 116.
Wilson, R.S., Bienias, J.L., Mendes de Leon, C.F., Evans, D.A., & Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning
Bennet, D.A. (2003). Negative affect and mortality in older per- employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Manage-
sons. American Journal of Epidemiology, 9, 827–835. ment Review, 26, 179–201.

The Power of Personality The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits Socioeconomic Status and Cognitive Ability For Predicting Important Life Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Power of Personality The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits Socioeconomic Status and Cognitive Ability For Predicting Important Life Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Power of Personality The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits Socioeconomic Status and Cognitive Ability For Predicting Important Life Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P ERS PE CT IVE S ON PS YC HOLOGIC AL SC IENC E

The Power of Personality

Volume 2—Number 4 Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Science 313

314 Volume 2—Number 4

Volume 2—Number 4 315

316 Volume 2—Number 4

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

1999 the Seattle mortality p < .001 re 5 .10

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

322 Volume 2—Number 4

Study N Outcome Length of study Controls Predictors Outcome Est. ra

coronary arteries narrowed,

Different Positive Emotions HR 5 4.30 (1.70, rhr 5 .24

2004 Study alcohol, education, and Women’s HR 5 0.82, re 5 .02

Conscientiousness RR 5 0.968 (0.94, rrr 5 .07

Volume 2—Number 4 327

of marriages, race, cohort

Study N Outcome Time Controls Predictors Results Est. r

p < .01 re 5 .10

Volume 2—Number 4 333

Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

Note. SES 5 socioeconomic status.

334 Volume 2—Number 4

Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

Personality traits may also directly influence performance mo-

It is abundantly clear from this review that specific personality

traits predict important life outcomes, such as mortality, divorce,

come, people with specific personality characteristics are more

different in magnitude. In fact, as can be seen in Figures 1–3, in

gender, age, tenure,

many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that person-

The requirement that we only examine the incremental va-

lidity of personality measures after controlling for SES and

cognitive abilities, though clearly the most stringent test of the

relevance of personality traits, is also arbitrarily tough. In fact,

can obscure important relations (Meehl, 1971). For example,

effect on educational attainment. Students with higher cognitive

Note. SES 5 socioeconomic status; IHD 5 Institute of Human Development.

Fig. 1. Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic

Positive Emotion(E/PE), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on

336 Volume 2—Number 4

predicting consequential outcomes, such as mortality, and by

Volume 2—Number 4 337

338 Volume 2—Number 4

Volume 2—Number 4 339

340 Volume 2—Number 4

Volume 2—Number 4 341

342 Volume 2—Number 4

Volume 2—Number 4 343

344 Volume 2—Number 4

Volume 2—Number 4 345

You might also like