Cited by 42Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningPersonality Traits and PsychologyHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Personality traits and preventive cancer screenings in the health retirement study

Open access
Aschwanden, Damaris, Gerend, Mary A., Luchetti, Martina, Stephan, Yannick, Sutin, Angelina R., Terracciano, Antonio·2019·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

The Five-Factor model of personality has been associated with a wide range of health behaviors and health outcomes. However, few studies have examined whether personality traits are related to cancer screening in older adults. The present study investigated the cross-sectional associations between personality traits and the probability of obtaining a recent preventive screening for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Participants from the Health and Retirement Study (N = 14,394, M age = 68.14 years, range = 50-102 years, 58.6% female) completed a personality inventory and reported on cancer screenings in the 2010-2012 assessment. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the data, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, income, and wealth as covariates. Higher conscientiousness was associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining breast, cervical, and prostate screening. Higher extraversion was related to higher odds of breast, cervical, and colorectal screening. Higher neuroticism was linked to higher odds of colorectal screening, and conscientiousness moderated the link between neuroticism and cervical screening. These associations were significant in models that accounted for demographic and socioeconomic factors. The effect sizes were in the range of a 10-20% higher likelihood of cancer screening for 1 SD difference in personality. The present findings suggest that conscientiousness and extraversion were related to preventive cancer screenings, whereas neuroticism, openness and agreeableness were largely unrelated to the likelihood of such screenings. If these results are further replicated, health policy makers may consider personality traits when planning and implementing screening recommendations to improve preventive medicine.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105763

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Conscientiousness has been found to be strongly related to a propensity to engage in many other health-related behaviors, such as healthy eating and cancer screening.

    “The personality trait of conscientiousness has also been found to be strongly related to a propensity to engage in many other health-related behaviors (Gerhards et al., 2011), such as healthy eating (Wilson et al., 2016), and cancer screening (Aschwanden et al., 2019).”

    From Predictors of acceptability and engagement in a self-guided online program for depression and anxiety (2021) · cites this paper as Aschwanden et al., 2019

    The Results and Discussion report that higher conscientiousness was associated with breast, cervical, and prostate cancer screening, supporting the cancer-screening example. But the paper found no association with colorectal screening, and its reported effect sizes—10% to 20% higher likelihood per standard-deviation difference in personality—do not clearly support calling the relationship “strong.” Healthy eating is attributed to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Holland WW, & Stewart S (2005). Screening in disease prevention: What works? Oxford, England: Radcliffe Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aschwanden, D., Gerend, M. A., Luchetti, M., Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Corresponding author
Aschwanden, Damaris
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
126
Pages
105763
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953447055
Cited by
42
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigiNole (Florida State University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
personality traits, Big Five personality traits, cancer screening, preventive health behavior, older adults, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, prostate cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, Health and Retirement Study
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Personality, Personality Inventory, Retirement, United States, Sex Distribution, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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