Cited by 145Personality Traits and PsychologyAging and Gerontology ResearchHealth disparities and outcomes

Longitudinal findings from the normative aging study: III. Personality, individual health trajectories, and mortality.

Aldwin, Carolyn M., Spiro, Avron, Levenson, Michael R., Cupertino, Ana Paula·2001·Psychology and Aging

Abstract

Individual differences in physical and psychological health trajectories were examined in 1,515 Normative Aging Study men. Mean age at baseline was 47.15 years (range = 28-80), and average follow up was 18.55 years (range = 8-25). Both linear and nonlinear growth curves were estimated with random-effects models and then clustered to identify patterns of change. Men whose physical health trajectories were characterized by high, increasing symptoms were higher in hostility and anxiety, were overweight, and smoked. Those whose trajectories were characterized by low symptoms were emotionally stable, educated, nonsmokers, and thin. Men with high, stable psychological trajectories had high hostility; those with low, stable trajectories had high emotional stability; those with moderate anxiety levels had nonlinear trajectories with peaks in psychological symptoms at different life stages. Personality had life-long effects on health trajectories, but these effects varied across traits and health outcomes.

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 · 10.1037/0882-7974.16.3.450

Cites

37 of 81 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aldwin, C. M., Spiro, A., Levenson, M. R., & Cupertino, A. P.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Published
2001
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
450-465
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
OpenAlex
W2147587866
Cited by
145
References
80
Citations by year
2025: 12 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (AG13006, R01AG013006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
health trajectories, personality, mortality, hostility, anxiety, emotional stability, somatic symptoms, psychological symptoms, smoking, overweight, older men, longitudinal change, nonlinear growth models
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Cornell Medical Index, Humans, Individuality, Longevity, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Personality Development, Reference Values, Risk Factors, Health Behavior, Geriatric Assessment

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