Cited by 359Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy?

Ebstrup, Jeanette Frost, Eplov, Lene Falgaard, Pisinger, Charlotta, Jørgensen, Torben·2011·Anxiety, Stress & Coping

Abstract

Ill-health resulting from chronic stress is influenced by personality traits leading to different ways of appraising and coping with life's daily hassles. Using a large population sample the study aimed to investigate possible associations between perceived stress and the personality dimensions of neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and to explore the role of general self-efficacy (GSE). A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted at the Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Denmark, in 2006-2008. Men and women (N=3471) aged 18-69, were randomly sampled in the suburbs of Copenhagen. We used the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale and the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Negative associations were found between perceived stress and extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness - the latter initially non-significant - whilst neuroticism had a positive association. The associations with agreeableness and openness became positive and significant, respectively, when GSE was included. All five personality-stress models were mediated by GSE, with extroversion and conscientiousness having the strongest mediating effect. The strongest stress-association was found for neuroticism. GSE was shown to change the impact and interpretation of the personality dimensions on perceived stress. These results indicate that GSE is an important factor to consider in the link between personality and perceived stress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10615806.2010.540012

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T.
Corresponding author
Ebstrup, Jeanette Frost
Venue
Anxiety, Stress & Coping
Published
2011-07
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
407-419
ISSN
  • 1061-5806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-2205
OpenAlex
W2127120252
Cited by
359
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anxiety Stress & Coping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
Big Five personality traits, perceived stress, general self-efficacy, neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, mediation, chronic stress
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Character, Cross-Sectional Studies, Denmark, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neurotic Disorders, Personality Inventory, Risk Factors, Stress, Psychological, Cohort Studies, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

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