CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 424Smoking Behavior and CessationPersonality Traits and PsychologySubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Smoking and the Five‐Factor Model of personality

Open access
Terracciano, Antonio, Costa, Paul T.·2004·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00687.xPMC PMC2376761
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims Investigating the association between personality traits and smoking status using a comprehensive model of personality, the Five‐Factor Model (FFM). Design Cross‐sectional survey. Setting Baltimore, MD, USA. Participants Adult elderly Americans (n = 1638). Measurements A self‐administered survey on cigarette smoking and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R). Findings Current smokers scored higher than never smokers on neuroticism and lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness; former smokers scored intermediate on these higher‐order dimensions. Neuroticism was related to smoking particularly among individuals with low conscientiousness, as indicated by an interaction effect between the two factors. There were no differences on extraversion and openness to experience. At the lower‐order facet level, smokers were characterized by inability to resist cravings (high impulsiveness), search for stimulation (high excitement‐seeking), lack of perseverance (low self‐discipline) and lack of careful consideration of the consequences of their actions (low deliberation). Conclusions At the higher‐order factor level, this study replicates and extends previous studies using a comprehensive model of personality (FFM). The greater specificity provided by the facet‐level analysis appears to explain some of the conflicting results in the literature, and the use of an older sample provides insight especially into the former smokers group. Personality research may lead to a deeper understanding of cigarette smoking and can potentially contribute to policies and programs of smoking prevention and cessation.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a cross-sectional survey of 1,638 adult-elderly Americans, current smokers scored higher on Neuroticism and lower on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness than never-smokers, with former-smokers intermediate on these factors. Facet-level and interaction analyses showed that smoking was especially associated with high Impulsiveness, high Excitement-seeking, low Self-Discipline, low Deliberation, and a Neuroticism × Conscientiousness interaction.

Key findings

  • Current-smokers differed significantly from never-smokers on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but not on Extraversion or Openness; former-smokers were intermediate, with significant differences from both groups on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.
  • The largest higher-order effect was for Conscientiousness (η² = .035), followed by Neuroticism (η² = .021) and Agreeableness (η² = .011); the Conscientiousness difference between current- and never-smokers was larger than 0.5 SD, d = .6.
  • At the facet level, current-smokers scored higher on Neuroticism facets, especially Impulsiveness, and higher on Excitement-seeking; they scored lower on Conscientiousness facets, especially Self-Discipline and Deliberation, and lower on Agreeableness facets including Straightforwardness, Altruism, and Compliance.
  • A Neuroticism × Conscientiousness interaction contributed significantly to discrimination among smoking groups (Λ = .946, F(8, 3264) = 11.59, p < .001, η² = .054); the low-Conscientiousness/high-Neuroticism “under-controlled” group was about two times more likely to be current smokers than the low-Conscientiousness/low-Neuroticism “relaxed” group and three times more likely than high-Conscientiousness groups.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional survey of Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging participants (N = 1,638; age 20–96, M = 60.3, SD = 18), divided into never-smokers (n = 828), former-smokers (n = 694), and current-smokers (n = 116).
  • Smoking was assessed by self-administered survey; personality was assessed with the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), a 240-item self-report measure yielding five factors and 30 facets, standardized as T-scores (M = 50, SD = 10).
  • Main analyses used ANOVA with Bonferroni correction for 35 comparisons, ANCOVA controlling for age and education, sex-standardized T-scores, a sex- and age-matched design control, and hierarchical discriminant analysis entering the five factors followed by their two-way interactions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the BLSA is not a probability sample, participation is voluntary, and participants are mostly highly educated, high socioeconomic status, and relatively healthy; it also notes that historical and cross-cultural differences may shape smoking–personality associations and that continuous monitoring is needed.
  • The cross-sectional design cannot establish whether personality differences precede or follow smoking; the paper itself discusses that high Neuroticism could be a cause as well as an effect of smoking.
  • The current-smoker group was small (n = 116, 7.1% of the sample), and the sample was adult-elderly, which the authors note is less frequently studied and includes a large proportion of former smokers.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00687.x

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 43 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    There were no significant differences among smoking status groups on Extraversion or Openness to Experience.

    “There were no differences on Extraversion and Openness to Experience.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “there were significant differences among groups on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but no significant differences on Extraversion or Openness factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Current-smokers scored lower than never-smokers on Conscientiousness, with a difference larger than 0.5 SD (d = .6).

    “current-smokers compared to non-smokers scored significantly higher on Neuroticism and significantly lower on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, with the difference in Conscientiousness larger than 0.5 SD, d = .6.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “Current-smokers scored higher than never-smokers on Neuroticism and lower on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; former-smokers scored intermediate on these higher-order dimensions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Former-smokers scored significantly lower than never-smokers on Agreeableness.

    “Former-smokers also scored significantly lower than never-smokers in Agreeableness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Former-smokers scored intermediate on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

    “former-smokers scored intermediate on these higher-order dimensions.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on the above factors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Current-smokers scored lower than never-smokers on Agreeableness.

    “Current-smokers scored higher than never-smokers on Neuroticism and lower on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness; former-smokers scored intermediate on these higher-order dimensions.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “current-smokers compared to non-smokers scored significantly higher on Neuroticism and significantly lower on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Former-smokers differed significantly from both never- and current-smokers on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.

    “Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on the above factors, with significant differences from the other groups on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Current-smokers scored higher than other groups on all facets of Neuroticism, with the largest differences in Impulsiveness.

    “Current-smokers scored higher than the other groups on all facets of Neuroticism, with the largest differences in Impulsiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Individuals who smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime scored intermediate between never and former smokers on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but were not significantly different from never smokers.

    “Additional analyses indicated that individuals who smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime scored intermediate between never and former smokers on Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, but they were not significantly different from never smokers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Among Extraversion facets, there were significant differences only on Excitement Seeking, with current-smokers scoring higher than never-smokers.

    “Among the facets of Extraversion, there were significant differences only on Excitement Seeking, with current-smokers scoring higher then never-smokers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    In sex- and age-matched groups, there were significant differences on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but not on Extraversion and Openness.

    “In particular, there were significant differences on Neuroticism (p = .001), Agreeableness (p = .001), and Conscientiousness (p < .001), but not on Extraversion and Openness (p > .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    There were significant differences among groups on all facets of Conscientiousness, with smokers scoring clearly lower than non-smokers.

    “There were significant differences among groups on all facets of Conscientiousness, with smokers scoring clearly lower than non-smokers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

    “Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on these factors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    The largest differences among Neuroticism facets were in Impulsiveness.

    “with the largest differences in Impulsiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    US smokers today are likely to be different from the US smokers of a few decades ago, or current smokers in non-Western countries.

    “US smokers today are likely to be different from the US smokers of a few decades ago, or current smokers in non-Western countries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusions

    Smokers differed most reliably on Psychoticism (especially impulsivity, antisocial behavior, sensation seeking, and aggression) and Neuroticism.

    “Despite some inconsistency he concluded that smokers differed most reliably on Psychoticism (especially impulsivity, antisocial behavior, sensation seeking, and aggression) and Neuroticism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gilbert 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Method

    The BLSA is not a probability sample; participation is voluntary.

    “The BLSA is not a probability sample; participation is on a voluntary basis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusions

    The Five-Factor Model is a comprehensive yet manageable taxonomy of traits.

    “a growing consensus has supported the Five-Factor Model (FFM, see Digman 1990, Goldberg 1990, John 1990, McCrae & John 1992, McCrae 2001a, but see Block 1995) as a comprehensive yet manageable taxonomy of traits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Digman 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Goldberg 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites John 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Conclusions

    At the higher-order factor level, this study replicates and extends previous studies using a comprehensive model of personality (FFM).

    “At the higher-order factor level, this study replicates and extends previous studies using a comprehensive model of personality (FFM).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Personality traits increase the risk for cigarette smoking.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    The broad and heterogeneous nature of the dimensions studied may be another reason for inconsistency across studies.

    “Another possible reason for inconsistency across studies is the broad and heterogeneous nature of the dimensions studied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Neuroticism and Conscientiousness may play a role in both smoking initiation and maintenance/cessation.

    “suggesting that Neuroticism and Conscientiousness may play a role in both smoking initiation and maintenance/cessation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    Bonferroni correction was performed to evaluate the statistical significance of mean differences among the three groups.

    “In the major analysis reported in Table 1, Bonferroni correction was performed to evaluate the statistical significance of mean differences among the three groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusions

    Low Conscientiousness in children, but not Neuroticism or Extraversion, was a predictor of smoking in adulthood.

    “A remarkable 24-year follow-up study (Kubicka et al. 2001) showed that low Conscientiousness in children, but not Neuroticism or Extraversion, was a predictor of smoking in adulthood.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kubicka et al. 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusions

    Cultural factors and public policy influence greatly the prevalence of smoking in the population and in turn the characteristics of smokers.

    “Cultural factors and public policy influence greatly the prevalence of smoking in the population and in turn the characteristics of smokers (Hughes et al. 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hughes et al. 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusions

    Personality traits are enduring dispositions and major determinants of behavior.

    “Personality traits are enduring dispositions (McCrae & Costa 2003) and major determinants of behavior (Paunonen 2003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites McCrae & Costa 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Paunonen 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Method

    The NEO-PI-R scales have shown longitudinal stability, cross-observer agreement, and convergent and discriminant validity in a large body of studies.

    “NEO-PI-R scales have shown longitudinal stability, cross-observer agreement, and convergent and discriminant validity in a large body of studies (Costa & McCrae 1992).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Costa & McCrae 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Conclusions

    The use of an older sample provides insight especially into the former smokers group.

    “the use of an older sample provides insight especially into the former smokers group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusions

    The FFM traits are heritable and generalizable across cultures.

    “Those traits have been shown to be heritable (e.g. Jang et al. 1998) and generalizable across-cultures (McCrae & Costa 1997, Paunonen et al. 2000, McCrae 2001b, see also Triandis & Suh 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jang et al. 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McCrae & Costa 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Paunonen et al. 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    The assumption of homogeneity of variance for the ANOVA was tested using the Levene statistic; no large violations were found and robust statistics produced consistent results.

    “The assumption of homogeneity of variance for the ANOVA was tested using the Levene statistic. No large violations were found and robust statistics produced consistent results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    The inconsistency in the literature may derive from comparisons of studies that have used different instruments, different methods of classification of smoking status, or different populations sampled.

    “The inconsistency in the literature may derive also from comparisons of studies that have used different instruments, different methods of classification of smoking status, or different populations sampled.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The Pathways to Change System has efficacy evidenced by cessation rates of 22-26% in a general population.

    “Efficacy is evidenced by cessation rates of 22-26% in a general population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Velicer and Prochaska (1999)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Vollrath and Torgersen (2002) reported that the Impulsive and Insecure personality types, which are both characterized by low Conscientiousness and high Neuroticism, are more likely to be current-smokers.

    “Vollrath and Torgersen (2002) reported that the Impulsive and Insecure personality types, which are both characterized by low Conscientiousness and high Neuroticism, are more likely to be current-smokers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vollrath and Torgersen (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The association of smoking with Extraversion was found in the US population before 1970-1980, but not in the last two decades, whereas the association is still found in countries with a high prevalence of smokers, such as Japan.

    “Indeed, the association of smoking with Extraversion was found in the US population before 1970–1980 (Smith 1970), but not in the last two decades, whereas the association is still found in countries with a high prevalence of smokers, such as Japan (Arai et al. 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Smith 1970

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Arai et al. 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The prevalence of smoking is constantly changing, with different trends in different times and cultures.

    “As argued by Hughes et al. (1997), the prevalence of smoking is constantly changing, with different trends in different times and cultures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hughes et al. (1997)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Individuals with low scores on Agreeableness are antagonistic, hostile, and intolerant; they have lower needs for social approval and thus are more likely to start and continue smoking.

    “Individuals with low scores on Agreeableness are antagonistic, hostile, and intolerant; they have lower needs for social approval and thus are more likely to start and continue smoking in spite of the deleterious effect of smoking upon other people”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Rebelliousness, a trait closely related to low Agreeableness, contributes to the etiology of cigarette smoking.

    “Some studies suggest that rebelliousness, a trait closely related to low Agreeableness, contributes to the etiology of cigarette smoking (Stewart & Livson 1966).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stewart & Livson 1966

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    The findings are likely to generalize to the US adult population today.

    “Although the findings are likely to generalize to the US adult population today, historical and cross-cultural differences may shape the association of smoking status with personality traits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    Historical and cross-cultural differences may shape the association of smoking status with personality traits.

    “Although the findings are likely to generalize to the US adult population today, historical and cross-cultural differences may shape the association of smoking status with personality traits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Analyses on the present sample are highly consistent with Vollrath and Torgersen's findings and are somewhat consistent with Parkes' (1984) findings of an interaction between Neuroticism and Psychoticism but not with the finding of interaction between Neuroticism and Extraversion.

    “Analyses on the present sample are highly consistent with their findings and are somewhat consistent with the Parkes’ (1984) findings of an interaction between Neuroticism and Psychoticism but not with the finding of interaction between Neuroticism and Extraversion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Vollrath and Torgersen (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Parkes’ (1984)

      Not checked in the free run.

33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Personality traits increase the risk for cigarette smoking.

    “it is important to identify individual difference variables particularly personality traits that increase the risk for cigarette smoking.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The four impulsivity-related facets play a role in smoking initiation, maintenance, or cessation.

    “These facets likely play a role in smoking initiation, maintenance, or cessation, and only analyses at the facet level offer the opportunity to assess their importance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Five-Factor Model is a reasonably comprehensive taxonomy of personality traits.

    “There has been great progress in trait psychology in the past 20 years, with a general consensus on the FFM as a reasonably comprehensive taxonomy of personality traits.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Conscientiousness has rarely been considered in previous studies.

    “the personality dimension of Conscientiousness, which showed the largest association to smoking behavior in this study, has rarely been considered in previous studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Smokers are not a homogeneous group.

    “However, evidence that smokers are not a homogeneous group suggests that a diversity of treatment modalities is necessary.”
5 of 5

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(2) = 31, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 1634) = 36.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 1634) = 36.7, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 1582) = 6.9reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(2, 1582) = 6.9, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 1635) = 25.62reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 1635) = 25.62, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(4, 3268) = 17.67reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(4, 3268) = 17.67, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 3266) = 14.02reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6, 3266) = 14.02, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(8, 3264) = 11.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(8, 3264) = 11.59, p < .001”

7 of 7

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Some significant effect sizes fall below the stated "small" threshold

    Minor

    The paper defines η2 = .0099 as a small effect, but Table 1 reports η2 = .008 for the significant Openness to Values result. That value is below, rather than between, the stated small and medium thresholds.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Costa P. T., 1992, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R) and NEO Five‐Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI) Professional Manual.
  2. Costa P. T., 2000, NEO PI‐R Interpretive Report: NEO Software System.
  3. Eysenck H. J., 1964, Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Terracciano, Antonio
ORCID
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03-25
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
472-481
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00687.x
PMC
PMC2376761
OpenAlex
W2097167091
Cited by
422
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 22
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 AG999999)
  • National Institute on Aging (ZIAAG000197, ZIAAG000183)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
cigarette smoking, Big Five personality traits, personality traits, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, former smokers, personality facets, impulsivity, excitement seeking, self-control, deliberation, smoking cessation, smoking prevention, older adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analysis of Variance, Attitude to Health, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Neurotic Disorders, Personality Assessment, Personality Disorders, Risk-Taking, Smoking

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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