The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 43 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Smoking and the Five‐Factor Model of personality
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
34 Own result · 28 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 9 Own method · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainn = 1,638- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Former-smokers also scored significantly lower than never-smokers in Agreeableness.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“former-smokers scored intermediate on these higher-order dimensions.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on the above factors”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaincorrelationaln = 1,638- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with the exception of Self-Consciousness, all facets of Neuroticism showed significant differences among smoking status groups.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaincorrelationaln = 1,638- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neuroticism was related to smoking particularly among individuals with low Conscientiousness, as indicated by an interaction effect between the two factors.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Of all possible interaction terms, only Neuroticism × Conscientiousness contributed significantly to the discriminant function”
plaincorrelationaln = 1,638- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three of the five factors, Conscientiousness (Λ = .970, F(2, 1635) = 25.62, p < .001), Agreeableness (Λ = .958, F(4, 3268) = 17.67, p < .001), and Neuroticism (Λ = .950, F(6, 3266) = 14.02, p < .001) were found to contribute significantly to the discriminant function.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of all possible interaction terms, only Neuroticism × Conscientiousness contributed significantly to the discriminant function (Λ = .946, F(8, 3264) = 11.59, p < .001, η2 = 1 − Λ = .054).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on the above factors, with significant differences from the other groups on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current-smokers scored higher than the other groups on all facets of Neuroticism, with the largest differences in Impulsiveness.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the facets of Extraversion, there were significant differences only on Excitement Seeking, with current-smokers scoring higher then never-smokers.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plainn = 116- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were significant differences among groups on all facets of Conscientiousness, with smokers scoring clearly lower than non-smokers.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Former-smokers showed intermediate scores on these factors”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with the largest differences in Impulsiveness.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“US smokers today are likely to be different from the US smokers of a few decades ago, or current smokers in non-Western countries.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite some inconsistency he concluded that smokers differed most reliably on Psychoticism (especially impulsivity, antisocial behavior, sensation seeking, and aggression) and Neuroticism.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilbert 1995
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The BLSA is not a probability sample; participation is on a voluntary basis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Digman 1990
- Not checked yetcites Goldberg 1990
- Not checked yetcites John 1990
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the higher-order factor level, this study replicates and extends previous studies using a comprehensive model of personality (FFM).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Personality traits increase the risk for cigarette smoking.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another possible reason for inconsistency across studies is the broad and heterogeneous nature of the dimensions studied.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that Neuroticism and Conscientiousness may play a role in both smoking initiation and maintenance/cessation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the major analysis reported in Table 1, Bonferroni correction was performed to evaluate the statistical significance of mean differences among the three groups.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kubicka et al. 2001
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hughes et al. 1997
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Personality traits are enduring dispositions (McCrae & Costa 2003) and major determinants of behavior (Paunonen 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McCrae & Costa 2003
- Not checked yetcites Paunonen 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Costa & McCrae 1992
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the use of an older sample provides insight especially into the former smokers group.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jang et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites McCrae & Costa 1997
- Not checked yetcites Paunonen et al. 2000
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Efficacy is evidenced by cessation rates of 22-26% in a general population.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Velicer and Prochaska (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vollrath and Torgersen (2002)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith 1970
- Not checked yetcites Arai et al. 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As argued by Hughes et al. (1997), the prevalence of smoking is constantly changing, with different trends in different times and cultures.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hughes et al. (1997)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some studies suggest that rebelliousness, a trait closely related to low Agreeableness, contributes to the etiology of cigarette smoking (Stewart & Livson 1966).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stewart & Livson 1966
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vollrath and Torgersen (2002)
- Not checked yetcites Parkes’ (1984)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“With respect to health behaviors, elevated has been linked to weight gain and obesity [84, 109] and smoking [110], general etiologic factors in foreshortened longevity.”
From Personality and Longevity: Knowns, Unknowns, and Implications for Public Health and Personalized Medicine (2011) · cites this paper as [110]
In the citing paper
“Given that conscientiousness has been positively associated with habitual physical activity [83] and negatively associated with body mass index [84] and current tobacco use [85], it could be argued that personality characteristics are an integral part of explaining the variance in chronotype and positive health behaviors.”
From Smoking, screen-based sedentary behavior, and diet associated with habitual sleep duration and chronotype: data from the UK Biobank (2016) · cites this paper as [85]
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”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results
“The η2 values are between small and medium effect size (Cohen 1988), which are consistent with previous studies.”
§ Conclusions
“O6: Values 49.85 a (10.8) 50.59 a (9.5) 53.57 b (10.3) 6.93 * .008”
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
Personality Structure: Emergence Of The 5-Factor Model
Digman, J. M. (1990) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 · Cited by 6,731
An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216 · Cited by 6,652
The World Health Report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life
Available, N. A. N. (2003) · Education for Health · doi:10.1080/1357628031000116808 · Cited by 6,078
Personality trait structure as a human universal.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.5.509 · Cited by 4,234
Self-citationWhiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00064-7 · Cited by 4,123
Handbook of personality theory and research
Wilson, G. (1991) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90043-b · Cited by 3,562
The Self-Medication Hypothesis of Substance Use Disorders: A Reconsideration and Recent Applications
Khantzian, E. J. (1997) · Harvard Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/10673229709030550 · Cited by 3,242 · cited 1×
“The high score on neuroticism is also consistent with the view that some individuals use © 2004 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 99, 472–481 478 Antonio Terracciano & Paul T. Costa, Jr cigarette smoking as self-medication (Khantzian 1997).”
Result
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Costa P. T., 1992, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R) and NEO Five‐Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI) Professional Manual.
- Costa P. T., 2000, NEO PI‐R Interpretive Report: NEO Software System.
- Eysenck H. J., 1964, Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 423
Personality Predictors of IT Addiction
Vaghefi, I., & Qahri‐Saremi, H. (2018) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.657 · Cited by 21
“Additional comparable studies [36, 48] suggest that individuals with certain personality traits may have more predisposition toward developing an addiction.”
BackgroundRelationship between personality factors and frailty. A systematic review
Hajek, A., Kretzler, B., & König, H. (2021) · Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2021.104508 · Cited by 17
Chen, J., Luo, M., Gan, L., Li, H., Liu, S. J., Ren, N., Zhou, Y., Yang, J., Zhou, H., Yin, X., et al. (2024) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-05654-x · Cited by 19
“Additionally, lower levels of dutifulness have been found to predict smoking initiation in adulthood [5, 41, 52].”
BackgroundBreastfeeding and Adult Personality
Sutin, A. R., Stéphan, Y., & Terracciano, A. (2016) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2030 · Cited by 17
Self-citationEőry, A., Rózsa, S., Gonda, X., Döme, P., Torzsa, P., Simavorian, T., Fountoulakis, K. Ν., Pompili, M., Serafini, G., Akiskal, K. K., et al. (2014) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.036 · Cited by 17
“, 2009) and current smoker (Terracciano and Costa, 2004) status in adulthood and was found to be a predictor of nicotine dependence after a 2.”
BackgroundPersonality predictors of the time course for lung cancer onset
Augustine, A. A., Larsen, R. J., Walker, M. S., & Fisher, E. B. (2008) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.006 · Cited by 17
“Neurotics (vs. emotionally stable) are more likely to engage in lifestyle activities that lead to cancer, including smoking (van Loon, Tijhuis, Surtees, & Ormel, 2001; Terracciano & Costa, 2004; Munafo, Zetteler, & Clark, 2007).”
BackgroundDo personality traits moderate the manifestation of type 2 diabetes genetic risk?
Čukić, I., Mõttus, R., Luciano, M., Starr, J. M., Weiß, A., & Deary, I. J. (2015) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.07.003 · Cited by 18
“On the other hand, lower agreeablenessmay lead to higher expression of T2D genetic risk via its associationswith health harming behaviours [44] and overall unhealthy lifestyle factors [28,48].”
BackgroundPerea-Baena, J. M., Compán, S. O., & Ortiz‐Tallo, M. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 16
Are personality traits associated with smoking and alcohol use prior to and during pregnancy?
Leszko, M., Keenan‐Devlin, L. S., Adam, E. K., Buß, C., Grobman, W. A., Simhan, H. N., Wadhwa, P. D., Mroczek, D. K., & Borders, A. E. B. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232668 · Cited by 16
“A substantial body of literature suggests that personality traits, which comprise individual variation in behavioral tendencies, are potentially useful as predictors and may guide efficient intervention [20, 21].”
BackgroundResultMen smoke less under the COVID-19 closure policies: The role of altruism
Cai, W., & Zhou, Y. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115159 · Cited by 16
Klabbers, G., Bosma, H., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Benzeval, M., van den Akker, M., & van Eijk, J. T. M. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-013-9493-x · Cited by 16
“The combination of high neuroticism and low conscientiousness was particularly damaging for mental health (Weiss et al., 2009) and risky lifestyles (Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
BackgroundTolea, M. I., Ferrucci, L., Costa, P. T., Faulkner, K. A., Rosano, C., Satterfield, S., Ayonayon, H. N., Simonsick, E. M., & for the Health, A. (2012) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs001 · Cited by 17
Self-citationMcCann, S. J. H. (2014) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244014538268 · Cited by 18
“…Brummett et al., 2006; B. P. Chapman, Fiscella, Duberstein, Coletta, & Kawachi, 2009; McCann, 2011), smoking (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1981; McCann, 2010; Terracciano & Costa, 2004), and drinking (e.g., Kuntsche, von Fischer, & Gmel, 2008; Ruiz, Pincus, & Dickinson, 2003; Rush, Becker, & Curry, 2009).”
Personality, Internet Addiction, and Other Technological Addictions
Hussain, Z., & Pontes, H. M. (2019) · Advances in psychology, mental health, and behavioral studies (APMHBS) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8449-0.ch003 · Cited by 15
Do Personality Traits Moderate the Impact of Care Receipt on End-of-Life Care Planning?
Ha, J., & Pai, M. (2012) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gns044 · Cited by 15
Hassoy, H., Ergin, I., Davas, A., et al. (2011) · Solunum · doi:10.5505/solunum.2011.50490 · Cited by 15
Beyond the Big Five: the role of extrinsic life aspirations in compulsive buying
López, X. M. O., Pol, E. V., & Bolaño, C. C. (2017) · Psicothema · doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.392 · Cited by 15
“…and agreeableness as being especially prone to the development of different behavioral risk patterns like tobacco consumption (e.g., Terracciano & Costa, 2004), Internet addiction (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2013), and particularly to the compulsive buying phenomenon (e.g.,…”
BackgroundRomm, K. F., Cohn, A. M., Wang, Y., & Berg, C. J. (2023) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107658 · Cited by 14
Six aspects of openness to experience
Nekljudova, S. V. (2019) · Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.15406/jpcpy.2019.10.00632 · Cited by 13
Personality, Internet Addiction, and Other Technological Addictions
Hussain, Z., & Pontes, H. M. (2017) · Advances in human and social aspects of technology book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3477-8.ch003 · Cited by 14
Neuroticism predicts informant reported cognitive problems through health behaviors
Best, R. D., Cruitt, P. J., Oltmanns, T. F., & Hill, P. L. (2020) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2020.1839857 · Cited by 16
“However, neuroticism still predicts smoking behavior (Terracciano & Costa, 2004) and poorer, riskier decisionmaking (Denburg et al., 2009) among older adults.”
BackgroundGender differences in personality patterns and smoking status after a smoking cessation treatment
Piñeiro, B., López‐Durán, A., del Río, E. F., Martínez, Ú., & Becoña, E. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-306 · Cited by 14
“A part of such research has concentrated on describing which personality traits are most frequently found in smokers [1-3].”
BackgroundČukić, I., Mõttus, R., Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2016) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.052 · Cited by 14
Yao, Y., Xu, Y., Zhao, J., Ma, Y., Su, K., Yuan, W., Ma, J. Z., Payne, T. J., & Li, M. D. (2018) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00199 · Cited by 14
Psychosocial predictors of longitudinal changes in tobacco and cannabis use among young adults
Romm, K. F., Wang, Y., Duan, Z., Bennett, B., Fuss, C., Ma, Y., Blank, M. D., Bray, B. C., Ahluwalia, J. S., & Berg, C. J. (2022) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107264 · Cited by 13
Nelson, C. L. (2023) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112140 · Cited by 13
Asthma and its relation to smoking behavior and cessation motives among adult daily smokers
Avallone, K. M., McLeish, A. C., Zvolensky, M. J., Kraemer, K. M., Luberto, C. M., & Jeffries, E. R. (2012) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105312456322 · Cited by 14
Zammit, A. R., Starr, J. M., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2014) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-53 · Cited by 15
“Their significance in overall wellbeing has been documented in previous research [49,101-104] and further strengthened in this study.”
ResultSong, H., & Fish, M. (2005) · The Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/j.1748-0361.2006.00011.x · Cited by 13
Tamošiūnas, A., Rėklaitienė, R., Radišauskas, R., et al. (2005) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1080/14034940510005707 · Cited by 13
Predicting tooth loss in older age: Interplay between personality and socioeconomic status.
Mõttus, R., Starr, J. M., & Deary, I. J. (2012) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0027357 · Cited by 13
What Do We Know When We Know a Compulsive Buying Person? Looking at Now and Ahead
López, X. M. O. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191811232 · Cited by 12
“Previous studies conducted in neighboring fields such as tobacco consumption [61] or binge eating and drinking [62] support this line of work.”
ResultFacets of the NEO-PI-R and smoking cessation
del Río, E. D., López-Durán, A., Rodríguez-Cano, R., Martínez, Ú., Martínez-Vispo, C., & Becoña, E. (2015) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.030 · Cited by 9
Feizi, A., Keshteli, A. H., Nouri, F., Roohafza, H., & Adibi, P. (2014) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 12
Berry, J. W., & Schwebel, D. C. (2009) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00586.x · Cited by 12
Infant SES as a Predictor of Personality—Is the Association Mediated by Intelligence?
Flensborg‐Madsen, T., & Mortensen, E. L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103846 · Cited by 14
Iwasa, H., & Yoshida, Y. (2018) · PubMed · doi:10.11236/jph.65.7_356 · Cited by 12
Assessing Sensitive Consumer Behavior Using the Item Count Response Technique
de Jong, M. G., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2019) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/0022243718821312 · Cited by 11
“In line with previous findings (Terracciano and Costa 2004), pregnant women with more selfdiscipline are less likely to smoke.”
ResultMenti, E., Lekka, N. P., Assimakopoulos, K., Varvarigou, A. A., Beratis, N. G., & Beratis, S. (2007) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.06.001 · Cited by 12
CHRNA5 and CHRNA3 Variants and Level of Neuroticism in Young Adult Mexican American Men and Women
Criado, J. R., Gizer, I. R., Edenberg, H. J., & Ehlers, C. L. (2014) · Twin Research and Human Genetics · doi:10.1017/thg.2014.11 · Cited by 12
Personality and Substance Use in Mexicans and Mexican-Americans
Mercado, A., Rogers, D. L., Rodríguez, C. C., Villarreal, D., Terracciano, A., & Nguyen-Finn, K. L. (2016) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-016-9639-5 · Cited by 11
Self-citationPandhi, N., Schumacher, J. R., Thorpe, C. T., & Smith, M. A. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009738 · Cited by 13
Ozga‐Hess, J. E., Romm, K. F., Felicione, N. J., Dino, G., Blank, M. D., & Turiano, N. A. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110076 · Cited by 11
Albers, N., Neerincx, M. A., Penfornis, K. M., & Brinkman, W. (2022) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.13824 · Cited by 16
“This is in line with previous work, which found primarily small effects of personality on physical activity ( Rhodes & Smith, 2006 ; Rhodes & Boudreau, 2017 ) and smoking behaviors ( Terracciano & Costa, 2004 ; Munafo, Zetteler & Clark, 2007 ).”
Re-examining the Parkinsonian Personality hypothesis: A systematic review
Cerasa, A. (2018) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.045 · Cited by 12
Sexual addiction, self-esteem and personality dimensions
Amamou, B., Missaoui, C., Haouala, A. B., Mhalla, A., Zaafrane, F., & Gaha, L. (2020) · Journal of Addiction Therapy and Research · doi:10.29328/journal.jatr.1001011 · Cited by 10
Towards an Integrated Concept of Personality in Human and Nonhuman Animals
Delval, I., Fernández‐Bolaños, M., & Izar, P. (2023) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-023-09759-y · Cited by 14
“Today, some evidence that personality traits may moderate important health outcomes (e.g., cancer, heart disease, smoking) has been found (Booth ‐ Kewley & Vickers, 1994; Eysenck, 1985; T. W. Smith, 2006; Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
Shakeri, M., Jafarirad, S., Amani, R., Cheraghian, B., & Najafian, M. (2020) · Nutrition Journal · doi:10.1186/s12937-020-00584-2 · Cited by 15
“It is often assumed that the relationships between personality traits and well-being are due to some health-related behaviors such as dietary habits and various other unhealthy behaviors [2, 6, 7], for example, smoking [8], alcohol consumption [9], drug abuse [10], lack of physical exercise [11], and a number of other…”
BackgroundKang, W., & Malvaso, A. (2023) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111423 · Cited by 11
Schlyter, M., Leósdóttir, M., Engström, G., André-Petersson, L., Tydén, P., & Östman, M. (2015) · International Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12529-015-9514-y · Cited by 11
Whitfield, K. E., Jonassaint, C. R., Brandon, D. T., Stanton, M., Sims, R. C., Bennett, G. G., Salva, J., & Edwards, C. L. (2010) · Journal of the National Medical Association · doi:10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30496-x · Cited by 10
Discriminability of personality profiles in isolated and Co-morbid marijuana and nicotine users
Ketcherside, A., Jeon‐Slaughter, H., Baine, J., & Filbey, F. M. (2016) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.02.024 · Cited by 9
Inguscio, B. M. S., Cartocci, G., Modica, E., Rossi, D., Martinez-Levy, A. C., Cherubino, P., Tamborra, L., & Babiloni, F. (2021) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.06.010 · Cited by 12
Kekäläinen, T., Karvonen, J., Törmäkangas, T., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2022) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2022.2041639 · Cited by 10
“Consistent with the literature based on studies with larger sample sizes (Cheng & Furnham, 2016; Malouff et al., 2006; Terracciano & Costa, 2004), conscientiousness correlated negatively with smoking.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPérez, E. J. P. (2007) · Trastornos Adictivos · doi:10.1016/s1575-0973(07)75637-4 · Cited by 10
Occasional Smoking and Body Weight among Adults
Kasteridis, P., & Yen, S. T. (2014) · Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy · doi:10.1093/aepp/ppu008 · Cited by 10
Personality Traits and their Impacts on the Mental Health of Battered Women
Amini, L., Heidary, M., & Daneshparvar, H. (2015) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 10
Weidler, C., Gramegna, C., Müller, D., Schrickel, M., & Habel, U. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-57510-3 · Cited by 9
Zayats, T., Yang, B., Xie, P., Poling, J. C., Farrer, L. A., & Gelernter, J. E. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049368 · Cited by 11
Losee, J. E., Smith, C. T., & Webster, G. D. (2020) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167220969021 · Cited by 10
“For example, high neuroticism is associated with increased risk-taking (Merritt & Tharp, 2013; Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
BackgroundHalberstadt, A. L., Skrzynski, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., & Creswell, K. G. (2021) · Personality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment · doi:10.1037/per0000487 · Cited by 9
PERSONALITY, DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS AND SMOKING STATUS AMONG TURKISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Yazıcı, H. (2008) · Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal · doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.6.799 · Cited by 9
Berlin, N., Goldzahl, L., Jusot, F., & Berlin, I. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011669 · Cited by 10
“ciated with motivation to quit and the number of quit attempts of 24 hours during the past year.(63) Financial incentives may be especially efficient among”
BackgroundDoes low alcohol use increase the risk of sickness absence? A discordant twin study
Østby, K. A., Czajkowski, N. O., Knudsen, G. P., Ystrøm, E., Gjerde, L. C., Kendler, K. S., Ørstavik, R., & Reichborn‐Kjennerud, T. (2016) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3502-2 · Cited by 9
Holma, K. M., Holma, I. A. K., Ketokivi, M. A., Oquendo, M. A., & Isometsä, E. T. (2018) · Archives of Suicide Research · doi:10.1080/13811118.2018.1480986 · Cited by 9
“…& Meyerhoff, 2007), other comorbid factors, or personality traits, comprising neuroticism or extraversion, hostility, alienation, aggression, novelty seeking, or lower agreeableness, conscientiousness, self-discipline, and constraint (Munafo, Zetteler, & Clark, 2007; Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
Sun, X., Tang, S., Miyawaki, C. E., Li, Y., Hou, T., & Liu, M. (2022) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-022-02771-8 · Cited by 9
The Big Five personality traits and adherence to breast cancer early detection and prevention
Bahat, E. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110574 · Cited by 8
How different are smokers? An analysis based on personal finances
Adams, S., Niloy Bose, A., & Rustichini, A. (2014) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.08.003 · Cited by 12
Behaviour Analysis Voting Model Using Social Media Data
Sameh, D., Khoriba, G. A., & Haggag, M. H. (2019) · International journal of intelligent engineering and systems · doi:10.22266/ijies2019.0430.21 · Cited by 8
“Five Factor Model is a widely researched model that uses the following personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism [14-19].”
BackgroundRisk Competence in Dealing With Alcohol and Other Drugs in Adolescence
Nagy, E., Verres, R., & Grevenstein, D. (2017) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1080/10826084.2017.1318149 · Cited by 7
“Neuroticism has been associated with use of tobacco (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Rooke, & Schutte, 2007; Terracciano & Costa, 2004) and alcohol (Malouff et al., 2007).”
BackgroundTemperament traits and remission of depression: A naturalistic six-month longitudinal study
Gurpegui, D., Ortuño, F., & Gurpegui, M. (2018) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.09.041 · Cited by 8
Shen, Y. Y., Ramzi, N. H., & Gopinath, D. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19127000 · Cited by 8
“One study found that smokers had higher Neuroticism, lower Agreeableness, and lower Conscientiousness compared with non-smokers, while Openness and Extraversion did not show any significant differences [16].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPersonality Segmentation for Optimal Health Care: A Review and Proposed Segmentation Approach
Kim, J., Jasper, A., Baek, Y., & Martin, P. (2023) · Psychological Studies · doi:10.1007/s12646-023-00749-z · Cited by 8
“Terracciano and Costa (2004) in a study on smoking reported that current smokers have high scores on neuroticism and low scores on agreeableness and conscientiousness compared to non-smokers.”
BackgroundPersonality traits, self-efficacy for exercise, and exercise levels in older Japanese adults
Yasunaga, A., & Yaguchi, K. (2014) · The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.11560/jahp.27.1_1 · Cited by 5
Duko, B., Pereira, G. F., Betts, K. S., Tait, R. J., Newnham, J. P., & Alati, R. (2021) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106871 · Cited by 7
Özsoy, E., Griffiths, M. D., Karaçay, G. T., Onay, Ö. A., Yılmaz, C., & Balaban, Ö. (2025) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00049530.2025.2486774 · Cited by 7
“Moreover, both work addiction (Andreassen et al., 2014; Rachubińska et al., 2023) and nicotine addiction (Hakulinen et al., 2015; Kahler et al., 2009; Munafo et al., 2007; Terracciano & Costa, 2004) have been reported to show significant positive associations with neuroticism.”
Understanding the Psychology of Smartphone Usage: the Adult Pacifier Hypothesis
Melumad, S., & Pham, M. T. (2017) · ACR North American Advances · Cited by 6
How Neuroticism Affects Responses to Anti-Smoking Messages
Bates, C. E., Monahan, J. L., & Rhodes, N. D. (2011) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.611237 · Cited by 6
“As one example, Terracciano and Costa (2004) found smokers scored higher on the personality factor of neuroticism than non-smokers.”
BackgroundZvolensky, M. J., Shepherd, J. M., Garey, L., Case, K. R., & Gallagher, M. W. (2020) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106396 · Cited by 6
Variance of Maternal-Fetal Attachment in Pregnant Women Based on Personality Traits
Zolfaghari, M., Naseri, A. R., Khosravi, S., & Fatemi, M. (2019) · Thrita · doi:10.5812/thrita.12657 · Cited by 7
“As there are significant relationships between mental health and personality traits (16, 17).”
BackgroundWeiß, A., Costa, P. T., Deary, I. J., Garside, D. B., & Stamler, J. (2019) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000421 · Cited by 7
“590 Cynicism may be associated with cancer death because people who are lower in 591 agreeableness smoke more (Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPersonality trait and associate factors among smokers: systematic review and meta-analysis
Yee, A. H. A., Yuen, S. L. Y., Wee, M. C., Gan, C. K., Mohan, S. M., & Mahadhir, M. A. H. B. (2022) · Journal of Substance Use · doi:10.1080/14659891.2022.2120426 · Cited by 5
“Our findings matched with Terracciano and Costa (2004) and Choi et al. (2017), smokers are more likely to have neuro-ticism (95% CI = 37.5–89.8), extraversion (95% CI = 0–64.1) and agreeableness (95%CI = 0.04–0.14) personality trait.”
ResultInfluentialWeiß, A., Michelle Luciano, A., & Aluja, A. (2024) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2024.2307885 · Cited by 5
“For example, neuroticism is related to greater health-related vigilance (Costa & McCrae, 1987; Weston & Jackson, 2018), which could lead to better health, and behaviors, such as cigarette smoking (Terracciano & Costa, 2004), which lead to poorer health.”
Personality and Everyday Functioning in Older Adults With and Without HIV
Damian, R. I., Serrano, S., Matchanova, A., Morgan, E. E., & Woods, S. P. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings · doi:10.1007/s10880-021-09783-3 · Cited by 5
“…tend to suffer (Watson et al., 2000), they tend to have poorer work performance (Barrick et al., 2001), lower well-being (Headey et al., 2010), and they will often make poorer health choices, such as emotional eating, smoking, or drinking (Walker et al., 2015; Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
BackgroundDurosini, I., Masiero, M. A., Casini, C., & Pravettoni, G. (2022) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol29120742 · Cited by 5
“These aspects suggest that personality traits, such as the combination of neuroticism and conscientiousness, may play a role in smoking behaviors, improving the risk of cigarette smoking initiation and the maintenance/cessation of this unhealthy behavior [13].”
BackgroundAssociation of personality facets and cognition in the Lifelines population-based cohort study
Marcolini, S., Frentz, I., Terracciano, A., & Deyn, P. P. D. (2023) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.10.034 · Cited by 5
Self-citationGeopersonality of Preventable Death in the United States: Anger-Prone States and Opioid Deaths
Gerhart, J. I., Duberstein, P. R., Paull, D., O’Mahony, S., Burns, J. W., DeNicolo, M., & Hoerger, M. P. (2020) · American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · doi:10.1177/1049909120902808 · Cited by 5
“Similarly, individuals with higher levels of anger proneness are more likely to engage in health risk behaviors such as alcohol use and smoking.(10,33,34) In laboratory tasks, individuals prone to excessive anger expression demonstrate altered endogenous opioid function and may require higher levels of exogenous opioi…”
BackgroundKhodabakhshi, M., Mirdrikvand, F., Abdollahi, M., & Mirshoja, M. S. (2016) · Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences · doi:10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4s1p83 · Cited by 5
Personality and Its Relationship with Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders
Ahmadi, O., Rasoulzadeh, Y., Abbaspour, A., Damanab, P. S., Rahimzadeh, M., Keshizadeh, F., & Dalili, S. (2016) · Jentashapir Journal of Health Research · doi:10.17795/jjhr-37936 · Cited by 5
Relationship between Extraversion and Tobacco Smoking Among High School Students
Pashapour, H., Musavi, S., Dadashzadeh, H., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_177_19 · Cited by 5
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Score as a Predictor of Addiction Potential in Youth
Nikmanesh, Z., Adrom, M., & Bakhshani, N. (2012) · international journal high risk behaviors & addiction · doi:10.5812/ijhrba.4194 · Cited by 5
Nicotine Dependence and Smoking Behaviour : A genetic and epidemiological study
Broms, U. (2008) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 5
Losee, J. E., Smith, C. I., & Webster, G. D. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/btwsx · Cited by 5
Czajkowski, N. O., Kendler, K. S., Torvik, F. A., Ystrøm, E., Rosenström, T. H., Gillespie, N. A., & Reichborn‐Kjennerud, T. (2020) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000429 · Cited by 4
Sutin, A. R., Gamaldo, A. A., Terracciano, A., Evans, M. K., & Zonderman, A. B. (2023) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104449 · Cited by 4
Self-citationRondina, R. D. C., Gorayeb, R., Botelho, C., & da Silva, A. M. C. (2005) · Revista de Psiquiatria do Rio Grande do Sul · doi:10.1590/s0101-81082005000200004 · Cited by 13
Radwan, G. N., Loffredo, C. A., Abdelaziz, H. T., & Amr, S. (2014) · Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · doi:10.1097/01.epx.0000444060.91661.6f · Cited by 4
Villarreal-Mata, J. L., Oliva, E. I. P. N., Muñoz-Maldonado, G. E., Puente, L. A. R., & Pacheco-Pérez, L. A. (2020) · Investigación en Enfermería Imagen y Desarrollo · doi:10.11144/javeriana.ie22.hier · Cited by 7
Lone, A., & Albotuaiba, A. O. (2023) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s416828 · Cited by 4
Schiep, S., & Cieślik, K. (2011) · Polish Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.2478/v10059-011-0022-x · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Terracciano, Antonio
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-03-25
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 472-481
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
