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 301–400 of 423
Meyer, J. M., & Percheski, C. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182628 · Cited by 4
Do Cigarette Smokers Have Different Personality Patterns than Non-Smokers?
Becoña, E., del Río, E. F., López‐Durán, A., Martínez, Ú., Piñeiro, B., Míguez, M. C., & Vázquez, I. (2013) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2013.101 · Cited by 4
Risk influences for smoking among the youth in Southern Nigeria.
Egbe, C. O. (2013) · Cited by 4
Population modeling with machine learning can enhance measures of mental healthPreprint
Dadi, K., Varoquaux, G. P., Houenou, J., Bzdok, D., Thirion, B., & Engemann, D. A. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.08.25.266536 · Cited by 7
Integrating variable centered and person centered approaches for personality and nicotine use
Lim, A. Y., & Yoon, W. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-90042-y · Cited by 3
Big Five personality traits and voting: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and mega-analysis
Stahlmann, A. G., Hopwood, C. J., Orth, U., Smillie, L. D., & Bleidorn, W. (2025) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1177/08902070251383955 · Cited by 3
“…unhealthy habits (e.g., smoking and excessive alcohol consumption), chronic physical conditions, mental health issues, and higher mortality rates (Bleidorn, Stahlmann, & Hopwood, 2025; Charles et al., 2008; Jokela et al., 2014; Kotov et al., 2010; Malouff et al., 2007; Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
Park, C. S., Choi, J., Kwak, S., Lee, S., Kim, H., Kim, Y.-J., Kwak, S. H., & Park, J. (2024) · BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care · doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004244 · Cited by 7
Meißner, J., Frahm, N., Hecker, M., Langhorst, S. E., Mashhadiakbar, P., Streckenbach, B., Burian, K., Baldt, J., Heidler, F., Richter, J., et al. (2024) · Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders · doi:10.1177/17562864241279118 · Cited by 5
“Our data therefore suggest that the results of previous studies on smoking and personality traits in the general population also apply to the group of patients with MS. 65,66 The neuroticism dimension describes how a person deals with negative emotions.”
On the Opportunities and Risks of Examining the Genetics of Entrepreneurship
Heller, B., Erlich, Y., Kariv, D., & Maaravi, Y. (2022) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes13122208 · Cited by 3
Five-factor model of personality and Parkinson’s Disease: a systematic review
Arten, T. L. D. S., & Hamdan, A. C. (2023) · Geriatrics Gerontology and Aging · doi:10.53886/gga.e0230022 · Cited by 3
Personality, educational and social class predictors of adult tobacco usage
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. F. (2021) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111085 · Cited by 3
Heyman, G. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.729774 · Cited by 3
Perceived Sex Discrimination Amplifies the Effect of Antagonism on Cigarette Smoking
Sutin, A. R., English, D. R., Evans, M. K., & Zonderman, A. B. (2014) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt222 · Cited by 3
Edmonds, G. W. (2011) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · Cited by 3
Investigating the association between neuroticism and adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes
Axfors, C., Eckerdal, P., Volgsten, H., Wikström, A., Ekselius, L., Ramklint, M., Poromaa, I. S., & Skalkidou, A. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51861-y · Cited by 4
Hanel, P. H. P., da Silva, S. M. G., & Inman, R. A. (2021) · Cross-Cultural Research · doi:10.1177/10693971211062130 · Cited by 4
Conroy, D., Smith, D. M., & Armitage, C. J. (2022) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2021.2012574 · Cited by 4
Iwasa, H., Inagaki, H., Masui, Y., & Gondo, Y. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19042413 · Cited by 3
“Highly conscientious individuals tend to have the advantage of being more committed to health-related behaviors such as cigarette avoidance [26], drinking moderately [27], regular physical fitness [28], and faithful compliance with medical advice [9,17], all of which can reduce the risk of mortality.”
BackgroundPrevalence and predictors of tobacco use among Bhutanese adolescents
Rinchen, S., Taneepanichskul, S., & Dawa, N. (2018) · Journal of Health Research · doi:10.1108/jhr-05-2018-031 · Cited by 4
Zolnowski, W. (2012) · eSource (Dublin Business School) · Cited by 3
Cigarette smoking and personality: Investigating causality using Mendelian randomizationPreprint
Sallis, H., Smith, G. D., & Munafo, M. R. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/246181 · Cited by 3
Constitutional and behavioural correlates of individual differences in biological stress reactivity
Bibbey, A. (2015) · University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham) · Cited by 3
Sheikh, M. A. (2025) · Journal of Transport & Health · doi:10.1016/j.jth.2025.102249 · Cited by 2
Guerrero, C. L., Castro-Martínez, J. A., Duque, L. C., et al. (2017) · Drugs and Addictive Behavior · doi:10.21501/24631779.2443 · Cited by 2
Aspects of Personality Traits and Changes in Different Stages of Dementia Disorders
Eckerström, M., & Berg, A. I. (2019) · Contemporary clinical neuroscience · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90065-0_4 · Cited by 2
Morales-Vives, F., Ferrando, P. J., Vigil‐Colet, A., & Hernández-Dorado, A. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13277 · Cited by 2
“On the one hand, it seems that people with lower emotional stability can engage in such unhealthy behaviours as smoking or drinking to find emotional relief and cope with stress [33], but, on the other hand, lower levels of emotional stability can also lead to greater concern and vigilance over health, illnesses, and…”
Personality disorders and cigarette smoking in adult population: a systematic review
Yousef, H., Cano‐García, F. J., & López-Núñez, C. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-07006-0 · Cited by 2
“…included the number of years of regular smoking (ranging from 0 to 72 years; Abe et al., 2019 ; Buczkowski et al., 2017; Halberstadt et al., 2022; Terracciano & Costa., 2004), the age at onset of tobacco use (years ranging from 18.76 to 23.10; Abe et al., 2019 ; Buczkowski et al., 2017 ), the…”
InfluentialMental Health Factors and Lifestyle Adherence After Myocardial Infarction: An Integrative Review
Al-Faraj, H., Kum, C., Warner, L. C., Lee, R. C., Becker, R. C., & Bakas, T. (2025) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/01939459251326816 · Cited by 2
Ryan, K. A., Yocum, A. K., Zhang, Y., Han, P., Marshall, D., Costa, P. T., Sperry, S. H., Suzuki, T., McInnis, M. G., & Zöllner, S. K. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.03.131 · Cited by 2
Self-citationOhm, H.-S., Cho, M. J., Hong, J. P., Hahm, B., Chung, I., Ahn, J.-H., Jeon, H. J., Seong, S. J., Park, J.-H., & Lee, D. W. (2014) · 신경정신의학 · doi:10.4306/jknpa.2014.53.6.402 · Cited by 2
The Effects of Surface Acting toward Supervisor on Employee Burnout:Neuroticism as a Moderator
Hwang, S.-K., Lee, H., & Park, H. I. (2018) · Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.24230/kjiop.v31i2.387-408 · Cited by 2
Kale, D., Pickering, A. D., & Cooper, A. J. (2019) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1080/10826084.2019.1657897 · Cited by 2
“Conscientiousness involves strong will, determination, responsibility and the observance of rules, and has been linked to healthier lifestyles; regarding cigarette smoking, high conscientious individuals tend to be non-smokers (Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
Mendelian randomization analysis of smoking behavior and cognitive ability on the Big FivePreprint
Adams, C. D. (2019) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2019.12.11.19014530 · Cited by 2
A Review of the Psychological Factors Affecting the Acquisition and Outcomes of CreditPreprint
Turton, J., Gill, A., Harrald, P. G., & Demuth, E. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qa73h · Cited by 3
Socioeconomic and Healthcare Cost of Smoking
Ahamed, N. F. S., Hasan, S. I., Yasim, M. H. M., & Hairi, R. S. A. F. M. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1014530 · Cited by 1
Personality traits and nicotine dependence in college students
Fujita, Â. T. L., Nakano, T. D. C., & Rondina, R. D. C. (2015) · Revista Avaliação Psicológica · doi:10.15689/ap.2015.1401.08 · Cited by 1
Saleh, M. T. (2015) · Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy · doi:10.4172/2155-6105.1000269 · Cited by 1
SENSATION SEEKING AND RISKY BEHAVIORS IN LIGHT OF GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Jovanov, M., & Bosić, D. Z. (2019) · Primenjena psihologija · doi:10.19090/pp.2018.4.471-486 · Cited by 1
Aghaei, M., Javidi, H., & Naziri, G. (2020) · Women Intercsiplinary Researches · doi:10.52547/.2.1.75 · Cited by 1
Five Facets of the Pentagon in the Convent of Toni Morrison’s Paradise
(2016) · International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature · doi:10.20431/2347-3134.0403001 · Cited by 1
Yusoff, N., Shaharum, M. H., Aziz, A. A., et al. (2023) · Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine · doi:10.37268/mjphm/vol.23/no.1/art.1360 · Cited by 1
Association between healthy neuroticism and eating behavior as revealed by the NKI Rockland Sample
Arend, I. C., & Yuen, K. S. L. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-85750-4 · Cited by 5
Personality Traits and Exposure to Stressful Life Events Among Smokers and Nonsmokers
imiÄ, N. Å., Dodaj, A., & Sesar, K. (2014) · Journal of Social Sciences · doi:10.3844/jssp.2014.162.171 · Cited by 1
“Because smoking is considered as socially undesirable habit, it is possible that extravert reduce the craving for smoking as the results to increase the number of social interactions (Gilbert and Gilbert, 1995; Terracciano and Costa, 2004).”
BackgroundResultPersonality traits and styles may affect the reporting of chronic pruritus: a cross-sectional study
Kini, S. P., Chen, K., & Chen, S. C. (2018) · Itch · doi:10.1097/itx.0000000000000020 · Cited by 1
Julka, S. (2018) · International Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.5958/2320-6233.2018.00013.5 · Cited by 1
Comorbid Smoking and Gambling Disorder: Potential Underlying Mechanisms and Future Explorations
Ritchie, E. V., Hodgins, D. C., & McGrath, D. S. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813035-3.00048-4 · Cited by 1
The interaction between personality and health policy: Empirical evidence from the UK smoking bans
Josten, C., & Lordan, G. (2020) · Economics & Human Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100899 · Cited by 1
“Notably conscientiousness has already been shown to be a proxy for self-control and inversely related to smoking behaviour (Terracciano & Costa 2004; Ameriks et al. 2007).”
BackgroundPersonality, Internet Addiction, and Other Technological Addictions
Hussain, Z., & Pontes, H. M. (2019) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8900-6.ch020 · Cited by 1
Comparative Study on Personality Traits and Alexithymia among Obese and Balanced people
Jadidi, M., Hosseini, H., & Shahnasi, F. (2017) · Journal of Obesity and Bariatrics · doi:10.13188/2377-9284.1000022 · Cited by 2
“Those with high neuroticism and low conscientiousness, most probably are a smoker, drug user, physical inactivity, and binge eat and drink [16,17,38,39].”
BackgroundJulka, S. (2020) · Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development · doi:10.37506/ijphrd.v11i3.1499 · Cited by 1
Myburgh, C. E., Malan, L., von Känel, R., Steyn, H. S., & Malan, N. T. (2022) · Cardiovascular journal of South Africa/Cardiovascular journal of Southern Africa · doi:10.5830/cvja-2021-058 · Cited by 1
Ivleva, V., & Kairys, A. (2023) · International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education · doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2023-11-1-129-141 · Cited by 1
Denis, P. L., Stamate, A. N., & Dorceus, S. (2023) · Humain et Organisation · doi:10.7202/1095701ar · Cited by 1
Restrepo, J. E. (2013) · Gredos (University of Salamanca) · doi:10.14201/gredos.124205 · Cited by 1
Lehto, K. (2015) · DSpace repository (University of Tartu) · Cited by 1
Personality and adherence to medication treatment
Axelsson, M. (2011) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) · Cited by 1
Personality and Smoking: Individual-Participant Meta-Analysis of 9 Cohort StudiesPreprint
Hakulinen, C. A., Hintsanen, M., Munafo, M. R., Virtanen, M., Mika Kivimaki, B., Batty, G. D., & Jokela, M. M. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2648165 · Cited by 1
Al-Abdi, T., Heraclides, A., Papageorgiou, A., et al. (2021) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202104.0071.v1 · Cited by 1
Brain Multi-Omic Subtypes of Neuroticism reveal molecular signatures linked to Alzheimer’s DiseasePreprint
Zammit, A. R., Lopes, K. D. P., Batalha, C. M. P. F., Yu, L., Poole, V. N., Tasaki, S., Kapasi, A., Wang, Y., Jager, P. L. D., Menon, V., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.19.654904 · Cited by 1
Impulsivity traits as determinants for smoking behavior
Munyon, S. (2014) · Rowan Digitals Works (Rowan University)
Krok, J. L. (2012) · Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)
Psychosocial predictors of smoking and smoking cessation in young adults
Hendron, E. (2006) · ERA
Litvin, E. B. (2007) · Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)
Classical Determinants of Smoking Initiation
Torre, G. L., & Thiene, D. D. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7046-5_5
Egbe, C. O., Petersen, I., & Meyer‐Weitz, A. (2014) · Qualitative Research in Education · doi:10.4471/qre.2014.48
“Though for various reasons, there are conflicting findings about the specific traits and attitudes found to have this association (Terracciano & Costa, 2004), it is important that a few of these findings be reviewed.”
BackgroundInfluentialIntrapersonal Externalities: When Decisions Help or Hinder your Future Self
Stillwell, D. J. (2013) · Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)
Greenidge, D. (2013) · Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham)
Kiani, Q., Ahadi, H., Hakami, M., Borjali, A., & Rahgozar, M. (2014)
Características de personalidade e dependência nicotínica em universitários
Fujita, Â. T. L., Nakano, T. D. C., & Rondina, R. D. C. (2014) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)
Motivation to smoke: the role of personality, smoking outcome expectancies and nicotine dependence
Fleming, A. (2006) · Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) · doi:10.25916/sut.26262032
The construct and concurrent validity of worker/peer attachment
Page, E. E. (2007) · SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology)
Affektív temperamentumok: híd a major affektív és a szív - érrendszeri betegségek között
Eőry, A. (2015) · Semmelweis University Repository (Semmelweis University) · doi:10.14753/se.2015.1777
Negative evaluations and discrimination against smokers
Yamamoto, T., Satō, H., & Ohbuchi, K.-I. (2014) · The Japanese journal of psychology · doi:10.4992/jjpsy.85.12044
Karimova, M. (2016) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Watson, E. (2016) · The Scholarship East Carolina University's Institutional Repository (East Carolina University)
Cognitive orientation in substance use disorders and chronic cigarette smoking
Stein, D. J., Ram, A., Sofer, S., & Kreitler, S. (2017) · Mental Health and Addiction Research · doi:10.15761/mhar.1000133
Emilsson, M. (2017) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-142757
Tourist floods, GDP rockets, the government intervenes: smoking ordinance and its implementation
Lam, C. C.-C., & Im, B. U.-L. (2018) · Journal of Policy Research in Tourism Leisure and Events · doi:10.1080/19407963.2018.1516081
“Terracciano and Costa (2004) and Otten, Engels, and Van den Eijnden (2008) applied the five-factor model in their studies of smoking behavior, and supported the usefulness of the model.”
MethodO desenvolvimento da personalidade em macacos-prego: unindo psicologia e ecologia comportamental
Delval, I. (2019) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.47.2019.tde-08112019-172134 · Cited by 1
Fatores sociodemográficos e psicológicos associados ao tabagismo na gravidez
Fujita, Â. T. L. (2020) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.17.2020.tde-13042020-142302
Kardum, I., Hudek‐Knežević, J., Krapić, N., et al. (2017)
Hoang, M. (2020) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Cigarette Smoking in an Acute Partial Hospital Program
Guggenheim, F. G., Lieberman, P. B., & Farris, S. G. (2021) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001362
Ebstein, R. P., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., & Chew, S. H. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-0933-0_6
Pashapour, H., Mohammadpoorasl, A., Dadashzadeh, H., et al. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-589062/v1
Response Inhibition and Impulsiveness in Smoking and Non-Smoking Young Tattooed Women
Kertzman, S. (2021) · Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal · doi:10.19080/pbsij.2021.16.555937
“Previous studies clearly implicate impulsivity as a precursor for smoking [28-30].”
BackgroundPersonality characteristics and self-reported oral health
Ibrahim, H. (2014) · Otago University Research Archive (University of Otago)
Evaluación de la personalidad y resultados en cesación tabáquica
González, M. L. B., Supino, M. L. L., Debat, C. P., et al. (2021) · Psicología Conocimiento y Sociedad · doi:10.26864/pcs.v11.n3.1
Perski, O., Nikiel, A., Brown, J., & Shahab, L. (2022) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.86670.1
Personality, Internet Addiction, and Other Technological Addictions
Hussain, Z., & Pontes, H. M. (2018) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7666-2.ch012
(2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-85950-9.00002-9
Ashton, M. C. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-85950-9.00011-x
(2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809845-5.16001-9
Simpson, W. (2008) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2008-08480 · Cited by 1
(2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416009-5.16001-3
Öntürk, Y., Yanar, N., Güler, M., & Güler, B. (2022) · Apuntes Universitarios · doi:10.17162/au.v12i3.1132
“Individuals with high neuroticism tend to be physically inactive, drink more alcohol (Sutin et al., 2016; Wilson & Dishman, 2015), and smoke more (Hakulinen et al., 2015; Terracciano & Costa, 2004).”
Background
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
