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).”
ResultGender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 · Cited by 2,986
Self-citationPersonality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (2005) · doi:10.4324/9780203428412 · Cited by 2,355
Self-citationCigarette smoking among adults — United States, 1988
Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (1992) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/0738-3991(92)90149-d · Cited by 1,705
A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Block, J. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 · Cited by 1,682 · cited 1×
“…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 Smoking and the FFM 473 © 2004 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 99 , 472–481 comprehensive yet manageable taxonomy of…”
BackgroundPersonality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2005) · Cited by 1,645
Self-citation(1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,350
Cultural influences on personality.
Triandis, H., & Suh, E. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135200 · Cited by 1,235
Smoking, stress, and negative affect: Correlation, causation, and context across stages of smoking.
Kassel, J. D., Stroud, L. R., & Paronis, C. A. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.270 · Cited by 1,113
Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524 · Cited by 1,097
The Developing Structure of Temperament and Personality From Infancy To Adulthood
Halverson, C. F., Kohnstamm, G. A., Martin, R. P., Halverson, C. F., & Kohnstamm, G. A. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315806853 · Cited by 972
Pharmacologic Aspects of Cigarette Smoking and Nicotine Addiction
Oates, J. A., Wood, A. J. J., & Benowitz, N. L. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198811173192005 · Cited by 969
The smoking problem: A review of the research and theory in behavioral risk modification.
Leventhal, H., & Cleary, P. D. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.2.370 · Cited by 794
Normal Human Aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging
Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C., Costa, P. T., Andres, R., Lakatta, E. G., Arenberg, D., & Tobin, J. D. (1984) · University Libraries (University of Maryland) · doi:10.13016/sclw-iccq · Cited by 757
Self-citationAge differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., de Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Marušić, I., Bratko, D., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., et al. (1999) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.466 · Cited by 712
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1556 · Cited by 539
Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components.
Cohen, J. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.858 · Cited by 533
Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-x · Cited by 528
Self-citationAssociation Between Cigarette Smoking and Anxiety Disorders During Adolescence and Early Adulthood
Johnson, J. G. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.18.2348 · Cited by 494
Effect of nicotine and nicotinic receptors on anxiety and depression
Picciotto, M. R., Brunzell, D. H., & Caldarone, B. J. (2002) · Neuroreport · doi:10.1097/00001756-200207020-00006 · Cited by 483
Nicotine-Induced Limbic Cortical Activation in the Human Brain: A Functional MRI Study
Stein, E. A., Pankiewicz, J., Harsch, H. H., Cho, J.-K., Fuller, S. A., Hoffmann, R. G., Hawkins, M., Rao, S. M., Bandettini, P. A., & Bloom, A. S. (1998) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.155.8.1009 · Cited by 483
Normal Human Aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
(1985) · Journal of Gerontology · doi:10.1093/geronj/40.6.767 · Cited by 481
Trait psychology and culture: exploring intercultural comparisons.
McCrae, R. (2001) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696166 · Cited by 455
Associations between Major Domains of Personality and Health Behavior
Booth‐Kewley, S., & Vickers, R. R. (1994) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00298.x · Cited by 455
Brain monoamine oxidase A inhibition in cigarette smokers
Fowler, J. S., Volkow, N. D., Wang, G., Pappas, N. R., Logan, J., Shea, C. E., Alexoff, D. L., MacGregor, R. R., Schlyer, D. J., Zezulkova, I., et al. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.24.14065 · Cited by 424
Big Five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior.
Paunonen, S. V. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.411 · Cited by 391
An expert system intervention for smoking cessation
Velicer, W. F., Prochaska, J. O., Bellis, J. M., DiClemente, C. C., Rossi, J. S., Fava, J. L., & Steiger, J. H. (1993) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/0306-4603(93)90029-9 · Cited by 312
Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Fava, J. L., Rossi, J. S., & Tsoh, J. Y. (2001) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00151-9 · Cited by 307
Nicotine, negative affect, and depression.
Hall, S. M., Muñoz, R. F., Reus, V. I., & Sees, K. L. (1993) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.61.5.761 · Cited by 303
The causes and effects of smoking
Eysenck, H. J., & Eaves, L. J. (1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 274
Tobacco smoking and depressed mood in late childhood and early adolescence.
Wu, L. T., & Anthony, J. C. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.12.1837 · Cited by 273
Who takes health risks? A probe into eight personality types
Vollrath, M. E., & Torgersen, S. O. (2002) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00080-0 · Cited by 260
Major depression following smoking cessation
(1997) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.154.2.263 · Cited by 250
Nicotine, negative affect, and depression.
Hall, S. M., Muñoz, R. F., Reus, V. I., et al. (1993) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.61.5.761 · Cited by 221
Cigarette smoking among adults--United States, 2000.
(2002) · PubMed · Cited by 215
Cigarette smoking predicts development of depressive symptoms among U.S. Adolescents
Choi, W. S., Patten, C. A., Christian Gillin, J., Kaplan, R. M., & Pierce, J. P. (1997) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02883426 · Cited by 208
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M. (1986) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037//0882-7974.1.2.144 · Cited by 193
Self-citationBreslau, N., Kilbey, M. M., & Andreski, P. M. (1994) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00960.x · Cited by 192
Smoking : individual difference, psychopathology, and emotion
Gilbert, D. G. (1995) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 178
An expert system intervention for smoking cessation
Velicer, W. F., & Prochaska, J. O. (1999) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00129-3 · Cited by 163
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults—United States, 1999
(2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.22.2802-jwr1212-2-1 · Cited by 152
Berlin, I., Singleton, E. G., Pedarriosse, A., Lancrenon, S., Rames, A. D., Aubin, H., & NIAURA, R. S. (2003) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00523.x · Cited by 147
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., et al. (1986) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.144 · Cited by 147
Self-citationBreslau, N., Kilbey, M. M., & Andreski, P. M. (1993) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.150.6.941 · Cited by 143
Kubicka, L., Matějček, Z., Dytrych, Z., & Roth, Z. (2001) · Addiction · doi:10.1080/09652140120080741 · Cited by 133
Learning Mechanisms in Smoking
Hunt, W. A. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203787434 · Cited by 130
Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994) · Cited by 122
Personality and Smoking Behavior
Spielberger, C. D., & Jacobs, G. A. (1982) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4604_11 · Cited by 120
Personality scores and smoking behaviour. A longitudinal study.
Cherry, N., & KIERNAN, K. E. (1976) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.30.2.123 · Cited by 119
REVIEW Nesbitt's Paradox resolved? Stress and arousal modulation during cigarette smoking
Parrott, A. C. (1998) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.931274.x · Cited by 107
Dimensional analysis of sense of coherence using structural equation modelling
Larsson, G., & Kallenberg, K. (1999) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199901/02)13:1 · Cited by 103
Anxiety, extraversion and smoking
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Bossé, R. (1978) · British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1978.tb00277.x · Cited by 95
Self-citationMadden, P. A. F., Bucholz, K. K., Dinwiddie, S. H., Slutske, W. S., Bierut, L. J., Statham, D. J., Dunne, M. P., Martin, N. G., & Heath, A. C. (1997) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02957.x · Cited by 93
Personality Psychology and Problem Behaviors: HIV Risk and the Five‐Factor Model
Trobst, K. K., Wiggins, J. S., Costa, P. T., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Masters, H. (2000) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00133 · Cited by 86
Self-citationSmoking Cessation Leads to Reduced Stress, but Why?
Parrott, A. C. (1995) · International Journal of the Addictions · doi:10.3109/10826089509055846 · Cited by 82
Sensation seeking, nicotine dependence, and smoking motivation in female and male smokers
Carton, S., Jouvent, R., & Widlöcher, D. (1994) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/0306-4603(94)90026-4 · Cited by 80
Pharmacological and non‐pharmacological smoking motives: a replication and extension
Tate, J. C., Pomerleau, C. S., & Pomerleau, O. F. (1994) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00899.x · Cited by 80
Co-factors for smoking and evolutionary psychobiology
Pomerleau, C. S. (1997) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03371.x · Cited by 79
Smoking and rebelliousness: A longitudinal study from childhood to maturity.
Stewart, L. H., & Livson, N. H. (1966) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0023371 · Cited by 72
Terracciano, A. (2003) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00035-7 · Cited by 70
Self-citationSmoking behaviour and personality: a population-based study in Japan
Arai, Y., Hosokawa, T., Fukao, A., Izumi, Y., & Hisamichi, S. (1997) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02982.x · Cited by 67
Assessing the generalizability of smoking studies
Hughes, J. R., Giovino, G. A., KUEVENS, R. M., & Fiore, M. C. (1997) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03378.x · Cited by 55
Smoking, personality and reasons for smoking
McManus, I. C., & Weeks, S. J. (1982) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700046687 · Cited by 44
5 Years of Progress: A Reply to Block
McCrae, R. R. (2001) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2294 · Cited by 38
PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF CIGARETTE SMOKING IN STUDENTS OF COLLEGE AGE
Smith, G. M. (1967) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1967.tb13733.x · Cited by 36
The Nonverbal Assessment of Personality in Five Cultures
Paunonen, S. V., Zeidner, M., Engvik, H. A., Oosterveld, P., & Maliphant, R. (2000) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022100031002005 · Cited by 35
Smoking and the Eysenck personality dimensions:an interactive model
Parkes, K. R. (1984) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700019796 · Cited by 34
A note on ‘Smoking, personality and reasons for smoking’
Eysenck, H. J. (1983) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700051084 · Cited by 31
Stress, smoking motives, and psychological well-being: The illusory benefits of smoking
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1981) · Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0146-6402(81)90001-1 · Cited by 25
Self-citation
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
High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1011492107 · Cited by 3,162
“A propensity to smoke is in part genetically determined (18) and is a known indicator of a tense personality (19, 20).”
BackgroundKotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0020327 · Cited by 2,677
Public health significance of neuroticism
Lahey, B. B. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0015309 · Cited by 1,901
“Persons high in neuroticism are markedly more likely to smoke (Breslau, Novak, & Kessler, 2004; Malouff et al., 2006; Morissette, Tull, Gulliver, Kamholz, & Zimering, 2007; Terracciano & Costa, 2004) and to become dependent on alcohol and other drugs (Larkins & Sher, 2006).”
BackgroundPersonality Traits and Personal Values: A Meta-Analysis
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868314538548 · Cited by 622
“…2004; Poropat, 2009), organizational psychology (e.g., Berson, Oreg, & Dvir, 2007; Lim & Ployhart, 2004), health psychology (e.g., Bergin, 1991; Terracciano & Costa, 2004), political psychology (e.g., Saucier, 2000; Schwartz, Caprara, & Vecchione, 2010), environmental psychology (e.g., Grunert…”
Personality, Well-Being, and Health*
Friedman, H. S., & Kern, M. L. (2014) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115123 · Cited by 530
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
