Cited by 2,361Personality Traits and PsychologyCognitive Abilities and TestingPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Socioeconomic Status, and Cognitive Ability for Predicting Important Life Outcomes

Open access
Roberts, Brent W., Kuncel, Nathan R., Shiner, Rebecca, Caspi, Avshalom, Goldberg, Lewis R.·2007·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

Cites

236 of 236 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conscientiousness was a stronger predictor of longevity than any other Big Five trait and a stronger predictor than either IQ or socioeconomic status.

    “Conscientiousness was a stronger predictor of longevity than any other Big Five trait and a stronger predictor than either IQ or socioeconomic status.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner et al. [2007]

  • Traits related to Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness are associated with longer lives, whereas those related to Neuroticism are associated with shorter life spans.

    “In general, traits related to Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness are associated with longer lives, whereas those related to Neuroticism are associated with shorter life spans.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner et al. [2007]

  • Most studies in the Roberts et al. meta-analysis control for relevant background factors, including gender and severity of disease.

    “Most studies in their meta-analysis control for relevant background factors, including gender and severity of disease.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner et al. [2007]

  • All-cause mortality has consistently been associated with both socioeconomic status and personality traits.

    “All-cause mortality has consistently been associated with both socioeconomic status (SES) (1-4) and personality traits (5).”
  • The strength of associations between Conscientiousness and longevity appears comparable to those between longevity and SES and IQ.

    “The strength of associations between Conscientiousness and longevity appears comparable to those between longevity and SES and IQ [59].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Colgate University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Oregon Research Institute (US)
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2007-12
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
313-345
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2089632658
Cited by
2,361
References
233
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 135 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 239 · 2019: 168 · 2018: 148 · 2017: 157 · 2016: 180 · 2015: 139 · 2014: 118 · 2013: 97 · 2012: 92
FWCI
55.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ag020048-24)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01-AG020048)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH049227, R37MH049227, R01MH049414, R01MH045070)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
personality traits, socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, predictive validity, mortality, divorce, occupational attainment, life outcomes, quality of life survey

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review