Personality factors and suicide risk in a representative sample of the German general population
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has shown an association between certain personality characteristics and suicidality. Methodological differences including small sample sizes and missing adjustment for possible confounding factors could explain the varying results. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the Big Five personality dimensions on suicidality in a representative population based sample of adults. METHOD: Interviews were conducted in a representative German population-based sample (n=2555) in 2011. Personality characteristics were assessed using the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10) and suicide risk was assessed with the Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R). Multivariate logistic regression models were calculated adjusting for depression, anxiety, and various sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Neuroticism and openness were significantly associated with suicide risk, while extraversion and conscientiousness were found to be protective. Significant sex differences were observed. For males, extraversion and conscientiousness were protective factors. Neuroticism and openness were found to be associated with suicide risk only in females. These associations remained significant after adjusting for covariates. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the role of personality dimensions as risk factors for suicide-related behaviors. Different personality dimensions are significantly associated with suicide-related behaviors even when adjusting for other known risk factors of suicidality.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
After 4 weeks of MD, conscientiousness and extraversion scores were on average higher than the mean scores of the general population sample reported by Rettenberger and colleagues but remained below the mean scores reported by Blüml and colleagues.
“After 4 weeks of MD, conscientiousness and extraversion scores were on average higher than the mean scores of the general population sample reported by Rettenberger and colleagues (39) but remained below the mean scores reported by Blüml amd colleagues (40).”
From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
At baseline, personality traits conscientiousness and extraversion were on average lower compared to mean BFI-10 scores of general population samples.
“At baseline, the personality traits conscientiousness and extraversion were on average lower compared to the mean BFI-10 scores of general population samples (39, 40).”
From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
At baseline, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness were on average higher compared to mean BFI-10 scores of general population samples.
“In contrast, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness were at baseline on average higher compared to the mean BFI-10 scores of general population samples (39, 40).”
From Trait mindfulness and personality characteristics in a microdosing ADHD sample: a naturalistic prospective survey study (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 102
- Authors
- Blüml, V., Kapusta, N. D., Doering, S., Brähler, E., Wagner, B., & Kersting, A.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of Vienna (AT)
- University Hospital Leipzig (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Blüml, Victor
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-10-04
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e76646
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3790756
- OpenAlex
- W2072761090
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 8.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Keywords
- suicide risk, Big Five personality traits, neuroticism, openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, sex differences, suicide-related behaviors, depression, anxiety, general population
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality, Personality Inventory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Suicide, White People, Young Adult
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
