HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007 December ; 2(4): 313–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x.

The Power of Personality:

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

Brent W. Roberts1, Nathan R. Kuncel2, Rebecca Shiner3, Avshalom Caspi4,5, and Lewis R.
Goldberg6
University of Illinois
Author Manuscript

University of Minnesota
Colgate University

Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London, United Kingdom

Duke University

Oregon Research Institute

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
Author Manuscript

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.

Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now
Author Manuscript

become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field (Pervin & John, 1999).
However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or useful—
one would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as
health and longevity, marital success, and educational and occupational attainment. In fact,
two recent reviews have shown that different personality traits are associated with outcomes
in each of these domains (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006).
But simply showing that personality traits are related to health, love, and attainment is not a

Address correspondence to Brent W. Roberts, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East
Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820; [email protected].
 Roberts et al. Page 2

stringent test of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be the result of
Author Manuscript

“third” variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), that account for the patterns but have
not been controlled for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies reviewed
were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the methodological rigor to show the predictive
validity of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality traits can
be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show the incremental validity of personality
traits over and above other factors.

The analyses reported in this article test whether personality traits are important, practical
predictors of significant life outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality,
divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each domain, we evaluate empirical
evidence using the gold standard of prospective longitudinal studies—that is, those studies
that can provide data about whether personality traits predict life outcomes above and
beyond well-known factors such as SES and cognitive abilities. To guide the interpretation
Author Manuscript

drawn from the results of these prospective longitudinal studies, we provide benchmark
relations of SES and cognitive ability with outcomes from these three domains. The review
proceeds in three sections. First, we address some misperceptions about personality traits
that are, in part, responsible for the idea that personality does not predict important life
outcomes. Second, we present a review of the evidence for the predictive validity of
personality traits. Third, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings
and recommendations for future work in this area.

THE “PERSONALITY COEFFICIENT”: AN UNFORTUNATE LEGACY OF THE

PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE
Before we embark on our review, it is necessary to lay to rest a myth perpetrated by the
Author Manuscript

1960s manifestation of the person–situation debate; this myth is often at the root of the
perspective that personality traits do not predict outcomes well, if at all. Specifically, in his
highly influential book, Walter Mischel (1968) argued that personality traits had limited
utility in predicting behavior because their correlational upper limit appeared to be about .
30. Subsequently, this .30 value became derided as the “personality coefficient.” Two
conclusions were inferred from this argument. First, personality traits have little predictive
validity. Second, if personality traits do not predict much, then other factors, such as the
situation, must be responsible for the vast amounts of variance that are left unaccounted for.
The idea that personality traits are the validity weaklings of the predictive panoply has been
reiterated in unmitigated form to this day (e.g., Bandura, 1999; Lewis, 2001; Paul, 2004;
Ross & Nisbett, 1991). In fact, this position is so widely accepted that personality
psychologists often apologize for correlations in the range of .20 to .30 (e.g., Bornstein,
Author Manuscript

1999).

Should personality psychologists be apologetic for their modest validity coefficients?

Apparently not, according to Meyer and his colleagues (Meyer et al., 2001), who did
psychological science a service by tabling the effect sizes for a wide variety of
psychological investigations and placing them side-by-side with comparable effect sizes
from medicine and everyday life. These investigators made several important points. First,
the modal effect size on a correlational scale for psychology as a whole is between .10 and .

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 3

40, including that seen in experimental investigations (see also Hemphill, 2003). It appears
Author Manuscript

that the .30 barrier applies to most phenomena in psychology and not just to those in the
realm of personality psychology. Second, the very largest effects for any variables in
psychology are in the .50 to .60 range, and these are quite rare (e.g., the effect of increasing
age on declining speed of information processing in adults). Third, effect sizes for
assessment measures and therapeutic interventions in psychology are similar to those found
in medicine. It is sobering to see that the effect sizes for many medical interventions—like
consuming aspirin to treat heart disease or using chemotherapy to treat breast cancer—
translate into correlations of .02 or .03. Taken together, the data presented by Meyer and
colleagues make clear that our standards for effect sizes need to be established in light of
what is typical for psychology and for other fields concerned with human functioning.

In the decades since Mischel’s (1968) critique, researchers have also directly addressed the
claim that situations have a stronger influence on behavior than they do on personality traits.
Author Manuscript

Social psychological research on the effects of situations typically involves experimental

manipulation of the situation, and the results are analyzed to establish whether the
situational manipulation has yielded a statistically significant difference in the outcome.
When the effects of situations are converted into the same metric as that used in personality
research (typically the correlation coefficient, which conveys both the direction and the size
of an effect), the effects of personality traits are generally as strong as the effects of
situations (Funder & Ozer, 1983; Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975). Overall, it is the
moderate position that is correct: Both the person and the situation are necessary for
explaining human behavior, given that both have comparable relations with important
outcomes.

As research on the relative magnitude of effects has documented, personality psychologists

Author Manuscript

should not apologize for correlations between .10 and .30, given that the effect sizes found
in personality psychology are no different than those found in other fields of inquiry. In
addition, the importance of a predictor lies not only in the magnitude of its association with
the outcome, but also in the nature of the outcome being predicted. A large association
between two self-report measures of extraversion and positive affect may be theoretically
interesting but may not offer much solace to the researcher searching for proof that
extraversion is an important predictor for outcomes that society values. In contrast, a modest
correlation between a personality trait and mortality or some other medical outcome, such as
Alzheimer’s disease, would be quite important. Moreover, when attempting to predict these
critical life outcomes, even relatively small effects can be important because of their
pragmatic effects and because of their cumulative effects across a person’s life (Abelson,
1985; Funder, 2004; Rosenthal, 1990). In terms of practicality, the −.03 association between
Author Manuscript

taking aspirin and reducing heart attacks provides an excellent example. In one study, this
surprisingly small association resulted in 85 fewer heart attacks among the patients of
10,845 physicians (Rosenthal, 2000). Because of its practical significance, this type of
association should not be ignored because of the small effect size. In terms of cumulative
effects, a seemingly small effect that moves a person away from pursuing his or her
education early in life can have monumental consequences for that person’s health and well-
being later in life (Hardarson et al., 2001). In other words, psychological processes with a
statistically small or moderate effect can have important effects on individuals’ lives

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 4

depending on the outcomes with which they are associated and depending on whether those
Author Manuscript

effects get cumulated across a person’s life.

PERSONALITY EFFECTS ON MORTALITY, DIVORCE, AND

OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Selection of Predictors, Outcomes, and Studies for This Review
To provide the most stringent test of the predictive validity of personality traits, we chose to
focus on three objective outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment.
Although we could have chosen many different outcomes to examine, we selected these
three because they are socially valued; they are measured in similar ways across studies; and
they have been assessed as outcomes in studies of SES, cognitive ability, and personality
traits. Mortality needs little justification as an outcome, as most individuals value a long life.
Author Manuscript

Divorce and marital stability are important outcomes for several reasons. Divorce is a
significant source of depression and distress for many individuals and can have negative
consequences for children, whereas a happy marriage is one of the most important predictors
of life satisfaction (Myers, 2000). Divorce is also linked to disproportionate drops in
economic status, especially for women (Kuh & Maclean, 1990), and it can undermine men’s
health (e.g., Lund, Holstein, & Osler, 2004). An intact marriage can also preserve cognitive
function into old age for both men and women, particularly for those married to a high-
ability spouse (Schaie, 1994).

Educational and occupational attainment are also highly prized (Roisman, Masten,
Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004). Research on subjective well-being has shown that
occupational attainment and its important correlate, income, are not as critical for happiness
as many assume them to be (Myers, 2000). Nonetheless, educational and occupational
Author Manuscript

attainment are associated with greater access to many resources that can improve the quality
of life (e.g., medical care, education) and with greater “social capital” (i.e., greater access to
various resources through connections with others; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Conger &
Donnellan, 2007). The greater income resulting from high educational and occupational
attainment may also enable individuals to maintain strong life satisfaction when faced with
difficult life circumstances (Johnson & Krueger, 2006).

To better interpret the significance of the relations between personality traits and these
outcomes, we have provided comparative information concerning the effect of SES and
cognitive ability on each of these outcomes. We chose to use SES as a comparison because
it is widely accepted to be one of the most important contributors to a more successful life,
including better health and higher occupational attainment (e.g., Adler et al., 1994; Gallo &
Author Manuscript

Mathews, 2003; Galobardes, Lynch, & Smith, 2004; Sapolsky, 2005). In addition, we chose
cognitive ability as a comparison variable because, like SES, it is a widely accepted
predictor of longevity and occupational success (Deary, Batty, & Gottfredson, 2005;
Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). In this article, we compare the effect sizes of personality traits
with these two predictors in order to understand the relative contribution of personality to a
long, stable, and successful life. We also required that the studies in this review make some
attempt to control for background variables. For example, in the case of mortality, we

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 5

looked for prospective longitudinal studies that controlled for previous medical conditions,
Author Manuscript

gender, age, and other relevant variables.

We are not assuming that personality traits are direct causes of the outcomes under study.
Rather, we were exclusively interested in whether personality traits predict mortality,
divorce, and occupational attainment and in their modal effect sizes. If found to be robust,
these patterns of statistical association then invite the question of why and how personality
traits might cause these outcomes, and we have provided several examples in each section of
potential mechanisms and causal steps involved in the process.

The Measurement of Effect Sizes in Prospective Longitudinal Studies

Before turning to the specific findings for personality, SES, and cognitive ability, we must
first address the measurement of effect sizes in the studies reviewed here. Most of the
studies that we reviewed used some form of regression analysis for either continuous or
Author Manuscript

categorical outcomes. In studies with continuous outcomes, findings were typically reported
as standardized regression weights (beta coefficients). In studies of categorical outcomes,
the most common effect size indicators are odds ratios, relative risk ratios, or hazard ratios.
Because many psychologists may be less familiar with these ratio statistics, a brief
discussion of them is in order. In the context of individual differences, ratio statistics
quantify the likelihood of an event (e.g., divorce, mortality) for a higher scoring group
versus the likelihood of the same event for a lower scoring group (e.g., persons high in
negative affect versus those low in negative affect). An odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of
the event for one group over the odds of the same event for the second group. The risk ratio
compares the probabilities of the event occurring for the two groups. The hazard ratio
assesses the probability of an event occurring for a group over a specific window of time.
For these statistics, a value of 1.0 equals no difference in odds or probabilities. Values above
Author Manuscript

1.0 indicate increased likelihood (odds or probabilities) for the experimental (or numerator)
group, with the reverse being true for values below 1.0 (down to a lower limit of zero).
Because of this asymmetry, the log of these statistics is often taken.

The primary advantage of ratio statistics in general, and the risk ratio in particular, is their
ease of interpretation in applied settings. It is easier to understand that death is three times as
likely to occur for one group than for another than it is to make sense out of a point-biserial
correlation. However, there are also some disadvantages that should be understood. First,
ratio statistics can make effects that are actually very small in absolute magnitude appear to
be large when in fact they are very rare events. For example, although it is technically
correct that one is three times as likely (risk ratio = 3.0) to win the lottery when buying three
tickets instead of one ticket, the improved chances of winning are trivial in an absolute
Author Manuscript

sense.

Second, there is no accepted practice for how to divide continuous predictor variables when
computing odds, risk, and hazard ratios. Some predictors are naturally dichotomous (e.g.,
gender), but many are continuous (e.g., cognitive ability, SES). Researchers often divide
continuous variables into some arbitrary set of categories in order to use the odds, rate, or
hazard metrics. For example, instead of reporting an association between SES and mortality
using a point-biserial correlation, a researcher may use proportional hazards models using

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 6

some arbitrary categorization of SES, such as quartile estimates (e.g., lowest versus highest
Author Manuscript

quartiles). This permits the researcher to draw conclusions such as “individuals from the
highest category of SES are four times as likely to live longer than are groups lowest in
SES.” Although more intuitively appealing, the odds statements derived from categorizing
continuous variables makes it difficult to deduce the true effect size of a relation, especially
across studies. Researchers with very large samples may have the luxury of carving a
continuous variable into very fine-grained categories (e.g., 10 categories of SES), which
may lead to seemingly huge hazard ratios. In contrast, researchers with smaller samples may
only dichotomize or trichotomize the same variables, thus resulting in smaller hazard ratios
and what appear to be smaller effects for identical predictors. Finally, many researchers may
not categorize their continuous variables at all, which can result in hazard ratios very close
to 1.0 that are nonetheless still statistically significant. These procedures for analyzing odds,
rate, and hazard ratios produce a haphazard array of results from which it is almost
impossible to discern a meaningful average effect size.1
Author Manuscript

One of the primary tasks of this review is to transform the results from different studies into
a common metric so that a fair comparison could be made across the predictors and
outcomes. For this purpose, we chose the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.
We used a variety of techniques to arrive at an accurate estimate of the effect size from each
study. When transforming relative risk ratios into the correlation metric, we used several
methods to arrive at the most appropriate estimate of the effect size. For example, the
correlation coefficient can be estimated from reported significance levels (p values) and
from test statistics such as the t test or chi-square, as well as from other effect size indicators
such as d scores (Rosenthal, 1991). Also, the correlation coefficient can be estimated
directly from relative risk ratios and hazard ratios using the generic inverse variance
approach (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2005). In this procedure, the relative risk ratio and
Author Manuscript

confidence intervals (CIs) are first transformed into z scores, and the z scores are then
transformed into the correlation metric.

For most studies, the effect size correlation was estimated from information on relative risk
ratios and p values. For the latter, we used the requivalent effect size indicator (Rosenthal &
Rubin, 2003), which is computed from the sample size and p value associated with specific
effects. All of these techniques transform the effect size information to a common
correlational metric, making the results of the studies comparable across different analytical
methods. After compiling effect sizes, meta-analytic techniques were used to estimate
population effect sizes in both the risk ratio and correlation metric (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
Specifically, a random-effects model with no moderators was used to estimate population
effect sizes for both the rate ratio and correlation metrics.2 When appropriate, we first
Author Manuscript

averaged multiple nonindependent effects from studies that reported more than one relevant
effect size.

1This situation is in no way particular to epidemiological or medical studies using odds, rate, and hazard ratios as outcomes. The field
of psychology reports results in a Babylonian array of test statistics and effect sizes also.
2The population effects for the rate ratio and correlation metric were not based on identical data because in some cases the authors did
not report rate ratio information or did not report enough information to compute a rate ratio and a CI.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 7

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Mortality

Author Manuscript

Before considering the role of personality traits in health and longevity, we reviewed a
selection of studies linking SES and cognitive ability to these same outcomes. This
information provides a point of reference to understand the relative contribution of
personality. Table 1 presents the findings from 33 studies examining the prospective
relations of low SES and low cognitive ability with mortality.3 SES was measured using
measures or composites of typical SES variables including income, education, and
occupational status. Total IQ scores were commonly used in analyses of cognitive ability.
Most studies demonstrated that being born into a low-SES household or achieving low SES
in adulthood resulted in a higher risk of mortality (e.g., Deary & Der, 2005; Hart et al.,
2003; Osler et al., 2002; Steenland, Henley, & Thun, 2002). The relative risk ratios and
hazard ratios ranged from a low of 0.57 to a high of 1.30 and averaged 1.24 (CIs = 1.19 and
1.29). When translated into the correlation metric, the effect sizes for low SES ranged from
Author Manuscript

−.02 to .08 and averaged .02 (CIs = .017 and .026).

Through the use of the relative risk metric, we determined that the effect of low IQ on
mortality was similar to that of SES, ranging from a modest 0.74 to 2.42 and averaging 1.19
(CIs = 1.10 and 1.30). When translated into the correlation metric, however, the effect of
low IQ on mortality was equivalent to a correlation of .06 (CIs = .03 and .09), which was
three times larger than the effect of SES on mortality. The discrepancy between the relative
risk and correlation metrics most likely resulted because some studies reported the relative
risks in terms of continuous measures of IQ, which resulted in smaller relative risk ratios
(e.g., St. John, Montgomery, Kristjansson, & McDowell, 2002). Merging relative risk ratios
from these studies with those that carve the continuous variables into subgroups appears to
underestimate the effect of IQ on mortality, at least in terms of the relative risk metric. The
most telling comparison of IQ and SES comes from the five studies that include both
Author Manuscript

variables in the prediction of mortality. Consistent with the aggregate results, IQ was a
stronger predictor of mortality in each case (i.e., Deary & Der, 2005; Ganguli, Dodge, &
Mulsant, 2002; Hart et al., 2003; Osler et al., 2002; Wilson, Bienia, Mendes de Leon, Evans,
& Bennet, 2003).

Table 2 lists 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/longevity.4 In most of these
studies, multiple factors such as SES, cognitive ability, gender, and disease severity were
controlled for. We organized our review roughly around the Big Five taxonomy of
personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and
Openness to Experience; Goldberg, 1993b). For example, research drawn from the Terman
Author Manuscript

3Most of the studies of SES and mortality were compiled from an exhaustive review of the literature on the effect of childhood SES
and mortality (Galobardes et al., 2004). We added several of the largest studies examining the effect of adult SES on mortality (e.g.,
Steenland et al., 2002), and to these we added the results from the studies on cognitive ability and personality that reported SES
effects. We also did standard electronic literature searches using the terms socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and all-cause
mortality. We also examined the reference sections from the list of studies and searched for papers that cited these studies. Experts in
the field of epidemiology were also contacted and asked to identify missing studies. The resulting SES data base is representative of
the field, and as the effects are based on over 3 million data points, the effect sizes and CIs are very stable. The studies of cognitive
ability and mortality represent all of the studies found that reported usable data.
4We identified studies through electronic searches that included the terms personality traits, extroversion, agreeableness, hostility,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, neuroticism, openness to experience, and all-cause mortality. We also identified studies
through reference sections of the list of studies and through studies that cited each study. A number of studies were not included in this
review because we focused on studies that were prospective and controlled for background factors.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 8

Longitudinal Study showed that children who were more conscientious tended to live longer
Author Manuscript

(Friedman et al., 1993). This effect held even after controlling for gender and parental
divorce, two known contributors to shorter lifespans. Moreover, a number of other factors,
such as SES and childhood health difficulties, were unrelated to longevity in this study. The
protective effect of Conscientiousness has now been replicated across several studies and
more heterogeneous samples. Conscientiousness was found to be a rather strong protective
factor in an elderly sample participating in a Medicare training program (Weiss & Costa,
2005), even when controlling for education level, cardiovascular disease, and smoking,
among other factors. Similarly, Conscientiousness predicted decreased rates of mortality in a
sample of individuals suffering from chronic renal insufficiency, even after controlling for
age, diabetic status, and hemoglobin count (Christensen et al., 2002).

Similarly, several studies have shown that dispositions reflecting Positive Emotionality or
Extraversion were associated with longevity. For example, nuns who scored higher on an
Author Manuscript

index of Positive Emotionality in young adulthood tended to live longer, even when
controlling for age, education, and linguistic ability (an aspect of cognitive ability; Danner,
Snowden, & Friesen, 2001). Similarly, Optimism was related to higher rates of survival
following head and neck cancer (Allison, Guichard, Fung, & Gilain, 2003). In contrast,
several studies reported that Neuroticism and Pessimism were associated with increases in
one’s risk for premature mortality (Abas, Hotopf, & Prince, 2002; Denollet et al., 1996;
Schulz, Bookwala, Knapp, Scheier, & Williamson, 1996; Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Bienias,
Evans, & Bennett, 2004). It should be noted, however, that two studies reported a protective
effect of high Neuroticism (Korten et al., 1999; Weiss & Costa, 2005).

The domain of Agreeableness showed a less clear association to mortality, with some
studies showing a protective effect of high Agreeableness (Wilson et al., 2004) and others
Author Manuscript

showing that high Agreeableness contributed to mortality (Friedman et al., 1993). With
respect to the domain of Openness to Experience, two studies showed that Openness or
facets of Openness, such as creativity, had little or no relation to mortality (Osler et al.,
2002; Wilson et al., 2004).

Because aggregating all personality traits into one overall effect size washes out important
distinctions among different trait domains, we examined the effect of specific trait domains
by aggregating studies within four categories: Conscientiousness, Positive Emotion/
Extraversion, Neuroticism/Negative Emotion, and Hostility/Disagreeableness.5 Our
Conscientiousness domain included four studies that linked Conscientiousness to mortality.
Because only two of these studies reported the information necessary to compute an average
relative risk ratio, we only examined the correlation metric. When translated into a
Author Manuscript

correlation metric, the average effect size for Conscientiousness was −.09 (CIs = −.12 and −.
05), indicating a protective effect. Our Extraversion/Positive Emotion domain included six
studies that examined the effect of extraversion, positive emotion, and optimism. The
average relative risk ratio for the low Extraversion/Positive Emotion was 1.04 (CIs = 1.00
and 1.10) with a corresponding correlation effect size for high Extraversion/Positive

5We did not examine the domain of Openness to Experience because there were only two studies that tested the association with
mortality.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 9

Emotion being −.07 (−.11, −.03), with the latter showing a statistically significant protective
Author Manuscript

effect of Extraversion/Positive Emotion. Our Negative Emotionality domain included twelve

studies that examined the effect of neuroticism, pessimism, mental instability, and sense of
coherence. The average relative risk ratio for the Negative Emotionality domain was 1.15
(CIs = 1.04 and 1.26), and the corresponding correlation effect size was .05 (CIs = .02 and .
08). Thus, Neuroticism was associated with a diminished life span. Nineteen studies
reported relations between Hostility/Disagreeableness and all-cause mortality, with notable
heterogeneity in the effects across studies. The risk ratio population estimate showed an
effect equivalent to, if not larger than, the remaining personality domains (risk ratio = 1.14;
CIs = 1.06 and 1.23). With the correlation metric, this effect translated into a small but
statistically significant effect of .04 (CIs = .02 and .06), indicating that hostility was
positively associated with mortality. Thus, the specific personality traits of
Conscientiousness, Positive Emotionality/Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Hostility/
Author Manuscript

Disagreeableness were stronger predictors of mortality than was SES when effects were
translated into a correlation metric. The effect of personality traits on mortality appears to be
equivalent to IQ, although the additive effect of multiple trait domains on mortality may
well exceed that of IQ.

Why would personality traits predict mortality? Personality traits may affect health and
ultimately longevity through at least three distinct processes (Contrada, Cather, & O’Leary,
1999; Pressman & Cohen, 2005; Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, 1999; T.W. Smith,
2006). First, personality differences may be related to pathogenesis or mechanisms that
promote disease. This has been evaluated most directly in studies relating various facets of
Hostility/Disagreeableness to greater reactivity in response to stressful experiences (T.W.
Smith & Gallo, 2001) and in studies relating low Extraversion to neuroendocrine and
immune functioning (Miller, Cohen, Rabin, Skoner, & Doyle, 1999) and greater
Author Manuscript

susceptibility to colds (Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003a, 2003b). Second,
personality traits may be related to physical-health outcomes because they are associated
with health-promoting or health-damaging behaviors. For example, individuals high in
Extraversion may foster social relationships, social support, and social integration, all of
which are positively associated with health outcomes (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman,
2000). In contrast, individuals low in Conscientiousness may engage in a variety of health-
risk behaviors such as smoking, unhealthy eating habits, lack of exercise, unprotected sexual
intercourse, and dangerous driving habits (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). Third, personality
differences may be related to reactions to illness. This includes a wide class of behaviors,
such as the ways individuals cope with illness (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1993), reduce stress,
and adhere to prescribed treatments (Kenford et al., 2002).
Author Manuscript

These processes linking personality traits to physical health are not mutually exclusive.
Moreover, different personality traits may affect physical health via different processes. For
example, facets of Disagreeableness may be most directly linked to disease processes, facets
of low Conscientiousness may be implicated in health-damaging behaviors, and facets of
Neuroticism may contribute to ill-health by shaping reactions to illness. In addition, it is
likely that the impact of personality differences on health varies across the life course. For
example, Neuroticism may have a protective effect on mortality in young adulthood, as
individuals who are more neurotic tend to avoid accidents in adolescence and young

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 10

adulthood (Lee, Wadsworth, & Hotopf, 2006). It is apparent from the extant research that
Author Manuscript

personality traits influence outcomes at all stages of the health process, but much more work
remains to be done to specify the processes that account for these effects.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Divorce

Next, we considered the role that SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits play in
divorce. Because there were fewer studies examining these issues, we included prospective
studies of SES, IQ, and personality that did not control for many background variables.

In terms of SES and IQ, we found 11 studies that showed a wide range of associations with
divorce and marriage (see Table 3).6 For example, the SES of the couple in one study was
unsystematically related to divorce (Tzeng & Mare, 1995). In contrast, Kurdek (1993)
reported relatively large, protective effects for education and income for both men and
women. Because not all these studies reported relative risk ratios, we computed an aggregate
Author Manuscript

using the correlation metric and found the relation between SES and divorce was −.05 (CIs
= −.08 and − .02), which indicates a significant protective effect of SES on divorce across
these studies. Contradictory patterns were found for the two studies that predicted divorce
and marital patterns from measures of cognitive ability. Taylor et al. (2005) reported that IQ
was positively related to the possibility of male participants ever marrying but was
negatively related to the possibility of female participants ever marrying. Data drawn from
the Mills Longitudinal study (Helson, 2006) showed conflicting patterns of associations
between verbal and mathematical aptitude and divorce. Because there were only two studies,
we did not examine the average effects of IQ on divorce.

Table 4 shows the data from thirteen prospective studies testing whether personality traits
predicted divorce. Traits associated with the domain of Neuroticism, such as being anxious
Author Manuscript

and overly sensitive, increased the probability of experiencing divorce (Kelly & Conley,
1987; Tucker, Kressin, Spiro, & Ruscio, 1998). In contrast, those individuals who were
more conscientious and agreeable tended to remain longer in their marriages and avoided
divorce (Kelly & Conley, 1987; Kinnunen & Pulkkenin, 2003; Roberts & Bogg, 2004).
Although these studies did not control for as many factors as the health studies, the time
spans over which the studies were carried out were impressive (e.g., 45 years). We
aggregated effects across these studies for the trait domains of Neuroticism, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness with the correlation metric, as too few studies reported relative risk
outcomes to warrant aggregating. When so aggregated, the effect of Neuroticism on divorce
was .17 (CIs = .12 and .22), the effect of Agreeableness was − .18 (CIs = −.27 and −.09),
and the effect of Conscientiousness on divorce was −.13 (CIs = −.17 and −.09). Thus, the
predictive effects of these three personality traits on divorce were greater than those found
Author Manuscript

for SES.

Why would personality traits lead to divorce or conversely marital stability? The most likely
reason is because personality traits help shape the quality of long-term relationships. For
example, Neuroticism is one of the strongest and most consistent personality predictors of

6We identified studies using electronic searches including the terms divorce, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability. We also
identified studies through examining the reference sections of the studies and through studies that cited each study.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 11

relationship dissatisfaction, conflict, abuse, and ultimately dissolution (Karney & Bradbury,
Author Manuscript

1995). Sophisticated studies that include dyads (not just individuals) and multiple methods
(not just self reports) increasingly demonstrate that the links between personality traits and
relationship processes are more than simply an artifact of shared method variance in the
assessment of these two domains (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004; Robins, Caspi, &
Moffitt, 2000; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). One study that followed a sample of
young adults across their multiple relationships in early adulthood discovered that the
influence of Negative Emotionality on relationship quality showed cross-relationship
generalization; that is, it predicted the same kinds of experiences across relationships with
different partners (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002).

An important goal for future research will be to uncover the proximal relationship-specific
processes that mediate personality effects on relationship outcomes (Reiss, Capobianco, &
Tsai, 2002). Three processes merit attention. First, personality traits influence people’s
Author Manuscript

exposure to relationship events. For example, people high in Neuroticism may be more
likely to be exposed to daily conflicts in their relationships (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995;
Suls & Martin, 2005). Second, personality traits shape people’s reactions to the behavior of
their partners. For example, disagreeable individuals may escalate negative affect during
conflict (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). Similarly, agreeable people may
be better able to regulate emotions during interpersonal conflicts (Jensen-Campbell &
Graziano, 2001). Cognitive processes also factor in creating trait-correlated experiences
(Snyder & Stukas, 1999). For example, highly neurotic individuals may overreact to minor
criticism from their partner, believe they are no longer loved when their partner does not
call, or assume infidelity on the basis of mere flirtation. Third, personality traits evoke
behaviors from partners that contribute to relationship quality. For example, people high in
Neuroticism and low in Agreeableness may be more likely to express behaviors identified as
Author Manuscript

detrimental to relationships such as criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling

(Gottman, 1994).

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Educational and Occupational Attainment
The role of personality traits in occupational attainment has been studied sporadically in
longitudinal studies over the last few decades. In contrast, the roles of SES and IQ have been
studied exhaustively by sociologists in their programmatic research on the antecedents to
status attainment. In their seminal work, Blau and Duncan (1967) conceptualized a model of
status attainment as a function of the SES of an individual’s father. Researchers at the
University of Wisconsin added what they considered social-psychological factors (Sewell,
Haller, & Portes, 1969). In this Wisconsin model, attainment is a function of parental SES,
cognitive abilities, academic performance, occupational and educational aspirations, and the
Author Manuscript

role of significant others (Haller & Portes, 1973). Each factor in the model has been found to
be positively related to occupational attainment (Hauser, Tsai, & Sewell, 1983). The key
question here is to what extent SES and IQ predict educational and occupational attainment
holding constant the remaining factors.

A great deal of research has validated the structure and content of the Wisconsin model
(Sewell & Hauser, 1980; Sewell & Hauser, 1992), and rather than compiling these studies,

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 12

which are highly similar in structure and findings, we provide representative findings from a
Author Manuscript

study that includes three replications of the model (Jencks, Crouse, & Mueser, 1983). As can
be seen in Table 5, childhood socioeconomic indicators, such as father’s occupational status
and mother’s education, are related to outcomes, such as grades, educational attainment, and
eventual occupational attainment, even after controlling for the remaining variables in the
Wisconsin model. The average beta weight of SES and education was .09.7 Parental income
had a stronger effect, with an average beta weight of .14 across these three studies.
Cognitive abilities were even more powerful predictors of occupational attainment, with an
average beta weight of .27.

Do personality traits contribute to the prediction of occupational attainment even when

intelligence and socioeconomic background are taken into account? As there are far fewer
studies linking personality traits directly to indices of occupational attainment, such as
prestige and income, we also included prospective studies examining the impact of
Author Manuscript

personality traits on related outcomes such as long-term unemployment and occupational

stability. The studies listed in Table 6 attest to the fact that personality traits predict all of
these work-related outcomes. For example, adolescent ratings of Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness predicted occupational status 46 years later, even
after controlling for childhood IQ (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). The
weighted-average beta weight across the studies in Table 6 was .23 (CIs = .14 and .32),
indicating that the modal effect size of personality traits was comparable with the effect of
childhood SES and IQ on similar outcomes.8

Why are personality traits related to achievement in educational and occupational domains?
The personality processes involved may vary across different stages of development, and at
least five candidate processes deserve research scrutiny (Roberts, 2006). First, the
Author Manuscript

personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “attraction” effects or “active niche-

picking,” whereby people choose educational and work experiences whose qualities are
concordant with their own personalities. For example, people who are more conscientious
may prefer conventional jobs, such as accounting and farming (Gottfredson, Jones, &
Holland, 1993). People who are more extraverted may prefer jobs that are described as
social or enterprising, such as teaching or business management (Ackerman & Heggestad,
1997). Moreover, extraverted individuals are more likely to assume leadership roles in
multiple settings (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). In fact, all of the Big Five
personality traits have substantial relations with better performance when the personality
predictor is appropriately aligned with work criteria (Hogan & Holland, 2003). This
indicates that if people find jobs that fit with their dispositions they will experience greater
levels of job performance, which should lead to greater success, tenure, and satisfaction
Author Manuscript

across the life course (Judge et al., 1999).

7We did not transform the standardized beta weights into the correlation metric because almost all authors failed to provide the
necessary information for the transformation (CIs or standard errors). Therefore, we averaged the results in the beta weight metric
instead. As the sampling distribution of beta weights is unknown, we used the formula for the standard error of the partial correlation
(√N−k−2) to estimate CIs.
8In making comparisons between correlations and regression weights, it should be kept in mind that although the two are identical for
orthogonal predictors, most regression weights tend to be smaller than the corresponding zero-order validity correlations because of
predictor redundancy (R.A. Peterson & Brown, 2005).

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 13

Second, personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “recruitment effects,” whereby

Author Manuscript

people are selected into achievement situations and are given preferential treatment on the
basis of their personality characteristics. These recruitment effects begin to appear early in
development. For example, children’s personality traits begin to influence their emerging
relationships with teachers at a young age (Birch & Ladd, 1998). In adulthood, job
applicants who are more extraverted, conscientious, and less neurotic are liked better by
interviewers and are more often recommended for the job (Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000).

Third, personality traits may affect work outcomes because people take an active role in
shaping their work environment (Roberts, 2006). For example, leaders have tremendous
power to shape the nature of the organization by hiring, firing, and promoting individuals.
Cross-sectional studies of groups have shown that leaders’ conscientiousness and cognitive
ability affect decision making and treatment of subordinates (LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, &
Hedlund, 1997). Individuals who are not leaders or supervisors may shape their work to
Author Manuscript

better fit themselves through job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) or job sculpting
(Bell & Staw, 1989). They can change their day-to-day work environments through
changing the tasks they do, organizing their work differently, or changing the nature of the
relationships they maintain with others (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Presumably these
changes in their work environments lead to an increase in the fit between personality and
work. In turn, increased fit with one’s environment is associated with elevated performance
(Harms, Roberts, & Winter, 2006).

Fourth, some personality-to-achievement associations emerge as consequences of “attrition”

or “deselection pressures,” whereby people leave achievement settings (e.g., schools or jobs)
that do not fit with their personality or are released from these settings because of their trait-
correlated behaviors (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). For example, longitudinal evidence from
Author Manuscript

different countries shows that children who exhibit a combination of poor self-control and
high irritability or antagonism are at heightened risk of unemployment (Caspi, Wright,
Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Kokko, Bergman, & Pulkkinen, 2003; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000).

Fifth, personality-to-achievement associations may emerge as a result of direct effects of

personality on performance. Personality traits may promote certain kinds of task
effectiveness; there is some evidence that this occurs in part via the processing of
information. For example, higher positive emotions facilitate the efficient processing of
complex information and are associated with creative problem solving (Ashby, Isen, &
Turken, 1999). In addition to these effects on task effectiveness, personality may directly
affect other aspects of work performance, such as interpersonal interactions (Hurtz &
Donovan, 2000). Personality traits may also directly influence performance motivation; for
Author Manuscript

example, Conscientiousness consistently predicts stronger goal setting and self-efficacy,

whereas Neuroticism predicts these motivations negatively (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge &
Ilies, 2002).

GENERAL DISCUSSION
It is abundantly clear from this review that specific personality traits predict important life
outcomes, such as mortality, divorce, and success in work. Depending on the sample, trait,

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 14

and outcome, people with specific personality characteristics are more likely to experience
Author Manuscript

important life outcomes even after controlling for other factors. Moreover, when compared
with the effects reported for SES and cognitive abilities, the predictive validities of
personality traits do not appear to be markedly different in magnitude. In fact, as can be seen
in Figures 1–3, in many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that personality traits
predict these outcomes better than SES does. Despite these impressive findings, a few
limitations and qualifications must be kept in mind when interpreting these data.

The requirement that we only examine the incremental validity of personality measures after
controlling for SES and cognitive abilities, though clearly the most stringent test of the
relevance of personality traits, is also arbitrarily tough. In fact, controlling for variables that
are assumed to be nuisance factors can obscure important relations (Meehl, 1971). For
example, SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits may determine life outcomes
through indirect rather than direct pathways. Consider cognitive abilities. These are only
Author Manuscript

modest predictors of occupational attainment when “all other factors are controlled,” but
they play a much more important, indirect role through their effect on educational
attainment. Students with higher cognitive abilities tend to obtain better grades and go on to
achieve more in the educational sphere across a range of disciplines (Kuncel, Crede, &
Thomas, 2007; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001, 2004); in turn, educational attainment is the
best predictor of occupational attainment. This observation about cumulative indirect effects
applies equally well to SES and personality traits.

Furthermore, the effect sizes associated with SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits
were all uniformly small-to-medium in size. This finding is entirely consistent with those
from other reviews showing that most psychological constructs have effect sizes in the range
between .10 and .40 on a correlational scale (Meyer et al., 2001). Our hope is that reviews
Author Manuscript

like this one can help adjust the norms researchers hold for what the modal effect size is in
psychology and related fields. Studies are often disparaged for having small effects as if it is
not the norm. Moreover, small effect sizes are often criticized without any understanding of
their practical significance. Practical significance can only be determined if we ground our
research by both predicting consequential outcomes, such as mortality, and by translating
the results into a metric that is clearly understandable, such as years lost or number of
deaths. Correlations and ratio statistics do not provide this type of information. On the other
hand, some researchers have translated their results into metrics that most individuals can
grasp. As we noted in the introduction, Rosenthal (1990) showed that taking aspirin
prevented approximately 85 heart attacks in the patients of 10,845 physicians despite the
meager −.03 correlation between this practice and the outcome of having a heart attack.
Several other studies in our review provided similar benchmarks. Hardarson et al., (2001)
Author Manuscript

showed that 148 fewer people died in their high education group (out of 869) than in their
low education group, despite the effect size being equal to a correlation of −.05. Danner et
al. (2001) showed that the association between positive emotion and longevity was
associated with a gain of almost 7 years of additional life, despite having an average effect
size of around .20. Of course, our ability to draw these types of conclusions necessitates
grounding our research in more practical outcomes and their respective metrics.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 15

There is one salient difference between many of the studies of SES and cognitive abilities
Author Manuscript

and the studies focusing on personality traits. The typical sample in studies of the long-term
effect of personality traits was a sample of convenience or was distinctly unrepresentative.
In contrast, many of the studies of SES and cognitive ability included nationally
representative and/or remarkably large samples (e.g., 500,000 participants). Therefore, the
results for SES and cognitive abilities are generalizable, whereas it is more difficult to
generalize findings from personality research. Perhaps the situation will improve if future
demographers include personality measures in large surveys of the general population.

Recommendations
One of the challenges of incorporating personality measures in large studies is the cost–
benefit trade off involved with including a thorough assessment of personality traits in a
reasonably short period of time. Because most personality inventories include many items,
Author Manuscript

researchers may be pressed either to eliminate them from their studies or to use highly
abbreviated measures of personality traits. The latter practice has become even more
common now that most personality researchers have concluded that personality traits can be
represented within five to seven broad domains (Goldberg, 1993b; Saucier, 2003). The
temptation is to include a brief five-factor instrument under the assumption that this will
provide good coverage of the entire range of personality traits. However, the use of short,
broad bandwidth measures can lead to substantial decreases in predictive validity (Goldberg,
1993a), because short measures of the Big Five lack the breadth and depth of longer
personality inventories. In contrast, research has shown that the predictive validity of
personality measures increases when one uses a well-elaborated measure with many lower
order facets (Ashton, 1998; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen, 1998; Paunonen &
Ashton, 2001).
Author Manuscript

However, research participants do not have unlimited time, and researchers may need advice
on the selection of optimal measures of personality traits. One solution is to pay attention to
previous research and focus on those traits that have been found to be related to the specific
outcomes under study instead of using an omnibus personality inventory. For example,
given the clear and consistent finding that the personality trait of Conscientiousness is
related to health behaviors and mortality (e.g., Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Friedman, 2000), it
would seem prudent to measure this trait well if one wanted to control for this factor or
include it in any study of health and mortality. Moreover, it appears that specific facets of
this domain, such as self-control and conventionality, are more relevant to health than are
other facets such as orderliness (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). If researchers are truly interested in
assessing personality traits well, then they should invest the time necessary for the task. This
entails moving away from expedient surveys to more in-depth assessments. Finally, if one
Author Manuscript

truly wants to assess personality traits well, then researchers should use multiple methods
for this purpose and should not rely solely on self-reports (Eid & Diener, 2006).

We also recommend that researchers not equate all individual differences with personality
traits. Personality psychologists also study constructs such as motivation, interests,
emotions, values, identities, life stories, and self-regulation (see Mayer, 2005, and Roberts &
Wood, 2006, for reviews). Moreover, these different domains of personality are only

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 16

modestly correlated (e.g., Ackerman & Heggested, 1997; Roberts & Robins, 2000). Thus,
Author Manuscript

there are a wide range of additional constructs that may have independent effects on
important life outcomes that are waiting to be studied.

Conclusions
In light of increasingly robust evidence that personality matters for a wide range of life
outcomes, researchers need to turn their attention to several issues. First, we need to know
more about the processes through which personality traits shape individuals’ functioning
over time. Simply documenting that links exist between personality traits and life outcomes
does not clarify the mechanisms through which personality exerts its effects. In this article,
we have suggested a number of potential processes that may be at work in the domains of
health, relationships, and educational and occupational success. Undoubtedly, other
personality processes will turn out to influence these outcomes as well.
Author Manuscript

Second, we need a greater understanding of the relationship between personality and the
social environmental factors already known to affect health and development. Looking over
the studies reviewed above, one can see that specific personality traits such as
Conscientiousness predict occupational and marital outcomes that, in turn, predict longevity.
Thus, it may be that Conscientiousness has both direct and indirect effects on mortality, as it
contributes to following life paths that afford better health, and may also directly affect the
ways in which people handle health-related issues, such as whether they exercise or eat a
healthy diet (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). One idea that has not been entertained is the potential
synergistic relation between personality traits and social environmental factors. It may be the
case that the combination of certain personality traits and certain social conditions creates a
potent cocktail of factors that either promotes or undermines specific outcomes. Finally,
certain social contexts may wash out the effect of individual difference factors, and, in turn,
Author Manuscript

people possessing certain personality characteristics may be resilient to seemingly toxic

environmental influences. A systematic understanding of the relations between personality
traits and social environmental factors associated with important life outcomes would be
very helpful.

Third, the present results drive home the point that we need to know much more about the
development of personality traits at all stages in the life course. How does a person arrive in
adulthood as an optimistic or conscientious person? If personality traits affect the ways that
individuals negotiate the tasks they face across the course of their lives, then the processes
contributing to the development of those traits are worthy of study (Caspi & Shiner, 2006;
Caspi & Shiner, in press; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). However, there has been a tendency in
personality and developmental research to focus on personality traits as the causes of various
Author Manuscript

outcomes without fully considering personality differences as an outcome worthy of study

(Roberts, 2005). In contrast, research shows that personality traits continue to change in
adulthood (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) and that these changes may be
important for health and mortality. For example, changes in personality traits such as
Neuroticism have been linked to poor health outcomes and even mortality (Mroczek &
Spiro, 2007).

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 17

Fourth, our results raise fundamental questions about how personality should be addressed
Author Manuscript

in prevention and intervention efforts. Skeptical readers may doubt the relevance of the
present results for prevention and intervention in light of the common assumption that
personality is highly stable and immutable. However, personality traits do change in
adulthood (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) and can be changed through therapeutic
intervention (De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006). Therefore, one
possibility would be to focus on socializing factors that may affect changes in personality
traits, as the resulting changes would then be leveraged across multiple domains of life.
Further, the findings for personality traits should be of considerable interest to professionals
dedicated to promoting healthy, happy marriages and socioeconomic success. Some
individuals will clearly be at a heightened risk of problems in these life domains, and it may
be possible to target prevention and intervention efforts to the subsets of individuals at the
greatest risk. Such research can likewise inform the processes that need to be targeted in
Author Manuscript

prevention and intervention. As we gain greater understanding of how personality exerts its
effects on adaptation, we will achieve new insights into the most relevant processes to
change. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that it may be possible to improve individuals’
lives by targeting those processes without directly changing the personality traits driving
those processes (e.g., see Rapee, Kennedy, Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005, for an
interesting example of how this may occur). In all prevention and intervention work, it will
be important to attend to the possibility that most personality traits can have positive or
negative effects, depending on the outcomes in question, the presence of other psychological
attributes, and the environmental context (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; Shiner, 2005).

Personality research has had a contentious history, and there are still vestiges of doubt about
the importance of personality traits. We thus reviewed the comparative predictive validity of
personality traits, SES, and IQ across three objective criteria: mortality, divorce, and
Author Manuscript

occupational attainment. We found that personality traits are just as important as SES and IQ
in predicting these important life outcomes. We believe these metaanalytic findings should
quell lingering doubts. The closing of a chapter in the history of personality psychology is
also an opportunity to open a new chapter. We thus invite new research to test and document
how personality traits “work” to shape life outcomes. A useful lead may be taken from
cognate research on social disparities in health (Adler & Snibbe, 2003). Just as researchers
are seeking to understand how SES “gets under the skin” to influence health, personality
researchers need to partner with other branches of psychology to understand how personality
traits “get outside the skin” to influence important life outcomes.

Acknowledgments
Author Manuscript

Preparation of this paper was supported by National Institute of Aging Grants AG19414 and AG20048; National
Institute of Mental Health Grants MH49414, MH45070, MH49227; United Kingdom Medical Research Council
Grant G0100527; and by grants from the Colgate Research Council. We would like to thank Howard Friedman,
David Funder, George Davie Smth, Ian Deary, Chris Fraley, Linda Gottfredson, Josh Jackson, and Ben Karney for
their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

REFERENCES
Abas M, Hotopf M, Prince M. Depression and mortality in a high-risk population. British Journal of
Psychiatry. 2002; 181:123–128. [PubMed: 12151282]

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 18

Abelson RP. A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin. 1985;
97:129–133.
Author Manuscript

Ackerman PL, Heggestad ED. Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.
Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 121:219–245. [PubMed: 9100487]
Adler NE, Boyce T, Chesney MA, Cohen S, Folkman S, Kahn RL, Syme SL. Socioeconomic status
and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist. 1994; 49:15–24. [PubMed:
8122813]
Adler NE, Snibbe AC. The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between
socioeconomic status and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2003; 12:119–123.
Allison PJ, Guichard C, Fung K, Gilain L. Dispositional optimism predicts survival status 1 year after
diagnosis in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003; 21:543–548.
[PubMed: 12560447]
Almada SJ, Zonderman AB, Shekelle RB, Dyer AR, Daviglus ML, Costa PT, Stamler J. Neuroticism
and cynicism and risk of death in middle-aged men: The Western Electric Study. Psychosomatic
Medicine. 1991; 53:165–175. [PubMed: 2031070]
Amato PR, Rogers SJ. A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of
Author Manuscript

Marriage and the Family. 1997; 59:612–624.

Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on
cognition. Psychological Review. 1999; 106:529–550. [PubMed: 10467897]
Ashton MC. Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19:289–303.
Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory of personality. In: Pervin, LA.; John, OR., editors. Handbook of
personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 154-196.
Barefoot JC, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. Hostility, CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year
follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1983; 45:59–63. [PubMed: 6844529]
Barefoot JC, Dodge KA, Peterson BL, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. The Cook-Medley hostility
scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1989; 51:46–57.
[PubMed: 2928460]
Barefoot JC, Larsen S, von der Lieth L, Schroll M. Hostility, incidence of acute myocardial infarction,
and mortality in a sample of older Danish men and women. American Journal of Epidemiology.
Author Manuscript

1995; 142:477–484. [PubMed: 7677126]

Barefoot JC, Maynard KE, Beckham JC, Brummett BH, Hooker K, Siegler IC. Trust, health, and
longevity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1998; 21:517–526. [PubMed: 9891252]
Barefoot JC, Siegler IC, Nowlin JB, Peterson BL, Haney TL, Williams RB. Suspiciousness, health,
and mortality: A follow-up stuffy of 500 older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1987; 49:450–
457. [PubMed: 3671634]
Bassuk SS, Berkman LF, Amick BC. Socioeconomic status and mortality among the elderly: Findings
from four U.S. Communities. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 155:520–533. [PubMed:
11882526]
Beebe-Dimmer J, Lynch JW, Turrell G, Lustgarten S, Raghunathan T, Kaplan GA. Childhood and
adult socioeconomic conditions and 31-year mortality risk in women. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 2004; 159:481–490. [PubMed: 14977644]
Bell, NE.; Staw, BM. People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal
control in organizations. In: Arthur, MB.; Hall, DT.; Lawrence, BS., editors. Handbook of career
theory. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 232-251.
Author Manuscript

Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 1978; 46:1053–1070.
Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health. Social Science
Medicine. 2000; 51:843–857. [PubMed: 10972429]
Birch SH, Ladd GW. Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship.
Developmental Psychology. 1998; 34:934–946. [PubMed: 9779740]
Blau, PM.; Duncan, OD. The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley; 1967.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 19

Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading
behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130:887–919. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

15535742]
Bolger N, Zuckerman A. A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69:890–902. [PubMed: 7473036]
Bornstein RF. Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic
assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment. 1999; 11:48–57.
Bosworth HB, Schaie KW. Survival effects in cognitive function, cognitive style, and
sociodemographic variables in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Experimental Aging Research.
1999; 25:121–139. [PubMed: 10223172]
Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Barefoot JC. Hostility, age, and
mortality in a sample of cardiac patients. American Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 96:64–66.
[PubMed: 15979435]
Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Helms MJ, Barefoot JC. Hostility as a
predictor of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2004;
66:629–632. [PubMed: 15385683]
Author Manuscript

Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of
Psychology. 2002; 53:371–399.
Bucher HC, Ragland DR. Socioeconomic indicators and mortality from coronary heart disease and
cancer: A 22-year follow-up of middle-aged men. American Journal of Public Health. 1995;
85:1231–1236. [PubMed: 7661230]
Cairns, RB.; Cairns, BD. Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children.
Developmental Psychology. 1987; 23:308–313.
Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children.
Developmental Psychology. 1988; 24:824–831.
Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner R. Personality development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2005;
56:453–484.
Caspi, A.; Shiner, RL. Personality development. In: Damon, W.; Lerner, R.; Eisenberg, N., editors.
Author Manuscript

Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed.
New York: Wiley; 2006. p. 300-365.(Vol. Ed.)
Caspi, A.; Shiner, RL. Temperament and personality. In: Rutter, M.; Bishop, D.; Pine, D.; Scott, S.;
Stevenson, J.; Taylor, E.; Thapar, A., editors. Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry. 5th ed.
London: Blackwell; (in press)
Caspi A, Wright BR, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and
adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological
Preview. 1998; 63:424–451.
Christensen AJ, Ehlers SL, Wiebe JS, Moran PJ, Raichle K, Ferneyhough K, Lawton WJ. Patient
personality and mortality: A 4-year prospective examination of chronic renal insufficiency. Health
Psychology. 2002; 21:315–320. [PubMed: 12090673]
Claussen B, Davey-Smith G, Thelle D. Impact of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position on
cause specific mortality: The Oslo Mortality Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health. 2003; 57:40–45. [PubMed: 12490647]
The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. 2005
Author Manuscript

May. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf

Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Emotional style and susceptibility to the
common cold. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003a; 65:652–657. [PubMed: 12883117]
Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Sociability and susceptibility to the common
cold. Psychological Science. 2003b; 14:389–395. [PubMed: 12930466]
Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human
development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58:175–199.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 20

Contrada, RJ.; Cather, C.; O’Leary, A. Personality and health: Dispositions and processes in disease
susceptibility and adaptation to illness. In: Pervin, LA.; John, OR., editors. Handbook of
Author Manuscript

personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 576-604.
Cook KW, Vance CA, Spector RE. The relation of candidate personality with selection-interview
outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2000; 30:867–885.
Curtis S, Southall H, Congdon P, Dodgeon B. Area effects on health variation over the life-course:
Analysis of the longitudinal study sample in England using new data on are of residence in
childhood. Social Science & Medicine. 2004; 58:57–74. [PubMed: 14572921]
Danner DD, Snowden DA, Friesen WV. Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from
the Nun Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80:804–813. [PubMed:
11374751]
Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, Hole D. Adverse socioeconomic conditions in childhood and cause
specific adult mortality: Prospective observational study. British Medical Journal. 1998;
316:1631–1635. [PubMed: 9603744]
Deary IJ, Batty D, Gottfredson LS. Human hierarchies, health, and IQ: Comment. Science. 2005;
309:703. [PubMed: 16051772]
Author Manuscript

Deary IJ, Der G. Reaction time explains IQ’s association with death. Psychological Science. 2005;
16:64–69. [PubMed: 15660853]
De Fruyt F, Denollet J. Type D personality: A five-factor model perspective. Psychology and Health.
2002; 17:671–683.
De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Bagby RM, Rolland J, Rouillon F. Assessing and interpreting personality
change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological Assessment. 2006;
18:71–80. [PubMed: 16594814]
Denollet J, Sys SU, Stroobant N, Rombouts H, Gillebert TC, Brutsaert DL. Personality as independent
predictor of long-term mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1996; 347:417–
421. [PubMed: 8618481]
Donnellan MB, Conger RD, Bryant CM. The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in
Personality. 2004; 38:481–504.
Doornbos G, Kromhout D. Educational level and mortality in a 32-year follow-up study of 18-year old
men in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1990; 19:374–379. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

2376450]
Eid, M.; Diener, E. Handbook of psychological assessment: A multimethod perspective. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association; 2006.
Erez A, Judge TA. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86:1270–1279. [PubMed: 11768067]
Everson SA, Kauhanen J, Kaplan GA, Goldberg DE, Julkunen J, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT. Hostility
and increased risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction: The mediating role of behavioral
risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1997; 146:142–152. [PubMed: 9230776]
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Shannon FT. A proportional hazards model of family breakdown.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1984; 46:539–549.
Fiscella K, Franks P. Individual income, income inequality, health, and mortality: What are the
relationships? Health Services Research. 2000; 35:307–318. [PubMed: 10778817]
Friedman HS. Long-term relations of personality and health: Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms.
Journal of Personality. 2000; 68:1089–1108. [PubMed: 11130733]
Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Schwartz JE, Wingard DL, Criqui MH. Does
Author Manuscript

childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;
65:176–185. [PubMed: 8355139]
Funder, DC. The personality puzzle. New York: Norton; 2004.
Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 1983; 44:107–112.
Gallo LC, Matthews KA. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical
health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129:10–51. [PubMed:
12555793]

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 21

Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Smith GD. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific
mortality in adulthood: Systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2004; 26:7–
Author Manuscript

21. [PubMed: 15234944]

Ganguli M, Dodge HH, Mulsant BH. Rates and predictors of mortality in an aging, rural, community-
based cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002; 59:1046–1052. [PubMed: 12418938]
Giltay EJ, Geleijnse JM, Zitman EG, Hoekstra T, Schouten EG. Dispositional optimism and all-cause
and cardiovascular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch men and women. Archives
of General Psychiatry. 2004; 61:1126–1135. [PubMed: 15520360]
Goldberg, LR. The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In: Funder, DC.;
Parke, RD.; Tomlinson-Keasey, C.; Widaman, K., editors. Studying lives through time:
Personality and development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993a. p.
169-188.
Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist. 1993b; 48:26–34.
[PubMed: 8427480]
Gottfredson GD, Jones EM, Holland JL. Personality and vocational interests: The relation of Holland’s
six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of Counseling
Author Manuscript

Psychology. 1993; 40:518–524.

Gottman, JM. What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital
outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1994.
Gottman JM, Coan J, Carrere S, Swanson C. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed
interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998; 60:5–22.
Grossarth-Maticek R, Bastianns J, Kanazir DT. Psychosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality
from cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective study. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research. 1985; 29:167–176. [PubMed: 4009517]
Haller AO, Portes A. Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education. 1973; 46:51–91.
Hardarson T, Gardarsdottir M, Gudmundsson KT, Thorgeirsson G, Sigvaldason H, Sigfusson N. The
relationship between educational level and mortality: The Reykjavik Study. Journal of Internal
Medicine. 2001; 249:495–502. [PubMed: 11422655]
Harms PD, Roberts BW, Winter D. Becoming the Harvard man: Person-environment fit, personality
development, and academic success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006; 32:851–
Author Manuscript

865. [PubMed: 16738020]

Hart CL, Taylor MD, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Starr JM, Hole DJ, et al. Childhood IQ, social
class, deprivation, and their relationships with mortality and morbidity risk in later life:
Prospective observational study linking the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan Studies.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003; 65:877–883. [PubMed: 14508035]
Hauser RM, Tsai S, Sewell WH. A model of stratification with response error in social and
psychological variables. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56:20–46.
Hearn MD, Murray DM, Luepker RV. Hostility, coronary heart disease, and total mortality: A 33-year
follow-up study of university students. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1989; 12:105–121.
[PubMed: 2788220]
Hedges, LV.; Olkin, I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1985.
Helson, R. [Unpublished data from the Mills Longitudinal Study]. Berkeley: University of California;
2006. Unpublished raw data
Helson R, Roberts BW. Personality of young adult couples and wives’ work patterns. Journal of
Personality. 1992; 60:575–597. [PubMed: 1403596]
Author Manuscript

Helson R, Roberts BW, Agronick G. Enduringness and change in creative personality and the
prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;
69:1173–1183. [PubMed: 8531057]
Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist. 2003;
58:78–79. [PubMed: 12674822]
Heslop P, Smith GD, Macleod J, Hart C. The socioeconomic position of employed women, risk factors
and mortality. Social Science and Medicine. 2001; 53:477–485. [PubMed: 11459398]

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 22

Hirokawa K, Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Shimizu H. The relationships of a rationality/antiemotionality

personality scale to mortalities of cancer and cardiovascular disease in a community population in
Author Manuscript

Japan. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2004; 56:103–111. [PubMed: 14987971]

Hogan J, Holland B. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A
socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88:100–112. [PubMed:
12675398]
Holley P, Yabiku S, Benin M. The relationship between intelligence and divorce. Journal of Family
Issues. 2006; 27:1723–1748.
Hollis JF, Connett JE, Stevens VJ, Greenlick MR. Stressful life events, Type A behavior, and the
prediction of cardiovascular and total mortality over six years. Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
1990; 13:263–280. [PubMed: 2213869]
Hosegood V, Campbell OMR. Body mass index, height, weight, arm circumference, and mortality in
rural Bangladeshi women: A 19-year longitudinal study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
2003; 77:341–347. [PubMed: 12540392]
Hurtz GM, Donovan JJ. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 2000; 85:869–879. [PubMed: 11125652]
Author Manuscript

Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, George LJ. The connubial crucible: Newlywed years
as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 2001; 80:237–252. [PubMed: 11220443]
Iribarren C, Jacobs DR, Kiefe CI, Lewis CE, Matthews KA, Roseman JM, Hulley SB. Causes and
demographic, medical, lifestyle and psychosocial predictors of premature mortality: the CARDIA
study. Social Science & Medicine. 2005; 60:471–482. [PubMed: 15550296]
Jalovaara M. Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991–1993. Population
Studies. 2001; 55:119–133.
Jencks C, Crouse J, Mueser P. The Wisconsin model of status attainment: A national replication with
improved measures of ability and aspiration. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56:3–19.
Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal
of Personality. 2001; 69:323–361. [PubMed: 11339802]
Jockin V, McGue M, Lykken DT. Personality and divorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 1996; 71:288–299. [PubMed: 8765483]
Author Manuscript

Johnson W, Krueger RF. How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking
finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90:680–691.
[PubMed: 16649863]
Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87:765–780. [PubMed: 12184579]
Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR. The big five personality traits, general mental
ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology. 1999; 52:621–652.
Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87:797–807. [PubMed: 12184582]
Kaplan GA, Wilson TW, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wu M, Salonen JT. Social functioning and overall
mortality: Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study.
Epidemiology. 1994; 5:495–500. [PubMed: 7986863]
Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory,
methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 118:3–34. [PubMed: 7644604]
Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and
Author Manuscript

marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52:27–40. [PubMed:
3820076]
Kenford SL, Smith SS, Wetter DW, Jorenby DE, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Predicting relapse back to
smoking: Contrasting affective and physical models of dependence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology. 2002; 70:216–227. [PubMed: 11860048]
Khang Y, Kim HR. Explaining socioeconomic inequality in mortality among South Koreans: An
examination of multiple pathways in a nationally representative longitudinal study. International
Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 34:630–637. [PubMed: 15746204]

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 23

Kinnunen U, Pulkkinen L. Childhood socio-emotional characteristics as antecedents of marital

stability and quality. European Psychologist. 2003; 8:223–237.
Author Manuscript

Kokko K, Bergman LR, Pulkkinen L. Child personality characteristics and selection into long-term
unemployment in Finnish and Swedish longitudinal samples. International Journal of Behavioral
Development. 2003; 27:134–144.
Kokko K, Pulkkinen L. Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle
of maladaptation and some protective factors. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36:463–472.
[PubMed: 10902698]
Korten AE, Jorm AF, Jaio Z, Letenneur L, Jacomb PA, Henderson AS, et al. Health, cognitive, and
psychosocial factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community sample. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999; 53:83–88. [PubMed: 10396468]
Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J, Rose RJ, Kesaniemi A, Sarna S, Heikkila K, Langinvainio H. Hostility as a
risk factor for mortality and ischemic heart disease in men. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1988;
50:330–340. [PubMed: 3413267]
Kuh D, Hardy R, Langenberg C, Richards M, Wadsworth MEJ. Mortality in adults aged 26–54 years
related to socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood: Post war birth cohort study.
Author Manuscript

British Medical Journal. 2002; 325:1076–1080. [PubMed: 12424168]

Kuh D, Maclean M. Women’s childhood experience of parental separation and their subsequent health
and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Journal of Biosocial Science. 1990; 22:121–135.
[PubMed: 2298757]
Kuh D, Richards M, Hardy R, Butterworth S, Wadsworth MEJ. Childhood cognitive ability and deaths
up until middle age: A post-war birth cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004;
33:408–413. [PubMed: 15082649]
Kuncel NR, Crede M, Thomas LL. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the
Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and undergraduate grade point average
(UGPA). Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2007; 6:51–68.
Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the
Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance.
Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127:162–181. [PubMed: 11271753]
Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job
performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Author Manuscript

2004; 86:148–161. [PubMed: 14717633]

Kurdek LA. Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed
couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64:221–242.
Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health
behaviors, and mortality. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998; 279:1703–1708.
[PubMed: 9624022]
Lawrence E, Bradbury TN. Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15:135–154. [PubMed: 11322081]
Lee WE, Wadsorth MEJ, Hotopf M. The protective role of trait anxiety: S longitudinal cohort study.
Psychological Medicine. 2006; 36:345–351. [PubMed: 16393365]
LePine JA, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Hedlund J. Effects of individual differences on the performance
of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g . Journal of Applied Psychology.
1997; 82:803–811.
Lewis M. Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12:67–83.
Author Manuscript

Loeb J. The personality factor in divorce. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1966; 30:562. [PubMed:
4382508]
Lund R, Holstein BE, Osler M. Marital history from age 15 to 40 years and subsequent 10-year
mortality: A longitudinal study of Danish males born in 1953. International Journal of
Epidemiology. 2004; 33:389–397. [PubMed: 15082647]
Luster T, McAdoo H. Family and child influences on educational attainment: A secondary analysis of
the High/Scope Perry preschool data. Developmental Psychology. 1996; 32:26–39.
Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wilson TW, Smith NL, Salonen JT. Childhood and
adult socioeconomic status as predictors of mortality in Finland. Lancet. 1994; 343:424–527.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 24

Maier H, Smith J. Psychological predictors of mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology:

Psychological Sciences. 1999; 54B:44–54.
Author Manuscript

Martin LT, Friedman HS. Comparing personality scales across time: An illustrative study of validity
and consistency in life-span archival data. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68:85–110. [PubMed:
10820682]
Martin LT, Kubzansky LD. Childhood cognitive performance and risk of mortality: A prospective
cohort study of gifted individuals. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 162:887–890.
[PubMed: 16150888]
Maruta T, Colligan RC, Malinchoc M, Offord KP. Optimists vs. pessimists: Survival rate among
medical patients over a 30-year period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2000; 75:140–143. [PubMed:
10683651]
Maruta T, Hamburgen ME, Jennings CA, Offord KP, Colligan RC, Frye RL, Malinchoc M. Keeping
hostility in perspective: Coronary heart disease and the hostility scale on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1993; 68:109–114. [PubMed:
8423689]
Mayer JD. A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology? American
Author Manuscript

Psychologist. 2005; 60:294–307. [PubMed: 15943522]

McCarron P, Gunnell D, Harrison GL, Okasha M, Davey-Smith G. Temperament in young adulthood
and later mortality: Prospective observational study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health. 2003; 57:888–892. [PubMed: 14600116]
McCranie EW, Kahan J. Personality and multiple divorce. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.
1986; 174:161–164. [PubMed: 3950599]
McCrainie EW, Watkins LO, Brandsma JM, Sisson BD. Hostility, coronary heart disease (CHD)
incidence, and total mortality: Lack of association in a 25-year follow-up study of 478
physicians. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1986; 9:119–125. [PubMed: 3712425]
Meehl RE. High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1971;
77:143–148.
Mershon B, Gorsuch RL. Number of factors in personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase
predictability of real life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 55:675–
680.
Author Manuscript

Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde LD, Kay GG, Moreland KL, Dies RR, et al. Psychological testing and
psychological assessment. American Psychologist. 2001; 56:128–165. [PubMed: 11279806]
Miller GE, Cohen S, Rabin BS, Skoner DR, Doyle WJ. Personality and tonic cardiovascular,
neuroendocrine, and immune parameters. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 1999; 13:109–123.
Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley; 1968.
Mroczek DK, Spiro A. Personality change influences mortality in older men. Psychological Science.
2007; 18:371–376. [PubMed: 17576273]
Murberg TA, Bru E, Aarsland T. Personality as predictor of mortality among patients with congestive
heart failure: A two-year follow-up study. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001; 30:749–
757.
Myers, DG. The American paradox: Spiritual hunger in an age of plenty. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press; 2000.
Orbuch TL, Veroff J, Hassan H, Horrocks J. Who will divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of black
couples and white couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2002; 19:179–202.
Osler M, Andersen AN, Due P, Lund R, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE. Socioeconomic position in
Author Manuscript

early life, birth weight, childhood cognitive function, and adult mortality. A longitudinal study of
Danish men born in 1953. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. 2003; 57:681–686.
[PubMed: 12933773]
Osler M, Prescott E, Gronbaek M, Christensen U, Due P, Enghorn G. Income inequality, individual
income, and mortality in Danish adults: Analysis of pooled data from two cohort studies. British
Medical Journal. 2002; 324:1–4. [PubMed: 11777781]
Ozer DJ, Benet-Martinez V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review
of Psychology. 2006; 57:401–421.
Paul, AM. The cult of personality. New York: Free Press; 2004.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 25

Paunonen SV. Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74:538–556.
Author Manuscript

Paunonen SV, Ashton MC. Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81:524–539. [PubMed: 11554651]
Pervin, LA.; John, OP. Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 1999.
Peterson C, Seligman MER, Yurko KH, Martin LR, Friedman HS. Catastrophizing and untimely
death. Psychological Science. 1998; 2:127–130.
Peterson RA, Brown SR. On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 2005; 90:175–181. [PubMed: 15641898]
Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131:925–
971. [PubMed: 16351329]
Pudaric S, Sundquist J, Johansson S. Country of birth, instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated
health and mortality: A Swedish population-based survey of people aged 55–74. Social Science
and Medicine. 2003; 56:2439–2503.
Rapee RM, Kennedy S, Ingram M, Edwards S, Sweeney L. Prevention and early intervention of
anxiety disorders in inhibited preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Author Manuscript

2005; 73:488–497. [PubMed: 15982146]

Reiss HT, Capobianco A, Tsai FT. Finding the person in personal relationships. Journal of Personality.
2002; 70:813–850. [PubMed: 12498357]
Roberts BW. Blessings, banes, and possibilities in the study of childhood personality. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly. 2005; 51:367–378.
Roberts, BW. Personality development and organizational behavior. In: Staw, BM., editor. Research
on organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press; 2006. p. 1-41.
Roberts BW, Bogg T. A 30-year longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness-
related traits, and the family structure and health-behavior factors that affect health. Journal of
Personality. 2004; 72:325–354. [PubMed: 15016067]
Roberts BW, Caspi A, Moffitt T. Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84:582–593. [PubMed: 12635918]
Roberts BW, Robins RW. Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of the Big Five
dimensions and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26:1284–
Author Manuscript

1296.
Roberts BW, Walton K, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the
life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2006; 132:1–25.
[PubMed: 16435954]
Roberts, BW.; Wood, D. Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of
personality. In: Mroczek, D.; Little, T., editors. Handbook of personality development. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 11-39.
Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits
shape the quality of a relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 79:251–
259. [PubMed: 10948978]
Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. It’s not just who you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and
relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70:925–964.
[PubMed: 12498360]
Roisman GE, Masten AS, Coatsworth D, Tellegen A. Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the
transition to adulthood. Child Development. 2004; 75:123–133. [PubMed: 15015679]
Author Manuscript

Rosenthal R. How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist. 1990; 45:775–777.
Rosenthal, R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
Rosenthal, R. Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical research. In: Bicman, L., editor. Validity and
social experimentation: Don Campbell’s legacy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2000. p. 121-139.
Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Requivalent: A simple effect size indicator. Psychological Methods. 2003;
8:492–496. [PubMed: 14664684]
Ross, L.; Nisbett, RE. The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1991.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 26

Rothbart, MK.; Bates, JE. Temperament. In: Damon, W.; Lerner, R.; Eisenberg, N., editors. Handbook
of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York:
Author Manuscript

Wiley; 2006. p. 99-166.(Vol. Ed.)

Rozanski A, Blumenthal JA, Kaplan J. Impact of psychological factors on the pathogenesis of
cardiovascular disease and implications for therapy. Circulation. 1999; 99:2192–2217. [PubMed:
10217662]
Sapolsky RM. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science. 2005; 308:648–652.
[PubMed: 15860617]
Sarason IG, Smith RE, Diener E. Personality research: Components of variance attributable to the
person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975; 32:199–204.
[PubMed: 1206470]
Saucier G. An alternative multi-language structure for personality attributes. European Journal of
Personality. 2003; 76:179–205.
Schaie KW. The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist. 1994; 49:304–313.
[PubMed: 8203802]
Scheier MF, Carver CS. On the power of positive thinking. Current Directions in Psychological
Author Manuscript

Science. 1993; 2:26–30.

Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin.
1998; 124:262–274.
Schulz R, Bookwala J, Knapp JE, Scheier M, Williamson GM. Pessimism, age, and cancer mortality.
Psychology and Aging. 1996; 11:304–309. [PubMed: 8795058]
Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Crant JM. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking
proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology. 2001; 54:845–874.
Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. The educational and early occupational process. American
Sociological Review. 1969; 34:82–92.
Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in
aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. 1980; 1:59–
101.
Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The influence of The American Occupational Structure on the Wisconsin
Author Manuscript

model. Contemporary Sociology. 1992; 21:598–603.

Shiner RL. An emerging developmental science of personality: Current progress and future prospects.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51:379–387.
Shipley BA, Der G, Taylor MD, Deary IJ. Cognition and all-cause mortality across the entire adult age
range: Health and lifestyle survey. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2006; 68:17–24. [PubMed:
16449407]
Skolnick, A. Married lives: Longitudinal perspectives on marriage. In: Eichorn, DH.; Clausen, JA.;
Haan, N.; Honzik, MP.; Mussen, PH., editors. Present and past in midlife. New York: Academic
Press; 1981. p. 270-300.
Smith AW, Meitz JEG. Vanishing supermoms and other trends in marital dissolution, 1969–1978.
Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1985; 47:53–65.
Smith TW. Personality as risk and resilience in physical health. Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 2006; 15:227–231.
Smith, TW.; Gallo, L. Personality traits as risk factors for physical illness. In: Baum, A.; Evenson, T.;
Singer, J., editors. Handbook of health psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. p. 139-174.
Author Manuscript

Snyder M, Stukas A. Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral
activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999; 50:273–303.
Steenland K, Henley J, Thun M. All-cause and cause-specific death rates by educational status for two
million people in two American Cancer Society cohorts, 1959–1996. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 2002; 156:11–21. [PubMed: 12076884]
St. John PD, Montgomery PR, Kristjansson B, McDowell I. Cognitive scores, even with the normal
range, predict death and institutionalization. Age and Ageing. 2002; 31:373–378. [PubMed:
12242200]

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 27

Suls J, Martin R. The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood
spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality. 2005; 73:1485–1509. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

16274443]
Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Day NE, Khaw K. Prospective cohort study of hostility and
the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. International Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 100:155–
161. [PubMed: 15820299]
Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Khaw K, Day NE. Sense of coherence and mortality in men
and women in the EPIC-Norfolk United Kingdom prospective cohort study. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 2003; 158:1202–1209. [PubMed: 14652305]
Taylor MD, Hart CL, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Hole DJ, Wilson V, Deary IJ. Childhood IQ and
marriage by mid-life: The Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies. Personality and
Individual Differences. 2005; 38:1621–1630.
Tenconi MT, Devoti G, Comelli M. RIFLE Research Group. Role of socioeconomic indicators in the
prediction of all causes and coronary heart disease mortality in over 12,000 men—The Italian
RIFLE pooling project. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2000; 16:565–571. [PubMed:
11049100]
Author Manuscript

Tharenou P. Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management?
Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44:1005–1017.
Tucker JS, Kressin NR, Spiro A, Ruscio J. Intrapersonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A
prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998; 15:211–225.
Tzeng JM, Mare RD. Labor market and socioeconomic effects on marital stability. Social Science
Research. 1995; 24:329–351.
Vagero D, Leon D. Effect of social class in childhood and adulthood on adult mortality. Lancet. 1994;
343:1224–1225. [PubMed: 7909885]
Watson D, Hubbard B, Wiese D. General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of
satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self-and partner-ratings. Journal of
Personality. 2000; 68:413–449. [PubMed: 10831308]
Weiss A, Costa PT. Domain and facet personality predictors of all-cause mortality among Medicare
patients aged 65 to 100. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67:1–10. [PubMed: 15673617]
Whalley LJ, Deary IJ. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. British
Author Manuscript

Medical Journal. 2001; 322:1–5. [PubMed: 11141128]

Wilson RS, Bienias JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA, Bennet DA. Negative affect and mortality in
older persons. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 9:827–835. [PubMed: 14585760]
Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Gu L, Bienas JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA. Neuroticism, extraversion,
and mortality in a defined population of older persons. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67:841–
845. [PubMed: 16314587]
Wilson RS, Mendes de Leon CF, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA. Personality and mortality in old
age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 2004; 59:110–116.
Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
Academy of Management Review. 2001; 26:179–201.
Author Manuscript

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 28
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 1.
Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low IQ, low
Conscientiousness (C), low Extraversion/Positive Emotion(E/PE), Neuroticism (N), and low
Agreeableness (A) on mortality. Error bars represent standard error.
Author Manuscript

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 29
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 2.
Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low
Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on divorce. Error bars
represent standard error.
Author Manuscript

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Roberts et al. Page 30
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Fig. 3.
Average effects (in the standardized beta weight metric) of high socioeconomic status
(SES), high parental income, high IQ, and high personality trait scores on occupational
outcomes.
Author Manuscript

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 1

SES and IQ Effects on Mortality/Longevity

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

Roberts et al.

Abas et al., 2002 2,584 members of All-cause 11 years Low scores on the New HR = 0.94 (0.86, 1.02) rhr = .03a
the Medical mortality Adult Reading Test (IQ) p = .16
Research Council Low scores on Raven’s HR = 0.97 (0.88, 1.06) re = .03a
Elderly Progressive Matrices p = .53 r = .01a
hr
Hypertension Trial (IQ)
re = .01a

Bassuk, Berkman, & Amick, 2002 9,025 men from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = 1.32 (0.95, 1.83) rhr = .02
Boston mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR = 0.94 (0.65, 1.34) rhr = .00
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR = 1.09 (0.86, 1.39) rhr = .01
provider, number of chronic prestige
conditions, depressive symptoms,
cognitive function, physical
function, health status
6,518 women from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = 0.74 (0.53, 1.04) rhr = −.02
Boston mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income p < .10 re = −.02
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR = 0.80 (0.52, 1.23) rhr = −.01
provider, number of chronic prestige HR = 0.74 (0.57, 0.98) rhr = −.03
conditions, depressive symptoms, p < .05
cognitive function, physical re = −.02
function, health status
12,235 men from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = .77 (.56, 1.07) rhr = −.01
Iowa mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR = 1.18 (0.89, 1.58) rhr = .01
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR = 0.93 (0.69, 1.27) rhr = .00
provider, number of chronic prestige
conditions, depressive symptoms,
cognitive function, physical
function, health status
9,248 women from All-cause 9 years Age, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = 0.87 (0.61, 1.23) rhr = −.01
Iowa mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR = 1.03 (.76, 1.41) rhr = .00
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR = .57 (.36, .92) rhr = −.02
provider, number of chronic prestige p < .05 re = −.02
conditions, depressive symptoms,

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
cognitive function, physical
function, health status
10,081 men from All-cause 9 years Age, race, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = 1.30 (0.96, 1.75) rhr = .02
Connecticut mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income p < .10 re = .02
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational HR = 1.62 (1.17, 2.23) rhr = .03
provider, number of chronic prestige p < .005 re = .03
conditions, depressive symptoms, HR = 1.20 (0.94, 1.53)
cognitive function, physical rhr = .01
function, health status
7,331 women from All-cause 9 years Age, race, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = 0.96 (0.64, 1.44) rhr = .00
Connecticut mortality consumption, activity level, social Low adult income HR = 1.90 (1.09, 3.32) rhr = .03
ties, having a regular health care Low adult occupational p < .05 re = .02
provider, number of chronic prestige HR = 1.15 (0.83, 1.59) rhr = .01
Page 31
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

conditions, depressive symptoms,
cognitive function, physical
function, health status
11,977 men from All-cause 9 years age, race, smoking, degree of Low adult education HR = 1.18 (0.84, 1.64) rhr = .01
North Carolina mortality urbanization, BMI, alcohol Low adult income HR = 1.42 (1.01, 1.84) rhr = .02
Roberts et al.

consumption, social ties, having a Low adult occupational p < .01 re = .02
regular health care provider, prestige HR = 1.01 (.78, 1.32) rhr = .00
number of chronic conditions,
depressive symptoms, cognitive
function, physical function, health
status
8,836 women from All-cause 9 years Age, race, smoking, BMI, alcohol Low adult education HR = 1.04 (0.84, 1.30) rhr = .00
North Carolina mortality consumption, social ties, having a Low adult income HR = 1.52 (1.11, 2.08) rhr = .03
regular health care provider, Low adult occupational p < .01 re = .03
number of chronic conditions, prestige HR = 1.21 (0.97, 1.51) rhr = .02
depressive symptoms, cognitive p < .10
function, physical function, health re = .02
status
Beebe-Dimmer et al, 2004 3,087 women from All-cause 30 years Age, income, education, Low childhood SES HR = 1.12 (0.99, 1.27) rhr = .03
the Alameda County mortality occupation, smoking, BMI, Low adult education HR = 1.17 (0.99, 1.39) rhr = .03
Study physical activity Manual occupation HR = 1.06 (0.87, 1.30) rhr = .01
Low adult income HR = 1.35 (1.14, 1.60) rhr = .06

Bosworth & Schaie, 1999 1,218 members of All-cause 7 years Sex, age, education Low verbal IQ F(1, 1,174) = 17.58, rF = .12
the Seattle mortality Low math IQ p < .001 re = .10
Longitudinal Study Low spatial IQ F(1, 1,198) = 3.75, rF = .06
p < .05 re = .06
F(1, 1,119) = 3.72,
p <.05 rF = .06
re = .06

Bucher & Ragland, 1995 3,154 middle-aged All-cause 22 years Systolic blood pressure, Low adult SES RR = 1.45 (1.17, 1.81) rrr = .06
men from the mortality cholesterol, smoking, height
Western
Collaborative Group
Study
Clausen, Davey-Smith, & Thelle, 2003 128,723 Oslo All-cause 30 years Age, adult income Low index of inequality RR men = 2.48 rrr = .03

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
natives mortality (1.94, 3.16) rrr = .01
RR women = 1.47
(1.06, 2.04)
Curtis, Southall, Congdon, & Dodgeon, 23,311 men and All-cause 10 years Age, sex, marital status, Low adult social class OR men = 1.26 (1.10, ror = .02
2004 35,295 women of the mortality employment status 1.46) ror = −.01
National Statistics OR women = .90 (.77,
Longitudinal Study 1.06)
Davey Smith, Hart, Blane, & Hole, 5,766 men aged 35– All-cause 25 years Age, adult SES, deprivation, car, Low father’s social class HR = 1.19 (1.04, 1.37) rhr = .03
1998 64 in 1970 mortality risk factors p = .042 re = .03

Deary & Der, 2005 898 members of the All-cause 24 years Sex, smoking, social class, years of Low IQ HR = 1.38 (1.15, 1.67) rhr = .15
Twenty-07 Study mortality education p = .0006 re = .11
Page 32
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

Sex, smoking, years of education, Low social class HR = 1.13 (1.01, 1.26) rhr = .07
IQ p = .027 re = .07

Sex, smoking, social class, IQ Low education HR = 1.06 (0.97, 1.12) rhr = .04
p = .20 re = .04
Roberts et al.

Doornbos & Kromhout, 1990 78,505 Dutch All-cause 32 years Height, health High education level RR = 0.69a (0.57, 0.81) rhr = −.01a
Nationals mortality p < .0001 re = −.01a

Fiscella & Franks, 2000 13,332 National All-cause 12 years Age, sex, morbidity, income High income HR = 0.80a (0.77, 0.83) rhr = −.10a
Health and mortality inequality, depression, self-rated
Nutrition health
Examination Survey
participants
Ganguli et al, 2002 1,064 members of All-cause 10 years Age, sex, education, functional Low education RR = .99 re = .002
the Monongahela mortality disability, self-rated health, Low cognitive p = .94 re = .09
Valley Independent depression, Number of drugs functioning (MMSE RR = 1.55,
Elders Survey taken, depression × self-rated score) p = .002
health interaction
Hardarson et al., 2001 9,773 women and All-cause 3–30 Height, weight, cholesterol, High education Men’s HR = 0.77 (0.66, rhr = −.05
9,139 men from the mortality years triglycerides, systolic blood High education 0.88) rhr = .01
Reykjavik Study pressure, blood sugar, smoking Women’s HR = 1.29 (.56,
1.35)
Hart et al, 2003 922 members of the All-cause 25 years Sex, social class, deprivation Low IQ RR = 1.26 (0.94, 1.70) rhr = .05
Midspan Study who mortality Sex, IQ, deprivation Low social class p = .038 re = .07
also participated in RR = 1.22 (0.88, 1.68) rhr = .04
the Scottish Mental p = .35 re = .03
Survey of 1932
Heslop, Smith, Macleod, & Hart, 2001 958 Women from All-cause 25 years Age, blood pressure, cholesterol, Low lifetime social class HR = 1.48 (1.04, 2.09) rhr = .07
Western Scotland mortality BMI, FEV, smoking, exercise, p = .037 re = .07
alcohol
Hosegood & Campbell, 2003 1,888 women from All-cause 19 years Age No education p = .005 re = .06
rural Bangladesh mortality
Khang & Kim, 2005 5,437 South All-cause 5 years Age, gender, urbanization, number Low annual household RR = 2.24 (1.40, 3.60) rrr = .05
Koreans aged 30 mortality of family members, biological risk income

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
years and older factors
Korten et al., 1999 897 subjects aged All-cause 3.5 years Age, sex, general health, ADLs, Low IQ HR = 2.42 rhr = .09
70 years and older mortality illness, blood pressure, Symbol- (1.27, 4.62)
Letter Modalities Test
Kuh, Hardy, Langenberg, Richards, & 2,547 women and All-cause 46 years Sex, adult SES, education Low father’s social class HR = 1.90 (1.30, 2.70) rhr = .06
Wadsworth, 2002 2,812 men from the mortality p < .001 re = .05
Medical Research
Council national
survey
Kuh, Richards, Hardy, Butterworth, & 2,547 women and All-cause 46 years Sex, adult SES, education Low IQ HR men = 1.80 (1.10, rhr = .05
Wadsworth, 2004 2,812 men from the mortality 2.70) re = .05
Medical Res. p < .013
Page 33
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

Council national Low IQ HR women = 0.90 (0.52, rhr = −.01
survey 1.60) re = −.01
p = .70
Lantz et al, 1998 3,617 subjects aged All-cause 7.5 years Age, sex, race, residence Low education HR = 1.08 (0.76, 1.54) rhr = .01
Roberts et al.

25 years and older mortality Low income HR = 3.22 (2.01, 5.16) rhr = .08

Lynch et al, 1994 2,636 Finnish men All-cause 8 years Age Low childhood SES RR = 2.39 (1.28, 4.44) rrr = .05
mortality
Maier & Smith, 1999 513 members of the All-cause 4.5 years Age, SES, health Low perceptual speed RR = 1.53 (1.29, 1.81) rrr = .22
Berlin Aging Study mortality Low reasoning RR = 1.37 (1.19, 1.71) rrr = .15
aged 70 years and Low memory RR = 1.39 (1.19, 1.63) rrr = .18
older Low knowledge RR = 1.33 (1.15, 1.54) rrr = .17
Low fluency RR = 1.50 (1.27, 1.78)
rrr = .21

Martin & Kubzansky, 2005 659 gifted children All-cause 48 years Father’s occupation, poor health in Less high IQb HR = 0.73 (0.59, 0.90) rhr = .11
from Terman Life mortality childhood, Sex Father’s occupation HR = 0.99 (0.90, 1.08) rhr = .01
Cycle Study
Osler et al, 2003 7,308 members of All-cause 49 years IQ, birth weight Working class status HR = 1.30 (1.08,1.57) rhr = .03
Project Metropolit in mortality SES, birth weight Low Harnquist IQ test HR = 1.53 (1.19, 1.97) rhr = .04
Copenhagen
Osler et al, 2002 25,728 citizens of All-cause 24–34 Smoking status, activity level, High household income Men’s HR = 0.64a (0.57, rhr = −.06a
Copenhagen mortality years BMI, alcohol consumption, 0.73)
(12,715 men & education, household structure, re = −.02a
p < .01
13,013 women) Percent of households with r = −.04a
hr
children Women’s HR = 0.68a
(0.65, 0.89) re = −.02a
p < .01
Pudaric, Sundquist, & Johansson, 2003 8,959 members of All-cause 7–12 Age, health status Low education RR = 1.22 (1.07, 1.38) rhr = .03
the Swedish Survey mortality years
of Living Conditions
Shipley, Der, Taylor, & Deary, 2006 6,424 members of All-cause 19 years Age, sex, social class, education, High verbal memory HR = 0.95 (0.92, 0.99) rhr = −.03
the UK Health and mortality health behaviors, FEV, blood High visual spatial p < .0052 re = −.03
Lifestyle Survey pressure, BMI ability HR = 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) rhr = −.01
p = .66 re = .00

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Steenland et al., 2002 550,888 men from All-cause 26 years Age, smoking, BMI, diet, alcohol, Low education level Men’s RR = 1.14 (1.12, rrr = .02
the CPS-I cohort mortality hypertension, menopausal status 1.16)
(women)
553,959 women Women’s rrr = .02
from the CPS-I RR = 1.24 (1.21, 1.28)
cohort
625,663 men from All-cause 16 years Age, smoking, BMI, diet, alcohol, Low education level Men’s rrr = .03
the CPS-II cohort mortality hypertension, menopausal status RR = 1.28 (1.25, 1.31)
(women)
767,472 women Women’s rrr = .01
from the CPS-II RR = 1.18 (1.15, 1.22)
cohort
Page 34
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Years Controls Predictors Outcome Est. r

St. John et al., 2002 8,099 Seniors from Mortality 5 years Age, sex, education, marital High MMSE scores OR = 0.95 (0.93, 0.97) ror = −.05a
the Canadian Study status, functional status, self-rated
of Health and Aging health
Tenconi, Devoti, Comelli, & RIFLE 12,361 Italian men All-cause 7 years Age, systolic blood pressure, Low adult education RR = 0.76 (0.56, 1.01) rrr = −.02
Roberts et al.

Research Group, 2000 from the RIFLE mortality cholesterol, smoking level p = .122 re = −.01
pooling project Low adult occupational RR = 1.30 (1.04, 1.63) rrr = .02
level p = .022 re = .02

Vagero & Leon, 1994 404,450 Swedish Mortality 36 years Adulthood social class Low childhood social OR = 1.52 (1.32, 1.76) ror = .01
men born in 1946– class
1955
Whalley & Deary, 2001 722 Members of the Life 76 years Father’s SES, overcrowding High Moray House test Partial r = .19 r = .19
Scottish mental expectancy scores (IQ)
survey of 1932

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; rrr = Correlation estimated from the rate ratio; rhr =
correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; ror = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; rF = correlation estimated from F test; re = requivalent—correlation estimated from the reported p value and
sample size; BMI = body mass index; FEV = forced expiratory volume; ADLs = activities of daily living; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; CPS = Cancer Prevention Study; RIFLE = risk factors
and life expectancy.
a
The sign of the ratios and correlations based on high SES and high IQ were reversed before these effect sizes were aggregated with remaining effect sizes.
b
IQ scores are referred to as “less high” because the lowest IQ score in the sample was 135.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Page 35
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 2

Personality Traits and Mortality

Study N Outcome Length of study Controls Predictors Outcome Est. ra

Roberts et al.

Allison et al., 2003 101 survivors of head and Mortality 1 year Age, disease stage, High Optimism OR = 1.12 (1.01, 1.24) ror = −.22
neck cancer cohabitation status
Almada et al., 1991 1,871 members of the All-cause mortality 25 years Age, blood pressure, High Neuroticism RR = 1.20 (1.00, 1.40) rrr = .05
Western Electric Study smoking, cholesterol, High Cynicism RR = 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) rrr = .09
alcohol consumption
Barefoot, Dahlstrom, & 255 medical students All-cause mortality 25 years High Hostility p = .005 re = .18
Williams, 1983
Barefoot, Dodge, 128 law Students 29 years Age High Hostility p = .012 re = .22
Peterson, Dahlstrom, &
Williams, 1989
Barefoot, Larsen, von 730 residents of Glostrup All-cause mortality 27 years Age, sex, blood pressure, High Hostility RR = 1.36 (1.06, 1.75) rrr = .09
der Lieth, & Schroll, born in 1914 smoking, triglycerid, FEV
1995
Barefoot et al., 1998 100 Older men and women All-cause mortality 14 years Sex, age High Trust RR = 0.46 (0.24, 0.91) rrr = −.23
p < .03 re = −.22

Barefoot et al., 1987 500 members of the second All-cause mortality 15 years Age, sex, cholesterol levels, Suspiciousness p = .02 re = .10
Duke longitudinal study smoking, physician ratings
of health
Boyle et al., 2005 1,328 Duke University All-cause mortality 15 years Sex, age, tobacco High Hostility HR = 1.25 (1.06, 1.47) rhr = .07
Medical Center patients consumption, p < .007 re = .07
hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, number of
coronary arteries narrowed,
left ventricular ejection
fraction, artery bypass
surgery
Boyle et al., 2004 936 Duke University All-cause mortality 15 years Sex, age, tobacco High Hostility HR = 1.28 (1.06, 1.55) rhr = .08
Medical Center patients consumption, p <. 02 re = .08

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, number of
coronary arteries narrowed,
left ventricular ejection
fraction, artery bypass
surgery
Christensen et al., 2002 174 chronic renal Mortality 4 years Age, diabetic status, High Conscientiousness HR = 0.94, B = −.066 rB = −.17
insufficiency patients hemoglobin (.03) re = −.15
p < .05
High Neuroticism HR = 1.05, B = .047 rhr = .15
(.023) re = .15
p <. 05
Page 36
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Length of study Controls Predictors Outcome Est. ra

Danner et al, 2001 180 nuns Longevity 63 years Age, education, linguistic High Positive Emotion HR = 2.50 (1.20, 5.30) rhr = .18
ability (sentences) p < .01 re = .19
High Positive Emotion HR = 3.20 (1.50, 6.80) rhr = .22
(words) p < .01 re = .19
Roberts et al.

Different Positive Emotions HR = 4.30 (1.70, rhr = .24

10.40) re = .19
p < .01
Denollet et al, 1996 303 CHD patients Mortality 8 years CHD, age, social Type D personalityb HR = 4.10 (1.90, 8.80) rhr = .21
alienation, depression, use p = .0004 re = .20
of benzodiazepines
Everson et al., 1997 2,125 men from the Kuopio All-cause mortality 9 years Age, SES Cynical distrust HR = 1.97 (1.26, 3.09) rhr = .06
Eschemic Heart Disease
Risk Factor Study
Friedman et al., 1993 1,178 members of the Longevity 71 years Sex, IQ High Conscientiousness HR = .33, B = −1.11 rhr = .09
Terman Lifecycle Study (0.37) re = .08
p < .01

High Cheerfulnessc HR = 1.21, B = .19 rhr = −.08

(.07) re = −.06
p < .05
Giltay, Geleijnse, 397 men and 418 women of All-cause mortality 9 years Age, smoking, alcohol, Dispositional optimism Men’s HR = 0.58 (0.37, rhr = −.12
Zitman, Hoekstra, & the Arnhem Elderly Study education, activity level, 0.91) re = −.13
Schouten, 2004 SES, and marital status p = .01
Women’s HR = 0.80 rhr = −.05
(0.51–1.25) re = −.04
p = .39
Grossarth-Maticek, 1,335 inhabitants of Mortality 10 years Age High Rationalityd p < .001 re = .09
Bastianns, & Kanazir, Crvenka, Yugoslavia
1985
Hearn, Murray, & 1,313 University of All-cause mortality 33 years Age High Hostility p = .72 re = .01
Luepker, 1989 Minnesota students
Hirokawa, Nagata, 12,417 males and 14,133 7 years Age, smoking, marital High Rationalityd Men’s HR = 0.96 (0.83, rhr = −.01

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Takatsuka, & Shimizu, females of the Takayama status, BMI, exercise, 1.09) rhr = −.02
2004 Study alcohol, education, and Women’s HR = 0.82, re = −.02
number of children (0.70, 0.96)
p < .05
Hollis, Connett, 12,866 men from the All-cause mortality 6 years Study group assignment, High Type A personality RR = 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) rhr = −.02
Stevens, & Greenlick, Multiple Risk Factor age, cigarettes, blood p < .01 re = −.02
1990 Intervention Trial pressure, cholesterol
Iribarren et al., 2005 5,115 members of the Non-AIDS, non- 16 years Age, sex, race High Hostility RR = 2.02 (1.07, 3.81) rrr = .03
CARDIA study homicide-related
mortality
Kaplan et al, 1994 2,464 men from the Kuopio All-cause mortality 6 years Age, income Shyness HR = 1.01 (0.63, 1.62) rhr = .00
Eschemic Heart Disease
Risk Factor Study
Page 37
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Length of study Controls Predictors Outcome Est. ra

Korten et al., 1999 897 subjects aged 70 years Mortality 4 years Age, sex, general health, High Neuroticism HR = 0.53 (0.31, 0.90) rhr = −.08
and older ADLs, illness, blood
pressure, Symbol-Letter
Modalities Test, MMSE
Roberts et al.

Kuskenvuo et al., 1988 3,750 Finnish male twins All-cause mortality 3 years Age High Hostility RR = 2.98 (1.31, 6.77) rrr = .04

Maruta, Colligan, 839 patients from the Mayo All-cause mortality 29 years Sex, age, expected survival Pessimism HR = 1.20 (1.04, 1.38) rhr = .09
Malinchoc, & Offard, Clinic p = .01 re = .09
2000
Maruta et al, 1993 620 from the Mayo Clinic All-cause mortality 20 years Age, sex, hypertension, High Hostility p = .069 re = .07
weight
McCarron, Gunnell, 8,385 former male students All-cause mortality 41 years 25 years Smoking, father’s SES, Mental instability RR = 2.05 (1.36–3.09) rrr = .04
Harrison, Okasha, & BMI, maternal and paternal p < .01 re = .03
Davey-Smith, 2003 vital status
McCranie, Watkins, 478 physicians All-cause mortality 25 years High Hostility p = .789 re = −.01
Brandsma, & Sisson,
1986
Murberg, Bru, & 119 heart failure patients Mortality 2 years Age, sex, disease severity Neuroticism HR = 1.140 (1.027, rhr = .23
Aarsland, 2001 1.265) re = .24
p = .01
Osler et al, 2003 7,308 members of Project All-cause mortality 49 years IQ, birth weight, SES Creativity HR = 1.17 (0.89, 1.54) rhr = .01
Metropolit in Copenhagen,
Denmark
C. Peterson, Seligman, 1,179 members of the Mortality 51 Years Global pessimism OR = 1.26, p < .01 re = .08
Yurko, Martin, & Terman Lifecycle Study
Friedman, 1998
Schulz et al., 1996 238 cancer patients Cancer mortality 8 months Site of cancer, physical Pessimism OR = 1.07, B = .07 rB = .08
symptoms, age (.05)
Pessimism × Age OR = 0.88, B = −.12 rB = −11
interaction (.06), re = .13
p < .05
Surtees, Wainwright, 20,550 members of the Mortality 6 years Age, disease, cigarette Hostility Men’s RR = 1.06 (0.99, rrr = .02

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Luben, Day, & Khaw, EPIC-Norfolk study (8,950 smoking history 1.14) rrr = .00
2005 men and 11,600 women) Women’s RR = 1.00
(.91, 1.09)
Surtees, Wainwright, 18,248 members of the Mortality 6 years Age, disease, social class, Strong sense of coherence RR = 0.76 (0.65, 0.87) rhr = −.03
Luben, Khaw, & Day, EPIC-Norfolk study cigarette smoking history p < .0001 (taken from re = −.03
2003 abstract)
Page 38
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Length of study Controls Predictors Outcome Est. ra

Weiss & Costa, 2005e 1,076 members of the All-cause mortality 5 years Gender, age, education, Conscientiousness HR = 0.51 (0.31, 0.85) rhr = −.08
Medicare Primary and diabetic status, p < .05 re = −.06
Consumer-Directed Care cardiovascular disease,
Demonstration functional limitations, self-
rated health, cigarette
Roberts et al.

smoking, depression,
Neuroticism,
Agreeableness
Gender, age, education Neuroticism HR = 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) rhr = −.04
diabetic status, p < .05 re = −.06
cardiovascular disease,
functional limitations, self-
rated health, cigarette
smoking, depression,
Conscientiousness,
Agreeableness
Gender, age, education, Agreeableness HR = 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) rhr = −.06
diabetic status,
cardiovascular disease,
functional limitations, self-
rated health, cigarette
smoking, depression,
Neuroticism,
Conscientiousness
Wilson et al., 2003 851 members of the All-cause mortality 5 years Age, sex, education, health Trait anxiety RR = 1.04 (0.99, 1.09) rrr = .05
Religious Orders Study p = .01 (unadjusted) re = .09

Trait anger RR = 1.03 (0.95, 1.12) rrr= .02

p = .64 (unadjusted) re = .02

Wilson et al., 2005 6,158 members (aged 65 All-cause mortality 6 years Age, sex, race, education Neuroticism RR = 1.016 (1.010, rrr= .07
years and older) of the Extraversion 1.020) rrr = −.05
Chicago Health and Aging RR = 0.984 (0.978,
Project 0.991)
Wilson et al., 2004 883 members of the All-cause mortality 5 years Age, gender, education, Neuroticism RR = 1.04 (1.02, 1.08) rrr= .12
Religious Orders Study remaining personality traits p < .02 (unadjusted) re = .09

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Extraversion RR = 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) rrr= −.08
p < .001 (unadjusted) re = −.11

Openness RR = 1.005 (0.970, rrr= .01

1.040) re = .08
p = .014
Agreeableness RR = 0.964 (0.930, rrr= −.06
1.000) re = −.09
p = .011
Conscientiousness RR = 0.968 (0.94, rrr= −.07
0.99) re = −.11
p < .001
Page 39
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; rrr = correlation estimated from the rate ratio; rhr = correlation estimated from the hazard
ratio; ror = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; rB = correlation estimated from a beta weight and standard error; re = requivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size);
FEV = forced expiratory volume; CHD = coronary heart disease; SES =socioeconomic status; BMI =body-ass index; ADLs =activities of daily living; MMSE =Mini Mental State Examination.
a
The direction of the correlation was derived by choosing a positive pole for each dimension (high Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness) and assuming that each
dimension, with the exception of Neuroticism, would be negatively related to mortality in its positive manifestation.
b
Type D personality was categorized as a Neuroticism measure as it correlates more consistently with high Neuroticism (De Fruyt & Denollet, 2002), though it should be noted that it has strong correlations
Roberts et al.

with low Extraversion, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness.

c
On the basis of the correlations presented in Martin and Friedman (2000), cheerfulness was categorized as a measure of Agreeableness.
d
Rationality was not categorized into the Big Five because it measures suppression of aggression, which does not easily fall into one of the five broad domains.
e
The discrepancy in the Hazard ratios results from the fact that the Neuroticism scores were continuous and the Conscientiousness scores were trichotomized.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Page 40
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 3

SES and IQ Effects on Divorce

Length of
Study N Outcome study Control variables Predictor Results Est. r
Roberts et al.

Amato & Rogers, 1997 1,742 couples from the Panel Divorce 12 years Age at marriage, prior Wife’s income p = .01 re = .06
Study of Marital Instability cohabitation, ethnicity,
over the Life Course years married, church
attendance, education,
employment, husband’s
income, remarriage,
parents divorced
Bentler & Newcomb, 1978 77 couples (53 males, 24 Divorce 4 years Women’s education p = .05 re = −.22
females) occupation p = .05 re = −.22

Fergusson, Horwood, & Shannon, 1984 1,002 families from the Family breakdown 5 years Maternal age, family size, SES T = 2.86 rt = −.09
Christchurch Child church attendance,
Development Study marriage type, length of
marriage, planning of
pregnancy
Helson, 2006 98 women Divorce 31 years SAT Verbal r = −.06
SAT Math r = .08
Holley, Yabiku, & Benin, 2006 670 mothers from the Divorce 13 years Age at marriage, religion, Similarities subtest t = −3.02 rt = −.12
Intergenerational Study of church attendance, from WAIS
Parents and Children previous cohabitation,
number of children
Jalovaara, 2001 766,637 first marriages from Divorce 2 years Duration of marriage, wife’s Wife’s high HR = 0.69 rhr = −.02
Finland age at marriage, family education (0.66, 0.73) rhr = .01
composition, degree of Wife’s low HR = 1.34 rhr = .00
urbanization occupational class (1.27, 1.42)
Wife’s high income HR = 1.03
(0.92, 1.14)
Husband’s high HR = 0.66 rhr = −.02
education (0.63, 0.69) rhr = .02
Husband’s low HR = 1.51 rhr = −.02

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
occupational class (1.44, 1.58)
Husband’s high HR = 0.55
income (0.51, 0.58)
Kurdek, 1993 286 couples Divorce 5 years High education F(1, 284) = rF = −.31
(husband) 30.28, re = −.34
p<
.0000000008
High income F(1, 284) = rF = −.18
(husband) 9.32, re = −.18
p = .0025
Page 41
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Length of
Study N Outcome study Control variables Predictor Results Est. r
High income (wife) F(1, 284) = rF = −.13
5.11, re = −.13
p = .025
Roberts et al.

Orbuch, Veroff, Hassan, & Horrocks, 373 couples Divorce 14 years Race Years education B = −.33 (.06) rB = −.28
2002 (wife) p = .001 re = −.17
Household income B = .00 (.01) rB = .00
Years of education B = −.20 (.06) rB = −.17
(husband) p = .001
re = −.17

A.W. Smith & Meitz, 1985 3,737 families from the Panel Divorce 10 years Education level p = .001 re = −.05
Study of Income Dynamics
Taylor et al, 2005 883 from the Scottish Mental Ever married 39 years Social class IQ OR men = 1.21 ror = .04
Survey and Midspan studies (0.85–1.73) re = .04
p = .23
OR women = ror = −.17
0.50 (0.32–0.78) re = −.17
p = .002
IQ Social class OR men = 1.25 ror = .06
(0.92–1.68) re = .06
p = .15
OR women = ror = −.14
0.67 (0.49–0.92) re = −.13
p = .015
Tzeng & Mare, 1995 17,024 from NLSY, NLSYM, Annual probability 9–15 Years Age at marriage, presence Couple education Z = −6.8 rz = −.05
and NLSYW studies of marital disruption of children, family status
while growing up, number
of marriages, race, cohort
Couple income Z = .51 rz = .00

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; rz = correlation estimated from the z score and sample size;
ror = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; rF = correlation estimated from F test; rB = correlation estimated from the reported unstandardized beta weight and standard error; re = requivalent

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
(correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; NLSY = National Longitudinal Study of Youth; NLSYM = National Longitudinal Study of
Young Men; NLSYW = National Longitudinal Study of Young Women.
Page 42
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 4

Personality Traits and Marital Outcomes

Study N Outcome Time Controls Predictors Results Est. r

Roberts et al.

Bentler & Newcomb, 1978 77 couples (53 males, Divorce 4 years Men’s p = .05 re = .27
24 females) extraversion p = .05 re = .27
orderliness p = .05 re = −.40
Women’s p = .05 re = −.40
clothes consciousness
Congeniality
Caspi, Elder, & Bern, 1987 87 men from the Divorce 31 years Childhood ill-temperedness p = .02 re = .25
Berkeley Guidance
Study
Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, 152 couples Early divorce Few months after Gender, affectional Responsiveness F(4, 147) = rF = −.17
& George, 2001 marriage expression, love, (Agreeableness) 4.49, re = −.21
contrariness, Contrariness (Neuroticism) p <.01 rF = .09
ambivalence, negativity F(4, 147) =
Gender, affectional 1.29, (p
expression, love, values not
contrariness, available)
ambivalence, negativity
Jockin, McGue, & Lykken, 1996 1,490 female and 696 Ever divorced Cross-sectional Positive Emotionality (women) d = .23 rd = .11
male twins Positive Emotionality (men) p < .01 re = .07
Negative Emotionality d = .21 rd = .10
(women) p < .01 re = .10
Negative Emotionality (men) d = .21
Constraint (women) p < .01 rd = .10
Constraint (men) d = .20 re = .10
p < .01 rd = .10
d = −.34 re = .10
p < .01 rd = −.17
d = −.20 re = −.10
p < .01 rd = −.10
re = −.10

Kelly & Conley, 1987 556 married men and Marital 45 years Husband’s Neuroticism r = .27 r = .27

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
women compatibility Husband’s impulse control r = −.25 r = −.25
(divorced versus happily Wife’s Neuroticism r = .38 r = .38
married)
Kinnunen & Pulkkinen, 2003 108 women and 109 Divorced versus 28, 22, or 9 years Women’s age 8 Aggression d =.69 rd = .30
men from the Jyvaskyla intact marriage Women’s age 8 Lability d = .43 rd = .19
Longitudinal Study of at age 36 Women’s age 27 d = −.12 rd = −.05
Personality and Social Conscientiousness d = −.54 rd = −.24
Development Women’s age 27 Agreeableness d = .68
Men’s age 8 Aggression d = .59 rd = .26
Men’s age 8 Compliance d = .57 rd = .23
Men’s age 14 Aggression d = .74 rd = .22
Men’s age 14 Compliance d = .82 rd = .28
Men’s age 27 d = .61 rd = .31
Conscientiousness rd = .24
Page 43
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Time Controls Predictors Results Est. r

Men’s age 27 Agreeableness
Kurdek, 1993 286 couples Divorce 5 years Neuroticism (husband) F(1, 284) = rF = .25
Neuroticism (wife) 17.34, re = .24
Conscientiousness (husband) p = .000005 re = .22
Conscientiousness (wife) F(1, 284) =
Roberts et al.

rF = .22
Positive Emotionality 14.21,
(husband) p = .0002 re = −.10
F(1, 284) = rF = −.10
−2.78, rF = −.12
p = .096 re = −.12
F(1, 284) = rd = .10
−4.16, re = .10
p = 042
d = .21
p < .01
Lawrence & Bradbury, 2001 60 couples from Los Divorce 4 years Aggressiveness OR = 2.37 re = .24
Angeles p = .06 ro = .23

Loeb, 1966 639 college students Divorce 13 years Women’s MMPI psychopathic p < .025 re = .13
deviancy p < .025 re = .13
Men’s MMPI psychopathic p < .005 re = .16
deviancy p < .025 re = .13
Men’s MMPI hypochondriasis p < .05
Men’s MMPI hysteria re = .11
Men’s MMPI schizophrenia
McCranie & Kahan, 1986 431 physicians Number of 25 years MMPI psychopathic deviancy r = .13 r = .13
divorces
Roberts & Bogg, 2004 99 women from the Ever divorced 22 years Responsibility r = −.21 r = −.21
Mills Longitudinal
Study
Skolnick, 1981 122 members of the Divorce versus Cognitively invested p = .06 re = −.17
IHD longitudinal satisfied Emotionally aggressive p = .08 re = .16
studies marriage Nurturant p = .06 re = −.17
Under controlled p = .008 re = .24

Tucker et al., 1998 773 from the Normative Divorce 26 years Age at marriage, Inadequacy OR = 2.40 ror = .11

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Aging Study education Anxiety (1.36, 4.35) re = .09
Sensitivity p < .01 ror = .12
Anger OR = 2.80 re = .12
Tension (1.55, 5.15)
p < .001 ror = .12
OR = 2.80 re = .09
(1.50, 5.25) ror = .13
p < .01 re = .12
OR = 2.70 ror = .02
(1.54, 4.71)
p < .001
OR = 1.20
(0.61, 2.51)
Page 44
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Time Controls Predictors Results Est. r

968 members of the Divorce 53 to 78 years Sex, education, age at Conscientiousness OR parent ror = −.07
Terman Life Cycle marriage Perseverance rating = 0.92 ror = −.08
Study Sympathy (0.84, 1.01) ror = .01
Not egotistical OR teacher ror = −.05
rating = 0.92
Roberts et al.

(0.83, 1.01) ror = −.06

OR parent ror = −.04
rating = 1.01 ror = −.05
(0.92, 1.11) ror = −.04
OR teacher
rating = 0.95
(0.86, 1.05)
OR parent
rating = 0.94
(0.85, 1.02)
OR teacher
rating = 0.95
(0.84, 1.07)
OR parent
rating = 0.95
(0.87,1.03)
OR teacher
rating = 0.96
(0.87, 1.05)

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; rd = Correlation estimated from the d score; ror = correlation estimated from the odds
ratio; rF = correlation estimated from F test; re = requivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IHS = Institute of
Human Development.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Page 45
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 5

SES, IQ, and Status Attainment

Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

Roberts et al.

Jencks, Crouse, & Meuser, 1983 1,789 Occupational 7 years Father and mother’s Father’s SES β = .15
attainment SES, earnings, aptitude, Mother’s education β = .09
grades, friends Parental income β = .11
education plans, IQ β = .31
educational and
occupational
aspirations, education
Earnings Father’s SES β = −.01
Education Mother’s education β = .01
Parent’s income β = .16
IQ β = .14
Father’s SES β = .13
Mothers education β = .13
Parent’s income β = .14
IQ β = .37

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Page 46
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 6

Personality Traits and Occupational Attainment

Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

Roberts et al.

Caspi et al, 1987 182 members of the Occupational attainment 31 years IQ, education Childhood ill- β = −.10
Berkeley Guidance Study Erratic work life 31 years IQ, education, temperedness β = .45
occupational attainment Childhood ill-
temperedness
Caspi, Elder, & Bern, 1988 73 men from the Berkeley Age at entry into a stable 11 years SES, education, Childhood shyness β = .27
Guidance Study career 11 years childhood ill- Childhood shyness β = −.05
83 women from the Occupational attainment 11 years temperedness Childhood shyness β = −.19
Berkeley Guidance Study Stable participation in the Age at entry into stable
labor market career, education,
childhood ill-
temperedness
SES, education,
childhood ill-
temperedness
Helson & Roberts, 1992 63 women from the Mills Occupational attainment 16 years Work aspirations, Individuality β = .34
Longitudinal Study husband’s individuality
Helson, Roberts, & Agronick, 1995 120 women from the Mills Occupational creativity 31 years SAT Verbal scores, status Creative temperament β = .44
Longitudinal Study aspirations
Judge et al., 1999 118 Members from the IHD Extrinsic career success 46 years IQ Neuroticism β = −.21
longitudinal studies Extraversion β = .27
Agreeableness β = −.32
Conscientiousness β = .44
Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000 311 members of the Long-term unemployment 19 years Aggression, child- Age 8 prosociality β = −.37
Jyvaskyla Longitudinal between ages 27 and 36 centered parenting, (emotionally stable,
Study school maladjustment, reliable, friendly)
problem drinking, lack of
occupational alternatives
at age 27
Luster & McAdoo, 1996 123 members of the Perry Age 27 income 22 years Mother’s education, Age 5 personal behavior β = .23
Preschool sample maternal involvement in (teacher ratings of not lying

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
kindergarten, preschool and cheating, not using
attendance, academic obscene words)
motivation, IQ score, 8th
grade achievement,
educational attainment at
age 27
Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003a 859 members of the Occupational attainment 8 years IQ, SES Negative Emotionality β = −.17
Dunedin Longitudinal Constraint β = .18
Study Positive Emotionality β = .13
Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001 180 alumni from Salary progression 2 years — Proactive personality r = .11
Tharenou, 2001 Midwestern University Advancement in Organizational sector, Masculinity r = .05
2,431 Australian managers management organization size,
marriage, number of
children, relocated,
Page 47
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Study N Outcome Time span Control variables Predictor Results

changed organizations,
gender, age, tenure,
education level, training,
challenging work,
occupation type,
managerial promotions,
Roberts et al.

managerial aspirations,
mentor career support,
career encouragement,
male hierarchy, transition
level

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; IHD = Institute of Human Development.

Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 July 13.
Page 48