The Prospective Association of Personality Traits and Successful Aging

Abstract

We used data (N = 928) from ORANJ BOWL, a six-wave panel of adults (aged 50–74 at baseline) to address the association between personality and successful aging at two points in time, 8 years apart. Regressions examined the associations between Wave 2 neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness and Wave 3 subjective success, functional ability, pain, and chronic conditions. Models tested personality traits independently and then simultaneously, with interactions. Confirmatory analyses used Waves 5/6 data. All traits but openness were individually associated with successful aging at both time points. When testing traits simultaneously, only neuroticism and extraversion were consistently associated with subjective success, with an interaction at Waves 2/3. Neuroticism (Waves 2/3) and conscientiousness (Waves 5/6) were associated with functional ability. Neuroticism was associated with pain (Waves 2/3). Personality was not associated with chronic conditions. These analyses set up future work examining relationships between change in personality and change in successful aging.

Keywords

subjective success pain chronic conditions functional ability neuroticism conscientiousness extraversion

Introduction

Rowe and Kahn’s (1997) suggestion that with advancing age, the relative effects of genetic factors on successful aging decrease and the influence of nongenetic factors increase, encouraged scholars to focus on identifying lifestyle factors that could facilitate successful aging. Research found that exercising, engaging in social relationships, and not smoking helped people age successfully (Depp & Jeste, 2006; Pruchno & Wilson-Genderson, 2015). With this, the relationship between successful aging and personality—the dispositional traits responsible for individual differences in patterns of behavior, emotion, and cognition—has gone largely unstudied, possibly given high heritability estimates for personality (Jang et al., 1996). However, research consistently demonstrates associations among the Big Five personality traits and mortality, physical health, and psychological well-being (i.e., life satisfaction; Graham et al., 2017; Strickhouser et al., 2017). As such, it is likely that neuroticism (being prone to experience negative affects including fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust), extraversion (being sociable, liking others, assertive, cheerful), openness (being imaginative, having esthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, intellectual curiosity), agreeableness (being altruistic, eager to help, popular), and conscientiousness (being planful, organized, strong-willed, determined, punctual, reliable) are also related to successful aging. The analyses that follow examine the structure of the relationships between personality traits and successful aging at two points in time with a sample of older adults.

Successful Aging and Personality: Conceptual Underpinnings

Debates by scholars regarding how to define successful aging dominate aging literature (Pruchno, 2015). Some define success in terms of objective indicators of physical functioning (Rowe & Kahn, 1998) while others focus on subjective reports (Montross et al., 2006; Strawbridge et al., 2002). Still others define successful aging according to both objective and subjective reports (Pruchno, Wilson-Genderson, Cartwright, 2010). Regardless of how successful aging has been defined, however, most of the successful aging research has focused on identifying predictors that are amenable to change and not on the impact of personality, a more stable individual characteristic, on successful aging.

Although there is evidence that personality traits can change with age (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), personality, especially after age 30, is relatively stable (Costa et al., 2019; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). This stability likely has kept scholars from examining the role personality plays vis-a-vis successful aging. Ryff (1982), however, suggested that there is unique value to studying the relationship between personality and successful aging. First, personality does not have the built-in inevitabilities of decline characterizing physiologically linked processes, such as physical health, memory, vision, or cognition. Second, personality characteristics can compensate for loss in other spheres, and third, the rich theory guiding personality research can inform successful aging research. In order to understand relationships between personality and successful aging, issues of measurement error and the extent to which measures are age sensitive must be addressed (Costa et al., 2019; Staudinger, 2020). The analyses that follow address these issues, building on Ryff’s (1982) conceptual work linking personality and successful aging and on empirical studies demonstrating associations between personality and outcomes including mortality, physical health, and psychological well-being.

Personality, Mortality, Health, and Well-Being

Hundreds of studies have examined the association between personality and mortality (Chapman et al., 2011). While early findings were discrepant (Roberts et al., 2007), more recent studies have established a link between mortality and lower levels of conscientiousness (Jokela et al., 2013) and higher neuroticism, lower extraversion, and lower agreeableness (Graham et al., 2017).

Beyond mortality, theoretical and empirical work suggests that personality traits have associations with health. Weston et al. (2015), for example, using longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) found that traits, most notably conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness are associated with the risk of developing new disease (e.g., lung disease, heart disease, and stroke) over a 4-year period. A metasynthesis by Strickhouser et al. (2017) of more than 850 studies revealed that personality traits had their greatest effects on mental health, intermediate effects on health behaviors, and smaller effects on physical health. These effects are stronger for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism than for extraversion and openness, with neuroticism having harmful effects, while extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness have beneficial effects.

However, many studies of personality and physical health have used cross-sectional designs to examine the impact of personality on health (Atherton et al., 2014; Goodwin & Friedman, 2006; Löckenhoff et al., 2008; Smagula et al., 2016). More recent findings from longitudinal work have explored associations between personality and health over time, and while evidence mostly suggests an association between personality and health, findings vary as a function of how the health outcome was defined, as well as the amount of time between assessment of personality and outcome. Sutin et al. (2013), for example, found that none of the Big Five personality traits predicted the onset of disease, while Weston et al. (2015) using data from the HRS found that conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness were associated with disease onset. Gale et al. (2017), using prospective data from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, also found that higher neuroticism and lower extraversion and conscientiousness predicted greater frailty 2 years later.

Similarly, although cross-sectional studies suggest that there are substantial relationships between personality and subjective well-being (Steel et al., 2008), few longitudinal studies have examined these associations. Tauber et al. (2016), for example, found that both neuroticism and extraversion predicted life satisfaction (a marker of subjective well-being) over a 4-year period, but only lower neuroticism predicted lower life satisfaction over 12 years. Mund and Neyer (2016) found that neuroticism was negatively associated with subjective health over a 15-year period, but extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness did not predict subjective health. Additional work is needed therefore to link personality to objective and subjective reports of health and well-being over time.

Individual Versus Multiple Traits

Early personality research predominantly focused on the examination of single-trait associations of personality with health and well-being outcomes; however, in the early 2000s, there was a call by leaders in the field to examine the Big 5 personality traits simultaneously and in one’s social context, as well as the processes behind personality’s link to health (Friedman, 2000; Hampson, 1999, 2012). Despite this call for change in perspective, however, many studies have still examined the effects of a single personality traits, failing to consider how a person scores on other personality traits, as well as the interactive or moderating effects of multiple traits. For example, some studies have examined only neuroticism (Novak et al., 2017; Wettstein et al., 2016) while others examined only openness (Ihle et al., 2016; Ó Súilleabháin et al., 2018; Turiano et al., 2012) or extraversion (Lawn et al., 2019). Other studies have included a subset of the Big 5 traits (Iacovino et al., 2016; McHugh Power et al., 2017; Mueller et al., 2018; Sharp et al., 2019). While much can be learned by examining the unique effects of a particular trait on outcomes, as argued by Hampson (1999, 2012), each person is ultimately made up of a compilation of each of these five traits and understanding the wholistic association of personality (the unique variance predicted by each trait) with outcomes is critical.

In fact, studies that have examined associations among all of the Big Five traits and health outcomes reveal complex associations between personality and health. Turiano et al. (2012), for example, found that each of the Big Five traits, except Openness, predicted self-rated health. A cross-sectional study by Smagula et al. (2016) also found that although associations among nearly all personality factors and health at the bivariate level were significant, after accounting for the effects of multiple aspects of personality, Conscientiousness was the only trait independently related to all health outcomes examined (i.e., IADLs, self-rated functional health/well-being, physical activity, depressive symptoms, sleep quality, general mental health). Openness was independently related to all factors except physical activity. Higher Conscientiousness and Openness were protective against negative health outcomes.

Not only is examining multiple personality traits important, but so too is exploring interaction effects (Murray & Booth, 2015; Steel et al., 2008). Some scholars suggest, for example, that although extraversion and neuroticism both have main effects on health outcomes, it is possible that being both introverted and neurotic has even greater effects on health and well-being (Hotard et al., 1989; Lynn & Steel, 2006). In one of the few longitudinal studies examining additive and interactive effects of personality on health outcomes, Klinger-König et al. (2018) found that neuroticism and extraversion had additive and interactive effects on physical and mental health, although this analysis did not include indicators of openness, agreeableness, or conscientiousness.

Personality and Successful Aging

Despite the vast literature examining the connection of personality with health and psychological well-being, limited research has focused on understanding the specific association of personality and successful aging. The few studies that have examined relationships between successful aging and personality have used cross-sectional designs (Baek et al., 2016; Chiao & Hsiao, 2017; Steca et al., 2010). An exception is research by Morack et al. (2013), who examined subjective health ratings as an indicator of successful aging and personality over 10 waves of data from the Household Income and Labor Dynamics study in Australia. They found that lower neuroticism and higher extraversion and Conscientiousness were related to greater successful aging.

Furthermore, while researchers have examined change and stability in personality over time (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008) and the overtime associations of personality with health (Tauber et al., 2016), not yet addressed in the literature is whether the association of personality with successful aging remains stable as individuals age. The aging process itself is linked to known decrements in physiological functioning (Baltes, 1997), and knowing associations of personality with health may inform the association of personality with objective indicators of successful aging (i.e., chronic illnesses). However, subjective ratings of success, are not confounded by age; an 80-year-old can feel just as successful if not more so than a 50-year-old (Strawbridge et al., 2002). As a result, understanding how personality may impact the reports of both objective and subjective successful aging indicators at two different points in time can help us to understand how personality impacts the aging process.

Current Study

Our analyses investigate the prospective relationship between personality and successful aging at two points in time, 8 years apart. We expand the literature by examining: (1) how prior reports of personality are associated with later reports of successful aging, (2) the effects of individual personality traits as well as personality effects in the context of all other traits and interactive effects, (3) whether personality traits have differential prospective effects on objective (functional ability, chronic conditions, pain) and subjective (self-rated subjective evaluation of success) indicators of successful aging, and (4) whether the associations between personality and successful aging change over an 8-year period. We hypothesized the following:

H1 : Wave 2 openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness would be positively associated with Wave 3 subjective success and functional ability, but negatively associated with pain and chronic conditions. Additionally, Wave 2 neuroticism would be negatively associated with Wave 3 subjective success and functional ability but positively associated with pain and chronic conditions. There would be a significant interaction effect between extraversion and neuroticism.

H2 : The above relationships would be consistent 8 years later using Wave 5 personality and Wave 6 success aging.

Methods

Participants

Data from the ORANJ BOWL study were used to test the hypotheses. ORANJ BOWL (“Ongoing Research On Aging In New Jersey: Bettering Opportunities For Wellness in Life”) is a panel of 5688 older adults (aged 50–74 years) living in New Jersey in 2006–2008 with the ability to participate in a 1-hr, English-language telephone interview. Participants were recruited using list-assisted random-digit-dialing (RDD) procedures. At baseline (Wave 1), participants provided information about demographic characteristics, health, and well-being, and were representative of the population of older adults in New Jersey at the time of data collection in terms of race (Black and White), rates of being born in the state, and marital status. ORANJ BOWL at baseline had a slightly higher rate of women and those more educated, and fewer Hispanics due to inability to translate the interview to Spanish (for details, see Pruchno, Wilson-Genderson, Rose, et al., 2010).

Between 2007 and 2008, the first 2674 participants recruited to the panel were re-contacted 1 year after their baseline interview and asked to provide personality data (Wave 2). Funding restrictions prevented us from collecting Wave 2 data from the complete panel. In 2011, a questionnaire was mailed to all ORANJ BOWL participants known to be alive (Wave 3). Between 2013 and 2015, a questionnaire regarding health, well-being, successful aging, and exposure to Hurricane Sandy was mailed to all active participants (Wave 4). Between 2015 and 2017, participants completed an interview by telephone, web, or mail to again assess health, well-being, successful aging, and post-storm stressors to Hurricane Sandy (Wave 5). This wave also assessed personality. Between 2017 and 2019, participants completed an interview via telephone, web, or mail regarding health, well-being, and successful aging (Wave 6). Data used for the analyses that follow come from the baseline questionnaire (Wave 1; age, gender, race, education, and income), Wave 2 (personality), Wave 3 (successful aging), Wave 5 (personality), and Wave 6 (successful aging). Analyses reported here are based on data from 928 people who completed the personality measure at Waves 2 and 5 and measures of successful aging at Waves 3 and 6. Participants in this subsample were significantly less likely to be African American (χ²(1, N = 5688) = 56.39, p < .001) and were younger (t(1388.45) = 4.81, p < .001) with higher levels of education (t(5673) = −11.29, p < .001) and income (t(1313.99) = −11.48, p < .001) reported at baseline compared to those that did not complete all four waves of data collection. There were no differences on gender. The average time lapse between Wave 2 and Wave 3 was 3.21 years (SD = 0.31) and between Wave 5 and Wave 6 was 1.53 years (SD = 0.13).

Measures

Independent Variables

Personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) were assessed at Waves 2 and 5 using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extensive research has found that the five-factor model replicates across a variety of samples, raters, and cultures (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The 60-item battery of questions was scored according to the Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., manual. Sample descriptives are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Sample Descriptive Statistics (N = 928).

	Wave 2		Wave 3		Wave 5		Wave 6
	M(SD)/%(N)	α	M(SD)/%(N)	α	M(SD)/%(N)	α	M(SD)/%(N)	α
Demographics
Age	60.83 (6.61)	-	-	-	69.06 (6.60)	-	-	-
Gender (Female)	66.4% (616)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Race (African American)	4.2% (39)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Income	4.41 (1.27)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Education	4.76 (2.14)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Personality
Neuroticism	16.09 (7.89)	.87	-	-	14.06 (7.34)	.85	-	-
Extraversion	29.77 (6.69)	.82	-	-	29.49 (6.61)	.82	-	-
Openness	28.53 (6.21)	.75	-	-	28.39 (6.15)	.74	-	-
Agreeableness	35.49 (5.39)	.75	-	-	35.87 (5.27)	.75	-	-
Conscientiousness	35.57 (6.42)	.85	-	-	36.01 (6.14)	.83	-	-
Successful aging
Subjective success	-	-	23.71 (4.56)	.90	-	-	24.33 (3.82)	.86
Chronic conditions	-	-	1.98 (1.39)	-	-	-	2.29 (1.43)	-
Functional ability	-	-	39.37 (6.85)	.90	-	-	39.59 (6.17)	.88
Pain	-	-	2.67 (2.33)	.85	-	-	2.49 (2.33)	.86

Dependent Variable

Indicators of objective and subjective successful aging were defined based on the two-factor definition of successful aging proposed by Pruchno, Wilson-Genderson, Cartwright (2010) and were collected in Waves 3 and 6. We use this definition of successful aging as it combines both subjective and objective components thereby disentangling age from the definition of success (i.e., centenarians can feel successful but have multiple chronic conditions; Pruchno, Wilson-Genderson, Rose, et al., 2010) and due to its successful use in tracking differences in the aging experience in regard to early life experiences, health behaviors, and social support (Pruchno, Wilson-Genderson, Rose, et al., 2010), as well as social support, pet ownership (Pruchno et al., 2018) and disaster exposure (Wilson-Genderson et al., 2017).

Objective successful aging was measured using information about chronic conditions, functional ability, and pain. Chronic conditions were assessed with a count of the number of health care provider-diagnosed chronic medical conditions, including arthritis, hypertension, heart conditions, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, stroke, and breathing problems. Functional ability was measured using nine items asking participants to rate their upper (i.e., ability to reach up over your head, use fingers to grasp or handle small objects) and lower body (i.e., walk a ¼ of a mile, stand or be on your feet for about 2 hr, walk up 10 steps without resting) capabilities on a scale from 1 (you can’t do it at all) to 5 (not at all difficult). A mean-item total score was computed whereby higher reports mean greater ability. Pain was measured using three questions (e.g., how often are you troubled with pain) rated from 0 (almost never) to 3 (almost always). Subjective success was assessed by asking respondents to use a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely) to rate “how successfully they have aged,” “how well they have aged,” and “how they rate their life these days.” A mean-item total score was computed with the three questions. Means, standard deviations, and αs presented in Table 1.

Covariates

We controlled for participant demographic characteristics collected at baseline that were identified as having associations with personality and successful aging: age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race (0 = non-African American, 1 = African American), education (1 ≤ high school to 9 = doctoral/professional degree), and income (1 = less than $15,000 to 6 = more than $150,000; Baek et al., 2016; Magee et al., 2013; Turiano et al., 2012; Wettstein et al., 2017).

Analyses

Descriptive analyses of means and standard deviations or percentages were computed for the sample. Bivariate correlations were run for all personality and outcome variables. Each personality trait was mean-centered. Multiple regression was used to examine the association between Wave 2 personality domains and the Wave 3 indicators of successful aging. Preliminary analyses first tested a separate model for each of the five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) on each of the four dependent variables (chronic conditions, functional ability, pain, and subjective success) to understand the unique predictive association of each. Each model controlled for demographic characteristics of participants (age, gender, race, education, and income). We then added all five personality traits into the model simultaneously to understand the predictive power of each trait in the context of the other traits. We created an interaction term between neuroticism and extraversion by multiplying the mean-centered personality traits and added this interaction term to the model. Nonsignificant interaction terms were trimmed. Confirmatory analyses were conducted using Wave 5 personality data and Wave 6 successful aging data. We identify results that reach traditional levels of significance (p < .05) in our tables, but out of concern for the omnibus α given the multiple tests run, significance of the parameter estimates reflecting the strength and direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable are only interpreted when they reached an adjusted p value of .001.

Results

Sample descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. Bivariate correlations among personality traits and successful aging are reported in Table 2. Inter-item correlations among personality traits ranged from −.53 to .49. At Wave 2/Wave 3, we found significant correlations between each personality trait and subjective success. All traits except openness were significantly associated with functional ability and pain. Only neuroticism was significantly correlated with chronic conditions. At Wave 5/Wave 6, we found significant correlations between each personality trait and both subjective success and functional ability. Each trait except openness was significantly correlated with pain. Neuroticism and extraversion were each significantly correlated with chronic conditions.

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations Among Personality Traits and Successful Aging Outcomes.

	N	E	O	A	C	Subjective success	Functional ability	Pain	Chronic Conditions
Neuroticism (N)	-^a	−.53 ^***	−.11 ^***	−.36 ^***	−.41 ^***	−.47 ^***	−.32 ^***	.29 ^***	.14 ^***
Extraversion (E)	−.53 ^***	-	.20 ^***	.38 ^***	.39 ^***	.41 ^***	.26 ^***	−.22 ^***	−.09 ^**
Openness (O)	−.14 ^***	.22 ^***	-	.09 ^**	.07 ^*	.11 ^***	.10 ^**	−.06	−.07 ^*
Agreeableness (A)	−.39 ^***	.38 ^***	.16 ^***	-	.30 ^***	.27 ^***	.11 ^***	−.15 ^***	.01
Conscientiousness (C)	−.47 ^***	.49 ^***	.11 ^***	.34 ^***	-	.31 ^***	.19 ^***	−.16 ^***	−.09 ^**
Subjective success	−.42 ^***	.44 ^***	.14 ^***	.28 ^***	.37 ^***	-	.55 ^***	−.50 ^***	−.25 ^***
Functional ability	−.30 ^***	.28 ^***	.14 ^***	.16 ^***	.30 ^***	.50 ^***	-	−.69 ^***	.42 ^***
Pain	.19 ^***	−.17 ^***	−.09 ^**	−.11 ^***	−.14 ^***	−.39 ^***	−.57 ^***	-	.36 ^***
Chronic conditions	.12 ^***	−.12 ^***	−.09 ^**	−.07 ^*	−.08 ^*	−.25 ^***	−.42 ^***	.32 ^***	-

Note. N = 928. ^* p < .05, ^** p < .01, ^*** p < .001.

^aCorrelations of Wave 2 personality traits with Wave 3 successful aging outcomes are listed above the diagonal and correlations of Wave 5 personality traits with Wave 6 successful aging outcomes are listed below the diagonal.

Results from the separate regression analyses examining the associations between individual personality traits and each indicator of successful aging revealed that after controlling for demographic characteristics, neuroticism (β(SE) = −0.25(0.02)), extraversion (β(SE) = 0.26(0.02)), agreeableness (β(SE) = 0.22(0.03)), and conscientiousness (β(SE) = 0.19(0.02)) at Wave 2 had independent significant associations with subjective success at Wave 3 (not reported in tables; full models available upon request to authors). We present the final model including all five main effects, as well as the interaction term, in Table 3. Results revealed a positive main effect for extraversion, a negative main effect for neuroticism, and a significant interaction between neuroticism and extraversion. The impact of extraversion on subjective success was moderated by a person’s level of neuroticism (Figure 1). To explore this interaction further, we applied the PROCESS models (Hayes) to examine the indirect effect of extraversion via neuroticism, as well as the pick-a-point approach. The latter is accomplished by selecting a value or values of the moderator (neuroticism) and calculating the conditional effect of X (extraversion) on Y (subjective successful aging) at that value or values. We chose the mean and ± one standard deviation. These efforts confirmed a significant indirect effect of extraversion via neuroticism (unstd coeff = .12, p < .0001). The pick-a-point process revealed that at one standard deviation below and at the mean of neuroticism, extraversion was not moderated by neuroticism and subjective successful aging scores were similar across levels of extraversion. The interaction effect was observed solely at one standard deviation above the mean of neuroticism where extraversion was low; here subjective successful aging scores were significantly lower. Thus, higher levels of extraversion were protective against negative effects of high neuroticism; however, when extraversion was low, high neuroticism had a negative impact on subjective successful aging.

Figure 1

Significant interaction of neuroticism and extraversion predicting subjective success with Wave 2/Wave 3 data, whereby high levels of a trait were one SD above the mean and low levels of a trait were one SD below the mean.

Table 3

Regression Results for Wave 2 Personality and Wave 3 Successful Aging.

	Subjective Success		Functional Ability		Pain		Chronic conditions
	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β
Intercept	17.00(1.53) ^***	-	42.42(2.05) ^***	-	2.63(0.82) ^***	-	−1.45(0.48) ^**	-
Demographics
Age	0.06(0.02) ^**	0.08	−0.09(0.03) ^***	−0.10	0.01(0.01)	0.04	0.06(0.01) ^***	0.31
Gender (Female)	0.02(0.31)	0.00	−2.50(0.41) ^***	−0.20	0.54(0.17) ^**	0.11	0.42(0.10) ^***	0.15
Race (African American)	−0.17(0.66)	−0.01	−1.64(0.88)	−0.06	0.23(0.35)	0.02	0.19(0.20)	0.03
Income	0.71(0.12) ^***	0.20	0.90(0.16) ^***	0.20	−0.20(0.07) ^**	−0.12	−0.12(0.04) ^**	−0.12
Education	0.08(0.07)	0.07	0.27(0.10) ^**	0.10	−0.11(0.04) ^**	−0.11	−0.05(0.02) ^*	−0.08
Personality
Neuroticism	−0.15(0.02) ^***	−0.25	−0.13(0.03) ^***	−0.17	0.04(0.01) ^***	0.16	0.02(0.01) ^**	0.12
Extraversion	0.12(0.03) ^***	0.17	0.08(0.03) ^*	0.09	−0.02(0.01)	−0.06	0.01(0.01)	0.02
Openness	0.01(0.02)	0.01	0.01(0.03)	0.01	0.01(0.01)	0.03	−0.00(0.01)	−0.01
Agreeableness	0.05(0.03)	0.06	0.05(0.04)	0.05	−0.04(0.02) ^*	−0.09	−0.00(0.01)	−0.01
Conscientiousness	0.05(0.02) ^*	0.07	0.05(0.03)	0.05	−0.01(0.01)	−0.03	−0.01(0.01)	−0.03
Personality interaction
Neuroticism*Extraversion	0.01(0.00) ^***	0.12	N.S.		N.S.		N.S.
R²	0.32		0.25		0.14		0.20
F	34.77 ^***		27.65 ^***		12.98 ^***		19.98 ^***

Note. N = 928. ^* p < .05, ^** p < .01, ^*** p < .001.

After controlling for demographic characteristics, four out of five personality traits had significant associations with functional ability in the expected directions: neuroticism (β(SE) = −0.19(0.02)), Extraversion (β(SE) = 0.19(0.03)), Agreeableness (β(SE) = 0.18(0.04)), and Conscientiousness (β(SE) = 0.15(0.03); not in tables). However, upon entering all five personality traits together, we found only a negative main effect for Neuroticism.

Testing the association of each personality trait with Pain, controlling for demographics, we found significant associations of neuroticism (β(SE) = 0.06(0.01)), extraversion (β(SE) = −0.06(0.01)), agreeableness (β(SE) = −0.07(0.01)), and conscientiousness (β(SE) = −0.05(0.01); not in tables). When all five personality traits were entered in the model together, we found that only the main effect for neuroticism was significant (Table 3).

Testing each personality trait with chronic conditions and controlling for demographics, we found that only neuroticism (β(SE) = 0.02(0.01); not in tables) was a significant predictor. Testing all five personality traits simultaneously revealed that no personality traits were significant (Table 3).

Confirmatory analyses with personality data from Wave 5 and successful aging data from Wave 6 are reported in Table 4. For subjective success, after controlling for demographics, neuroticism (β(SE) = −0.22(0.02)), extraversion (β(SE) = 0.24(0.02)), agreeableness (β(SE) = 0.18(0.03)), and conscientiousness (β(SE) = 0.22(0.02)) were significant (not in tables). Entering all personality characteristics into the model simultaneously and accounting for the interaction effect of neuroticism with extraversion, we found positive main effects for extraversion and conscientiousness and a negative main effect for neuroticism. The interaction did not reach interpretable levels of significance (p = .006).

Table 4

Regression Results for Wave 5 Personality and Wave 6 Subjective Successful Aging.

	Subjective success		Functional ability		Pain		Chronic conditions
	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β
Intercept	22.44(1.31) ^***	-	47.26(2.09) ^***	-	2.14(0.88) ^*	-	−1.16(0.52) ^*	-
Demographics
Age	0.00(0.02)	0.01	−0.17(0.03) ^***	−0.19	0.02(0.01)	0.06	0.06(0.01) ^***	0.28
Gender (Female)	0.41(0.27)	0.05	−2.46(0.43) ^***	−0.19	0.14(0.18)	0.03	0.40(0.11) ^***	0.13
Race (African American)	−0.72(0.55)	−0.04	−0.78(0.88)	−0.03	0.62(0.37)	0.06	0.42(0.22)	0.06
Income	0.30(0.10) ^**	0.10	0.90(0.17) ^***	0.19	−0.14(0.07) ^*	−0.08	−0.08(0.04)	−0.07
Education	0.04(0.06)	0.02	0.12(0.10)	0.04	−0.10(0.04) ^*	−0.10	−0.05(0.03)	−0.07
Personality
Neuroticism	−0.11(0.02) ^***	−0.19	−0.07(0.03) ^*	−0.09	0.04(0.01) ^**	0.14	0.01(0.01)	0.06
Extraversion	0.13(0.02) ^***	0.22	0.09(0.04) ^*	0.09	−0.02(0.02)	−0.06	−0.01(0.01)	−0.06
Openness	0.02(0.02)	0.03	0.03(0.03)	0.03	−0.00(0.01)	−0.01	−0.01(0.01)	−0.02
Agreeableness	0.02(0.03)	0.02	0.10(0.04) ^*	0.08	−0.00(0.02)	−0.01	−0.01(0.01)	−0.05
Conscientiousness	0.09(0.02) ^***	0.15	0.17(0.04) ^***	0.17	−0.01(0.02)	−0.03	0.01(0.01)	0.03
Personality Interaction
Neuroticism*Extraversion	−0.01(0.00) ^**	−0.09	N.S.		N.S.		N.S.
R²	0.29		0.28		0.09		0.15
F	29.50 ^***		31.57 ^***		7.82 ^***		14.68 ^***

Note. N = 928. ^* p < .05, ^** p < .01, ^*** p < .001.

Predicting functional ability at Wave 6, after controlling for demographics, neuroticism (β(SE) = −0.21(0.03)), extraversion (β(SE) = 0.23(0.03)), agreeableness (β(SE) = 0.25(0.04)), and conscientiousness (β(SE) = 0.28(0.03)) were significant (not in tables). Entering all five personality traits in together, we only found a positive main effect for conscientiousness (Table 4).

For pain at Wave 6, after controlling for demographics, we found that neuroticism (β(SE) = 0.06(0.01)), extraversion (β(SE) = −0.05(0.01)), and conscientiousness (β(SE) = −0.04(0.01)) were individually significant (not in tables). Entering all five personality traits in together, no personality traits were significant (Table 4).

Finally, predicting chronic conditions at Wave 6, after controlling for demographics, no personality traits were significant at the p < .001 level when tested individually or when testing all five personality traits simultaneously (Table 4).

Discussion

These analyses examined the prospective association between personality traits and successful aging at two points in time using data from a community-dwelling panel of older adults. Consistent with Ryff’s (1982) contention that there is value to studying the relationship between personality and successful aging, the findings expand the current gerontological literature and demonstrate that personality traits are associated with indicators of successful aging. When examining personality traits individually for their associations with successful aging we found predictive associations of neuroticism (with subjective success, functional ability, pain, and chronic conditions (at Wave 2/Wave 3 only)), extraversion (with subjective success, functional ability, and pain), agreeableness (with subjective success, functional ability, and pain (at Wave 2/Wave 3 only)), and conscientiousness (with subjective success, functional ability, and pain) across two points in time. In addition, when we examine all five personality attributes simultaneously for their independent associations with successful aging, we find consistent effects for neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Moreover, we find that the relationship of these traits with indicators of successful aging shifts after 8 years. These findings inform our understanding of how personality impacts the aging process and carry implications for future research on successful aging.

Most importantly, our findings show the value of examining personality traits simultaneously rather than individually. Just as Smagula et al. (2016) found significant relationships among all of the Big Five traits and health outcomes at the bivariate level and Baek et al. (2016) found associations with cross-sectional data, so too did we find that when examining personality traits independently, most of the individual personality traits were associated with subsequent reports of successful aging. However, by considering personality traits in models collectively, we clarify which personality traits are strongest predictors of successful aging. Unlike Smagula et al. (2016), who found independent effects of conscientiousness and openness on health outcomes, and Turiano et al. (2012), who found that each of the Big Five traits (except openness) predicted self-rated health, we only found consistent significant effects of neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion on successful aging. Furthermore, consistent with past work (Hotard et al., 1989; Klinger-König et al., 2018; Lynn & Steel, 2006) the association of neuroticism with subjective success was moderated by levels of extraversion, a finding that confirms the need to consider the complexity of associations between personality attributes and outcomes by testing moderating effects among factors (Murray & Booth, 2015; Steel et al., 2008).

Our results advance understanding of the association between personality traits and successful aging over time and demonstrate that personality traits can act as psychosocial or behavioral “vital signs” that predict long-term health risks (i.e., successful aging) for individuals (Graham et al., 2017). Similar to Strickhouser et al. (2017), we found that personality traits have stronger associations with mental health than physical health. Consistent with Morack et al. (2013), who examined subjective health ratings, we found relatively stable predictive associations of neuroticism and extraversion with subjective success. As found by Morack et al. (2013), as individuals age, conscientiousness also becomes associated with subjective success. This may indicate that there is an innate behavioral or psychological disposition associated with personality traits that influences an older person’s reports of success. This is an important finding to consider in future research when predicting successful aging, as those that are high in neuroticism and low in extraversion and conscientiousness may lack the capacity to report higher levels of subjective success, and such dispositional traits should be controlled for in models.

For objective components of successful aging, only neuroticism was negatively associated with functional ability and positively associated with pain when individuals were younger. Eight years later, conscientiousness became the sole significant predictor of functional ability. These findings suggest that for younger older adults, having more neuroticism may lead to greater functional decline and more pain and/or the impact of neuroticism may diminish over time as the biological aging process itself becomes more predictive of greater decline. When people are older, greater conscientiousness may allow for greater adaptation to one’s environment, thereby promoting functional ability. Consistent with some prior work (Sutin et al., 2013) but inconsistent with other (Weston et al., 2015), personality was not associated with chronic conditions. The finding of a lack of association in the data presented here may be due to the time lapse between measurement of personality and chronic conditions. Weston et al. (2015) found that personality predicted later onset of conditions; thus, it may be that personality in this sample at Wave 2 would predict onset of conditions at Wave 6 when a greater number of conditions are reported. Future work should explore this association.

These results, overall, suggest that personality traits have a greater impact on subjective successful aging than objective successful aging. However, in the case of functional ability and pain, early in the aging process, a negative dispositional stance, characteristic of high neuroticism, may result in lower functional ability and more physical pain or more perceived physical pain. Higher conscientiousness was also found to be associated with higher functional ability, only when participants were older. Future studies should examine the mechanisms by which personality is associated with reports of success by individuals (i.e., depression, exercising, social relationships, not smoking) and also examine how other components of personality, including needs and motives, attitudes and beliefs, and life narratives relate to aspects of successful aging (Costa et al., 2019). Future work should also examine how personality reports are associated with change in reports of successful aging over time to determine if specific attributes are associated with specific trajectories of successful aging or behaviors associated with successful aging.

The conclusions from this study are strengthened by their use of prospective data on personality and successful aging from a large state-wide panel of older adults at two points in time. However, our work is not without limitation. Both personality and successful aging were self-reported, even objective measures. While self-reports of chronic conditions have been established as valid reflections of health status (Fortin et al., 2017), additional value may be added by examining an objective observer report of health status. Additionally, these analyses do not address change over time in either personality or successful aging. As stated, future work should consider how changing personality is associated with changing reports of successful aging. Third, participants for whom we had data at all four time points were significantly different than the rest of the ORANJ BOWL sample. As such, results may not be representative of all older adults’ experiences and findings should be replicated with other samples. In addition, participants in this sample predominantly lived in New Jersey, a location affected by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Prior analyses link hurricane exposure to successful aging (Wilson-Genderson et al., 2017). Future analyses should examine how personality traits are associated with disaster exposure and successful aging; it may be that personality moderates the reported effects of disaster exposure on successful aging; this is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. Finally, we issued a p value correction to account for multiple tests run in our current presentation of analyses; not issuing such a correction changes interpretation of significance for some attributes. As a result, our interpretation is conservative and may underestimate the role of personality traits in impacting successful aging.

Overall, findings from this work demonstrate the predictive associations of the Big Five personality indicators on subjective and objective components of successful aging. Results also illustrate the need to consider multiple personality traits conjointly when determining the impact of personality on health and well-being, specifically successful aging. Future work is needed to explore the mechanisms by which personality traits impact successful aging and the impact of change in personality indicators on change in successful aging.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the ORANJ BOWL participants for their time and efforts and the ORANJ BOWL project team at the New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging and for their help in collecting the data.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by UMDNJ-SOM; and the National Institute on Aging (R01AG046463).

ORCID iD

Allison R. Heid

Author Biographies

Allison R. Heid, PhD has her doctoral degree in Human Development and Family Studies with specializations in Adult Development and Aging and Intervention Science. She currently serves as an Independent Research Consultant, supporting research activities related to successful aging, person-centered care, and program evaluation for indivdiuals with dementia and their caregivers.

Rachel Pruchno, PhD serves as Director of Research for the New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine. She specializes in research on Successful Aging.

Maureen Wilson-Genderson, PhD serves as a statistical consultant to the New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine.

Francine P. Cartwright, BS is the Project Director for ORANJ BOWL at the New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine.

References

Atherton

O. E.

Robins

R. W.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Lamb

M. E

. (2014). Personality correlates of risky health outcomes: Findings from a large internet study. Journal of Research in Personality, 50(Supplement C), 56–60.doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.002

29123325

Baek

Martin

Siegler

I. C.

Davey

Poon

L. W

. (2016). Personality traits and successful aging: Findings from the Georgia Centenarian Study. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 83(3), 207–227.doi:10.1177/0091415016652404

27298487

Baltes

P. B

. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52(4), 366–380.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.366

Chapman

B. P.

Roberts

Duberstein

. (2011). Personality and longevity: Knowns, unknowns, and implications for public health and personalized medicine. Journal of Aging Research, 2011(1), 1–24.doi:10.4061/2011/759170

21766032

Chiao

C.-Y.

Hsiao

C.-Y

. (2017). Comparison of personality traits and successful aging in older Taiwanese. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 17(11), 2239–2246.doi:10.1111/ggi.13019

28488358

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R

. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

Löckenhoff

C. E

. (2019). Personality across the life span. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 423–448.doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103244

30231002

Depp

C. A.

Jeste

. (2006). Definitions and predictors of successful aging: A comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 6–20.doi:10.1097/01.JGP.0000192501.03069.bc

16407577

Fortin

Haggerty

Sanche

Almirall

. (2017). Self-reported versus health administrative data: Implications for assessing chronic illness burden in populations. A cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open, 5(3), E729–E733.doi:10.9778/cmajo.20170029

28947426

10.

Friedman

H. S

. (2000). Long‐term relations of personality and health: Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1089–1107.doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00127

11130733

11.

Gale

C. R.

Mõttus

Deary

I. J.

Cooper

Sayer

A. A

. (2017). Personality and risk of frailty: The English longitudinal study of ageing. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51(1), 128–136.doi:10.1007/s12160-016-9833-5

27658915

12.

Goodwin

R. D.

Friedman

H. S

. (2006). Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5), 643–654.doi:10.1177/1359105306066610

16908463

13.

Graham

E. K.

Rutsohn

J. P.

Turiano

N. A.

Bendayan

Batterham

P. J.

Gerstorf

Katz

M. J.

Reynolds

C. A.

Sharp

E. S.

Yoneda

T. B.

Bastarache

E. D.

Elleman

L. G.

Zelinski

E. M.

Johansson

Kuh

Barnes

L. L.

Bennett

D. A.

Deeg

D. J. H.

Lipton

R. B.

Mroczek

D. K

. . .. (2017). Personality predicts mortality risk: An integrative data analysis of 15 international longitudinal studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 174–186.doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2017.07.005

29230075

14.

Hampson

. (1999). State of the art: Personality. The Psychologist, 12, 284–290.

15.

Hampson

S. E

. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin”. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339.doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100419

21740225

16.

Hotard

S. R.

McFatter

R. M.

McWhirter

R. M.

Stegall

M. E

. (1989). Interactive effects of extraversion, neuroticism, and social relationships on subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 321–331.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.321

17.

Iacovino

J. M.

Bogdan

Oltmanns

T. F

. (2016). Personality predicts health declines through stressful life events during late mid-life. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 536–546.doi:10.1111/jopy.12179

25929195

18.

Ihle

Oris

Fagot

Maggiori

Kliegel

. (2016). The association of educational attainment, cognitive level of job, and leisure activities during the course of adulthood with cognitive performance in old age: The role of openness to experience. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(5), 733–740.doi:10.1017/S1041610215001933

26608394

19.

Jang

K. L.

Livesley

W. J.

Vernon

P. A

. (1996). Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64(3), 577–592.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x

8776880

20.

Jokela

Batty

G. D.

Nyberg

S. T.

Virtanen

Nabi

Singh-Manoux

Kivimäki

. (2013). Personality and all-cause mortality: Individual-participant meta-analysis of 3,947 deaths in 76,150 adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 178(5), 667–675.doi:10.1093/aje/kwt170

23911610

21.

Klinger-König

Hertel

Terock

Völzke

Van der Auwera

Grabe

H. J

. (2018). Predicting physical and mental health symptoms: Additive and interactive effects of difficulty identifying feelings, neuroticism and extraversion. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 115, 14–23.doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.10.003

30470312

22.

Lawn

R. B.

Slemp

G. R.

Vella-Brodrick

D. A

. (2019). Quiet flourishing: The authenticity and well-being of trait introverts living in the West depends on extraversion-deficit beliefs. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(7), 2055–2075.doi:10.1007/s10902-018-0037-5

23.

Löckenhoff

C. E.

Sutin

A. R.

Ferrucci

Costa

P. T

. (2008). Personality traits and subjective health in the later years: The association between NEO-PI-R and SF-36 in advanced age is influenced by health status. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1334–1346.doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.006

24.

Lynn

Steel

. (2006). National differences in subjective well-being: The interactive effects of extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(2), 155–165.doi:10.1007/s10902-005-1917-z

25.

Magee

C. A.

Heaven

P. C. L.

Miller

L. M

. (2013). Personality change predicts self-reported mental and physical health. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 324–334.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00802.x

22812563

26.

McHugh Power

J. E.

Lawlor

B. A.

Kee

. (2017). Social support mediates the relationships between extraversion, neuroticism, and cognitive function in older adults. Public Health, 147, 144–152.doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2017.02.015

28404490

27.

Montross

L. P.

Depp

Daly

Reichstadt

Golshan

Moore

Sitzer

Jeste

D. V

. (2006). Correlates of self-rated successful aging among community-dwelling older adults. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 43–51.doi:10.1097/01.JGP.0000192489.43179.31

16407581

28.

Morack

Infurna

F. J.

Ram

Gerstorf

. (2013). Trajectories and personality correlates of change in perceptions of physical and mental health across adulthood and old age. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(6), 475–484.doi:10.1177/0165025413492605

29.

Mueller

Wagner

Smith

Voelkle

M. C.

Gerstorf

. (2018). The interplay of personality and functional health in old and very old age: Dynamic within-person interrelations across up to 13 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 1127–1147.doi:10.1037/pspp0000173

29189025

30.

Mund

Neyer

F. J

. (2016). The winding paths of the lonesome cowboy: Evidence for mutual influences between personality, subjective health, and loneliness. Journal of Personality, 84(5), 646–657.doi:10.1111/jopy.12188

26112403

31.

Murray

A. L.

Booth

. (2015). Personality and physical health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5, 50–55.doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.011

32.

Novak

J. R.

Anderson

J. R.

Johnson

M. D.

Hardy

N. R.

Walker

Wilcox

Lewis

V. L.

Robbins

D. C

. (2017). Does personality matter in diabetes adherence? Exploring the pathways between neuroticism and patient adherence in couples with type 2 diabetes. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 9(2), 207–227.doi:10.1111/aphw.12087

28401663

33.

Ó Súilleabháin

P. S.

Howard

Hughes

B. M

. (2018). Openness to experience and adapting to change: Cardiovascular stress habituation to change in acute stress exposure. Psychophysiology, 55(5), e13023.doi:10.1111/psyp.13023

29044555

34.

Pruchno

. (2015). Successful aging: Contentious past, productive future. The Gerontologist, 55(1), 1–4.doi:10.1093/geront/gnv002

26035905

35.

Pruchno

Heid

A. R.

Wilson-Genderson

. (2018). Successful aging, social support, and ownership of a companion animal. Anthrozoös, 31(1), 23–39.doi:10.1080/08927936.2018.1406199

36.

Pruchno

R. A.

Wilson-Genderson

. (2015). A longitudinal examination of the effects of early influences and midlife characteristics on successful aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(6), 850–859.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu046

24829305

37.

Pruchno

R. A.

Wilson-Genderson

Cartwright

. (2010). A two-factor model of successful aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65(6), 671–679.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq051

20624759

38.

Pruchno

R. A.

Wilson-Genderson

Rose

Cartwright

. (2010). Successful aging: Early influences and contemporary characteristics. The Gerontologist, 50(6), 821–833.doi:10.1093/geront/gnq041

20513694

39.

Roberts

B. W.

DelVecchio

W. F

. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

10668348

40.

Roberts

B. W.

Kuncel

N. R.

Shiner

Caspi

Goldberg

L. R

. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

26151971

41.

Roberts

B. W.

Mroczek

. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31–35.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x

19756219

42.

Rowe

J. W.

Kahn

R. L

. (1997). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 37(4), 433–440.doi:10.1093/geront/37.4.433

9279031

43.

Rowe

J. W.

Kahn

R. L

. (1998). Successful aging. Pantheon.

44.

Ryff

C. D

. (1982). Successful aging: A developmental approach. The Gerontologist, 22(2), 209–214.doi:10.1093/geront/22.2.209

7084743

45.

Sharp

E. S.

Beam

C. R.

Reynolds

C. A.

Gatz

. (2019). Openness declines in advance of death in late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 124–138.doi:10.1037/pag0000328

30667240

46.

Smagula

S. F

Faulkner

Scheier

M. F

Tindle

H. A

Cauley

J. A

Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study Group . (2016). Testing the independence of multiple personality factors in relation to health among community-dwelling older men. Journal of Aging and Health, 28(4), 571–586.doi:10.1177/0898264315597649

26239111

47.

Staudinger

U. M

. (2020). The positive plasticity of adult development: Potential for the 21st century. American Psychologist, 75(4), 540–553.doi:10.1037/amp0000612

32378948

48.

Steca

Alessandri

Caprara

G. V

. (2010). The utility of a well-known personality typology in studying successful aging: Resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers in old age. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 442–446.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.016

49.

Steel

Schmidt

Shultz

. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138

18193998

50.

Strawbridge

W. J.

Wallhagen

Cohen

R. D

. (2002). Successful aging and well-being: Self-rated compared with Rowe and Kahn. The Gerontologist, 42(6), 727–733.doi:10.1093/geront/42.6.727

12451153

51.

Strickhouser

J. E.

Zell

Krizan

. (2017). Does personality predict health and well-being? A metasynthesis. Health Psychology, 36(8), 797–810.doi:10.1037/hea0000475

28277701

52.

Sutin

A. R.

Zonderman

A. B.

Ferrucci

Terracciano

. (2013). Personality traits and chronic disease: Implications for adult personality development. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(6), 912–920.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt036

23685925

53.

Tauber

Wahl

H. W.

Schroder

. (2016). Personality and life satisfaction over 12 years: Contrasting mid- and late life. Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(1), 37–48.

54.

Turiano

N. A.

Spiro

Mroczek

D. K

. (2012). Openness to experience and mortality in men: Analysis of trait and facets. Journal of aging and health, 24(4), 654–672.doi:10.1177/0898264311431303

22219209

55.

Weston

S. J.

Hill

P. L.

Jackson

J. J

. (2015). Personality traits predict the onset of disease. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(3), 309–317.doi:10.1177/1948550614553248

56.

Wettstein

Kuźma

Wahl

H.-W.

Heyl

. (2016). Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between neuroticism and cognitive ability in advanced old age: The moderating role of severe sensory impairment. Aging & Mental Health, 20(9), 918–929.doi:10.1080/13607863.2015.1049119

26035238

57.

Wettstein

Tauber

Wahl

H. W.

Frankenberg

. (2017). 12-Year associations of health with personality in the second half of life: Being versus feeling healthy. Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 30(1), 5–17.

58.

Wilson-Genderson

Pruchno

Heid

A. R

. (2017). Modeling successful aging over time in the context of a disaster. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(2), 328–339.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbw127

27998894