How Changes In Personallity Could Be A Result On Drug Abuse

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC3388488

J Res Pers. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2013 Jun i.

Published in terminal edited form as:

PMCID: PMC3388488

NIHMSID: NIHMS360552

Personality and Substance Use in Midlife: Conscientiousness as a Moderator and the Effects of Trait Change

Nicholas A. Turiano

^aPurdue Academy Department of Human being Evolution & Family Studies, 1200 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN

^bPurdue University Center on Aging and the Life Course, 1200 W. State Street, Due west Lafayette, IN

Shawn D. Whiteman

^aPurdue University Department of Human Evolution & Family Studies, 1200 Westward. State Street, West Lafayette, IN

Sarah Due east. Hampson

^cOregon Research Institute, 1715 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, OR

Brent W. Roberts

^dUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Section of Psychology, 603 Due east Daniel Street, Champaign, IL

Daniel K. Mroczek

^aPurdue University Department of Man Development & Family Studies, 1200 Westward. State Street, Westward Lafayette, IN

^bPurdue University Eye on Aging and the Life Grade, 1200 W. Land Street, W Lafayette, IN

Abstruse

Personality traits predict substance use in adolescence, but less is known nigh prospective substance use in middle age and beyond. Moreover, there is growing interest in how personality change and the multiplicative effects among personality traits chronicle to substance apply. Participants included approximately 4,000 adults aged 25–74 who participated in two waves of the Midlife in the U.Southward. (MIDUS) study. College levels of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, and lower levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness predicted longitudinal substance use. Increases in neuroticism and openness predicted increased substance use while increases in conscientiousness and agreeableness predicted decreased substance use. Higher levels of conscientiousness moderated two of the other trait primary effects. Personality, trait change, and interactions amongst traits reliably forecasted 10-year substance-use behaviors.

Keywords: personality, interactions, change, conscientiousness, substance use, smoking, drinking, drug

1. Introduction

Personality traits have emerged as critical predictors of various substance-use behaviors including the use of cigarettes, booze, and illicit drugs (Hampson & Friedman, 2008; Bogg & Roberts, 2004). These substances are leading run a risk factors for poor wellness and earlier mortality (McGinnis & Forege, 1993). Although in that location is rich empirical support linking personality traits to substance-apply behaviors, well-nigh investigations concentrate on only ane personality trait (normally conscientiousness) and typically do not examine interactions among traits. The electric current study sought to further investigate the association betwixt each of the Large Five personality traits and iii distinct substance-use behaviors (i.e., smoking, drinking, and drug utilize) past utilizing the prospective design of the Midlife in the U.Due south. (MIDUS) survey. Nosotros also tested whether conscientiousness moderated whatever effects of the other Big Five traits with substance use since high levels of conscientiousness may play a particularly important self-regulatory office in terms of health-dissentious behaviors. Lastly, we tested if personality change would predict long-term substance employ above baseline level of each personality trait. Our overall goal was to provide a clearer understanding of how multiple aspects of personality prospectively predicts 10-year substance use in a big national sample of adults.

one.ane Personality and Substance Apply: The Evidence

The evidence connecting conscientiousness with substance use is larger and more compelling than for whatever other personality trait. Booth-Kewley and Vickers (1994) were amidst the first to document the robust effect of individuals high in conscientiousness refraining from detrimental substance utilise. Since so, investigations utilizing diverse samples take demonstrated a potent and clear connection between conscientiousness and substance-employ behaviors (Kashdan, Vetter, & Collins, 2005; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Rooke, & Schutte, 2007; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2006; Terracciano, Lockenhoof, Crum, Bienvenu, & Costa, 2008). In fact, a meta-analysis of 194 studies confirmed that conscientiousness-related traits were negatively associated with many different wellness behaviors, including tobacco apply, excessive alcohol use, and drug employ (Bogg & Roberts, 2004).

Conscientiousness effects announced to retain their predictive power even over all-encompassing longitudinal periods. Teacher ratings of childhood conscientiousness predicted many unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and drinking at midlife in the Terman Life Cycle Study, a sample followed for over 70 years (Friedman et al., 1995). Specifically, those children labeled as less conscientious were more likely to become smokers and eat greater quantities of booze in adulthood. Similarly, a 24-twelvemonth study of children from the Czechia found that lower levels of conscientiousness measured in childhood predicted higher drinking quantity and smoking in heart-age (Kubicka, Matejcek, Dytrych, & Roth, 2001). Longitudinal findings from the 40-year Hawaii Personality and Health accomplice of 963 elementary school children besides revealed similar findings regarding the upshot of conscientiousness (Hampson et al., 2006).

Neuroticism also has articulate associations with substance utilize with neurotic individuals being more likely to smoke cigarettes and smoke a greater quantity of cigarettes (Malouff et al., 2006; Mroczek, Spiro, & Turiano, 2009; Munafò, Zetteler, & Clark, 2007; Rausch, Nichinson, Lamke, & Matloff, 1990). Those higher in neuroticism are also more probable to abuse booze (Grekin et al., 2006; Larkins & Sher, 2006; Malouff, et al., 2007; Terracciano et al., 2008). Longitudinally, findings from the Hawaii Personality and Health cohort provide show that children rated lower in emotional stability (high neuroticism) predicted greater alcohol use some 40 years later in eye age (Hampson et al., 2006). The overall domain of neuroticism and underlying facets such as negative bear upon besides have positive relations with marijuana, cocaine, and heroin utilize (Hopwood et al., 2007; Kashdan et al., 2005).

Much of the empirical testify connecting conjuration to substance use concentrates on two underlying facets: hostility and assailment. Hostility and assailment measured in childhood, boyhood, and young machismo are each associated with higher levels of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use (Caspi et al., 1997; Gerrard et al., 2006; Hampson, Andrews, & Barckley, 2007; Raikkonen & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 1991; Terracciano et al., 2008); importantly, these findings have been confirmed by meta-analyses (Malouff et al., 2007; Malouff et al., 2006). In fact, findings appear robust using longitudinal study designs—lower levels of childhood conjuration predicted adulthood smoking amidst females in the Hawaii Personality and Health cohort study (Hampson et al., 2006) and hostility among college students predicts smoking some 20 years later for both sexes (Siegler, Peterson, Barefoot, & Williams, 1992).

The relationship betwixt extraversion and substance use is less clear (Hampson & Friedman, 2008), but at that place is some indication that higher levels are associated with smoking and alcohol use. For example, a meta-assay of 25 studies from 1972 to 2001 indicated higher levels of extraversion were associated with existence a smoker (Munafò et al., 2007). Still, this result may depend on smoking prevalence in the country of origin studied. Malouff and colleagues (2006) found that college levels of extraversion was associated with smoking in studies completed in Japan and Espana (where smoking rates were much higher), simply not in studies completed in the U.Due south. and Canada. In terms of alcohol use, teachers' ratings of extraversion in childhood were associated with higher consumption levels in middle age (Hampson et al., 2006; Tucker et al., 1995), and numerous studies have linked college levels of extraversion in adolescence and early adulthood with excessive alcohol intake (Allsopp, 1986; Martsh, & Miller, 1997). Part of the inconsistency in associations between extraversion and substance use may be attributable to the large number of studies that use adolescent or college-anile respondents—the very ages when exploration of substances such as tobacco, alcohol and drugs is virtually common (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 2001). Lastly, although the empirical literature on openness is thin, there is some indication that marijuana users score higher on openness measures (Terracciano et al., 2008).

Thus far, empirical evidence has been presented regarding the role of personality trait level as a predictor of substance use. However, there is mounting bear witness that personality change may also be an important predictor of substance employ. Emerging prove suggests there are interindividual differences in personality change throughout adulthood (Mroczek & Spiro, 2007; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Minor, Hertzog, Hultsch, & Dixon, 2003). Although a large proportion of individuals remain stable on personality, others either increment or subtract in sure traits. Trait alter is important to examine because accumulating evidence demonstrates that personality trait change alters substance-use behaviors/problems (Hampson et al., 2010; Littlefield, Sher, & Forest, 2009; 2010) and health outcomes (Mroczek & Spiro, 2007; Turiano et al., 2011). Given this emerging trunk of testify, it is essential that prospective studies include measures of personality every bit well as personality change in club to clearly elucidate whether neither, either, or both predict substance utilise afterward in life.

Based on prior empirical evidence, we hypothesize that the individuals possessing the greatest likelihood of smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol in larger quantities, endorsing alcohol problems, or using illicit substances will exist low in conscientiousness, high in neuroticism, and/or low in agreeableness. Moreover, increases in neuroticism and openness, and decreases in conscientiousness will increment the likelihood of engaging in detrimental substance-use behavior. Given the mixed and limited findings regarding extraversion and openness in midlife, our hypotheses are exploratory. Yet, understanding how these traits and trait change chronicle directly to future substance apply is but part of the picture. It is equally important to empathise whether and how traits interact with i another to further increment (or decrease) the likelihood of substance use.

1.2 Multiplicative effects among personality traits

Although there are many investigations of Big 5 main furnishings on substance-utilize outcomes, far fewer take considered interactions amid personality traits. This oversight is troubling as Hampson and Friedman (2008) accept argued that an exclusive focus on main effects may mask multiplicative or synergistic associations between traits. Personality factors may interact in means that pb certain individuals to get decumbent to engaging in wellness-damaging substance-use behaviors. Moreover, consideration of interactions can potentially illuminate the important phenomenon of buffering effects. Personality traits may buffer one some other in their issue on substance use in that a risk factor such every bit low agreeableness or high neuroticism may be mitigated by a protective factor such every bit high conscientiousness.

Indeed, a scattering of recent studies focusing on smoking indicate that trait interactions are of import and collectively point toward the special role of conscientiousness. For instance, Terracciano and Costa (2004) found that adults scoring both depression in conscientiousness and high in neuroticism were about 3 times more likely to exist current smokers than those characterized by loftier conscientiousness and high neuroticism. Hong and Paunonen (2009) plant that college undergraduates characterized by both low conscientiousness and agreeableness were most probable to fume. Vollrath and Torgersen (2002) considered diverse combinations of extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness, but found that the particular combination of high neuroticism and low conscientiousness was most associated with smoking. This combination of traits was too related to higher self-reports of drunkenness, elevated rates of drunk driving, and higher levels of marijuana use when compared to other personality combinations. Earlier investigations into neuroticism and the Eysenckian dimension of psychoticism parallel these findings. Specifically, a combination of high psychoticism (combination of low conscientiousness and agreeableness) and high neuroticism was predictive of heavier drinking (Allsopp, 1986; Kjaerheim et al 1996; Patton et al., 1997). These studies hint at the special office that high conscientiousness may play in buffering the detrimental effects of other trait levels (due east.g., high neuroticism, low agreeableness) on substance utilise. However, well-nigh of the extant literature has focused on merely the outcome of smoking or used limited samples such equally college students. No study of trait interactions has yet considered a comprehensive array of substance-apply outcomes in a large national sample. The current written report sought to fill this particular gap in the literature.

ane.2.1 Conscientiousness: A Key Buffer

Why does high trait conscientiousness lower the likelihood of substance utilize, fifty-fifty in the face of other factors that raise the likelihood? These patterns are straight predicted by current 2-style models of self-regulation and temperament (Carver, Johnson, & Joormann, 2009; Depue & Lenzenweger, 2005). These models describe a neurophysiological architecture in which basic functions of approach and avoidance brand upward 1 manner of functioning. This first mode of performance is thought to be more automatic and responsive to immediate ecology stimuli. Specifically, approach functions associated with reward-seeking beliefs make a person prone to behaviors that are immediately gratifying, like drug and alcohol consumption. Countering this is the abstention organisation, which alerts people to the potential pain and suffering that might occur with specific behaviors.

Governing these two automated functions is a second mode that is more deliberative in nature, which is thought to explicitly moderate the effects of the automated mode of functioning. Carver et al. (2009) describe this mode as reflecting the ability to plan and conceptualize long-term consequences of all modes of automatic performance. In the stereotypic example, a person who has potent appetites can control these impulses because they have a well-functioning effortful control system. More interestingly, information technology is also proposed that people who exhibit problematically low levels of approach behavior, a cardinal feature of depressed individuals, can overcome this lethargy with a well-functioning control organization. Similarly, a person with an overactive avoidance system tin control their fears long enough to potentially confront them and thus overcome them. Thus, the control manner of functioning is explicitly proposed to moderate the more basic manner of functioning.

For the purposes of our paper, this ii-fashion model of cocky-regulation is highly relevant considering these modes are roughly equated with diverse domains of the Big 5. The automatic modes of approach and avoidance are conspicuously linked to extraversion and neuroticism, whereas the control style is equated to conscientiousness and in role agreeableness (Depue & Lenzenweger, 2005; Carver et al., 2008). In fact, Carver et al. (2009) argue that conscientiousness should moderate the effects of people on the extremes of both extraversion and neuroticism. We believe this two-mode model highlights why conscientiousness likely plays a critical role in buffering the effects of other, more detrimental trait levels, hence making it a especially important moderator when considering trait interactions on substance-use behaviors.

Thus, we hypothesized that loftier levels of conscientiousness will non only predict that individuals volition abstain from using substances (main furnishings), but will also buffer the deleterious effects of other personality traits such as neuroticism on substance use engagement. The mensurate of conscientiousness used in the current study taps the responsibility, organizational, and carelessness aspects of conscientiousness, which parallels Carver et al.'s (2009) effortful control domain.

two. Methods

2.one Sample and Longitudinal Pattern

The get-go wave of the MIDUS study (MIDUS ane) included 7,108 not-institutionalized, English-speaking adults living in the coterminous United states of america, aged 25 to 74. Information were collected in 1995-96. A longitudinal follow-up of the original MIDUS written report was conducted in 2004-06 (MIDUS ii). Every attempt was made to contact all the original respondents and invite them to participate in a second wave of data collection. The average longitudinal follow-upwardly interval was approximately 9 years and ranged from seven.8 to ten.4 years. Of the vii,108 participants in MIDUS 1, 4,963 were successfully contacted to participate in another phone interview of about thirty minutes in length (75% total response rate – adjusting for the 8% besides ill to be interviewed or were deceased; run into Radler and Ryff, 2010, for more information on participant retention). Of those iv,963 who completed phone interviews, 4,660 participants also completed the self-administered questionnaires (SAQ), from which several fundamental variables in this report were measured. Therefore, this latter N defined the longitudinal panel that the electric current study drew upon. With regard to socio-demographic characteristics, the sex distribution of MIDUS participants was generally balanced, with 47% male person and 53% female. Participants were largely Caucasian (approximately 93%) and ranged in historic period from 35 to 84 (at MIDUS 2) with a mean of 55 (SD = 12.5). More than 67% of participants had more than a high schoolhouse education and approximately seventy% of MIDUS participants were married at MIDUS i in 1995-96.

Attrition analyses revealed that respondents who did not participate in MIDUS 2 differed from those who participated in the longitudinal panel on certain variables. Specifically, participants in the longitudinal sample reported college conscientiousness, t (6265) = iv.26, p < .001, lower neuroticism, t (6262) = 2.43, p < .01, and agreeableness, t (6264) = ane.95, p < .05. Participants lost to follow-upward reported college boilerplate alcohol use, t (7022) = half-dozen.06, p < .001; were more than likely to be drug users, χ² (ane, N = 6294) = 5.44, p < .01; and were more likely to have smoked at some point in their lives, χ² (i, Northward = 7105) = 34.02, p < .001.

ii.two Measures

two.2.one Demographic Variables

Age, sex, race, education and marital condition were treated as command variables in the current study considering they have known associations with substance use. Get-go, the overall tendency of substance use shows a peak during late boyhood and young adulthood, and then appears to pass up afterward (Johnston et al., 2001). Second, there are generally sex differences in substance use, with men more probable to engage in substance employ than women (eastward.g., Kashdan et al., 2005). Lastly, individuals with greater teaching and those married are less likely to smoke, potable heavily, and use illicit drugs (Bachman, Freedman-Doan, O'Malley, Schulenberg, & Johnston, 2008; Merline, O'Malley, Schulenberg, Bachman, & Johnston, 2004).

2.ii.2 Personality Traits

The primal predictor variables were assessed via the self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) portion of MIDUS 1 in 1995-96 and MIDUS ii in 2005-06. Personality traits were assessed using adjectival measures of the Big Five markers. Respondents were asked how much each of 25 adjectives described themselves on a scale ranging from one (not at all) to iv (a lot) (for more item encounter Prenda and Lachman, 2001). Specifically, each of the Large Five traits were indexed every bit follows: neuroticism (moody, worrying, nervous, calm, α = .74); extraversion (outgoing, friendly, lively, active, talkative, α = .76); openness (artistic, imaginative, intelligent, curious, wide-minded, sophisticated, adventurous, α = .77); conscientiousness (organized, responsible, hardworking, careless, α = .58); agreeableness (helpful, warm, caring, softhearted, sympathetic, α = .80). Afterward reversing the appropriate items, scales were created past taking the average across the items, with college scores cogent higher levels of that trait. These Big Five scales have practiced construct validity (Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998), correlating well with NEO measures of the same traits (Lachman & Weaver, 1997; Prenda & Lachman, 2001). Descriptive statistics for personality traits at both time points are presented in Table 1.

Table one

Personality, Ways, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

	1	two	iii	four	5	6	vii	8	nine	10
1. Conscientiousness (M1)	--
2. Neuroticism (M1)	−.20** *	--
iii. Extraversion (M1)	.27** *	−.16** *	--
4. Agreeableness (M1)	.29**	−.05** *	.53** *	--
5. Openness (M1)	.27** *	−.17** *	.51** *	.34** *	--
6. Conscientiousness (M2)	.61** *	−.15** *	.18** *	.nineteen** *	.twenty** *	--
7. Neuroticism (M2)	−.15** *	.64** *	−.12** *	−.05**	−.14** *	−.xx** *	--
8. Extraversion (M2)	.20** *	−.14** *	.69** *	.36** *	.37** *	.26** *	−.20** *	--
9. Agreeableness (M2)	.21** *	−.05** *	.35** *	.64** *	.21** *	.27** *	−.11** *	.50** *	--
x. Openness (M2)	.23** *	−.18** *	.36** *	.22** *	.69** *	.28** *	−.21** *	.51** *	.33** *	--
Mean	3.42	2.24	three.20	three.49	3.02	3.46	2.07	3.x	3.45	2.ninety
SD	0.44	0.66	0.56	0.49	0.53	0.45	0.63	0.57	0.fifty	0.54

To index personality change, divergence scores were created betwixt the two measurements for each personality trait. Specifically, trait scores from the MIDUS 1 were subtracted from MIDUS 2 scores for each of the Big 5. Positive scores denote increases in a given trait over fourth dimension, whereas negative scores represent decreases over time. The mean modify scores were as follows: conscientiousness change (M = −.06, SD = .39); neuroticism change (M = −.sixteen, SD = .55); extraversion alter (M = −.09, SD = .44); agreeableness change (Chiliad = −.03, SD = .42); openness change (Grand = −.11, SD = .42). To note, neuroticism has the largest mean change score in terms of magnitude and as well the highest standard deviation, suggesting greater individual differences in amount of change compared to the other four traits.

2.2.3 Smoking Variables

Participants answered questions regarding their smoking habits through the telephone questionnaire at both MIDUS 1 and MIDUS 2. At both waves, participants answered a serial of questions if they had always had a cigarette, always smoked regularly (at least a few cigarettes every mean solar day), if they were currently smoking, or if they had quit smoking. Utilizing data from smoking reports at both waves nosotros were able to construct iv groups of representing smoking condition: (a) never smokers were individuals who reported never smoking in their lives at both time points (n = 1,334 ); (b) constant smokers were individuals who reported smoking at both waves of MIDUS (n = 743); (c) new smokers were individuals who had started smoking between the MIDUS 1 and MIDUS 2 (n = 25); and (d) former smokers were individuals who had smoked at some bespeak in their lives and had quit (n = i,586). Among the former smokers, 318 quit between MIDUS 1 and MIDUS 2. Tabular array 2 presents the means and standard deviations of each personality trait past smoking status.

Table 2

Personality Ways and Standard Deviations by Smoking Status

	Always Smoker Chiliad (SD)	New Smoker G (SD)	Former Smoker Thou (SD)	Never Smoker One thousand (SD)
Conscientiousness	3.37 (.46)a	3.33 (.73)ab	iii.twoscore (.44)a	3.50 (.43)b
Neuroticism	2.37 (.71)a	two.17 (.58)ab	2.23 (.65)b	ii.sixteen (.66)bc
Extraversion	3.21 (.53)a	three.32 (.64)a	iii.19 (.56)a	3.22 (.56)a
Agreeableness	3.51 (.48)ab	three.45 (.lxx)ab	3.46 (.50)a	3.51 (.48)b
Openness	iii.02 (.53)a	3.28 (.54)a	3.02 (.51)a	3.01 (.53)a

2.2.four Alcohol Variables

Participants answered questions regarding their alcohol drinking habits through the phone questionnaire portion of MIDUS 2. Participants first indicated whether they drank any alcohol beverages in the past month. Of the four,606 participants who responded to the alcohol question, 1,887 (41%) reported zilch drinks inside the past month. Trained interviewers explained to participants that had drank in the past calendar month that 1 drink meant a bottle of beer, a wine libation, a glass of vino, a shot of liquor, or a mixed drink. With that definition in mind, participants were asked "on the days when y'all drank, about how many drinks did you drink on the average". Among drinkers, the average consumption was approximately two drinks per drinking occasion (M = 1.97; SD = i.l; range = 1 – xiii).

To index trouble drinking behavior, participants responded yeah (i) or no (0) to whether during the by 12 months they had any of the following bug while drinking or because of drinking booze: (a) Did you have any emotional or psychological issues from using booze, such equally feeling depressed, beingness suspicious of people, or having strange ideas; (b) Did you have such a strong desire or urge to use alcohol that you could not resist information technology or could not think of anything else; (c) Did you have a period of a month or more when you spent a groovy deal of time using alcohol or getting over its furnishings; (d) Did you notice that you had to use more alcohol than usual to go the same upshot or that the same corporeality had less effect on yous than before. A dichotomous variable was constructed to indicate whether a person experienced whatever of the alcohol issues (coded equally one) versus those who did not feel whatsoever of the problems (coded as 0). A total of 170 participants (4%) indicated at to the lowest degree one of the four drinking bug.

2.2.5 Drug Variables

Drug use data was obtained through the SAQ portion of MIDUS two. Participants first reported on whether "on your own (we mean either without a doctor'southward prescription, in larger amounts than prescribed, or for a longer menstruation than prescribed) did you ever use any of the following substances during the by 12 months?". Participants responded yep or no to a total of x substances: sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, painkillers, depression medications, inhalants, marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens, and heroin. To index the utilize of illegal drugs, categories were created for those that reported using cocaine, marijuana, cocaine or hallucinogens/LSD (coded as 1; north = 220; v%) and those that did non report using any of these substances over the by year (coded equally 0; n = 3758; 95%). To index prescription drug corruption, categories were created for those that reported using sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, painkillers, depression medications, or inhalants (coded as 1; northward = 390; 10%) and those that did non study using whatever of these substances over the past twelvemonth (coded as 0; n = 3608; 90%). Descriptive analyses revealed the following iv drugs every bit the most commonly used substances: painkillers (n = 185); marijuana (n = 151); sedatives (north = 133); tranquilizers (due north = 102).

2.2.half dozen Prior Substance Utilise

To clearly demonstrate that personality traits and interactions predicted prospective substance use over a 10-yr period, we adjusted models involving booze and drug employ for prior substance use. Nosotros did not accommodate for prior smoking behavior since the outcome variable itself indexed smoking behavior over the x year follow-upwards.

Through the phone questionnaire at MIDUS i participants were asked "during the period in your life yous drank most, about how many drinks would yous usually have on the days that you drank?" This question could index current drinking levels in 1995-96 or at an earlier point in their life when they drank more than heavily (M = iii.66; SD = 3.76; range = .5 – 60). Drug employ in 1995-96 at MIDUS one was assessed in the same manner as MIDUS ii. Participants reported on the use of x controlled substances without the direction of their physician in the by 12 months. Categories were created to index illegal drug employ (non-users coded as 0; n = 6910, 95%; users coded as one; n = 424; vi%) and prescription drug abuse (not-abusers coded as 0; due north = 6734, 92%; abusers coded every bit 1; n = 600, 8%).

two.iii Analytic Strategy

Given the variety of the multiple substance-employ outcomes, we utilized several analytic techniques to examination our hypotheses. Specifically, we used multinomial logistic regression for smoking behavior, nix-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression for average booze consumption, and logistic regression to examine alcohol related bug and drug use behavior. For each outcome, we ran a total of four models. Model 1 included all demographic variables (i.east., sex, age, race, education, and marital status) and prior substance-utilise behavior (east.g., prior alcohol and drug use). Model 2 added main effects for each of the Big Five personality traits. Model 3 added the 5 personality modify scores. The fully adjusted Model iv included the additional 4 personality interactions involving conscientiousness (i.e., Conscientiousness X Neuroticism, Conscientiousness X Extraversion, Conscientiousness X Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness X Openness). For purposes of parsimony, rather than testing all possible interactions between traits, nosotros full-bodied our analyses on the theoretically based conscientiousness interactions. We also utilized a Bonferroni correction to maintain the familywise alpha level at p < .05. Appropriately we set our critical value for our test of interactions to p < .01 for each of the four interactions tested. Following the procedures outlined past (Aiken & West, 1991), all significant interactions were plotted using representative points (i.due east., ± 1 SD) for each independent variable.

iii. Results

Cypher-lodge correlations between the each of the substance employ variables revealed modest, merely significant positive associations. Specifically, smoking was positively related to average number of alcohol drinks consumed (r = .17), trouble drinking (r = .12), illegal drug use (r = .16), and prescription drug abuse (r = .09). Higher number of alcoholic drinks consumed was significantly linked to problem drinking (r = .32), illegal drug employ (r = .18), and prescription drug corruption (r = .06). Problem drinking was positively associated with illegal drug use (r = .x) and prescription drug abuse (r = .05). Illegal drug employ was strongly predictive of prescription drug abuse (r = .41).

3.1 Smoking

Multinomial logistic regression models examined whether personality traits and interactions amongst traits predicted longitudinal smoking patterns. Multinomial logistic regression is an extension of logistic regression that compares multiple groups through a combination of binary logistic regressions in one unified model. Table iii displays the comparisons of whether those in the constant smoker, new smoker, and sometime smoker groups differed from the referent grouping (never smokers).

Table 3

Multinomial logistic regression comparisons of whether those in the abiding smoker, new smoker, and former smoker groups differed from never smokers (N = 3,408).

	Constant Smoker (n = 743)		New Smoker (n = 25)		Former Smoker (n = ane,586)
	B (SE B)	OR	B (SE B)	OR	B (SE B)	OR
Model 1
Age	−.29 (.06)	0.75***	−.58 (.26)	0.56*	.32 (.04)	one.38***
Male person	.45 (.10)	i.57***	.88 (.44)	2.41*	.79 (.08)	2.20***
Non-White	−.59 (.20)	0.55**	.17 (.64)	1.19	−.56 (.16)	0.57***
Not-Married	.65 (.11)	1.92***	.99 (.44)	2.69*	.10 (.09)	1.eleven
Education	−.73 (.06)	0.48***	−.37 (.24)	0.69	−.33 (.04)	0.72***
Model 2
Age	−.24 (.06)	0.79***	−.52 (.26)	0.59*	.36 (.04)	i.43***
Male	.43 (.xi)	1.54***	.56 (.46)	ane.74	.72 (.09)	2.06***
Non-White	−.63 (.20)	0.53***	−.05 (.65)	0.95	−.64 (.16)	0.53***
Non-Married	.57 (.11)	1.77***	.86 (.45)	ii.35*	.03 (.09)	ane.03
Teaching	−.74 (.06)	0.47***	−.51 (.25)	0.60*	−.36 (.05)	0.70***
Neuroticism	.25 (.05)	1.29***	−.03 (.23)	0.97	.xviii (.04)	1.twenty***
Conscientiousness	−.22 (.06)	0.81***	−.43 (.22)	0.65*	−.17 (.05)	0.84***
Extraversion	−.05 (.07)	0.96	.10 (.29)	1.10	−.03 (.05)	0.97
Conjuration	.02 (.06)	ane.02	−.24 (.25)	0.78	−.08 (.05)	0.92
Openness	.25 (.06)	1.28***	.75 (.30)	2.12**	.23 (.05)	1.25***

Younger age, beingness male, Caucasian, not-married, and lower levels of pedagogy were associated with increased odds of being in the abiding smoker group compared to the never smoking group. College levels of neuroticism and openness, and lower levels of conscientiousness predicted increased odds of being in the abiding smoker grouping compared to the never smoking group.

Although the number of individuals who started smoking in the 10 years between MIDUS 1 and MIDUS 2 was very small (northward = 25), younger individuals, those non married, and those with lower education had increased odds of initiating smoking over the x-yr follow-upwardly compared to those who never smoked. Moreover, those scoring lower in conscientiousness and higher in openness had increased odds of initiating smoking over the 10-twelvemonth follow-up.

Lastly, comparing those who had never smoked to those that quit demonstrated that older individuals, males, Caucasian, and those with lower educational activity were more likely to be in the old smoking grouping than the never smoking group. Again, college levels of neuroticism and openness, and lower levels of conscientiousness predicted increased odds of being in the former smoker versus never smoking group ¹ . Lastly, there were no interactive furnishings involving conscientiousness or personality change effects institute as significant predictors of smoking group condition.

3.2 Alcohol Use

We utilized Nix regression models to evaluate the unique predictive ability of personality traits on average levels of alcohol use. Nothing regression modeling is the most advisable statistical tool to use with count data such every bit booze use particularly when there is a greater probability for a large number of 0 scores. For example, 41% of participants in the current sample indicated that they either had not drank in the past month or had non drank alcohol at all in their lives. ZIP models correct for this type of distribution and yield odds ratios or adventure ratios associated with a unit change in each contained variable for those who were non abstinent. Specifically, ZIP models let ane to interpret if increases in an contained variable are associated with either decreased or increased odds of consuming a greater quantity of alcoholic drinks per drinking occasion.

Results from these models are displayed in Table 4. In Model 1, younger age, being male, non married, lower education, and college levels of prior drinking were associated with an increased probability of consuming higher amounts of booze at MIDUS 2. With the improver of personality furnishings in Model 2, higher levels of neuroticism and extraversion predicted an increased probability of consuming more alcoholic drinks, while higher levels of conscientiousness predicted a decreased probability of alcohol utilize. In Model 3, increases in trait neuroticism and openness predicted increased odds of consuming more alcohol on average while increases in agreeableness predicted decreased odds of alcohol use. In the fully adapted Model 4, a significant Neuroticism 10 Conscientiousness interaction emerged (run into Figure one). Among those loftier in conscientiousness, there was a pocket-sized negative association between neuroticism and the number of drinks consumed per occasion. That is, neuroticism predicted less drinking for those high in trait conscientiousness. For those low in conscientiousness, however, in that location was a positive association between neuroticism and boilerplate drinks consumed per drinking occasion. The specific combination of loftier levels of neuroticism and low conscientiousness was associated with the highest probability of alcohol use.

Neuroticism 10 Conscientiousness interaction predicting the probability of average booze use

Table iv

Aught-inflated Poisson models predicting probability of increased average alcohol utilise (Due north = four,476).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	Incident Count IRR (CI)	Incident Count IRR (CI)	Incident Count IRR (CI)	Incident Count IRR (CI)
Age	0.79 (0.76–0.82)***	0.fourscore (0.77–0.83)***	0.81 (0.78–0.85)***	0.81 (0.77–0.84)***
Male person	1.54 (1.44–1.65)***	1.52 (1.42–ane.64)***	1.49 (1.38–one.62)***	ane.50 (one.38–i.62)***
Not-White	0.87 (0.76–1.01)	0.88 (0.77–1.02)	0.83 (0.69–1.02)	0.82 (0.69–0.98)*
Non-Married	one.12 (1.05–1.21)***	i.11 (i.03–1.xx)**	1.xi (one.02–1.twenty)**	one.11 (1.02–1.xx)**
Education	0.89 (0.85–0.92)***	0.89 (0.86–0.92)***	0.88 (0.84–0.92)***	0.88 (0.84–0.92)***
Prior Drinking	1.05 (one.04–one.06)***	1.05 (1.04–1.06)***	1.05 (1.04–1.06)***	1.05 (ane.04–1.06)***
Conscientiousness		0.94 (0.91–0.98)***	0.94 (0.90–0.98)**	0.94 (0.xc–0.98)**
Neuroticism		1.04 (1.01–one.08)*	1.07 (1.01–1.12)**	one.06 (1.02–1.11)**
Extraversion		1.08 (ane.04–ane.xiii)***	1.09 (1.04–1.15)***	1.09 (1.04–1.15)***
Agreeableness		0.98 (0.95–1.02)	0.93 (0.88–0.97)***	0.93 (0.89–0.97)***
Openness		ane.02 (0.97–1.06)	i.04 (0.99–1.10)	i.03 (0.98–1.09)
Con Δ			0.94 (0.84–1.04)	0.93 (0.84–ane.03)
Neuro Δ			1.10 (i.02–1.19)**	i.xi (1.03–ane.xx)**
Actress Δ			1.07 (0.97–1.twenty)	1.09 (0.98–one.21)
Agree Δ			0.80 (0.72–0.89)***	0.81 (0.73–0.89)***
Open up Δ			i.14 (1.02–1.28)*	i.17 (1.05–1.31)**
Neur Ten Con				0.95 (0.92–0.99)**
Extra X Con				1.00 (0.96–1.04)
Concord X Con				0.97 (0.93–one.01)
Open X Con				ane.02 (0.97–ane.06)
Model Fit AIC	12552.seventy	11859.26	10161.05	10159.17

A series of logistic regression analyses investigated the event of personality on problem drinking (See Tabular array 5). Younger age, being male and not married predicted increased odds of endorsing an alcohol trouble. In Model 2, higher levels of neuroticism predicted an increased odds while higher levels of conjuration predicted a decreased odds of having an alcohol trouble. Consequent with Zilch models for alcohol use, in Model iii, increases in neuroticism and openness were also associated with increased odds of endorsing an alcohol trouble. Lastly, in Model four, there was prove for Neuroticism X Conscientiousness interaction (p < .05), but the probability level of this effect was above the significance alpha cut-off of .01 for this report. Like to the pregnant interaction for average alcohol consumption, higher levels of neuroticism were strongly and positively related to endorsing an alcohol problem. Notwithstanding, the probability of endorsing an alcohol problem for those high in neuroticism was lower for those scoring higher in conscientiousness.

Tabular array v

Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Alcohol Problem (N = 3,720)

	Model i eastB (C.I.)	Model 2 eB (C.I.)	Model three eB (C.I.)	Model 4 eB (C.I.)
Age	0.52 (0.43–0.64)***	0.57 (0.47–0.69)***	0.59 (0.48–0.72)***	0.59 (0.48–0.72)***
Male	one.84 (1.33–2.54)***	1.65 (one.16–two.33)***	1.69 (i.18–two.42)**	one.69 (1.18–2.43)**
Not-White	1.64 (0.96–2.79)	1.66 (0.97–2.85)	1.62 (0.93–2.84)	one.65 (0.94–2.88)
Non-Married	i.66 (ane.19–ii.31)***	1.56 (one.12–2.18)**	ane.49 (ane.06–two.eleven)*	one.51 (1.07–2.13)*
Education	1.xi (0.93–1.32)	1.16 (0.97–1.xl)	1.fifteen (0.95–one.forty)	1.15 (0.95–1.forty)
Conscientiousness		0.79 (0.68–0.93)**	0.76 (0.63–0.91)**	0.83 (0.68–i.02)
Neuroticism		1.39 (1.eighteen–1.64)***	1.67 (one.39–2.02)***	1.lx (one.32–1.94)***
Extraversion		i.06 (0.86–one.29)	ane.02 (0.82–1.28)	0.99 (0.79–1.24)
Agreeableness		0.81 (0.68–0.97)*	0.79 (0.64–0.96)**	0.78 (0.64–0.96)**
Openness		i.14 (0.93–one.xl)	1.25 (ane.00–1.57)*	1.19 (0.94–1.49)
Con Δ			0.84 (0.54–one.13)	0.83 (0.53–one.29)
Neuro Δ			1.93 (1.forty–2.66)***	i.96 (i.42–2.71)***
Extra Δ			0.83 (0.52–1.32)	0.85 (0.53–1.36)
Agree Δ			0.82 (0.53–1.28)	0.83 (0.53–1.29)
Open Δ			1.64 (one.01–2.65)*	ane.63 (ane.00–2.64)*
Neur X Con				0.83 (0.72–0.97)*
Actress X Con				0.96 (0.80–1.15)
Concord X Con				1.03 (0.88–i.21)
Open X Con				0.85 (0.70–1.02)
χtwo	83.72***	116.55***	136.24***	145.71***
df	5	10	fifteen	19

3.3 Drug Use

To make up one's mind whether personality and interactions amidst traits predicted drug apply during the past twelvemonth, we employed a serial of logistic regression analyses. Tabular array 6 displays the results for illegal drug use. With the exception of prior drug employ, none of the demographic variables predicted the use of the 4 illegal drugs. Individuals using an illegal drug at MIDUS 1 had virtually a 15 times greater likelihood of using drugs at MIDUS 2. In Model two, higher levels of neuroticism and openness, and lower levels of conscientiousness predicted increased odds of using illegal drugs at MIDUS 2. In Model 3, increases in openness predicted an increased odds of using illegal drugs while increases in conscientiousness predicted a decreased odds of engaging in illegal substance use over the x-year follow-upward. In Model 4, an Extraversion 10 Conscientiousness interaction emerged (see Figure two). Among those high in conscientiousness there was little association between extraversion and the probability of illegal drug use. However, for those low in conscientiousness, there was a positive association betwixt extraversion and illegal drug employ. Specifically, those individuals with a combination of high extraversion and low conscientiousness had the highest probability of being an illegal drug user at MIDUS two, cyberspace of all demographic variables and prior substance use engagement ⁱⁱ .

Extraversion X Conscientiousness interaction predicting the probability of being an illegal drug user in the past year

Tabular array vi

Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Illegal Drug Utilize (N = three,781)

	Model one eastwardB (C.I.)	Model 2 eB (C.I.)	Model 3 eB (C.I.)	Model iv eB (C.I.)
Age	0.99 (0.84–one.17)	1.02 (0.86–1.20)	0.91 (0.75–1.09)	0.91 (0.76–1.10)
Male	0.85 (0.64–1.15)	0.84 (0.61–i.xv)	0.97 (0.69–1.37)	0.97 (0.69–1.37)
Non-White	0.67 (0.39–1.xv)	0.68 (0.40–ane.18)	0.75 (0.39–1.44)	0.75 (0.39–i.42)
Non-Married	1.00 (0.74–1.35)	0.93 (0.69–1.27)	1.05 (0.75–1.47)	1.05 (0.75–1.47)
Education	1.00 (0.86–1.16)	ane.00 (0.85–1.17)	0.85 (0.71–1.02)	0.85 (0.71–1.03)
Prior Drug Use	xv.28 (10.93–21.37)***	fourteen.fifty (10.31–20.41)***	22.53 (15.37–33.02)***	22.55 (15.36–33.09)***
Conscientiousness		0.71 (0.59–0.86)***	0.72 (0.60–0.86)***	0.71 (0.59–0.86)***
Neuroticism		1.31 (one.08–1.52)***	1.32 (one.10–1.lx)***	1.31 (1.08–1.58)***
Extraversion		1.06 (0.88–1.28)	0.97 (0.78–ane.xx)	0.94 (0.76–1.17)
Agreeableness		0.92 (0.77–1.10)	i.ten (0.89–ane.36)	1.10 (0.89–1.36)
Openness		1.36 (1.10–ane.72)**	i.38 (1.10–1.72)**	1.38 (1.x–ane.72)**
Con Δ			0.46 (0.30–0.71)***	0.45 (0.30–0.70)
Neuro Δ			1.28 (0.93–i.77)	i.30 (0.94–1.79)**
Extra Δ			0.84 (0.53–i.32)	0.86 (0.54–1.36)
Agree Δ			i.xxx (0.82–2.04)	1.29 (0.82–2.03)
Open Δ			2.00 (one.24–three.22)**	2.00 (1.24–3.22)***
Neur X Con				1.00 (0.86–1.15)
Extra Ten Con				0.83 (0.68–0.98)**
Agree X Con				1.02 (0.86–1.21)
Open X Con				1.05 (0.88–1.26)**
χii	281.15***	271.36***	368.49***	372.87.87***
df	six	11	16	20

In contrast to illegal drug use, the effects of personality for prescription drug abuse were not as robust. Being female and using prescription drugs at MIDUS one predicted increased abuse at MIDUS 2. College levels of neuroticism (OR = 1.32, p < .001) and lower levels of conscientiousness (OR = 0.85, p < .01) predicted prescription drug corruption at MIDUS ii. In terms of alter, only neuroticism increases (OR = 1.54, p < .001) predicted prescription drug abuse at MIDUS 2. No interactions involving conscientiousness were discovered.

4. Discussion

The electric current study built on previous investigations of personality and substance utilize. 4 aspects of this study were unique. First, we used long-term longitudinal data, thus establishing predictive effects of traits on substance utilize over the course of a decade, in a higher place initial levels of substance use at baseline. Second, we investigated multiple substance-utilise behaviors inside a large national sample of adults spanning in age the majority of the life course, providing a more comprehensive portrait of substance use and personality. Third, we found that not only initial level of personality traits predicted 10-yr substance-use beliefs, but also change in those traits. Fourth, and maybe most importantly, we provided evidence for the theoretically-of import moderating role of conscientiousness in predicting booze and drug use behaviors, extending prior moderation findings regarding smoking. Overall, trait main effects and conscientiousness-based interactions were associated with moderate effect sizes for substance-utilise outcomes assessed a full decade later. The long lag between assessments of personality and substance-employ outcomes demonstrates that traits (and conscientiousness-based interactions) have enduring predictive power fifty-fifty into centre age and regardless of prior substance-apply behavior.

Consistent with expectations, higher levels of neuroticism and lower levels of conscientiousness consistently predicted detrimental engagement in all outcomes investigated. Inconsistent with our hypotheses, nonetheless, higher levels of openness emerged as a predictor of increased substance use while higher levels of conjuration predicted decreased odds of alcohol use and alcohol endorsed problems. In add-on to main effects for these traits, changes in personality traits over fourth dimension predicted substance use in midlife. Specifically, increases in openness and neuroticism predicted increased odds of engaging in all substances, with the exception of neuroticism change and illegal drug use. In fact, odds ratios for personality changes were amidst the largest in our models, fifty-fifty after taking into account initial level of personality. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that personality traits are non static risk factors and change can be just as important, if not more than important, in predicting long-term substance-use behavior.

About importantly, the electric current written report provides additional support for the utility of testing theoretically-targeted interactions among personality traits in predicting health behaviors (Carver et al., 2009; Depue & Lenzenweger, 2005; Friedman, 2000; Hampson & Friedman, 2008). Specifically, those characterized by loftier levels of neuroticism and low levels of conscientiousness had a greater likelihood of increased alcohol utilise (and alcohol issues) compared to those who were loftier in neuroticism and high in conscientiousness. Moreover, conscientiousness moderated the human relationship betwixt extraversion and use of illegal drugs. Individuals scoring high in extraversion and low in conscientiousness were more likely to use illegal drugs compared to those loftier in extraversion and high in conscientiousness. Because this interaction was not found for prescription drug corruption, it will be interesting for future investigations to make up one's mind which personality traits interact to predict the use of specific drugs. In line with our hypotheses, these findings demonstrate that among people who are high in neuroticism or extraversion, and who thus have a higher likelihood of engaging in substance use, high levels of conscientiousness provides a buffer from engaging in such behaviors.

Research on the underlying motivations backside substance apply may aid explain why conscientiousness buffers the negative furnishings of such traits as neuroticism and extraversion. Both cross sectional and longitudinal data documents that individuals having difficulty regulating both negative emotions and their impulses (a combination of high neuroticism and low conscientiousness) showed the highest levels of externalizing behaviors such as substance apply (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995; Cooper, Kuntsche, Levitt, Barber, & Wolf, in printing; Cooper, Wood, Orcutt, & Albino, 2003). Instead of neurotics potentially self-medicating feelings of negative bear upon and feet, or extraverts seeking the firsthand positive rewards of substance use, high levels of conscientiousness (greater impulse command) counteract these take chances factors. Such findings are likewise consistent with Carver et al.'s (2009) ii-style model of self-regulation that a well-functioning effortful control system (higher levels of conscientiousness) tin outweigh more immediate and automatic behaviors associated with certain personality traits such as neuroticism and extraversion. Conscientiousness appears to be one of the nearly important mechanisms for regulating behavior—especially substance use.

These trait interactions besides provide some limited support for the idea of the healthy neurotic (Friedman, 2000) and the function conscientiousness potentially plays in this concept. Friedman argued that individuals high in neuroticism may be, in a broad sense, characterized by one of two life paths. The first is depicted by cynicism, resentfulness, and feet, leading to poor health behaviors such equally self-medication with tobacco, alcohol, or drugs to alleviate chronically loftier levels of negative affect and perceived stress (Eysenck, 1991; Friedman, 2000; Lerman et al., 2000). Alternatively, the "healthy neurotic" or "neurotic vigilant" life path is characterized by health-treatment adherence and more positive health behavior appointment—behaviors that are made more likely if an individual is also loftier in conscientiousness. Overall, the idea that high levels of neuroticism may be wellness protective for certain individuals emphasizes the importance of examining interactions among personality traits in predicting wellness relevant behaviors and outcomes. Determining whether traits are proficient versus bad in terms of wellness should not exist the question driving future studies. Rather, questions should seek to answer under what conditions, when, or for whom are certain personality traits adaptive versus maladaptive.

4.i Limitations

Despite strengths including a longitudinal design besides every bit a large national sample, the present written report was limited past a number a factors. Commencement, the measure of personality was express past its relative brevity. With whatever large national longitudinal report in that location is a tradeoff between the strength that comes with a large North and a long-term follow-upwardly, and the latitude of the psychosocial constructs included. Given that the Big 5 traits were assessed by just four to vii adjectives for each trait, we were unable to investigate underlying facets of each trait. Prior enquiry has hinted that more accurate predictions of the association betwixt personality and substance-apply behaviors may be obtained by investigating specific underlying facets (Hampson et al., 2007). As such, future research would do good from more careful investigation of the effects and potential interactions between facets of the Large Five traits, particularly conscientiousness.

At that place were besides limitations with the substance-use outcomes assessed in the current study. Offset, all outcomes were based on self-reports of substance employ, which is the case in most all studies in wellness behavior research. Although correlated cocky-reports can inflate associations, more objective measures of booze use are problematic every bit no one tends to know 1'due south ain substance employ better than oneself, peculiarly since such behaviors often occur in individual, without whatsoever objective witnesses. Prior inquiry has shown that self-reported conscientiousness predicts frequency and quantity measures better than other types of variables (Bogg & Roberts, 2004).

Another limitation with the outcomes investigated was the bones categorization of smoking and drug utilise behavior, which plagues studies of health behaviors (Munafò et al., 2007). We were able to investigate the quantity of alcohol utilise, but were express in the variables we could apply to determine both smoking and drug frequency. Moreover, the prevalence of both drug use (illegal or prescription) and trouble drinking was relatively small (between 4–x% of the sample). Finding a significant Extraversion 10 Conscientiousness interaction for illegal drug utilize, likewise as our sensitivity analysis conducted on the top four drugs used (run into footnote ii), demonstrates the importance of identifying the associations between certain drugs and personality traits. Only as research documents those individuals high in neuroticism and those high in extraversion endorse different motivations for drinking (Cooper et al., 1995; Cooper et al., 2000), it is likely the case that higher or lower levels of personality traits (or interactions amid them) upshot in quite different substance-use behaviors. For example, it may exist that neurotic individuals are predisposed to use sedatives and tranquilizers and more extraverted individuals are more apt to use sensation seeking drugs such as marijuana or cocaine.

Although the electric current written report utilized a longitudinal pattern, it only included two occasions of measurement. As a result, we used difference scores to index personality change. Scholars have argued that three occasions of measurement are needed to accurately measure alter (Vocalist & Willet, 2003). Future investigations involving at least three personality measurements are needed to adequately estimate personality modify and charge per unit of change with methods such as multi-level modeling techniques.

Last, it is important to talk over the generalizability of the electric current findings. First, interaction furnishings are notoriously hard to replicate. Every bit such, it is essential that future studies ostend and extend our findings by exploring the moderating office of conscientiousness on substance use. Nevertheless, our results are consequent with several recent studies that discovered interactions amid personality traits in predicting substance employ (Terracciano & Costa, 2004; Vollrath & Torgersen, 2002) equally well as wellness outcomes (Friedman, Kern, & Reynolds, 2010). It is besides of import to mention that although the MIDUS study was a national sample, the participants were primarily Caucasian and well-educated, and information technology is not clear if findings would replicate in more diverse samples. Moreover, assay of selective attrition revealed that participants that dropped out the study differed on fundamental predictor and upshot variables. Participants that withdrew were significantly lower on conscientiousness and higher on neuroticism which could bias the findings. Given that conscientiousness and neuroticism are positively associated with substance employ, and those who dropped out also engaged in greater alcohol use, smoking, and drug employ, it is possible that the electric current findings underestimate the association between personality and substance use because those potentially most at risk had already dropped out of the study.

5. Conclusions

Notwithstanding these limitations, the nowadays study adds to the extant literature on personality and substance use in four central ways. Outset, consideration of interactions among personality traits tin atomic number 82 to a more complete understanding of how personality predicts substance-use behaviors specifically, and health more than more often than not. 2nd, conscientiousness appears to be a central predictor and potential moderator of the personality-health behavior relationship. Third, we demonstrate that personality, every bit well as the moderating role of conscientiousness, predicts substance use approximately ten years later, net of prior substance use and change in trait level. Fourth, personality alter over a 10-year period predicts substance use engagement in addition to initial trait level. Finding all of these associations in a large national sample of adults strengthens the argument that individual traits, trait modify, too equally interactions among traits, tin can be used to predict long-term substance employ. This blueprint of results highlights the importance and feasibility of using personality for long-term prediction of health-dissentious substance-apply behaviors.

​

Highlights

• We examined if the Big Five personality traits predicted x-twelvemonth substance employ

• Higher levels of neuroticism, openness, and extraversion predicted increased use

• Lower levels of conscientiousness and conjuration predicted decreased use

• Personality change also predicted substance utilise

• Conscientiousness buffered the negative effects of neuroticism and extraversion

Acknowledgments

This work was supported past grants from the National Institute on Aging (T32-AG025671, R01-AG018436, R01-AG030048, R01-AG21178, R01-AG020048); and Purdue Academy Centre on Crumbling and the Life Course.

Footnotes

^aneA total of 318 individuals out of the total 1,586 former smokers had smoked at MIDUS 1 but had quit past MIDUS 2. Therefore we ran an additional model with just the 318 individuals who really quit during the 10-year follow-up. Results were similar even with the reduced sample size.

²Sensitivity analyses indicated that in terms of the iv virtually common substances used, college levels of neuroticism predicted only an increased odds of using sedatives (OR = i.17; p < .05) and tranquilizers (OR = 1.51; p < .05). In contrast, individuals scoring higher in openness had increased odds of using pain killers (OR = 1.24; p < .05) and marijuana (OR = 1.42; p < .05). Conscientiousness was too a protective cistron against sedative (OR = 0.83; p < .05) and hurting killer utilise (OR = 0.76; p < .05).

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. Equally a service to our customers nosotros are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof earlier information technology is published in its terminal citable course. Delight note that during the production procedure errors may be discovered which could bear upon the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the periodical pertain.

References

• Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Allsopp JF. Personality equally a determinant of beer and cider consumption amidst young men. Personality and Private Differences. 1986;7:341–347. [Google Scholar]
• Bachman JG, Freedman-Doan P, O'Malley PM, Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD. Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No 68. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research; 2008. Revisiting marriage effects on substance employ among young adults. [Google Scholar]
• Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta- analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004;130:887–919. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Booth-Kewley S, Vickers RR., Jr Association between major domains of personality and wellness behavior. Journal of Personality. 1994;62:281–298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Caspi A, Bogg D, Dickson Northward, Harrington H, Langley J, Moffitt TE, et al. Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997;73:1052–1063. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carver CS, Johnson SL, Joormann J. Two-style models of self-regulation equally a tool for conceptualizing furnishings of the serotonin system in normal behavior and diverse disorders. Current Directions in Psychological Scientific discipline. 2009;eighteen:195–199. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carver CS, Johnson SL, Joormann J. Serotonergic part, ii-way models of self-regulation, and vulnerability to depression: What low has in mutual with impulsive aggression. Psychological Bulletin. 2008;134:912–943. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, Mudar P. Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol utilise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;69:990–1005. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cooper ML, Kuntsche E, Levitt A, Barber LL, Wolf S. A motivation perspective on substance use: Review of theory and research. In: Sher KJ, editor. Oxford Handbook of Substance Utilize Disorders. New York, NY: Oxford Press; (in press) [Google Scholar]
• Cooper ML, Wood PK, Orcutt HK, Albino A. Personality and the predisposition to engage in risky or trouble behaviors during boyhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84:390–410. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Depue RA, Lenzenweger MF. A neurobiological dimensional model of personality disturbance. In: Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, editors. Major theories of personality disorder. New York: Guilford; 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Eysenck HJ. Smoking, Personality, and Stress: Psychosocial factors in the Prevention of Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease. New York, NY: Springer Verlag; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Friedman HS. Long-term relations of personality and health: Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of Personality. 2000;68:1089–1108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Friedman HS, Kern ML, Reynolds CA. Personality and health, subjective well- being, and longevity every bit adults age. Journal of Personality. 2010;78:179–216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Martin LR, Wingard DL, Criqui MH. Psychosocial and beliefs predictors of longevity: The aging and decease of the "Termites" American Psychologist. 1995;50:69–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Stock ML, Houlihan AE, Dykstra JL. Temperament, self-regulation, and the prototype willingness model of adolescent health gamble behavior. In: Ridder DT, de Wit JB, editors. Self-regulation in wellness behavior. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2006. pp. 97–118. [Google Scholar]
• Grekin ER, Sher KJ, Wood PK. Personality and substance dependence symptoms: Modeling substance-specific traits. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20:415–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hampson SE, Andrews JA, Barckley Yard. Predictors of development of elementary-school children's intentions to smoke cigarettes: Prototypes, subjective norms, and hostility. Nicotine and Tobacco Control. 2007;9:751–760. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hampson SE, Goldberg LR, Vogt TM, Dubanoski JP. 40 years on: Teachers' assessments of childrens' personality traits predict self-reported health behaviors and outcomes at midlife. Health Psychology. 2006;25:57–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hampson SE, Friedman HS. Personality and health: A life spanperspective. In: John OP, Robins R, Pervin L, editors. The Handbook of Personality. 3. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Hampson SE, Tideseley East, Andrews JA, Luyckx K, Mroczek DK. The relation of change in hostility and sociability during childhood to substances use in mid boyhood. Journal of Research in Personality. 2010;44:103–114. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hong RY, Paunonen SV. Personality traits and wellness-risk behaviors in University students. European Journal of Personality. 2009;23:675–696. [Google Scholar]
• Hopwood CJ, Morey LC, Skodol AE, Stout RL, Yen S, Ansell EB, McGlashan TH. Five-factor model of personality traits associated with booze-related diagnoses in a clinical sample. Periodical of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68:455–460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. Monitoring the future national survey results on drug utilize, 1975–2000. National Institute on Health; 2001. p. 01-4924.p. 01-4925. [Google Scholar]
• Kjaerheim Chiliad, Mykletum R, Halvorsen T. Pick into the eating house business based on personality characteristics and the take a chance of heavy drinking. Personality and Individual Differences. 1996;21:625–629. [Google Scholar]
• Kashdan TB, Vetter CJ, Collins RL. Substance apply in immature adults: Associations with personality and gender. Addictive Behaviors. 2005;thirty:259–269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kubicka L, Matejcek Z, Dytrych Z, Roth Z. IQ and personality traits assessed in childhood as predictors of drinking and smoking behaviour in middle-anile adults: a 24- year follow-up study. Addiction. 2001;96:1615–1628. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lachman M, Weaver SL. Tech Rep No1. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Department of Psychology; 1997. The Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) personality scales: Scale structure and scoring. [Google Scholar]
• Larkins JM, Sher KJ. Family history of alcoholism and the stability of personality in young adulthood. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2006;20:471–477. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lerman C, Caporaso NE, Audrain J, Principal D, Boyd NR, Shields PG. Interacting effects of the serotonin transporter gene and neuroticism in smoking practices and nicotine dependence. Molecular Psychiatry. 2000;5:189–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Littlefield AK, Sher KJ, Wood PK. Is "maturing out" of problematic alcohol involvement related to personality change? Journal of Aberrant Psychology. 2009;118:360–374. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Littlefield AK, Sher KJ, Wood PK. Exercise changes in drinking motives mediate the relation between personality change and "maturing out" of problem drinking? Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2010;119:93–105. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Rooke SE, Schutte NS. Alcohol involvement and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Drug Didactics. 2007;37:277–294. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Schutte NS. The 5-gene model of personality and smoking: A meta-assay. Journal of Drug Didactics. 2006;36:47–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Martsh CT, Miller WR. Extraversion predicts heavy drinking in college students. Personality and Individual Differences. 1997;23:153–155. [Google Scholar]
• McGinnis G, Foege Westward. Actual causes of death in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1993;270:2207–2212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Merline Air-conditioning, O'Malley PM, Schulenberg JE, Bachman JG, Johnston LD. Substance use among adults 35 years of age: Prevalence, machismo predictors, and impact of adolescent substance apply. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:96–102. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mroczek DK, Kolarz CM. The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;75:1333–1349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mroczek DK, Spiro A., Iii Personality modify influences mortality in older men. Psychological Science. 2007;18:371–376. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mroczek DK, Spiro A, Turiano North. Do health behaviors explicate the result of neuroticism on mortality? Journal of Research in Personality. 2009;43:653–659. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Munafò MR, Zetteler JI, Clark TG. Personality and smoking status: A meta- analysis. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2007;9:405–413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Patton D, Barnes GE, Murray RP. A personality typology of smokers. Addictive Behaviors. 1997;22:269–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Prenda K, Lachman ME. Planning for the future: A life management strategy for increasing control and life satisfaction in adulthood. Psychology and Aging. 2001;sixteen:206–216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Radler BT, Ryff CD. Who participates? Accounting for longitudinal retention in the MIDUS national study of wellness and well-being. Periodical of Aging and Health. 2010;22:307–331. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Raikkonen Chiliad, Keltikangas-Jarvinen L. Hostility and its association with behaviorally induced and somatic coronary risk indicators in Finnish adolescents and young adults. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33:1171–1178. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rausch JL, Nichinson B, Lamke C, Matloff J. Influence of negative bear upon on smoking abeyance handling result: A pilot study. British Journal of Addiction. 1990;85:929–933. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Roberts BW, Walton Grand, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life class: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2006;132:one–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Siegler IC, Peterson BL, Barefoot JC, Williams RB., Jr Hostility during tardily adolescence predicts coronary run a risk factors at midlife. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1992;128:146–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vocalizer JD, Willett JB. Survival analysis. In: Schinka JA, Velicer WF, editors. Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. pp. 555–580. [Google Scholar]
• Small BJ, Hertzog C, Hultsch DF, Dixon RA. Stability and change in adult personality over 6 years: Findings from the Victoria Longitudinal Report. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2003;58:166–176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Terracciano A, Costa PT. Smoking and the v-cistron model of personality. Addiction. 2004;99:472–481. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Terracciano A, Löckenhoff CE, Crum RM, Bienvenu J, Costa PT. Five- factor model personality profiles of drug users. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;8:ane–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tucker JS, Friedman HS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Schwartz JE, Wingard DL, Martin LR, et al. Childhood psychosocial predictors of adulthood smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical action. Journal of Practical Social Psychology. 1995;25:1885–99. [Google Scholar]
• Turiano NA, Pitzer L, Armour C, Karlamangla A, Ryff CD, Mroczek DK. Personality trait and trait change as predictors of health outcomes: Findings from the National Report of Americans (MIDUS) The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences (in press) [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vollrath Yard, Torgersen Due south. Who takes health risks? A probe into eight personality types. Personality and Private Differences. 2002;32:1185–1197. [Google Scholar]

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388488/

Posted by: woodsfambireett.blogspot.com

Share this post