Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Chopik, W., & Lee, J. H. (2022). Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.37611 Clinical Psychology Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time 1 2 William Chopik , Ji Hyun Lee 1 2 Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Keywords: Conscientiousness, personality facets, health, depression, actor-partner interdependence model, Health and Retirement Study (HRS) https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.37611 Collabra: Psychology Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2022 Previous studies show consistent associations between conscientiousness and health outcomes. However, less is known about how various facets of conscientiousness, of both individuals and their partners, are associated with changes in health in older adults over time. Applying the actor–partner interdependence model, we examined dyadic associations of broader conscientiousness and its six facets and changes in health, health behavior, and well-being in middle-aged and older couples. With a sample of 3,271 couples (N=6,542) from the Health and Retirement Study, we found that actor conscientiousness, orderliness, and industriousness were most reliably associated with better health outcomes over time. Partner orderliness was associated with better health and more positive health behavior. The remaining associations were near-zero in their effect sizes. Many of these associations persisted over the 10-year period of the study, and there was little evidence for gender differences or multiplicative interactions. The personality of one’s romantic partner is associated being has focused on broader, super-ordinate traits rather with an individual’s intra- and interpersonal functioning. than their subordinate facets (John et al., 2008; Orth, 2013). In one of the first studies examining the spousal effects of Nevertheless, recent efforts aimed at delineating facet-level personality on physical health, Roberts, Smith, Jackson, & information from personality traits have been fruit- Edmonds (2009) found that having a spouse high in con- ful—lower-order personality facets are associated with dis- scientiousness (e.g., being goal-directed, organized, able to tinct outcomes over-and-above the contribution of the su- control their impulses) was associated with better health per-ordinate trait (Chopik, 2016; J. J. Jackson et al., 2009; over and above an individual’s own level of conscientious- Soto et al., 2011). Is this also true in the context of spouses’ ness (subsequently replicated in Nickel et al., 2017). Al- personalities conferring health benefits? The current study though this research was an important first step in examin- builds on the research by examining the dyadic associations ing associations between spousal personality and health, it of conscientiousness and its facets on changes in health and is still unclear which particular aspects of conscientiousness health behavior over time. are most reliably associated with better health within cou- Conscientiousness and individual health ples. Only examining overall conscientiousness might ob- scure more descriptive findings found by looking at partic- The Big Five personality traits are extraversion, neuroti- ular features of conscientiousness. For example, does this cism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to association exist because conscientious partners are more experience. Of all the Big Five traits, conscientiousness has responsible or orderly? Having responsible and orderly been most consistently associated with better health and partners might be more likely to encourage their partners to health behavior (Roberts, Walton, et al., 2005; Roberts & exercise regularly, remind them to take their medication, or Bogg, 2004). Conscientiousness is a personality trait that help them keep their scheduled doctor’s appointments. Or describes individuals who are goal-directed, organized, able does this association exist because conscientious partners to control their impulses, and follow socially accepted are more traditional and may help individuals avoid risky norms and values (John & Srivastava, 1999). Much of the situations? research on conscientiousness details its purported benefits Unfortunately, these aspects of conscientiousness, or with respect to physical health, occupational success, and facets, and their associations with health have not been ex- marital stability across the lifespan (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; amined within couples very much. Most research on indi- Hogan & Holland, 2003; Roberts, Walton, et al., 2005; vidual and partner personality traits to health and well- Roberts & Bogg, 2004; Shanahan et al., 2014). Not sur- a Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to William J. Chopik, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Rd, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time prisingly, conscientious individuals engage in many healthy seems reasonable, at least on the surface, that conscien- behaviors (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Friedman et al., 1993). tiousness facets in one person would be associated with bet- Further, a meta-analysis demonstrated a negative associa- ter health in their romantic partner. Perhaps the most con- tion between conscientiousness and risky health behaviors, vincing evidence comes from demonstrations of how couple like excessive drinking, tobacco/drug use, unhealthy eat- members’ health and health behavior are coordinated with ing, risky driving, risky sex, suicide, and violence (Bogg & each other over time. Couples tend to change in similar Roberts, 2004). The protective health behaviors of consci- ways with respect to their social activities, physical limita- entious individuals may also explain the trait’s relationship tions, cognition, health, and happiness (Hoppmann et al., with longevity (Graham et al., 2017; Hampson et al., 2013). 2008; Hoppmann, Gerstorf, & Hibbert, 2011; Hoppmann, Based on a seven-decade longitudinal study of gifted chil- Gerstorf, Willis, et al., 2011; Hoppmann & Gerstorf, 2009). dren, childhood conscientiousness was significantly related Further, when one person initiates a positive health change, to higher survival in middle to old age (Friedman et al., their partner is quick to follow, whether it be quitting smok- 1993). The magnitude of this effect (a relative hazard ratio ing, drinking less, exercising more, going for a cholesterol of 1.20) is comparable to other risk factors (e.g., higher lev- screening, getting a flu shot, or losing weight (Falba & Sin- els of systolic blood pressure and cholesterol) for all-cause delar, 2007; S. E. Jackson et al., 2015). mortality (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). As a result, it is likely that one person’s personality can Recent efforts at identifying and measuring facets of con- be associated with his/her partner’s health, considering the scientiousness have provided additional insight into how associations of conscientiousness at the individual level conscientiousness is associated with health. The facets of and the degree of coordination between romantic partners. conscientiousness most often studied are impulse/self-con- There is preliminary evidence that having a conscientious trol (cautious v. careless), orderliness (organized v. sloppy), partner is associated with better global health and fewer industriousness (tenacious v. lazy), conventionality/tradi- functional limitations (Nickel et al., 2017; Roberts et al., tionalism (traditional v. nonconforming), reliability/re- 2009). Unfortunately, the two previous studies examining sponsibility (dependable v. unreliable), and virtue (honesty the dyadic effects of conscientiousness on health were v. dishonesty) (Chopik, 2016; Roberts, Chernyshenko, et al., cross-sectional, only examined broader conscientiousness, 2005; Schwaba et al., 2020; Stephan et al., 2019; Sutin et and did not examine health behavior. Thus, no study has ex- al., 2018). For example, broader conscientiousness, order- amined the associations between partner conscientiousness liness, industriousness, and responsibility are most consis- (facets) and health and health behavior over time. tently associated with better health and fewer chronic ill- Approaching the question of whether actor and partner nesses (Chopik, 2016; Roberts, Chernyshenko, et al., 2005), conscientiousness facets are associated with health and a reduced risk of developing dementia (Sutin et al., 2018), health behavior over time necessarily involves making some and lower likelihood of mortality among older individuals assumptions about the causal role of these variables on (Stephan et al., 2019). health more generally. Although many previous studies Other facets of conscientiousness may be less commonly have not carefully laid out the causal linkages between con- associated with health and well-being. For example, scientiousness and health, we feel that it is reasonable to Roberts and colleagues (2005) tested the validity of six assume that higher levels of conscientiousness have at least facets of conscientiousness and correlated them with self- some causal effects on health (e.g., conscientiousness is an reported measures of health behavior. Among six facets, individual difference factor that motivates healthy behav- only responsibility and orderliness were associated with ior, and this might explain conscientious people are health- preventive health behaviors (e.g., exercise, regular doctor ier). Making an assumption like that was a necessary mo- visits). Similarly, Chopik (2016) examined longitudinal as- tivator for the analyses below. However, knowing the exact sociations between conscientiousness facets and physical extent to which it is conscientiousness per se and not an health among older adults, finding that responsibility and additional variable that shares some overlapping variance orderliness were associated with better global health (i.e., with conscientiousness can be challenging. This is espe- a global evaluation of one’s health) and fewer chronic ill- cially the case given that conscientiousness is often ex- nesses, and industriousness and self-control were associ- amined in cross-sectional studies and in isolation of other ated with fewer chronic illnesses. The persistence in ad- characteristics (which might be considered parcels of con- hering to healthy behaviors (i.e., diet and exercise, a sign scientiousness, antecedents of conscientiousness, or even of industriousness) and avoidance of unhealthy habits (i.e., mechanisms along the chain linking conscientiousness to drug use, a sign of self-control) may be particularly valuable health). in preventing the development of chronic illnesses in older The current study makes some of those same assump- adulthood. tions—it assumes that conscientiousness facets—of both people—might have some association with health. We pro- Partner conscientiousness and health vided some reasons why we think an association might ex- ist, and we think conscientiousness is probably unique in Extant work on conscientiousness facets has focused ex- the way that it affects health because there is not as much clusively on individual-level health outcomes. Indeed, there evidence for other characteristics doing so. Nevertheless, are no existing studies examining the dyadic associations our study design is such that it cannot incontrovertibly of conscientiousness facets on health outcomes over time. prove a causal association between these variables. Neces- Although our current study is not well equipped to isolate sary elements would include a strong consideration of co- the exact causal effect of conscientiousness on health, it variates, time-ordered processes, related constructs, ran- Collabra: Psychology 2 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time dom assignment, and better measurement. In the tional outcomes (chronic illness, depression, and health be- remainder of the paper, we try to be careful with how we havior in addition to global health). portray and discuss the findings. Specifically, we provide a Method descriptive account of the associations between conscien- tiousness and health across partners and promise nothing Participants were 3,271 middle-aged and older opposite- more. We return to the difficulty in establishing causal in- sex couples (6,542 individuals; M = 67.34, SD = 8.59) from ferences in individual difference characteristics on health in age the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Participants av- the Discussion. eraged 13.01 (SD = 2.93) years of education. The racial/ ethnic breakdown of the sample was: 83.2% White/Cau- The Current Study casian, 7.4% Black/African American, 7.3% Hispanic, and In the current study, we examined the dyadic associa- 2.1% other. HRS is a nationally representative and prospec- tions of conscientiousness facets on changes in health and tive panel study that has surveyed more than 22,000 Amer- health behavior over time. A large sample of middle-aged icans aged 50+ every two years (Sonnega et al., 2014). Data and older couples completed a facet-level measure of con- have been collected since 1992. The current study reports scientiousness and measures of health and health behavior on psychological and health data collected in 2008, 2010, five or six times over a 10-year period. Because previous re- 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. The University of Michigan search has previously established an association between is responsible for the study and provides extensive docu- spousal (broader) conscientiousness and health (Roberts et mentation about the protocol, instrumentation, sampling al., 2009), we controlled for a broader measure of conscien- strategy, and statistical weighting procedures. The data use tiousness in our analyses. We employed the actor-partner agreement of HRS does not allow for the public sharing of interdependence model to examine the associations of indi- data. However, we have uploaded our syntax and output vidual and spousal conscientiousness on health and health files at https://osf.io/q6fvh/. Full details on the methodol- behavior over time. ogy and previously published papers using the data can be We also ran three additional analyses. First, we examined found on the HRS website (https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/). if any actor or partner associations of conscientiousness on In 2006, a random 50% of HRS respondents were selected health were moderated by time. These analyses test if the for an enhanced face-to-face interview. In 2008, the re- associations of conscientiousness persist, decline in magni- maining 50% of HRS respondents were visited for an en- tude, or increase in magnitude over time. Second, we exam- hanced face-to-face interview. Respondents received a self- ined whether the associations of conscientiousness facets report psychosocial questionnaire every other wave (every and the outcomes were stronger for men or women. These four years) that they completed and mailed to the University analyses were conducted because some research suggests of Michigan. Facet-level information for conscientiousness that women’s behavior might have a stronger influence on is available for 2008 and 2010 only. Thus, two distinct co- their male partners’ health decisions and outcomes horts were formed that had psychosocial assessments and (Thomeer et al., 2013; Williams & Umberson, 2004). Third, health information (i.e., Cohort 1: Assessed in 2008, 2010, we examined whether a “compensatory” association of con- 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018; Cohort 2: Assessed in 2010, scientiousness facets existed for couples. A compensatory 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018). Thus, half the sample had six association would suggest that having a partner higher in waves of data on the outcomes, and the other half of the a conscientiousness facet shows a larger association with sample had five waves of data on the outcomes. health (i.e., compensates) for an individual having lower The cohorts were combined into one sample for the pre- standing on that facet (Roberts et al., 2009). sent analyses to increase statistical power and precision; cohort source did not moderate any of the effects reported Differences from prior work below. Facet-level information on the other Big Five per- sonality traits was not collected. Inclusion of the other four In the interest of full disclosure, we are using data (from personality traits (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, agree- the Health and Retirement Study) that have been previously ableness, openness) did not substantively change the re- used in and overlaps with other reports examining associ- sults reported below, so they were not considered further. ations between conscientiousness and health-related out- We gained access to data from opposite-sex couples in comes (Chopik, 2016; Roberts et al., 2009; Stephan et al., which both husbands and wives privately completed all tar- 2019; Sutin et al., 2018). The most relevant papers have get measures. Using Ackerman and Kenny (2016)'s APIM- looked at either conscientiousness facets at the individual Power program, we ran a sensitivity analysis to examine the level (and their associations with health and health behav- smallest possible effect size we could detect at 80% power ior; Chopik, 2016) and dyadic effects of broader consci- (at α = .05) with 3,271 couples. Results from this analysis entiousness on health (Roberts et al., 2009). Our work is suggested that we could reliably detect effects as small as r unique from the Chopik (2016) report by examining data = .034. from both romantic partners, additional outcomes (depres- sion and health behavior in addition to global health and Measures chronic illnesses), and additional waves (10 years of data instead of 4). Our work is also unique from Roberts et al. Conscientiousness. Global conscientiousness was mea- (2009) report by examining longitudinal data over 10 years sured with an adjective-based measure developed for study- (instead of cross-sectionally), investigating facets (in ad- ing midlife development (Lachman & Weaver, 1997). Partic- dition to broader conscientiousness), and examining addi- Collabra: Psychology 3 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time ipants rated the extent to which five adjectives (organized, rated their health on a scale ranging from 1(poor) to 5(excel- responsible, hardworking, careless, thorough) described lent). them on a four-point scale ranging from 1(not at all) to 4(a Second, an index of eight major chronic illnesses was lot). Ratings were averaged to yield a composite of consci- computed for each participant at each wave. Participants entiousness (α =.66; α =.68). This broader, adjective- were asked to report if he or she was diagnosed by a physi- 2008 2010 based measure was included in addition to the facet mea- cian with any of the following: (1) high blood pressure, (2) sure (below). diabetes, (3) cancer or a malignant tumor of any kind, (4) lung disease, (5) coronary heart disease including heart at- We elected to include this additional measure of consci- tacks, angina, and congestive heart failure, (6) emotional, entiousness (instead of a composite of the facet-level infor- mation) because of its inclusion in past dyadic research on nervous, or psychiatric problems, (7) arthritis or rheuma- this topic in this sample (Roberts et al., 2009) and its in- tism, and (8) stroke. The number of major health problems clusion in other, related panel studies (e.g., MIDUS; Hill et was summed so that higher values reflect more health prob- al., 2012) to allow for more direct comparisons to the effects lems. found in the current study. Depression. Depression was assessed using a modified Facets of conscientiousness. An inventory that tapped eight-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Stud- into six facets of conscientiousness was used (Roberts, ies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Participants Chernyshenko, et al., 2005). The six facets available in the indicated whether or not they experienced any of these current study were self-control, orderliness, industrious- symptoms in the past week: feeling depressed, felt every- ness, traditionalism, virtue, and responsibility. Each facet thing they did was an effort, restless sleep, happiness, was assessed with four items to which participants agreed lonely, enjoyed life, sad, felt unmotivated. The number of depressive symptoms was summed, with higher levels indi- or disagreed using a six-point scale ranging from 1(strongly cating higher levels of depression. Internal consistency for disagree) to 6(strongly agree). The self-control facet assesses the degree to which peo- the CES-D was high (α = .82)(Ayotte et al., 2010). ple can inhibit actions, feelings, and emotions (e.g., “I often Physical activity. Physical activity was assessed with rush into action without thinking about potential conse- three questions asking about different levels of activity. quences”; α =.52; α =.52). The orderliness facet as- Participants were asked to answer with how often they en- 2008 2010 sesses the degree to which people are organized versus gaged in forms of light (e.g., vacuuming, laundry), moderate messy/disorganized (e.g., “I hardly ever lose or misplace (e.g., gardening, walking at a moderate pace), and vigorous things”; α =.48; α =.45). The industriousness facet (e.g., running/jogging, working out at the gym) forms of 2008 2010 assesses the degree to which people work hard and com- physical activity on a scale from 1(hardly ever or never) to plete tasks (e.g., “I make every effort to do more than what 5(every day). is expected of me”; α =.63; α =.63). The traditional- 2008 2010 Statistical Analyses ism facet assesses the degree to which people follow social norms and traditions (e.g., “I support long-established To account for the interdependence of individuals within rules and traditions”; α =.44; α =.44). The virtue 2008 2010 dyads, we used multi-level modeling (MLM) procedures rec- facet assesses the degree to which people try to be honest ommended for dyadic data analysis (Kenny et al., 2006). In and tell the truth (e.g., “If the cashier forgot to charge me MLM, the actor-partner interdependence model estimates for an item, I would tell him/her”; α =.49; α =.51). 2008 2010 both actor effects (associations between a person’s consci- The responsibility facet assesses the degree to which people entiousness and his/her own health and physical activity) are reliable and responsible in their actions (e.g., “I carry and partner effects (associations between a person’s consci- out my obligations to the best of my ability”; α =.53; entiousness and his/her partner’s health and physical activ- α =.54). The virtue facet is one originally proposed by ity) while accounting for the statistical non-independence Roberts et al. (2005) but was not examined in Jackson et al. of members in a couple. Both actor and partner effects of (2009)'s study of age differences. conscientiousness (facets) were tested as moderators of The low reliabilities of the facet scales result primarily changes in health, depression, and physical activity within from the short length of the questionnaire. Low reliabilities couples over time. are common in short personality scales (Donnellan et al., Conscientiousness (facets) at the first assessment wave 2006; Gosling et al., 2003). The aforementioned validation were treated as time-invariant and used as predictors of study ensured that these facets were reliably distinct from changes in health, depression, and physical activity. Health, one another and showed strong consistency when the full depression, and physical activity were time-varying vari- version is used (Roberts, Chernyshenko, et al., 2005). Fur- ables, and the linear effect of time was modeled in each ther, one previous study using this short measure demon- analysis. strated that it can reliably capture variation across devel- Following recommended procedures, gender was con- opment and is associated with distinct health outcomes, trast-coded (-1 = men, 1 = women) and predictor variables replicating research that uses the longer scale (Chopik, (partner/actor global conscientiousness, conscientiousness 2016; J. J. Jackson et al., 2009). Nevertheless, we acknowl- facets) were grand-mean centered (Kenny et al., 2006). edge this as a limitation of the current study. Global health, chronic illness, depression, and physical ac- Health Measurements. Health was assessed at each tivity served as the dependent measures. Separate multi- wave using two different measurements. First, global health level models were conducted predicting each of the six out- was assessed with a single item, “Would you say your health comes from actor conscientiousness (facets) and partner is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” Participants Collabra: Psychology 4 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time conscientiousness (facets). We also included covariates tically significant are also those with p-values closest to p (age, gender, and education) and the linear effect of time in = .05, but plenty of small effects are significant at a much each model. lower p-value. We present p-values in the interest of disclo- We also ran three additional analyses. First, we examined sure and completeness but will primarily frame our results whether actor/partner conscientiousness (global and facet) in terms of effect sizes and confidence intervals. moderated changes in health and health behavior over time. Finally, it is worth reminding readers that this study was To test this, we included the interactions between actor/ not pre-registered. Because of this oversight, and the fact partner conscientiousness (facets) and the linear effect of that we were at least somewhat familiar with the data set time. A non-significant moderation of an effect by time already, all of the tests and results below should be consid- suggests that an association endures over time (neither in- ered exploratory. We were not in a position to make deci- creasing nor decreasing in strength over the study window). sions or discuss the results (or even set up the questions) Significant moderation suggests that the strength of a con- in a completely data-independent way. Thus, we tried to scientiousness-health association changes in strength over be careful in how we discussed and interpreted the results time. We decomposed these significant interactions as they below and encourage future investigations to pre-register emerged. Second, an important consideration in research their hypotheses, analytic plans, and inference criteria. modeling dyadic outcomes involves testing whether actor Results and partner effects are “distinguishable” (i.e., moderated) by gender, such that the relationships observed may be Preliminary Analyses stronger among husbands or wives (Kenny et al., 2006). To test for this distinguishability, the moderating role of ac- Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations tor gender for all possible interactions was included in a are presented for men (in the lower diagonal) and women second follow-up analysis. Finally, previous research has (in the upper diagonal) in Table S1. tested multiplicative effects of actor and partner conscien- Conscientiousness and its facets were positively inter- tiousness on health (Roberts et al., 2009). We extend these correlated (.21 ≤ r ≤ .49). For both men and women, con- tests to conscientiousness facets as well by testing a se- scientiousness and its facets were generally related to bet- lection of actor-partner cross interactions (e.g., actor or- ter global health, fewer chronic illnesses, less depression, derliness × partner orderliness) for each outcome. Signifi- and more light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity cant interactions would indicate that there might be unique both cross-sectionally (within a wave) and longitudinally combinations of actor and partner conscientiousness facets (across waves). The exceptions were that actor/partner tra- that are associated with better or worse health. For exam- ditionalism and virtue were most often unrelated to health ple, it could be the case that having a partner high in or- and well-being. Indices of global health, chronic illness, de- derliness is more strongly associated with health among pression, and physical activity were correlated in expected individuals low in orderliness themselves. We tested these directions and moderately stable over time. The outcomes possibilities in our additional analysis, after our primary were not so highly correlated with each other to suggest re- analysis. dundancy. Inference Criteria Do actor and partner conscientiousness facets predict health and health behavior? Due to both the large sample and the number of tests, the current study raises several issues that come along with The results from the multi-level analyses are presented relying on Null Hypothesis Significance Testing. In other in Tables 1 (for global health, chronic illnesses, and depres- words, solely relying on whether an effect is significant or sion) and 2 (for light exercise, moderate exercise, and vigor- not is challenging in this context. With the number of tests ous exercise); see summary in Table 3. and exploratory nature of the study, it is possible that false Global Health. For global health, actor conscientious- positives (and negatives) could emerge, such that we inter- ness, actor industriousness, actor orderliness, and actor re- pret too many associations that might not be reliable or, sponsibility had the largest associations (though still similarly important, miss associations that are reliable in small), such that higher levels of each were associated with other contexts. With the large sample, many associations better health. Partner conscientiousness, partner orderli- might be significantly different from zero but may be so ness, and partner responsibility had confidence intervals small that they are practically zero. Ideally, a study should that did not include zero but were relatively small in mag- be pre-registered by setting out the minimum effect size of nitude and their intervals were close to zero. The other con- interest, so that we could be more deliberate in highlighting scientiousness facets (for both actors and partners) were which results we consider to be the most reliable accord- near-zero and had confidence intervals that included zero. ing to a predetermined criterion. Although we did not pre- Global health declined over time on average. register the study and are not sure which effect size would Chronic Illness. For chronic illness, higher levels of ac- be most meaningful to readers, we were cognizant of these tor orderliness and actor industriousness each were asso- challenges when reporting the results below. In the sections ciated with fewer chronic illnesses. Partner orderliness was below, we chose to discuss the largest associations from associated with fewer chronic illnesses; actor conscien- each model and note when confidence intervals are partic- tiousness was associated with fewer chronic illnesses as ularly wide or close to zero (see Table 3) to help guide our well. The remaining associations—for both actors and part- discussion. Oftentimes, the smallest effects that are statis- ners—were relatively small and near-zero (often with con- Collabra: Psychology 5 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Table 1. Multi-level tables predicting mental and physical health from conscientiousness and its facets. Global Health Number of chronic illnesses Depression b SE t p r b SE t p r b SE t p r Intercept 3.073 .065 47.536 < .001 .463 .421 .167 2.516 .012 .038 2.076 .167 12.426 < .001 .183 Time -.026 .005 -5.162 < .001 -.121 .086 .002 54.218 < .001 .708 .033 .003 12.397 < .001 .249 Actor Conscientiousness .223 .017 12.907 < .001 .133 -.132 .043 -3.080 .002 -.038 -.265 .042 -6.258 < .001 -.081 Partner Conscientiousness .045 .017 2.636 .008 .027 -.029 .043 -.668 .504 -.008 -.050 .042 -1.174 .240 -.015 Actor Self-Control -.021 .008 -2.692 .007 -.028 -.046 .020 -2.360 .018 -.029 -.051 .019 -2.667 .008 -.034 Partner Self-Control -.005 .008 -.655 .512 -.007 -.021 .020 -1.082 .279 -.013 .011 .019 .552 .581 .007 Actor Orderliness .061 .008 7.876 < .001 .083 -.111 .020 -5.657 < .001 -.070 -.118 .019 -6.127 < .001 -.078 Partner Orderliness .026 .008 3.356 .001 .035 -.086 .020 -4.394 < .001 -.055 -.032 .019 -1.700 .089 -.022 Actor Industriousness .090 .008 11.430 < .001 .119 -.105 .020 -5.254 < .001 -.065 -.127 .020 -6.431 < .001 -.082 Partner Industriousness .007 .008 .910 .363 .010 .010 .020 .509 .611 .006 -.014 .020 -.694 .487 -.009 Actor Traditionalism -.014 .008 -1.789 .074 -.019 -.023 .020 -1.183 .237 -.015 -.028 .019 -1.447 .148 -.019 Partner Traditionalism -.018 .008 -2.291 .022 -.024 .001 .020 .037 .970 .0005 -.029 .019 -1.505 .132 -.019 Actor Virtue -.004 .008 -.519 .604 -.005 .016 .020 .783 .433 .010 -.008 .020 -.401 .689 -.005 Partner Virtue -.007 .008 -.859 .390 -.009 .039 .020 1.951 .051 .024 -.007 .020 -.348 .728 -.004 Actor Responsibility .060 .010 6.238 < .001 .066 -.011 .024 -.463 .644 -.006 -.122 .024 -5.127 < .001 -.065 Partner Responsibility .046 .010 4.825 < .001 .051 -.008 .024 -.329 .742 -.004 -.049 .024 -2.078 .038 -.027 Age -.012 .001 -14.878 < .001 -.161 .039 .002 18.611 < .001 .281 -.001 .002 -.251 .802 -.004 Gender .027 .007 4.117 < .001 .048 -.040 .016 -2.463 .014 -.042 .142 .015 9.214 < .001 .157 Education .070 .002 29.714 < .001 .305 -.037 .006 -5.964 < .001 -.080 -.066 .006 -10.936 < .001 -.148 Note. Gender: -1 = men; 1 = women. r = partial correlation coefficient (i.e., effect size) Collabra: Psychology 6 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Table 2. Multi-level tables predicting health behavior from conscientiousness and its facets. Light exercise Moderate exercise Vigorous exercise b SE t p r b SE t p r b SE t p r Intercept 4.524 .093 48.497 < .001 .603 3.871 .121 32.037 < .001 .431 3.005 .128 23.392 < .001 .323 Time -.039 .002 -21.090 < .001 -.385 -.037 .002 -16.401 < .001 -.306 -.027 .002 -11.999 < .001 -.219 Actor Conscientiousness .187 .025 7.464 < .001 .094 .194 .031 6.322 < .001 .080 .169 .032 5.205 < .001 .065 Partner Conscientiousness -.029 .025 -1.188 .235 -.016 -.011 .031 -.350 .726 -.004 .065 .032 2.014 .044 .026 Actor Self-Control -.033 .011 -2.896 .004 -.038 -.017 .014 -1.231 .218 -.016 -.031 .015 -2.139 .032 -.027 Partner Self-Control .006 .011 .572 .567 .007 .011 .014 .794 .427 .010 .020 .015 1.356 .175 .017 Actor Orderliness .030 .011 2.569 .010 .034 .034 .014 2.420 .016 .030 .039 .015 2.648 .008 .033 Partner Orderliness .024 .011 2.101 .036 .028 .041 .014 2.912 .004 .037 .032 .015 2.156 .031 .027 Actor Industriousness .097 .012 8.360 < .001 .108 .132 .014 9.264 < .001 .116 .104 .015 6.941 < .001 .087 Partner Industriousness .026 .012 2.288 .022 .030 .006 .014 .443 .658 .006 .011 .015 .754 .451 .009 Actor Traditionalism -.026 .011 -2.322 .020 -.030 -.020 .014 -1.414 .158 -.018 -.032 .015 -2.209 .027 -.028 Partner Traditionalism -.016 .011 -1.372 .170 -.018 -.023 .014 -1.650 .099 -.021 -.021 .015 -1.418 .156 -.018 Actor Virtue -.001 .012 -.048 .961 -.001 -.010 .014 -.687 .492 -.009 -.016 .015 -1.062 .288 -.013 Partner Virtue -.004 .012 -.361 .718 -.005 -.003 .014 -.188 .851 -.002 -.019 .015 -1.291 .197 -.016 Actor Responsibility .078 .014 5.533 < .001 .072 .043 .017 2.470 .014 .031 .006 .018 .353 .724 .004 Partner Responsibility .000 .014 .024 .981 .0003 .013 .017 .724 .469 .009 .007 .018 .395 .693 .005 Age -.025 .001 -21.530 < .001 -.328 -.023 .002 -15.321 < .001 -.232 -.022 .002 -13.439 < .001 -.201 Gender .243 .010 23.636 < .001 .377 -.087 .011 -7.664 < .001 -.130 -.162 .012 -13.865 < .001 -.229 Education .030 .003 8.540 < .001 .120 .050 .004 11.362 < .001 .152 .038 .005 8.145 < .001 .106 Note. Gender: -1 = men; 1 = women. r = partial correlation coefficient (i.e., effect size) Collabra: Psychology 7 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Table 3. Summary of multi-level model results. Global Health Chronic Illness Depression Light Exercise Moderate Exercise Vigorous Exercise Actor Conscientiousness .133 (.113, .153) -.038 (-.063, -.014) -.081 (-.106, -.056) .094 (.069, .119) .080 (.055, .105) .065 (.041, .089) Partner Conscientiousness .027 (.006, .048) -.008 (-.033, .017) -.015 (-.040, .010) -.016 (-.042, .010) -.004 (-.029, .021) .026 (.001, .051) Actor Self-Control -.028 (-.049, -.007) -.029 (-.053, -.005) -.034 (-.059, -.009) -.038 (-.063, -.013) -.016 (-.041, .009) -.027 (-.052, -.002) Partner Self-Control -.007 (-.028, .014) -.013 (-.037, .011) .007 (-.018, .032) .007 (-.019, .033) .010 (-.015, .035) .017 (-.008, .042) Actor Orderliness .083 (.062, .104) -.070 (-.094, -.046) -.078 (-.103, -.053) .034 (.008, .060) .030 (.005, .055) .033 (.009, .057) Partner Orderliness .035 (.014, .056) -.055 (-.079, -.031) -.022 (-.047, .003) .028 (.002, .054) .037 (.012, .062) .027 (.003, .051) Actor Industriousness .119 (.099, .139) -.065 (-.089, -.041) -.082 (-.107, -.057) .108 (.083, .133) .116 (.092, .140) .087 (.063, .111) Partner Industriousness .010 (-.011, .031) .006 (-.018, .030) -.009 (-.034, .016) .030 (.005, .055) .006 (-.019, .031) .009 (-.016, .034) Actor Traditionalism -.019 (-.040, .002) -.015 (-.039, .009) -.019 (-.044, .006) -.030 (-.055, -.005) -.018 (-.043, .007) -.028 (-.053, -.003) Partner Traditionalism -.024 (-.045, -.003) .001 (-.024, .025) -.019 (-.044, .006) -.018 (-.044, .008) -.021 (-.046, .004) -.018 (-.043, .007) Actor Virtue -.005 (-.026, .016) .010 (-.014, .034) -.005 (-.030, .020) -.001 (-.026, .024) -.009 (-.034, .016) -.013 (-.037, .011) Partner Virtue -.009 (-.030, .012) .024 (-.0004, .048) -.004 (-.029, .021) -.005 (-.031, .021) -.002 (-.027, .023) -.016 (-.041, .009) Actor Responsibility .066 (.045, .087) -.006 (-.030, .018) -.065 (-.090, -.040) .072 (.047, .097) .031 (.006, .056) .004 (-.020, .028) Partner Responsibility .051 (.030, .072) -.004 (-.028, .020) -.027 (-.052, -.002) .0003 (-.025, .026) .009 (-.016, .034) .005 (-.020, .030) Note. Effect sizes (r) with 95% confidence intervals are listed in each cell. Collabra: Psychology 8 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time fidence intervals that were near or included zero). Chronic partner conscientiousness facets and the linear effect of illnesses increased over time on average. time. Worth noting, out of the 84 estimates across the six Depression. For depression, higher levels of actor con- models reported above (14 conscientiousness constructs x 6 scientiousness, actor self-control, actor orderliness, actor outcomes), the vast majority (n=78; 93%) were not moder- industriousness, and actor responsibility each were associ- ated by time. The six exceptions are listed in Table 4. ated with less depression. The remaining effects—for both Second, we examined whether actor/partner conscien- actors and partners—were near zero or included confidence tiousness facets were moderated (i.e., distinguishable) by intervals that were near (or included) zero. Depression in- gender. To test this possibility, we reran each of the models creased over time on average. in Tables 1 and 2 with all possible interactions with gender. Light Exercise. For light exercise, higher levels of actor Out of the 102 estimates across the six models reported conscientiousness, actor orderliness, actor industriousness, above (14 conscientiousness constructs, age, time, and ed- and actor responsibility each were associated with more ucation across 6 outcomes), the vast majority (n=82; 80%) light exercise. Higher levels of partner industriousness were were not moderated by gender; 90% of the effects involving associated with light exercise. Some partner effects were conscientiousness facets (76/84) were not moderated by seen (e.g., partner orderliness), although they were very gender (all of which were actor effects, no partner effects small and their confidence intervals were often very close to differed by gender). The twenty exceptions and their de- zero. Surprisingly, higher levels of actor self-control and ac- composition are listed in Table 5. tor traditionalism were associated with less light exercise. Finally, we examined whether there were any multiplica- Light exercise declined over time on average. tive effects of conscientiousness and its facets. To examine Moderate Exercise. For moderate exercise, higher levels this, we computed the seven cross-partner interactions that of actor conscientiousness, actor orderliness, actor indus- were possible within each trait (e.g., actor orderliness × triousness, and actor responsibility each were associated partner orderliness) and reran the models in Tables 1 and 2 with more moderate exercise. Partner orderliness was as- with these additional interactions. We did not test for cross- sociated with more moderate exercise, and the remaining partner cross-trait interactions as this would lead to an un- partner associations were near-zero in size. Moderate exer- ruly model with too many estimates and complexity. Of the cise declined over time on average. 42 possible cross-partner interactions (7 cross-partner in- Vigorous Exercise. For vigorous exercise, higher levels teractions across 6 outcomes), the vast majority (n=37, 88%) of actor conscientiousness, actor orderliness, and actor in- were not significant. The five exceptions are listed in Table dustriousness each were associated with more vigorous ex- 6. Based on the recommendation from the editor, we chose ercise. Some partner effects (e.g., broader conscientious- not to devote much space to discussing the results of these ness, orderliness) were also seen but their confidence three additional analyses, given how few of these modera- intervals were closer to zero. Vigorous exercise declined tion tests were significant. over time on average. Discussion Summary. A summary of the results and effect sizes and confidence intervals from the multi-level analyses can be The current study is the only one of its kind to examine found in Table 3. Actor effects of conscientiousness facets the dyadic effects of conscientiousness facets on health and were the most consistently non-zero associations seen with well-being longitudinally. Along the lines of previous re- health and health behavior. For actor effects, broader con- search, some facets were more reliably associated with out- scientiousness, orderliness, industriousness, and responsi- comes than others. For instance, actor effects of orderli- bility were the most reliable correlates of better health and ness, industriousness, and responsibility were most health behavior. Among the more puzzling associations commonly associated with the outcomes, but associations were negative associations between actor self-control and between traditionalism and virtue and the outcomes were light exercise, but most actor self-control associations were near zero in nearly every case. This pattern of associations very small and had confidence intervals close to zero. is consistent with research at the individual level showing There were fewer partner effects overall, but partner or- differential associations for the facets of conscientiousness. derliness was the most reliable correlate of health and For example, strong associations were reported for respon- health behavior. Being married to a partner high in respon- sibility and orderliness with preventive health behaviors sibility was also associated with better global health. Al- (Roberts, Chernyshenko, et al., 2005), cognitive functioning though there were many bivariate correlations between (Sutin et al., 2018), and global health and fewer chronic ill- partner conscientiousness (facets), health, and health be- nesses over time (Chopik, 2016). Additionally, we extended havior (in Table S1), these associations were smaller or near this research by showing that among conscientiousness zero after controlling for all the actor and partner conscien- facets, partner orderliness was associated with better indi- tiousness (facets) and socio-demographic characteristics. vidual health over a 10-year period. Other partner facets had near-zero associations with health and health behavior. Additional analyses: Are the effects of These associations were largely invariant over time, be- conscientiousness (facets) moderated by time, tween men and women, and in the context of multiplicative gender, and cross-partner conscientiousness? cross-partner interactions. We can only speculate as to why these particular facets of First, we examined whether any of the effects reported conscientiousness are related to health and well-being over above were moderated by time. To test this, we reran the time. The design of our study was not sufficient for delin- models above including interactions between the actor/ Collabra: Psychology 9 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Table 4. Summary of estimates that vary over time. Slope of time for those +1 SD Slope of time for those -1SD Moderation test Estimate b SE p r b SE p r b SE p r Chronic Illnesses Partner Self-control .082 .002 < .001 .46 .091 .002 < .001 .50 -.005 .002 .008 -.04 Partner Traditionalism .092 .002 < .001 .50 .081 .002 < .001 .47 .006 .002 .001 .04 Depression Partner Virtue .042 .004 < .001 .16 .025 .004 < .001 .10 .009 .003 .005 .04 Light Exercise Actor Industriousness -.035 .003 < .001 -.19 -.044 .003 < .001 -.23 .004 .002 .044 .03 Moderate Exercise Actor Self-control -.030 .003 < .001 -.14 -.044 .003 < .001 -.21 .008 .003 .003 .04 Actor Traditionalism -.042 .003 < .001 -.20 -.033 .003 < .001 -.15 -.005 .003 .045 -.03 Collabra: Psychology 10 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Table 5. Summary of estimates that were distinguishable by gender. Effect for Men Effect for Women Test for Distinguishability Estimate b SE p r b SE p r b SE p r Global Health Time -.042 .002 < .001 -.39 -.035 .002 < .001 -.34 .003 .001 .017 .05 Actor Industriousness .134 .018 < .001 .13 .085 .017 < .001 .09 -.025 .012 .047 -.03 Actor Traditionalism .012 .017 .470 .01 -.040 .017 .019 -.04 -.026 .012 .032 -.03 Actor Responsibility .021 .022 .345 .02 .094 .021 < .001 .08 .037 .015 .015 .03 Education .060 .005 < .001 .22 .076 .005 < .001 .24 .008 .003 .023 .03 Chronic Illnesses Time .094 .002 < .001 .62 .080 .002 < .001 .58 -.007 .001 < .001 -.09 Actor Traditionalism -.066 .028 .019 -.04 .017 .027 .532 .01 .042 .020 .035 .03 Actor Responsibility .053 .036 .133 .03 -.072 .034 .034 -.04 -.063 .025 .012 -.03 Age .044 .003 < .001 .26 .035 .003 < .001 .22 -.005 .002 .009 -.04 Education -.024 .008 .003 -.05 -.053 .009 < .001 -.11 -.015 .006 .009 -.04 Depression Education -.051 .007 < .001 -.13 -.092 .009 < .001 -.18 -.020 .005 < .001 -.06 Light Exercise Time -.045 .003 < .001 -.32 -.035 .002 < .001 -.28 .005 .002 .005 .06 Actor Industriousness .139 .019 < .001 .13 .074 .015 < .001 .09 -.033 .012 .007 -.04 Age -.033 .002 < .001 -.30 -.020 .001 < .001 -.23 .007 .001 < .001 .09 Education .046 .005 < .001 .16 .016 .005 .001 .06 -.015 .003 < .001 -.06 Moderate Exercise Time -.044 .003 < .001 -.28 -.031 .003 < .001 -.20 .006 .002 .002 .06 Actor Traditionalism .010 .019 .622 .01 -.055 .021 .007 -.05 -.032 .014 .023 -.03 Actor Responsibility .005 .024 .846 .003 .089 .025 < .001 .06 .042 .018 .018 .03 Education .043 .005 < .001 .14 .061 .006 < .001 .16 .009 .004 .022 .04 Vigorous Exercise Age .032 .006 < .001 .09 .044 .006 < .001 .12 .003 .001 .030 .04 Collabra: Psychology 11 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Table 6. Multiplicative effects of actor and partner conscientiousness and its facets Slope of partner effect for those +1 SD in the Slope of partner effect for those -1 SD in the Multiplicative effect actor trait actor trait Estimate b SE p r b SE p r b SE p r Chronic Actor Traditionalism x Partner -.042 .027 .117 -.02 .045 .027 .098 .02 -.047 .020 .019 -.04 Illnesses Traditionalism Actor Responsibility x Partner Depression .005 .035 .890 .002 -.089 .030 .003 -.04 .059 .027 .029 .04 Responsibility Actor Orderliness x Partner Light Exercise -.001 .016 .952 -.001 .046 .014 .001 .04 -.025 .010 .013 -.04 Orderliness Moderate Actor Orderliness x Partner .005 .020 .789 .004 .070 .018 < .001 .05 -.034 .013 .011 -.05 Exercise Orderliness Actor Traditionalism x Partner .007 .019 .712 .01 -.052 .020 .008 -.04 .032 .015 .030 .04 Traditionalism Collabra: Psychology 12 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time eating causal processes between these variables. Future re- Funder & Ozer, 2019). Therefore, findings should be inter- search can employ more deliberate designs to examine why preted in light of how constructs operate in the real world conscientiousness facets and health and well-being are as- and how they may lead to the accumulation of positive as- sociated. Previous research provides some guidance as to sets across the life span (Abelson, 1985), if that indeed is why partner orderliness might be associated with individ- the process occurring here. Although associations between ual health and well-being. For example, research on social personality and health over short intervals of time can be control, and how it affects health and well-being, is par- important, any asset-related processes probably accumu- ticularly informative. Health-related social control refers to late over long periods of time, although this an open ques- interpersonal interactions that involve the modulation of tion. As such, an important next step would be to exam- health behaviors of one person by another person (Crad- ine associations between personality facets and health over dock et al., 2015; Lewis & Butterfield, 2007). Many of the longer intervals. tactics through which one person modulates another per- Second, a related point is that we conducted many tests son’s behavior can be categorized into positive (e.g. per- in a very exploratory way. Our approach to describing the suasion, modeling, and positive reinforcement) or negative results in terms of effect sizes and confidence intervals was (e.g. disapproval, guilt) and direct (e.g. discussion) or indi- meant to be a more even-handed approach that relies less rect tactics (e.g., dropping hints; Lewis & Butterfield, 2007). on statistical significance testing. A more traditional ap- Meta-analyses suggest that the use of positive social con- proach of significance testing would have led to a great pro- trol in close relationships is associated with greater psy- liferation of findings, possibly misleading readers because chological well-being and relationship satisfaction; nega- they would be near-zero but nevertheless significant and tive social control is associated with greater negative affect would have been discussed prominently. However, many and backfiring behaviors (Craddock et al., 2015). studies examining associations between personality and To this end, is it possible that orderly and responsive health outcomes (and perhaps any outcome) rely on many partners might be especially likely to exert social control tests and implicates a risk of missing something that is a over their partner’s behavior? Again, our design was not real, genuine effect or finding something that is not a real, sufficient to test this exact question. Conceptually, a highly genuine effect (or both). Being mindful about statistical sig- responsible individual might be more likely to remind their nificance testing and shifting toward an effect size/confi- partner about their medication regimen, keep their physi- dence interval-type of inference criteria (among other, non- cian appointments, encourage annual check-ups (Hill & significance testing criteria) is a consideration for future Roberts, 2015), or help avoid deleterious health behavior work. (e.g., smoking, unhealthy eating). A highly ordered individ- Third, HRS only assessed conscientiousness facets at one ual might encourage their partners to maintain a regular point in time, precluding our ability to examine how sleep and exercise schedule. A repeated routine of physical changes in actor and partner conscientiousness facets are activity and healthy sleep cycles is recommended to lower associated with changes in health and well-being over time. risk of chronic illnesses and functional limitations (Haskell This is particularly important in establishing the causal et al., 2007; Nelson et al., 2007; Ohayon & Vecchierini, links we think exist between conscientiousness facets and 2005). Given that the health-promoting effects of social health. A more ideal study would involve carefully mapping control are most often present for positive tactics (e.g., out how conscientiousness, the proposed mechanisms (e.g., modeling, making structural changes, and engaging in the partner control/encouragement, other health behavior), behavior with one’s spouse; Lewis et al., 2004), future re- and the outcomes change together over time (although see search should test the link between conscientiousness Hamaker et al., 2015; Lucas, 2022 for discussions about facets and the use of different social control tactics to see how difficult this is even at the individual, let alone dyadic, if their use might explain why partner conscientiousness level). In this way, researchers often make strong causal as- (facets) and health are associated. Future research can more sumptions about the role of personality on health, while be- formally model these processes between actor and partner ing relatively agnostic about potential third variables, alter- personality on one hand and health and well-being on the native explanations, or inappropriately controlling for a key other (Manne et al., 2013, 2015). cog in the causal process unknowingly. In short, it can be difficult to know why we find the associations we find at the Strengths and Limitations individual level, even when it seems ostensibly reasonable that conscientiousness might cause better health. Our study used a large sample of middle-aged and older These same considerations plague the romantic relation- couples who completed facet-level measures of conscien- ships literature, where even stronger assumptions about tiousness, health, well-being, and health behavior over one person’s psychological (or social or communication) time. Nevertheless, our study had some limitations that characteristics affect another person are made. Most papers should be mentioned. using the actor-partner model of interdependence assume First, many of the effects in the current study were small that predictors do not vary over time, despite several stud- in magnitude, albeit similar to previous work (Kim et al., ies suggesting that personal characteristics change over 2014; Roberts et al., 2009). With large sample sizes, smaller time (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). There is also evidence that effects can be captured and more precise effect sizes can these changes are consequential for an individual’s health be estimated. Although we had a large number of couples, and health behavior over time (Chopik et al., 2015, 2018; large sample sizes may yield findings that are statistically Takahashi et al., 2013). Future research can more formally significant but of little practical significance (Cohen, 1990; model how actor and partner psychological characteristics Collabra: Psychology 13 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time and health behavior change in concert with one another Competing interests (Hoppmann, Gerstorf, & Hibbert, 2011; Hoppmann & Ger- There were no competing interests. WC is an associate storf, 2009). In this work, particular attention needs to be editor at Collabra: Psychology. He was not involved in the paid to establishing the conditions under which causal review process of this article. claims about partner influence and personality can be made. Data accessibility statement Conclusion The data use agreement of HRS does not allow for the public sharing of data. However, we have uploaded our syn- In conclusion, the present research examined dyadic as- sociations between conscientiousness facets on changes in tax and output files at https://osf.io/q6fvh/. Full details on health and health behavior over time for older couples. the methodology and previously published papers using the data can be found on the HRS website Specifically, broad conscientiousness, orderliness, industri- (https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/). ousness, responsibility, and partner’s orderliness had the most consistent non-zero associations with health and Funding health behavior. Future research can more carefully map out why actor and partner conscientiousness facets might Research reported in this publication was supported by be linked with health and well-being by employing more the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the appropriate designs to examine causal processes between National Institute of Health under Award Number these variables. 2R03AG054705-01A1 and the John Templeton Foundation (the Science of Honesty). The content is solely the respon- sibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or Author contributions the John Templeton Foundation. This work was also sup- ported by the Michigan Center for Contextual Factors in WC conceptualized the idea, analyzed the data, and in- Alzheimer’s Disease (MCCFAD) (P30 AG059300-01). The terpreted the results; JHL provided critical feedback. All au- Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National thors approve the content of this paper. Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG09740) and is conducted by the University of Michigan. Submitted: June 22, 2022 PDT, Accepted: August 04, 2022 PDT This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information. Collabra: Psychology 14 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time References Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129 domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)000 Ackerman, R. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2016). APIMPowerR: 46-1 An interactive tool for Actor-Partner Interdependence Model power analysis. https://robert-a-ackerman.shin Graham, E. K., Rutsohn, J. P., Turiano, N. A., Bendayan, yapps.io/apimpower/ R., Batterham, P. J., Gerstorf, D., Katz, M. J., Reynolds, C. A., Sharp, E. S., Yoneda, T. B., Bastarache, E. D., Ayotte, B. J., Yang, F. M., & Jones, R. N. (2010). Physical Elleman, L. G., Zelinski, E. M., Johansson, B., Kuh, D., health and depression: A dyadic study of chronic Barnes, L. L., Bennett, D. A., Deeg, D. J. H., Lipton, R. health conditions and depressive symptomatology in B., … Mroczek, D. K. (2017). Personality predicts older adult couples. The Journals of Gerontology Series mortality risk: An integrative data analysis of 15 B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B(4), international longitudinal studies. Journal of Research 438–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq033 in Personality, 70, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness rp.2017.07.005 and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. leading behavioral contributors to mortality. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919. https://doi.or Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.or g/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887 g/10.1037/a0038889 Chopik, W. J. (2016). Age differences in Hampson, S. E., Edmonds, G. W., Goldberg, L. R., conscientiousness facets in the second half of life: Dubanoski, J. P., & Hillier, T. A. (2013). Childhood Divergent associations with changes in physical conscientiousness relates to objectively measured health. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, adult physical health four decades later. Health 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.076 Psychology, 32(8), 925–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/a Chopik, W. J., Kim, E. S., & Smith, J. (2015). Changes in optimism are associated with changes in health Haskell, W. L., Lee, I.-M., Pate, R. R., Powell, K. E., Blair, among older adults. Social Psychological and S. N., Franklin, B. A., Macera, C. A., Heath, G. W., Personality Science, 6(7), 814–822. https://doi.org/10.1 Thompson, P. D., & Bauman, A. (2007). Physical 177/1948550615590199 activity and public health: Updated recommendation Chopik, W. J., Kim, E. S., & Smith, J. (2018). An for adults from the American College of Sports examination of dyadic changes in optimism and Medicine and the American Heart Association. physical health over time. Health Psychology, 37(1), Circulation, 116, 1081. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000549 013e3180616b27 Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2015). Personality and American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312. https://do health: Reviewing recent research and setting a i.org/10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1304 directive for the future. Handbook of the Psychology of Craddock, E., vanDellen, M. R., Novak, S. A., & Ranby, Aging, 205. K. W. (2015). Influence in relationships: A meta- Hill, P. L., Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., & Roberts, B. analysis on health-related social control. Basic and W. (2012). Examining Concurrent and Longitudinal Applied Social Psychology, 37(2), 118–130. https://do Relations Between Personality Traits and Social Well- i.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1011271 being in Adulthood. Social Psychological and Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. Personality Science, 3(6), 698–705. https://doi.org/10.1 E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective 177/1948550611433888 measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://do evaluate personality and job-performance relations: i.org/10.1037/1040-35184.108.40.206 A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Falba, T. A., & Sindelar, J. L. (2007). Spousal Psychology, 88(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0 concordance in health behavior change. Health 021-9010.88.1.100 Services Research, 43(1p1), 96–116. https://doi.org/1 Hoppmann, C. A., & Gerstorf, D. (2009). Spousal 0.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00754.x interrelations in old age—A mini-review. Gerontology, Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., 55(4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1159/000211948 Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H. (1993). Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., & Hibbert, A. (2011). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal Spousal associations between functional limitation of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 176–185. h and depressive symptom trajectories: Longitudinal ttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11 findings from the Study of Asset and Health Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD). Health in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Psychology, 30(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152 Collabra: Psychology 15 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., & Luszcz, M. (2008). Manne, S. L., Siegel, S., Heckman, C. J., & Kashy, D. A. Spousal social activity trajectories in the Australian (2015). Psychological distress as a mediator of the Longitudinal Study of Ageing in the context of association between disease severity and cognitive, physical, and affective resources. The occupational functioning among employed spouses of Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. and Social Sciences, 63B(1), P41–P50. https://doi.org/1 Psycho-Oncology, 24(11), 1560–1568. https://doi.org/1 0.1093/geronb/63.1.p41 0.1002/pon.3767 Hoppmann, C. A., Gerstorf, D., Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. Manne, S. L., Siegel, S., Kashy, D., & Heckman, C. J. W. (2011). Spousal interrelations in happiness in the (2013). Cancer-specific relationship awareness, Seattle Longitudinal Study: Considerable similarities relationship communication, and intimacy among in levels and change over time. Developmental couples coping with early-stage breast cancer. Journal Psychology, 47(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020 of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(3), 314–334. h 788 ttps://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513494950 Jackson, J. J., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Wood, D., Harms, Nelson, M. E., Rejeski, W. J., Blair, S. N., Duncan, P. W., P. D., Lodi-Smith, J., Edmonds, G. W., & Roberts, B. Judge, J. O., King, A. C., Macera, C. A., & Castaneda- W. (2009). Not all conscientiousness scales change Sceppa, C. (2007). Physical activity and public health alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age in older adults: Recommendation from the American differences in the facets of conscientiousness. Journal College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 446–459. h Association. Circulation, 116, 1094. https://doi.org/1 ttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0014156 0.1249/mss.0b013e3180616aa2 Jackson, S. E., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2015). The Nickel, L. B., Iveniuk, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). influence of partner’s behavior on health behavior Compensatory conscientiousness redux: A direct change: The english longitudinal study of ageing. replication of Roberts, Smith, Jackson, and Edmonds JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(3), 385. https://doi.org/1 (2009). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 0.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7554 8(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506166620 John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait Ohayon, M. M., & Vecchierini, M. F. (2005). Normative taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual sleep data, cognitive function and daily living issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin activities in older adults in the community. Sleep, (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research 28(8), 981–989. (3rd ed.). (pp. 114–158). Guilford Press. Orth, U. (2013). How large are actor and partner effects John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait of personality on relationship satisfaction? The taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical importance of controlling for shared method perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), variance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 39(10), 1359–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672 102–138). 13492429 Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report data analysis. Guilford Press. depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), Kim, E. S., Chopik, W. J., & Smith, J. (2014). Are people 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621677001003 healthier if their partners are more optimistic? The dyadic effect of optimism on health among older adults. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 76(6), Roberts, B. W., & Bogg, T. (2004). A longitudinal study 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.0 of the relationships between conscientiousness and 3.104 the social-environmental factors and substance-use behaviors that influence health. Journal of Personality, Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1997). The Midlife 72(2), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2 Development Inventory (MIDI) personality scales: Scale 004.00264.x construction and scoring (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Brandeis University, Department of Psychology. Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of Lewis, M. A., & Butterfield, R. M. (2007). Social control conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based in marital relationships: Effect of one’s partner on on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel health behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Psychology, 58(1), 103–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 37(2), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2 j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x 007.00161.x Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait Lewis, M. A., Butterfield, R. M., Darbes, L. A., & change in adulthood. Current Directions in Johnston-Brooks, C. (2004). The conceptualization Psychological Science, 17(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/1 and assessment of health-related social control. 0.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504045893 Roberts, B. W., Smith, J., Jackson, J. J., & Edmonds, G. (2009). Compensatory conscientiousness and health Lucas, R. E. (2022). It’s time to abandon the cross-lagged in older couples. Psychological Science, 20(5), panel model. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pkec7 553–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02 339.x Collabra: Psychology 16 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Bogg, T. (2005). Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., Luchetti, M., & Terracciano, A. Conscientiousness and health across the life course. (2019). Facets of conscientiousness and longevity: Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 156–168. https://d Findings from the Health and Retirement Study. oi.org/10.1037/1089-2618.104.22.168 Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 116, 1–5. https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.11.002 Schwaba, T., Rhemtulla, M., Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2020). A facet atlas: Visualizing networks that Sutin, A. R., Stephan, Y., & Terracciano, A. (2018). describe the blends, cores, and peripheries of Facets of conscientiousness and risk of dementia. personality structure. PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0236893. htt Psychological Medicine, 48(6), 974–982. https://doi.or ps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236893 g/10.1017/s0033291717002306 Shanahan, M. J., Hill, P. L., Roberts, B. W., Eccles, J., & Takahashi, Y., Edmonds, G. W., Jackson, J. J., & Roberts, Friedman, H. S. (2014). Conscientiousness, health, B. W. (2013). Longitudinal correlated changes in and aging: the life course of personality model. conscientiousness, preventative health-related Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1407–1425. https://d behaviors, and self-perceived physical health. Journal oi.org/10.1037/a0031130 of Personality, 81(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jopy.12007 Sonnega, A., Faul, J. D., Ofstedal, M. B., Langa, K. M., Phillips, J. W., & Weir, D. R. (2014). Cohort profile: Thomeer, M. B., Umberson, D., & Pudrovska, T. (2013). The Health and Retirement Study (HRS). International Marital processes around depression: A gendered and Journal of Epidemiology, 43(2), 576–585. https://doi.or relational perspective. Society and Mental Health, 3(3), g/10.1093/ije/dyu067 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869313487224 Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big marital transitions, and health: A gendered life five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional course perspective. Journal of Health and Social sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Behavior, 45(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221 100(2), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717 4650404500106 Collabra: Psychology 17 Dyadic Associations Between Conscientiousness Facets, Health, and Health Behavior Over Time Supplementary Materials Peer Review History Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/37611-dyadic-associations-between-conscientiousness-facets- health-and-health-behavior-over-time/attachment/96425.docx?auth_token=i6f1cr0YahLGE7Y9iW7H Table S1. Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables Download: https://collabra.scholasticahq.com/article/37611-dyadic-associations-between-conscientiousness-facets- health-and-health-behavior-over-time/attachment/96426.xlsx?auth_token=i6f1cr0YahLGE7Y9iW7H Collabra: Psychology
Collabra Psychology – University of California Press
Published: Aug 30, 2022
Keywords: Conscientiousness; personality facets; health; depression; actor-partner interdependence model; Health and Retirement Study (HRS)
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.