High Neuroticism and High Conscientiousness: Is “Healthy Neuroticism” Real?
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Yes, a person can be high in both neuroticism and conscientiousness. In the Big Five, these are separate dimensions: neuroticism concerns a greater tendency toward negative emotional reactivity, threat sensitivity, worry, and distress, while conscientiousness concerns organization, responsibility, persistence, self-regulation, and goal-directed behavior. A high score on one does not logically require a low score on the other.
The phrase “healthy neuroticism” is more specific than that high-high profile. In personality-health research, it usually refers to the hypothesis that conscientiousness changes the association between neuroticism and health, so that the vigilance or concern associated with neuroticism is more likely to be translated into organized, health-protective behavior when conscientiousness is also high. The idea is scientifically plausible, and some studies find outcome-specific evidence for it. The overall evidence does not support treating “healthy neuroticism” as a universally protective personality type.
The most informative evidence is mixed. A large coordinated analysis found a neuroticism-by-conscientiousness interaction for smoking and physical activity, but not alcohol use. Parallel coordinated analyses found no such protective interaction for major chronic conditions or mortality. Early biomarker work found lower interleukin-6 among people higher on both traits, while later replication-oriented studies have often produced null or narrower findings. The right conclusion is therefore conditional: “healthy neuroticism” is a research interaction hypothesis with some support for particular outcomes, not a diagnosis, not a guaranteed strength, and not a rule that high conscientiousness cancels the costs associated with high neuroticism.
Can You Be High in Both Neuroticism and Conscientiousness?
Yes. Modern Big Five models measure broad personality domains separately. The Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), for example, represents five broad domains and 15 narrower facets. Its domain corresponding closely to neuroticism is labeled Negative Emotionality, while Conscientiousness is a separate domain. Because the domains are not opposite ends of one scale, an individual can score relatively high, average, or low on each in many combinations.
This matters because a high-high profile can look psychologically coherent rather than contradictory. Someone may be highly sensitive to possible errors, future problems, health threats, interpersonal tension, or uncertainty and also be unusually organized about responding to those concerns. Another person may experience the same level of concern but have lower self-discipline or planning. The emotional signal can be similar while the behavioral response differs.
For the broad meaning of the neuroticism dimension itself, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For what a relatively high standing on that dimension can mean without turning it into a diagnosis or personality type, see High Neuroticism: Meaning, Traits, Strengths, and Risks.
What High Neuroticism and High Conscientiousness Actually Mean
High neuroticism means scoring toward the higher end of a defined neuroticism or closely corresponding negative-emotionality measure relative to the reference framework being used. It is associated, on average, with more frequent or intense negative emotional responses to threat, frustration, uncertainty, or loss. It is a dimensional personality trait. It is not the same thing as an anxiety disorder, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or any other clinical diagnosis.
A classic review by Lahey defined neuroticism in terms of relatively stable individual differences in negative emotional responding and summarized its broad associations with mental and physical health. Those population-level associations are one reason the trait attracts clinical and public-health interest, but an association between a personality dimension and disorder risk never means that a trait score diagnoses a disorder.
High conscientiousness means scoring toward the higher end of a conscientiousness measure. Across Big Five models, the domain broadly captures tendencies involving order, responsibility, persistence, planfulness, reliability, impulse control in the service of goals, and follow-through. The exact facet structure depends on the instrument. In the BFI-2, Conscientiousness includes Organization, Productiveness, and Responsibility. Other systems divide the domain differently.
Putting the two together therefore describes a profile: elevated negative emotional sensitivity alongside elevated goal-directed self-regulation. It does not create a sixth Big Five trait. It also does not erase either component. A person can remain highly worry-prone or stress-reactive while also being dependable, methodical, prepared, and persistent.
What Does “Healthy Neuroticism” Mean in Research?
The phrase sounds like a personality type, but the research question is usually statistical. The core hypothesis asks whether conscientiousness moderates the association between neuroticism and an outcome. In plain language: does the relationship between neuroticism and health look different at lower versus higher levels of conscientiousness?
The coordinated research program led by Graham, Weston, Turiano, and colleagues explicitly defined healthy neuroticism as a neuroticism-by-conscientiousness interaction. In the health-behavior study, the researchers tested whether the association of neuroticism with smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity varied according to conscientiousness. The same logic was then applied to chronic conditions and mortality in companion studies.
This distinction is crucial. An interaction effect is not equivalent to saying that everyone who scores high on both traits is healthy. It can mean only that the slope linking neuroticism to one outcome is weaker, absent, or differently directed at higher conscientiousness. It does not imply that the high-high group has the best outcome of all personality combinations, and it does not establish a universal causal mechanism.
Researchers have also used broader meanings of healthy neuroticism, including moderation by health status, socioeconomic circumstances, or other variables, and some newer studies classify people into high-high and high-low profiles. These operationalizations are related but not interchangeable. A finding under one definition should not be silently generalized to another.
Why Might High Conscientiousness Change What Neuroticism Does?
The most common mechanism hypothesis is straightforward. Neuroticism can increase sensitivity to possible danger, bodily change, future problems, errors, or uncertainty. Conscientiousness can increase planning, persistence, rule-following, and behavioral follow-through. When both are high, concern may be more likely to produce action rather than only distress.
For example, a health concern could lead one person to ruminate without changing behavior, another to ignore the concern, and a high-neuroticism/high-conscientiousness person to schedule an appointment, track symptoms, follow medical advice, or maintain a routine. At work, worry about a deadline could be paired with early planning and repeated checking. In daily life, anticipation of possible problems could lead to contingency planning rather than avoidance.
This mechanism is plausible, but it should remain a hypothesis rather than a personality law. Conscientiousness itself has a substantial literature linking it to health-related behavior. A meta-analysis by Bogg and Roberts synthesized 194 studies and found conscientiousness-related traits associated with fewer risky health behaviors and more beneficial health behaviors. That main effect of conscientiousness can coexist with, and sometimes be stronger or more reliable than, any neuroticism-by-conscientiousness interaction.
The distinction between a main effect and an interaction matters. If highly conscientious people exercise more regardless of neuroticism, that does not demonstrate healthy neuroticism. Evidence for the specific hypothesis requires showing that conscientiousness changes the neuroticism–outcome relationship, not simply that conscientiousness predicts a better average outcome.
What the Evidence Shows
Early biomarker evidence suggested a potentially beneficial interaction
One influential early study tested Big Five traits against circulating interleukin-6, an inflammatory biomarker, in 1,054 participants from the MIDUS biomarker project. Turiano and colleagues reported a significant conscientiousness-by-neuroticism interaction: people relatively high on both traits had lower IL-6 than other configurations. Adjustment for health behavior reduced the association but did not eliminate it.
That result helped make “healthy neuroticism” a recognizable empirical hypothesis. It was also a single observational study of one biomarker in one sample. Lower IL-6 in that analysis did not prove that the personality profile causes better health, protects against disease generally, or produces longer life. Biomarkers, diagnoses, behaviors, and mortality are different outcomes and require separate tests.
Health-behavior evidence is the strongest coordinated support
The largest systematic support for the neuroticism-by-conscientiousness formulation comes from the 2020 coordinated integrative analysis of health behaviors. Across 15 longitudinal datasets totaling nearly 54,000 participants, the researchers estimated comparable models for smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity and then meta-analyzed the results.
Conscientiousness showed the clearer main-effect pattern: people higher in conscientiousness were less likely to smoke or drink and more likely to be physically active. For the interaction, statistically significant effects appeared for smoking and physical activity. The association between neuroticism and those behaviors was smaller at higher conscientiousness. The interaction did not emerge for alcohol consumption.
This is meaningful evidence, but it is narrower than the phrase healthy neuroticism can suggest. It supports moderation for some behaviors under the coordinated model. It does not show that high neuroticism becomes globally beneficial when conscientiousness is high.
Chronic-condition evidence did not support the protective interaction
The companion coordinated chronic-condition analysis used 15 pre-existing longitudinal studies with more than 49,000 participants. It tested whether conscientiousness moderated the relationship of neuroticism with prevalent and incident hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease.
The interaction estimates were essentially null for the conditions studied. For prevalent hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, and for prospective onset of those conditions, conscientiousness did not significantly change the neuroticism association. The authors concluded that this operationalization of healthy neuroticism did not buffer against the chronic conditions examined.
That result is especially important because it separates behavior from disease outcomes. A personality profile can be associated with a particular behavior without producing a detectable reduction in chronic disease. For the broader evidence on personality and physical health, see Neuroticism and Physical Health: Health Behaviors, Disease Risk, and Self-Rated Health.
Mortality evidence also failed to support the interaction
A third coordinated analysis tested longevity across 12 cohort studies with 44,702 participants. In the mortality study, higher conscientiousness consistently predicted lower mortality risk, while neuroticism itself showed no consistent direction across cohorts. Most importantly for healthy neuroticism, none of the studies provided statistical evidence for a neuroticism-by-conscientiousness interaction.
The authors concluded that the combination of high conscientiousness and high neuroticism was not supported as a protective profile for longevity. This does not mean personality is unrelated to mortality. It means this particular interaction hypothesis did not explain mortality differences in those coordinated cohorts.
Mortality findings for neuroticism are heterogeneous across the wider literature, with some studies reporting higher risk, some null associations, and some apparently protective patterns under particular specifications or subgroups. That broader question belongs to Neuroticism and Longevity: Mortality Research, Contradictory Findings, and Healthy Neuroticism, where the mortality evidence can be considered without turning one interaction result into a universal personality rule.
A replication-oriented cohort found no general healthy-neuroticism pattern
The Hawaii Personality and Health Cohort provided another important test. Weston and colleagues examined adult and childhood neuroticism against self-rated health, health behavior, clinical indicators, biomarkers, and potential moderators including conscientiousness. The relationship between neuroticism and health was not consistently moderated by conscientiousness or the other candidate moderators, and the authors reported no evidence for healthy neuroticism in that cohort.
Null findings matter here because interaction effects are especially vulnerable to selective interpretation. If a theory becomes defined only by whichever outcome happens to produce a significant interaction, it stops being a strong general prediction. Coordinated analyses and explicit null results therefore provide a more reliable picture than collecting isolated positive findings.
Newer BMI research is suggestive, but it answers a different question
A 2025 cross-sectional study of 21,619 adults revisited healthy neuroticism using the Big Five Inventory-10 and examined body mass index, physical activity, and concern with a healthy and nutritious diet. The authors reported that their healthy-neuroticism grouping was associated with lower BMI and that health behaviors statistically mediated some personality–BMI associations.
This newer study expands the evidence base, but its design cannot establish temporal direction or causality. It also used a very brief personality instrument and a categorical/profile operationalization that should not be treated as identical to the continuous interaction models used in the coordinated 2020 studies. The result is worth taking seriously as current evidence, while preserving the distinction between an association, a mediation model fitted to cross-sectional data, and a demonstrated causal pathway.
So Is “Healthy Neuroticism” Real?
The strongest answer is: it is real as a research hypothesis and as an outcome-specific pattern that has appeared in some datasets. It is not established as a general protective personality type.
Several findings support part of the idea. The early IL-6 study found a favorable high-neuroticism/high-conscientiousness interaction for an inflammatory biomarker. The coordinated health-behavior analysis found moderation for smoking and physical activity. A 2025 cross-sectional BMI study reported a favorable high-high profile association. These findings make the hypothesis empirically substantive rather than purely speculative.
Several equally important findings limit the claim. The coordinated chronic-condition analysis was null. The coordinated mortality analysis was null. The Hawaii cohort did not produce a consistent healthy-neuroticism pattern. The effect therefore depends on outcome, sample, measurement, analytic definition, and study design.
A useful scientific interpretation is that conscientiousness can alter how concerns, stress sensitivity, or threat vigilance are translated into behavior in some contexts. That is a more precise claim than saying high neuroticism becomes healthy. The word healthy is shorthand for a moderation hypothesis, not a global evaluation of the trait combination.
High Conscientiousness Does Not Cancel High Neuroticism
One of the easiest mistakes is to imagine conscientiousness as an antidote that neutralizes neuroticism. Personality data do not support that simple picture. A person high on both dimensions may still experience substantial worry, emotional volatility, self-consciousness, anticipatory stress, or prolonged recovery after negative events. Conscientiousness can organize behavior while the emotional burden remains present.
This distinction is especially important in mental health. Neuroticism is a broad transdiagnostic vulnerability factor at the population level, but it is not itself a mental disorder. High conscientiousness does not make psychiatric symptoms clinically irrelevant, and a high-high personality profile cannot be used to rule out anxiety disorders, depression, OCD, PTSD, or other conditions.
Conversely, experiencing worry while being organized does not imply a disorder. Trait, state, symptom, impairment, screening result, and diagnosis are different levels of description. Clinical conclusions require the symptom pattern, duration, severity, functional impact, differential diagnosis, and assessment appropriate to the condition in question.
What This Profile Can Look Like in Everyday Life
A high-neuroticism/high-conscientiousness profile can produce a recognizable combination: strong concern paired with strong follow-through. The examples below describe possibilities, not diagnostic signs or guaranteed behaviors.
At work, a person may notice possible failure points early, worry about missing a deadline, build detailed checklists, start sooner than colleagues, and repeatedly review a deliverable. The same pattern can improve preparation while also increasing subjective stress. Whether the result is adaptive depends on the cost of the checking, the actual demands of the task, and whether the behavior remains flexible.
With health, a person may be quick to notice bodily changes and also more likely to schedule preventive care, follow instructions, or maintain routines. The same vigilance can become burdensome if it turns into repeated reassurance seeking or disproportionate checking. The personality profile alone does not tell us where useful monitoring ends and clinically significant health anxiety begins.
In finances or planning, anticipated problems may motivate saving, contingency plans, calendar reminders, documentation, and careful preparation. Again, the behavioral organization can be useful even if the emotional experience is uncomfortable. “Healthy neuroticism” should not be used to romanticize chronic distress merely because some of its consequences are productive.
In relationships, a conscientious response to concern might involve preparing for a difficult conversation, remembering commitments, or trying to repair conflict promptly. It might also involve overpreparing, excessive responsibility-taking, or repeated mental review. The effect depends on the person’s other traits, attachment patterns, emotion-regulation strategies, relationship context, and current stressors.
Is the High-High Profile the Same as Being Anxious but Disciplined?
Not exactly. The phrase is intuitively understandable, but it compresses several constructs. Neuroticism is broader than anxiety. It includes proneness to multiple forms of negative emotionality, and major instruments divide it into different facets. Conscientiousness is broader than discipline: it can include organization, reliability, responsibility, persistence, deliberation, achievement striving, or related facets depending on the model.
Trait anxiety is also a narrower construct than broad neuroticism, and state anxiety is a temporary emotional condition. A person can be momentarily anxious without being high in neuroticism, and a person high in neuroticism is not continuously anxious. Likewise, conscientious behavior can vary by context even in someone who scores high on the broad trait.
This is why personality-science terminology is preferable to folk labels. “High neuroticism plus high conscientiousness” specifies two measured dimensions. “Anxious perfectionist,” “overthinker,” “overcontrolled,” and similar popular labels can describe overlapping experiences, but they are not interchangeable psychometric constructs.
How the Profile Is Measured
There is no universal test result that identifies healthy neuroticism. Researchers must first measure neuroticism and conscientiousness with a defined instrument, and then specify how the joint profile is represented statistically.
BFI-2
The BFI-2 labels the neuroticism-related broad domain Negative Emotionality and divides it into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility. Its Conscientiousness domain includes Organization, Productiveness, and Responsibility. A researcher using BFI-2 scores should describe the profile in those measurement terms rather than importing the six NEO neuroticism facets or assuming that a cutoff from another instrument applies.
NEO instruments
NEO-based instruments use Neuroticism and Conscientiousness as broad domains but organize their narrower content differently. The NEO PI-R, for example, has six neuroticism facets and six conscientiousness facets. A high domain score is an aggregate across that instrument’s item and facet structure. Two people can have similar broad scores with different facet profiles.
IPIP measures
IPIP-based scales are public-domain item pools that can be configured to approximate different personality constructs and inventories. The phrase “IPIP neuroticism score” therefore does not identify a single universal instrument. Interpretation depends on the exact item set, keying, scoring procedure, and reference data used.
Eysenck measures
Eysenck neuroticism measures come from a different historical and psychometric framework. They overlap strongly with modern negative-emotionality constructs, but scores should not be treated as numerically interchangeable with BFI-2, NEO, or IPIP scores.
Very brief measures
The 2025 BMI study used the Big Five Inventory-10, a highly abbreviated measure. Very brief scales can be useful in large surveys, but they sacrifice facet detail and some measurement precision. A high-high grouping produced with a two-item-per-domain measure should not be interpreted as if it were the same profile obtained from a long hierarchical inventory.
For score interpretation across neuroticism instruments, see Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results. The central rule is that “high” only makes sense relative to a named instrument, scoring method, reference distribution or normative sample, and population.
Why There Is No Universal “High” Cutoff
A raw score of 30 can be high on one scale, impossible on another, and uninformative on a third. A percentile describes position relative to a reference group; it is not the same thing as a raw score. A T score or standardized z score reflects a transformation whose meaning depends on the underlying norms. Online tests may use proprietary thresholds that cannot be transferred to research instruments.
The same caution applies when combining traits. A study may model neuroticism and conscientiousness continuously, standardize each score within the sample, estimate an interaction term, and probe the slope at selected values. Another may classify participants as high-high using sample-specific thresholds. Those are different analytic choices. The label healthy neuroticism does not make them equivalent.
For individual interpretation, the most defensible question is not “Do I have healthy neuroticism?” but “On which validated measure were neuroticism and conscientiousness assessed, where do the scores fall relative to appropriate norms, what do the facet profiles show, and which outcomes are actually being considered?”
Does the Profile Protect Mental Health?
Current healthy-neuroticism research does not justify claiming that high conscientiousness protects a highly neurotic person from psychiatric disorders. The coordinated studies discussed above focused on health behaviors, chronic physical conditions, and mortality. Their findings cannot simply be transferred to anxiety disorders, depression, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, autism, personality disorders, or other clinical conditions.
Conscientiousness can be associated with many beneficial behaviors and forms of self-regulation, while high neuroticism can remain a vulnerability factor for distress and common psychopathology. Both statements can be true at the same time. Whether an individual has clinically significant symptoms depends on clinical criteria and functioning, not on a two-trait personality profile.
The profile may also generate a mismatch between outward functioning and internal burden. Someone can meet deadlines, maintain routines, and appear exceptionally responsible while experiencing intense worry or self-criticism. Good performance does not prove low distress, and distress does not prove poor self-regulation.
Does It Predict Better Work or Career Outcomes?
The high-high profile can plausibly matter for work because neuroticism and conscientiousness relate to different parts of workplace experience. Conscientiousness is often associated with persistence and task performance, while neuroticism can relate to stress appraisal, negative affect, and work strain. Their combination may influence how a person prepares, checks, responds to uncertainty, and experiences pressure.
That does not create a scientifically defensible list of careers for “healthy neurotics.” Occupational fit depends on interests, skills, values, training, job demands, autonomy, social environment, economic constraints, and many other characteristics. Personality traits contribute probabilistically rather than prescribing one profession.
The same boundary applies to career guidance more broadly. Neuroticism and Career Choice: What Personality Can—and Cannot—Predict explains why a personality score can inform reflection on career processes without functioning as a vocational destiny test.
Does It Predict Longer Life?
No reliable conclusion of that kind is supported. The specific coordinated mortality test of the neuroticism-by-conscientiousness hypothesis found no significant interaction in any of 12 cohorts. Higher conscientiousness itself showed a consistent protective association, while neuroticism varied across studies.
More recent large-scale work continues to show that the neuroticism–health relationship is complicated. For example, a 2025 UK Biobank analysis reported associations between neuroticism and multiple disease transitions and a non-simple pattern for mortality. Findings like these reinforce the need to distinguish disease incidence, multimorbidity, mortality, covariate adjustment, and subgroup effects. They do not validate a universal high-neuroticism/high-conscientiousness longevity advantage.
The dedicated Neuroticism and Longevity article covers mortality evidence in depth. Here, the key point is narrower: high conscientiousness should not be assumed to transform high neuroticism into a longevity benefit.
What “Healthy Neuroticism” Does Not Mean
It does not mean that neuroticism is a disease that becomes healthy after adding conscientiousness. Both constructs are personality dimensions.
It does not mean that high conscientiousness removes anxiety, sadness, irritability, self-consciousness, or stress reactivity. Behavioral organization and emotional experience are related but distinct.
It does not mean that a significant statistical interaction proves a causal mechanism. Observational moderation can be produced by many pathways, including confounding, measurement choices, selection, and outcome-specific processes.
It does not mean that every high-high person will show healthy behavior. Personality traits shift probabilities; they do not dictate individual actions.
It does not mean that one study’s high cutoff can be copied into another test. “High” is instrument- and sample-dependent.
It does not mean that a high-high Big Five profile diagnoses an “overcontrolled personality,” an anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, or any other condition. Those are different conceptual and clinical questions.
Practical Interpretation
For an individual, the high-neuroticism/high-conscientiousness combination is best understood as a profile of emotional sensitivity plus self-regulatory capacity. The useful question is how those tendencies operate together in real contexts.
If concern reliably prompts proportionate preparation, preventive action, careful planning, and adaptive follow-through without excessive cost, the combination may be functioning well in that domain. If the same concern drives chronic rumination, repeated checking, inability to disengage, sleep loss, avoidance, or substantial distress, high conscientiousness may preserve performance without resolving the emotional cost.
That is why the profile should be interpreted outcome by outcome. A person can be highly organized at work, vigilant about health, and distressed in relationships. Another can show the reverse pattern. Broad trait scores provide a map of tendencies, not a complete explanation of behavior.
The research also suggests a sensible priority: focus less on claiming a globally healthy personality configuration and more on the mechanisms that convert concern into useful action or into costly rumination. Planning, flexible coping, proportionate checking, recovery after stress, sleep, social support, and access to appropriate care can matter more practically than the label attached to the trait combination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you be high in neuroticism and high in conscientiousness?
Yes. They are separate Big Five dimensions, so a person can score relatively high on both. The profile can combine stronger negative emotional reactivity with strong organization, responsibility, persistence, and follow-through.
What is healthy neuroticism?
Healthy neuroticism is a research idea proposing that neuroticism may be less harmful or occasionally linked to favorable outcomes under certain conditions. The most common modern operationalization tests whether conscientiousness moderates the relationship between neuroticism and health or health behavior.
Is healthy neuroticism a recognized diagnosis or personality type?
No. It is neither a DSM nor ICD diagnosis, and it is not a standard clinical personality category. It is a research hypothesis and, in some studies, a statistical interaction or profile definition.
Does high conscientiousness cancel the risks of high neuroticism?
No. Evidence is outcome-specific. Some health-behavior findings support moderation, while coordinated studies of chronic conditions and mortality did not. High conscientiousness can coexist with substantial emotional distress.
Is a high-high profile always healthier than high conscientiousness with low neuroticism?
No. A significant interaction does not automatically imply that the high-high group has the best outcome. Depending on the model, it may only mean that neuroticism is less strongly related to an outcome at higher conscientiousness.
How do I know whether my neuroticism and conscientiousness are high?
Use a defined personality instrument and interpret each score with that instrument’s scoring system and appropriate reference data. There is no universal raw-score or percentile cutoff that transfers across the NEO family, BFI-2, IPIP measures, Eysenck inventories, BFI-10, and commercial online tests.
Can healthy neuroticism protect against anxiety or depression?
Current evidence does not establish that claim. Neuroticism is a broad personality risk factor for distress and common psychopathology, while conscientiousness is another personality dimension. The presence or absence of a clinical disorder requires disorder-specific assessment.
Related Articles
References
Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887
Graham, E. K., Weston, S. J., Turiano, N. A., et al. (2020). Is healthy neuroticism associated with health behaviors? A coordinated integrative data analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.266
Huang, S., Zhang, Y., Ma, L., Wu, B., Feng, J., Cheng, W., & Yu, J. (2025). Neuroticism is associated with future disease and mortality risks. Chinese Medical Journal, 138(11), 1355–1366. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000003503
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
Pedersen, Z. O., Sørensen, K., Ewers, B., & Dammeyer, J. (2025). The association of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism on BMI and health behaviours: Exploring the impact of Healthy Neuroticism. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1634465. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1634465
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., Moynihan, J., & Chapman, B. P. (2013). Big 5 personality traits and interleukin-6: Evidence for “healthy neuroticism” in a U.S. population sample. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 28, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2012.10.020
Turiano, N. A., Graham, E. K., Weston, S. J., et al. (2020). Is healthy neuroticism associated with longevity? A coordinated integrative data analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.268
Weston, S. J., Hill, P. L., Edmonds, G. W., Mroczek, D. K., & Hampson, S. E. (2019). No evidence of “healthy neuroticism” in the Hawaii Personality and Health Cohort. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(5), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay055
Weston, S. J., Graham, E. K., Turiano, N. A., et al. (2020). Is healthy neuroticism associated with chronic conditions? A coordinated integrative data analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.267