Neuroticism and Depression: What Research Shows
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism and depression are strongly related in psychological research, but they are not the same construct. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait describing relatively stable differences in negative emotionality, distress sensitivity, and emotional reactivity. Depression refers to depressive symptoms and, in clinical contexts, to depressive disorders defined by symptom patterns, duration, severity, and impairment. A high neuroticism score is therefore neither a diagnosis of depression nor proof that depression will develop.
The most consistent finding is probabilistic: people higher in neuroticism are, on average, more likely to report depressive symptoms, meet criteria for depressive disorders, and experience future depressive symptoms. Yet the relationship is partly explained by shared liabilities, prior symptoms, current mood state, measurement overlap, and reciprocal effects. A major review by Ormel et al. (2013) concluded that no single model—pure vulnerability, pure scar, pure state effect, or simple shared cause—adequately explains the full relationship.
Prospective evidence is especially important because a cross-sectional correlation cannot show which variable came first. A meta-analysis of 59 longitudinal and prospective studies involving 443,313 participants found sizeable unadjusted associations between neuroticism and later anxiety, depression, and nonspecific distress; adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history reduced these associations substantially but did not eliminate them. See Jeronimus et al. (2016).
This article focuses specifically on the relationship between neuroticism and depression. It does not replace condition-specific information about depressive disorders, diagnosis, or treatment. For the personality construct itself, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model.
Neuroticism and Depression: The Short Answer
Research supports five conclusions at the same time. First, neuroticism and depression overlap substantially at the level of negative emotional experience. Second, higher neuroticism predicts greater average risk of later depressive symptoms and major depression. Third, the association weakens when researchers control for existing symptoms and psychiatric history, which means part of the raw relationship reflects pre-existing distress. Fourth, depressive episodes can temporarily elevate measured neuroticism, so personality scores obtained during acute depression may partly reflect state effects. Fifth, shared genetic and environmental liabilities contribute to both constructs, while major depression also has substantial risk that is not captured by neuroticism.
That combination makes neuroticism a useful risk marker and transdiagnostic personality dimension, but a poor stand-alone diagnostic tool. Two people with the same neuroticism score can have very different symptom histories, coping resources, environments, functional impairment, and clinical outcomes.
What Neuroticism Means in Personality Science
In the Big Five framework, neuroticism is a broad dimension of personality. Higher levels describe a greater tendency to experience negative emotions such as worry, sadness, irritability, self-consciousness, and vulnerability to stress. Lower levels correspond broadly to emotional stability. The trait is continuous: there is no natural boundary at which a person suddenly becomes “neurotic” in a clinical sense.
Different instruments operationalize the domain differently. The NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI use the label Neuroticism. The BFI-2 calls the corresponding broad domain Negative Emotionality and organizes it into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets; the instrument's development and hierarchical structure are described by Soto and John (2017). Eysenck inventories assess neuroticism within a different personality model, and IPIP scales use open-access item pools. Scores from these instruments are not automatically interchangeable.
The word “depression” creates a measurement trap. In the NEO tradition, Depression is the name of one facet within the neuroticism domain. That facet describes a dispositional tendency toward sadness, discouragement, and related negative affect. It is not a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. A high score on that facet also does not establish the presence, duration, severity, or impairment required for a depressive-disorder diagnosis. The broader facet architecture is explained in Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability.
What Depression Means in This Research
The research literature uses several different depression outcomes: current depressive symptom scores, lifetime history of major depression, incident or first-onset major depressive episodes, recurrent depression, and clinician- or interview-based diagnoses. These outcomes are related but not equivalent. A study predicting a questionnaire score cannot automatically be read as evidence about diagnosed major depressive disorder.
Clinical depression is assessed from symptoms, duration, severity, context, and functional impact. The National Institute of Mental Health describes depression as involving persistent symptoms that interfere with daily functioning and explains that diagnosis requires symptom-based clinical evaluation. Neuroticism is not part of a stand-alone diagnostic shortcut.
This distinction also applies to screening. A depression screening score estimates symptom burden or the probability that further assessment is warranted; it does not measure neuroticism. Conversely, a personality inventory estimates a trait; it does not diagnose depression. The meaning of any “high” score depends on the exact scale, scoring method, norms, population, and assessment context.
How Strong Is the Association Between Neuroticism and Depression?
Across studies, neuroticism is one of the Big Five traits most consistently associated with depression. In a major meta-analysis of 175 studies covering anxiety, depressive, and substance-use disorders, diagnostic groups were elevated on neuroticism overall, although effect sizes varied by disorder, sample type, and instrument. Importantly, epidemiologic samples generally showed smaller effects than patient samples, and Eysenck measures produced different association magnitudes from NEO measures. See Kotov et al. (2010).
Large population data point in the same direction. An individual-participant meta-analysis pooled 10 prospective community cohorts with 117,899 people. Cross-sectionally, neuroticism showed a substantial association with depressive symptoms. In longitudinal analyses of 56,735 participants, higher neuroticism still predicted more depressive symptoms at follow-up after baseline depressive symptoms were controlled, although the prospective coefficient was much smaller than the cross-sectional one. See Hakulinen et al. (2015).
That difference between cross-sectional and adjusted prospective effects is scientifically important. It shows why a large same-time correlation should not be interpreted as a pure causal effect of personality. Current symptoms can influence responses to personality items, earlier symptoms can confound prospective associations, and neuroticism itself partly overlaps with broad negative affectivity.
Does High Neuroticism Predict Future Depression?
Yes, at the group level. Higher neuroticism measured before an outcome is associated with greater average risk of later depressive symptoms and major depression. The evidence is strongest when studies measure personality before the depressive outcome, control for baseline symptoms, and follow participants for meaningful periods.
In the 59-study meta-analysis by Jeronimus et al. (2016), unadjusted prospective associations with depression, anxiety, and nonspecific distress were large enough to be clinically interesting. After adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, effect sizes were roughly halved. The remaining association changed relatively little with longer follow-up, supporting the interpretation that neuroticism indexes a durable risk constellation rather than merely current distress.
A Swedish population-based twin study assessed neuroticism in more than 20,000 participants and later interviewed them for major depression after a very long interval. Neuroticism predicted both lifetime major depression and first onset of major depression. Twin modeling indicated a substantial genetic correlation, while also showing that depression had liability not captured by neuroticism. See Kendler et al. (2006).
Prediction here remains probabilistic. A trait associated with increased average risk does not tell us whether a particular person will become depressed, when that might happen, how severe symptoms might be, or which treatment would help if a disorder develops.
Does Neuroticism Cause Depression?
The strongest answer is that neuroticism contributes to vulnerability within a multicausal system, while the observed association cannot be reduced to a simple one-way causal chain. Several mechanisms can operate simultaneously.
The vulnerability model
In the vulnerability model, relatively stable neuroticism precedes depression and increases the probability that depressive symptoms or episodes will emerge under relevant conditions. Prospective findings support this model because higher neuroticism predicts later depression even after baseline symptoms are considered. The adjusted effects are smaller than raw associations, which is exactly what would be expected if neuroticism is one component of risk rather than a single sufficient cause.
The common-cause model
Neuroticism and depression partly arise from shared underlying liabilities. Twin and molecular-genetic studies show meaningful overlap in genetic influences. That overlap can produce an association even when neuroticism is not directly causing every depressive symptom. Shared developmental and environmental factors may also contribute.
The state-effect model
Depression can temporarily change how people experience themselves and answer personality questionnaires. In the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, onset and recovery from depressive and anxiety disorders were associated with small changes in neuroticism scores measured with the NEO-FFI. The authors concluded that current disorder state should be considered when interpreting neuroticism. See Karsten et al. (2012).
The scar model
The scar hypothesis proposes that experiencing depression can leave lasting personality changes after the episode resolves. Some longitudinal studies find post-episode changes, while others find little evidence for durable scarring once premorbid personality and residual symptoms are taken into account. The literature therefore supports possible reciprocal influence rather than a universal rule that depression permanently increases neuroticism.
The spectrum and measurement-overlap models
Neuroticism and depressive symptoms share content related to sadness, worry, self-criticism, and negative affect. This can inflate observed correlations. Yet overlap is not the whole explanation. Work that explicitly modeled overlapping and non-overlapping neuroticism facets found that a general neuroticism factor remained associated with depressive symptomatology even when content overlap was addressed. See Uliaszek et al. (2009).
Transactional and bidirectional models
Personality influences how people perceive stress, regulate emotion, select environments, and respond to setbacks. Depressive symptoms can in turn affect behavior, relationships, self-perception, and measured personality. Over time these processes can form feedback loops. The most realistic account is therefore transactional: predispositions, experiences, symptoms, and traits can influence one another across development.
Why Current Depression Can Raise a Neuroticism Score
Personality traits are relatively stable, not perfectly state-independent. Someone completing a neuroticism questionnaire during an acute depressive episode may endorse more sadness, vulnerability, pessimism, irritability, or emotional instability than the same person would endorse in remission. This does not mean the personality measure is useless. It means measurement context matters.
Karsten et al. found small state effects on neuroticism in depressive and anxiety disorders, while Fournier et al. (2019) showed that neuroticism can be statistically decomposed into components more and less tied to acute psychiatric symptoms. Together, these findings argue against treating a single score during severe depression as a timeless essence of personality.
A practical interpretation is to separate rank-order information from absolute level. Even if many depressed participants score higher on neuroticism during an episode, relative differences between people may still carry information. Repeated assessment after symptom improvement can help distinguish persistent trait expression from state-related elevation, provided the same instrument and comparable scoring are used.
Neuroticism, Negative Affect, and Depressive Symptoms Are Not Interchangeable
Negative affect refers broadly to unpleasant emotional states such as sadness, fear, guilt, hostility, and distress. Neuroticism is a trait-level tendency to experience negative affect more frequently or intensely across time and situations. Depressive symptoms are a specific symptom constellation that can include low mood, loss of interest or pleasure, sleep and appetite changes, psychomotor changes, fatigue, concentration difficulty, guilt or worthlessness, and thoughts of death. These constructs overlap but operate at different levels.
Trait anxiety is also distinct. It captures a relatively stable tendency toward anxiety and threat-related responses, whereas neuroticism is broader and includes several forms of negative emotionality. A person can have high neuroticism without meeting criteria for an anxiety or depressive disorder, and a person with depression is not defined by any single personality trait.
The Role of Neuroticism Facets
Broad-domain neuroticism combines narrower tendencies, and some facets are more closely related to depression than others. In the NEO PI-R, the Depression facet unsurprisingly correlates strongly with depressive symptom measures, but broader neuroticism also matters. The facet name can create circular-looking results unless researchers distinguish personality content from clinical outcome content.
In an adolescent sample, Uliaszek et al. (2009) tested whether overlapping item content largely explained associations with depression and anxiety. Their modeling suggested that both a general neuroticism factor and a depression-specific facet were relevant to depressive symptoms; item overlap alone did not account for the relationship.
This is one reason articles or test interpretations should name the instrument. A “neuroticism score” from the NEO PI-R, NEO-FFI, BFI-2 Negative Emotionality scale, an IPIP measure, or an Eysenck questionnaire can differ in item content, facet structure, reference norms, and score direction. For scoring principles, see Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results and Neuroticism Score: What High, Average, and Low Scores Mean.
Shared Genetics Do Not Make Neuroticism a Biological Diagnosis
Genetic studies help explain why neuroticism and depression cluster together, but they do not turn either construct into a deterministic genetic category. Twin designs estimate how much variation and covariation in a population can be attributed statistically to genetic and environmental sources. Genome-wide association studies identify common variants associated with traits across large samples. Neither method provides a diagnostic genetic test for an individual.
The Swedish twin study by Kendler et al. (2006) estimated a genetic correlation of roughly 0.46–0.47 between neuroticism and major depression, indicating meaningful shared genetic liability. Later work using three population-based twin samples found that a broad common factor captured some shared genetic risk across lifetime major depression, current depressive symptoms, and neuroticism, while about 65% of the genetic risk for lifetime major depression in the combined model was specific to major depression rather than the common factor. See Kendler et al. (2019).
Large GWAS meta-analyses also show that neuroticism is highly polygenic. For example, Nagel et al. (2018) identified many associated loci in hundreds of thousands of participants. Polygenic association means many variants each contribute tiny statistical effects; it does not mean there is a single neuroticism gene or a genetic threshold that predicts depression for one person.
Shared genetic influences can support several causal structures: genes may affect neuroticism, depression, or intermediate processes; the same variants may influence both through partially overlapping pathways; and genetic effects can interact with environments over development. Genetic correlation is therefore evidence of shared architecture, not proof that the personality trait directly causes the disorder.
Psychological Pathways That May Link Neuroticism to Depression
The association is likely carried by multiple psychological and social processes. Higher neuroticism is associated, on average, with stronger reactivity to negative events, more frequent negative affect, greater perceived stress, and cognitive styles that can sustain distress. These are group-level tendencies rather than inevitable characteristics of every person high in the trait.
Rumination and cognitive reactivity
One plausible pathway is repetitive negative thinking. In a study in which neuroticism had been measured six years earlier, ruminative responses to experimentally induced mild low mood mediated part of the relationship between earlier neuroticism and current depressive symptoms. Among people with a history of depression, reactivation of additional negative thinking patterns also mattered. See Barnhofer and Chittka (2010). The study supports a mechanism hypothesis, while its observational mediation design does not prove that rumination is the only or universally causal pathway.
Stress sensitivity and appraisal
People higher in neuroticism tend to report more perceived stress and greater emotional responses to stressors. Several processes can contribute: stronger affective reactivity, more threat-focused appraisal, less rapid emotional recovery in some contexts, and the possibility that personality influences exposure to stressful interpersonal situations. Stress can then amplify depressive symptoms in vulnerable periods.
Interpersonal and behavioral feedback
Depression risk is also shaped by relationships, sleep, health, activity patterns, social support, and life events. Neuroticism may influence some of these domains through behavior and interpretation. At the same time, chronic interpersonal strain or repeated depressive episodes may alter self-perception and reported trait levels. This is another reason the relationship is best represented as a network of reciprocal influences rather than a single pathway.
What Longitudinal Research Says About Directionality
Longitudinal evidence has repeatedly found both trait-to-symptom and symptom-to-trait associations. In the large individual-participant meta-analysis by Hakulinen et al. (2015), higher neuroticism predicted later depressive symptoms even after baseline symptoms were included. Depressive symptoms also predicted later changes in multiple personality traits, including higher neuroticism. The authors therefore interpreted the relationship as involving both prospective personality risk and symptom-related personality change.
More recent developmental work reaches a similar conclusion. A 2024 birth-cohort study followed children from ages 10 to 16 using within-person models. Increases in neuroticism predicted increases in depressive symptoms across early adolescence, and increases in depressive symptoms also predicted increases in neuroticism during part of the same developmental period. See Morken et al. (2024). These within-person findings strengthen evidence for bidirectionality without implying a deterministic cycle in every adolescent.
Neuroticism and the Course of Depression
Among people who already have depression, higher neuroticism is often associated with greater symptom burden and a more difficult average course. That does not mean neuroticism independently determines prognosis. Baseline severity, chronicity, treatment history, comorbid conditions, social adversity, age, and measurement timing all matter.
The newest naturalistic evidence also emphasizes caution. In a 2026 inpatient study using the BFI-2-XS and repeated Beck Depression Inventory assessments, neuroticism and depressive symptoms changed together during treatment; higher average neuroticism was associated with slower improvement across multiple symptom domains. The authors explicitly described these associations as non-causal and cautioned against reading average trait expression as a baseline individual prediction. See Berg et al. (2026).
This distinction matters clinically. A variable can correlate with outcome across a group without having enough specificity or incremental predictive power to guide treatment for one patient. Neuroticism can add context, but depression care should remain based on the person's symptoms, history, functioning, preferences, risks, and evidence-based treatment options.
Can Treating Depression Change Neuroticism?
Neuroticism scores often decline when depressive symptoms improve, but several explanations are possible. Some of the change may reflect reduced state-related distress. Some may reflect genuine trait change. Some may reflect both, together with measurement effects.
A placebo-controlled trial of adults with major depressive disorder found that paroxetine treatment was associated with larger reductions in neuroticism than placebo even after depression improvement was statistically controlled, while cognitive therapy also produced personality-score changes. See Tang et al. (2009). This influential result is evidence from one treatment trial; it should not be generalized into the claim that antidepressants are medications for neuroticism or that all symptom improvement represents personality change.
More broadly, depression treatment is directed at depressive symptoms and disorder-related impairment, not at “curing” a personality trait. The American Psychological Association depression guideline evaluates evidence-based treatments for depression. It does not define high neuroticism as a depressive disorder.
Repeated personality measurement can be useful in research and sometimes in clinical formulation, but trait change should be distinguished from mean-level change across a sample, individual change, temporary state fluctuation, and simple symptom reduction.
Does High Neuroticism Mean Someone Is Depressed?
No. Neuroticism has limited diagnostic specificity. Many people high in the trait do not have major depression, and people with depression vary widely in neuroticism. Neuroticism is also associated with anxiety disorders and broader internalizing distress, which is why it is often described as a transdiagnostic risk factor.
The meta-analysis by Kotov et al. (2010) found elevated neuroticism across several diagnostic groups, not only depressive disorders. The broad review by Ormel et al. (2013) likewise emphasized that neuroticism is a nonspecific marker of vulnerability rather than a proxy diagnosis.
A high score can therefore justify curiosity about stress, coping, and current symptoms, but it cannot answer the clinical question “Do I have depression?” If persistent low mood, loss of interest, or other depressive symptoms are causing distress or functional impairment, those symptoms deserve direct assessment regardless of the person's personality score.
Can Depression Exist With Low or Average Neuroticism?
Yes. A statistical risk factor is neither necessary nor sufficient for an outcome. Depression can develop through many combinations of genetic liability, life events, medical conditions, sleep disruption, social stress, developmental factors, and other vulnerabilities. Someone does not need to score high on neuroticism to experience a depressive disorder.
This is one of the clearest examples of why population-level associations should not be converted into individual rules. Even a strong group difference leaves substantial overlap between groups. Clinical assessment focuses on the person's actual symptoms and functioning, not whether they fit a personality stereotype.
Measurement Matters More Than a Single Number
There is no universal neuroticism cutoff for depression risk. A raw score has meaning only within its instrument. Percentiles depend on a reference group. Standard scores depend on the scoring system and normative sample. Short forms may have different reliability and facet coverage from full instruments. Language, age, clinical status, and administration context also matter.
For example, the NEO-FFI provides a broad neuroticism score without the full NEO PI-R facet detail. The BFI-2 uses Negative Emotionality as the broad domain label. IPIP measures vary by item set and scoring key. Eysenck measures reflect a different psychometric tradition. A study conducted with one instrument cannot automatically establish a threshold or equivalent score for another.
Depression measurement is equally heterogeneous. The Beck Depression Inventory, PHQ-9, clinician-rated scales, structured diagnostic interviews, and administrative diagnoses answer different questions. Associations can differ depending on whether the outcome is symptom severity, screening status, incident episode, recurrent disorder, or lifetime diagnosis.
What the Relationship Does Not Prove
The evidence does not prove that neuroticism is depression, that high neuroticism always leads to depression, that depression permanently changes personality, that a specific gene causes both conditions, that a brain correlate can diagnose an individual, or that reducing a neuroticism score is the same as treating depression.
It also does not justify using personality language to minimize depressive symptoms. A person who is distressed is not simply “being neurotic.” The trait construct and the clinical condition answer different scientific and practical questions.
How to Use This Information in Practice
For someone who knows they score relatively high on a validated neuroticism measure, the useful implication is not to predict a disorder. It is to recognize that stress sensitivity and repetitive negative affect may be areas worth monitoring. Skills related to emotion regulation, sleep, problem solving, social support, behavioral activation, and responding to rumination can matter for well-being regardless of whether a clinical diagnosis is present.
If depressive symptoms are persistent, worsening, or impairing everyday functioning, the clinically relevant next step is symptom-specific assessment rather than another personality test. The NIMH depression resource describes common symptoms and how diagnosis is evaluated. Treatment decisions belong to depression-specific clinical care, not to interpretation of a Big Five score.
For researchers and clinicians, neuroticism can be useful as a broad vulnerability marker, a covariate, a moderator candidate, or part of a dimensional case formulation. Its value depends on whether it adds information beyond current symptoms, history, and other established predictors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is neuroticism a symptom of depression?
Neuroticism is a personality trait, not a depressive symptom. Some neuroticism items and facets overlap in content with negative mood, so acute depression can raise measured neuroticism. The constructs remain distinct.
Does neuroticism cause major depressive disorder?
Higher neuroticism predicts greater average risk of later major depression and depressive symptoms, but the relationship is multicausal. Shared genetic liability, environmental factors, prior symptoms, state effects, cognitive mechanisms, and reciprocal influences all contribute.
How much does neuroticism increase depression risk?
There is no single universal percentage. Effect sizes vary by population, instrument, outcome definition, follow-up period, and statistical adjustment. Meta-analytic work shows that adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history substantially reduces the raw prospective association.
Can someone have high neuroticism without depression?
Yes. High neuroticism is neither necessary nor sufficient for depression. Many people high in the trait never meet criteria for a depressive disorder.
Can someone have depression with low neuroticism?
Yes. Depression has multiple pathways and risk factors. Neuroticism is one probabilistic vulnerability marker, not a required feature.
Is the NEO PI-R Depression facet the same as clinical depression?
No. The NEO PI-R Depression facet is a personality facet within neuroticism. A depressive disorder is defined by a clinical symptom pattern, duration, severity, context, and impairment.
Can depression temporarily make a neuroticism score higher?
Yes. Longitudinal research supports small state effects: neuroticism scores can rise during depressive episodes and fall with recovery. That is why timing and current symptom state matter when interpreting personality tests.
Does treating depression lower neuroticism?
Neuroticism scores often decline as depressive symptoms improve, but this may reflect a mixture of symptom-related state change and genuine personality change. Some treatment studies report changes beyond symptom improvement, but the evidence does not justify treating neuroticism as a disease.
Is there a neuroticism score that diagnoses depression?
No. There is no universal neuroticism cutoff for diagnosing depression. Diagnosis requires depression-specific assessment.
Are neuroticism and depression genetically the same?
No. They share part of their genetic architecture, but twin and genomic studies also show substantial genetic influences specific to major depression and to neuroticism. Genetic correlation is not identity.
The Bottom Line
Neuroticism and depression have one of the clearest personality–psychopathology associations in modern research. Higher neuroticism is associated with current depressive symptoms and predicts greater average risk of later depression. The relationship remains after accounting for some baseline symptoms and history, supporting a genuine vulnerability component.
At the same time, the association is not a one-way equation. Shared genetic and environmental liabilities, content overlap, current mood state, cognitive reactivity, stress processes, and reciprocal personality–symptom change all matter. Neuroticism is best understood as a dimensional risk-related personality construct. Depression is a symptom and disorder domain that requires its own assessment. One cannot substitute for the other.
Related Articles
Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model — the main authority page for the modern Big Five construct and its distinction from symptoms and diagnoses.
High Neuroticism: Meaning, Traits, Strengths, and Risks — what higher trait levels can mean without turning a personality score into a clinical label.
Neuroticism Facets: Anxiety, Anger, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability — why the NEO Depression facet is a personality component rather than a depressive-disorder diagnosis.
What Causes Neuroticism? Genetics, Temperament, Environment, and Life Experience — the evidence for genetic, developmental, and environmental contributions to the trait.
References
American Psychological Association. (2025). Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression Across Three Age Cohorts. APA
Barnhofer, T., & Chittka, T. (2010). Cognitive reactivity mediates the relationship between neuroticism and depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(4), 275–281. DOI
Berg, M. C., Richter, M., Gruber, M., et al. (2026). Big Five personality dimensions and their association with depressive symptom severity over the treatment course. Journal of Affective Disorders, 413, 122173. DOI
Fournier, J. C., Wright, A., Tackett, J. L., Uliaszek, A., Pilkonis, P. A., Manuck, S. B., & Bagby, R. M. (2019). Decoupling personality and acute psychiatric symptoms in a depressed sample and a community sample. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(3), 566–581. DOI
Hakulinen, C., Elovainio, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., & Jokela, M. (2015). Personality and depressive symptoms: Individual-participant meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies. Depression and Anxiety, 32(7), 461–470. DOI
Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., & Ormel, J. (2016). Neuroticism’s prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: A meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443,313 participants. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2883–2906. DOI
Karsten, J., Penninx, B. W. J. H., Riese, H., Ormel, J., Nolen, W. A., & Hartman, C. A. (2012). The state effect of depressive and anxiety disorders on Big Five personality traits. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46(5), 644–650. DOI
Kendler, K. S., Gatz, M., Gardner, C. O., & Pedersen, N. L. (2006). Personality and major depression: A Swedish longitudinal, population-based twin study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(10), 1113–1120. DOI
Kendler, K. S., Gardner, C. O., Neale, M. C., et al. (2019). Shared and specific genetic risk factors for lifetime major depression, depressive symptoms and neuroticism in three population-based twin samples. Psychological Medicine, 49(16), 2745–2753. DOI
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768–821. DOI
Morken, I. S., Wichstrøm, L., Steinsbekk, S., & Viddal, K. R. (2024). Depression and personality traits across adolescence—Within-person analyses of a birth cohort. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 52(8), 1275–1287. DOI
Nagel, M., Jansen, P. R., Stringer, S., et al. (2018). Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for neuroticism in 449,484 individuals identifies novel genetic loci and pathways. Nature Genetics, 50, 920–927. DOI
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Depression. NIMH
Ormel, J., Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., Bos, E. H., Hankin, B., Rosmalen, J. G. M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2013). Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 686–697. DOI
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. DOI
Tang, T. Z., DeRubeis, R. J., Hollon, S. D., Amsterdam, J., Shelton, R., & Schalet, B. (2009). Personality change during depression treatment: A placebo-controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(12), 1322–1330. DOI
Uliaszek, A. A., Hauner, K. K. Y., Zinbarg, R. E., Craske, M. G., Mineka, S., Griffith, J. W., & Rose, R. D. (2009). An examination of content overlap and disorder-specific predictions in the associations of neuroticism with anxiety and depression. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 785–794. DOI