Neuroticism and Physical Health: Health Behaviors, Disease Risk, and Self-Rated Health
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism is associated with physical health, but the relationship is probabilistic, heterogeneous, and more complicated than the claim that a personality trait simply “causes illness.” Across population research, people higher in neuroticism tend on average to report poorer health, more physical symptoms, and some less favorable health behaviors. Some longitudinal studies also find associations with later disease burden or particular diseases. At the same time, effect sizes vary by outcome, measurement, population, covariates, and the specific component of neuroticism being studied.
The best summary is therefore a pathway model rather than a verdict. Neuroticism can be related to physical health through health behavior, stress exposure and affective reactivity, symptom perception and reporting, health-care use, social and socioeconomic pathways, and possibly biological processes such as inflammation. Physical illness can also change emotional functioning and personality over time. A large metasynthesis of 36 meta-analyses and more than 500,000 participants found that the Big Five collectively predicted health and well-being, with associations generally larger for mental health than for physical health or health-related behavior (Strickhouser, Zell, & Krizan, 2017).
This article uses neuroticism in the modern Big Five/Five-Factor personality-science sense. It is a continuous trait, not a psychiatric diagnosis. A person with a higher neuroticism score does not thereby have anxiety, depression, a somatic symptom disorder, cardiovascular disease, or any other medical condition. For the construct itself, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For the separate relationship between neuroticism and psychiatric vulnerability, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor.
Neuroticism and physical health: the short answer
Higher neuroticism is associated on average with several indicators of poorer physical health, especially subjective health ratings and symptom burden. Evidence also links neuroticism to some health behaviors and to later morbidity in some longitudinal cohorts, but the direction and size of associations differ substantially across outcomes.
The evidence does not support using neuroticism as a biological diagnosis or as an individual disease predictor. A personality score cannot tell whether one person will develop heart disease, diabetes, cancer, chronic pain, or another condition. It also cannot determine whether a current symptom is medically explained, psychologically amplified, both, or neither.
Four points organize the evidence. First, associations are clearest for subjective health and distress-linked outcomes. Second, some behavioral pathways—especially smoking and lower physical activity—have stronger evidence than others. Third, objective biomarkers and disease outcomes show smaller, more variable, and sometimes contradictory associations. Fourth, longitudinal evidence increasingly suggests bidirectionality: personality can precede health differences, while changes in health can also precede changes in neuroticism.
What “physical health” means in neuroticism research
Physical health is not a single outcome. Studies use very different endpoints, and combining them can create misleading conclusions.
Some studies ask people to rate their overall health on a scale such as excellent to poor. Others count symptoms, functional limitations, diagnosed chronic conditions, medication use, hospital records, or disease incidence. Still others use body mass index, blood pressure, inflammatory biomarkers, metabolic markers, or mortality. These outcomes differ in objectivity, clinical meaning, time scale, and susceptibility to mood or reporting style.
That distinction is especially important for neuroticism because the trait includes greater sensitivity to negative experience. A person higher in neuroticism may notice bodily changes earlier, appraise symptoms as more threatening, experience more distress from the same symptom, or report symptoms more readily. Those processes can affect self-reported health without implying that symptoms are invented. They can also coexist with genuine disease.
For a detailed treatment of symptom reporting, see Neuroticism and Somatic Symptoms: Symptom Reporting, Distress, and Health Context. The central rule is the same here: personality research describes population-level patterns. It does not determine the cause of an individual symptom.
What the broad evidence shows
One influential review argued that neuroticism has substantial public-health relevance because it is associated with a wide range of mental and physical health outcomes and may influence health through multiple pathways (Lahey, 2009). Later evidence has strengthened the case that a real personality–health relationship exists while also showing why simple causal stories are inadequate.
The 2017 metasynthesis by Strickhouser and colleagues aggregated 150 meta-analytic effects from 36 meta-analyses. The Big Five together showed a moderate multivariate association with overall health, while personality associations were stronger for mental health than for physical-health outcomes and health behaviors. Neuroticism was among the traits with larger health associations, alongside conscientiousness and agreeableness (Strickhouser et al., 2017).
A large 2025 UK Biobank analysis provides a more recent example of both the scope and the complexity of the evidence. Huang and colleagues studied 483,916 participants whose neuroticism was measured with a 12-item Eysenck Personality Questionnaire scale. Higher neuroticism was associated prospectively with increased incidence of many infectious, cardiometabolic, digestive, respiratory, and neuropsychiatric conditions, but with lower incidence of some outcomes including cancer in their models. The same study found that mortality associations changed direction across models and stages of illness, illustrating why disease incidence, multimorbidity, and mortality should not be collapsed into a single “health effect” (Huang et al., 2025).
These findings are associations from a large observational cohort. They do not establish that neuroticism caused the diseases, and they do not imply that an individual with a particular score has a clinically meaningful increase or decrease in risk. UK Biobank participants are also a selected volunteer sample, and the Eysenck neuroticism scale is not interchangeable with every Big Five instrument.
The relationship can run in both directions
A common mistake is to imagine personality as a fixed upstream cause and physical health as a downstream consequence. Longitudinal data suggest a more transactional system.
Luo and colleagues analyzed three longitudinal studies with more than 17,000 participants in total and separated stable between-person differences from within-person change. They found evidence that changes in neuroticism and changes in self-rated health or general disease level can predict one another over time, although within-person effects were substantially smaller than ordinary between-person associations (Luo et al., 2022).
At a much shorter time scale, an intensive 75-day study found substantial person-to-person heterogeneity in daily links between neuroticism indicators and physical symptoms. In that sample, physical symptoms were more often followed by next-day neuroticism-related experiences than the reverse (Kelly, Weigard, & Beltz, 2020). This small study does not settle causal direction, but it reinforces a crucial point: illness and symptoms can affect emotion and personality-relevant behavior too.
Chronic disease can also be followed by personality change. Pooled prospective evidence has found changes in several Big Five traits after disease onset, including decreases in emotional stability, the low-neuroticism pole, although such change is usually modest relative to stable individual differences (Jokela et al., 2014). The physical-health relationship should therefore be understood as dynamic rather than one-way.
Pathway 1: health behaviors
Health behaviors are one plausible route connecting personality with later physical health. The evidence is strongest when specific behaviors are analyzed separately rather than bundled into a vague idea of a “healthy lifestyle.”
Smoking
Smoking is one of the clearest examples. An individual-participant meta-analysis of nine cohorts and 79,757 adults found that current smoking was associated with higher neuroticism, and higher neuroticism prospectively predicted greater odds of smoking relapse among former smokers and lower odds of cessation among current smokers. The effects were modest and varied across cohorts, but the longitudinal pattern was more informative than a simple cross-sectional correlation (Hakulinen et al., 2015).
This does not mean neuroticism produces nicotine dependence. Smoking behavior reflects addiction biology, social conditions, availability, stress, socioeconomic factors, other personality traits, psychiatric symptoms, and many other influences. Neuroticism is one statistical factor within that system.
Physical activity
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 studies found a modest negative association between neuroticism and physical activity. Across correlation studies, the pooled association was about r = −.14, and studies using accelerometry also showed a negative relationship. Evidence that physical activity itself reduces neuroticism was much less certain because few longitudinal or intervention studies were available and heterogeneity was high (Ma, Wang, & Qiu, 2025).
The interpretation should stay directional and modest: people higher in neuroticism tend, on average, to be somewhat less physically active. That finding does not imply that inactivity is a defining feature of high neuroticism, nor that exercise is a “treatment for neuroticism.”
Alcohol
Alcohol findings are less straightforward. In a pooled analysis of 72,949 adults from eight cohorts, higher neuroticism was associated cross-sectionally with heavy drinking, but neuroticism did not consistently predict transition from moderate to heavy drinking over time. Other Big Five traits, particularly extraversion and conscientiousness, showed more consistent prospective associations with drinking patterns (Hakulinen et al., 2015).
This is a useful warning against importing one behavior result into another. Evidence that neuroticism relates to smoking does not automatically mean it has the same prospective relationship with alcohol use.
Diet
Dietary behavior also shows small trait associations. A 2025 meta-analytic review of 49 articles, 584 effect sizes, and 151,750 participants found that lower neuroticism was associated with a somewhat healthier diet, but the pooled effect was small, around r = −.05. Openness and conscientiousness showed larger positive associations with healthier diet components in that review (Allen et al., 2025).
A 2025 cross-sectional national study of 21,619 adults found associations among neuroticism, conscientiousness, health behaviors, and BMI, including patterns the authors framed as “healthy” and “unhealthy” neuroticism. Because the study was cross-sectional and used the brief BFI-10, it cannot establish mediation over time or identify a universal high-neuroticism health profile (Pedersen et al., 2025).
Pathway 2: stress exposure, appraisal, and emotional reactivity
Neuroticism has a strong relationship with perceived stress, negative emotional reactivity, and the way stressful events are appraised. Those processes are relevant to physical health because repeated behavioral and physiological responses to stress can accumulate over time.
The evidence is strongest for subjective and affective stress processes, not for a simple biological claim such as “high neuroticism means high cortisol.” For the broader evidence on stress perception, reactivity, and recovery, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
Longitudinal work also suggests that affective responses to everyday stressors may be one pathway. In a 20-year national study, higher neuroticism predicted greater negative-affect reactivity to daily stressors, and greater reactivity in turn predicted later chronic conditions and functional limitations (Leger et al., 2021). Such mediation models are consistent with a pathway but remain observational; they do not prove that changing neuroticism would prevent disease.
Pathway 3: inflammation and other biological correlates
Researchers have examined inflammatory markers, autonomic function, endocrine responses, metabolic indicators, and other biological variables as possible mechanisms. The results are considerably less uniform than popular summaries often imply.
In a longitudinal study of 1,630 older adults, Wright and colleagues used both self- and informant-reported Big Five traits and measured inflammatory markers including interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor alpha. Neuroticism and conscientiousness showed some prospective associations with inflammatory markers, and biomarker and health-behavior pathways were linked to later health indicators. Many effects depended on the reporter, biomarker, and outcome, however, and the authors emphasized multiple pathways rather than a single biological mechanism (Wright et al., 2022).
This is the appropriate level of interpretation. Group-level correlations with IL-6, CRP, blood pressure, or other biomarkers are not diagnostic signatures. They do not allow a clinician or individual to infer a person’s biological state from a neuroticism score.
Pathway 4: symptom perception, reporting, and health-care behavior
Neuroticism is consistently associated with reporting more somatic symptoms and poorer subjective health. Several processes may contribute at once.
People higher in neuroticism may experience more symptoms because of genuine differences in health or stress-related physiology. They may also monitor bodily sensations more closely, interpret ambiguous sensations more negatively, remember unpleasant symptoms more readily, or experience greater distress from a given level of physical discomfort. Greater vigilance can sometimes increase help-seeking, which may improve detection of illness; at other times it can increase unnecessary worry or medical utilization. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
This is why symptom reporting should never be reduced to “it is just neuroticism.” The observation that personality influences symptom perception says nothing definitive about whether a particular symptom has a medical cause. New, severe, persistent, or concerning symptoms deserve assessment on their own clinical merits.
Neuroticism and self-rated health
Self-rated health is a person’s global evaluation of their health, usually measured with a question such as “In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” It is a subjective health measure, not a personality test and not a diagnosis.
Higher neuroticism is reliably associated with poorer self-rated health. In a longitudinal study of 1,683 community-dwelling adults who completed 7,474 health ratings over as long as 19 years, higher neuroticism was associated with worse health ratings across age groups. The magnitude and age trajectory varied depending on whether people rated their health generally, compared it with peers, compared it with their past health, or anticipated future health (Löckenhoff et al., 2012).
That framing effect matters. Self-rated health is partly informed by actual disease, disability, pain, energy, and functional capacity, but it is also an appraisal. Neuroticism can influence how health information is noticed, weighted, remembered, and compared. A lower health rating in a person high in neuroticism therefore cannot be interpreted as pure measurement bias, but neither should it be treated as a direct medical finding.
Longitudinal Finnish research that compared subjective and objective indicators likewise found that personality-health relationships depend on which health outcome is used. In the same people, self-rated health and psychological distress can show different associations from BMI, waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure, cholesterol, or triglycerides (Kinnunen et al., 2012).
Neuroticism and chronic disease risk
The phrase “disease risk” needs especially careful interpretation. Different diseases have different etiologies, and evidence for one diagnosis should not be generalized to another.
Some large prospective studies find that higher neuroticism precedes a greater incidence of multiple disorders. The 2025 UK Biobank analysis by Huang and colleagues found associations with dozens of later diagnoses and with transitions from a healthy state to a first neuroticism-related disease and then to multimorbidity. Yet the same study also reported inverse associations for some outcomes and mortality patterns that depended on illness stage and adjustment model. This is strong evidence against a universal “more neuroticism equals more disease” rule.
Other disease-specific pooled studies show null or contradictory findings. For example, an individual-participant meta-analysis of five cohorts and 34,913 adults found that low conscientiousness, not neuroticism, was the Big Five trait consistently associated with incident diabetes (Jokela et al., 2014). Studies of other conditions have sometimes found positive associations with neuroticism, but reverse causation, prodromal disease, shared genetic liability, depression and anxiety, health behaviors, and selection effects can all complicate interpretation.
The defensible conclusion is that neuroticism is a broad correlate and possible vulnerability marker for some dimensions of physical morbidity, not a general medical risk score.
“Healthy neuroticism”: useful idea, limited evidence
The phrase “healthy neuroticism” usually refers to situations in which concern, vigilance, or threat sensitivity is paired with another characteristic—most often high conscientiousness—and is associated with more adaptive health behavior. It is a research construct, not a diagnosis or established personality type.
A preregistered coordinated analysis across 15 longitudinal datasets, nearly 54,000 participants, found that the neuroticism-by-conscientiousness interaction was associated with smoking and physical activity but not alcohol use. The effects were small: among people higher in conscientiousness, the unfavorable association between neuroticism and some health behaviors was weaker (Graham et al., 2020).
The companion coordinated analysis of chronic conditions was less supportive. Across more than 49,000 participants, conscientiousness did not reliably moderate the neuroticism association with prevalence or incidence of hypertension, diabetes, or heart disease (Weston et al., 2020).
So “healthy neuroticism” should not be turned into a rule that worry protects health. The evidence suggests possible interaction effects for some behaviors, while chronic-disease evidence is much less persuasive. The term is best treated as a hypothesis about context and trait combinations.
Does neuroticism cause physical illness?
Current evidence does not justify a simple causal statement.
Several findings make causal interpretation difficult. Most evidence is observational. Neuroticism correlates with psychiatric symptoms, socioeconomic factors, stress exposure, social relationships, and other personality traits. Physical illness can influence mood and personality. Some disease processes may begin years before diagnosis and alter behavior or affect during a supposedly “healthy” baseline period. Measurement of neuroticism itself varies across studies.
Longitudinal designs improve temporal ordering but do not automatically eliminate confounding. Genetic-correlation studies can show shared genetic architecture but do not prove that the personality trait is itself the causal mechanism. Mediation models can identify pathways consistent with causal theories but remain dependent on assumptions about unmeasured variables and timing.
A more accurate statement is that neuroticism is a marker within a network of psychological, behavioral, social, and biological processes that are statistically related to physical health.
Why measurement matters
There is no universal neuroticism unit. Research cited in this article uses different instruments and operational definitions.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire includes a Neuroticism scale and is used in several large epidemiologic cohorts, including UK Biobank. Five-Factor Model measures such as NEO instruments assess neuroticism within a different psychometric tradition and may include multiple facets. The Big Five Inventory uses a Big Five framework; the BFI-2 labels the corresponding broad domain Negative Emotionality. Brief instruments such as the BFI-10 sacrifice detail for efficiency.
A raw score of 8 on one instrument cannot be converted casually into a “high neuroticism” category on another. Percentiles depend on the normative sample. Cutoffs used by individual studies may be sample-specific tertiles, quartiles, standard-deviation thresholds, or analytic categories rather than clinical boundaries.
This matters for physical-health research because effect sizes can differ across instruments, populations, ages, countries, and outcome definitions. Researchers may find an association using one questionnaire and one disease endpoint that does not reproduce when either measurement changes.
Neuroticism, emotional stability, negative affect, and symptoms are not interchangeable
Neuroticism is often described as the opposite pole of emotional stability. In that broad trait framework, higher emotional stability generally corresponds to lower neuroticism, though exact scoring depends on the measure.
Negative affect is a state or tendency involving unpleasant emotions and overlaps substantially with neuroticism, but it is not automatically the same construct. Trait anxiety is narrower than broad neuroticism. Current anxiety, sadness, irritability, fatigue, or health worry are states or symptoms and can fluctuate independently of a person’s longer-term trait level.
This distinction is particularly important in medical research because illness itself can increase fatigue, worry, sleep disruption, distress, or depressed mood. If a personality assessment is administered during illness, some responses may reflect current state as well as enduring trait. Good longitudinal designs try to separate those sources of variance, but no measurement is perfectly state-free.
What the evidence means for an individual
A neuroticism score should not be used as a medical screening test.
If someone scores high on a validated personality measure, the most defensible interpretation is that they report a stronger or more frequent tendency toward negative emotionality relative to the scale’s reference population. It does not say whether they currently have a disease, whether a symptom is medically significant, or whether they will become ill.
For health decisions, direct risk factors and direct clinical evidence matter more: symptoms, examination findings, laboratory tests when indicated, blood pressure, smoking status, physical activity, sleep, medications, family history, age, exposures, and established disease-specific risk models. Personality can add context around behavior, stress management, adherence, or how health information is experienced, but it does not replace those measures.
At work, where stress exposure and health behavior can interact with occupational demands, the same principle applies. Neuroticism at Work: Stress, Behavior, and Workplace Experience covers that occupational evidence without turning a trait into a measure of competence or fitness for a job.
Practical implications for health behavior
The personality-health literature is most useful when it identifies modifiable processes rather than labeling people.
Someone who notices that worry predicts smoking relapse can focus on relapse-prevention strategies and alternative ways of regulating distress. Someone who becomes inactive when overwhelmed can make physical activity easier to initiate through environmental cues, social support, scheduling, or appropriately tailored clinical advice. Someone who repeatedly catastrophizes bodily sensations can work on interpretation and coping while still obtaining medical evaluation for symptoms that warrant it.
These strategies target behaviors and coping processes. They do not require “curing” neuroticism. Neuroticism is a personality dimension, and health care is guided by actual symptoms, impairment, risk factors, diagnoses, and goals.
Limits of the evidence
The neuroticism–physical-health literature has several recurring limitations.
Self-report overlap is one. When both personality and health are reported by the same person at the same time, shared response tendencies can inflate associations. Longitudinal and objective measures reduce this problem but do not remove all confounding.
Selection is another. Large volunteer cohorts can differ from the general population in education, health, ethnicity, and health-care access. Results from middle-aged or older adults cannot automatically be generalized to adolescents or young adults.
Measurement heterogeneity is substantial. Studies use NEO scales, Eysenck measures, BFI variants, IPIP instruments, abbreviated questionnaires, and sometimes narrower negative-emotionality constructs. Health outcomes range from one-item ratings to verified diagnoses.
Finally, statistical significance is not individual predictability. A reliable average association can coexist with enormous overlap between people at different trait levels. Most people high in neuroticism will not have any particular disease, and many people with serious medical illness are low in neuroticism.
Frequently asked questions
Does high neuroticism mean poor physical health?
No. Higher neuroticism is associated with poorer physical-health indicators on average, especially subjective health and symptom burden, but there is wide individual variation. A trait score is not a health diagnosis.
Can neuroticism make you physically sick?
Research supports associations and plausible pathways through behavior, stress reactivity, symptom processes, and some biological correlates. It does not establish a universal direct causal pathway from neuroticism to physical illness.
Is neuroticism linked to chronic disease?
Some longitudinal studies find increased incidence of multiple conditions, while disease-specific results are heterogeneous and sometimes null or inverse. The association depends on the disease, measure, population, and analytic model.
Why is neuroticism associated with worse self-rated health?
Self-rated health integrates actual symptoms and functioning with perception, comparison, expectation, and emotional appraisal. Neuroticism can influence several of those appraisal processes while also being associated with genuine health differences.
Does neuroticism increase smoking?
Higher neuroticism is associated with current smoking and, in large pooled longitudinal data, with greater relapse and lower cessation probabilities. It is one factor among many and does not determine whether a person smokes.
Are people high in neuroticism less physically active?
On average, yes, but the effect is modest. A 2025 meta-analysis found a small negative association between neuroticism and physical activity. Causal direction remains incompletely established.
Does neuroticism predict unhealthy drinking?
Cross-sectional studies sometimes find an association with heavier drinking, but large pooled longitudinal evidence has not shown neuroticism to be a consistent predictor of increasing from moderate to heavy consumption.
Is “healthy neuroticism” real?
It has some empirical support for specific health behaviors when higher neuroticism occurs with higher conscientiousness, but effects are small and do not generalize consistently to chronic disease. It is a research hypothesis, not a clinical type.
Can a physical illness increase neuroticism?
Yes, that direction is plausible and supported by longitudinal evidence. Changes in health and changes in neuroticism can be bidirectionally related, and chronic disease can alter emotional functioning over time.
Should a high neuroticism score change my medical care?
A personality score alone should not determine diagnosis or treatment. It may help explain patterns of stress, symptom interpretation, adherence, or health behavior, while medical decisions should rely on symptoms, examination, validated clinical risk factors, and appropriate testing.
Related Articles
References
Allen, M. S., Mishra, M., Tashjian, S. M., & Laborde, S. (2025). Linking Big Five personality traits to components of diet: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(4), 905–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000526 · PubMed
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 · PubMed
Hakulinen, C., Elovainio, M., Batty, G. D., Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., & Jokela, M. (2015). Personality and alcohol consumption: Pooled analysis of 72,949 adults from eight cohort studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 151, 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.03.008 · PubMed
Hakulinen, C., Hintsanen, M., Munafò, M. R., et al. (2015). Personality and smoking: Individual-participant meta-analysis of nine cohort studies. Addiction, 110(11), 1844–1852. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13079 · PubMed
Huang, S., Zhang, Y., Ma, L., et al. (2025). Neuroticism is associated with future disease and mortality risks. Chinese Medical Journal, 138(11), 1355–1366. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000003503 · PubMed
Jokela, M., Hakulinen, C., Singh-Manoux, A., & Kivimäki, M. (2014). Personality change associated with chronic diseases: Pooled analysis of four prospective cohort studies. Psychological Medicine, 44(12), 2629–2640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000257 · PubMed
Kelly, D. P., Weigard, A., & Beltz, A. M. (2020). How are you doing? The person-specificity of daily links between neuroticism and physical health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 137, 110194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110194 · PubMed
Kinnunen, M.-L., Metsäpelto, R.-L., Feldt, T., et al. (2012). Personality profiles and health: Longitudinal evidence among Finnish adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00969.x · PubMed
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309 · PubMed Central
Leger, K. A., Turiano, N. A., Bowling, W., Burris, J. L., & Almeida, D. M. (2021). Personality Traits Predict Long-Term Physical Health via Affect Reactivity to Daily Stressors. Psychological Science, 32(5), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620980738 · PubMed
Löckenhoff, C. E., Terracciano, A., Ferrucci, L., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2012). Five-factor personality traits and age trajectories of self-rated health: The role of question framing. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00724.x · PubMed
Luo, J., Zhang, B., Estabrook, R., et al. (2022). Personality and health: Disentangling their between-person and within-person relationship in three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 493–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000399 · PubMed
Ma, W., Wang, X., & Qiu, W. (2025). Association between neuroticism and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 19, 1557739. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1557739 · PubMed
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 · PubMed
Strickhouser, J. E., Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2017). Does personality predict health and well-being? A metasynthesis. Health Psychology, 36(8), 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000475 · PubMed
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 · PubMed
Wright, A. J., Weston, S. J., Norton, S., et al. (2022). Prospective self- and informant-personality associations with inflammation, health behaviors, and health indicators. Health Psychology, 41(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001162 · PubMed