Personality, Socioeconomic Status, and All-Cause Mortality in the United States
Personality, Socioeconomic Status, and All-Cause Mortality in the United States
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwp323
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Duberstein, Paul R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chapman, Benjamin P.;Fiscella, Kevin;Duberstein, Paul R.
作者评估了在1995至2004年间，在美国中年发展(MIDUS)队列中，社会经济地位(SES)和被称为“五大”(神经质、外向、乐于体验、随和、尽责)的人格因素在多大程度上代表了各种原因死亡的混乱或独立风险。调整人口统计学因素后，SES的第25百分位数与第75百分位数的优势比为1.43(95%可信区间：1.11，1.83)。神经质第75个百分位数与第25个百分位数的人口调整优势比分别为1.38(95%CI：1.10，1.73)和0.63(95%CI：0.47，0.84)，后者被评估为高水平的宜人性。在SES和BIG 5之间观察到了适度的关联。对彼此进行调整后发现，性格大约解释了SES死亡率梯度的20%，而SES解释了8%的人格风险。部分SES和人格风险可以用健康行为来解释，尽管一些残留风险仍然不能解释。个性似乎解释了SES各阶层之间死亡风险的一些差异，以及SES各阶层之间的一些个体风险异质性。研究结果表明，社会结构不平等和个人倾向都对公共卫生有影响。未来旨在改善SES健康差距的研究和预防可能受益于考虑社会劣势和倾向因素的风险聚集。
The authors assessed the extent to which socioeconomic status (SES) and the personality factors termed the "big 5" (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness) represented confounded or independent risks for all-cause mortality over a 10-year follow-up in the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) cohort between 1995 and 2004. Adjusted for demographics, the 25th versus 75th percentile of SES was associated with an odds ratio of 1.43 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 1.83). Demographic-adjusted odds ratios for the 75th versus 25th percentile of neuroticism were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.73) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.84) for conscientiousness, the latter evaluated at high levels of agreeableness. Modest associations were observed between SES and the big 5. Adjusting each for the other revealed that personality explained roughly 20% of the SES gradient in mortality, while SES explained 8% of personality risk. Portions of SES and personality risk were explained by health behaviors, although some residual risk remained unexplained. Personality appears to explain some between-SES strata differences in mortality risk, as well as some individual risk heterogeneity within SES strata. Findings suggest that both sociostructural inequalities and individual disposition hold public health implications. Future research and prevention aimed at ameliorating SES health disparities may benefit from considering the risk clustering of social disadvantage and dispositional factors.