| Literature DB >> 19455378 |
Margaret L Kern1, Howard S Friedman, Leslie R Martin, Chandra A Reynolds, Gloria Luong.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Markers of executive functioning, such as prudent planning for the future and impulse control, are related to conscientiousness and may be central to both occupational success and health outcomes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19455378 PMCID: PMC2691806 DOI: 10.1007/s12160-009-9095-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Behav Med ISSN: 0883-6612
Descriptive r correlations with objective career success
| Variable | Mean | SD | Min | Max | Correlation ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year of birth | 693 | 1910 | 2.92 | 1904 | 1915 | −0.00 |
| Objective career success | 693 | 2.00 | 0.64 | 1 | 3 | – |
| Childhood characteristics | ||||||
| Intelligence (IQ) | 693 | 149 | 10.31 | 135 | 194 | 0.10** |
| Conscientiousness | 693 | 20.63 | 4.99 | 4.00 | 31.00 | 0.09* |
| Motivation | 693 | 20.82 | 5.34 | 6.00 | 35.00 | 0.12** |
| Parent-rated ambition | 350 | 2.44 | 0.58 | 1 | 3 | 0.17** |
| Retrospective ambition | 495 | 3.97 | 0.79 | 1 | 5 | 0.15*** |
| Midlife characteristics | ||||||
| Self-rated health | 638 | 3.29 | 0.68 | 1 | 4 | 0.06 |
| Mental adjustment | 637 | 2.59 | 0.64 | 1 | 3 | 0.13** |
| Alcohol use | 638 | 2.21 | 0.89 | 1 | 4 | 0.00 |
| Age at death | 632 | 79.47b | 14.30 | 30.54 | 100.82 | 0.13** |
Different sample sizes indicate missing data. Age is given in years. Higher scores indicate a larger amount or higher level.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
aPearson r correlations with objective career success (measured on a three-point scale)
bMedian age of death, using the Kaplan–Meier estimate
Fig. 1Probability of dying at a given age by career success group
Cox proportional hazard analyses, including interaction effects
| Model | Relative hazard | 95% confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main effects, simultaneous entry ( | ||||
| Objective career success | −0.23 | 0.80 | 0.0004 | 0.71, 0.90 |
| Conscientiousness | −0.20 | 0.82 | 0.0002 | 0.74, 0.91 |
| Objective career success | −0.23 | 0.80 | 0.0004 | 0.71, 0.90 |
| Motivation | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.72 | 0.92, 1.13 |
| Objective career success | −0.23 | 0.80 | 0.0003 | 0.70, 0.90 |
| Intelligence (IQ) | 0.004 | 1.00 | 0.28 | 1.00, 1.01 |
| Interaction effects ( | ||||
| Objective career success | −0.23 | 0.79 | 0.0002 | 0.70, 0.90 |
| Conscientiousness | −0.19 | 0.83 | 0.0006 | 0.75, 0.93 |
| Career–conscientiousness interaction | 0.03 | 1.03 | 0.02 | 1.00, 1.05 |
| Objective career success | −0.24 | 0.79 | 0.0002 | 0.70, 0.90 |
| Motivation | 0.04 | 1.04 | 0.53 | 0.93, 1.15 |
| Career–motivation interaction | 0.03 | 1.03 | 0.04 | 1.00, 1.05 |
| Objective career success | −0.22 | 0.80 | 0.0004 | 0.71, 0.90 |
| Intelligence | 0.004 | 1.00 | 0.31 | 1.00, 1.01 |
| Career–IQ interaction | 0.005 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.99, 1.02 |
| Controlling for midlife health and adjustment ( | ||||
| Objective career success | −0.19 | 0.83 | 0.005 | 0.73, 0.95 |
| Conscientiousness | −0.16 | 0.85 | 0.007 | 0.76, 0.96 |
| Career–conscientiousness interaction | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.05 | 1.00, 1.05 |
| Physical health | −0.10 | 0.90 | 0.13 | 0.79, 1.03 |
| Mental adjustment | −0.03 | 0.97 | 0.69 | 0.83, 1.12 |
| Alcohol use | 0.17 | 1.19 | 0.0009 | 1.07, 1.32 |
| Objective career success | −0.20 | 0.82 | 0.004 | 0.72, 0.94 |
| Motivation | 0.05 | 1.06 | 0.36 | 0.94, 1.18 |
| Career–motivation interaction | 0.03 | 1.03 | 0.04 | 1.00, 1.05 |
| Physical health | −0.10 | 0.90 | 0.13 | 0.79, 1.03 |
| Mental adjustment | −0.04 | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.84, 1.11 |
| Alcohol use | 0.21 | 1.24 | <0.0001 | 1.12, 1.37 |
All analyses control for age. Conscientiousness and motivation estimates are interquartile relative hazards
Fig. 2Expected mortality risk of individuals at the first, second, and third quartiles (on the personality variables) for the most successful, moderately successful, and least successful career groups for childhood conscientiousness (top graph) and motivation (bottom graph)