Openness moderates the relationship between modern health worries and neuroticism

Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 35–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Openness moderates the relationship between modern health worries and neuroticism Garry L. Spink Jr ⇑, Thomas B. Green, Randall S. Jorgensen Syracuse University, Psychology Department, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 February 2014 Received in revised form 4 June 2014 Accepted 7 June 2014

Keywords: Modern health worry Neuroticism Openness Moderation Personality

a b s t r a c t Modern health worries (MHW) has been reported to covary, albeit inconsistently, with measures tapping a tendency for emotional lability. We aim to address this inconsistency, in part, by investigating the moderating influence of openness on the previously reported correlation of MHW with neuroticism. One hundred and forty-three participants completed questionnaires assessing neuroticism, openness and MHW. Results show that neuroticism is weakly related to MHW, and this relationship only was found for low openness participants. Future research examining the associations of MHW, emotional lability and well-being may benefit by incorporating openness. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Neuroticism (N) is a personality trait which describes a tendency towards emotional lability (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) and to experience negative moods (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Costa & McCrae, 1987). A body of work shows N to covary with a tendency to report symptoms characteristic of worry, dissatisfaction, and physical and psychological distress that generalize across situations (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994; Jorgensen & Richards, 1989; Lommen, Engelhard, & van den Hout, 2010; Watson & Clark, 1984). Individuals who score high in N are thought to appraise situations in a more threatening manner (Costa & McCrae, 1987; Drabant et al., 2011; Schneider, Rench, Lyons, & Riffle, 2012). In comparison to low N people, high N people have been shown to (a) be more reactive to adverse contexts and anticipation of such events (Hoerger & Quirk, 2010; Lommen et al., 2010) and (b) score higher on harm-avoidance (Doty, Japee, Ingvar, & Ungerleider, 2013).

1.1. Personality and modern health worries Elements of modern life can be viewed as threatening to an individual’s health and well-being. It has been found that aspects of Abbreviations: MHW, modern health worry(s); O, openness; N, neuroticism/ emotional lability/negative affect. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 315 443 2354; fax: +1 315 443 4085. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.L. Spink Jr). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.010 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

modern life, such as motor vehicles and toxic agents, are disproportionately reported as risky in media outlets as dangerous when compared to their actual risk (Frost, Frank, & Maibach, 1997). This disproportionate reporting helped to spark research investigating reactions to such risk appraisal. At the turn of the century, the concept of modern health worry (MHW) was introduced (Petrie et al., 2001) to examine the associations of the perceived risky aspects of modern life with factors related to personal well-being. Prior research has shown a relationship between MHW and measures of health, including reporting of physical symptoms (Filipkowski et al., 2010; Petrie et al., 2001; Petrie et al., 2005; Rief et al., 2012), rates of chronic fatigue syndrome (Petrie et al., 2001), depressed mood (Rief et al., 2012), seeking of alternative medicine (Furnham, 2007; Petrie et al., 2001), healthcare utilization (Andersen & Jensen, 2012; Petrie et al., 2001), and medication use (Filipkowski et al., 2010). Although a body of work utilizing this construct is developing, gaps in our understanding of this construct remain. Personality variables have been found to covary with MHW. In particular, two studies have shown an association between trait negative affect, a similar construct to N (Watson & Clark, 1984), and MHW (Filipkowski et al., 2010; Petrie et al., 2001).Another study showed a relationship between N and MHW (Andersen & Jensen, 2012). Not all results have supported this association, as two studies have not found support for a relationship between N and MHW (Furnham, 2007; Furnham, Strait, & Hughes, 2012). Descriptions of these studies are provided in Table 1 below. By examining the influence of individual differences on MHW, future research on its links with psychological and physical

36

G.L. Spink Jr et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 35–38

well-being can proceed in a more informed fashion. It is possible that the association of N with MHW may be more precisely isolated with examination of the moderating impact of third variable (viz., openness to experience), which is key aim of this investigation.

1.2. Current study The aim of this research was to examine if openness (O) moderates a previously reported association between MHW and a measure of N. By not deploying moderator analyses, relationships between MHW and N may have been obscured. O is part of the Five Factor model of personality and is conceptualized as including intellectual curiosity, imagination, innovativeness, and need for variety (McCrae & Costa, 1985). Likewise, Williams, Rau, Cribbet, and Gunn (2009) proposed that those high in O are oriented to novelty seeking; this orientation is thought to encourage engaging in a variety of situations and searching for new experiences, both of which require the ability to tolerate ambiguity. For high O persons, then, the ability to tolerate ambiguity appears to be associated with receptiveness to the challenges of change without being overwhelmed by threat (cf. Bardi, Guerra, & Ramdeny, 2009; McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1985). It is conceivable that the intellectual curiosity, innovation, and challenge aspects of O may reduce the N emotional reactivity as possible adverse consequences of technology are contemplated. That is, the potential aftermath of technological advances are viewed, for instance, as potential challenges and room for innovation in lieu of posing a threat to health and well-being. Interestingly, Williams et al. report that O showed a stress buffering effect, as reflected in its moderating the relationship between self-reported, past year stressful events, a correlate of N (Bolger & Schilling 1991), and sleep quality, with stressful events being unrelated to poor sleep quality among high O participants. This moderating effect may extend to associations of worry about environmental and modern influences with markers of sensitivity to emotional lability (viz., moderate the relationship between N and MHW). In other words, individuals scoring high in N, who also are open to a variety of experiences and ways of thinking, may be less threatened by new technological advancements, which may then reduce the association of N with MHW since less worry and anxiety are reflected in the MHW scores. We, therefore, expected O to moderate the relationship between N and MHW, with the association of N with MHW being obtained only for low O people. Our hypotheses were as follows: 1. N will be positively related to MHW. 2. O will moderate the relationship between N and MHW, with this relationship being found for only low O participants.

2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure One hundred and forty-four participants took part in this study (39% male and 61% female), of which 143 provided sufficient information to allow for analyses. Participants were students at a northeast university who participated for class credit. They ranged in age from 18–30 (mean 19.06), and were predominantly Caucasian (Caucasian-57.6%; African American-6.3%; Hispanic-12.5%; Asian21.5%; Other-2.1%). Data was collected in a group setting using online questionnaires. After consent, participants were assigned a random ID number and then instructed to complete the questionnaires alone. Procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Modern health concerns scale (MHCS) The Modern Health Concern Scale (MHCS) is a 27 item scale designed to measure worry about how aspects of modern life influence health status (Petrie et al., 2001). Examples of items include Cellphones, Air Pollution, and Hormones in Food. These items are rated on a 5 point scale from No Concern to Extreme Concern. The original scale demonstrated good psychometric properties (Petire & Wessely, 2002; Petrie et al., 2001). We used the 28 item version developed by Furnham et al. (2012) that included a Bioterrorism item. In this study the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.95. 2.2.2. Big Five inventory The Big Five Inventory (BFI) was created to measure the personality traits encompassing the Five Factor Model (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), and has scales measuring O, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and N. It consists of 44 items which are rated on a 5 point Likert scale. The psychometrics of this scale have been reported in detail elsewhere (John & Srivastava, 1999). For this study, we used the O, and N scales, which had Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.71 and 0.83 respectively. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlational analyses Means and standard deviations of the scales are reported in Table 1. Descriptive statistics of personality/trait measures are similar to those reported previously (Catterson, 2007). No differences in MHW were found due to gender (t (141) = 1.639, p = 0.103), ethnicity (F (4,138) = 0.944, p = 0.441) or age (r = .03, p = .690). We didn’t find any gender differences in O (t (140) = 0.086,

Table 1 Description of Past Studies Reporting Relationships with MHW. Authors

Andersen & Jensen Filipkowski et al. Furnham et. al Furnham Petrie et al. *

Year

2012 2010 2012 2007 2001

Region

Europe US Europe Not Reported Europe

Sample size

8517 432 301 243 526

Instruments used N***

MHW

Mini-IPIP-FFM PANAS Abbreviated Big Five NEO-FFI Form S PANAS

21 25 28 28 25

Item Item Item Item & 40 Item Item

R

Significance

.15–.20* .09** .107 Not Reported .23

Not reported <.001 ns ns <.001

Andersen and Jensen (2012) reported that a number of constructs including N showed minor correlations with MHW followed by the above mentioned range. Exact correlation could not be elucidated. Filipkowski et al. (2010) reported a b instead of a r. *** Neuroticism instrument names & sources: Mini-IPIP-FFM = Mini International Personality Item Pool–Five Factor Model measure (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006); PANAS = Positive and negative affect schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988); Abbreviated Big Five (Mcmanus, Stubbings, & Martin, 2006); NEO-FFI Form S = NEO Five Factor Inventory – Self Report (Costa & McCrae, 1992). **

37

G.L. Spink Jr et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 35–38

p = 0.931). We did find significant gender difference in the N scale (t (141) = 3.361, p = 0.001), with females scoring higher (Mfemale = 24.5739, SDfemale = 6.50; Mmale = 21.0277, SDmale = 6.03). Results indicate MHW were weakly but positively correlated with N (r = 0.20, p = 0.014). O was not found to be correlated with MHW (r = 0.05, p = 0.53).

Table 3 Regression Models. Standardized b N O Gender NO

.172 .005 .107 .261

t-value 2.064 .057 1.281 3.190

Sig.

Squared partial correlation

.041 .954 .202 .002

.03 <.001 .01 .07

3.2. Moderation Prior to running regressional analysis, all predictors were centered to reduce multicolinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Since relationships were found between N and MHW, and no relationship between O and MHW, we checked for a correlation between O and N. Results showed that O was not related to N (r = 0.046, p = 0.587), thereby indicating that multicolinearity would not impede testing of the interaction. Gender was controlled for as previous studies have found gender differences in MHW (Andersen & Jensen, 2012; Furnham, 2007) in O, and N (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). Regression analysis was then run to see if O moderated the relationship between N and MHW. A two-step process was used: N and O were entered in the first step, and the N  O interaction entered in the second step. The resulting standardized b’s can be found in Table 2. As can be seen, a statistically significant interaction effect was found. Results showed that 9.5% of the variance in reported MHW was accounted for by the full model including N, O, their interaction, and gender (adjusted R2 = .095). Since gender was not a significant predictor of MHW in our sample (p = .202), it was dropped from further analyses. (Table 3)

Fig. 1. MHW as a function of Openness and Neuroticism (centered).

To investigate this interaction simple slopes were calculated for high (1 standard deviation above the mean) and low (1 standard deviation below the mean) scores in O (Aiken & West, 1991). As seen in Fig. 1, univariate regression analyses revealed positive relationship between N and MHW for those participants exhibiting low O scores (b = 1.57, t (138) = 4.04, b = 0.44, p < 0.001). Individuals who scored high in O do not show a significant relationship between N and MHW (b = 0.13, t (138) = 0.33, b = 0.04, p = 0.74). The interaction was further investigated by dividing participants into tertiles based on O and N scores, and creating 9 respective groups. The descriptive statistics for these groups are represented in Table 4. A one-way ANOVA indicated group differences existed in MHW among these groups (F (8,133) = 2.655, p = 0.01). Post-Hoc comparisons using Bonferroni adjustments revealed that the Low O-High N group differed significantly from the Low O-Low N group (p = 0.010). No other significant differences were found.

score higher in their self-report of worry over the influence of modernity on personal well-being. O was found to moderate the association between N and MHW. These findings align with previous research showing O to buffer the association of stress with stress related outcomes (Williams et al., 2009). High O individuals did not show a relationship between MHW and N; however low O and mean O persons did show this relationship. In other words, the high O person’s intellectual curiosity, orientation to innovation, and receptiveness to a changing world could attenuate the high N emotional reactivity induced while contemplating the effects of modern technology since such effects are viewed as challenges instead of threats. Conversely, for low O people, the N and MHW correlation may reflect a resistance to reappraising modern day changes from threat/harm appraisals to those of challenge and opportunity for innovation. This result, in part, could account for inconsistent findings in the relationship between N and MHW (Furnham, 2007; Furnham et al., 2012). Specifically, if the sample predominantly consisted of participants who scored high on O, a relationship may be less likely to be found.

4. Discussion

4.1. Limitations and suggestions

Our hypotheses were confirmed, as we found a relationship between N and MHW, which supports previous findings (Andersen & Jensen, 2012; Filipkowski et al., 2010; Petrie et al., 2001). Our correlation between N and MHW is of a similar level to those previously found (Andersen & Jensen, 2012; Petrie et al., 2001), indicating that a similar association may exist in US populations. All in all, accumulating evidence suggests that there is a weak correlation such that individuals who score high on N also

One major limitation of this study is reliance only on crosssectional self-report data and correlational analyses. That is, the direction of causality is ambiguous and the correlations with MHW may reflect MHW’s measuring, in part, elements of emotional lability rather than the actual contemplation of the threat of technological advances. Another limitation would be the limited sample. Our sample was predominantly young adults (18–30), who were currently undergoing undergraduate education. These limitations could limit the generalizability of the results. Future research could benefit by investigating the moderation of the N and MHW relationship by O in a sample with a greater age range. Such a study could be conducted longitudinally. Longitudinal designs are preferable to cross-sectional designs in an effort to rule out alternative explanations related co-extensive measurement of constructs. Additionally, such a study could

3.3. Exploration of the moderation

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients. Scale (1) MHW (2) Openness (3) N

1 .046 (p = .587) .20 (p = .014)

2

3

.056 (p = .511)

Mean

SD

85.89 34.11 23.15

23.32 6.04 6.54

38

G.L. Spink Jr et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 35–38

Table 4 Group Descriptive Statistics. Group

N

Means (SD) O

N

MHW

Low O

Low N Mean N High N

14 15 19

27.64 (2.02) 28.33 (2.55) 26.57 (3.76)

16.14 (2.51) 21.87 (1.60) 30.50 (4.17)

71.0 (22.0) 79.4 (29.1) 100.5 (23.4)

Mean O

Low N Mean N High N

16 16 14

34.24 (1.44) 34.18 (1.63) 33.92 (1.49)

15.43 (2.28) 23.48 (1.48) 28.43 (2.44)

80.0 (19.5) 95.3 (18.5) 90.6 (22.4)

High O

Low N Mean N High N

16 11 32

40.74 (2.82) 41.47 (2.85) 40.44 (2.54)

15.72 (2.78) 23.27 (1.35) 30.19 (3.52)

86.5 (21.4) 84.4 (24.6) 81.0 (20.0)

investigate differing facets of N to determine their unique contributions. Future research also may benefit by including such potential mediators as (a) intellect and intelligence obtained outside Five Factor Questionnaires, (b) threat versus challenge appraisals and ambiguity intolerance (see Bardi et al., 2009), (c) event exposure (e.g., toxic waste dumping in the community), and (d) curiosity. Moreover, a startle paradigm (see, Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990) could provide evidence beyond the confines of self-report; that is, it is conceivable that the most startle reactive persons to pictures of technological advances may be the low O/high N group. In essence, this study, when combined with others, supports additional work examining the moderating influence of O on the association N with MHW, including examining whether this interaction is mediated by such factors as intellect and ambiguity intolerance (viz. mediated moderation).

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications Inc. Andersen, J., & Jensen, J. (2012). Modern health worries and visits to the general practitioner in a general population sample: An 18-month follow-up study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 73(4), 264–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpsychores.2012.07.007. Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. D. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 219–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003. Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal Of Personality, 59(3), 355–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991. tb00253.x. Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 103–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.103.1.103. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668–678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38. 4.668. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55(2), 299–316. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x. Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. Donnellan, M., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192. Doty, T. J., Japee, S., Ingvar, M., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2013). Fearful face detection sensitivity in healthy adults correlates with anxiety-related traits. Emotion, 13(2), 183–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031373. Drabant, E. M., Kuo, J. R., Ramel, W., Blechert, J., Edge, M. D., Cooper, J. R., et al. (2011). Experiential, autonomic, and neural responses during threat

anticipation vary as a function of threat intensity and neuroticism. Neuroimage, 55(1), 401–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.040. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, B. G. (1975). Manual for the eysenck personality inventory. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Filipkowski, K. B., Smyth, J. M., Rutchick, A. M., Santuzzi, A. M., Adya, M., Petrie, K. J., et al. (2010). Do healthy people worry? Modern health worries, subjective health complaints, perceived health, and health care utilization. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17(3), 182–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12529-009-9058-0. Frost, K., Frank, E., & Maibach, E. (1997). Relative risk in the news media: A quantification of misrepresentation. American Journal of Public Health, 87(5), 842–845. Furnham, A. (2007). Are modern health worries, personality and attitudes to science associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine? British Journal of Health Psychology, 12(2), 229–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 135910706X100593. Furnham, A., Strait, L., & Hughes, D. J. (2012). Modern health worries and personality. Personality and Mental Health, 6(3), 242–254. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/pmh.1187. Hoerger, M., & Quirk, S. W. (2010). Affective forecasting and the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 972–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2010.08.007. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory–versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Jorgensen, R. S., & Richards, C. (1989). Negative affect and the reporting of physical symptoms among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(4), 501–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.4.501. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97, 377–395. Lommen, M. J., Engelhard, I. M., & van den Hout, M. A. (2010). Neuroticism and avoidance of ambiguous stimuli: Better safe than sorry? Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 1001–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2010.08.012. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.323. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X. Mcmanus, I. C., Stubbings, G. F., & Martin, N. N. (2006). Stigmatization, physical illness and mental health in primary ciliary dyskinesia. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 467–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105306063320. Petire, K. J., & Wessely, S. (2002). Modern worries, new technology, and medicine. British Medical Journal, 324, 690–691. Petrie, K. J., Broadbent, E. A., Kley, N., Moss-Morris, R., Horne, R., & Rief, W. (2005). Worries about modernity predict symptom complaints after environmental pesticide spraying. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(5), 778–782. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/01.psy.0000181277.48575.a4. Petrie, K. J., Sivertsen, B., Hysing, M., Broadbent, E., Moss-Morris, R., Eriksen, H. R., et al. (2001). Thoroughly modern worries: The relationship of worries about modernity to reported symptoms, health and medical care utilization. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 51(1), 395–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00223999(01)00219-7. Rief, W., Glaesmer, H., Baehr, V., Broadbent, E., Brähler, E., & Petrie, K. J. (2012). The relationship of modern health worries to depression, symptom reporting and quality of life in a general population survey. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 72(4), 318–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.11.017. Schneider, T. R., Rench, T. A., Lyons, J. B., & Riffle, R. R. (2012). The influence of neuroticism, extraversion and openness on stress responses. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 28(2), 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1409. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.54.6.1063. Williams, P. G., Rau, H. K., Cribbet, M. R., & Gunn, H. E. (2009). Openness to experience and stress regulation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 777–784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.06.003.

Web reference Catterson, D., (2007). Berkeley Personality Lab. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http:// www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bfi.htm.