Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.53(1) > 1143038

TOOLS
Kim, Kim, and Kye: Food habits, health behaviors related to the personality in Korean college students
Research Article

J Nutr Health 2020;53(1):13-26.

Published online: 10 February 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2020.53.1.13

Food habits, health behaviors related to the personality in Korean college students

Nahyeon Kim1, Jinhee Kim2, Seunghee Kye1,

1Graduate School of Education, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea

2Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon 16499, Korea

Correspondence to Seunghee Kye Graduate School of Education, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam 13120, Korea. Tel: +82-31-750-5507 E-mail: shkye@gachon.ac.kr

ORCID iDs Nahyeon Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7242-9023 Jinhee Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6570-0719 Seunghee Kye https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1308-9705

Conflict of Interest There are no financial or other issues that might lead to conflict of interest.

Received 27 August 2019       Revised 28 October 2019       Accepted 30 October 2019

Copyright © 2020 The Korean Nutrition Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study identified the relationship between dietary habits and health-related behaviors depending on the Big Five personality factors (extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism).

Methods

The NEO-II test was administered to 337 male and female college students in Seongnam City, Gyeonggi Province, and their dietary habits and health-related behaviors were surveyed.

Results

The male participants showed higher scores for extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness compared to that of their female counterparts, while the female participants showed higher scores for neuroticism. As for the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis, in the case of men, higher scores for extraversion were related to a lower intake of instant/fast foods and a higher intake of vegetables; higher agreeableness scores were related to a lower intake of fruit; and higher neuroticism scores were related to a heavy intake of high-cholesterol foods. It was found that higher openness scores were associated with a higher intake of burnt fish/meat and a lower intake of animal fat, while higher agreeableness scores were related to a lower intake of burnt fish/meat in women. Also, those subjects with higher openness and agreeableness scores were found to better consider the nutritional balance when having a meal. In the case of the male participants, higher openness scores were related to increased physical activity, while higher neuroticism scores were related to increased smoking and a lack of sleep. As for the women, those with higher extraversion scores smoked more, while those who recorded higher agreeableness scores were involved in more physical activities.

Conclusion

Differences were observed in dietary habits and health-related behaviors between men and women depending on personality factors, and the analysis results of some dietary habits according to personality factors were inconsistent with those of the overseas studies. Therefore, to provide customized nutritional counseling when considering each individual's personality factors, more research results from domestic samples should be collected and accumulated.

Keywords: NEO-II test, personality, college students, food habits, health behaviors

References

1. Kikuchi Y, Watanabe S. Personality and dietary habits. J Epidemiol. 2000; 10(3):191–198.
crossref
2. Inpsyt. NEO Personality test professional guide. Seoul;. 2017.
3. Goldberg LR, Stycker LA. Personality traits and eating habits: the assessment of food preferences in a large community sample. Pers Individ Dif. 2002; 32(1):49–65.
crossref
4. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. J Pers Assess. 1995; 64(1):21–50.
5. Mõttus R, McNeill G, Jia X, Craig LC, Starr JM, Deary IJ. The associations between personality, diet and body mass index in older people. Health Psychol. 2013; 32(4):353–360.
crossref
6. Mõttus R, Realo A, Allik J, Deary IJ, Esko T, Metspalu A. Personality traits and eating habits in a large sample of Estonians. Health Psychol. 2012; 31(6):806–814.
crossref
7. Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Day RS, Costa PT. Personality as a predictor of dietary quality in spouses during midlife. Behav Med. 2008; 34(1):5–10.
crossref
8. Kikuchi Y, Inoue T, Ito M, Masuda M, Yoshimura K, Watanabe S. Health consciousness of young people in relation to their personality. J Epidemiol. 1999; 9(2):121–131.
crossref
9. Raynor DA, Levine H. Associations between the five-factor model of personality and health behaviors among college students. J Am Coll Health. 2009; 58(1):73–81.
crossref
10. de Bruijn GJ, Brug J, Van Lenthe FJ. Neuroticism, conscientiousness and fruit consumption: exploring mediator and moderator effects in the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health. 2009; 24(9):1051–1069.
crossref
11. de Bruijn GJ. Who formulates self-regulatory action plans regarding fruit consumption? An application of the Big Five personality theory. Health Educ J. 2011; 72(1):24–33.
12. Allsopp JF. Personality as a determinant of beer and cider consumption among young men. Pers Individ Dif. 1986; 7(3):341–347.
crossref
13. Martsh CT, Miller WR. Extraversion predicts heavy drinking in college students. Pers Individ Dif. 1997; 23(1):153–155.
crossref
14. Benjamin L, Wulfert E. Dispositional correlates of addictive behaviors in college women: binge eating and heavy drinking. Eat Behav. 2005; 6(3):197–209.
crossref
15. Spielberger CD, Jacobs GA. Personality and smoking behavior. J Pers Assess. 1982; 46(4):396–403.
crossref
16. Dahlen ER, White RP. The Big Five factors, sensation seeking, and driving anger in the prediction of unsafe driving. Pers Individ Dif. 2006; 41(5):903–915.
crossref
17. Schwebel DC, Severson J, Ball KK, Rizzo M. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility, conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking. Accid Anal Prev. 2006; 38(4):801–810.
crossref
18. Martin ED, Sher KJ. Family history of alcoholism, alcohol use disorders and the five-factor model of personality. J Stud Alcohol. 1994; 55(1):81–90.
crossref
19. Lemos-Giráldez S, Fidalgo-Aliste AM. Personality dispositions and health-related habits and attitudes: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Pers. 1997; 11(3):197–209.
crossref
20. Ruiz MA, Pincus AL, Dickinson KA. NEO PI-R predictors of alcohol use and alcohol-related problems. J Pers Assess. 2003; 81(3):226–236.
crossref
21. Ham LS, Hope DA. College students and problematic drinking: a review of the literature. Clin Psychol Rev. 2003; 23(5):719–759.
crossref
22. McChargue D, Cohen L, Cook JW. The influence of personality and affect on nicotine dependence among male college students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004; 6(2):287–294.
crossref
23. Gray EK, Watson D. General and specific traits of personality and their relation to sleep and academic performance. J Pers. 2002; 70(2):177–206.
24. Rhodes RE, Smith NE. Personality correlates of physical activity: a review and metaanalysis. Br J Sports Med. 2006; 40(12):958–965.
crossref
25. Arthur W Jr, Graziano WG. The five-factor model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involvement. J Pers. 1996; 64(3):593–618.
crossref
26. Courneya KS, Hellsten LM. Personality correlates of exercise behavior, motives, barriers and preferences: an application of the Five-Factor Model. Pers Individ Dif. 1998; 24(5):625–633.
crossref
27. Lunn TE, Nowson CA, Worsley A, Torres SJ. Does personality affect dietary intake? Nutrition. 2014; 30(4):403–409.
crossref
28. Else-Quest NM, Hyde JS, Goldsmith HH, Van Hulle CA. Gender differences in temperament: a metaanalysis. Psychol Bull. 2006; 132(1):33–72.
crossref
29. Costa PT Jr, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001; 81(2):322–331.
crossref

Table 1.
The NEO scales for assessing adult personality
Factors Sub-factors
Extraversion Openness Gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement-seeking, activity Fantasy, feelings
Agreeableness Warmth, trust, tolerance, empathy
Conscientiousness s Competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving
Neuroticism Anxiety, angry hostility, depression, impulsiveness, social withdrawal, emotional shock, vulnerability, peculiarity, anti-sociality, ego damage
Table 2.
General characteristics of participants
Variables Males (n = 133) Females (n = 204)
Age (yrs) 21.3 ± 2.8 20.0 ± 1.6
Height (cm) 175.4 ± 5.3 161.6 ± 4.4
Weight (kg) 71.3 ± 11.8 54.0 ± 7.9
BMI1) 23.1 ± 3.4 20.7 ± 2.7

Values are expressed as mean ± SD.

BMI: body mass index.

1) BMI calculated as weight (kg)/height (m)2.

Table 3.
Personality factor scores of participants
Factors Males (n = 133) Females (n = 204) Total (n = 337) t p1)
Extraversion 48.31 ± 10.39 45.79 ± 10.70 46.79 ± 10.63 2.14 0.033
Openness 50.24 ± 9.87 47.44 ± 11.22 48.54 ± 10.78 2.34 0.020
Agreeableness 47.97 ± 11.51 44.62 ± 9.03 45.94 ± 10.20 2.83 0.005
Conscientiousness 48.41 ± 9.64 46.31 ± 9.39 47.14 ± 9.53 1.98 0.049
Neuroticism 48.90 ± 8.19 52.68 ± 8.06 51.19 ± 8.31 −4.18 < 0.001

Values are expressed as mean ± SD.

1) The p-values are from t-test.

Table 4.
Odds ratios of eating habits on personality factor in male
Eating habits Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
  OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p
Burnt fish/meat                              
  Yes/No 1.96 0.57–6.73 0.283 0.68 0.25–1.86 0.462 1.06 0.36–3.10 0.908 0.53 0.19–1.47 0.224 1.39 0.42–4.56 0.583
Salty food                              
  Yes/No 0.81 0.28–2.28 0.694 2.10 0.76–5.79 0.149 1.67 0.61–4.56 0.314 1.35 0.48–3.79 0.559 0.71 0.25–2.02 0.529
Cholesterol rich food                              
  Yes/No 2.87 0.99–8.27 0.050 1.83 0.71–4.69 0.208 1.23 0.48–3.16 0.660 2.13 0.81–5.56 0.121 3.03 1.06–8.67 0.038
Animal fat                              
  Yes/No 0.98 0.31–3.09 0.978 0.45 0.16–1.24 0.125 1.32 0.45–3.88 0.611 1.59 0.51–5.00 0.420 0.87 0.26–2.89 0.831
Instant/fast food                              
  Yes/No 0.20 0.06–0.66 0.008 0.72 0.25–2.04 0.538 0.38 0.13–1.14 0.085 0.76 0.25–2.33 0.640 0.98 0.27–3.59 0.982
Sweet food                              
  Yes/No 1.41 0.52–3.79 0.492 0.73 0.29–1.79 0.494 0.92 0.37–2.24 0.858 0.61 0.24–1.55 0.304 1.49 0.55–3.97 0.424
Vegetable side dish                              
  Yes/No 3.02 1.05–8.64 0.039 1.88 0.72–4.89 0.195 2.45 0.91–6.58 0.075 1.20 0.42–3.38 0.723 1.56 0.57–4.24 0.376
Fruit                              
  Yes/No 0.37 0.13–1.09 0.072 1.03 0.40–2.60 0.950 0.29 0.10–0.84 0.022 2.00 0.74–5.40 0.170 0.69 0.25–1.90 0.480
Considering nutritional balance                              
  Yes/No 0.83 0.28–2.42 0.735 1.03 0.38–2.82 0.944 0.63 0.21–1.83 0.408 0.89 0.30–2.59 0.830 0.70 0.23–2.10 0.533
Regular meals                              
  Yes/No 0.76 0.28–2.07 0.596 1.19 0.47–3.04 0.706 2.15 0.85–5.41 0.102 1.64 0.62–4.33 0.314 0.59 0.20–1.74 0.345
Eating out                              
  Yes/No 1.19 0.41–3.44 0.739 1.46 0.54–3.90 0.449 1.91 0.68–5.31 0.212 0.88 0.33–2.38 0.815 1.00 0.35–2.82 0.990

For logistic regression analyses, scores of the five personality factors were dichotomized into classified into 2 categories: high (≥ 55) vs. low (< 55). Adjusted for age and BMI. Values in bold indicate significant difference based on logistic regression analyses. The reference group of this analysis was the do not eat group for each category.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

Table 5.
Odds ratios of eating habits on personality factor in female
Eating habits Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
  OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p
Burnt fish/meat                              
  Yes/No 0.43 0.17–1.08 0.073 4.99 1.57–15.81 0.006 1.36 0.35–5.20 0.649 0.35 0.13–0.89 0.028 0.49 0.22–1.11 0.089
Salty food                              
  Yes/No 1.57 0.72–3.43 0.252 1.36 0.63–2.95 0.422 1.28 0.42–3.84 0.658 1.65 0.68–3.98 0.265 1.85 0.96–3.58 0.063
Cholesterol rich food                              
  Yes/No 0.96 0.43–2.13 0.934 0.87 0.39–1.93 0.745 0.79 0.27–2.29 0.673 0.48 0.20–1.14 0.098 1.51 0.77–2.96 0.222
Animal fat                              
  Yes/No 0.84 0.37–1.91 0.683 0.30 0.13–0.68 0.004 2.95 0.83–10.46 0.093 2.38 0.92–6.18 0.072 0.70 0.34–1.42 0.327
Instant/fast food                              
  Yes/No 1.31 0.55–3.11 0.527 1.14 0.49–2.63 0.752 0.64 0.20–2.00 0.441 0.60 0.24–1.47 0.266 0.94 0.46–1.90 0.864
Sweet food                              
  Yes/No 1.12 0.51–2.45 0.776 1.33 0.61–2.87 0.461 2.12 0.64–7.08 0.217 1.00 0.42–2.37 0.997 1.61 0.83–3.11 0.155
Vegetable side dish                              
  Yes/No 0.74 0.33–1.68 0.481 0.57 0.26–1.27 0.174 1.05 0.31–3.53 0.928 0.57 0.22–1.42 0.230 0.66 0.33–1.32 0.247
Fruit                              
  Yes/No 1.45 0.67–3.10 0.336 1.19 0.55–2.53 0.652 1.71 0.57–5.12 0.331 0.75 0.31–1.81 0.525 1.56 0.81–2.99 0.179
Considering nutritional balance                              
  Yes/No 1.30 0.51–3.31 0.573 3.16 1.24–8.01 0.015 1.31 0.36–4.72 0.671 2.72 1.01–7.33 0.047 0.90 0.40–2.03 0.816
Regular meals                              
  Yes/No 0.78 0.32–1.92 0.599 0.80 0.32–2.02 0.648 3.10 0.94–10.17 0.061 0.90 0.35–2.31 0.828 0.90 0.42–1.91 0.789
Eating out                              
  Yes/No 1.32 0.55–3.18 0.524 1.69 0.71–4.05 0.233 0.88 0.27–2.88 0.840 0.76 0.30–1.91 0.563 1.51 0.73–3.11 0.262

For logistic regression analyses, scores of the five personality factors were dichotomized into classified into 2 categories: high (≥ 55) vs. low (< 55). Adjusted for age and BMI. Values in bold indicate significant difference based on logistic regression analyses. The reference group of this analysis was the do not eat group for each category.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

Table 6.
Odds ratios of health-related behaviors on personality factor in male
Health-related behavior Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p
Physical activity                              
  Yes/No 1.99 0.87–4.57 0.101 3.04 1.36–6.79 0.006 1.10 0.50–2.45 0.798 2.22 0.99–4.99 0.052 1.05 0.44–2.47 0.910
Smoking                              
  Yes/No 2.31 0.95–5.65 0.064 1.26 0.54–2.96 0.582 1.13 0.47–2.69 0.771 1.80 0.75–4.31 0.183 4.82 1.90–12.22 < < 0.001
Drinking                              
  Yes/No 1.18 0.38–3.61 0.765 0.97 0.35–2.68 0.953 1.39 0.47–4.13 0.545 0.78 0.28–2.16 0.636 0.93 0.31–2.80 0.908
Sufficient sleep duration                              
  Yes/No 1.03 0.44–2.38 0.944 1.47 0.67–3.21 0.333 0.58 0.26–1.30 0.189 1.06 0.47–2.37 0.880 0.33 0.13–0.85 0.021

For logistic regression analyses, scores of the five personality factors were dichotomized into classified into 2 categories: high (≥ 55) vs. low (< 55). Adjusted for age and BMI. Values in bold indicate significant difference based on logistic regression analyses. The reference group of this analysis was the do not perform group for each category.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

Table 7.
Odds ratios of health-related behaviors on personality factor in female
Health-related behavior Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI p
Physical activity                              
  Yes/No 2.16 0.92–5.05 0.075 0.93 0.37–2.34 0.879 3.04 1.04–8.81 0.040 0.91 0.32–2.58 0.870 1.02 0.46–2.25 0.953
Smoking                              
  Yes/No 4.00 1.25–12.83 0.019 1.30 0.36–4.62 0.683 0.74 0.09–6.17 0.787 –1) – – 3.00 0.93–9.69 0.066
Drinking                              
  Yes/No 2.27 0.93–5.49 0.068 1.20 0.58–2.50 0.615 0.53 0.20–1.42 0.212 0.55 0.26–1.18 0.129 1.12 0.59–2.11 0.719
Sufficient sleep duration                              
  Yes/No 1.07 0.52–2.19 0.844 1.52 0.77–2.98 0.217 1.08 0.40–2.86 0.890 0.48 0.20–1.12 0.091 0.89 0.49–1.63 0.719

For logistic regression analyses, scores of the five personality factors were dichotomized into classified into 2 categories: high (≥ 55) vs. low (< 55). Adjusted for age and BMI. The reference group of this analysis was the do not perform group for each category. Values in bold indicate significant difference based on logistic regression analyses.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

1) In the case of female subjects, there were no cases of smokers who belonged to high score group of conscientiousness and logistic regression model was not applied.

TOOLS
Similar articles