832 vIII. EMERGING  ISSuES AND  NEW  DIRECTIONS
Health  Indicators
One particularly rich area for research in 
geographical psychology concerns the links 
between regional personality and health. 
An impressive amount of research at the in -
dividual level has examined the social and 
psychological determinants of health and 
well-being. There is compelling evidence 
that individual differences in personal -
ity are linked to health and life expectancy 
(Jokela et al., 2013; Jokela, Pulkki-  Råback, 
Elovainio, & Kivimäki, 2014; Roberts, Kun -
cel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). For 
example, extraversion is positively associ -
ated with having large social support net -
works and some evidence suggests people 
high in extraversion have long life expectan -
cies (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). There 
is evidence that conscientiousness is posi -
tively related to health-  promoting behaviors, 
such as exercising, and negatively related to 
health-  damaging behaviors, including heavy 
drinking and drug use (Atherton, Robins, 
Rentfrow, & Lamb, 2014; Hakulinen et al., 
2015; Jokela et al., 2013). And neuroticism 
is associated with shorter life expectancy 
and higher disease death rates. Results from 
meta-  analyses indicate that effects of per -
sonality on mortality are comparable to the 
effects of SES on mortality (Jokela et al., 
2013; Roberts et al., 2007).
Given the links between personality and 
health at the individual level, it is reason -
able to ask whether regional differences in 
personality are linked to health and mortal -
ity. Rentfrow et al. (2008) computed corre -
lations between state-level personality and 
a number of health indicators. The most 
consistent pattern of associations emerged 
for state levels of neuroticism. Specifically, 
states high in neuroticism had more deaths 
due to all forms of cancer and heart disease, 
and shorter life expectancies. The links be -
tween neuroticism and the health indicators 
remained even after researchers controlled 
for the standard indicators (e.g., SES, popu -
lation density) typically thought to predict 
health outcomes. To determine whether the 
patterns of associations were reliable, Rent -
frow et al. (2013) examined links between 
state-level neuroticism in five samples and 
a well-being index that comprised markers 
of life expectancy and deaths due to cancer, stroke, and heart disease. The results indi -
cated that high levels of neuroticism were 
linked to low well-being in every sample.
The links between regional personality 
and health outcomes are not restricted to 
the United States. Rentfrow et al. (2015) 
observed similar patterns of associations 
in Great Britain. District-  level neuroticism 
was positively related to the proportion of 
residents with long-term health problems, 
deaths due to cancer and heart disease, and 
negatively related to life-  expectancy. Fur -
thermore, these effects remained after they 
controlled for population characteristics 
(e.g., median income, proportion of resi -
dents with college education, proportion of 
non-White residents).
Research on the psychological correlates 
of regional health indicators strongly sug -
gests that the associations between physical 
health and neuroticism generalize to the lev -
els of geographical regions. These geograph -
ical associations might help reveal some of 
the broader factors (e.g., climate, social 
structure, political history) that contribute 
to health and well-being and could potential -
ly be valuable for implementing large-scale 
interventions. Moreover, these findings open 
up new analyses where data are not avail -
able at individual level. Thus, research on 
geographical variation in personality further 
supports the importance of psychology for 
understanding and promoting public health.
Person–Environment  Interactions
Research on person–  environment interac -
tions is based on the assumption that people 
are happier and more satisfied with life when 
in environments that satisfy their needs. 
This seems to be a reasonable assumption 
given that individuals have reported greater 
satisfaction and more positive affect when in 
situations that “fit” with their personalities 
(Ickes, Snyder, & Garcia, 1997). Moreover, 
being in a social environment in which one’s 
needs are met can foster feelings of belong -
ingness and enhance self-  esteem (Fulmer et 
al., 2010; Leary & Baumeister, 2000). But is 
there evidence that people are more satisfied 
and confident when there is a psychological 
fit between their personal traits and charac -
teristics of their geographical environment?