The way in which you were treated as a child can impact your level of conscientiousness towards your health as an adult. The more you are treated to develop as a conscientious child, the less likely you are to abuse your health and vice versa.
The argument
Your childhood experiences shape you, and therefore your beliefs. Those beliefs shape your behaviour and conscientiousness. Studies have shown that the more conscientious you are as a child, the better your health is across your lifespan. A study was undertaken where children aged close to 10 years of age were assessed by their teachers on their levels of conscientiousness. When these children were observed again as adults, at a mean age of 51, various health checks were conducted on them. It was found that children that were regarded to be more conscientious had better global health than those that were not.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Levels of conscientiousness are not set in stone throughout life. They can be developed as you transition through life. There are factors associated with the idea of being conscientious. When people engage in tasks that they find fit with their values, find enjoyable and important, the level of conscientiousness towards the task improves. A growing number of studies suggest that personality traits that are problematic to health can be improved, and this includes conscientiousness. By taking a bottom-up approach, and targeting the core personality traits, over time an individual is capable of altering these to generate healthier, more conscientious behaviour.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The chain from experiences to beliefs to behaviour and conscientiousness is asserted rather than evidenced, and conscientiousness has substantial temperamental and heritable components, so the premise assumes what the question asks. [Rejecting P2] The study links a childhood rating to adult health across four decades with no account of what happened in between — and as the counter notes, conscientiousness can be developed later in life, so the finding is consistent with influence rather than the determination this position claims.