The distressed (Type D) and Five-Factor Models of personality in young, healthy adults and their association with emotional inhibition and distress

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.008Get rights and content

Abstract

The distressed (Type D) personality (the combination of negative affectivity and social inhibition traits) has been associated with adverse health outcomes. This study investigated the validity of the Type D construct against the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality, and its association with emotional control and distress. In total 498 university students (mean age 28.9 ± 8.4 years) completed the Type D scale (DS14), and measurements for the FFM of personality, emotional control, anxiety, depression and stress. The construct validity of the Icelandic DS14 was confirmed. The Type D components negative affectivity and social inhibition were strongly associated with neuroticism and extraversion of the FFM (r = 0.82 and r = −0.67, respectively). Negative affectivity also correlated with rehearsal/rumination (r = 0.58) and social inhibition with emotional inhibition (r = 0.54), indicative of emotional control. Type D personality (40% of sample) was associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and stress. The Type D personality components were associated with the FFM of personality, emotional control and emotional distress. Importantly, social and emotional inhibition were closely related, providing novel information about the presence of emotional inhibition within the social inhibition trait.

Highlights

► This study examined the validity of Type D personality in young, healthy adults. ► The Type D subcomponents correspond well with the Five-Factor Model of personality. ► The presence of emotional inhibition in the social inhibition trait was confirmed. ► Type D personality was related to elevated anxiety, depression and stress scores.

Introduction

The distressed (Type D) personality is defined by the combination of two broad personality traits, negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI). It portrays individuals who frequently experience negative emotions in daily life (NA), and tend to be insecure in social interactions and refrain from sharing their emotions with others (SI). Type D personality was developed from existing personality theory (Denollet and Brutsaert, 1998, Denollet et al., 1995), in efforts to identify cardiovascular patients vulnerable for emotional difficulties (Denollet, 2000). Subsequently, Type D personality emerged as a marker for negative health outcomes in cardiovascular disease (Denollet, Schiffer, & Spek, 2010). Risk of coronary artery disease mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarctions is 2–3 times higher in Type D patients (Denollet, Schiffer, et al., 2010, Grande et al., 2012), independent of conventional risk factors, disease severity, medical treatment and other psychological factors (Denollet, Schiffer, et al., 2010). In the general population, Type D personality has been associated with poor health status and disease-promoting mechanisms (Mols & Denollet, 2010).

Only a few studies (De Fruyt and Denollet, 2002, Howard and Hughes, 2011, Svansdottir et al., 2011) have examined how Type D personality fits within the framework of more comprehensive models of personality, such as the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM) (Costa & McCrae, 1989). The FFM describes the basic dimensions of personality, and encompasses the traits of neuroticism and extraversion, which bear strong similarities to NA and SI, respectively. Similarly, information has remained sparse regarding how the Type D personality subcomponents relate to emotional control, especially emotional regulation within the SI subcomponent (Grande, Glaesmer, & Roth, 2010). Validating the presence of such emotional inhibition within the Type D construct is vital, as the adverse effect of Type D personality on health-related outcomes is postulated to result from the chronic psychological distress of inhibiting expression of negative emotions (Denollet et al., 1995). Notably, emotional suppression, i.e. consciously inhibiting emotional expressive behavior while emotionally aroused, has been associated with an increased sympathetic activation in the cardiovascular system (Gross & Levenson, 1993). Initial evidence has linked Type D with emotional control (Svansdottir et al., 2011), and suppressed anger (Denollet, Gidron, Vrints, & Conraads, 2010), but more information concerning its construct validity is needed.

The aim of this study was threefold. First, to evaluate the Type D construct within the framework of the FFM of personality. Second, to assess the presence of emotional inhibition within SI. Third, to examine Type D as a potential marker of emotional distress in young, healthy individuals.

Section snippets

Participants

The participant sample consisted of 498 healthy individuals (mean age 28.9 ± 8.4 years, 393 women (79%)), from the University of Iceland. Participants were recruited in March 2006 by an email asking for volunteers to participate in the study. The email included a link to a webpage where students filled out the questionnaires. The study was conducted to conform to the ethical tenets of the World Medical Association, as espoused in the Declaration of Helsinki.

The DS14 scale

Type D personality was measured with the

Dimensional structure and prevalence of Type D personality

A confirmatory factor analysis (N = 498) of the two-factor structure of the Icelandic DS14 (representing NA and SI) indicated an adequate model fit for the unconstrained model (λ2 = 224.996; p = 0.001; CFI = 0.955 and RMSEA = 0.070, CI.90: 0.06–0.08). Standardized regression weights of items to factor ranged from 0.53 to 0.85 (Fig. 1). Average scores on DS14 were M = 11.0 ± 5.9 for NA and M = 11.5 ± 6.4 for SI. Prevalence of Type D personality was 40% (N = 199), and was similar across men (36%) and women (41%; p = 

Discussion

The findings of this study confirmed the factor structure of the DS14 (Denollet, 2005, Svansdottir et al., 2011) and the validity of the Type D construct within the framework of the FFM of personality. The Type D subcomponents were well represented within the FFM framework. NA and neuroticism were closely related, and SI was negatively correlated with extraversion. A second-order factor analysis of scale scores corroborated these findings, by showing that NA/neuroticism and SI/extraversion

References (47)

  • S. Cohen et al.

    A global measure of perceived stress

    Journal of Health and Social Behavior

    (1983)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement

    (1989)
  • Davíðsdóttir, S., & Bachman, T. (1991). Association of stress and gender with health and health-habits. Unpublished...
  • F. De Fruyt et al.

    Type D personality: A five-factor model perspective

    Psychology & Health

    (2002)
  • J. Denollet

    Personality and coronary heart disease: The type D scale-16

    Annual Behavioral Medicine

    (1998)
  • J. Denollet

    Type D personality. A potential risk factor refined

    Journal of Psychosomatic Research

    (2000)
  • J. Denollet

    DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality

    Psychosomatic Medicine

    (2005)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Personality, disease severity, and the risk of long-term cardiac events in patients with decreased ejection fraction after myocardial infarction

    Circulation

    (1998)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Anger, suppressed anger, and risk of adverse events in patients with coronary artery disease

    American Journal of Cardiology

    (2010)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Depression and Type D personality represent different forms of distress in the myocardial infarction and depression intervention trial (MIND-IT)

    Psychological Medicine

    (2009)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Prognostic value of Type D personality compared with depressive symptoms

    Archives in Internal Medicine

    (2008)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Social inhibition modulates the effect of negative emotions on cardiac prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era

    European Heart Journal

    (2006)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    A general propensity to psychological distress affects cardiovascular outcomes: Evidence from research on the Type D (distressed) personality profile

    Circulation, Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

    (2010)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Personality and mortality after myocardial infarction

    Psychosomatic Medicine

    (1995)
  • J. Denollet et al.

    Personality as independent predictor of long-term mortality in patients with coronary heart disease

    Lancet

    (1996)
  • W.H. Emons et al.

    Negative affectivity and social inhibition in cardiovascular disease: Evaluating Type-D personality and its assessment using item response theory

    Journal of Psychosomatic Research

    (2007)
  • J. Gilmour et al.

    Type D personality is associated with maladaptive health-related behaviours

    Journal of Health Psychology

    (2011)
  • G. Grande et al.

    The construct validity of social inhibition and the Type-D taxonomy

    Journal of Health Psychology

    (2010)
  • G. Grande et al.

    Association between Type D personality and prognosis in patients with cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Annals of Behavioral Medicine

    (2012)
  • G. Grande et al.

    Type D personality and all-cause mortality in cardiac patients – Data from a German cohort study

    Psychosomatic Medicine

    (2011)
  • J.J. Gross et al.

    Emotional suppression: physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1993)
  • C. Hausteiner et al.

    Clustering of negative affectivity and social inhibition in the community: Prevalence of Type D personality as a cardiovascular risk marker

    Psychosomatic Medicine

    (2010)
  • S.N. Howard et al.

    Construct, concurrent and discriminant validity of Type D personality in the general population: Associations with anxiety, depression, stress and cardiac output

    Psychology & Health

    (2011)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text