A critical analysis of the assumptions of Type D personality: Comparing prediction of health-related variables with the Five Factor Model

Abstract

Abstract. The present study critically evaluated several assumptions related to Type D personality within the context of predicting health-related variables. Specifically, it compared categorical with continuous representations of Type D personality, assessed evidence for interactive effects of the Type D subscales (negative affectivity and social inhibition), and compared the predictive validity of Type D personality with the Big Five. Healthy adults (n = 224) completed the DS14 and the NEO-PI-R, as well as measures of health behaviors, social support, physical symptoms, and psychological symptoms. Categorical Type D had much poorer prediction than the continuous subscales of social inhibition and negative affectivity, and there was no interaction between the subscales. While negative affectivity and social inhibition were effective at predicting health-related variables, the prediction was equivalent to that achieved by neuroticism and extraversion. Conscientiousness was found to be an important predictor that was missing from Type D. There are reasons to prefer the use of the Big Five over Type D personality when the aim is to predict health-related variables. Where the DS14 is used, it is recommended to also include a measure of conscientiousness.

Personality Profiles that Put Users at Risk of Perceiving Technostress

“…Moreover, we extend the findings on the Type D personality by showing that there is another personality profile predisposing to techno-stressor perception that does not reflect the Type D personality (C5), but features a low level of conscientiousness. Recent personality literature deduces that the lack of considering conscientiousness in the Type D personality is a shortcoming, because conscientiousness is an important predictor for health-related outcomes (Horwood and Anglim 2017). Individuals who find it difficult to control their impulses, i.e.…”

Personality and problematic smartphone use: A facet-level analysis using the Five Factor Model and HEXACO frameworks

“…Despite the value of broad traits, research suggests that narrow traits provide incremental prediction and a more nuanced perspective on personality-criteria relationships (Anglim & Grant, 2014;Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). This finding has been shown for a range of outcomes including compulsive shopping (Otero-López & Villardefrancos Pol, 2013), Type D Behavior (Horwood & Anglim, 2017;Horwood, Anglim, & Tooley, 2015), subjective well-being (Anglim & Grant, 2016), job applicant faking (Anglim, Morse, De Vries, MacCann, & Marty, 2017), academic performance (Anglim, Bozic, Little, & Lievens, 2018), and values (Anglim, Knowles, Dunlop, & Marty, 2017).…”

Burnout, Depression, and Borderline Personality: A 1,163-Participant Study

“…It has been emphasized in recent years that personality pathology should be apprehended not only categorically but also dimensionally (Widiger and Trull, 2007 ; Trull and Widiger, 2013 ; Tyrer et al, 2015 ; Hengartner and Lehmann, 2017 ; Horwood and Anglim, 2017 ; Witt et al, 2017 ). Both personality disorders and “personality difficulties” (i.e., subclinical traits) have been longitudinally linked to the occurrence of mental health and social problems (Moran et al, 2016 ).…”