Personality traits influencing somatization symptoms and social inhibition in the elderly

Abstract

PurposeSomatization is a common symptom among the elderly, and even though personality disorders have been found to be associated with somatization, personality traits have not yet been explored with regard to this symptom. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between personality traits and somatization, and social inhibition.Patients and methodsAs part of a cross-sectional study of a community sample, 126 elderly Thais aged 60 years or over completed self-reporting questionnaires related to somatization and personality traits. Somatization was elicited from the somatization subscale when using the Symptom Checklist SCL-90 instrument. Personality traits were drawn from the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and social inhibition was identified when using the inventory of interpersonal problems. In addition, path analysis was used to establish the influence of personality traits on somatization and social inhibition.ResultsOf the 126 participants, 51% were male, 55% were married, and 25% were retired. The average number of years in education was 7.6 (standard deviation =5.2). “Emotional stability” and “dominance” were found to have a direct effect on somatization, as were age and number of years in education, but not sex. Also, 35% of the total variance could be explained by the model, with excellent fit statistics. Dominance was found to have an indirect effect, via vigilance, on social inhibition, which was also influenced by number of years in education and emotional stability. Social inhibition was not found to have any effect on somatization, although hypothetically it should.Conclusion“Emotional stability”, “dominance”, and “vigilance”, as well as age and the number of years in education, were found to have an effect on somatization. Attention should be paid to these factors in the elderly with somatization.

Statistically modelling the relationships between Type D personality and social support, health behaviors and symptom severity in chronic illness groups

“…Similarly, in a recent population survey of more than 5000 Swedish adolescents, Type D was associated with higher levels of self-reported psychosomatic symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, and sleep disturbance (Condén, Leppert, Ekselius, & Åslund, 2013;Condén, Rosenblad, Ekselius, & Aslund, 2014). Other somatic research has found that negative affectivity and social inhibition are also each independently associated with increased somatization and unexplained symptoms (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989;Wongpakaran & Wongpakaran, 2014). Because, even in healthy populations, Type D personality is associated with somatic complaints and exaggerated symptom reporting, we hypothesize that functional somatic syndromes, conditions that are characterized primarily by general somatic complaints of unclear etiology, such as chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, may be more susceptible to the effects of Type D personality than illnesses of known etiology such as type 2 diabetes or arthritis.…”

Factors influencing the psychology and quality of life in lung cancer patients

“…The Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90), a 90-item self-reporting questionnaire, was used to evaluate the psychological status of the patients. The symptom severity of each item was assessed using a 5-Likert scale, in which “0” indicated “not at all” and “4” indicated “extremely.” 9 The included patients were divided into the healthy and unhealthy psychology groups, according to their SCL-90 scores. 10 The SCL-90 score exceeding 160 represented unhealthy status, while that of less than 160 represented the healthy status.…”

Big Five personality traits and medically unexplained symptoms in later life

“…Somatization has been examined in relation to the Big Five personality profile and is, among adults, associated with a higher level of neuroticism and a lower level of agreeableness [12, 13]. The only study conducted in an older sample found that a higher level of somatization was associated with a lower level of emotional stability, dominance and vigilance in 126 community-dwelling healthy older persons [14].…”