Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. This study examined associations between personality and stress generation. Expanding upon prior work, we examined a the role of Positive Emotionality PENegative Emotionality NEand Constraint CONand their lower-order facets, as predictors of acute and chronic interpersonal stress generation; b whether personality moderated effects of rumination on stress generation; and c whether personality increased exposure to independent uncontrollable stress. NE predicted increases in acute and chronic interpersonal stress generation, but not independent stress.
These effects were driven by particular lower-order traits. Understanding the role of personality in determining the likelihood individuals will encounter stressful experiences has been of great interest to researchers. Specifically, the model posits that individuals experience increased rates of stressful life events, especially interpersonal ones, that occur at least partially as a result of their individual characteristics, situation or behaviors i.
In addition, individuals select themselves into stressful interpersonal contexts that result in high levels of ongoing i. Yet, ificant gaps in our understanding of the role of personality in stress generation remain, particularly with regard to a the predictive effects of personality traits other than neuroticism; b the role of personality in predicting chronic stress Normal personality types c whether personality moderates the effect of other predictors of stress generation; and d Normal personality types personality predicts exposure to uncontrollable i. The present study was deed to address these gaps.
Despite this, no study of stress generation has examined the role of all 3 higher-order traits or all 5 FFM traits. Most research examining personality and stress generation has focused narrowly on one trait-neuroticism.
This work has consistently shown that individuals higher in neuroticism generate more stressful life events e. For example, Uliaszek et al. Few studies have examined whether the findings for neuroticism are consistent with the higher-order trait NE. Moreover, other lower-order facets of NE alienation, aggression have received little empirical attention, with the exception of one daily dairy study of young adults which found that alienation was not concurrently associated with, and Normal personality types not predict changes in, stress over time Hankin, In terms of PE, in a sample of adolescents, PE predicted increases in dependent interpersonal events when examined in isolation, but not when ing for the effects of other predictors e.
Further, among older adolescents, the FFM trait Extraversion was associated with, but did not predict increases in, chronic interpersonal stress Uliaszek et al. Similarly, social closeness, Normal personality types not wellbeing, was associated with baseline stress, but did not predict changes in stress over time Hankin, Finally, Murphy, Miller, and Wrosch found that mid- to late-adolescents higher in the FFM trait Conscientiousness experienced fewer severe dependent events and lower levels of chronic interpersonal stress. Despite support for the role of personality in stress generation, there are ificant gaps in the literature.
First, most prior work has utilized life-event checklists for exceptions, see Hankin, ; Kendler et al. This may be particularly important when examining neuroticism, as Espejo et al.
There is some evidence that personality plays a role in the generation of non-interpersonal acute e. Fourth, prior work has not examined whether personality moderates the effect of other predictors on stress generation.
People fall into a type based on how they rate on those five traits.
Several lines of evidence indirectly support this prediction. For instance, individuals higher in the FFM traits Extraversion and Conscientiousness use engagement strategies more frequently e. The Response Styles Theory Nolen-Hoeksema, asserts that distraction may allow individuals to disengage from rumination and then engage in problem-solving to address the source of their difficulties.
This suggests that higher levels of CON or PE may interrupt the link between rumination and stress generation, whereas higher levels of NE may potentiate this effect. Second, research suggests that personality moderates the impact of coping strategies e.
What is a type a personality?
For example, disengagement strategies e. Third, personality shapes the quality of interpersonal relationships. Similarly, higher levels of aspects of CON have been linked with fewer social difficulties e. In contrast, NE is negatively related to relationship quality e. Finally, little research has examined personality and stress generation among early adolescents. Moreover, of those studies that have included early adolescents Kercher et al.
Given that disorders associated with personality, rumination and stress generation e. Thus, it is particularly important to understand links between rumination, personality and stress generation among early adolescent girls, prior to the development of psychopathology.
To address these gaps, the present study examined the unique effects of higher- and lower-order traits on the generation of acute and chronic interpersonal stress. Moreover, we examined whether personality moderated the effect of rumination on interpersonal stress generation. Finally, we explored the specificity of the observed effects. These questions were examined in a one-year study of early adolescent girls using contextual stress interviews. Based on prior work e.
We also expected that greater NE would magnify the predictive effects of rumination on interpersonal dependent stressful life events and chronic interpersonal stress, whereas greater PE and CON would attenuate these effects. Given the lack of prior work on lower-order traits other than stress reaction, we did not make specific predictions. Finally, consistent with prior work e. Participants were recruited from two predominately rural counties in New England using multiple methods, including advertisements or flyers To be eligible, adolescent girls had to be currently in or entering i.
Two fathers, who identified as primary caregivers, were excluded from analyses. At Time 1 T1 participation included: a a laboratory visit during which mothers and daughters each completed separate diagnostic and objective stress interviews; and b online questionnaires completed separately at home, including measures of rumination and personality.
Of the daughters who completed the laboratory visit, completed the online Normal personality types. Ns varied due to missing data see Table 1. Intercorrelations among and descriptive statistics for the continuous variables included in the models. N s vary due Normal personality types missing questionnaire data and attrition at T2. The Absorption subscale was not used.
What is a type b personality?
Given the low reliability of traditionalism in this sample, we did not examine this Normal personality types. The T1 interview assessed the year prior to the interview; the T2 interview assessed the time period between T1 and T2. Mothers and daughters completed separate interviews with the same interviewer, and interviewers were blind to all other study data.
For each event, participants provided information about the surrounding context e. Integrating information from mothers and daughters e. The team rated the objective impact, independence and interpersonal nature of each event.
Different traits help to predict your personality type.
Objective impact was rated on a scale of 1 no negative impact to 5 extremely severe negative impact. Events rated as 3 or higher were coded as dependent and those rated 2.
The team also rated the event as interpersonal or non-interpersonal. Interpersonal events referred to those events in which the primary context involved relations with other people e. Consistent with prior work e.
Path analysis allowed us to simultaneously examine acute and chronic forms of stress generation, permitting identification of the unique predictive effects of personality, rumination, and their interaction on each type of stress generation. In addition, path analysis permitted the estimation of missing data. In each model, paths were estimated from the higher-order trait, rumination and the rumination X higher-order trait interaction e.
Interaction variables were computed in Mplus by multiplying the centered predictor variables with each other. ificant interactions were probed in Mplus using simple slopes. Covariances were included between the disturbances of: 1 the predictor variables e. In Step 2, we ran a series of models to examine the lower-order traits, rumination and their interaction, as predictors of acute and chronic interpersonal Normal personality types generation.
Separate models were estimated for each lower-order trait and were identical to those in Step 1. In Step 3, for each higher-order trait, we examined the specificity of the observed effects in separate analyses for each type of stress. Models were identical to those in Step 1, except one additional T2 stress outcome variable was added independent interpersonal acute stress, independent non-interpersonal acute stress, dependent non-interpersonal acute stress or chronic non-interpersonal stress to permit evaluation of the association between each higher-order trait and each form of stress, over and above the effects of personality, rumination and their interaction on T2 interpersonal chronic and acute stress generation.
Conceptual Model. In preliminary analyses, the six Normal personality types on the left side of the figure were examined as potential covariates. In Step 1, the other higher-order traits not being investigated as predictors were examined as potential covariates e. In Step 2, in addition to the two higher-order traits, the other lower-order subscales tapping the same higher-order trait were also examined as potential covariates e.
For ease of presentation, disturbances, covariances between covariates as well as paths between covariates and all other variables in the model not shown. In Normal personality types analyses, we controlled for several potential covariates including three T1 stress variables T1 interpersonal chronic stress, T1 non-interpersonal chronic stress, T1 interpersonal dependent acute stress and the other higher-order traits not being investigated as predictors in the model e.
In addition, for Step 2 only, we controlled for the other lower-order subscales tapping the same higher-order trait e. Finally, in Step 3 only, we controlled for the corresponding form of T1 stress e. Paths were included from each of the covariates to all other variables in the model and those that were not ificant were trimmed.
For Steps 1 and 2, preliminary models indicated that T1 non-interpersonal chronic stress was not ificantly related to any of the variables, and thus, was dropped from all models.