Personality types and coping

Personality types and coping

Margarete Vollratha,*, Svenn Torgersenb

aDepartment of Social Psychology, University of Zurich, RaÈmistrasse 66, 8001, Zurich, SwitzerlandbCentre of Research in Clinical Psychology, University of Oslo, Institute of Psychology, PO Box 1039, Blindern 0317,

Oslo, Norway

Received 25 February 1999; accepted 31 August 1999

Abstract

In recent years, it has been well established that the basic personality factors of Neuroticism,Extraversion, and Conscientiousness are associated with stress experience and coping. However, little isknown about their combined e�ects. To address this question, we studied eight personality types Ðunique combinations of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness Ð in a sample of 683university students. Participants reported daily hassles, positive and negative emotions, and copingstrategies. The eight types related di�erentially to these measures. Types combining low Neuroticismwith high Conscientiousness featured the most favourable pro®le of stress and coping, whereas typescombining high Neuroticism with low Conscientiousness showed high vulnerability to stress and poorcoping. The e�ects of Extraversion were more ambiguous and appeared to depend on the speci®ccombinations of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. The ®ndings suggest that this typology represents auseful approach to addressing the question of how individuals with di�erent combinations of personalitytraits experience and manage stress. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Personality; Neuroticism; Extraversion; Conscientiousness; Typology; Coping; Stress; A�ects

1. Introduction

For several years, evidence has accumulated showing that personality is related both to stressand to coping. Initially, research focused mainly on the two basic personality factors of

Personality and Individual Di�erences 29 (2000) 367±378

0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0191-8869(99)00199-3

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41-1-634-22-83; fax: +41-1-634-49-32.E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Vollrath).

Neuroticism and Extraversion from Eysenck's system (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Both factorsturned out to be important predictors of stress and coping. Persons high in Neuroticismexperience more stressful events, whereas persons high in Extraversion experience both morestressful and more pleasurable events (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Fergusson & Horwood, 1987;Magnus, Diener, Fujita & Pavot, 1993; Suls, Green & Hillis, 1998). Moreover, Neuroticismpredisposes people to experience negative emotions and distress, regardless of level of stress(Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Watson & Clark, 1984), whereas Extraversion predisposes them toexperience positive a�ects (Watson & Clark, 1992; Watson, Clark & Carey, 1988a). Regardingcoping, it has been shown that persons high in Neuroticism engage in passive and maladaptiveways of coping, whereas persons high in Extraversion engage in active coping strategies andseek social support (Amirkhan, Risinger & Swicker, 1995; Costa, Somer®eld & McCrae, 1996;McCrae & Costa, 1986; Parkes, 1986; Rim, 1987; Vollrath, Torgersen & Alnñs, 1995; Watson& Hubbard, 1996).Recently, several studies found that a further basic factor of personality, Conscientiousness,

is strongly related to coping. Conscientiousness is part of the ®ve-factor model of personalityand assesses will for achievement, commitment to work, moral scrupulousness, andcautiousness (Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991). This personality factor is inversely related toPsychoticism in Eysenck's three-factor system (Eysenck, 1994; Zuckerman, Kuhlman & Camac,1988). Individuals high in Conscientiousness or obsessive traits engage in planning and activeproblem solving, and refrain from passive maladaptive coping (Jelinek & Morf, 1995; Vollrath,Banholzer, Caviezel, Fischli & Jungo, 1994; Vollrath et al., 1995; Watson & Hubbard, 1996).In comparison, the relation to coping of the two remaining factors of the ®ve factor-model,

Openness to experience and Agreeableness, is less strong (Jelinek & Morf, 1995; Watson &Hubbard, 1996). Thus, it appears that the three personality factors that constitute the basicstructure of personality in Eysenck's system (Eysenck, 1994) are most important in determininghow individuals experience and adjust to the stressful events in their lives.To predict individual adaptation, however, knowledge about the e�ects of each single

personality factor will not su�ce. For instance, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness haveentirely opposite e�ects on coping preferences. It is not known how these e�ects combine inindividuals scoring high in both personality factors, nor what the additional e�ects of high orlow Extraversion would bring about.A possible path to addressing this question is to study a typology building on combinations

of high and low Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), and Conscientiousness (C). Such atypology was presented by Torgersen (1995) in a Norwegian publication. The basis for thetypology was earlier studies on personality factors and personality disorders in twins.Torgersen used the Basic Character Inventory, a test that assesses the oral personality factor(Neuroticism), the hysterical personality factor (Extraversion), and the obsessive personalityfactor (Conscientiousness) (Torgersen, 1980a, b; Torgersen & Alnñs, 1989). Torgersen'stypology comprises eight types that each represent a unique combination of Extraversion,Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness: the spectator type (low E, low N, low C) is littleresponsive to other people or to situational cues, emotionally ¯at, not very interested in socialnorms and low in ambition in his or her work. The insecure type (low E, high N, low C) isself-conscious, dependent on other people's opinions, overly sensitive to his or her own mentaland physical experiences, and poorly organised. The sceptic type (low E, low N, high C) is

M. Vollrath, S. Torgersen / Personality and Individual Di�erences 29 (2000) 367±378368

relatively closed in relations to others, self-secure, emotionally stable, and e�ective in managinghis or her life, but sometimes somewhat rigid. The brooder type (low E, high N, high C) is shyand withdrawn, ambivalent, insecure, and very scrupulous, brooding over every decision andtending to give up easily when meeting di�culties. The hedonist type (high E, low N, low C) isa socially skilled, pleasure-oriented, emotionally and physically robust, but also undependableperson. The impulsive type (high E, high N, low C) is pleasure-oriented, attention seeking, andin need of social con®rmation, has little control over his or her emotional reactions, andappears chaotic and changing. The entrepreneur type (high E, low N, high C) is a sociallysecure, independently thinking, domineering, cool-headed, goal-oriented and e�ective person.The complicated type (high E, high N, high C) is emotionally intense with occasional emotionaloutbursts and subsequent guilt-feelings, sensitive, dependent on others, conscientious andorderly. Torgersen (1995) studied the extent to which the eight personality types were a�ectedby personality disorders in samples of twins and psychiatric outpatients. He found that interms of number and severity of personality disorders, types who were high in Neuroticismfunctioned more poorly than types who were low in Neuroticism. Among the types high inNeuroticism, the insecure type, who is also low in Extraversion and Conscientiousness, wasmost vulnerable. Types low in Neuroticism functioned best, in particular the entrepreneur type,who is also high in Extraversion and in Conscientiousness. However, measures of stress andcoping were not included in his study (Torgersen, 1995).To our knowledge, there are no other studies that have investigated the associations of these

or similar personality types with stress and coping. Therefore, we want to address this questionin the present study. Our goal is to compare the eight types in regard to the experience ofstress and emotions and to coping strategies. In particular, we are interested in types unitingpersonality characteristics that have opposite e�ects on adjustment to stress. BecauseNeuroticism has such an overwhelmingly negative e�ect on both stress and coping, we arespeci®cally interested in the question whether Extraversion or Conscientiousness can o�set orattenuate this e�ect.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

The 683 participants of the study were drawn from a cohort of students in the ®fth semesterof their studies at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. The entire cohort of students in alldepartments (N = 1739) received a questionnaire three months after the beginning of thewinter term. 363 women, 317 men, and 3 persons of unknown gender returned thequestionnaire; their mean age was 24.8 years (SD=3.5). With a response rate of 39.2% thesample is not representative. Compared to the entire cohort, women and humanities studentswere slightly over-represented, whereas economics students were under-represented.

2.1.1. PersonalityTo build the eight-group personality typology, we used the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and

Conscientiousness scales of the German version of the NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf,

M. Vollrath, S. Torgersen / Personality and Individual Di�erences 29 (2000) 367±378 369

1993; Costa & McCrae, 1989), which is designed to assess the ®ve-factor-model. Each scale iscomposed of 12 items that are rated on a ®ve-point answer format (strongly disagree (1) tostrongly agree (5)). By mistake, the item ``I am an active person'' was omitted from the Escale. Descriptive statistics for the scales are the following: N: mean=2.78, SD=0.67,median=2.75, range=3.67, a=0.86; E: mean=3.42, SD=0.56, median=3.45, range=3.82,a=0.80; C: mean=3.53, SD=0.58, median=3.58, range=3.25, a=0.86. The intercorrelationbetween N and E was r=ÿ0.40, between N and C r=ÿ0.21, and between E and C r = 0.11.Jelinek & Morf (1995) also reported an intercorrelation of N and E of r=ÿ0.30, whichsuggests that this may be due to the construction of the NEO-FFI.Each participant was assigned to one of Torgersen's (1995) eight personality types by splitting

the scales at the median and combining high and low scores. This resulted in the following groups:The spectator type (ÿE,ÿN,ÿC), N = 41, females (f)=10, males (m)=31; the insecure type(ÿE,+N,ÿC), N = 120, f=66, m=53; the sceptic type (ÿE,ÿN,+C), N = 59, f=20, m=39;the brooder type (ÿE,+N,+C), N = 93, f=63, m=30; the hedonist type (+E,ÿN,ÿC), N =90, f=32, m=57; the impulsive type (+E,+N,ÿC), N = 71, f=46, m=25; the entrepreneurtype (+E,ÿN,+C), N = 128, f=65; m=63; the complicated type (+E,+N,+C), N = 64,f=48, m=15. The unequal frequencies of the types are due to the negative correlation betweenN and E and the high frequency of participants with scores just at the median. Genderdi�erences among the types were signi®cant (X 2=58.67; df=7; P=0.000).Coping was assessed by means of a German version (translated by M. V.) of the COPE, a

widely used self-report inventory that measures problem-focused coping strategies, emotion-focused coping strategies, and potentially dysfunctional coping strategies (Carver, Scheier &Weintraub, 1989). It has been shown by prospective studies that the problem-focused andemotion-focused strategies tapped by the COPE are adaptive in mental health terms, whereasthe potentially dysfunctional strategies are maladaptive (Carver et al., 1993; Vollrath, Alnñs &Torgersen, 1996). In this study, 13 COPE scales were included (the religion scale is notapplicable to daily hassles, and the humour scale is an experimental scale). Subjects were askedwhat they had done to cope with the most stressful situation they had experienced during theprevious three months. All scales were measured with 4 items (2 items for use of alcohol ordrugs) that were rated on a four-point scale (never (1) to frequently (4)). Cronbach's alphas forthe scales varied between 0.66 (self-distraction) and 0.93 (use of alcohol and drugs). Thecorrelations among the problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies were mostly positive,ranging from 0.02 to 0.79 (between seeking instrumental support and seeking emotionalsupport), with a median correlation of 0.27. The correlations among the dysfunctionalstrategies were mostly positive as well, ranging from 0.03 to 0.37, and a median correlation of0.13. The correlations of the problem- and emotion-focused strategies with the dysfunctionalstrategies were mostly negative, except for positive correlations between the venting ofemotions scale and the two support seeking scales (r=0.31, r=036).Positive a�ects (PA) and negative a�ects (NA) were assessed by means of a German version

(translated by M. V.) of the PANAS (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988b). The PANAS presents20 adjectives that describe positive and negative mood states (e.g. anxious, excited). Intensity ofmood as experienced during the week prior to the questionnaire was rated on a ®ve-point scalefrom not at all (1) to very (5). The NA scale (a=0.82) and the PA scale (a=0.86)intercorrelated with r=ÿ0.16.


Stress was measured by a list of 49 daily hassles that were designed to capture a wide rangeof stressful aspects of students' daily experiences. Based on a model of students' stress (Nitsch& Hackfort, 1981), problems in the domains of self, social contacts, studies, and livingconditions were included. Participants were to rate the occurrence of these hassles during thethree months prior to the survey on a four-point scale. The scaling of the hassles was based ontheoretical considerations and a series of factor analyses, which led to the elimination of itemsreferring to the students' private lives (e.g. problem with parents, ®nancial problems). Newanalyses with the reduced item set yielded ®ve factors with high (r0.40) and distinct loadingson 21 items as the theoretically best solution: The factor academic capabilities (domain of self)loaded on items that re¯ect insecurity about one's own intellectual talents. The factor studyprospects (domain of studies) loaded on items that re¯ect dissatisfaction with one's major,doubts about career prospects, and low motivation. The factor time pressure (domain ofstudies) loaded on items that describe lack of time because of heavy workload or acombination of heavy workload at the university and other demands. The factor peers (domainof social contacts) loaded on items that re¯ected di�culties in establishing or maintainingcontacts with other students. Finally, the factor teachers (domain of studies) loaded on itemsthat re¯ect criticism of the lack of supervision by university teachers. Five daily hassle scaleswere constructed by summing up the items with the highest loadings (Cronbach's alphasranged between 0.73 and 0.86).

2.2. Statistical analyses

First, we investigated whether gender and personality types interacted in regard to stress,coping, and a�ects by means of two-factorial MANOVAs. We found independent e�ects forboth gender and personality types, but no signi®cant interactions. The purpose of this paperbeing the examination of personality, gender was therefore excluded from the further analyses.Two separate single-factor MANOVAS, followed by univariate F-tests, were computed, withthe coping strategies and with the hassle scales as dependents. For the PANAS scales, onlyunivariate F-tests were used, because Bartlett's test of sphericity showed that the scales wereindependent. Because of the high number of F-tests, we set the signi®cance level to P R 0.01.We also computed Sche�eÂ 's test for multiple comparisons of the eight types. Mean di�erencesof at least 0.3 between scores of two groups were signi®cant at the P R 0.01 level. A morerestrictive test is to compare each type to the average of the other seven types by means of apriori contrasts. Because of the high number of tests, the signi®cance level for these contrastswas set to PR 0.01.

3. Results

3.1. Stress and a�ectivity

The MANOVA (Table 1) shows that the eight personality types di�ered signi®cantly withregard to levels of stress. The univariate F-tests were signi®cant on the P R 0.01 level, exceptfor the teacher scale, for which no post hoc tests were computed. The insecure and the


Table 1

Stress and a�ects among the eight personality types

Typecomposition

(N )

Spectator,ÿEÿNÿC(40)

Insecure,ÿE+NÿC(116)

Sceptic,ÿEÿN+C

(59)

Brooder,ÿE+N+C

(92)

Hedonist,+EÿNÿC(88)

Impulsive,+E+NÿC(71)

Entrepreneur,+EÿN+C

(127)

Complicated,+E+N+C

(64)

ANOVAb

Ma SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F

Stress scalesb

Academic

capabilites

1.5c 0.4 2.1d 0.7 1.5c 0.5 2.0d 0.6 1.6c 0.5 2.0d 0.7 1.5c 0.5 1.8 0.6 21.18��

Study prospects 1.9 0.6 2.1d 0.6 1.6c 0.5 1.9 0.6 1.8 0.6 2.2d 0.8 1.8c 0.6 1.8 0.6 8.62��

Time pressure 1.8d 0.5 2.0 0.7 1.9 0.6 2.1d 0.7 1.7c 0.6 2.1 0.8 1.9 0.7 2.2d 0.8 3.67��

Peers 1.5 0.7 1.8d 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.7 0.8 1.4c 0.7 1.7d 0.8 1.3c 0.7 1.5 0.8 12.22��

Teachers 2.1 0.7 2.3 0.8 2.1 0.7 2.1 0.8 2.0 0.7 2.3 0.8 2.1 0.7 2.2 0.8 2.22A�ectivityNegative

a�ectivity

2.2c 0.6 2.7d 0.7 2.1c 0.5 2.7d 0.7 2.2c 0.5 2.7d 0.7 2.1c 0.5 2.7d 0.7 22.73��

Positivea�ectivity

3.4 0.5 3.2c 0.7 3.6d 0.5 3.2c 0.7 3.7d 0.6 3.4 0.6 3.9d 0.5 3.5 0.6 18.59��

a Mean score di�erences greater than or equal to 0.03 between two groups are signi®cant at P R 0.01 (Sche�eÂ -test).b MANOVA (stress scales): Wilks Lambda=0.69842, F (35,2711), P = 0.000. �P R 0.01, ��P R 0.001.c Signi®cantly lower than the other types (P R 0.01; post-hoc contrast).d Signi®cantly higher than the other types (P R 0.01; post-hoc contrast).

M.Vollra

th,S.Torgersen

/Perso

nality

andIndivid

ualDi�eren

ces29(2000)367±378

372

impulsive types had the highest number of elevated mean scores on the stress scales, with nosigni®cant di�erence between them. These types share the combination of high N with low C.The brooder type and the complicated type had higher mean scores on one or two stress scales.They share high N and high C, but di�er in E. Regarding lower stress scores, the entrepreneurand the hedonist types stood out, with lower mean scores on three stress scales and nodi�erence between them. They share the combination of low N and high E. Two other types,the spectator and the sceptic type followed with lower mean scores on two stress scales. Theyshared low N and low E. Taken together, types combining high N with low C reported moststress, whereas types combining low N with high E or high C reported least stress.For the NA scale, the pattern of high and low scores clearly corresponded to the

Neuroticism component of the typology. For the PA scale, the results did not re¯ect theExtraversion component of the typology in an equally clear-cut manner. Only two of the fourtypes who are high in E had higher mean scores in PA, the hedonist and the entrepreneurtypes. The impulsive and the complicated types though, had no higher mean scores in PA.Perhaps their PA was attenuated by the component of high N. Among the types low in E, one,the sceptic type had a higher mean score on the PA scale, and another, the spectator type, hadno lower mean score.

3.2. Coping

The MANOVA shows that the eight types also di�ered signi®cantly with regard to coping(Table 2). The univariate F-tests were signi®cant at the P R 0.01 level, except for the scaleusing alcohol or drugs. For this scale, no post-hoc tests were computed. For the denial scale,none of the post-hoc contrasts was signi®cant at the PR 0.01 level.On the problem-focused coping scales, the entrepreneur type had four higher mean scores,

followed by the complicated type with three higher scores and no di�erence between them.These types share the combination of high E and high C, but are di�erent in N. The sceptictype, who is also high in C, followed with two higher and one lower mean scores. In contrast,the insecure and the impulsive types (high N, low C) had four and three lower mean scores onthe problem-focused scales. Taken together, it appears as if the combination of high E withhigh C is related to higher use of problem-focused coping, whereas the combination of high Nand low C is related to reduced use of problem-focused coping.On the emotion-focused scales, the entrepreneur type (high E, low N, high C) stood out

again with two higher mean scores. In contrast, the insecure type, who is complementary to theentrepreneur type, had two lower mean scores. The impulsive and the complicated types, whoare both high in E and in N, had one higher mean score. In addition, the impulsive type hadone lower mean score on the acceptance scale. The spectator and the sceptic types, who areboth low in E, had one lower mean score. Taken together, types combining high E with high Cshowed the most emotion-focused coping, whereas the types combining low E with low Cshowed the least problem-focused coping. N was not an important component.On the potentially dysfunctional coping scales, the insecure and the impulsive types (sharing

high N and low C) showed higher scores on two scales and no di�erence between them. Thecomplicated type followed with one higher mean score, but also one lower score. The sceptictype showed three lower mean scores, followed by the entrepreneur type with two lower scores.


Table 2Coping among the eight personality types

Type composition (N ) Spectator,ÿEÿNÿC(41)

Insecure,ÿE+NÿC(120)

Sceptic,ÿEÿN+C(59)

Brooder,ÿE+N+C(91)

Hedonist,+EÿNÿC(90)

Impulsive,+E+NÿC(71)

Entrepreneur,+EÿN+C(127)

Complicated,+E+N+C(62)

ANOVAb

Ma SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD F

Problem-focused coping

Active coping 2.6 0.7 2.3c 0.5 3.0d 0.6 2.6 0.6 2.7 0.5 2.5c 0.6 3.1d 0.6 3.0d 0.7 24.49��

Planning 2.6 0.7 2.5c 0.6 3.0 0.7 2.9 0.7 2.6c 0.7 2.7 0.6 3.1d 0.7 3.2d 0.6 15.25��

Suppressing competing

activities

2.1 0.7 2.0c 0.5 2.3 0.6 2.3 0.5 2.1 0.6 2.0c 0.5 2.3 0.7 2.3 0.7 4.59��

Restraint 2.5 0.7 2.3c 0.5 2.6d 0.5 2.5 0.6 2.4 0.6 2.1c 0.6 2.6d 0.6 2.5 0.7 6.87��

Using instrumental

support

2.0c 0.7 2.3 0.7 2.2c 0.6 2.5 0.8 2.5 0.7 2.6 0.7 2.8d 0.7 2.7d 0.7 9.08��

Emotion-focused copingSeeking emotional

support

2.3c 0.7 2.8 0.8 2.5c 0.8 2.8 0.9 2.9 0.8 3.0d 0.8 3.1d 0.8 3.2d 0.8 8.62��

Positive reframing 2.7 0.6 2.4c 0.6 2.8 0.6 2.7 0.6 2.9 0.6 2.6 0.5 3.0d 0.6 2.9 0.6 9.06��

Acceptance 2.6 0.6 2.4c 0.5 2.7 0.6 2.6 0.6 2.6 0.6 2.3c 0.6 2.6 0.8 2.5 0.6 3.15�

Potentialy dysfunctional coping

Denial 1.3 0.4 1.4 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.4 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.3 2.79�

Self-distraction 2.5 0.5 2.6d 0.6 2.1c 0.6 2.3 0.6 2.5 0.7 2.5 0.7 2.3 0.6 2.3 0.6 5.68��

Behavioral

disengagement

1.5 0.4 1.7d 0.5 1.3c 0.3 1.5 0.5 1.3c 0.3 1.6d 0.5 1.2c 0.3 1.3c 0.3 16.54��

Venting emotions 2.1 0.6 2.3 0.6 2.0c 0.6 2.4 0.6 2.2 0.6 2.5d 0.7 2.1c 0.6 2.5d 0.6 7.83��

Alcohol/drug use 1.3 0.5 1.4 0.6 1.1 0.3 1.3 0.6 1.3 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.2 0.5 1.2 0.4 2.30

a Mean score di�erences greater than or equal to 0.03 between two groups are signi®cant at P R 0.01 (Sche�eÂ -test).b MANOVA: Wilks Lambda=0.52064, F (91,3991), P = 0.000, �P R 0.01, ��P R 0.001.c Signi®cantly lower than the other types (P R 0.01; post-hoc contrast).d Signi®cantly higher than the other types (P R 0.01; post-hoc contrast).

M.Vollra

th,S.Torgersen

/Perso

nality

andIndivid

ualDi�eren

ces29(2000)367±378

374

These two types share low N and high C. The hedonist (high E) showed a lower mean score indisengagement. Taken together, it appears that types combining high N with low C displayedthe most dysfunctional coping. The component of high E did not seem to be able to attenuatethe e�ect of this combination.

4. Discussion

The present study examined a personality typology building on high vs low Neuroticism,Extraversion, and Conscientiousness in regard to the experience of stress, emotions, and theuse of coping strategies. Findings showed that the eight types of the personality typologyfeatured unique patterns concerning their experience of stress and emotions and theirpreference for coping strategies. Some types were vulnerable to stress, but e�ective in coping,whereas other types coupled high vulnerability with poor coping.If the types are ranged across all variables according to low vulnerability to stress,

favourable a�ectivity and e�ectiveness of coping, a tentative order can be established: theentrepreneur type (low N, high C, high E), the sceptic type (low N, high C, low E), thehedonist type (low N, low C, high E), the spectator type (low N, low C, low E), thecomplicated type (high N, high C, high E), the brooder type (high N, high C, low E), theimpulsive type (high N, low C, high E), and the insecure type (high N, low C, low E).According to this order, Neuroticism is of primary importance in determining stress

vulnerability, closely followed by Conscientiousness and then by Extraversion. Neuroticism wasparticularly important for stress experience and a�ectivity, a ®nding that is hardly surprising,given the unambiguous evidence in the literature (Bolger, 1990; Bolger & Schilling, 1991;Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Vollrath et al., 1995; Watson, Clark & Harkness, 1994). However,the importance of Conscientiousness has only recently been pointed out (Watson & Hubbard,1996). In our study, the combination of low Neuroticism with high Conscientiousness, as presentin the entrepreneur and the sceptic types, was a decisive factor in less than average stress,favourable a�ectivity, and an e�ective and varied coping style. Conversely, the combination ofhigh Neuroticism with low Conscientiousness, as present in the impulsive and the insecure types,was related to high stress vulnerability, unfavourable a�ectivity, and a passive, dysfunctional,helpless coping style. The poor functioning of the insecure and the impulsive types matchesTorgersen's (1995) ®nding that these types show a high risk for personality disorders. Ifcombined with high Extraversion, high Conscientiousness was able to o�set the potentiallynegative e�ects of high Neuroticism to a great extent, as one can see in the complicated type.Complicated types were not as distressed as could have been expected as a result of their highNeuroticism, and they featured a coping pro®le that was very similar to that of the extremelywell-functioning entrepreneur type.The role of Extraversion in the typology was more ambiguous and seemed to depend on the

speci®c combination of the other two personality factors. Also, the e�ects of Extraversion didnot seem to be linear. Extraversion reinforced the positive e�ects of low Neuroticism combinedwith high Conscientiousness, but only slightly attenuated the negative e�ects of highNeuroticism combined with low Conscientiousness. For instance, the entrepreneur and thesceptic types were similar in regard to low stress and favourable a�ectivity. In addition though,


the entrepreneur type used social support, which is a resource in the coping process (Pierce,Sarason & Sarason, 1996; Thoits, 1986), whereas the sceptic type abstained from doing so.Extraversion also added to the positive e�ects of high Conscientiousness in the complicatedtype. However, in the impulsive type, who combines low Conscientiousness with highNeuroticism, the Extraversion component did not seem to o�er much protection. Impulsivetypes were passive in problem-focused coping and inclined to use dysfunctional coping just likethe insecure type. However, the impulsive type was more inclined to seek support. Seekingsupport without one's own active coping e�orts though, is bound to be unsuccessful, becausepotential supporters will be deterred (Silver, Wortmann & Crofton, 1990). In Torgersen's(1995) study, impulsive types were at high risk for borderline personality disorder, which issocially very disruptive.The present study can be criticised on several grounds. First, the typological approach

we chose simpli®es interpersonal variability by reducing the individuals' positions oncontinuous scales to merely two possibilities each, thereby disregarding small butimportant di�erences. Second, the high negative correlation between Neuroticism andExtraversion in our study challenges the validity of these constructs as measured by theNEO-FFI. This correlation led to markedly di�erent group sizes and reduced thestatistical power of the analysis. Third, it is not easy for the reader to keep eightdi�erent types and their di�erent characteristics in mind. A possible alternative wouldhave been to examine interactions of personality dimensions. However, our results suggestthat interactions would not have been able to reproduce the di�erent combinations equallywell, because not all relations appeared to be linear. Moreover, three-way interactions aredi�cult to comprehend and not very illustrative. Finally, the data all relied on self-reportquestionnaires, which may have in¯ated the e�ects due to common method variance.Therefore, one has to keep in mind that our results are preliminary and need replicationin di�erent kinds of samples and with di�erent methods.In spite of these limitations, our study suggests that combinations of the personality factors

of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness are very important for stress and coping.Torgersen's personality typology, which captures these combinations, can complement existingknowledge about the e�ects of single personality factors by giving us a graphic, comprehensive,and di�erentiated understanding about an individual's experience of and adjustment to stress.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Bernhard Metzger and Mario Cavegn for statistical analyses,Ellen Russon ([email protected]) for editing the English, and the anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments.

References

Amirkhan, J. H., Risinger, R. T., & Swicker, R. J. (1995). Extraversion: a ``hidden'' personality factor in coping?Journal of Personality, 63(2), 189±212.


Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 525±537.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: the role of neuroticism in

exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355±386.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890±902.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-FuÈnf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI). GoÈ ttingen: Hogrefe.

Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., Ketcham, A. S., Mo�at, F. L., &

Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping mediates the e�ect of optimism on distress: a study of women with early stage

breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375±390.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267±283.

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision

of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Di�erences, 12, 887±898.

Costa, P. T. J., Somer®eld, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (1996). Personality and coping: a reconceptualization. In M.

Zeidner, & N. S. Endler, Handbook of coping (pp. 44±61). New York: John Wiley.

Eysenck, H. J. (1994). The big ®ve factor or giant three: criteria for a paradigma. In C. R. Halverson Jr, G. A.

Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin, The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood

(pp. 37±51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual di�erences. New York: Plenum Press.

Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1987). Vulnerability to life events exposure. Psychological Medicine, 17, 739±

749.

Jelinek, J., & Morf, M. E. (1995). Accounting for variance shared by measures of personality and stress-related

variables: A canonical correlation analysis. Psychological Reports, 76, 959±962.

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and Neuroticism as predictors of objective life

events: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1046±1053.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping and coping e�ectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of

Personality, 54, 385±405.

Nitsch, J. R., & Hackfort, D. (1981). Stress in Schule und Hochschule Ð eine handlungspsychologische

Funktionsanalyse. In J. R. Nitsch, Stress (pp. 263±311). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.

Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: the role of individual di�erences, environmental factors, and

situational characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1277±1292.

Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Coping and social support. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler,

Handbook of coping (pp. 434±451). New York: John Wiley.

Rim, Y. (1987). A comparative study of two taxonomies of coping styles, personality and sex. Personality and

Individual Di�erences, 4, 521±526.

Silver, R. C., Wortmann, C. B., & Crofton, C. (1990). The role of coping on support provision: the self-

presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce, Social support:

An interactional view (pp. 397±426). New York: Wiley.

Suls, J., Green, P., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, a�ective inertia, and neuroticism.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 127±136.

Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 416±423.

Torgersen, S. (1980a). Hereditary-environmental di�erentiation of general neurotic, obsessive, and impulsive

personality traits. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologicae, 29, 193±207.

Torgersen, S. (1980b). The oral, obsessive, and hysterical personality syndromes. A study of hereditary and

environmental factors by means of the twin method. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 1272±1277.

Torgersen, S. (1995). Personlighet og personlighetsforstyrrelser. Oslo: Universitetetsforlaget.

Torgersen, S., & Alnñs, R. (1989). Localizing DSM-III personality disorders in a three-dimensional structural space.

Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 274±281.


Vollrath, M., Alnñs, R., & Torgersen, S. (1996). Di�erential e�ect of coping in mental disorders: A prospectivestudy in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 126±136.

Vollrath, M., Banholzer, E., Caviezel, C., Fischli, C., & Jungo, D. (1994). Coping as a mediator or moderator ofpersonality in mental health? In B. De Raad, W. K. B. Hofstee, & G. L. M. Van Heck, Personality psychology inEurope, vol. 5 (pp. 262±273). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Vollrath, M., Torgersen, S., & Alnñs, R. (1995). Personality as long-term predictor of coping. Personality andIndividual Di�erences, 18, 117±125.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative a�ectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465±490.Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: general and speci®c factors of emotional experience

and their relation to the Five-Factor-Model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441±476.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Carey, G. (1988a). Positive and negative a�ectivity and their relation to anxiety anddepressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 346±353.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988b). Development and validation of brief measures of positive andnegative a�ect: the PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063±1070.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance topsychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18±31.

Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: coping in the context of the ®ve-

factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 735±774.Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales

believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96±107.


Documents

Personality types and coping