Research using the typological approach has focused on which three personality types?

Throughout much of its history, personality psychology has been concerned with individual differences in observable variations in a limited number of personality traits. Research on individual differences, and in particular, those based on the Big Five model, has been mainly “variable-centred”. In other words, it has focused on differences across subjects with variables as analytical units. This approach has also largely dominated research on trait development, attesting to both stability and change over the life course, depending on the trait features that are considered and on the extent of situational influences (Roberts & Del Vecchio, 2000). Numerous findings converge in identifying neuroticism as the more stable trait and in highlighting negative age trends for extraversion and openness (Costa and McCrae, 1997, Helson et al., 2002, Helson et al., 2002, Roberts and Mroczek, 2008). Singular traits have also been identified as threats to (i.e., neuroticism) or fostering factors (i.e., conscientiousness and extraversion) of good health and longevity (Bogg and Roberts, 2004, Wilson et al., 2005).

In opposition to this tradition, some authors have pointed out that the “variable-centred” approach may miss an important aspect of personality, namely the peculiar configuration that traits may assume within an individual (Block, 1971, Magnusson, 1998). Referring to the person (and not to the variable) as the appropriate level of analysis, a “person-centred” approach has been proposed that focuses on the organization of several personality dimensions within the person and on how this configuration/organization may define different “types of people”. The “person-centred” approach strongly contributes to complement the “variable-centred” approach as it may help in identifying aspects of heterogeneity that are different across subpopulations. Research in this tradition has largely investigated early ages of life and has consistently demonstrated that three personality types can be identified in children and youth. A large group of Resilients or well-adjusted people, is contrasted with two less adjusted types: overcontrollers who are characterized by high impulse control, high anxiety, and low aggressiveness, and undercontrollers who are characterized by low impulse control, high trustworthiness, and open aggressiveness (Caspi, 1998). Cluster analysis of profile patterns of individual traits, usually the Big Five, in most cases has provided evidence for the three personality types in young and adult samples, using both self-reported measures and other ratings (e.g., Asendorpf and van Aken, 1999, Boehm et al., 2002, De Fruyt et al., 2002, Dubas et al., 2002). Difficulties in the replication of the cluster structure is at least partially due to differences in the Big Five measures and the type of cluster analysis researchers performed; populations’ ethnicity, age, and education also varied widely in the studies.

External validity of the three types has been investigated by relating them to measures of psychological and social functioning and considering types as “predictors” of adaptive or maladaptive life development. Resilient children and adolescents are usually described as intelligent, self-confident, successful at school and with peers, and relatively free of psychopathology, whereas overcontrollers are described as more shy, less sociable and prone to internalizing problems, and undercontrollers as at risk for academic, behavioral, and interpersonal problems (e.g., Asendorpf et al., 2001, Hart et al., 2003, Hart et al., 1997, Robins et al., 1996). These findings have shown that resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled types are consistently associated with well-adaptive and maladaptive personal characteristics and behaviors, as well as with positive and negative life outcomes.

Despite evidence on the utility of the typological approach in identifying people and adaptive and maladaptive life pathways, its application to the study of aging processes is still scarce. A recent longitudinal study by Gerstorf, Smith, and Baltes (2006) found that elderly adults characterized by positive profiles in terms of cognitive functioning, social integration, and personality characteristics had better physical health and longer longevity than other types presenting one or two problematic areas. Similar high-functioning subgroups have been identified in previous person-oriented literature applied to aged populations (Andrew et al., 2002, Maxon et al., 1996, Rowe and Kahn, 1997). To our knowledge no previous studies have investigated the resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types in an aged population.

In adopting a person-centered approach, the current study aims (1) to replicate the three prototypes of resilient, overcontroller, and undercontroller in a sample of elderly Italian adults, and (2) to investigate the utility of these personality types in differentiating older people in terms of some indicators of successful aging, namely their well-being, quality of interpersonal relationships, and involvement in leisure activities. We hypothesized that a resilient cluster will be characterized by a more positive profile, namely, a higher satisfaction with their life and health, more positive affectivity, a stronger civic/social engagement and interpersonal trust, and more numerous leisure activities.

Participants and procedure

Participants were 735 older Italian adults (56% females), ranging in age from 65 to 95 years old (M = 71.90; SD = 5.85). They represent a sample of convenience of the Italian population, recruited from a national survey study conducted in 2007 by the University of Milan “Bicocca”. They were contacted by phone by a group of trained researchers and individually completed the questionnaire at their homes; they did not get paid for the participation to the research.

Participants were residents in various

Cluster identification

Table 1 presents the fit indices of the three-, four-, and five-cluster solutions. All but the Gamma and the G(+) indices, clearly indicated the eligibility of the three-cluster solution as the most adequate for the data; the K index could not discriminate among the solutions. According to the Cohen-k index, the four cluster solution also appeared moderately replicable; however, none of the other fit indices suggested this solution as the best fitting. Fig. 1 displays the z-scores of the Big

Discussion

Longevity is significantly increasing and incontrovertible statistics tell us we will have many more elderly people in the coming decades, despite the tremendous disparities still present in life conditions across countries. In order to face this changing situation new psychological knowledge is necessary to guarantee high well-being and the full expression of human potentials over the entire course of life to the largest portion of the population and, at the same time, to enable communities to

Cited by (36)

• Personality profiles and adolescents’ maladjustment: A longitudinal study

  2018, Personality and Individual Differences

  Those profiles generally have confirmed research conducted by Block and Block (1980) who hypothesized and corroborated empirically the aforementioned three personality profiles and hypothesized a fourth profile, the most unadaptable, labeled Brittle, that was not empirically confirmed. The three-profile structure has been found for adults, as well as for late adolescents (e.g., Akse, Hale III, Engels, Raaijmakers, & Meeus, 2004; Steca, Alessandri, & Caprara, 2010). However, findings in early and middle adolescents are mixed.

• Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis

  2018, Personality and Individual Differences

  Causadias et al. (2012) also suggested that when confronted by stressful circumstances, people with a low level of resiliency may act in a stiff and perseverative manner or chaotically and diffusely, and in either case, the resulting behavior is likely to be maladaptive. By taking a typological approach, three basic personality types have been identified in the literature: ego-resilients, vulnerable overcontrollers, and unsettled undercontrollers (Robins, John, Caspi, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996; Steca, Alessandri, & Caprara, 2010). The findings about these three types have been replicated in cross-cultural studies (Alessandri et al., 2014; Specht, Luhmann, & Geiser, 2014).

• The role of personality for subjective well-being in the retirement transition – Comparing variable- and person-oriented models

  2017, Personality and Individual Differences

  Undercontrollers often score low on openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness (Dubas, Gerris, Janssens, & Vermulst, 2002; Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2010), and overcontrollers score low on extraversion, but high on neuroticism (Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf, & van Aken, 2001; Klimstra et al., 2010). Resilients experience favorable outcomes in most studies, while over- and undercontrollers show differential negative effects (e.g. Steca, Allessandri, & Caprara, 2010). To our knowledge there is no study so far that has examined the role of personality profiles in the adaptation to retirement.

Recommended articles (6)