Relation Between Alexithymia and the Five-Factor Model of Personality

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 73(3), 345–358 Copyright © 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Relation Between Alexithymia and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: A Facet-Level Analysis Olivier Luminet Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve

R. Michael Bagby Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto

Hugh Wagner Department of Psychology University of Manchester

Graeme J. Taylor Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto

James D. A. Parker Department of Psychology Trent University

The relation between alexithymia and both the domain and the facet level of the fivefactor model (FFM) of personality was examined in a sample of 101 university students by using the Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS–20; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994) and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992c). Consistent with the alexithymia construct, the TAS–20 was positively correlated with Neuroticism (N) and negatively correlated with Extraversion (E) and Openness (O), whereas no significant relations were found with Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C). Analysis of the lower order traits (i.e., facets) of the FFM

346

LUMINET, BAGBY, WAGNER, TAYLOR, PARKER

revealed that depression for N; positive emotions and assertiveness for E; feelings and actions for O; altruism, tender-mindedness, and modesty for A; and competence for C predicted alexithymia. These results support the uniqueness of the alexithymia construct, which is represented by a cluster of traits across the dimensions and facets of the FFM.

Formulated by Nemiah, Freyberger, and Sifneos (1976) in the mid-1970s, the alexithymia construct encompasses a cluster of cognitive–affective characteristics, including difficulty in identifying feelings, difficulty in expressing feelings to others, an impoverished imaginal life, and an externally oriented style of thinking (Taylor, Bagby, & Parker, 1997). It has been proposed that these characteristics reflect an individual difference in the cognitive processing and regulation of affects (Taylor et al., 1997). Indeed, recent studies have shown that individuals with a high degree of alexithymia manifest maladaptive modes of affect regulation (Bekendam, 1997; Schaffer, 1993). Although researchers have developed a reliable and valid instrument for measuring alexithymia (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994) and have demonstrated considerable support for the validity of the construct from both measurement-based and experimental studies (Lane et al., 1996; Taylor et al., 1997; Taylor, Bagby, Ryan, & Parker, 1990), only a few studies have explored the relations between alexithymia and basic dimensions of personality, such as the five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992). Examining alexithymia in relation to the FFM seems particularly relevant because some personality psychologists and emotion theorists give affects a central role in the organization of personality (Malatesta, 1990; Pervin, 1993; Watson & Clark, 1992). Indeed, Magai and McFadden (1995) contended that “the five dimensions of personality rendered by factor analytic studies are more legitimately seen as being related to emotion traits” (p. 228). Although Costa and McCrae (1992a, 1992c) did not elaborate on explanations for the basic dimensions of personality, emotions are an important part of their definition of traits. Whereas Neuroticism (N) is a disposition to negative emotions and Extraversion (E) is a disposition to positive emotions (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991), Openness (O) to experience refers to an individual’s general interest and involvement in the world and, thus, captures the influence of the innate affect of interest within the structure and organization of the personality (McCrae & Costa, 1985). It has been suggested that the Agreeableness (A) dimension reflects the “hostile” triad of emotions (anger, contempt, and disgust) and that Conscientiousness (C) may reflect guilt or the defensive avoidance of guilt and other emotions (Magai & McFadden, 1995), as well as the ability to control impulses (Costa & McCrae, 1992c). It appears that there are also some interactive effects, in that high A and high C are associated with more positive and less negative affect and, therefore, contribute to higher levels of well-being (McCrae & Costa, 1991) and that high O individuals experience both positive and negative affects more keenly than do closed

ALEXITHYMIA AND THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL

347

individuals (Costa & McCrae, 1992c). Not surprisingly, the FFM is proving to be useful in exploring the relations among emotions, personality, and physical and mental health (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Marshall, Wortman, Vickers, Kusulas, & Hervig, 1994; Smith & Williams, 1992; Watson & Clark, 1992). The FFM can be measured with the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI) or with the revised version of this inventory (NEO–PI–R) developed by Costa and McCrae (1985, 1992b, 1992c) over the past 15 years. In developing these measures, Costa and McCrae (1995) conceptualized the five dimensions of personality as broad domains, with each domain being a multifaceted collection of specific cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies that can be grouped in many different ways; they used the term facet to refer to the lower level traits corresponding to these groupings. In addition to providing a comprehensive assessment of the five domains of personality, the NEO–PI includes six 8-item facet scales for each of the first three domains (N, E, and O). The more recently developed NEO–PI–R differs from the original NEO–PI in having facet scales for the A and C domains and also in minor changes in some of the items on the N, E, and O scales. There is also a 60item version of the inventory known as the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO– FFI), which provides a brief assessment of the five domains only and is considered less reliable and less valid than the full NEO–PI–R (Costa & McCrae, 1992c). In a preliminary investigation of the relation between alexithymia and the FFM, Wise, Mann, and Shay (1992) administered the NEO–FFI and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS; Taylor, Ryan & Bagby, 1985) to a diagnostically heterogenous group of 114 psychiatric outpatients and to 71 adult hospital volunteers screened for psychiatric distress. In a series of stepwise, multiple-regression analyses run separately for clinical and nonclinical groups, Wise et al. (1992) reported that, for the control adult sample, 38% of the variance in TAS scores was predicted by the five dimensions of the NEO–FFI: 26% by E (β = –.36), 8% by O (β = –.32), and 4% by N (β = .24). For the outpatient sample, 57% of the variance was explained by the NEO–FFI: 35% by N (β = .35), 16% by O (β = –.39), and 6% by E (β = –.30). In a later study, Wise and Mann (1994) examined the relation between the TAS and NEO–FFI in a group of 101 psychiatric outpatients, most of whom had a depressed or anxious mood. Partial correlation coefficients controlling for depression revealed the TAS to correlate positively with N (r = .38) and negatively with E (r = –.40), O (r = –.40), and C (r = –.32); the TAS did not significantly correlate with A. In a study examining the convergent and discriminant validity of a revised 20item version of the TAS (TAS–20), Bagby, Taylor, and Parker (1994) administered the NEO–PI and the TAS–20 to a group of 83 college students. Consistent with previous studies, N correlated positively (r = .27, p < .05) and O correlated negatively (r = –.49, p < .01) with the TAS–20; no significant correlations were found between the TAS–20 and E, A, or C. In contrast to the earlier studies, however, the use of the NEO–PI permitted a more detailed analysis of the relations be-

348


tween alexithymia and the lower order traits that comprise the first three dimensions of the FFM. Three of the six facets of N correlated significantly (i.e., p < .01) with the TAS–20: depression (r = .36), self-consciousness (r = .30), and vulnerability (r = .35). Despite a nonsignificant correlation for the overall domain of E, one of the facets within this domain, positive emotions, correlated significantly (r = –.36) with TAS–20 scores. Within the domain of O, four of the six facets correlated significantly with TAS–20 scores, including fantasy (r = –.30), aesthetics (r = –.29), feelings (r = –.55), and ideas (r = –.33). These results are consistent with the clinical profile of alexithymic individuals in that they manifest a propensity to experience undifferentiated emotional and somatic distress (high N) and little capacity to experience positive emotions (low E), as well as a lack of imagination and little interest in their inner feelings (low O). The aims of this study were to (a) extend the findings from previous investigations by using the TAS–20 and the NEO–PI–R, which would permit an exploration of the relations between alexithymia and the facets of A and C, and (b) explore more completely and systematically than was done in previous studies the relations between alexithymia and the specific traits that define the five dimensions. As noted by Costa and McCrae (1992b, 1992c, 1995), one advantage of the multifaceted approach to the measurement of the five factors arises from the fact that meaningful individual differences can be seen within domains. For example, two identical scores at the domain level can be represented by very different patterns of scores at the facet level. In this study, we used separate stepwise regressions for the facets within each of the five domains and attempted to profile the characteristics of the alexithymia construct in this manner.

METHOD Participants and Procedure One hundred one undergraduate students (26 men, 75 women) from the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, volunteered to participate in the study. The mean age of the participants was 21.59 years (SD = 4.40). The participants were recruited by advertisements posted around the campus of the university and were given a small monetary reward (£5) for participating in the study. Participants completed the NEO–PI–R and the TAS–20, along with several other questionnaires used in another study (Luminet, Zech, Rimé, & Wagner, 1999). Measures

NEO–PI–R. This inventory consists of 240 self-report statements presented in a 5-point Likert format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5


349

(strongly agree). As noted earlier, the NEO–PI–R was specifically designed to measure the five domains of the FFM and also six facets within each domain (see Table 1). N is the disposition to experience negative affects, such as anxiety, anger, and depression, and also a low ability to cope with stress. E includes sociability, liveliness, cheerfulness, and the general experience of positive emotion. O comprises aesthetic sensitivity, intellectual curiosity, attentiveness to inner feelings, and an active imagination. A is primarily a dimension of interpersonal tendencies encompassing trust, altruism, sympathy, and cooperativeness. C is a dimension that contrasts people who are scrupulous, well organized, and disciplined with individuals who are lax, disorganized, and lackadaisical (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, 1992c).

TAS–20. This 20-item scale is a revised and improved version of the original TAS and has demonstrated internal reliability and test–retest reliability as well as convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994). Factor-analytic studies have consistently yield three factors that assess the salient features of the alexithymia construct: Difficulty Identifying Feelings, Difficulty Describing Feeling, and Externally Oriented Thinking (Parker, Bagby, Taylor, Endler, & Schmitz, 1993). The impoverished imaginal component of the alexithymia construct is assessed to some extent indirectly by the Externally Oriented Thinking factor, which correlates negatively with the fantasy facet of O on the NEO–PI (Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994). Each item on the TAS–20 is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with five items negatively keyed. The TAS–20 has been translated and cross-validated in numerous other languages and is currently the most widely used measure of the alexithymia construct (Taylor et al., 1997). Statistical Analyses Means and standard deviations for the domains and facets of the NEO–PI–R were calculated. T tests were performed to assess for possible sex differences across the 30 facets. Because no significant differences were found after applying a Bonferroni correction (p < .002), the results were collapsed across sex. Pearson correlations were used to assess the relation between the TAS–20 and each of the domains and facets of the NEO–PI–R. The analyses for the facets within domains were conducted by using stepwise regression. Prior to each facet analysis, domain scores were forced into the model as a whole to assess how much variance the NEO–PI–R dimension scores (predictor variable) could account for TAS–20 scores (criterion variable) as a whole. Next, the six facet scale scores within any given domain were used to predict TAS–20 scores. The facets were entered in a

TABLE 1 NEO–PI–R Mean Raw Scores, Standard Deviations, Mean T Scores, and Correlations With the TAS–20 Raw Scores NEO–PI–R Scale or Facet Neuroticism Anxiety Angry hostility Depression Self-consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-seeking Positive emotions Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values Agreeableness Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender-mindedness Conscientiouness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement striving Self-discipline Deliberation

M

SD

T (M)

Correlation With TAS–20

105.63 19.47 15.38 19.15 18.01 18.84 14.79 114.34 22.62 18.75 14.38 17.68 19.87 21.03 130.23 22.02 20.56 23.72 18.05 22.17 23.70 113.60 17.77 17.82 22.23 16.75 18.53 20.50 97.73 17.94 14.73 19.07 15.84 15.62 14.52

19.20 4.76 5.00 5.69 4.49 4.50 4.89 18.93 4.07 5.43 5.21 4.53 4.23 5.12 18.85 5.12 6.06 4.15 3.90 4.74 3.45 15.39 4.76 4.97 3.11 4.05 4.88 3.53 19.17 3.75 4.54 4.31 4.75 4.63 4.36

54.26 53.93 48.78 56.75 53.43 51.03 54.53 46.23 48.66 49.12 44.86 47.06 45.93 48.85 57.54 54.00 53.51 53.08 56.43 56.14 57.85 50.06 47.89 49.00 47.30 52.62 51.62 52.11 42.05 42.10 43.74 44.80 43.76 42.72 45.39

.38** .10 .14 .44** .31** .06 .39** –.36** –.29* –.10 –.34* –.30* .00 –.37* –.41** –.26* –.17 –.39** –.33** –.28* –.21 –.14 –.25 –.05 –.33** .13 .15 –.25 –.16 –.40** –.10 –.04 –.20 .02 –.05

Note. NEO–PI–R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; TAS–20 = Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. *p < .01. **p < .001.

350


351

stepwise fashion with the criteria for entry set at p < .05. Five separate regression analyses were run, one for each of the five dimensions. RESULTS Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of the raw test scores for the five domains and 30 facets of the NEO–PI–R. The standardized scores (T scores, M = 50, SD = 10), calculated from the combined college normative sample for men and women for the NEO–PI–R, are also displayed in Table 1. Overall, the T scores for the entire sample, which never deviate more than 10 points from the standardized mean score of 50, indicate that they do not differ substantially from the college normative sample data presented by Costa and McCrae (1992c). The TAS–20 mean score was 51.00 (SD = 9.83). This result is highly comparable to what Parker et al. (1993) obtained in two English-speaking samples of undergraduate students of similar age. In this study, 50% of the respondents were below the cutoff score for alexithymia (≤ 51), and 19% were above it (≥ 61). This means that, although the participants were recruited in a nonclinical environment, about one fifth of them reach the criterion for being considered as alexithymics. Table 1 also displays the zero-order correlations between the TAS–20 and the domains and facets of the NEO–PI–R. Given the number of comparisons, the significance level was set at p < .01 to control for multiple comparisons within each TABLE 2 Stepwise Regression Analyses Predicting Alexithymia Scores From NEO–PI–R Dimensions and Facets Scores NEO–PI–R Scale or Facet Neuroticism Depression Extraversion Positive emotions Assertiveness Openness Feelings Action Agreeableness Altruism Modesty Tender-mindedness Conscientiousness Competence Self-discipline

β

R2

Adjusted R2

∆ R2

df

F

∆F

.38*** .18*** –.36*** –.29** –.25* –.41*** –.31*** –.21* –.14 –.31** .28** –.24* –.16 –.49*** .22*

.14 .19 .13 .14 .19 .17 .15 .19 .02 .11 .16 .21 .03 .16 .20

.13 .18 .12 .13 .17 .16 .14 .18 .01 .10 .14 .18 .02 .15 .19

— — — — .05 — — .04 — — .05 .05 — — .04

1, 99 1, 99 1, 99 1, 99 2, 98 1, 99 1, 99 2, 98 1, 99 1, 99 2, 98 3, 97 1, 99 1, 99 2, 98

16.51*** 22.89*** 14.39*** 15.69*** 11.60*** 19.91*** 7.91*** 11.62*** 1.86 11.89*** 8.99*** 8.37*** 2.76 18.78*** 12.19***

— — — — 6.62* — — 4.68* — — 5.54* 6.19* — — 4.88*

Note. NEO–PI–R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

352


domain. The overall domain of N and the facets of depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability all correlated significantly and positively with the TAS–20. For the domain of E, a negative correlation was found with TAS–20 scores; at the facet level, significant and negative correlations were obtained with positive emotions, warmth, assertiveness, and activity. For O, significant negative correlations were found for the total domain score and for the facets of fantasy, feelings, actions, and ideas. Neither the domain of A nor the domain of C were correlated with TAS–20 scores. At the facet levels, however, significant negative correlations were obtained with altruism in the A domain and with competence in the C domain. Table 2 displays the results from the stepwise regression analyses for the five domains and facets within each domain. Results for the domain level are not reported here because they are identical to the correlations reported in Table 1. At the facet level, depression was found to be the only predictor of alexithymia within N. For E, a negative relation was observed between TAS–20 scores and scores on the positive emotions and assertiveness facets. For O, TAS–20 scores were best predicted by the combination of the feelings and actions facets. Although no association was found at the domain level for A, three facets were related to alexithymia scores: the altruism and tender-mindedness facets related negatively, and the modesty facet related positively with TAS–20 scores. The domain of C was unrelated to TAS–20 scores, but a negative relation was observed with the competence facet and a positive relation with the self-discipline facet.1,2 1For the self-discipline facet of the C domain, a clear discrepancy was observed between the regression analysis, in which self-discipline was retained as a second significant predictor of alexithymia (β = .22 , ∆ R2 = .04, p < .05), and the zero-order correlation between self-discipline and TAS–20 scores (r = .02), which was not significant. One can argue that self-discipline was retained as a predictor of alexithymia because of the multicollinearity between the independent variables. To check for this possibility, the intercorrelation between competence and self-discipline was examined. Although significant (r = .40, p < .001), the correlation was far below .90, the level above which there is a risk of having large and unstable numbers in the inverted matrix (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), and also far below the .70 level recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell to avoid inflating the size of error terms. For a more definite test of multicollinearity, two statistical indexes are commonly used (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Neither a conditioning index greater than 30, nor at least two variance proportions greater than .50 for a given root number were found, indicating that no multicollinearity occurred between the competence and self-discipline facets. However, when entered in the regression analysis, self-discipline accounted for only 4% of the increase of explained variance and was uncorrelated to TAS–20 scores. Therefore, this facet was not considered a predictor of alexithymia. 2It might be argued that these stepwise procedures within a domain do not reflect the unique shared variance between TAS–20 scores and the facets of the NEO–PI–R. To this end, we also calculated partial correlations for each of the 30 facets from the five dimensions, controlling for the shared common variance among the five dimensions. For example, the 6 facets of N were correlated with TAS–20 scores while partialing out the variance contributed by the remaining domains (E, O, A, and C). The procedure was repeated for each of the five domains (i.e., for the facets of E, N, O, A, and C were partialed; for the facets of O, N, E, A, and C, etc.). The results from these analyses closely resembled those reported in the regression analyses.


353

DISCUSSION The overall results of this study are consistent with the view that alexithymia reflects an individual difference in emotional experience and behavior, corresponding not to any single dimension or lower order trait within the FFM, but is captured by a complex admixture of narrow personality traits. At the dimensional level, alexithymia was associated positively with N, was associated negatively with O and E, and was unrelated to the broad dimensions of A and C. These findings are consistent with clinical reports that alexithymic traits are associated with psychological and somatic distress, a limited range of interests, and little positive emotion (Krystal, 1988; McDougall, 1980; Taylor et al., 1997). The findings become more interesting, however, when we consider the relations between alexithymia and the lower level traits that comprise the dimensions of the FFM. As was found in the previous study with college students (Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994), alexithymia was associated positively with tendencies to experience depressive affect and feelings of self-consciousness and positively with difficulties in coping with stressful situations. The results of the regression analysis, however, showed that among the facets of N, only depression predicted alexithymia scores. This finding has also been reported in several previous investigations, showing a positive, moderate association between alexithymia and depression (Bagby, Taylor, & Ryan, 1986; Haviland, MacMurray, & Cummings, 1988; Haviland, Shaw, Cummings, & MacMurray, 1988). This association is consistent with the propensity of alexithymic individuals to experience undifferentiated emotional distress and with their difficulties in modulating and regulating such negative affect (Taylor et al., 1997). Within the domain of E, alexithymia was associated negatively and most strongly with the tendency to experience positive emotions but was also negatively associated with the facets of warmth, assertiveness, and activity. These findings are similarly consistent with clinical observations that alexithymia is associated with anhedonia (Krystal, 1988; Sifneos, 1987), an inability to form close emotional relationships (Apfel & Sifneos, 1979; Taylor, 1987), and social conformity (Ruesch, 1948). Moreover, in separate samples of college students, healthy adults, and patients with anorexia nervosa, Taylor, Parker, Bagby, and Bourke (1996) found that the TAS–20 correlated strongly and positively with the Interpersonal Distrust scale of the Eating Disorder Inventory (Garner, 1991), which assesses an individual’s reluctance to form close relationships and express thoughts and feelings to others. Other studies have found that TAS–20 scores correlate negatively with self-reports of both the experience and expression of positive emotions (Lumley, Mader, Gramzow, & Papineau, 1996; Yelsma, 1996). Although Bagby, Taylor, and Parker (1994) also found alexithymia to be associated negatively with the positive emotions facet of E, the TAS–20 did not correlate significantly with the facets of warmth and activity in their student sample. In the regression analysis

354


in this study, the positive emotions facet accounted for most of the overall significant effect. The pattern of significant negative correlations between the TAS–20 and four facets of O is similar to the results obtained by Bagby, Taylor, and Parker (1994), although, in their study, alexithymia was also related negatively to the aesthetics facet. Regression analyses showed that the openness to feelings facet was the most powerful predictor of TAS–20 scores and that openness to action was the only other facet of O that predicted alexithymia significantly. These findings indicate that alexithymia is associated strongly with a lack of receptivity to feelings, a limited range of emotional experience, and a negative evaluation of emotion as an important part of life. The negative correlation between alexithymia and openness to action is consistent with clinical reports that alexithymia is associated with a lack of interest in trying new activities and a preference for familiarity and routine (Taylor et al., 1997). Given that an impoverished imaginal life is one of the salient features of the alexithymia construct (Nemiah et al., 1976; Taylor et al., 1997), it is somewhat surprising that the fantasy facet of O was not retained as a predictor of TAS–20 scores in the regression analyses. The fantasy facet is clearly related to alexithymia, as indicated by a significant, negative zero-order correlation, but its contribution is usurped by the openness to feelings facet, suggesting that the latter trait is a more central feature of the alexithymia construct. Although alexithymia was unrelated to the broad domain of A, at the facet level regression analyses indicated that TAS–20 scores were predicted by low scores on the lower order traits of altruism and tender-mindedness and by high scores on the lower order trait of modesty. The negative relation with altruism is consistent with clinical observations and empirical evidence that alexithymia is associated with a lack of empathy (Krystal, 1979; Parker & Taylor, 1998). The negative relation with tender-mindedness is consistent with the view that people scoring low on this facet consider themselves realists, making rationale decisions based on cold logic (Costa & McCrae, 1992c), descriptions that are consistent with the alexithymia construct. The positive relation with modesty suggests that higher scorers on the alexithymic construct are likely to be humble and self-effacing rather than conceited and arrogant (Costa & McCrae, 1992c). As found in the earlier study with college students (Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994), alexithymia was unrelated to the broad domain of C. In this study, however, regression analyses using scores on the revised version of the NEO–PI identified a negative relation with the competence facet, which Costa and McCrae (1992c) consider the facet of C that is associated most strongly with self-esteem. This finding is consistent with previous studies in which the TAS–20 correlated significantly and negatively with a measure of self-esteem in a college student sample (Yelsma, 1995). Because low self-esteem is associated with negative affect (e.g., Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998; Tarlow & Haaga, 1996), it is possible that the predic-


355

tion of alexithymia scores by the lower order trait of competence is related to the positive association between alexithymia and N and is merely further evidence that alexithymia reflects an underlying disturbance in the experience and regulation of emotions. The results obtained at the facet levels for A and C indicate the importance of examining relations with the specific traits that define each of the five basic dimensions of personality. Whereas no relations were found between alexithymia and A and C at the domain level, entering the facets in regression analyses indicated that several specific traits within these two domains predict alexithymia scores. As Costa and McCrae (1995) indicated, interpretation on the domain level yields a global understanding, but interpretation of specific facet scales provides a more refined and detailed assessment of an individual’s personality. The advantage of conducting a facet analysis is indicated also by the gain of explained variance when compared to a domain analysis. The changes were particularly striking for A and C, which explained 1 and 2% of the variance, respectively, when considered as domains but 18 and 19 %, respectively, when considered as facets. For N, E, and O the changes were smaller, but the amount of explained variance was still higher with a facet analysis (18 vs. 13%; 17 vs. 12%; and 18 vs. 16%, respectively). When comparing the amount of explained variance by using a facet analysis across domains, each domain explained a very similar level, ranging from 17% for E to 19% for C. These results constitute another indication that alexithymia is not merely equivalent to the construct of N, as some authors have proposed (Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990; Rubino, Grasso, Sonnino, & Pezzarossa, 1991); rather, the results confirm the uniqueness of the alexithymia construct, which is represented by a cluster of traits across the dimensions of the FFM. Although the results of this study are consistent with the view that the alexithymia construct reflects individual differences in the experiencing of emotions and in the way emotions influence behavior, the study was conducted with university students who generally score in the low range on alexithymia measures; hence, caution must be exercised in generalizing the findings to clinical populations. Further studies are needed, therefore, to explore relations between alexithymia and lower order traits in clinical populations, especially the facets comprising the A and C dimensions of the FFM. Although there is empirical evidence that hostility is associated independently with (low) A and general positive affects independently with C (Watson & Clark, 1992), additional research is required to explore the relations between specific negative and positive affects and the specific facets within the domains of A and C. Finally, it could be argued that most of the variance in the facets is common to the broader domain level. This suggests that the stability of the results at the facet level might be lower than the one at the domain level. Replication of these results is, therefore, warranted.

356


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by Grant FRFC 2.4546.97 from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research and by travel allocation from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research granted to Olivier Luminet. It was also facilitated by the joint support granted by the Council for International Relations of the Belgian French-speaking government and the British Council. Olivier Luminet is postdoctoral researcher at the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research and North Atlantic Treaty Organization research fellowship. We acknowledge Bernard Rimé, who has initiated a research project on personality and emotion at the University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve.

REFERENCES Apfel, R. J., & Sifneos, P. E. (1979). Alexithymia: Concept and measurement. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 32, 180–190. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23–32. Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale— II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 33– 40. Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., & Ryan, D. (1986). Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Relationship with personality and psychopathology measures. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 45, 207–215. Bekendam, C. C. (1997). Dimensions of emotional intelligence: Attachment, affect regulation, and empathy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of Extraversion and Neuroticism on subjective wellbeing: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992c). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Frable, D. E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-perceptions: Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 909–922. Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory–2: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.


357

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Haviland, M. G., MacMurray, J. P., & Cummings, M. A. (1988). The relationship between alexithymia and depressive symptoms in a sample of newly abstinent alcoholic inpatients. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 49, 37–40. Haviland, M. G., Shaw, D. G., Cummings, M. A., & MacMurray, J. P. (1988). Alexithymia: Subscales and relationship to depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 50, 164–170. Krystal, H. (1979). Alexithymia and psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 33, 17–31. Krystal, H. (1988). Integration and self-healing: Affect, trauma, alexithymia. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., Reidel, R., Weldon, V., Kaszniak, A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1996). Impaired verbal and nonverbal emotion recognition in alexithymia. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58, 203–210. Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140. Luminet, O., Zech, E., Rimé, B., & Wagner, H. L. (1999). Predicting cognitive and social consequences of emotional episodes: The contribution of emotional intensity, the five factor model and alexithymia. Manuscript submitted for publication. Lumley, M. A., Mader, C., Gramzow, J., & Papineau, K. (1996). Family factors related to alexithymic characteristics. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58, 211–216. Magai, C. Z., & McFadden, S. H. (1995). The role of emotions in social and personality development. New York: Plenum. Malatesta, C. Z. (1990). The role of emotions in the development and organization of personality. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 36, 1–56. Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Vickers, R. R., Kusulas, J. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1994). The five-factor model of personality as a framework for personality-health research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 278–286. Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 772–781. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Openness to experience. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in psychology: Theory, measurement and interpersonal dynamics (Vol. 1, pp. 145– 172). Greenwich, CT: JAI. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. McDougall, J. (1980). Plea for a measure of abnormality. New York: International Universities Press. Nemiah, J. C., Freyberger, H., & Sifneos, P. E. (1976). Alexithymia: A view of the psychosomatic process. In O. W. Hill (Ed.), Modern trends in psychosomatic medicine (Vol. 3, pp. 430–439). London: Butterworths. Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., Endler, N. S., & Schmitz, P. (1993). Factorial validity of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. European Journal of Personality, 7, 221–232. Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1998, August). Alexithymia and emotional intelligence. Paper presented at the 106th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Pervin, L. A. (1993). Affect and personality. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 301–311). New York: Guilford. Rubino, I. A., Grasso, S., Sonnino, A., & Pezzarossa, B. (1991). Is alexithymia a non-neurotic personality dimension? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 385–391. Ruesch, J. (1948). The infantile personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 10, 134–144. Schaffer, C. E. (1993). The role of adult attachment in the experience and regulation of affect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

358


Sifneos, P. E. (1987). Anhedonia and alexithymia: A potential correlation. In D. C. Clark & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Anhedonia and affect deficit states (pp. 119–127). New York: PMA. Smith, T. W., & Williams, P. G. (1992). Personality and health: Advantages and limitations of the fivefactor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 395–423. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Tarlow, E. M., & Haaga, D. A. F. (1996). Negative self-concept: Specificity to depressive symptoms and relation to positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 120–127. Taylor, G. J. (1987). Psychosomatic medicine and contemporary psychoanalysis. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (1997). Disorders of affect regulation. Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., Ryan, D. P., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Validation of the alexithymia construct: A measurement-based approach. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 290–297. Taylor, G. J., Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Bourke, M. P. (1996). Relationships between alexithymia and psychological characteristics associated with eating disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 41, 561–568. Taylor, G. J., Ryan, D., & Bagby, R. M. (1985). Toward the development of a new self-report alexithymia scale. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 44, 191–199. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441–476. Wise, T. N., & Mann, L. S. (1994). The relationship between somatosensory amplification, alexithymia, and neuroticism. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 515–521. Wise, T. N., Mann, L. S., & Shay, L. (1992). Alexithymia and the five-factor model of personality. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 33, 147–151. Yelsma, P. (1995). Self-esteem and alexithymia. Psychological Reports, 77, 735–738. Yelsma, P. (1996). Affective orientations of perpetrators, victims, and functional spouses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 141–161.

Olivier Luminet Department of Psychology Research Unit for Clinical and Social Psychology University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve 10 Place Cardinal Mercier B–1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium E-mail: [email protected] Received February 10, 1999 Revised May 26, 1999