Analysis revealed Type D Personality significantly influences subjective cognitive impairment in individuals with multiple sclerosis, suggesting unique contributions beyond depression.
Objective Type D Personality, conceptualized as simultaneous Social Inhibition and Negative Affectivity, is associated with worse outcomes in persons with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS). The present study aimed to assess whether the impact of Type D Personality extends to cognition. A priori, we expect Type D Personality to account for variance in cognitive impairment. Method Data was analyzed from 56 PwMS diagnosed by board-certified neurologists using the revised McDonald criteria. Type D Personality was measured using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory traits of Neuroticism and Extraversion. Composite variables were created to measure Memory and Attention-Processing Speed. These composites, as well as the Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire (MSNQ) self- and informant-reports, were used as dependent variables in separate linear regression analyses with Type D Personality as the predictor. The Beck Depression Inventory Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was included in a subsequent model with Type D Personality predicting MSNQ self-report. Results Type D Personality significantly explained 23.4% of the variance in MSNQ self-report, [F (1,54) = 16.52, p < .001], but was not associated with either cognitive composite variable or MSNQ informant-report. After controlling for depression, the impact of Type D Personality was reduced but remained significant [F (1,53) = 7.77, p = .007], still accounting for 11% of the total variance in MSNQ self-report. Conclusion Type D Personality was associated with perceived but not performance-based cognitive impairment or others’ perceptions of cognitive problems. Depression did not fully mediate this relationship, underscoring that Type D Personality features uniquely contribute to the subjective experience of greater cognitive problems in PwMS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santivasci et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: