Journal of Personality and Psychosomatic Research (JPPR)

This study aimed to identify the key psychological predictors that contribute to discrepancies between perceived mental well-being and physical health among adults in Singapore. A qualitative research design with an interpretive phenomenological approach was adopted to explore the psychological mechanisms underlying mind–body health incongruence. A total of 21 adult participants (12 females, 9 males; aged 26–54 years) were recruited through purposeful sampling based on self-reported differences between their psychological and physical health experiences. Data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews lasting 60–90 minutes and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis framework with the aid of NVivo 14 software. Theoretical saturation was achieved after the 21st interview. Rigor was ensured through member checking, audit trails, and peer debriefing. The analysis revealed four major psychological domains explaining the mind–body health discrepancy: (1) Emotional dysregulation and somatic sensitivity, reflecting the translation of unprocessed emotions into bodily symptoms; (2) Cognitive appraisal and belief systems, indicating that maladaptive health beliefs, perfectionism, and mind–body dualism contribute to misaligned health perceptions; (3) Behavioral and lifestyle misalignment, showing inconsistent self-care and maladaptive coping strategies that sustain perceptual dissonance; and (4) Interpersonal and sociocultural determinants, encompassing social expectations, family communication patterns, and cultural norms that reinforce emotional suppression and health misperception. Collectively, these themes suggest that subjective health perception is shaped more by cognitive–emotional regulation and social context than by biological status. The study underscores that mind–body health discrepancy arises from the convergence of emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and sociocultural factors. Enhancing emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and social support systems may reduce such incongruence and promote holistic well-being. These findings provide a conceptual foundation for integrative psychological and medical interventions.

This study aimed to explore how stable personality traits, particularly conscientiousness and neuroticism, influence psychophysiological health outcomes through emotional regulation, behavioral patterns, and cognitive–affective integration among adults in Canada. This qualitative study employed a descriptive–exploratory design to examine the lived experiences of individuals regarding the interaction between personality and psychophysiological well-being. Twenty-one adult participants (11 women, 10 men) aged 25–55 from various provinces in Canada were selected using purposive sampling. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, each lasting 60–90 minutes, and analyzed using thematic analysis in NVivo 14 software. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. The analytic process followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step framework, including open and axial coding to derive major themes. Credibility was ensured through member checking and peer debriefing. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) Emotional Regulation and Stress Reactivity, capturing the link between personality traits, emotion control, and physiological stress responses; (2) Personality Dispositions Influencing Health Behavior, emphasizing conscientiousness and neuroticism as primary determinants of health-promoting or risk behaviors; and (3) Cognitive–Affective Integration and Meaning Construction, illustrating how mindfulness, meaning in life, and self-reflection mediate personality’s effect on physiological well-being. Participants high in conscientiousness reported adaptive coping, lower stress reactivity, and greater resilience, while those with high neuroticism experienced more psychosomatic symptoms but sometimes converted anxiety into health vigilance—reflecting the “healthy neuroticism” effect. Personality traits, particularly conscientiousness and neuroticism, are central predictors of psychophysiological health. Their interaction shapes emotional regulation, behavioral consistency, and physiological adaptation.

This study aimed to identify, conceptualize, and prioritize the personality-based pathways that contribute to stress reactivity and psychosomatic illness through an integrated mixed-method approach. The research employed a two-phase sequential mixed-method design. In the qualitative phase, a comprehensive literature review was conducted until theoretical saturation was achieved, and the extracted data were analyzed using NVivo 14 to identify recurring personality-based mechanisms underlying psychosomatic illness. In the quantitative phase, a structured questionnaire developed from the qualitative findings was distributed to 250 adult participants in the United Arab Emirates. Respondents rated the importance of nine personality-based pathways on a five-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using SPSS-26, employing descriptive and inferential statistics to rank the identified pathways based on mean scores and standard deviations. The analysis revealed that neuroticism and emotional instability (M = 4.62, SD = 0.41), psychophysiological integration pathways (M = 4.56, SD = 0.48), and alexithymia and emotional unawareness (M = 4.47, SD = 0.53) were the top-ranked predictors of psychosomatic vulnerability. Mid-level contributors included perfectionism and self-criticism, stress appraisal and cognitive schemas, and emotion regulation strategies, while extraversion and social connectivity and conscientiousness and coping regulation ranked lowest, indicating a primarily protective rather than causative role. Inferential tests confirmed significant differences in perceived importance across demographic groups (p < .05), reinforcing the robustness of the model. The findings demonstrate that psychosomatic illness arises from a hierarchical interaction of personality-driven emotional, cognitive, and physiological processes, with neuroticism, alexithymia, and physiological dysregulation forming the core vulnerability triad. These results underscore the importance of personality assessment in psychosomatic health management and highlight the need for personality-informed preventive and therapeutic interventions.

This study aimed to identify and rank the key cognitive–affective factors contributing to the development of psychosomatic illness through an integrated qualitative–quantitative research design. A mixed-methods sequential design was employed. In the qualitative phase, an extensive literature review of 127 scientific sources published between 2000 and 2025 was conducted to identify the principal cognitive–affective mechanisms underlying psychosomatic illness. Using NVivo 14 software, open and axial coding were applied until theoretical saturation was achieved, resulting in seven major thematic categories. In the quantitative phase, a structured questionnaire was developed based on these qualitative findings and administered to 288 adult participants from Portugal. Participants rated the importance of each factor on a 5-point Likert scale. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 26, with descriptive and inferential analyses determining the ranking and significance of each factor. The results showed that emotional dysregulation was the most influential factor contributing to psychosomatic illness (M = 4.62, SD = 0.43), followed by stress reactivity and coping deficits (M = 4.48, SD = 0.52) and maladaptive cognitive appraisal (M = 4.36, SD = 0.58). Relational and attachment factors ranked fourth (M = 4.27, SD = 0.61), while body–emotion misattribution and personality traits followed with moderate influence. Health beliefs and mind–body awareness received the lowest mean score (M = 3.89, SD = 0.67). Inferential analyses indicated statistically significant differences across demographic groups, with higher psychosomatic sensitivity observed among participants with greater emotional suppression and lower coping efficacy. The findings highlight emotional dysregulation and maladaptive stress processing as the most critical cognitive–affective determinants of psychosomatic illness. Interventions targeting emotion regulation, adaptive coping, and cognitive restructuring are essential to prevent and manage psychosomatic symptoms.

This study aimed to explore and interpret the dimensions of sexual self-concept among women living with endometriosis, focusing on how chronic pelvic pain, emotional distress, and relational factors shape their perceptions of sexuality and identity. A qualitative exploratory design was employed using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 20 women diagnosed with endometriosis residing in Canada. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, ensuring variation in age, marital status, and duration since diagnosis. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework, supported by NVivo 14 software for coding and data organization. Trustworthiness was ensured through member checking, peer debriefing, and maintaining an audit trail. Analysis revealed three overarching themes: (1) Altered Body and Self-Perception, describing loss of femininity, body shame, and internalized guilt; (2) Emotional and Relational Challenges in Sexual Intimacy, highlighting fear of pain, avoidance of intercourse, communication barriers, and relational insecurity; and (3) Coping, Adaptation, and Sexual Empowerment, encompassing self-acceptance, meaning-making, spiritual coping, and redefinition of sexual identity. Participants demonstrated both vulnerability and resilience, reconstructing their sexual self-concept through self-compassion, supportive relationships, and advocacy. The findings indicate that endometriosis affects not only physical sexuality but also emotional identity and relational dynamics. Sexual self-concept in women with endometriosis is a multidimensional construct shaped by pain, body image, partner understanding, and personal meaning-making. The study underscores the importance of integrating psychosocial and relational support into endometriosis care to promote sexual well-being and identity reconstruction.

This study aimed to explore and identify the organizational, psychosocial, and behavioral factors contributing to psychosomatic stress among healthcare workers in the United States through an in-depth qualitative analysis of their lived experiences. A qualitative exploratory design was employed to capture healthcare workers’ subjective experiences of psychosomatic stress. Twenty-three participants, including nurses, physicians, technicians, and administrative staff, were purposively selected from hospitals and clinics across the United States. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted face-to-face or via secure online platforms. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using NVivo 14 software. Thematic analysis followed the Braun and Clarke (2006) framework, allowing the identification of recurrent patterns and relationships among concepts. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Three main themes emerged: (1) Organizational and structural stressors—including work overload, administrative pressure, resource scarcity, and unsafe working conditions—were linked to chronic fatigue, headaches, and sleep disturbances; (2) Psychosocial and emotional stressors—such as compassion fatigue, interpersonal strain, and work–family conflict—contributed to emotional exhaustion and physical symptoms; and (3) Psychosomatic manifestations and coping responses—showing how stress materialized as physical pain, anxiety, and maladaptive behaviors, while some workers adopted adaptive coping strategies like mindfulness and peer support. The findings suggest that psychosomatic stress in healthcare settings stems from systemic imbalance rather than individual vulnerability, confirming strong interdependence between emotional and physiological domains. The study highlights that healthcare workers’ psychosomatic distress is rooted in organizational dysfunction and emotional overload.

This study aimed to explore the lived experiences and psychological components of body–self ambiguity among patients with chronic dermatological conditions, focusing on how individuals interpret, negotiate, and reconstruct the meaning of their altered embodiment. This qualitative phenomenological study was conducted with 16 dermatology patients (9 women and 7 men) from clinical centers in Tehran between March and August 2025. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure variation in age, gender, diagnosis, and illness duration. Data were collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews that invited participants to describe their personal experiences of body–self disconnection and social perception. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis using NVivo 14 software. Theoretical saturation was achieved after the sixteenth interview. Trustworthiness was ensured through triangulation, member checking, and maintaining an audit trail of analytical decisions. Analysis revealed four overarching themes representing the components of body–self ambiguity in dermatology patients: (1) Fragmented Body Awareness, describing disconnection from one’s bodily image and sensory estrangement; (2) Emotional Turbulence in the Self–Body Relationship, involving shame, anxiety, and emotional fatigue in response to visible changes; (3) Social Mirror and External Reflection, capturing stigma, social withdrawal, and the internalization of others’ judgments; and (4) Meaning Reconstruction and Adaptation, denoting acceptance, spirituality, and creative self-expression as pathways toward re-integrating body and self. These findings highlight body–self ambiguity as a fluid and multidimensional experience shaped by emotional, social, and cultural contexts. The study concludes that dermatological illness profoundly alters patients’ bodily self-concept, evoking fragmentation yet also fostering potential for meaning reconstruction.

This study aimed to explore and conceptualize the multidimensional nature of resilience among women living with autoimmune conditions, focusing on their cognitive, emotional, social, and spiritual adaptation processes. A qualitative phenomenological design was employed to gain a deep understanding of women’s lived experiences of resilience while coping with autoimmune diseases. Using purposive sampling, twenty-one women diagnosed with autoimmune conditions—including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and thyroid disorders—were recruited from medical centers in Tehran. Data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews lasting 45–75 minutes. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework with the assistance of NVivo 14 software. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Trustworthiness was ensured through member checking, peer debriefing, and maintaining an audit trail. Thematic analysis revealed four overarching dimensions of resilience: (1) Cognitive Adaptation—involving reframing illness, future orientation, and meaning-making through knowledge; (2) Emotional Regulation—including acceptance, emotional endurance, and positive emotional expression; (3) Social Connectedness—encompassing family support, peer empathy, and identity reconstruction through relationships; and (4) Spiritual and Existential Resilience—defined by faith, gratitude, moral integrity, and spiritual integration with medical care. Resilience among women with autoimmune diseases emerges as a multifaceted and culturally embedded phenomenon, rooted in cognitive flexibility, emotional mastery, social solidarity, and spiritual meaning-making. Interventions should therefore adopt holistic and culturally sensitive approaches that address both psychosocial and existential needs, empowering women to live purposefully despite chronic adversity.