Does Fantastic Reality Ability Differ Across Personality Prototypes?

Abstract

Human personality is based on five fundamental traits, and these traits appear to cluster in three different prototypes (i.e., resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled prototypes). A growing body of research suggests that persons with these prototypes differ in mental health and well-being. We set out to identify if clusters differ in the use of imagination to cope with stress and uncertainty (i.e., Fantastic Reality Ability). For this study, we recruited 398 Israeli adults during the second COVID-19 lockdown, before the vaccine was available; participants were recruited and provided responses online including the FRAME (i.e., Fantastic Reality Ability Measurement). Cluster analyses indicate Israeli participants present with three distinct personality clusters or prototypes similar to research conducted in North America and Europe. Clusters significantly differ in FRA abilities (i.e., control, playfulness, coping, transcendence). That is, the resilient prototype reported higher control, playfulness and coping, and lower transcendence compared to the over- and undercontrolled. Future research should examine FRA in psychotherapy to further understand the clinical utility of this individual difference over time.

Keywords

fantastic reality ability personality prototypes imagination stress resilience

Introduction

Despite the range of individual differences in beliefs, attitudes and behavior (Caspi & Shiner, 2006), human personality is based on five foundational traits (John et al., 2008; Mammadov, 2022); this has been replicated and reported across populations (e.g., Nikčević et al., 2021; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007). More recent research indicates that not only are these Big Five personality traits universal, but specific groupings of traits appear to consistently collect or cluster (Alessandri et al., 2014; Rossi et al., 2021; Specht et al., 2014). As mental health and psychological well-being are associated with specific traits (Nikčević et al., 2021; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006), we may also see significant differences across personality prototypes in relative ability to cope with stressors (e.g., shelter-in-place during COVID-19 pandemic).

As defined by Rubinstein and colleagues (2021), fantastic reality ability (FRA) entails the use of imagination in response to stress and uncertainty. As active imagination and absorption are key facets of openness to experience (Liang et al., 2013; Oleynick et al., 2017; Zabelina, 2019), we anticipate that prototypes high in this trait will report greater use of imagination to cope with stressors.

Big Five Personality Traits

Today there is wide consensus that human personality is based on five primary traits (Digman, 1990; John et al., 2008; Mammadov, 2022). This allows us to identify different clusters or constellations of traits (Costa et al., 2002; Jawinski et al., 2021; Nikčević et al., 2021; Schnabel et al., 2002). Specifically, these Big Five are neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. They have been studied extensively across contexts and cultures (e.g., Nikčević et al., 2021; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007) and shown to be largely stable across the adult lifespan (Caspi & Shiner, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007).

Personality Prototypes

Just as there are five consistent personality types, there too appear to be a consistent set of personality clusters or prototypes. Across the life-span, using multiple evaluation techniques and statistical procedures, research has consistently reported three distinct personality prototypes (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Caspi, 1998; Robins et al., 1996, 1998; Rossi et al., 2021). These have been labeled as Resilient, Undercontrolled, and Overcontrolled (RUO; Dennissen et al., 2008) or Asendorpf-Robins-Caspi types (ARC; Costa et al., 2002).

Personality research demonstrates that resilient persons tend to be low in neuroticism and above-average for the four remaining traits. By contrast, the overcontrolled are high in neuroticism, low in extraversion, and average for the remaining three traits. And the undercontrolled are low in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and moderately higher in neuroticism (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Robins et al., 1996; Schnabel et al., 2002). RUO prototypes have been identified across languages and cultures (Alessandri et al., 2014; Klimstra et al., 2010; Meeus et al., 2011; Pesonen et al., 2008; Robins et al., 1996; Specht et al., 2014).

The constructs of ego control and ego resiliency are commonly applied to define and distinguish RUO prototypes (Block & Block, 1980). These are psychological functions associated with an effectual adaption to conflict and change (Block, 1993). Ego resiliency entails impulse control, self-regulation, and flexible adaptation to change in one's environmental (Berry et al., 2007; Murzyn, 2020). According to Berry et al. (2007), individuals lacking effective ego resiliency tend to be undercontrolled or overcontrolled. This is supported by research showing that those who are overcontrolled internalize difficulties in contrast to the undercontrolled who externalize difficulties (e.g., act out). In contrast, resilient people are less affected by difficulties (Caspi & Silva, 1995; Robins et al., 1996). More research is needed examining how these RUO prototypes affect adaptation to change and environmental stressors.

Adaptation research suggests that resilient veterans are similar to Block's conceptualization of ego resilience and control (Elliott et al., 2019). The resilient persons tend to have positive relationships, exhibit self-regulation, self-confidence, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Farkas & Orosz, 2015). Resilient veterans present with fewer symptoms of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and fewer functional disabilities; in addition, they report better quality of life over time than less resilient veterans (Elliott et al., 2019). Longitudinal findings suggest that more resilient children and adults are more socially skilled, experience more satisfying relationships, and are more likely to present with optimal mental and physical health (Caspi, 2000; Dennissen et al., 2008). Research suggests that resilient patients are more likely to express positive emotions; this has been reported with patients experiencing chronic pain (Ong et al., 2010), upper limb loss (Walsh et al., 2016), and spinal cord injury (Berry et al., 2007). Although research is emerging regarding RUO prototypes and mental health, no research to date has examined RUO prototypes in relation to imagination abilities. Do RUO prototypes significantly differ in imagination abilities? What are the relative imagination abilities across groups? Answers to these questions may inform both research and clinical practice.

Personality and Imagination

There is a lack of research exploring links between personality and imagination capabilities (Liang et al., 2013). As suggested by Wilson and Barber (1982), a fantasy-prone personality is akin to an overactive imagination. Such people report extended engagement in fantastical thinking, vivid childhood memories, clear daydreams, spiritualistic activities, and incredible images (i.e., not possible). Fantasy proneness and absorption are facets of the trait of openness to experience (Merckelbach et al., 2002). Active imagination is a core facet of openness to experience (Oleynick et al., 2017); this includes both imaginative and creative dimensions of fantasy (Weibel et al., 2018).

Fantasy is also a cognitive resource for problem-solving (Henderson et al., 1982) and essential for adaptive functioning (e.g., consequence assessment, planning, decision making; Mueller & Dyer, 1985). To imagine unreal events requires higher cognitive processing (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). For instance, Bacon et al. (2013) found that fantasizers are prone to construct alternate realities, requiring extended thinking about events and possibilities. Also, fantasizers are often effective storytellers, capable of role-playing and make-believe (Merckelbach, 2004). Moreover, fantasizers tend to have vivid and rich imagery, extreme sensory experiences, and strong perceptual abilities (Sanchez-Bernardos et al., 2015).

Human imagination can be categorized in two distinct categorize. The first is reproductive imagination, which is the extent to which one can recall mental images narrated by others, or reminiscence of reality. In essence this entails the ability to recollect previous memories or thinking patterns (Vygotsky, 2004). Second is creative imagination which are original ideas, not previously told or recalled (e.g., Colello, 2007). One aspect of the trait of openness to experience is cognitive exploration reflecting individual differences in flexible and complex information processing (DeYoung, 2015). Liang et al. (2013) found that reproductive imagination is positively associated with openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness. Moreover, openness to experience is most strongly associated with creative imagination as well as extraversion (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Prabhu et al., 2008). Other constructs of imagination, such as complexity, imaginative behavior engagement, and imaginative capability, are also associated with openness to experience (Liang et al., 2013; Zabelina, 2019). Strong and reliable associations have also been reported with measures of creativity (Oleynick et al., 2017). Similarly resilient prototypes, high in the trait of openness to experience, are likely to exhibit greater use of imagination.

Fantastic Reality Ability (FRA)

Existing research suggests that fantastic reality is a psychologically important facet of imagination (FR; Lahad, 2000; 2005; Lahad & Doron, 2010; Rubinstein & Lahad, 2022). FR entails the capacity to transcend into a fantastic space, in which the individual may experience safety and control despite stressors. Within this space, one can bend reality with boundless capacity for world-creating and problem-solving (Lahad, 2000; 2005). FR is a managed and flexible bending of reality through imaginative depictions creating an in-between mental state. This imagination-ruled function can foster coping, thus mitigating stressful experience (Rubinstein et al., 2021; Rubinstein & Lahad, 2022).

Fantastic reality ability (FRA) as defined by Rubinstein et al. (2021) is the capacity to use imagination in response to stress and uncertainty. FRA is a higher form of cognitive functioning composed of four associated factors: Control is the capacity to govern imagination, manage, initiate, shape, and cease imaginative activities; Transcendence is an ability to detach from the here-and-now, disconnect, and become absorbed in imagination; Coping entails the use of imagination to manage negative affect, and flexible or unbounded problem-solving; Lastly, Playfulness entails the social, unconstrained, and creative use of imagination (Rubinstein et al., 2021).

FRA factors are correlated with ego resiliency, fantasy proneness, and playfulness (Rubinstein et al., 2021). And playfulness, coping and control are positively correlated with mental health and resilience (i.e., ego resiliency/playfulness). In contrast, transcendence is associated with psychopathology (i.e., dissociation, PTSD symptoms) and appears distinct from ego resiliency.

This study set out to identify associations between RUO personality prototypes and imagination abilities. First, we assumed that personality traits as measured in Israel would cluster in three distinct groupings as previously reported with samples from Italy, Spain, Poland and the U.S. (Alessandri et al., 2014; Rossi et al., 2021; Specht et al., 2014). On this basis, we hypothesized that prototypes high in the trait of openness (i.e., resilient) would report high FRA. Moreover, the resilient prototype would report greater FRA, given its associations with ego-resiliency and absence of association between FRA and clinical measures (Rubinstein et al., 2021). FRA playfulness, control and coping factors (associated with ego resiliency) were also expected to be significantly higher in the resilient group than the other personality prototypes. However, transcendence (not associated with ego resiliency) was expected to present an opposite pattern, as we assumed that both overcontrolled and undercontrolled prototypes would report significantly higher responses than the resilient group.

Material and Methods

Participants

For this study, 398 Israeli adults aged 18–81 years of age (M = 39.47 years, SD = 15.14) were recruited using social media advertising as commonly used today in social science and mental health research (King et al., 2014). A two-week Facebook campaign was conducted July, 2020; two lottery prizes of 500 Shekels (₪NIS) were awarded to two randomly selected participants to facilitate and expedite data collection. Non-probability-quota sampling was applied so that the sample better reflected the demographic composition of the country (e.g., age, region). Data collection occurred after the first COVID-19 lockdown in Israel and before the vaccine became available.

Most participants were women (79%), and married or partnered (55.6%); 32.9% lived in Tel Aviv or vicinity, and 44% had completed a postsecondary degree (see Table 1). Responses were received from an initial sample of 544 respondents; 146 were excluded due to incomplete data (e.g., full scales skipped); 398 adults provided complete FRAME responses, personality and demographic information. This study received ethics committee approval from the Institutional Review Board at Tel Hai Academic College, Kiryat Shmona, Israel (IRB, 7/2021-2).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Sample (N = 398).

	n	%
Gender
Male	83	20.8
Female	315	79.1
Marital Status
Single	136	34.2
Cohabiting	221	55.6
Divorced/separated	32	8
Widowed	9	2.3
Education
Elementary/high school education	139	34.9
Professional education	84	21.1
Academic education	175	44
Reginal Area
North	126	31.7
Haifa	45	11.3
Tel-Aviv	41	10.3
Central	90	22.6
Jerusalem	38	9.5
Gaza Envelope	7	1.8
South	51	12.8
Age
18–24	71	17.8
25–34	114	28.6
35–44	62	15.5
45–54	78	19.5
55–64	46	11.5
65 +	27	6.8

Measures / Instruments

Fantastic Reality Ability Measurement (FRAME; Rubinstein, 2020) is a 21-item scale of imagination use in response to stress and uncertainty. Research reports high internal consistency (α = .88), good test–retest reliability over 26–28 weeks (.60 < r < .80) and concurrent validity with ego resiliency, playfulness and fantasy proneness (Rubinstein et al., 2021).

FRAME responses are provided on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Factor analyses indicate that the FRAME measures four distinct but correlated factors, mapping onto a higher-order fantastic reality ability latent construct (Rubinstein & Lahad, 2022). Coping pertains to the use of imagination to solve problems and manage negative affect using flexible representations (e.g., “When I encounter difficulties or obstacles, I use my imagination to find alternatives to action and problem solving”); transcendence is the ability to dissociate and become absorbed in imagination (e.g., “It happens that I find myself so involved in a fantasy or daydream that it feels as though it were really happening to me”); playfulness pertains to unrestrained, creative, openness and sociable characteristics of imagination use (e.g., “I enjoy taking part in social games”); and control is the ability to initiate, shape or stop imaginative content (e.g., “I control my imagination and I can imagine anything I want”).

Responses to FRAME factors show internal and factor-specific consistency. Playfulness, control, and coping are correlated with “resilient non-clinical” coefficients (i.e., ego resiliency/ playfulness) and transcendence with psychopathology (i.e., dissociation and PTSD symptoms; Rubinstein et al., 2021).

The Big Five Inventory -2- Short (BFI-2-S; Soto & John, 2017) is a brief, version of the original BFI, measuring each of the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience; Soto & John, 2017). Responses to the 30-item BFI-2-S are reported along a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Support for the psychometric properties of BFI-2-S responses has been widely reported cross cultures (Rammstedt et al., 2018, 2020; Zhang et al., 2022).

Sociodemographic questionnaire. Participants were asked to provide descriptive information (e.g., age, gender, region). This included education and marital status. We also asked various questions regarding expose to COVID-19 (i.e., recovered), symptoms and impact on health and well-being (i.e., financial, social, mental and physical health).

Statistical Procedures

We performed cluster analysis for this study to identify unique, naturally-occurring participant groups based on personality trait similarities and differences. As various personality traits are positively and negatively associated (Claxton et al., 2012), multiple configurations are possible. Three, four and five cluster solutions were computed and examined for interpretability. Ward's hierarchical method was used to form clusters with minimal variance within, and maximal differences across each.

Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) was used to confirm that trait levels significantly differ between clusters (overall, and each of the Big Five). MANOVA was also performed to identify any differences across clusters in relation to FRAME responses. SPSS version 26 was used to perform descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, cluster analyses and MANOVA.

Results

We analyzed responses from 398 adults, 18 to 81 years of age (M = 39.47, SD = 15.14). Tables 1 and 2 present descriptive statistics for participants and study variables. Table 3 reports correlation coefficients between each of the Big Five and FRAME responses (total, and each subscale).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables, (N = 398).

	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Range	Cronbach's α
FRA	4.35	.94	−.27	.19	1.00–5.71	.87
Control	4.48	1.33	−.35	−.34	1.00–7.00	.82
Transcendence	3.71	1.34	.07	−.52	1.00–7.00	.79
Playfulness	4.97	1.03	−.61	.77	1.00–7.00	.72
Coping	4.28	1.17	−.33	−.08	1.00–7.00	.68
Personality
Extraversion	3.35	.76	−.28	−.05	1.00–5.00	.75
Neuroticism	2.65	.81	.44	−.07	1.00–5.00	.80
Openness	3.58	.71	−.10	−.10	1.00–5.00	.66
Agreeableness	3.86	.66	−.58	.31	1.50–5.00	.71
Conscientiousness	3.81	.69	−.43	−.06	1.16–5.00	.70

Table 3.

Correlations Coefficients Between Personality Traits and Fantastic Reality Abilities.

Variables	Extraversion	Neuroticism	Openness	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness
FRAME (total)	.25	−.15	.36	.18
Coping	.21	−.15	.17	.14
Playfulness	.51	−.30	.42	.20	.10
Control	.20	−.35	.25	.25	.11
Transcendence		.20	.27		−.25

Note: p < .05 for all coefficients.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics, Omnibus Significance Tests, and Effect Sizes for the Three Personality Prototype Groups on FRAME.

	Overcontrolled		Undercontrolled			Reslient
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	n²
Fantastic Reality Ability	4.06^a	.92	4.26^a	.98	4.68^a,b	.80	16.91	.08
○ Coping	4.08^a	1.15	4.08^a	1.21	4.63^a,b	1.07	10.59	.05
○ Playfulness	4.57^a	.95	4.73^a	1.05	5.52^a,b	.81	39.78	.16
○ Control	4.15^a	1.30	4.15^a	1.38	5.05^a,b	1.10	23.43	.10
○ Transcendence	3.46^a	1.23	4.02^a,b	1.38	3.65	1.34	5.70	.03

Note: Tukey post-hoc comparisons, ^astatistically differs from one other group, ^a,bstatistically differs from both groups.

Most participants (82.7%, or 329 of 398) responded to COVID-related questions, 23 or 6.9%, reported that they had recovered from COVID-19. Consistent with the rationale for this study, almost half (44.4%) reported feeling anxious about COVID-19 or its consequences. And many reported that COVID-19 had negatively affected their lives; 33.1% financially, 34.3% socially, and 38.3% mentally.

Cluster Composition

A 3-cluster solution was identified on each of the Big Five personality traits. The viability of this 3-cluster solution is supported by Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) as Hotelling's T = 2.13, (p < .01). Moreover, neuroticism (F[2,395] = 134.29, p < .01), extroversion (F[2,395] = 77.96, p < .01), openness to experience (F[2,395] = 40.74, p < .01), agreeableness (F[2,395] = 128.74, p < .01), and conscientious (F[2,395] = 93.86, p < .01) each significantly differed across clusters.

The largest grouping reported significantly lower neuroticism (n = 146 or 37%). In contrast, all other trait levels are higher than other clusters. Given this profile, we label this cluster as the resilient.

In contrast, the second largest grouping reported higher levels of neuroticism than other clusters (n = 128 or 32%). Here, openness to experience is moderate (lower than cluster 1; higher than cluster 3) and levels of both agreeableness and conscientiousness are lower than other clusters. This presentation corresponds to the undercontrolled personality prototype.

The final cluster reported moderate neuroticism, significantly different from both other clusters. Response levels were also relatively moderate for agreeableness and conscientiousness. By contrast, levels of both extroversion and openness were lower than other clusters (n = 124 or 32%). This presentation corresponds to the overcontrolled personality prototype. Figure 1 shows personality prototypes (using z scores for comparison) as obtained from the cluster analysis. These three clusters are similar to personality prototypes previously reported with European and North American samples (Alessandri et al., 2014; Rossi et al., 2021; Specht et al., 2014).

Figure 1.

Three Personality Prototypes (z scores) Based on Big Five Personality Traits (N = 398).

Socio-Demographic Comparisons

Significant differences were observed in age, marital status, and education across personality prototypes (p < .01). The resilient group was older (M = 42.23, SD = 15.45) than the undercontrolled group (M = 35.70, SD = 13.78) but not the overcontrolled (M = 40.09, SD = 15.42). In contrast to other groups, most resilient participants had completed postsecondary education (50.67% vs. 41.4% & 38.7%, respectively) and were married (50% vs. 35.1% & 41.1%, respectively)). There were no significant gender or reginal differences across personality prototypes.

Imagination Abilities

We next compared responses to each FRAME factor across personality prototypes. As persons in the resilient group reported significantly higher openness to experience, we hypothesized that they would report greater fantastic reality ability.

Comparing total FRAME scores across personality prototypes (using Tukey's honestly significant difference for all pairwise comparisons), and in accord with our hypothesis, we found that the resilient group was significantly higher than overcontrolled and the undercontrolled groups (p < .001); the latter groups did not differ significantly (p = .17). As expected, FRA control, playfulness, and coping factors significantly differ across prototypes, with higher scores reported by the resilient group than both overcontrolled and undercontrolled groups (p < .001); overcontrolled and undercontrolled groups did not significantly differ. With regard to the final transcendence factor, the undercontrolled reported significantly greater use than the overcontrolled group. The resilient group did not differ from others in transcendence. See Table 4 and Figure 2.

Figure 2.

FRAME Responses by Factor Across Personality Prototypes.

Discussion

The current study sought to identify associations between personality prototypes and imaginative abilities. We examined FRA relative to the BIG-5 and describe how FRA and its features differ across RUO prototypes.

First as expected, FRA is mostly associated with the trait of openness to experience (Oshio et al., 2018; Staempfli, 2007), a core aspect of a creative personality (Oleynick et al., 2017). We found openness to experience to be associated with FRAME responses, supporting the view that FRA is an individual difference. This suggests that FRA may be an adaptive, experience-processing construct. Its development and stability over the life course is yet unknown. Other imagination-related constructs measured by the “fantasy questionnaire” found similar associations in which openness to experience was strongly related, a small association with extroversion and little association with conscientiousness, agreeableness nor neuroticism (Weibel et al., 2018). More research is needed comparing FRAME responses with different personality traits over time.

Patterns of association between personality traits and FRAME responses are evident across sub-scales. Strongest correlations were observed between playfulness and the traits of extroversion and openness to experience. Playful use of imagination requires active, broad-minded thought and awareness. Adult playfulness has previously been found to be associated with extraversion as a playful individual is prototypically extroverted (Proyer, 2012; 2017). Another significant association is the inverse association between neuroticism and both playfulness and control. This is in line with our previous research suggesting that these are ‘resilient’ factors of imagination use (Rubinstein et al., 2021).

As we assumed, cluster analysis reviled three groups in line with the RUO prototypes model (Asendorpf et al., 2001) as previously reported with European and North American samples (Alessandri et al., 2014; Rossi et al., 2021; Specht et al., 2014). And as hypothesized, the resilient group, highest in the trait of openness, reported higher FRA responses than both the overcontrolled and undercontrolled groups.

Our final hypothesis was only partially supported, however, as playfulness, control and coping factors were significantly higher in the resilient group compared to other personality prototypes. Yet responses to the transcendence factor were significantly higher for the undercontrolled group than the overcontrolled.

Characterizing RUO Fantastic Reality Abilities

The resilient personality prototype is characterized by higher imaginative abilities (i.e., control, playfulness, coping) compared to both the over- and undercontrolled. Resilient prototype reported lower transcendence of imagination. These findings are in accord with previous research reporting that playfulness, control, and coping factors are correlated with ego resiliency whereas transcendence is distinct from ego resiliency (Rubinstein et al., 2021). Those characterized as high in the three FRA ‘resilient factors’ (i.e., playfulness, control, coping), are able to use imagination in a controlled, social way and have the ability to reframe and modify experience via imagination in order to cope with stressful life circumstances. Psychological flexibility has been identified as a critical modifiable factor among resilient veterans (Elliott et al., 2019).

Overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality prototypes differ in transcendence. That is, the undercontrolled reported significantly higher transcendence than the overcontrolled. Transcendence is the ability to initiate, detach from reality, and be absorbed in imagination. This FRA factor has been found to be associated with dissociation, PTSD symptoms and distinct from ego resiliency (Rubinstein et al., 2021). Therefore, it was expected to be lower in the resilient compared to non-resilient groups. That hypothesis was not supported. Moreover, because the overcontrolled are known to pathologize or internalize problems whereas the undercontrolled externalize problems (Murzyn, 2020; Rossi et al., 2021), it might also be expected that the former will use transcendence more than the later. In this study, the opposite was observed as the undercontrolled reported higher transcendence than the overcontrolled. Aside from the fact that we recruited a non-clinical sample for this study, another explanation may be differing definitions between practice guidelines (O’Mahen & Lynch, 2018). Undercontrol persons with borderline personality disorder, describe dissociation similar to FRA transcendence (e.g., feeling separate from reality, occurs when stressed, extended duration) versus the overcontrolled (e.g., disconnected from others, ‘feeling blank and hazy’, suspicious; O’Mahen & Lynch, 2018). Future research should examine FRA responses and imagination abilities in clinical samples and in psychotherapy research to furtherly characterize and establish clinical implications. This could inform psychotherapies using RUO classifications (e.g., Dialectical Behavior Therapy or RO-DBT) and psychotherapies using imagination as an active therapeutic tool (e.g., schema therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), SEE FAR CBT).

Limitations and Future Research

The present study has several limitations. First, we set out to better understand the relationship between FRA, personality traits and prototypes in a general population coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not a clinical sample. Nor did we administer clinical measures (e.g., symptoms of trauma). More extensive assessment is warranted using structured diagnostic interviews and clinical samples followed over time. Second, a brief version of the BFI-2-S was used to assess personality traits. Using the full version of the BFI-2 or other full-length questionaries (e.g., Personality Inventory for DSM-5) might have provide a more detailed differentiation between RUO subtypes. Nonetheless, we were able to distinguish between RUO subtypes similar to others (e.g., Rossi et al., 2021).

Data collection for this study was conducted in Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to observe imagination coping abilities and personality traits under heightened stress and uncertainty; this is the topic of a separate study (Rubinstein et al., 2023). Further research is warranted, however, to consider the implications of stressogenic circumstances on FRA and generalizability beyond periods of heightened stress. In addition, future research should be conducted with more diverse samples to corroborate and extend findings. This should include longitudinal, cross-national research.

Conclusion

In summary, our results demonstrate that FRA is associated with the trait of openness to experience, supporting the view that FRA is an individual difference construct. We have characterized FRA abilities across personality clusters. The resilient personality prototype is characterized by higher FRA. More specifically, resilient participants reported higher control, playfulness and coping, and lower transcendence compared to the over- and undercontrolled. These findings are in accord with previous research indicating that playfulness, control, and coping as ‘resilient factors’ but not transcendence (Rubinstein et al., 2021). Fostering the resilient aspects of FRA and imagination use in psychotherapy may promote mental health and recovery from stress and trauma

Footnotes

Data Accessibility Statement

The study materials and data used for this article can be accessed at [].

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

ORCID iD

Dori Rubinstein

Author Biographies

Dori Rubinstein is a clinical psychologist, holds a PhD in Public Health. His area of research is post-traumatic stress, imagination, playfulness and trauma focused psychotherapy.

Mooli Lahad is a psychologist and psychotrauma specialist, known for his creative methods of intervention and treatment of stress. His area of research is post-traumatic stress, resilience and trauma focused psychotherapy. He is the founder and president of the CSPC - The Community Stress Prevention Centre.

Limor Aharonson-Daniel is the director of the PREPARED Center for Emergency Response Research at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU). She is a full professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Public Health. She is an international expert on injury epidemiology and played a significant role in the academization of the field of emergency preparedness and response and in the development of innovative approaches and tools for the study of emergency situations.

David Mizrachi holds a BA in Psychology. His area of research is post-traumatic stress, imagination and playfulness.

Norm O'Rourke, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and full professor with the School of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel (Epidemiology, Biostatistics, & Community Health Sciences) and Department of Psychology (adjunct). He sat on the executive board of the Society for Clinical Geropsychology (American Psychological Association) and the Mental Health Commission of Canada. He is currently an associate editor of Aging and Mental Health.

References

Alessandri

Vecchione

Donnellan

B. M.

Eisenberg

Caprara

G. V.

Cieciuch

(2014). On the cross-cultural replicability of the resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality types. Journal of Personality, 82(4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12065

Asendorpf

J. B.

Borkenau

Ostendorf

Van Aken

M. A.

(2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15(3), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.408

Asendorpf

J. B.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontroleed personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.815

Bacon

A. M.

Walsh

C. R.

Martin

(2013). Fantasy proneness and counterfactual thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(4), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.023

Batey

Furnham

(2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355–429. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430

Berry

J. W.

Elliott

T. R.

Rivera

(2007). Resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality prototypes among persons with spinal cord injury. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701629813

Block

(1993). Studying personality the long way. In Funder

D. C.

Parke

R. D.

Tomlinson-Keasey

Widaman

(Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 9–41). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10127-018

Block

J. H.

Block

(1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In Collins

W. A.

(Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Caspi

(1998). Personality development across the life course. In Damon

Eisenberg

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 311–388). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10.

Caspi

(2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.158

11.

Caspi

Shiner

R. L.

(2006). Personality development. In Eisenberg

Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 300–365). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

12.

Caspi

Silva

P. A.

(1995). Temperamental qualities at age three predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child Development, 66(2), 486–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00885.x

13.

Claxton

O’Rourke

Smith

J. Z.

DeLongis

(2012). Personality traits and marital satisfaction within enduring relationships: An intra-couple discrepancy approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511431183

14.

Colello

S. M. G.

(2007). Imagination in children’s writing: How high can fiction fly. Notandum, 10(14), 5–15. http://www.hottopos.com/notand14/silvia.pdf

15.

Costa

P. T.

Jr Herbst

J. H.

McCrae

R. R.

Samuels

Ozer

D. J.

(2002). The replicability and utility of three personality types. European Journal of Personality, 16(S1), S73–S87. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.448

16.

Dennissen

J. J.

Asendorpf

J. B.

Van Aken

M. A.

(2008). Childhood personality predicts long-term trajectories of shyness and aggressiveness in the context of demographic transitions in emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality, 76(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00480.x

17.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2015). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Cooper

M. L.

Larsen

R. J.

(Eds.), APA Handbook of personality and social psychology, vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369–399). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14343-017

18.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221

19.

Elliott

T. R.

Hsiao

Y.-Y.

Kimbrel

N. A.

DeBeer

B. B.

Gulliver

S. B.

Kwok

O.-M.

Morissette

S. B.

Meyer

E. C.

(2019). Resilience facilitates adjustment through greater psychological flexibility among Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans with and without mild traumatic brain injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000282

20.

Farkas

Orosz

(2015). Ego-resiliency reloaded: A three-component model of general resiliency. PloS one, 10(3), e0120883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120883

21.

Henderson

B. B.

Gold

S. R.

McCord

M. T.

(1982). Daydreaming and curiosity in gifted and average children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.576

22.

Jawinski

Markett

Sander

Huang

Ulke

Hegerl

Hensch

(2021). The big five personality traits and brain arousal in the resting state. Brain Sciences, 11(10), 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11101272

23.

John

O. P.

Naumann

L. P.

Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press.

24.

Killingsworth

M. A.

Gilbert

D. T.

(2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science (New York, N.Y.), 330(6006), 932–932. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439

25.

King

D. B.

O’Rourke

DeLongis

(2014). Social media recruitment and online data collection: A beginner’s guide and best practices for accessing low-prevalence and hard-to-reach populations. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 55(4), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038087

26.

Klimstra

T. A.

Hale

W. W.

III Raaijmakers

Q. A.

Branje

S. J.

Meeus

W. H.

(2010). A developmental typology of adolescent personality. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 24(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.744

27.

Lahad

(2000). Creative supervision. Jessica Kingsley Publication.

28.

Lahad

(2005). Transcending into fantastic reality: Story making with adolescents in crisis. In Schaefer

McCormick

Ohnogi

(Eds.), International handbook of play therapy: Advances in assessment, theory, research, and practice (pp. 133–157). Jason Aronson.

29.

Lahad

Doron

(2010). Protocol for treatment of post traumatic stress disorder: See far cbt model: Beyond cognitive behavior therapy (Vol. 70). IOS press.

30.

Liang

Chang

C. C.

Hsu

(2013). Personality and psychological factors predict imagination: Evidence from Taiwan. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.010

31.

Mammadov

(2022). Big five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 222–255.

32.

Meeus

Van de Schoot

Klimstra

Branje

(2011). Personality types in adolescence: Change and stability and links with adjustment and relationships: A five-wave longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036422

33.

Merckelbach

(2004). Telling a good story: Fantasy proneness and the quality of fabricated memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.007

34.

Merckelbach

Horselenberg

Schmidt

(2002). Modeling the connection between self-reported trauma and dissociation in a student sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(4), 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00070-8

35.

Mueller

E. T.

Dyer

M. G.

(1985). Towards a computational theory of human daydreaming. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science (pp. 120–129). Irvine.

36.

Murzyn

(2020). Ego control/ego resiliency theory (ARCH). In The wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Models and theories (pp. 165–171). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547143.ch29

37.

Nikčević

A. V.

Marino

Kolubinski

D. C.

Leach

Spada

M. M.

(2021). Modelling the contribution of the Big Five personality traits, health anxiety, and COVID-19 psychological distress to generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Affective Disorders, 279, 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.053

38.

Oleynick

V. C.

DeYoung

C. G.

Hyde

Kaufman

S. B.

Beaty

R. E.

Silvia

P. J.

(2017). Openness/intellect: The core of the creative personality. In Feist

G. J.

Reiter-Palmon

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), The cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 9–27). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316228036.002

39.

O’Mahen

Lynch

T. R.

(2018). How to differentiate overcontrol from undercontrol: Findings from the RefraMED study and guidelines from clinical practice. RADICALLY OPEN, 41(3), 132.

40.

Ong

A. D.

Zautra

A. J.

Reid

M. C.

(2010). Psychological resilience predicts decreases in pain catastrophizing through positive emotions. Psychology and Aging, 25(3), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019384

41.

Oshio

Taku

Hirano

Saeed

(2018). Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.048

42.

Ozer

D. J.

Benet-Martinez

(2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127

43.

Pesonen

A. K.

Räikkönen

Heinonen

Andersson

Hovi

Järvenpää

A. L.

Eriksson

J. G.

Kajantie

(2008). Personality of young adults born prematurely: The Helsinki study of very low birth weight adults. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(6), 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01874.x

44.

Prabhu

Sutton

Sauser

(2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701841955

45.

Proyer

R. T.

(2012). Examining playfulness in adults: Testing its correlates with personality, positive psychological functioning, goal aspirations, and multi-methodically assessed ingenuity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54(2), 103–127. http://www.psychologie-aktuell.com/index.php?id=200

46.

Proyer

R. T.

(2017). A new structural model for the study of adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an understudied individual differences variable. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.011

47.

Rammstedt

Danner

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2018). Validation of the short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and their German adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000481

48.

Rammstedt

Lechner

C. M.

Danner

(2020). Short forms do not fall short. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000574

49.

Roberts

B. W.

Kuncel

N. R.

Shiner

Caspi

Goldberg

L. R.

(2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x

50.

Robins

R. W.

John

O. P.

Caspi

(1998). The typological approach to studying personality. In Cairns

R. B.

Bergman

L. R.

Kagan

(Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individual.

51.

Robins

R. W.

John

O. P.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.157

52.

Rossi

Weekers

L. C.

Hutsebaut

(2021). Resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality types based upon DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits. Heliyon, 7(5), e06938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06938

53.

Rubinstein

(2020). Is Post Trauma an Imagination Disorder? (Doctoral dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev).

54.

Rubinstein

Lahad

(2022). Fantastic reality: The role of imagination, playfulness, and creativity in healing trauma. Traumatology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000376

55.

Rubinstein

Lahad

Leykin

Aharonson-Daniel

(2021). Development and validation of fantastic reality ability measurement (FRAME) to measure use of imagination in response to stress and trauma. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 16(4), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2020.1789017

56.

Rubinstein

O’Rourke

Lahad

(2023). Using imagination in response to stress and uncertainty in the time of COVID-19: Further validation of the fantastic reality ability measurement (FRAME) scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1115233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1115233

57.

Sánchez-Bernardos

M. L.

Hernández Lloreda

M. J.

Avia

M. D.

Bragado-Alvarez

(2015). Fantasy proneness and personality profiles. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 34(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236615572584

58.

Schnabel

Asendorpf

J. B.

Ostendorf

(2002). Replicable types and subtypes of personality: German NEO-PI-R versus NEO-FFI. European Journal of Personality, 16(S1), S7–S24. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.445

59.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2017). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096

60.

Specht

Luhmann

Geiser

(2014). On the consistency of personality types across adulthood: Latent profile analyses in two large-scale panel studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 540–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036863

61.

Staempfli

M. B.

(2007). Adolescent playfulness, stress perception, coping and well-being. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2007.11950114

62.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210

63.

Walsh

M. V.

Armstrong

T. W.

Poritz

Elliott

T. R.

Jackson

W. T.

Ryan

(2016). Resilience, pain interference, and upper limb loss: Testing the mediating effects of positive emotion and activity restriction on distress. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(5), 781–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.01.016

64.

Weibel

Martarelli

C. S.

Häberli

Mast

F. W.

(2018). The fantasy questionnaire: A measure to assess creative and imaginative fantasy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(4), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1331913

65.

Wilson

S. C.

Barber

T. X.

(1982). The fantasy-prone personality: Implications for understanding imagery, hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. PSI Research, 1(3), 94–116.

66.

Zabelina

D. L.

(2019). Imagination. In Bakker

A. B.

Gander

Ruch

Tay

(Eds.), Handbook in positive psychology assessment (pp. 2–29). European Association of Psychological Assessment (EAPA).

67.

Zhang

Y. M.

Luo

Yin

Chen

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2022). The big five inventory–2 in China: A comprehensive psychometric evaluation in four diverse samples. Assessment, 29(6), 1262–1284.