Download files
Abstract
Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues presented longitudinal evidence for personality Type
being related to disease. Type 1s (cancer prone) and Type 2s (CHD prone) were proposed
to be dependent on others, in contrast to the autonomous Type 4s, who had a lower
mortality rate at follow-up. Stress was the mechanism proposed to account for the effects
of personality on disease, yet this claim has not been systematically investigated. Four
studies compared responses of Type 1, 2 and 4 individuals to stress and non-stress tasks.
Types 1 and 2 showed increased salivary cortisol responses to an uncontrollable maths
stress task (relative to control) compared to Type 4s, and scored higher on perceived
stress, state-anxiety, and measures of negative mood, consistent with the implications of
the Grossarth-Maticek hypothesis. No significant differences were evident between the
Types in response to progressive muscle relaxation, suggesting stress is necessary for
Type differences to emerge. Further, Types 1 and 2 responded differently to different
stressors (maths vs. exam), arguing against criticisms that Types 1 and 2 are
indistinguishable.
The relation between Grossarth-Maticek Type subscales was further clarified through
their correlations with each other (controlling for mood, stress and social desirability),
and with the Lifestyle Defense Mechanisms (LDM) inventory, a psychometric refinement
of the Grossarth-Maticek scales. A prospective study examining mortality rates in a
sample exposed to environmental noise stressors revealed no prediction of death or cause
of death by Grossarth-Maticek Type. This may have been due to the relative youth of the
sample, short (7 year) follow-up period, and consequently low death rate.
The current research is the first to show different responses to different stressors between
Types 1 and 2, and revealed converging evidence for the claim that stress is the
mechanism for Type effects on disease. Additionally, theoretical issues in conceptions of
stress, and models of the relation between the Types, stress and disease were considered.
This project suggests that after a history of criticisms, the Grossarth-Maticek typology
should be re-considered for its public health implications, and along with the LDM
inventory, should be considered for further investigation of the relation between
personality variables and disease.