No description available.

No description available.

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.

Meehl�s (1962, 1989, 1990b) schizotypy and Tsuang et al.�s (1999b, 2000a, 2000b) schizotaxia are fundamentally different notions of the schizophrenia precursor. Both represent a categorical precursor but differ in the nature of their relationships to schizophrenia. Specifically, schizotypy is dimensional, unchanging despite the presence or remission of schizophrenia. In contrast, schizotaxia is a transitional precursor; the presence of schizophrenia signals the end of schizotaxia. There are also differences in the way in which risk is determined. Schizotypy is reflected in a variety of information processing and experiential aberrations, is typically assessed using self-report measures, and is best identified using taxometric analyses. In contrast, schizotaxia is characterised by negative symptoms of schizophrenia and neurocognitive impairment, can be assessed using standardised clinical measures, and is diagnosed at the individual case level. The aim of Phase 1 of this study was to investigate the manifest structure of Meehl�s schizotypy in a sample of psychiatric patients. The aims of Phase 2 were to determine if schizotypy group membership was associated with poorer functioning and to determine the nature of the relationship between Meehl�s (1962, 1989, 1990b) schizotypy and Tsuang et al.�s (1999b, 2000a, 2000b) schizotaxia. Participants in Phase 1 were 109 psychiatric patients and all completed a self-report measure of schizotypy, the Thinking and Perceptual Style Questionnaire (TPSQ; Linscott & Knight, 2004). Multivariate taxometric analyses of TPSQ subscales yielded evidence of a manifest group structure within the sample. The prevalence of the latent group, presumed to reflect schizotypy, was estimated to be 32% (SD = 8%), as yielded by MAXCOV analyses. MAXCOV analyses also yielded a mean indicator validity of 1.02; variance of 7; base rate estimates of .08; and a goodness of fit index of .98. MAMBAC analyses yielded a mean base rate of 56% (SD = 18%). Twenty-nine participants from Phase 1 took part in Phase 2. Fourteen were from the schizotypy group (had a p value of .85 or higher of schizotypy group membership) and 15 from the nonschizotypy group (had a p value of .03 or lower of schizotypy group membership). Participants completed tests of attention, verbal memory, and executive functioning. Negative symptoms of schizophrenia were also rated and diagnosis was determined using a diagnostic interview. The schizotypy group was significantly impaired relative to the nonschizotypy group on neuropsychological test scores spanning domains of attention, verbal memory, and executive functioning. A current DSM-IV diagnosis was made for 71% of the schizotypy group and 43% of the nonschizotypy group. Individuals were classified as having met criteria for schizotaxia if they had a negative symptom impairment and a neuropsychological impairment in two domains. A total of 7 people of 29 met criteria for schizotaxia, 6 of these people were from the schizotypy group. There was statistical evidence that Meehl�s (1962, 1989, 1990b) schizotypy and Tsuang et al.�s (1999b, 2000a, 2000b) schizotaxia are not independent. The proposed precursors for schizophrenia may reflect the same construct, not separate entities. Limitations and implications of these results are considered.

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.

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.

<p>Förr förknippades tatueringar med sjömän och rebeller, nu är det betydligt vanligare och mer accepterat. Idag har det blivit populärare än någonsin och med en yngre kundkrets. Syftet med den här studien är vilka egenskaper som tillskrivs en vanlig kvinna med synliga tatueringar samt en kvinna utan synliga tatueringar. Deltagare i denna studie var 89 studenter på en högskola i åldrarna 19-49 år. Resultatet indikerade att kvinnan utan tatueringar tillskrevs delvis mera positivt än kvinnan med tatueringar, bland annat ansågs hon mer attraktiv och mindre sexuellt erfaren än kvinnan med tatueringar. Dock vad gäller utbildningsnivå och sexorientering/sexläggning så förknippades den tatuerade kvinnan inte med större negativa fördomar. Överlag finns det ingen större skillnad gällande utbildningsnivån för dessa kvinnor, båda ansågs gått ut högskolan.</p>

Thesis (D.B.A.)--Maastricht School of Management (The Netherlands), 2002. / Supervisor: Leo van Geffen. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Tartu, 2006. / Thesis based on four papers. Includes bibliographical references.