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.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 2001. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-139).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 1999. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Title on certificate page: Response effects in World-Wide- Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 186-193). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ39301.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.