Search

This paper describes a novel method of behaviour therapy applied to cancer-prone and coronary heart disease-prone patients in a prophylactic manner, to reduce the probability of their dying of cancer or coronary heart disease. The treatment can also be applied to patients already suffering from cancer in order to prolong their lives. The methods used are described in considerable detail, together with the rationale leading to their adoption. In Part II of this paper are the results of several studies showing that the methods are surprisingly successful in preventing death in cancer-prone and coronary heart disease-prone probands, and prolonging life in patients already suffering from terminal disease.

615 schoolchildren were examined on multiple measures of intelligence, randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups for 12 weeks, and post-tested on the same measures of intelligence. One cohort received placebos while the other three were given different strength vitamin-mineral supplements. The trial was completed under ‘blind’ conditions, i.e. the subjects, the testers, and the scientists conducting the data analyses did not know any subject's group assignment. This created a triple-blind placebo-controlled, classical design capable of determining whether supplements could produce significant gains in standardized validated indices of intelligence/performance. The study was carried out in Stanislaus County, California, using 4 different schools. Results showed that for non-verbal Wechler Tests there were highly significant improvements in I.Q., whereas for the verbal tests there were none; a conclusion expected on the basis that ‘fluid’ intelligence, as measured by the non-verbal test, might be improved by supplementation, whereas ‘crystallized’ ability tests (verbal tests) would be unlikely to be so improved. This difference was predicted on the basis of previous studies also finding similakr results. Other tests (Raven's Matrices, the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, the Matrix Analogies Test, and measures of Reaction Time and Inspection Time) gave additional confirmatory evidence on the contribution which supplementation of the diet by vitamins and minerals can make to the improvement of I.Q.

One-hundred and ninety-two probands were selected on the basis of personality questionnaires as being cancer-prone (100) or CHD-prone (92). They were then randomly divided into a control and a treatment group, the latter receiving a special kind of behaviour therapy attempting to change the personality patterns in the direction of a healthier, more autonomous personality. Follow-up after 10 and 13 years disclosed significantly lower death rates in probands receiving prophylactic treatment than in controls. Of special interest was the degree of sclerosis in the fundus of the eye, rateds on a 3-point scale. This was significantly higher prior to therapy in the CHD-prone group than in the cancer-prone group. Treatment reduced the degree of sclerosis, particularly in the CHD group; lack of treatment was followed by an increase in sclerosis. Similar but less marked changes were found in the cancer-prone group. Clearly psychological treatment affects significantly bodily functions associated with CHD. Other risk factors considered were systolic and diastolic blood pressure, blood cholesterol and blood sugar, all of which, together with personality, influenced the degree of sclerosis observed.

The EPQ was administered to 592 male and 562 female subjects, mainly non-students, together with a 43-item Machiavellianism scale slightly altered from the original, and with several newly written items added. Detailed factorial analyses disclosed that the M scale measured a single, clearly defined factor which correlated positively with P and E, and negatively with L; no correlations were observed with N. Correlations with P were higher for females than for males, while correlations with E were higher for males than for females. Less socially acceptable M items correlated more highly with P, more socially acceptable M items correlated more highly with E. Machiavellianism, like impulsivity, sensation seeking and venturesomeness, clearly lies in the P + E + quadrant of the 3-dimensional personality sphere.

The construction of a new Personality-Stress Inventory is discussed, based on previous research and other types of inventory constructed on the same principles. Scores on the inventory divide people into six types, selectively prone to different types of disease. The instrument is administered twice, with six months intervening, and changes in the inventory scores are prognostic of the probability of contracting different diseases. Evidence is presented to show the validity of the questionnaire and the method used.

This article deals with the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to individual differences in the three major dimensions of personality (Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism) Twin studies indicate, and family studies confirm within limits, the strong genetic determination of these and many other personality factors, additive genetic variance accounting for roughly half the total phenotypic variance On the environmental side, shared family environment plays little or no part, all environmental effects being within-family Assortative mating, important in the formation of social attitudes, has little impact on personality Dominance may be important for Extraversion Epistasis (emergenesis) may account for the comparative low values of dizygotic (DZ) twins' correlations Evidence for differential heritability of traits is present, but not very strong It is concluded that behavioral genetics forms a vital part of the psychological understanding of the causes of individual differences in personality

One-hundred and nine adult subjects were tested on two occasions using a set of computer administered letter series problems. Using methods introduced by Furneaux [In Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.), Handbook of abnormal psychology . New York: Basic Books, 1961], response times were analysed in order to provide estimates of item difficulties based on time to correct solution, rather than on probability of correct solution. Subject parameters of speed, continuance and accuracy were also calculated using both Furneaux (directly and indirectly) and classical methods. These ‘time based’ parameters were compared with subscale scores from the WAIS-R IQ test and parameters from two reaction time tasks: 1 and 2-bit choice reaction time and the ‘Odd-Man-Out’ task. It was concluded that the original Furneaux model performed sub-optimally with regard to parameter estimation. However, with some modifications made to these estimation procedures, the Furneaux parameters were shown to be both practical and useful estimates of subject performance on letter series problems.

The authors tested the hypothesis that high scorers on the EPQ extraversion scale express more tolerant and humanitarian attitudes towards marginal social groups whereas the high scorers on psychoticism take a more repressive position. The data collected among 249 Polish subjects by means of Eysenck and Eysenck's ( Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire , 1975) EPQ questionnaire and the scale measuring attitudes towards different marginal groups confirmed the assumption. The results are discussed in reference to the role of personality of people responsible for social policy in terms of support or repression aimed at various marginal groups.

In the history of any scientific discipline, certain people stand out because they effectively defined the discipline, separated it from neighbouring specialities, and gave it a local habitation and a name. Three names stand out in the history (brief though it may be) of the scientific study of personality. The first is A. Heymans, a Dutch philosopher who almost single-handedly introduced the various theoretical, methodological and psychometric methods that characterise modern personality study (Eysenck, 1992). In the early years of this century, he put forward theories of specific personality dimensions, carried out rating studies on large numbers of subjects, correlated traits and devised a primitive method of factor analysis, derived factors that have stood the test of time (extraversion and neuroticism, to give them their modern names), and even went so far as to carry out psychological and physiological experiments to test deductions from these theories. As a reward for all this pioneering effort he is completely neglected in the modern literature; Hall et al (1985), in their Introduction to Theories of Personality gave much room to nonentities like Medard Boss, but make no mention of Heymans. He committed the ultimate crime of not being born in America, and must therefore be considered a non-person. Fortunately his theories and methodologies five on, largely in the London School.

Recent work by Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck has suggested that there are personality traits which in combination can predict cancer in healthy probands with 81% accuracy. Many critics have considered this result “too good to be true” It is shown that earlier studies have given results not very different in accuracy, suggesting that such a criticism is unwarranted.

In considering the causes of criminal and violent behaviour, we are dealing with two separate but interrelated factors. A crime is committed by a person in a certain situation; individual differences are responsible for the fact that in similar situations one person will commit the crime, another will not. Situations define not only the narrow circumstances of a particular crime, but the whole attitude of a given society to anti-social conduct, to the child’s upbringing, discipline in school, judicial procedures, existing levels of punishment, certainty of detection, religious beliefs, prevalence of TV violence, and many more. We cannot explain the huge differences in anti-social conduct between Singapore and Washington, Switzerland and South Africa, Egypt and England in terms of general differences, or personality factors. Communist countries like Russia used to be relatively crime-free; after the overthrow of communism Russia is one of the most crime-ridden countries in the world.

There are hundreds of recognized risk factors for cancer, such as smoking, heredity, air pollution, alcohol, poor diet, asbestos, and many others. In recent years, stress has been added as an important psychosocial factor (Alexander, 1950; Eysenck, 1991; Temoshok and Dreher, 1992). The general philosophy underlying this approach has been well put by Sir William Osler (1906), often called the father of English medicine, who said: ‘It is many times much more important to know what patient has the disease than what kind of disease the patient has’ (p. 250). This belief in what is now often called ‘holistic medicine’ in fact goes back over 2000 years; Galen was one of the first, in his book De Tumoribus to suggest a connection between cancer and the melancholic, as opposed to the sanguine temperament, but he was preceded by Hippocrates who voiced a similar view. The belief that there was a cancer-prone type of personality (Type C) was taken for granted by medical practitioners in the nineteenth century (Mettler and Mettler, 1947). Walshe (1846) put the matter very clearly when he wrote: ‘Much has been written on the influence of mental misery, sudden reverses of fortune, and habitual gloominess of temper on the deposition of carcinomatous matter … whether this be the real catenation of circumstances or not, and although the alleged influence of mental disquietude had never been made a matter of demonstration, it would be vain to deny that facts of a very convincing character in respect to the agency of the mind in the production of this disease are frequently observed.’

This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.

Creativity has always been a problem in the well-tended garden of cognitive ability, and though its empirical study has flourished, a recent handbook (Glover, Ronning, & Reynolds, 1989) has characterized it as “a large-scale example of a ‘degenerating’ research program” (p. xi). The reasons for such a disparaging estimate are not hard to find: Research in this area has been largely descriptive, full of anecdotal evidence, and without close links with the two disciplines of scientific psychology (Cronbach, 1957)—the experimental and the psychometric. Admittedly there have been many attempts to measure creativity along psychometric lines (Runco, 1991), but these have not been linked theoretically or experimentally with the large body of the psychological literature, and thus they have remained resolutely isolated.

The outcome problem in psychotherapy has usually been studied without much regard to the theories underlying the methods used. It is suggested that theories are vital to scientific advancement, and that without them we cannot even specify criteria to judge outcomes. Numerous studies since the 1950s have in essence failed to disconfirm the view that various forms of psychotherapy do not show greater effectiveness than spontaneous remission or placebo treatment. An effort is made to clarify the nature of spontaneous remission and placebo treatment, and to discuss the consequences of the many empirical findings and meta-analyses published over the past 50 years. A theory is suggested linking spontaneous remission, placebo treatment, psychotherapy and behaviour therapy, leading to a discussion of ethical considerations and cost-effectiveness issues.

This paper reports on the 1982–1986 follow-up of two samples of healthy persons first studied in 1972 and followed up in 1982 when mortality and cause of death were established ( N = 2,146). Both were related to stress and personality type according to clearly elaborated theories, and results were very much in accordance with theory. The second follow-up was instigated to answer criticisms of the first study and to test whether results would still support the theories involved. The data support the previous results strongly and show that psychosocial data can predict with considerable accuracy mortality and cause of death over 14 years ahead.

Is is suggested that in order to agree on a paradigm of personality, it is necessary to have agreed criteria. It is argued that factor analysis is not sufficient to provide a proper answer, and that genetic and psychophysiological antecedents and experimental and social outcomes of behavior characteristic of the major dimensions of personality are needed to complete any proper theory of personality. These constitute the distal and proximal causes and effects of such behaviors, and give meaning and relevance to the otherwise purely abstract traits “discovered” by correlational studies.

ALoehlin’s comments are well taken, but on some points I would disagree. He states that “the more finely differentiated our predictors, other things equal, the better we can hope to predict”. There are two points. (1) P correlates well with A and C, but also has a good deal of specific variance; perhaps this specific variance adds considerably to the predictive variance? (2) Other things are seldom equal; Reynolds and Nichols (1977) tested the question of whether the 18 scales of the CPI would predict a variety of behaviours better than the two factors E and N extracted from the intercorrelation between the 18 scales. There were 178 predicted variables, and their conclusions are well worth quoting: “For the most part, the factor scales do seem to capture the valid variance in the CPI scales.... In many instances a common factor portion of the scale’s variance was actually more predictive of relevant criteria than was the total scale variance. These findings would suggest that users of the CPI might be better off to measure and interpret the two principal factors rather than attempt to derive meaning from a complex profile of scores.” (p.914)

Alcohol consumption is a well-known risk factor for cancer, coronary heart disease (CHD), and various other diseases. It is here suggested that motivational factors may be important in mediating any effects of drinking on health. In particular, the hypothesis was tested that drinking to drown one's sorrows (S-type) was much more a risk factor than pleasure drinking (P-type). A total of 1,706 men were tested and followed for 13 years, when death and cause of death were established. The hypothesis was supported for all levels of drinking. In addition, subjects were divided into those 900 who were under stress at the beginning of the study and those 806 who were not. Stress and drinking combined in a complex fashion to form a risk factor for disease, and motivation combined with both in the predicted direction.

A theory is presented relating the consumption of stimulant and depressant drugs to cancer and coronary heart disease, with stress/personality acting as an intermediary. The predictions from the theory that large-scale consumption of Coca-Cola would prevent cancer and promote coronary heart disease was tested and found to be supported by the results of a long-scale prospective study. Results replicate those from an earlier study using coffee as a stimulant drug.

The theory that stress and emotional turmoil cause cancer has been debated for decades. Recent experimental, psychological and epidemiological literature indicates that the development of some forms of cancer can be related to certain cognitive, emotional and behavioral characteristics such as helplessness, depression, denial and inability to express one’s feelings and needs, lack of aggression and high degree of social conformity (1).

Mealey proposes two categorical classes of sociopath, primary and secondary. I criticize this distinction on the basis that “type” constructs of this kind have proved unrealistic in personality taxonomy and thatdimensionalsystems capture reality much more successfully. I suggest how such a system could work in this particular context.

For 62 students scores on the Barron-Welsh Art Scale, a measure of creativity, were correlated with scores on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. As predicted, psychoticism correlated positively with Art Scale scores, while extraversion and neuroticism did not.

The differences between advocates of the Big Five and the PEN (psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism) system are most clearly apparent in the problem of whether agreeableness and conscientiousness are to be classed as major dimensions of personality, or as primary factors forming part of P. It is argued that advocates of the Big Five neglect a large volume of research which is crucial to this debate, and which tilts the balance in favour of the PEN system.

It is suggested that Gough may have underestimated the evidence relating to racial differences on his socialization scale and its heritability.

The author replies to the critics by Ray (1990) concerning the methodology used in the study by Grossard-Maticek, Eysenck and Vetter (1989).

34 male patients suffering from cancer of the mouth or pharynx were studied with reference to their personality type, smoking and drinking habits, and compared with a healthy sample of 1706 men. The three risk factors showed a strong tendency to be related to cancer only in combination, adding new evidence to the theory that risk factors in cancer act in a synergistic fashion.

Comparisons are reported between results on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire obtained from 491 male and 480 female Slovene-speaking Jugoslavs; the comparison groups were 2312 male and 3262 female English subjects. Factor analyses of item intercorrelations showed close correspondence between the factors extracted in the two national samples, with indices of factor comparison well in excess of 0.95, and with reliabilities in the Jugoslav sample exceeding those in the original English standardization group. Sex differences were identical in both countries for all four factors, men having higher P and E scores, women higher N and L scores. National differences, agreeing with stereotypes, showed Jugoslavs to have higher P and lower E scores than the English. It was concluded that the organization of personality in Jugoslavia is sufficiently similar to that in England to make national comparisons feasible. Comparisons of delinquent subjects with non-delinquent controls demonstrated similar differences to those observed in British samples.

Responses of twins to an 11-item neuroticism scale extracted from questionnaires administered on two widely separated occasions were subjected to a genetic analysis. The results confirm earlier findings concerning the genetic determination of neuroticism and reveal that there is a genetic component in the inconsistency of the test measured by the interaction of subjects and test items. Variation within subjects over the 2-year period between tests was due purely to environmental factors specific to individuals. When a genetic model was fitted to the raw mean squares, there was no evidence that genetic variation was other than additive and no indication of an environmental component common to members of the same family.

A quota sample of 1,442 subjects was administered a Wilson-Patterson type questionnaire of social attitudes containing 68 items. Correlations were calculated between items, and a factor analysis carried out. 13 meaningful primary factors were discovered, the correlations between which gave rise to 2 major higher-order factors. These were closely similar in content to the Radicalism and Toughmindedness factors previously isolated in research with more orthodox types of items.

This paper is concerned with the development of a learning theory model of neurosis which would not be susceptible to the many criticisms which can be made of former models. Two widely favoured models—those of Freud and Skinner—are rejected because they are either non-falsifiable or tautological. The Watson and Mowrer models are rejected because they have been experimentally invalidated. The model here suggested differs from previous ones in several important respects. In the first place, it replaces the classical law of extinction by a more modern version which allows for incubation (enhancement) effects of exposure to CS-only stimuli, as well as for extinction effects. In the second place, the model emphasizes the importance of individual differences, and suggests precise relations between personality and the conditioning of neurotic behaviours. In the third place, the model lays stress on innate fear patterns and ‘preparedness’ as important factors in the genesis of conditioned fear responses. In the fourth place, the concept of ‘pain’ in the classical animal literature, and its use in creating models of neurosis, is supplemented by other concepts (‘frustrative non-reward’, ‘approach-avoidance’ conflict) which are more relevant to human neurosis. In the fifth place, and most important. the notion of ‘traumatic’, single-trial conditioning is abandoned, and a new theory based on incubation is proposed. It is suggested that the new theory is more adequate than previous ones to account for the known facts of human neurosis, and that it suggests novel types of experiment in both the animal and human fields which can be used to test its adequacy.

2,070 male prisoners and 2,442 male controls were administered the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, which gives scores on Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Lie scales. The groups were subdivided into age groups, ranging from 16 to 69 yr. at the extremes. It was found that the Lie scale disclosed little dissimulation in either group. Scores on Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism fell with age for both prisoners and controls. Prisoners had higher scores than controls, as predicted, on all three scales. It is concluded that prisoners show predictable differences in personality as compared with controls.

Consideration is given to the problem of how we are to arrive at personality factors that possess some demonstrable degree of representativ eness. It is suggested that psychometric considerations play an important part and that factor analysis in particular can be of great value in this connection. It is also suggested that there are other considerations of at least equal importance. Factors emerging from such analyses must be replicable and reliable, and they must fulfill certain basic psychometric requirements. In addition, there should be evidence of their heritability, they should have theoretical backing leading to objective laboratory verification of deductions from such theories, and they should be socially relevant in the sense of correlating significantly with social parameters. The evidence suggests that there are three and only three such factors emerging from relevant research, that these are all higher order factors, and that primary factors lack some or all of the qualities required. It is suggested that the models presented by Guilford, Cattell, and Eysenck converge on some such model as is here presented. A recent paper by Guilford (197S) expressed a point of view regarding the determination of personality dimensions by factor analysis that will probably be shared by most psychometrists. In this reply I do not wish to dwell on the many points of agreement (e.g., distrust of purely psychometric considerations in rotation, preference for orthogonality where possible, use of factor analysis in a hypothetico-deductive manner, disbelief in the meaningfulness of specifying factors as second-, third-, or higher order, selection of variables for analysis), but wish rather to discuss briefly two points of disagreement, one factual and dealing with matters largely internal to factor-analyt ic methodology and findings, the other external and dealing with the relation between factor analysis and other parts of psychology. In his section on "Eysenck's Factors E and N [Extraversion and Neuroticism]," Guilford (197S) correctly stated that the early work on the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI) and the Eysenck Personality

Scores from 1492 adult subjects on the Public Opinion Inventory were subjected to principal components and factor analyses. The adequacy of a two-factor hypothesis and the factors' correspondence to the dimensions of Radicalism and Toughmindedness previously defined were confirmed.