TEMPERAMENT AS A RISK FACTOR OF SOMATIC DISEASES
The idea that personality is the cause of somatic illnesses such as coronary heart disease (CHD) or cancer for many researchers seems to be humorous. Among the determinants of the diseases, which may be interpreted as consequences of interactions between a variety of factors such as immune system regulation, neuroendocrine and biochemical factors, genetically determined vulnerability and environmental risk factors, an important role was found for temperament and other personality dimensions. Three independent prospective studies were
conducted over a ten-year period. Subjects in all three samples were diagnosed by means
of inventories into four different personality types:
• Type I (equivalent to Type C)—cancer-prone, over-cooperative, unassertive,
unexpressive of negative emotions, avoiding conflicts, over-patient and defensive in
response to stress
• Type II (equivalent to Type A)—CHD-prone, chronically irritated and angry, failing to
establish stable emotional relations, showing aggression and hostility responses
• Type III—hysterical, oscillating between inadequacy and anger
• Type IV (equivalent to Type B)—mentally healthy.
At the end of the ten-year period, mortality and cause of death were recorded. The results
disclosed that in all three samples cancer mortality was highest in Type I and CHD mortality in Type II. It was also shown that a group of subjects diagnosed by relatives and friends as being permanently stressed showed significantly higher mortality rates (cancer and CHD) as compared with the non-selected (normal) group. The individuals representing Type IV reported significantly less heart disease as compared with Types I and II. There were, however, no significant differences between the three types as regards cancer. The relationship between heart disease and personality type was blurred by such variables as age, smoking, diet and exercising. Types I and II were older and smoked more, and Type IV persons had a healthier diet and exercised more. The literature also reports plenty of research in which CHD has been related to the Eysenckian temperament dimensions. Findings from several studies .The high neuroticism and high psychoticism (in terms of hostility and aggressiveness) interact with stressors to raise the risk of developing CHD. In a review comprising over 40 years of studies, Whiteman, Deary and Fowkes (2000) when searching for personality cardiovascular disease relationships found that Type A and hostility-related traits account for approximately 2 per cent of the variance in this disease. A five-year follow-up study was conducted by Whiteman and coworkers (2000) in which two categories of incident CHD—angina and myocardial infarction—were related to submissiveness and hostility. It turned out that submissiveness is protective against myocardial infarction but not angina. Increased dominance, the opposite pole to submissiveness, considered as a component of Type A behaviour was associated with higher risk of coronary disease. Curiously enough, hostility was not related to any of the two categories of CHD. In this study a variety of demographic and SES variables were under control.
The meta-analytic studies suggest that certain personality traits seem to be a common risk factor for both CHD and cancer, but some of them may be illness specific. We hypothesized thatdepression (depressiveness) is a general risk factor for many different illnesses (including lung cancer and myocardial infarction). Hostility may be treated as a myocardial infarction risk factor, but submissiveness as a risk of lung cancer. Regarding the temperamental traits, it was expected that emotional reactivity may be considered a common risk factor, strongly related to depressiveness. In turn, activity is illness specific: high activity is related to hostility and myocardial infarction; low activity is related to submissiveness and lung cancer. Additionally, temperamental traits are regarded rather as an indirect risk factor of both illnesses with direct effects of personality factors (and direct relationships between temperament and other personality traits). It was assumed also that smoking is influenced by temperament.
The idea that personality is the cause of somatic illnesses such as coronary heart disease (CHD) or cancer for many researchers seems to be humorous. Among the determinants of the diseases, which may be interpreted as consequences of interactions between a variety of factors such as immune system regulation, neuroendocrine and biochemical factors, genetically determined vulnerability and environmental risk factors, an important role was found for temperament and other personality dimensions. Three independent prospective studies were
conducted over a ten-year period. Subjects in all three samples were diagnosed by means
of inventories into four different personality types:
• Type I (equivalent to Type C)—cancer-prone, over-cooperative, unassertive,
unexpressive of negative emotions, avoiding conflicts, over-patient and defensive in
response to stress
• Type II (equivalent to Type A)—CHD-prone, chronically irritated and angry, failing to
establish stable emotional relations, showing aggression and hostility responses
• Type III—hysterical, oscillating between inadequacy and anger
• Type IV (equivalent to Type B)—mentally healthy.
At the end of the ten-year period, mortality and cause of death were recorded. The results
disclosed that in all three samples cancer mortality was highest in Type I and CHD mortality in Type II. It was also shown that a group of subjects diagnosed by relatives and friends as being permanently stressed showed significantly higher mortality rates (cancer and CHD) as compared with the non-selected (normal) group. The individuals representing Type IV reported significantly less heart disease as compared with Types I and II. There were, however, no significant differences between the three types as regards cancer. The relationship between heart disease and personality type was blurred by such variables as age, smoking, diet and exercising. Types I and II were older and smoked more, and Type IV persons had a healthier diet and exercised more. The literature also reports plenty of research in which CHD has been related to the Eysenckian temperament dimensions. Findings from several studies .The high neuroticism and high psychoticism (in terms of hostility and aggressiveness) interact with stressors to raise the risk of developing CHD. In a review comprising over 40 years of studies, Whiteman, Deary and Fowkes (2000) when searching for personality cardiovascular disease relationships found that Type A and hostility-related traits account for approximately 2 per cent of the variance in this disease. A five-year follow-up study was conducted by Whiteman and coworkers (2000) in which two categories of incident CHD—angina and myocardial infarction—were related to submissiveness and hostility. It turned out that submissiveness is protective against myocardial infarction but not angina. Increased dominance, the opposite pole to submissiveness, considered as a component of Type A behaviour was associated with higher risk of coronary disease. Curiously enough, hostility was not related to any of the two categories of CHD. In this study a variety of demographic and SES variables were under control.
The meta-analytic studies suggest that certain personality traits seem to be a common risk factor for both CHD and cancer, but some of them may be illness specific. We hypothesized thatdepression (depressiveness) is a general risk factor for many different illnesses (including lung cancer and myocardial infarction). Hostility may be treated as a myocardial infarction risk factor, but submissiveness as a risk of lung cancer. Regarding the temperamental traits, it was expected that emotional reactivity may be considered a common risk factor, strongly related to depressiveness. In turn, activity is illness specific: high activity is related to hostility and myocardial infarction; low activity is related to submissiveness and lung cancer. Additionally, temperamental traits are regarded rather as an indirect risk factor of both illnesses with direct effects of personality factors (and direct relationships between temperament and other personality traits). It was assumed also that smoking is influenced by temperament.
No comments:
Post a Comment