There has been much discussion about personality characteristics that relate to disease susceptibility. Problems exist with both the personality measures and the disease measures (Krantz & Hedges, 1997). Simonton and Matthews-Simonton (1994) have often been quoted after they have attempted to describe the personalities of survivors from cancer. They reported these survivors to be receptive to new ideas and creative, though sometimes hostile, with strong egos.
They were rarely docile, usually in control of their lives, and had careers they liked. They were intelligent people with a strong sense of reality and though they were self-reliant, they also valued interaction with others. They were non-conformist with a permissive morality and an appreciation for diversity. They interpreted problems as redirection, not failure. The actual study (Achterberg, Mathews-Simonton, & Simonton, 1997) on which these results were based was not as definitive as it is reported to be.
Subjects were drawn from Simonton`s practice and fell into two groups, those who survived in excess of two years past an incurable diagnosis (n = 12) and an unmatched group who died within 13 months of their diagnosis (n = 10). Differences in t-test means were reported as significant if p < . 05. Other tests were reported as “approaching significance. ” The evidence appears weak or at least poorly reported from this frequently cited study. Type A behaviour is a personality type particularly prone to coronary heart disease .
There is no standardized questionnaire for this personality style, but only structured, somewhat subjective interviews. Type A characteristics, thought to increase one’s risk of heart disease, such as need for control, aggressive pursuit of goals, and outspoken behaviours, are surprisingly similar to the characteristics described earlier that Simonton and Matthews-Simonton believed led to a higher rate of survival with cancer. That is, those characteristics thought to be useful for cancer recovery are thought to increase the risk of heart disease.
This is a good example of how it would be unwise to take characteristics relating to disease and to try to apply them to healing states, since they may not be the same even between different diseases. Hardiness can be considered a personality characteristic. There were several subsequent studies in a scale measuring commitment, control and challenge. Commitment is defined as enthusiastic involvement in personal activities and a general curiosity and interest in other activities, things, and people.
Control is a belief that one can influence events taking place around one. Challenge involves an expectations that life will change and these changes will be catalysts for personal development. Hardiness, the combination of these characteristics, is expected to produce optimistic cognitive appraisals and an increased ability to cope with stress. As illness is a stressful event, hardiness may be relevant to healing. Kobasa, Maddi, and Khan (1999) asked whether hardiness functions to decrease the effect of stressful life events in producing illness symptoms.
They tested 259 subjects using the Schedule of Life Events. Illness was measured through the Seriousness of Illness Survey, a widely used tool with no report of reliability or validity. Each of the scores, exercise, social support and hardiness was called a resistance score. This survey will test three hypotheses: subjects with three resistance resources are healthier than those with two; subjects with two resistance resources are healthier than those with one; and subjects with one resistance resource are healthier than those with none.