Cyclothymia and Schizothymia as a Dimension of Personality: Historical Review

[Exeter]

Summary

We may summarize briefly Kretschmer's contention and his interpretation from the experiments reported in this article. He believes that he has shown that corresponding to a pyknic-leptosomatic type factor in the constitutional field there is a cyclothymic-schizothymic factor in the mental field. These factors and their correlations are supposed to extend far beyond the psychotic field and to be of equal importance for normal people. The personality of the cyclothyme and the schizothyme is characterized in operational terms by means of a large number of experiments. Kretschmer believes that he has shown a marked tendency for schizothymes to have a mind which he variously describes as "dissociative," "abstractive," or "analytic," whereas the cyclothyme is credited with a mind which is "synthetic," "global," or "integrative." The schizothyme is shown to be more form reactive, whereas the cyclothyme is shown to be more color reactive--a finding the implications of which are believed to lie along a line of explanation which emphasizes the relation between color and the expression of emotion. The schizothyme is believed to have a quick personal tempo; the cyclothyme to be rather slow; schizothymes have their work rhythm interrupted rather more easily than cyclothymes and have a greater tendency towards rhythmic movement. With respect to motor coordination, schizothymes are superior to cyclothymes, but they show
greater evidence of tension, and their handwriting is far more irregular. Schizothymes tend to be more perseverative than cyclothymes and show a very much greater degree of affective and autonomic reactivity than do cyclothymes.
This then is a brief and necessarily incomplete summary of Kretschmer's main contentions and of the evidence which he brings forward to support them. We must next turn to an evaluation of this evidence.

Evaluation

In order to evaluate Kretschmer's work properly we must bear in mind two things: in the first place, the logical and methodological considerations underlying his experiments, and, secondly, the mathematical and statistical methods used. It is perfectly clear that the latter are rudimentary and inadequate for his purpose--a fault often found in German work. Even simple considerations of significance of differences are usually overlooked by Kretschmer and his fellow workers, and interpretations are made of slight differences which are, quite obviously, well below any acceptable level of confidence. However, by and large, it is doubtful if a proper statistical investigation of the figures given would disprove his main contentions as outlined above. We have shown in a number of cases that differences found by him and his followers are definitely significant when classical tests are used, and, even where no such tests are possible because standard deviations are not given by Kretschmer, the writer has no hesitation in saying, from his own experience with similar tests and the rough range of standard deviations to be expected from them, that, in the majority of cases, the results would be acceptable and significant. This general conclusion is strengthened by the fact that in many cases an experiment is repeated by several workers, usually with similar results. Thus, we may conclude that while the statistical appraisal of the data is crude and sometimes almost nonexistent, nevertheless, a not too rigid view of the results revealed them as deserving a relatively high degree of confidence. It is when we come to the methodological considerations, however, that certain feelings of uneasiness become more insistent.
The writer (19) has defined a trait as "an observed constellation of individual action tendencies," a definition with which Kretschmer would probably agree. Yet, when dealing with a trait such as dissociation, colorform reaction, or perseveration, it must be noted that he substitutes for "observed constellation" a purely interpretive criterion. In other words, Kretschmer has originated five or six different tests of dissociation, the hypothesis being that each of the tests measures this particular mental trait to some extent. The link between all these tests, however, is a purely theoretical or interpretive one; that is to say, it is assumed that there is something in common between them, namely, dissociation, but no proof is
given of this contention. In the writer's view, the only way of proving the hypothesis underlying Kretschmer's use of the term would be a correlational and factorial study of the tests in question and a definite demonstration that a general factor of dissociative ability could be found to run through all of them, a factor, it should be noted, which could not be identified with any of the factors already isolated in the cognitive or the affective spheres. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the various other traits that Kretschmer mentions, such as a color-form tendency, perseveration, personal tempo, and so forth. Before we can admit these traits as acceptable building stones in the construction of a scientific system of personality, we must be sure that the various tests supposed to measure them really share in common some underlying ability or tendency which can justifiably be identified with the hypothetical trait.
Kretschmer is not entirely unaware of this necessity, but his proof is logically faulty. While defining, as does the present writer (19), a type as "an observed constellation or syndrome of traits," he does not draw the obvious conclusion that we must first identify our traits and then isolate the type by means of the observed intercorrelation of traits; instead, he tries to prove the existence of the traits by arguing from the existence of a type. In other words, he shows that one test of perseveration discriminates between cyclothymes and schizothymes and that another test of perseveration also discriminates in the same way; this he seems to regard as sufficient proof that both tests measure perseveration, which is, of course, a logical fallacy. The writer has shown that a test of suggestibility discriminates between neurotics and normals and that a test of persistence also discriminates in this fashion, and that accordingly the two tests correlate (19). It does not follow from this that persistence is the same thing as suggestibility, and, indeed, the proof that the tests in question are tests of persistence or suggestibility has to be given in terms of separate factorial studies embodying different types of suggestibility and persistence tests.
Therefore, while we cannot consider Kretschmer's contention regarding the various traits mentioned as proved, it must be emphasized that his work is extremely suggestive and that it seems certainly worth while to investigate by more advanced methods than he used the concepts of dissociation or of color-form tendency.
While Kretschmer places much importance on these traits, as we may, perhaps, call them in conformity with modern psychological usage, the mainstay of his whole system, of course, is the cyclothymic-schizothymic dichotomy. We have already criticized his method of proving that this dichotomy, whose existence in the psychotic field few would deny, can and should be accepted in the normal field. A more direct method than the one used by him, which relies on the possibly irrelevant tertium quid (the pyknic-leptosomatic dichotomy), is required for this purpose. Such a method will be outlined and an experiment using it will be reported in the second paper of this series, but here we will note what we consider to be the strongest argument against Kretschmer's method of proof.While he shows that there is a correlation between body-build and the two main types of functional psychotic disorder, that correlation is not very high, and the writer has shown elsewhere (19) that body-build is correlated with other variables (neuroticism, extroversion-introversion) which are unrelated to the Kretschmerian concepts. If that be so, then clearly many of Kretchsmer's findings, which appear superficially to support his views, may in reality have quite a different explanation. To give just one example, it will be noted that in experiment E 2 the leptosomatics are slow and accurate, whereas the pyknics are quick and inaccurate. This may be interpreted in Kretschmerian terms; however, an alternative explanation is possible. The writer has shown (19) that hysterics tend to be of a more eurymorphic (pyknic) body-build than anxiety states and reactive depressions (dysthymics), who tend to be leptomorphic in bodybuild. It has also been shown that hysterics tend to be quick and inaccurate, whereas dysthymics tend to be slow and accurate (19). It follows from this that there should be a correlation between body-build and a speed-accuracy test of the kind found by Kretschmer, but the interpretation of the experiment may be in terms quite different from those advanced by Kretschmer, using concepts essentially alien to his system. It is because of the dangers of indirect proof, exemplified in this case, that a more direct method of examining Kretchmer's hypothesis becomes necessary.

Howard Brand, The Study of Personality: A Book of Readings, John Wiley & Sons, 1954.

[Agrippa]

While he shows that there is a correlation between body-build and the two main types of functional psychotic disorder, that correlation is not very high,

The correlation is highest for manic-depressives, whereas its much weaker for schizophrenes, for which Leptosomics are more common, but less clearly - many are dysplastic (f.e. extremely obese or very feminised) and there are different reasons for the schzophrenic syndroms. One should consider the work of Conrad too which has shown that especially the correlation, real "kinship" between normal schizothymy and schizophrenia is not that high.

Concerning the normal spectrum one should always consider the transitional and "mixed forms", the real "types" and clear body-psyche relations being best represented by the clearest cases, whereas the "more mixed average" might show every (untypical) combination. Therefore the more schizothymic, the more leptosomic would strengthen the other element, same goes for Pyknic and zyklothymic.

and the writer has shown elsewhere (19) that body-build is correlated with other variables (neuroticism, extroversion-introversion) which are unrelated to the Kretschmerian concepts.

Thats not true. They are not unrelated but must be combined in a different way in different systems - the extreme end results are in most known cases very similar-same.

The writer has shown (19) that hysterics tend to be of a more eurymorphic (pyknic) body-build than anxiety states and reactive depressions (dysthymics), who tend to be leptomorphic in bodybuild.

He distinguishes in this case energetic zyklothymes (hypomanic), hysterics, from nervous, tense, sensitive schizothymes which tend to a certain depressive mood, "reactive depressions" especially in the situations of negative stress.

Reactive depression may also called an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. As the name implies, a reactive depression, is one that occurs in response to some specific and identifiable psychosocial stressor. If the symptom picture suggests that the person meets the diagnostic criteria for another psychological disorder, (such as a major depression) then this diagnosis is not used. For example, if a person experiences a trauma, and develops the symptoms of a major depression, then the diagnosis of adjustment disorder is not used, even though the depression developed in response to a psychosocial stressor. So, adjustment disorder with depression is used to categorize mild to moderate depression, following a stressful event.

http://www.drdonaldfranklin.com/psyc...epression.html

So a reactive depression can be very often seen in schizothymics, whereas the "true" major depression being much more the result of a predisposition and to a lesser degree influenced by the exact circumstances, by details of the social environment even.

The author is right about a certain "uncleanliness" of the Kretschmer's methodology, but even that doesnt mean that Kretschmer wasnt right. After all he is proving his results himself.

Concerning more modern studies on the matter, even if just on one aspect since the "politically correctness" and "scientific" pressure - namely to just come with bullet proof results if at all if its about "hot potatoes", even if the probability seems to be very high for a typological concept - being a great hindrance for a full revival of typologies in the psychological-constitutional-racial fields.
Mental disorders strongly linked with obesity