Personality and Ill Health

Among the psychological factors that impact health, temper that is table respective(prenominal) differences in thinking, feeling and behaving- plays a pivotal single-valued function. For example, an unmarried high in a sense of coherence (SOC), therefore perceive less stress and soak up the world as to a greater extent manageable, resulting in good health (Williams, 2010). Further much, the individual differences that exist In terms of the attitude the individual has towards their health and how they conceive their illness Is very important.Although It Is a popular notion that tempera workforcet traits go the state of a persons physical health, It Is difficult to establish the true spirit of the human relationship betwixt resonantly and health , including measurement, the distinction between subjectively report symptoms and objective signs of illness and the direction of causation (Matthews et al. , 2003). Four ways in which health status and temper might be linked sire been identified by Souls and Retouches, (1990).Firstly is the strongest assumptions about the importance of temperament traits which represent biologically based differences that whitethorn face different illness offsprings. Second, the relationship between traits and illness might be correlation rather than routine. Third is the usability that traits wizard to behaviors that In turn lead to illnesses e. G. Smoking. Finally, Illnesses may cause personality changes. so far look into has tended to focus on one of these aspects at a meter which may oversimplify the complete Interrelationships that ar likely to exist (Friedman, 2000).The former(prenominal) has shown that from early times a link has almost always been make between personality and illness. Hippocrates (460-377 BC) exposit physical illness as cosmos caused by the balance of bodily fluids or humors meaning personality traits (Steelmaker and Swastika. , 1992). spirit is often conceptualized as specific behavi oral styles as opposed to personality disorders or personality domains. casing A, example B, graphic symbol C and cause D are close to examples of a collection of behavior patterns that are separateed unitedly to form a personality caseful. grammatical case A personality is one of the most studied of these. It Is a behavior pattern marked by tenseness, impatience and aggressiveness, often relating in stress related symptoms such(prenominal)(prenominal) as insomnia and Indigestion, and possibly Increasing the risk of substance disorder. The term persona A was developed by Friedman & Rosen man (1 959), by which stile, and very tense summarized fundamentally as a workaholic personality. Type A personality was developed victimization structured interviews, however, although reliable it was labor intensive and therefore expensive.Due to this it lead to the growth of the Jenkins self report measure Nonsense et al. , 1974). There were at least(prenominal) four major breakth rough studies of personality and cardiac vascular disease PROVIDING CONFLICTING RESULTS. The earliest success for Type A personality came from the westward Collaborative Group Study (Roseanne et al. , 1975). This news report followed 3, 154 initially healthy men geed between 39 & 59 years. The sample was followed up 8 h years later with Type A men were show to soak up twice as much cardiovascular disease than Type B men.Type B personalities are very laid back , patient, and take a very relaxed low-key approach to life and their Job. This would suggest that Type A personalities are to a greater extent than prone to cardiovascular disease than Type B personalities. However, a later follow up study showed to a greater extent detrimental or unequivocal results. After 22 years the same group reported no effects of Type A but unagitated marked effects on mortality from blood erasure, cholesterol , sens and age (Raglans & Brand, 1988), suggesting there was much(prenominal) than T ype A personality straight off increasing risk of coronary heart disease.Similarly, a cohort study known as the Farmington study, began between 1965 & 1967 (Haynes et al. , 1978). This claimd 5,127 men and women cosmos appraiseed and put up the incidence of cardiovascular disease to be meaningfully higher in Type A than Type B. However, in a follow up study results were less clear cut as it was order that Type A personality was indicateive of cardiovascular disease only in certain occupational groups. Also, women with cardiovascular disease scored to a greater extent highly on Type A behavior and suppressed more distaste, tension and concern than men.Adding to these conflicting results were the Honolulu Heart Program Study (Cohen & Reid, 1985) and the British regional Heart Study Monsoon et al 1987) which found no significant knowledge between Type A personality and cardiovascular disease. These findings have act to be explained through a meta-analysis of the literature (Booth-Kelley & Friedman, 1987) where findings were said to be imputable to the differences in the ways of assessing behavior and the use of different outcome assure, in that a distinction needs to be made between objectively and subjectively measuring these outcomes.Although, an association was made between Type A personality and cardiovascular disease, the contradictory results can mean a procedure of things and further investigations of pathways and mechanisms is necessary to fully understand the associations. This suggests that although Type A may have an association to C. V. D. , it does not depict a definite outcome of illness. Another facet in seek is that provided by personality theorists, where the components of personality are looked at instead of the personality as a whole.Glass (1977) found three separate components made up Type A personality. These include striving competitively for achievement, sense of urgency and high levels of aggressiveness. Compared to the more relaxed, slow going Type BBS Type As were seen as more concerned with having control and having lower threshold for perceiving Hostility here is described as the toxic component. In a meta-analysis of 45 studies (Chide & Step, 2009) concluded hostility and anger was associated with an increase(20%) risk of C.H. D. Developing in originally healthy people. Also, research such as the Western Electric Study (1983) has consistently pitcherful a link between hostility and C. H. D. Similarly, 12 longitudinal studies examined the usance of hostility on the incidence of C. H. D. , 6 longitudinal studies have examined the role of hostility on C. H. D. Mortality and 2 longitudinal studies examined the role of hostility n sub clinical C. V. D. The results from these revealed that anger/hostility was associated with C. H. D. ND cause mortality, independent of potential biologic and socio-demographic confounder (Fink, 2009). In contrast, the high scores found on the personality trait of hosti lity assumed a casual link to C. H. D. -in that the illogical processes associated with hostile behavior are overly associated with change magnitude C. V. D. (Square et al 2002). The deduction provided here portrays that an individual that is more hostile is more prone to C. H. D. Either directly or through outcomes that individuals display such as smoking or drinking alcohol because of the hostile behavior.This evidence suggests that while type A personality alone cannot consistently predict C. H. D. , its subcomponents (such as hostility as discussed above) are in fact more reliable indicators . Due to the inconsistent findings on type A personality and C. H. D. It in turn resulted on an emphasis on individual differences. look found that depression, low levels of social bide, high hostility and anger being seen as risk factors in C. H. D. (Dickens et al. , 2007).It was concluded, psychological risk factors tended to cluster together in some individuals and they were therefor e more likely to experience cardiac problems when dealing with chronic stress. Again, a personality type approach was developed- character Type D ( Denote, 2000), which consisted of combined states of anxiety, pessimism, despair and anger. Type D is alike characterized by high levels of negatively charged festivity (AN) and social inhibition, with individuals especially experiencing AN more likely to experience distress, anxiety, irritability, pessimism and worry.It is the combined effects of these negative emotions that define Type D (Cupper & Denote, 2007). However, it is this inability to cope that may help explain wherefore some individuals are more prone to C. H. D. Although, it has recently been reported that Type D is an independent predictor of increased mortality among patients with coronary heart disease(Cupper & Denote, 2007), little to no research has investigated how type d ND non type d individual cope with stress.Both negative affectively and social inhibition invo lve distancing oneself from the stresses using avoidance or withdrawal coping strategies causing the individual to make fewer attempts to engage directly with the problem. Also individuals with type D are predicted to actively reduce their efforts to seek out social support (Denote, 2000) which has been shown to be detrimental to health and well-being. A cross- sectional study of 334 initiative year undergraduate students found a small but significant moderator effect for Type D for he disengagement symptom of burnout (Pullman et al, 2009).These findings also mirrored other findings with individuals high in personality trait neurotics, which shares similarities with negative affectively (egg Denote, 2005). Therefore, reduced levels in comparisons to non-type d individuals. This includes avoidance coping strategies as well, which in turn lead to higher stress levels influencing C. H. D. It is clear from the evidence provided that a relationship between personality and health exists, therefore making some individuals who possess traits such as hostility or eroticism more prone to illness than others without these traits.Although it is favorable to depict certain personality types (e. G. Type A) and relate these to ill health, instead it would be more beneficial to assess personality traits before the onset of illness so that the brief relationship between cause and effect can be established. From the literature, it is becoming more clear that the traits identified within personality types play a major role in predicting health and to understand this role is where the importance lies.Also, the research conveys the relationship teen personality and health can be explored more extensively when using wider arrays of psychosocial measures and outcomes in longitudinal studies (rather than cross-sectional)-ideally studies that follow people from puerility onwards (Friedman, 2000) as once again cause and effect may be established. Overall, the importance of understandi ng why some individuals are more prone to illness than others and the personality traits involved in this, is due to the unanalyzable reason it is better for health prevention and treatment. At the end of the mean solar day. Your health is your wealth