Somatotype and constitutional psychology

This article is part of a series on
Alternative medicine
General information Alternative medicine History Terminology Alternative veterinary medicine Quackery (health fraud) Rise of modern medicine Pseudoscience Antiscience Skepticism Skeptical movement Therapeutic nihilism
Fringe medicine and science Acupressure Acupuncture Alkaline diet Anthroposophic medicine Apitherapy Applied kinesiology Aromatherapy Association for Research and Enlightenment Auriculotherapy Bates method Black salve Bodywork Bonesetter Bowen technique Breathwork Camel urine Fake COVID-19 treatments Cancer treatments Charcoal cleanse Chiropractic Chiropractic treatment techniques Vertebral subluxation Christian Science Chromotherapy Colon cleansing Coffee enema Colorpuncture Colloidal silver Craniosacral therapy Crystal healing Cupping therapy Dental amalgam controversy Detoxification Foot detox Dry needling Ear candling Energy medicine Correactology Esoteric energy Therapeutic touch Fabunan Antiviral Injection Facilitated communication Feldenkrais Method Functional medicine Hair analysis Herbal medicine Holistic dentistry Hologram bracelet Homeopathy Bach flower remedies Biological terrain assessment Hypnotherapy Iridology Ionized jewelry Jilly Juice Lightning Process Lymphotherapy Medical intuitive Mesmerism Magnet therapy Manual therapy Megavitamin therapy Mind–body interventions MMS Myofascial release NAET Naturopathy Oil pulling Orgone Orthomolecular medicine Orthopathy Osteomyology Osteopathy Ozone therapy Parapsychology Phrenology Psychic surgery Psychodermatology Quantum healing Radionics Rapid prompting method RBOP Reiki Reflexology Rolfing Scientific racism ThetaHealing Thought Field Therapy Urophagia Vaginal steaming Vision therapy Vitalism Young blood transfusion Zero balancing
Conspiracy theories (list) Big Pharma conspiracy theory HIV/AIDS denialism OPV AIDS hypothesis Anti-vaccinationism in chiropractic Vaccines and autism MMR vaccine and autism Water fluoridation controversy GMO conspiracy theories COVID-19 misinformation
Classifications Alternative medical systems Mind–body intervention Biologically-based therapy Manipulative methods Energy therapy
Traditional medicine African Muti Southern Africa Ayurveda Dosha MVAH Balneotherapy Brazilian Bush medicine Cambodian Chinese Blood stasis Chinese herbology Dit da Gua sha Gill plate trade Meridian Moxibustion Pressure point Qi San Jiao Tui na Zang-fu Chumash Curandero Faith healing Hilot Iranian Jamu Kambo Japanese Korean Mien Shiang Mongolian Prophetic medicine Shamanism Shiatsu Siddha Sri Lankan Thai massage Tibetan Unani Vietnamese
Diagnoses Adrenal fatigue Aerotoxic syndrome Candida hypersensitivity Chronic Lyme disease Electromagnetic hypersensitivity Heavy legs Leaky gut syndrome Multiple chemical sensitivity Wilson's temperature syndrome
v t

Somatotype is a taxonomy developed in the 1940s by American psychologist William Herbert Sheldon to categorize the human physique according to the relative contribution of three fundamental elements which he termed 'somatotypes', classified by him as 'ectomorphic', 'mesomorphic' and 'endomorphic'. He named these after the three germ layers of embryonic development: the endoderm, (which develops into the digestive tract), the mesoderm, (which becomes muscle, heart and blood vessels) and the ectoderm (which forms the skin and nervous system).^[1] Later variations of the method, developed by his original research assistant Barbara Heath, and later Lindsay Carter and Rob Rempel, are still in occasional academic use.^[2][3]

Constitutional psychology is a theory developed by Sheldon in the 1940s, which attempted to associate his somatotype classifications with human temperament types.^[4][5] The foundation of these ideas originated with Francis Galton and eugenics.^[2] Sheldon and Earnest Hooton were seen as leaders of a school of thought, popular in anthropology at the time, which held that the size and shape of a person's body indicated intelligence, moral worth and future achievement.^[2]

In his 1954 book, Atlas of Men, Sheldon categorized all possible body types according to a scale ranging from 1 to 7 for each of the three 'somatotypes', where the pure 'endomorph' is 7–1–1, the pure 'mesomorph' 1–7–1 and the pure 'ectomorph' scores 1–1–7.^[6][7][8] From type number, an individual's mental characteristics could supposedly be predicted.^[7] In a late version of a pseudoscientific thread within criminology in which criminality is claimed to be an innate characteristic that can be recognized through particular physiognomic markers (as in Cesare Lombroso's theory of phrenology), Sheldon contended that criminals tended to be 'mesomorphic'.^[9] The system of somatotyping is still in use in the field of physical education.

The three types[]

Sheldon's "somatotypes" and their associated physical and psychological traits were characterized as follows:^[3][8][10]

Somatotypes proposed by W.H. Sheldon

Somatotype	Physical traits	Psychological traits	Notes
Ectomorphic	characterized as skinny, weak, and usually tall with low testosterone levels	described as intelligent, gentle and calm, but self-conscious, introverted and anxious.	[3][6][8][11]
Mesomorphic	characterized as naturally hard and strong, with even weight distribution, muscular with weight training, thick-skinned, and as having good posture with narrow waist	described as competitive, extroverted, and tough.	[3][6][8]
Endomorphic	characterized as fat, usually short, and having difficulty losing weight	described as outgoing, friendly, happy and laid-back, but also lazy and selfish	[3][6][8]

Comparison of body types

Stereotyping[]

There may be some evidence that different physiques carry cultural stereotypes, as some cultures are more prone to certain physiques. According to one study endomorphs are likely to be perceived as slow, sloppy, and lazy. Mesomorphs, in contrast, are typically stereotyped as popular and hardworking, whereas ectomorphs are often viewed as intelligent, yet fearful.^[12]

Heath–Carter formula[]

Sheldon's physical taxonomy is still in use, particularly the Heath–Carter variant of the methodology.^[13] This formulaic approach utilises an individual's weight (kg), height (cm), upper arm circumference (cm), maximal calf circumference (cm), femur breadth (cm), humerus breadth (cm), triceps skinfold (mm), subscapular skinfold (mm), supraspinal skinfold (mm), and medial calf skinfold (mm), and remains popular in anthropomorphic research, as to quote Rob Rempel "With modifications by Parnell in the late 1950s, and by Heath and Carter in the mid 1960s somatotype has continued to be the best single qualifier of total body shape".^[14]

This variant utilizes the following series of equations to assess a subject's traits against each of the three somatotypes, each assessed on a seven-point scale, with 0 indicating no correlation and a 7 a very strong:

${\displaystyle {\text{Endomorphy}}=-0.7182+0.145x-0.00068x^{2}+0.0000014x^{3}}$ where:${\displaystyle x=({\text{tricep skinfold}}[mm]+{\text{subscapular skinfold}}[mm]+{\text{supraspinal skinfold}}[mm])*({\frac {170.18}{{\text{height}}[cm]}})}$

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{Mesomorphy}}&=(0.858*{\text{humerus breadth}}[cm])\\&+(0.601*{\text{femur breadth}}[cm])\\&+(0.188*{\text{upper arm girth}}[cm])\\&+(0.161*{\text{max calf girth}}[cm])\\&-(0.131*{\text{height}}[cm])\\&+4.5\end{aligned}}}$

• Ectomorphy : Calculate the subjects Ponderal Index: ${\displaystyle {\text{PI}}={\frac {{\text{height}}[cm]}{({\text{mass}}[kg])^{1/3}}}}$
  • If ${\displaystyle PI>40.74}$, ${\displaystyle {\text{Ectomorphy}}=(0.732*PI)-28.58}$
  • If ${\displaystyle 39.65<PI<40.74}$, ${\displaystyle {\text{Ectomorphy}}=(0.463*PI)-17.615}$
  • If ${\displaystyle PI<39.65}$, ${\displaystyle {\text{Ectomorphy}}=0.5}$

This numerical approach has gone on to be incorporated in the current sports science and physical education curriculums of numerous institutions, ranging from the UK's secondary level GCSE curriculums (14- to 16-year-olds), the Indian UPSC Civil Service exams, to MSc programs worldwide, and has been utilized in numerous academic papers, including:

• Rowing athletes^[15]
• Tennis athletes^[16]
• Judo athletes^[17]
• Volleyball athletes^[18]
• Gymnasts^[19][20]
• Soccer athletes^[21]
• Triathletes^[22]
• Han people^[23]
• Persons with diabetes^[24][25]
• Taekwondo athletes^[26]
• Persons with eating disorders^[27]
• Dragon boat participants^[28]

Criticism[]

Sheldon's ideas that body type was an indicator of temperament, moral character or potential – while popular in an atmosphere accepting of the theories of eugenics – were later disputed.^[2][29]

A key criticism of Sheldon's constitutional theory is that it was not a theory at all but a general assumption of continuity between structure and behavior and a set of descriptive concepts to measure physique and behavior in a scaled manner.^[3]

His use of thousands of photographs of naked Ivy League undergraduates, obtained without explicit consent from a pre-existing program evaluating student posture, has been strongly criticized.^[2][30]

While popular in the 1950s,^[30] Sheldon's claims have since been dismissed as "quackery".^{[3][4][31][32][33]}

Barbara Honeyman Heath, who was Sheldon's main assistant in compiling Atlas of Men, accused him of falsifying the data he used in writing the book.^[2]

See also[]

• Biological anthropology
• Biomechanics
• Body mass index
• Body shape
• Eugenics in the United States
• Female body shape
• Kinanthropometry
• Neurobiological effects of physical exercise
• Physiognomy
• Physiology
• Somatology

References[]

Sources[]

• Gerrig, Richard; Zimbardo, Phillip G. (2002). Psychology and Life (16th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 0-205-33511-X.
• Hartl, Emil M.; Monnelly, Edward P.; Elderkin, Roland D. (1982). Physique and Delinquent Behavior (A Thirty-year Follow-up of William H. Sheldon's Varieties of Delinquent Youth). New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-328480-5.

Further reading[]

• Sheldon, William H. (1942). The Varieties of Temperament. New York; London: Harper & Brothers. Archived from the original on 2012-02-24 – via University of Delhi.
• Carter, J.E. Lindsay; Heath, Barbara Honeyman (1990). Somatotyping-development and Applications. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521351170.
• Arraj, Tyra; Arraj, James (January 1988). "Ch. 4:William Sheldon's Body and Temperament Types". Tracking the Elusive Human. Vol. Vol. I. Midland, OR: Inner Growth. ISBN 0914073168 – via innerexplorations.com. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
• Coughlan, Robert (June 25, 1951). "What manner of morph are you?". Life. Vol. 30, no. 26. pp. 65–79 – via Google Books.

External links[]

• "Ectomorph". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.