Somatotype and constitutional psychology

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 Scientific Therapeutic nihilism
Fringe medicine and science Acupressure Acupuncture Alkaline diet Anthroposophic medicine Apitherapy Applied kinesiology Aromatherapy Association for Research and Enlightenment Auriculotherapy Bates method Biological terrain assessment Black salve Bodywork Bone-setting Bowen technique Breathwork Fake COVID-19 treatments Camel urine Cancer treatments Charcoal cleanse Chiropractic Chiropractic treatment techniques Vertebral subluxation Christian Science Chromotherapy Colloidal silver Colon cleansing Coffee enema Colorpuncture Conversion therapy Craniosacral therapy Crystal healing Cupping therapy Dental amalgam controversy Detoxification Foot detox Dry needling Ear candling Energy medicine Correactology Esoteric energy Reiki Therapeutic touch Estrogen dominance Fabunan Antiviral Injection Facilitated communication FasciaBlaster Feldenkrais Method Functional medicine Hair analysis Holistic dentistry Hologram bracelet Homeopathy Bach flower remedies Hydrotherapy Hypnotherapy Ionized jewelry Iridology Jilly Juice Lightning Process Lymphotherapy Magnet therapy Manual therapy Medical intuitive Megavitamin therapy Mesmerism Mind–body interventions MMS Myofascial release NAET Naturopathy Oil pulling Orgone Orthomolecular medicine Orthopathy Osteomyology Osteopathy Ozone therapy Parapsychology Phrenology Postural Integration Psychic surgery Psychodermatology Quantum healing Radionics Rapid prompting method Reflexology RBOP Rolfing Scientific racism ThetaHealing Thomsonianism Thought Field Therapy Urophagia Vaginal steaming Vegetotherapy Vision therapy Vitalism Young blood transfusion Zero balancing
Controversies Big Pharma conspiracy theories HIV/AIDS denialism OPV AIDS hypothesis Anti-vaccinationism Vaccine misinformation Vaccines and autism MMR vaccine and autism in chiropractic Water fluoridation controversy COVID-19 misinformation Turbo cancer
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 Long gu Meridian Moxibustion Pressure point Qi San Jiao Tui na Zang-fu Chumash Curandero Faith healing Herbal medicine Hilot Iranian Jamu Kayakalpa Kambo Japanese Korean Maya Mien Shiang Mongolian Naftalan oil Prophetic medicine Shamanism Shiatsu Siddha Sri Lankan Thai massage Tibetan Unani Vietnamese
Alternative diagnoses Adrenal fatigue Aerotoxic syndrome Candida hypersensitivity Chronic Lyme disease Electromagnetic hypersensitivity Heavy legs Leaky gut syndrome Multiple chemical sensitivity PANDAS Vertebral subluxation Wilson's temperature syndrome
v t e

Somatotype is a theory proposed in the 1940s by the 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 created these terms borrowing from 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 these categories, developed by his original research assistant Barbara Heath, and later by Lindsay Carter and Rob Rempel, are used by academics today.^[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.^[10]

Sheldon's "somatotypes" and their associated physical and psychological traits were characterized as follows:^[3][8][11]

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][12]
Mesomorphic	characterized as naturally hard and strong, with even weight distribution, muscular, 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]

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.^[13]

Sheldon's physical taxonomy is still in use, particularly the Heath–Carter variant of the methodology.^[14] 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, according to 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".^[15]

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 7 indicating a very strong correlation:

${\displaystyle {\text{Endomorphy}}=-0.7182+0.145x-0.00068x^{2}+0.0000014x^{3}}$ 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 subject's 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^[16]
• Tennis athletes^[17]
• Judo athletes^[18]
• Volleyball athletes^[19]
• Gymnasts^[20][21]
• Soccer athletes^[22]
• Triathletes^[23]
• Han people^[24]
• Persons with diabetes^[25][26]
• Taekwondo athletes^[27]
• Persons with eating disorders^[28]
• Dragon boat participants^[29]

"The Varieties of Human Physique" by Sheldon et al (1940) classified body types into three categories using data processes that would not be accepted by researchers today.^[30] 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][31]

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][32]

While popular in the 1950s,^[32] Sheldon's claims have since been dismissed as "quackery".^{[3][4][33][34][35]} 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]

• 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

• 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.

• 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. I. Midland, OR: Inner Growth. ISBN 0914073168 – via innerexplorations.com.
• Coughlan, Robert (June 25, 1951). "What manner of morph are you?". Life. Vol. 30, no. 26. pp. 65–79 – via Google Books.

• "Somatotype". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.