William Sheldon: A Constitutional Theory of Temperament. Types of temperament according to Sheldon

» Theory of somatotypes

Typology by W. Sheldon (1898-1977)

American physician and psychologist William Sheldon is best known for his theory linking physique, personality, and delinquency. He became one of the founders of constitutional psychology.

In 1940, Sheldon analyzed the structure of the human body and established three components, each of which could be measured objectively. He used such measurements on a scale of seven sections. Depending on the predominance of one or another component, these were the following types physiques: ectomorph (thin and tall), mesomorph (with a predominance of bones and muscles) and endomorph (rounded, with excess fat). The combination of these elements in one body gives it somatotype, which can be expressed in three single-digit codes.

These somatic components were correlated with three parameters of temperament: cerebrotonia (emotional reserve and cognitive control), somatotonia (aggressive activity) and viscerotonia (tendency to communicate, physical relaxation).

In further studies, however, scientists did not find such high correlations, and endomorphy generally seemed to be a rather dubious component. Ros and Eysenck they argued that two factors - linearity and size - are sufficient to cover the whole variety of empirical observational data. However, Parnell confirms the existence of a connection between ectomorphism and schizoid-intellectual temperament. Eysenck's theory of personality (1967) establishes two dimensions:

1. Introversion-extroversion.
2. Neuroticism is stability in relation to the constitution of the nervous system.

J. Tanner, book co-author "Human Biology”, first published in New York in 1964, refers to the constitutional features of morphological, physiological and psychological, which are closely related. A clearly balanced sexual polymorphism is noted. The human body, even in appearance, has an infinite number of variations, while one or another classification of body types is based on a limited number of features, not taking into account others. Tanner considers Sheldon's classification as somewhat reminiscent of Kretschmer's, but indicates that there are not discrete "types", but only continuously distributed "components" of physique.

“Now the Kretschmer system has gone out of fashion, as it carried a fatal error,” writes Tanner. - Kretschmer believed that people can indeed be classified into well-defined, discrete categories, and only a small number of individuals remain outside these categories. This premise, which was widespread until 1930, was a source of confusion for many followers of the system, since every honest researcher had to simply admit that most of people does not fall into the already established and, obviously, extreme options. Sheldon's system, although reminiscent of Kretschmer's typology, being a triple rather than a double classification, proceeded from the outset from the now generally accepted assumption that there are not discrete types, but continuously distributed components of the physique.

Somatotypes according to Sheldon: endomorph, mesomorph, ectomorph

Sheldon himself, in connection with this problem of discreteness of types, wrote in 1940: “The concept of types has played its positive role in the study of personality, but the types themselves, at the same time, perhaps most of all resembled poles supporting a clothesline, in other words, something like , to which it was possible to "hang" the entire classification. As the rope filled up, the notion of types faded into the background and finally disappeared altogether, giving way to the notion of continuous distribution. The development went from ideas of dichotomy to the concept of variability along different spatial axes.

Somatotyping

In choosing the three components for determining the somatotype, Sheldon proceeded from the practice of observation. He began by obtaining about 4,000 standard front, side, and back nude photographs of college students (see photo below). Ignoring the overall size of the body size, which his classification ignores, he tried to find extreme body types and identified three such extreme options corresponding to the end of the distribution curve for each component. Then the individual received a score for each component. This was done in an anthroposcopic way, using a rating scale from 1 to 7 points, with equal intervals between the numbers (this means that an individual who received a score of 3 is as different from an individual who received a score of 2 as the latter is from an individual with a score of 1) Thus, the first of the selected extreme options was evaluated as 7-1-1, the second - as 1-7-1 and the third - as 1-1-7. The components were called endomorphic, mesomorphic and ectomorphic, thereby reflecting the then not very popular theory of their origin from the germ layers. A set of three numbers is the human somatotype. The whole system was named somatotyping. It should be emphasized that this term is appropriate to use only in connection with the Sheldon system. It cannot serve as a synonym for any constitutional classifications.

Body structure of endomorph, mesomorph and ectomorph

To give a description of the components, we turn to their extreme manifestations. The extreme endomorphic variant (7-1-1) is characterized by spherical shapes, as far as it is possible for a person to be. Pronounced endomorphs have a round head, a large belly, weak, flaccid arms and legs, with a lot of fat on the shoulders and hips, but swampy wrists and ankles. He has a relatively large liver, spleen, and apparently intestines; large lungs and the heart are somewhat different in shape from the lungs and heart in persons belonging to other extreme body types. Such a person with a large number subcutaneous fat one could simply call it fat if all the anteroposterior dimensions of his body (including the chest and pelvis) did not prevail over the transverse ones. With prolonged starvation, he becomes, according to Sheldon, just a starved endomorph, but does not come close to points either to an ectomorph or a mesomorph.

Extreme variants of the three components of Sheldon's somatotypes:
A. Extreme endomorphy, 6-3-2.
B. Extreme mesomorphy, 1 1/2-7-2,

Obesity appears to be more or less a concomitant of this constitution, and the accumulation of fat during aging is believed to be directly related to the endomorphic component score. Although diet and physical exercises allow to stop this trend, the threat of obesity remains forever, while people with a high ectomorphic component have absolutely no signs of such a trend. It is possible that in the body of individuals with a high degree endomorphs contain more fat cells than those with a weak endomorphic component, just as people with a high degree of mesomorphy seem to have more muscle cells. However, this is nothing more than a hypothesis, since we do not have quantitative histological data on the number of muscle and fat cells in humans. The extreme version of the mesomorphic component is the classic Hercules with a predominance of bones and muscles. He has a massive cubic head, broad shoulders and chest, muscular arms and legs with a predominance of the distal segments over the proximal ones. The heart muscle is relatively large. The amount of subcutaneous fat in mesomorphs is minimal, the anteroposterior dimensions are small.

B. Extreme ectomorph, 1 1/2-2-6 1/2.
D. Average body type, 3-4-4.

An extreme example of ectomorphy is a lanky person. He has a thin, elongated face, a receding chin, a high forehead, a thin narrow chest and stomach, a narrow heart, thin, Long hands and legs. The subcutaneous fat layer of the ectomorph is almost absent, the muscles are undeveloped, but in relation to the overall size, the skin surface is large and the nervous system is well developed. It is quite natural that most people do not belong to the noted extreme options, in their physique in moderate degree all three components are expressed. Thus, the most common somatotypes would be 3-4-4, 4-3-3, or 3-5-2. The last three Sheldon considered the most common.

Criticism of somatotyping

Numerous objections have been raised against the somatotype system. The first of these is that the components are not independent. In the language of multivariate analysis, they are oblique, not orthogonal. There is a negative correlation between them, so that a high score in one component to some extent excludes high scores in other components. Thus, there are somatotypes 2-3-5, 3-3-5 and 4-3-5 and there are no 1-3-5, 5-3-5, 6-3-5 or 7-3-5. Similarly, somatotypes 6-4-1 and 4-4-4 are known, but 7-7-1, 5-5-5, 3-3-3, or 1-1-1 are not known. Biometric difficulties are associated with the lack of independence. character when interpreting somatotype correlations with other variables. More serious is the difficulty of a theoretical nature: it would seem more natural to think of the Sheldon components as independent, or orthogonal. Orthogonal components are of course more convenient. However, if some physiological and genetic mechanisms really lie at the basis of somatotypic components, then the choice between visual or orthogonal components should be based on biological, and not on statistical patterns. It is quite possible that in the course of embryonic development such variants are indeed formed, interconnected by a negative correlation. However, judging by the latest data below on the amount of fat, muscle and bone tissue in different areas of the body, at least these tissues develop in completely independent directions. The independence of such indicators as bone thickness and muscle thickness serves as a serious objection to the concept of mesomorphism in its modern sense, since the latter includes both wide bones and developed muscles. However, the estimation of this component uses mainly the size of the muscles, so the thickness of the bone can be almost painlessly omitted from the description. The subjectivity of the determination of somatotypes also serves as an object of criticism, although in some respects it is an advantage, and not a disadvantage of the system. Sheldon wrote that a researcher can best judge a subject's "morphogenotype" from the somatotype. By definition, the somatotype remains constant throughout life; the appearance and size of the body change, but not the somatotype. Therefore, the measuring criteria used in determining the somatotype would have to change with age. Various diseases or muscle hypertrophy associated with increased physical activity, change the outlines of the body, but again, not the somatotype. Thus, a person involved in determining the somatotype should, if possible, take into account age, the presence or absence of pathological processes and the degree of physical activity. It's not as difficult as it seems. For an experienced eye, it will not be difficult to detect hypertrophy associated with exercise, and a weight loss of more than 4-5 kg ​​will definitely be revealed by the appearance of wrinkles and skin folds, clearly visible in the photographs. The eye often says more than the measuring tool. Although theoretically it is best to determine the somatotype after repeated observations over several years, in practice the body type characteristic of 20-25 years of age with normal nutrition is taken as the basis for the final assessment. Determining the somatotype in children is not very accurate. One can only predict the somatotype by examining a 5-year-old, and maybe even a 3-year-old child, referring to a certain degree of inaccuracy due to the relative independence of the changes characteristic of adolescence. Determining the somatotype of women also presents difficulties. Usually, the same criteria are applied as in determining the somatotypes of men, and this leads to an excess of endomorphic types among women compared to men and a complete absence of scores of 6 or 7 for the mesomorphic component. Based on these shortcomings, a number of modifications were later proposed Sheldon methods. Parnell proposed a system based only on anthropometric measurements, with the help of which it is possible to approximately estimate the somatotype. However, this method turned out to be less effective than the system of standard multiple regression equations between somatotype and body size, developed by Damon and his colleagues. Hit and Carter suggested that scores above 7 be allowed in order to relate components more directly to traits such as length, weight, body fat thickness, and bone width. The benefits of these methods are not entirely clear.

Although Sheldon's typology was subjected to serious criticism, it turned out to be convenient for practical use. The analysis of the types of the constitution did not oppose those already described earlier, but only supplemented them. Put forward in 1940 and illustrated by an atlas published in 1954, it is very consistent. Regardless of its theoretical justification, it is extremely convenient and informative, which is why it is still popular today.

Relationship of somatotype with temperament

All theories of body structure in one way or another define the corresponding behavior of a certain type. To do this, Sheldon identified 50 signs to determine the permanent traits of behavior, conducting research on 30 people. He divided all the signs into three categories and singled out three components of temperament, each of which was characterized by 20 signs. Each attribute was rated on a seven-point scale, and GPA determined the entire component by 20 features. Temperament components are called "viscerotonia", "somatotonia", and "cerebrotonia" (see table).

Having determined the number of points for the components of temperament in 200 subjects, comparing these figures with the data of their somatotype, Sheldon established a correlation coefficient of 0.8 between viscerotonia and endomorphy, somatotonia and mesomorphy, cerebrotonia and ectomorphy.

Numerous data show that people with different body structure, as a rule, choose different paths of activity and have a preference for one or another way of life. It is unlikely that anyone will choose the profession of a physical education teacher or a regular military man if he does not have enough strength and dexterity. People who prefer research work are more often tall and thin (ectomorphs) than they are different from those who work in production (mesomorphs).

Later it was found that in fact the correlation between body structure and character is much lower than Sheldon saw it. However, many researchers today point to the validity of the theories of Kretschmer and Sheldon. After all, these theories somehow come out of the great historical practice of human communication.

Sheldon temperament scale

Viscerotonia	Somatotonia	Cerebrotonia
Relaxation in posture and movement	Confidence in posture and movement	Restlessness in movement, stiffness in posture
Love for comfort	Love for adventure	Reclusion, social inhibition
Thirst for praise and approval	Emotional callousness	Secrecy, emotional restraint
Ease in communication and expression of feelings; viscerotonic extraversion	Extraversion in actions, but secrecy in feelings; somatotonic extraversion	Cerebrotonic introversion
Sociability and gentleness in a state of intoxication	Aggressiveness and persistence while intoxicated	Resistance to alcohol and other depressants
Attraction to people in difficult times	Thirst for action in difficult times	Craving for independence in difficult times
Focus on childhood and family relationships	Orientation towards youth activities	Orientation towards later life

Literature:

1. Romenets V.A., Manokha I.P. History of psychology of the XX century. - Kyiv, Lybid, 2003
2. Harrison J., Weiner J., Tanner J., Barnicot N., Reynolds V. Human Biology - M .: Mir, 1979

The emergence of modern ideas about temperament was due to the accumulation of a large amount of information about the differences between people, as well as attempts to overcome the limitations associated with the traditional approach to their classification (typological).

The evolution of prior research has led scientists to believe that types are nothing more than extremes or poles of a normally distributed psychological characteristic. Most people do not belong to extreme groups and yet differ from each other.

As a result, the concept "trait" - a stable psychologicala characteristic that has wide individual differences. By comparing people for each specific trait, one can determine how wide individual differences are (what individual values ​​can be found in a population) and how much one person has a trait expressed more than another.

An example of a trait is extraversion. Extraversion manifests itself in different situations - in the ability to easily come into contact with strangers, in a large number of friendships, in the choice of activities related to communication with other people, in the tendency to get information from other people, and not from books, etc. However, some people are more extroverted than others. These differences are persistent—some people turn out to be more extroverted than others over long periods of time.

One of the first attempts to study not only extreme, but also intermediate variants of differences in temperament was made by William Sheldon, in the model of which temperament occupies an intermediate position between the physiological and psychobiological levels of behavior (1921).

W. Sheldon singled out the type of temperament according to the criterion of the greatest severity of one of the three components. These components were named in accordance with the designations of the germ layers of the fetus accepted in embryology - mesoderm (muscle tissue), ectoderm (skin and nervous tissue) and endoderm (adipose tissue), table 8.

Table 8

Temperament types according to Sheldon

Body type	Temperament
Endomorphy The predominance of spherical shapes Flaccid arms and legs Large amount of fat on shoulders and hips Thin wrists and ankles	Viscerotonia (viscera– entrails) Relaxation in posture and movement Predominance of friendliness Kindness to everyone Ease in expressing feelings Thirst for praise Love for comfort Craving for people in difficult times Softness when drunk
Mesomorphy Well developed muscular system Broad shoulders and chest Cubic, massive head	Somatotonia (soma- body) Confidence in posture and movement Love for adventure Hiding in feelings and emotions Craving for action in difficult times Aggressiveness and persistence when drunk
Ectomorphy Weak development internal organs and physique High growth Thin long face Narrow chest and abdomen Thin long arms and legs	Cerebrotonia (cerebrum- brain) Stiffness in posture uncommunicative social inhibition stealth Alcohol resistance Craving for loneliness in a difficult moment

W. Sheldon's study was structured as follows.

1. After analyzing 400 photographs of college students, Sheldon identified 3 extreme variants (components) of physique, which were given appropriate descriptions.

2. Using the methods of observation and expert evaluation, each body component was assigned a set of 20 behavioral features.

3. Each sign was evaluated on a 7-point scale, and the average score for 20 signs served to determine one of the three components of the somatotype. Thus, the somatotype was described using three indicators.

4. Further comparison of each set of behavioral traits and body type showed that there is a significant statistical relationship between these characteristics (the correlation coefficient is 0.80).

Since the behavioral traits identified in the study were originally attributed to temperament, it can be argued that W. Sheldon proved that people choose different ways of behavior depending on the somatotype.

In addition, W. Sheldon proposed a research model that can be used to determine not only the type of temperament by the leading trait, but also the severity of this trait, which allows us to consider a wider range of differences between people.

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that Sheldon's main criterion for distinguishing groups of people is constitutional differences, and psychological characteristics (behavior) serve as an additional criterion and are used to describe the type of temperament. Psychological models of temperament "in their purest form" are presented in the works of other researchers.

At the beginning of the 20th century, researchers tried to find a connection between temperament and body structure. One of the researchers was W. Sheldon, an American scientist. Another who developed the theory of personality differences was E. Kretschmer, a German physician. Kretschmer published the book "The Character and Structure of the Body", in which he suggested that people, depending on the type of body structure, acquire or from birth have certain inclinations and mental characteristics, as well as mental illness. In his work, he identified 4 constitutional types:

1. Leptosomatic (soma - "body", leptos - "thin, fragile").

2. Picnic ("fat").

3. Athletic ("wrestling").

4. Dysplastic (dis - "bad", plastic - "formed").

Also, Kretschmer, in addition, singled out another type of body structure, denoting it "indefinite". Considering abnormalities in the direction of pathological deviations of the psyche, Kretschmer suggested that he had established the dependence of the manifestations of temperament depending on the structure of the body. Thus, the leptosomatic, in his opinion, is prone to the schizothymic type of temperament. Picnic is disposed towards cyclothymic temperament. His behavior is similar to that of patients with manic-depressive psychosis (cyclothymia). Athletes show a craving for epilepsy (iksotimics).

A different approach was shown in his research by a scientist from America, W. Sheldon.

W. Sheldon drew attention to the three main human systems: the central nervous system, the muscular system and the viscera. Correlating the degree of development of the system with the structure of the body, he identified three structures of the body:

1. Viscerotonic (7-1-1),

2. Somatotonic (1-7-1),

3. Cerebrotonic (1-1-7).

The degree of development of the system in points (from 1 to 7) is indicated in brackets.

Among psychologists, psychiatrists, and physicians, Sheldon and Kretschmer's theory initially gained popularity, but was later critically revised. It was emphasized that when matching the constitutional type of body with the type of behavior, it was not the properties of temperament that were taken at all, but the properties of character.

In the character of a person, such personality traits are found that are formed under the influence of the upbringing of parents and society. E. Kretschmer admitted that its 3 main types are only artificially selected points in the diversity of the organization of the human body.

The relationship of the constitutional type with mental illness in healthy people considered unproven. There is also no relationship between the properties of temperament and constitutional type.

How does Sheldon's theory and Kretschmer's theory relate to modern types temperament?

With the normal development of the psyche, according to E. Kretschmer, a leptosomatic (cerebrotonic according to Sheldon) is similar to the melancholic type in terms of the manifestation of temperament properties. A picnic (viscerotonic according to Sheldon) in terms of the manifestation of temperament qualities is similar to a sanguine person, and an athletic (somatotonic according to Sheldon) in temperament looks like a choleric person.

Melancholic people have an asthenic fragile physique, phlegmatic choleric people - from athletic to picnic (calm "bumps", large), - from athletic to asthenic, sanguine - picnic.

Nervous system and somatics are 2 circuits of temperament regulation. They may diverge or coincide in a particular case, and therefore there are 2 approaches to the consideration of temperament.

The first approach says that temperament is associated with the constitution of the physique (Kretschmer and Sheldon) and the properties of its biochemical processes (the ratio of hormones and "fluids" - bile, blood, etc., according to Hippocrates);

body type and associated energy features are one of the "circuits" of control over human behavior.

According to the second approach, temperament is associated with higher nervous activity, the type of human nervous system.

The body (and its metabolic system) plus the nervous system (central and vegetative) are involved in the regulation of temperament and energy capabilities of a person.

In physique, W.G. Sheldon distinguishes between endomorphic, mesomorphic and ectomorphic types, and the components temperament- viscero - somato - and cerebrotonia.

Psychologos psychologos

Psychologos - educational project, encyclopedia practical psychology, which is created by professionals for wide use. Here: intelligible definitions of the main psychological concepts, modern views of specialists, video illustrations and practical advice solving personal and business problems.

Here is everything you need to know about psychology in order to change your life for the better. Everything is short and to the point.

Teachers are working on Psychologos University of Practical Psychology headed by Dr. psychological sciences, professor Nikolai Ivanovich Kozlov. The portal presents synton approach- psychology of common sense for healthy people. The synton approach integrates the best of all modern psychological approaches based on independent, domestic developments. Psychologos cooperates with the largest universities in Russia: RSUH , SPbGIPSR , KIPU and etc.

Psychologos makes his mailing lists: popular, "in life", for ordinary users who need simple and practical notes and tips on practical psychology, - and professional, for fellow psychologists, where questions of theory and methodology are discussed, the "kitchen" of the work is considered practical psychologist. You can subscribe to a particular newsletter by filling out the "Subscription" form at the top left. Just enter your e-mail and click OK.

Somewhat later, the concept of temperament, put forward by W. Sheldon (W.H. Sheldon, S.S. Stevens, 1942), which was formulated in the 1940s, gained popularity in the USA. The basis of Sheldon's ideas, whose typology is close to Kretschmer's concept, is the assumption that the structure of the body determines the temperament that acts as its function. But this dependence is masked due to the complexity of our organism and psyche, and therefore it is possible to reveal the connection between the physical and the mental by highlighting such physical and mental properties that most demonstrate such a dependence.

W. Sheldon proceeded from the hypothesis of the existence of the main body types, which he described, using a specially developed photographic technique and complex anthropometric measurements. Evaluating each of the 17 measurements he identified on a 7-point scale, the author came to the concept of somatotype (body type), which can be described using three main parameters. Borrowing terms from embryology, he called these parameters as follows: endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy. Depending on the predominance of any of them (a score of 1 point corresponds to the minimum intensity, 7 points to the maximum), W. Sheldon identified the following body types.

1. Endomorphic (7–1–1). The name is due to the fact that mainly internal organs are formed from the endoderm, and in people of this type, their excessive development is just observed. The physique is relatively weak, with an excess of adipose tissue.

2. Mesomorphic (1–7–1). Representatives of this type have a well-developed muscular system, which is formed from the mesoderm. A slender, strong body, the opposite of the baggy and flabby body of an endomorph. mesomorphic type has great mental stability and strength.

3. Ectomorphic (1-1-7). From the ectoderm develops the skin and nervous tissue. The body is fragile and thin, the chest is flattened. Relatively weak development internal organs and physique. The limbs are long, thin, with weak muscles. The nervous system and senses are relatively poorly protected.

If the individual parameters are expressed in the same way, the author attributed this individual to the mixed (medium) type, evaluating it as 1-4-4.

Based on years of research into healthy, well-nourished people different ages W. Sheldon came to the conclusion that certain types of temperament correspond to these body types.

He studied 60 psychological properties, and his main attention was paid to those properties that are associated with the characteristics of extraversion - introversion. They were evaluated, as in the case of somatotype, on a 7-point scale. Using correlation, three groups of properties were identified, named after the functions of certain organs of the body:

Viscerotonia (lat. viscera - "insides");

Somatotonia (Greek soma - "body");

Cerebrotonia (lat. segebgit - "brain").

In accordance with this, he identified three types of human temperament:

Viscerotonics (7-1-1);

Somatotonics (1-7-1);

Cerebrotonics (1-1-7).

According to W. Sheldon, each person has all three named groups of physical and mental properties. The predominance of one or another of these determines the differences between people. Like E. Kretschmer, W. Sheldon claims that there is a great correspondence between body type and temperament. So, in persons with the dominant qualities of an endomorphic physique, the properties of temperament related to viscerotonia are expressed. The mesomorphic type correlates with the somatotonic type, and the ectomorphic type correlates with the cerebrotonic type.

The ratio of body types with their characteristic properties of temperament is shown in fig. 5.3.

Rice. 5.3 Body types (according to W. Sheldon)

Tab. 5.2. Types of temperament and their characteristics (according to W. Sheldon)

Viscerotonia	Somatotonia	Cerebrotonia
Relaxation in posture and movement	Confidence in posture and movement	Restlessness in movement, stiffness in posture
Love for comfort	Propensity for physical activity	Excessive physiological reactivity
slow response	Energy	Increased speed reactions
Passion for food	Need for movement and enjoyment of it	A tendency to seclusion
Socialization of food activity	Need for dominance	propensity to reason
Love for companies, friendly outpourings	Propensity for risk and the game of chance	Secrecy of feelings, emotional retardation
Tendency to public life	Decisive manner, courage	Self-control facial expressions
Kindness in everything		Slowness in communication
Thirst for love and approval	Strong aggressiveness	Avoidance standard actions
Orientation to others	Psychological insensitivity	Fear of open spaces (agoraphobia)
Emotional evenness		Unpredictability of behavior
Tolerance	Fear of closed spaces (claustrophobia)
serene contentment	lack of compassion	Quiet voice, noise avoidance
Lack of explosive actions and emotions	Difficulty muffled voice	Excessive sensitivity to pain
Softness, ease in communication and outward expression of feelings	Endurance to pain	bad dream, chronic fatigue
Good dream	Noisy behavior	Concentrated, hidden and subjective thinking
youthful vivacity	Objective and broad thinking, directed outward	Appearance corresponds to older age
Sociability and relaxation under the influence of alcohol	Self-confidence, aggressiveness under the influence of alcohol	Alcohol resistance
The need for people in difficult times	The need for action in difficult times	The need for solitude in difficult times
Focus on children and family	Orientation to youth activities	Orientation towards old age

Krechmer's approach to temperament found supporters among psychiatrists, teachers and psychologists in our country. One of them, K.N. Kornilov (1929), associated body type with the speed and intensity of human reactions. According to these features, he distinguished four types of people:

Motor-active (quickly and strongly responsive);

Motor-passive (reacting quickly but weakly);

Sensory-active (reacting slowly and strongly);

Sensory-passive (reacting slowly and weakly).

Here, for example, is how he described the sensory-passive type. This type has a small squat figure, a soft broad face, a short neck, a tendency to fatness and fullness. In his movements he is slow and sluggish, passive to the point of inertia, but, rising slowly, goes persistently and for a long time; good-natured to the point of sentimentality; principled to the point of cloying; he weighs and ponders everything, and therefore he is always late in his decisions; has a consistent mind, rich in knowledge, productive in its not always original work; good practices, armchair scientists, exemplary officials, quiet kind people, calm humorists, pampered lazy people - these are representatives of this type of people (p. 195).

At the same time, the correlation analysis of the connections of psychomotor, cognitive and personal properties with constitutional features, carried out by T.P. Zinchenko and E.I. Kishko on a sample of children (1999), did not allow them to unequivocally accept or reject ideas about psychological characteristics somatotypes, which came to E. Kretschmer, W. Sheldon and other authors. most closely with morphological type physique turned out to be associated with some personality traits, investigated by the Cattell questionnaire.

On the one hand, in all age groups(their range is from 6 to 17 years) endomorphs are characterized by low self-control and high emotional instability, and ectomorphs are the opposite qualities, and this confirms E. Kretschmer's data obtained on adults. On the other hand, the authors failed to identify the links between the somatic constitution and cognitive and psychomotor qualities, with the exception of the cognitive style - interference, characterized by low automation of actions and high self-control. This style is more pronounced in ectomorphs. Consequently, ectomorphs are more conscientious, diligent and accurate in completing tasks, while endomorphs, on the contrary, are characterized by lower self-control, less prone to order, not capable of hard work, and subordinate their lives to pleasure. This also corresponds to the characterization of these constitutional types given by E. Kretschmer.

A comparison of the types of constitution and physique according to Seago, E. Kretschmer and W. Sheldon is presented in Table. 5.3.

Tab. 5.3. Comparison of types of constitution and physique according to K. Seago, Kretschmer and Sheldon

However, the typologies of E. Kretschmer and W. Sheldon were criticized even by adherents of the constitutional concepts of temperament. Critics pointed to their excessive static and ignorance of changes in the relationship between the psyche and body structure; emphasized the inconsistency in the division into types and, finally, drew attention to the fact that these theories did not give a satisfactory explanation of the relationship between physique and temperament.

One of the reasons for the crisis of the theory of the constitution, regardless of the proposed principles of classification, was an abstract interpretation of the whole organism, in which the whole was considered as a set of correlated morphophysiological characteristics, completely autonomous in relation to each of these characteristics.