Somatotype and constitutional psychology

Sheldon's "somatotypes" and their associated physical and psychological traits were characterized as follows: 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. ==Heath–Carter formula==

Sheldon's physical taxonomy is still in use, particularly the Heath–Carter variant of the methodology. This formulaic approach utilises an individual's body mass (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 anthropometric 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". 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: \text{Endomorphy} = -0.7182 + 0.145x - 0.00068x^2 + 0.0000014x^3, where x = (\text{tricep skinfold [mm]} + \text{subscapular skinfold [mm]} + \text{supraspinal skinfold [mm]}) \times \frac{170.18}{\text{height [cm]}}. \begin{align} \text{Mesomorphy} &= 0.858 \times \text{humerus breadth [cm]} \\ &+ 0.601 \times \text{femur breadth [cm]} \\ &+ 0.188 \times \text{upper arm girth [cm]} \\ &+ 0.161 \times \text{max calf girth [cm]} \\ &- 0.131 \times \text{height [cm]} \\ &+ 4.5 \end{align} Ectomorphy: calculate the subject's ponderal index \text{PI} = \frac{\text{height [cm]}}{(\text{mass [kg]})^{1/3}}. • If PI > 40.74, \text{Ectomorphy} = 0.732 PI - 28.58. • If 39.65 , \text{Ectomorphy} = 0.463 PI - 17.615. • If PI , \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 • Tennis athletes • Judo athletes • Volleyball athletes • Gymnasts • Soccer athletes • Triathletes • Han people • Persons with diabetes • Taekwondo athletes • Persons with eating disorders • Dragon boat participants ==Criticism==

"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. 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. 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. Sheldon's claims have since been dismissed as "quackery". 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. ==See also==