Simonton D K
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis 95616-8686, USA.
J Pers. 1998 Jun;66(3):443-66. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00018.
Both historians and psychiatrists have tried to explain the recurrent attacks of mental and physical illness experienced by King George III of Great Britain. Although the porphyria hypothesis is widely accepted, this diagnosis assumes that the king's breakdowns were not precipitated by extreme stress. This assumption was tested using single-case historiometric methods. Biographical data were compiled to form two extensive chronologies of the monarch's life, one for stressful events and the other for pathological symptoms. From this information 22 independent judges reliably assessed fluctuations in stress (total, personal, and political) and health (total, physical, and mental) across 624 consecutive months between 1760 and 1811. The cross-correlations were then calculated for the raw, first-differenced, and prewhitened time series. A consistent tendency appeared for the king's health to deteriorate after increases in stress, most frequently with a 9-month delay. The current study demonstrates the utility of applying quantitative techniques to a psychobiographical debate hitherto examined solely by qualitative approaches.
历史学家和精神科医生都试图解释英国国王乔治三世反复出现的身心疾病发作情况。尽管卟啉症假说被广泛接受,但这种诊断假设国王的精神崩溃并非由极端压力引发。本研究使用单病例历史计量学方法对这一假设进行了检验。通过收集传记资料,形成了两份关于这位君主生平的详细年表,一份用于记录压力事件,另一份用于记录病理症状。根据这些信息,22位独立评判员对1760年至1811年期间连续624个月的压力(总体、个人和政治方面)及健康状况(总体、身体和精神方面)波动进行了可靠评估。随后,针对原始、一阶差分和预白化时间序列计算了交叉相关性。结果呈现出一种一致的趋势:压力增加后,国王的健康状况往往会恶化,最常见的延迟时间为9个月。当前的研究证明了将定量技术应用于迄今为止仅通过定性方法进行研究的心理传记辩论中的实用性。