The Cancer Personality Scandal (Part 1)

By Neuroskeptic | February 25, 2019 4:09 am

The Journal of Health Psychology has just published an extraordinary pair of papers that call for a new inquiry into a 30-year old case of probable scientific fraud.

According to Anthony J. Pelosi, author of the main paper, the case was “one of the worst scientific scandals of all time” and yet has never been formally investigated. The journal’s editor, David F. Marks, agrees and, in an editorial, also calls for the retraction or correction of up to 61 papers.

The scandal in question is one I had never heard of before, but the facts are jaw-dropping. Beginning in 1980, a Dr Ronald Grossarth-Maticek reported that he had discovered a cancer-prone ’emotionally repressed’ personality. Someone with this personality type was, he claimed, at very high risk of later developing cancer. A second personality type predicted ‘internal diseases’, such as stroke and hypertension. Even more remarkably, Grossarth-Maticek said, a brief course of psychotherapy was enough to virtually eliminate the excess risks.

Despite the fact that Grossarth-Maticek was claiming to have found a way to prevent most cancers, his work was largely ignored. Then, at the end of the 1980s, he started a collaboration with Prof. Hans Eysenck, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London (now part of King’s College London).

Eysenck was an eminent and extremely influential psychologist in Britain, perhaps the most prominent of his era, so the papers that Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek published together around 1990 were widely read. Eysenck had no role in the data collection of any of these studies, but his name was an endorsement of their credibility.

The attention Grossarth-Maticek attracted was not positive, however. A barrage of harshly critical responses appeared, starting in 1991 with a broadside from statistician Bernard H. Fox and followed in 1992 with a piece by a young Anthony J. Pelosi and Louis Appleby. Many more critics soon joined in.

The gist of the criticisms was that Grossarth-Maticek’s results were simply too good to be true. Here’s one of the many remarkably strong effects found in Grossarth-Maticek’s data, as discussed by Fox (1991):

grossarthmaticek1980This table represents the most important discovery in medical science since penicillin… if it were true. According to these data, Dr. Grossarth-Maticek was able to predict, with virtually perfect certainty, who would get cancer in the next 10 years.

Out of 763 people who were classed as not cancer-prone, not a single one had developed cancer 10 years later. Of those with a cancer-prone personality type, 159/172 or 92.4% had cancer (or had already died of cancer) 10 years later. All this based on a pen-and-paper interview measure of personality.

As Pelosi puts it in the new paper, this result, along with the rest of Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck’s work, represents “what must be the most astonishing series of findings ever to be published in the scientific literature.” It’s simply very difficult to believe that these kind of massive effect sizes are real.

The critics also dug up many inconsistencies and problems in Grossarth-Maticek’s data, such as evidence of duplicated questionnaire responses and admissions of ‘corrective’ data manipulation:


It’s fair to say, though, that these data anomalies were just the icing on the cake. The main reason that people were skeptical of Grossarth-Maticek and Eysenck’s results was that the results were unbelievable.

The controversy rumbled on for a few years but by the late 1990s, it had petered out, no formal investigation ever having taking place. Eysenck died in 1997. Pelosi calls for an investigation to happen now – better late than never. Marks, in his editorial, says that he has addressed open letters to the British Psychological Society (BPS) and King’s College London requesting an inquiry. He also calls for the establishment of a ‘National Research Integrity Ombudsperson’.


In a subsequent post I’ll look into more detail at Eysenck and his motivations in this affair, but here are my initial thoughts on the new papers and the call to investigate.

I think an investigation is needed and should have happened long ago. King’s College London bears the obvious responsibility for this, as Eysenck’s institution. I’m less sure if the BPS are obligated to investigate, but in the spirit of good science, they should do, or at least assist King’s. (Both organizations have previously declined to get involved.)

It might be said that this is all ancient history now, and there is no need for an investigation after so long, but I think this is entirely the wrong attitude. If anything, the fact that these frankly bizarre results are still in the literature (and, as Pelosi points out, still being cited) 30 years later makes the scandal even worse.

What exactly is Eysenck accused of? Eysenck didn’t collect the data in question, so he probably can’t be accused of data manipulation as such. The question is whether he willingly published data which he knew to be unreliable. I would say that he must have known, and certainly should have known, that the data were not credible. He was one of the world’s leading academic psychologists. A young grad student handed a dodgy dataset by a senior professor, he was not.

King’s College may argue that they have no responsibility to invesigate Grossarth-Maticek because he never worked for the Institute of Psychiatry (although he claimed to, in some publications). Nonetheless, even if they only set out to investigate Eysenck’s actions vis a vis his work with Grossarth-Maticek, they will have to consider events that happened before the two met, because this was when the data were (allegedly) collected. I think any inquiry into Eysenck (if it happens) must encompass the question of the origin and validity of the data.

  • Rolf Degen

    What I then found so incredibly disconcerting about Eysenck’s stance was that he, of all people, who had demonstrated long before and provocatively that psychotherapy had NO EFFECT AT ALL, suddenly supported the view that it could prevent cancer.

  • Andreas Reif

    if this is “one of the worst scientific scandals of all time”, then I wonder what “the best scandal” has been!

    • Nom de Plume

      Scandal can simply mean something where people are scandalized.In that vein, there were a number of scandals where there was no fraud at all. We might could extend this to the lives of some noted scientists. After all, Tycho Brauh did lose his nose in a duel over who was the better mathematician.

    • jrkrideau

      I don’t know but about 3 paragraphs in to the post I was thinking something along the lines of “a reprise of the Sir Cyril Burt” story.

      I have, a long time ago, read some of Eysenk’s papers. IIRC I was interested in some of the psychometrics he used. Some of his work was very interesting but at times seemed a bit wonky. Still, a lot of the psychometrics in those days especially in the personality field seem a bit dubious now-a-days.

      I could not remember much about him so I did a “Google”. Strangely enough, the entry in the wiki says that Sir Cyril was his doctoral advisor.

  • smut clyde

    Eysenck was receiving funding at the time to prove that smoking was not a cause of cancer. So ascribing it to personality instead made perfect sense.

  • daveydor

    I was a PhD student in the early 80s (in chemistry rather than anything related to this); a friend doing a research on aerosol formation was sponsored by a tobacco company, and I remember seeing in something like a copy of the company magazine that he showed me, an article claiming that smokers who developed cancer didn’t get it due to smoking, but because the type of person who got lung cancer was the same type of person who smoked. I wonder if that claim was related to this?

    • smut clyde

      Eysenck had indeed argued along those lines in his publications.

      This may all come into Neuroskeptic’s Part 2!

      • daveydor

        Wow; that really ups the ante on this. I’m not surprised KCL don’t want it investigating!

      • smut clyde

        Eysenck started out as an unpaid advocate of smoking in 1965 and thereabouts, then segued into a recipient of US industry funding as a paid advocate (his 1965 book might have been a signal to the industry that he was open for business). Then Grossarth-Maticek contacted him with the offer of collaboration on the real causes of cancer (i.e. personality).

        There is a lengthy chapter on all this in Buchanan’s biography, “Playing with Fire”.

  • Pingback: The Cancer Personality Scandal – Kompetenzforum Gesundheit()

  • Pingback: Skull Session: Dwayne Haskins Wants to Buck Ohio State Quarterback Trend, Johnathan Hankins and Bradley Roby S – Eleven Warriors | Everyday News Update()

  • Barbara Piper

    Interesting article, but the positing of a “Type C” cancer-prone personality goes back further than 1980. There was even a court case — I heard about it in the 1970s — in which Dr. William Green, of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester’s school of medicine, testified that the “Type C” plaintiff’s cancer was triggered by the stress of being fired from his job. I remember, at the time, exploring a bit of the “Type C” literature that was coming out of the “biopsychosocial” approach being promoted by George Engel, as a law school exercise, not for the science!

  • Malcolm Brenner

    Eysenck was late to the fraud game. The late, unlamented Dr. Wilhelm Reich, the 20th Century’s maddest mad scientist, had envisioned such an emotional cause for cancer in the 1930s, and in the 1950s he was shipping his notorious “orgone boxes” across state lines. One of his closest associates, Dr. Albert Duvall, was a secret pedophile who molested and abused hundred of his pediatric patients. What a great “character analysis,” Dr. Reich! Thanks a lot. Take your bullshit and wander off into obscurity, where you belong.

  • Pingback: Skull Session: Dwayne Haskins Wants to Buck Ohio State Quarterback Trend, Johnathan Hankins and Bradley Roby Seek New Teams and Gene Smith Owns Michigan – SportsNewsNow()

  • Lee M. Cardholder

    These guys are quacks. All that’s needed to prevent cancer is vitamins and exercise, according to world-renowned authority Tom Cruise.

  • escalera

    I’m sure there’s an emotional component to some cancers because there is an emotional component to over all health but the last thing you need to do with a cancer patient is to blame them for their cancer.

  • Pingback: Wednesday morning links - Maggie's Farm()



No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.


See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar