See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331292145

The Hans Eysenck affair: Time to correct the scientific record

Article  in  Journal of Health Psychology · February 2019

DOI: 10.1177/1359105318820931

CITATIONS READS

24 1,764

1 author:

David F Marks
Independent Researcher
214 PUBLICATIONS   5,520 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GENERAL THEORY OF BEHAVIOUR View project

Landscape photography, nature-connectedness and eudaimonic wellbeing. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David F Marks on 09 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

820931
editorial2019
HPQ0010.1177/1359105318820931Journal of Health PsychologyMarks

Editorial

Journal of Health Psychology

The Hans Eysenck affair: Time

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
to correct the scientific record sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1359105318820931
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318820931
journals.sagepub.com/home/hpq

David F Marks
Editor, Journal of Health Psychology and Health Psychology Open

Abstract
The Journal of Health Psychology publishes here Dr Anthony Pelosi’s analysis of questionable science by one
of the world’s best-known psychologists, the late Professor Hans J Eysenck. The provenance of a huge body
of data produced by Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek is highly controversial. In Open letters to King’s
College London and the British Psychological Society, this editor is requesting a thorough investigation of
the facts together with retraction or correction of 61 publications. Academic institutions have a conflict of
interest concerning allegations of misconduct, which is why I believe that the only way forward is to have a
National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to investigate allegations.

Keywords
cancer, CHD, correction, Hans J Eysenck, personality, psychotherapy, questionable science, research
integrity, retraction, smoking

The Journal of Health Psychology publishes in performing, or reviewing research or in

this issue Dr Anthony Pelosi’s in-depth analysis
of questionable science facilitated by one of the
world’s best-known psychologists, the late
Professor Hans J Eysenck (H.J.E.), from the
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.
The provenance of a huge body of data produced
by Eysenck’s associate, Ronald Grossarth-
Maticek (R.G.-M), is highly controversial. The
collaboration between H.J.E. and R.G.-M
extended over many years beginning with a con-
ference paper at a health psychology conference
in 1985 and continued until H.J.E.’s death in
1997 with other co-authored publications until
the year 2000. This programme of flawed
research continues to influence the literature to
the present day and remains highly cited.
The National Science Foundation (2001)
defines scientific misconduct as ‘fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
reporting research results. Such misconduct
must be committed intentionally, knowingly,
or in disregard of accepted practices’. The
perpetrators include those who facilitate the
fraudulent practices of collaborators, students
or others in the production of publications
which include fabricated, falsified or plagia-
rised findings. Dr Anthony Pelosi’s new paper
presents a strong case that H.J.E. systemati-
cally and repeatedly published false science.
If one considers meta-analyses relying on
H.J.E. and R.G.-Ms’ findings, studies which
have used the same measures and also attempted
Corresponding author:
David F Marks, Editor, Journal of Health Psychology and
Health Psychology Open, 8 Kew Bridge Rd, Brentford,
TW8 0FD, UK.
Email: artnstuff4u@yahoo.com
2 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)
replication studies, the impact of Eysenck’s
dubious publications spans 33 years up to the
present day. It is necessary to consider several
highly cited meta-analyses published in reputa-
ble journals, such as those by Chida et al. (2008)
which have included the questionable data sets
of Grossarth-Maticek et al. (1988). In spite of a
critique by Coyne et al. (2010) regarding their
inclusion of the questionable data, the Chida
et al. meta-analysis has been strenuously
defended by its authors (Steptoe et al., 2010)
and remains widely cited to the present day
(e.g. Pressman et al., 2018). Another recent
review in the Annual Review of Psychology
claims, ‘the strongest conclusion derived from
decades of research on stressors and cancer is
that stressful events may be associated with
decreased cancer survival but are probably not
associated with disease incidence (Chida et al.,
2008)’ (Cohen et al., 2018). As long as these
unsound publications remain in the scientific
record, they can continue to mislead research-
ers, scholars, students and the public at large.
Citing Eysenck’s (1991) book on Smoking,
Personality, and Stress, Thomson (2016) states,
‘Stress and the inability to cope with stress, have
been shown to be related to cancer and to coro-
nary heart disease, and endogenous depression
may be particularly related to such stress’ (p. 4).
In spite of repeated criticism concerning flawed
methodology (Stefanek et al., 2009), investiga-
tors continue to claim an alleged survival advan-
tage of psychological interventions for individuals
with cancers (e.g. Spiegel, 2012).
Two books by Eysenck have been repub-
lished in Kindle Editions: Smoking, Personality,
and Stress: Psychosocial Factors in the
Prevention of Cancer and Coronary Heart
Disease (Kindle Edition, Springer, 2012) and
Rebel with a Cause: The Autobiography of Hans
Eysenck (Kindle Edition, Routledge, 2017). The
reviews quoted to promote the latter state,
Here is a book which is not merely of ‘some
interest’ but rather of riveting importance as it
probes sensitive areas of day-to-day existence.
Eysenck is much admired as one of the world’s
leading psychologists, and his career has been
enlivened by controversy, largely because of his
work on personality and intelligence. He deals at
some length with these and other phases of a
brilliant career. (Norman Cook, Daily Post)
… Rebel with a Cause is of considerable interest,
both for its portrayal of Eysenck’s own work and
for its numerous asides. (Stuart Sutherland,
Sunday Telegraph)
This is an excellent, highly recommendable auto­
biography of Britain’s best-known psychologist.
(Frederick Toates, The Psychologist (Amazon,
2018))
In 2016, a Special Issue of Personality and
Individual Differences (PAID), commemorated
the centenary of Eysenck’s birth (Corr, 2016).
Here, Eysenck is lauded as a ‘Great Scientist’
(Strelau, 2016), ‘British psychology’s most vis-
ible researcher and most influential disciplinary
voice’ (Buchanan, 2016) and being ‘so far ahead
of his time’ (Gottfredson, 2016). Eysenck’s con-
tributions are said to include ‘several major con-
ceptual and methodological paradigms for the
study of the impact of psychological, genetic,
and life-style factors on physical health’
(Kreitler, 2016), ‘continue to shape current per-
sonality research’ (Revelle, 2016), include ‘a
theory – the Welfare Trait – which attempts to
explain the tendency of the welfare state to
erode work motivation’ (Perkins, 2016) and the
conclusion that ‘the observed variability in IQ
scores is genetically determined to a high degree
(80% heritability) and that, in consequence, the
Black–White IQ gap in the US is due predomi-
nantly to genetic factors’ (Colman, 2016).
That Eysenck’s erroneous claims exist
within current scientific literature and receive
glowing praise from reputable sources is dam-
aging to Psychology, science and medicine, and
can be harmful to patients and the general pub-
lic who may be offered false hope and ineffec-
tive therapies as a consequence.
Anthony Pelosi with Louis Appleby first
raised their concerns about the H.J.E./R.G.-M
publications a quarter of a century ago (Pelosi
and Appleby, 1992, 1993). Other investigators,
notably Amelang et al. (1996) and several others
Marks 3
also raised concerns. The totally unbelievable
claims of Grossarth-Maticek et al. (1988) sug-
gested a relative risk of approximately 50 for
‘Type 1’ personality, that is, a ‘Type 1’ person
would have a relative risk of dying from cancer
that is 50 times higher than the risk of a ‘non-
type’. In addition, the risk for a ‘Type 2’ person
of dying from coronary heart disease (CHD) is
30 times greater than that for a ‘non-type’ (Pelosi
and Appleby, 1993). In comparison, smoking
carries a relative risk of only 2.0. The all-cause
mortalities for treated versus untreated subjects
in their individual psychotherapy and group
therapy trials were 15 per cent versus 62 per cent
over 13 years and 20 per cent versus 76 per cent
over 7 years, respectively.
Dr Pelosi’s new paper indicates there are
multiple aspects of these claims that are impos-
sible to believe. For example, the claim that
bibliotherapy consisting of homespun woo can
reduce human disease–related mortality by
50 per cent is totally impossible to believe. The
data are so far off the end of a normal distribu-
tion of effect sizes, they certainly could never
have happened without error. H.J.E. and R.G.-M
rightfully could be canonised as ‘Saint Hans’
and ‘Saint Ronald’ for working such miracles if
only their claims could ever be proven, which
will never happen. To his eternal shame, the
attempts by Hans Eysenck to discredit the well-
established causal links between tobacco smok-
ing and cancer while in receipt of large sums
from the tobacco industry is one of the most
shameful deceits committed by any scientist in
the 20th century.
Why it matters
To those who would say, it does not matter,
Professor Eysenck is dead, leave the matter
alone, nobody reads or believes his claims any
more, I invite them to read the brief preface to
the 2012 edition of Eysenck’s book, Smoking,
Personality, and Stress, that states,
It is often suggested that the incidence of cancer
and coronary heart disease could be much reduced
or even eliminated if only people would stop
smoking cigarettes and eat fewer high-cholesterol
foods. The evidence, however, shows that such
views are simplistic and unrealistic and that,
instead, cancer and CHD are the product of many
risk factors acting synergistically. Psychosocial
factors (stress, personality) are six times as
predictive as smoking, cholesterol level or blood
pressure and much more responsive to prophylactic
treatment. This book admits that, while smoking is
a risk factor for cancer and CHD, its effects have
been exaggerated. A more realistic appraisal of a
very complex chain of events incorporating many
diverse factors is given, and appropriate action to
prevent cancer and coronary heart disease is
discussed. (Eysenck, 2012)
Or, read the 2017 edition of Eysenck’s auto-
biography, which states, ‘On a purely statistical
basis the causal efficacy of smoking – if this can
be deduced at all from a simple correlation – is
very much less than that of psychosocial fac-
tors; about one-sixth in fact’ (Eysenck, 2017:
Kindle Locations 3759–3761). Or, consider the
section where Eysenck describes his claim
about the alleged effectiveness of psychother-
apy in preventing cancer: ‘The total number of
deaths in the control group was 83 per cent, in
the placebo group 81 per cent, and in the ther-
apy group 32 per cent, again demonstrating the
efficacy of the method in preventing death from
cancer and coronary heart disease’ (Eysenck,
2017: Kindle Location 3804–3806). Or the sec-
tion where Eysenck claims, ‘there is some evi-
dence that behaviour therapy may be useful in
prolonging life, as well as in preventing disease’
(Eysenck, 2017: Kindle Locations 3821–3822).
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that
any of these statements are true, and Eysenck is
proved by his own words to be guilty of some of
the most egregious and harmful falsehoods
made by any psychologist ever.
Psychology in crisis
In spite of the unbelievable predictive validity
claimed by H.J.E. and R.G.-M, not one of their
papers has been retracted by any journal. In
addition, no investigation has been carried out
by Eysenck’s former academic institution or the
4 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)
society responsible for the research integrity of
psychologists in the United Kingdom, the
British Psychological Society (BPS). If aca-
demic institutions, scholarly journals and the
only professional psychology organisation in
the United Kingdom are unwilling to take
action to call out such apparent malpractice, no
wonder that it is said that Psychology is in crisis
(Hughes, 2018). The Eysenck case can be
viewed as a litmus test of the health of the dis-
cipline. To date, it has failed that test.
Journal editors and reviewers may often be
the first to notice evidence of research miscon-
duct. Procedures have evolved to deal with mal-
practice when it is encountered. The Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises editors
and publishers using a code of conduct.
According to COPE,
editors have a duty to act if they suspect
misconduct or if the allegation of misconduct is
brought to them. Editors should not simply reject
papers that raise concerns about possible
misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue
alleged cases. Editors should first seek a response
from those suspected of misconduct. If they are
not satisfied with the responses, they should ask
the relevant employers, or institutions, or some
appropriate body … to investigate. (COPE, 2012)
As a journal editor for 23 years, I have
encountered several instances of apparent aca-
demic misconduct. In one instance, my investi-
gation led to a retraction because an article was
found to have substantial overlap with a prior
publication by the same authors (Journal of
Health Psychology, 2017). In discovering any
apparent misconduct, an editor must first con-
tact the author(s) for their explanation. If no sat-
isfactory explanation is forthcoming, the COPE
guidelines recommend referral of the matter to
the author’s academic institution.
Unfortunately, I have rarely received the
impression that an institution has responded in
an appropriate manner. In one case, an institution
within the University of London did not follow
the procedure it had published on its website for
the investigation of scientific misconduct. In the
majority of cases, the institutional response has
been to deny any fault, even in cases of blatant
lying by authors, and they recommend no correc-
tion, retraction or retraining and no other steps to
prevent further misconduct. This is far from an
ideal situation. Academic institutions have a con-
flict of interest concerning allegations of miscon-
duct, which is why I believe the only way
forward is to have a national Ombudsperson to
carry out independent inquiries.
Inaction concerning academic malpractice is
one symptom of the precarious state of
Psychology as a scientific discipline which has
led to critics talking about a crisis within
Psychology (Hughes, 2018; Marks, 2018).
Perceptions of the crisis are complex and multi-
faceted, and the situation is much broader than
simply an issue about misconduct. There is a
replicability crisis, a theory crisis, a statistical
crisis, a sampling crisis and an exaggeration cri-
sis (Hughes, 2018). Misconduct contributes to
the replicability part of the crisis, which extends
to many other disciplines, but it appears to be
especially prevalent in the Social Sciences and
Biomedicine (Stroebe et al., 2012). Universities
and professional organisations appear unwilling
to take significant steps to assure research
integrity by enforcing their ethical codes and
misconduct procedures. At the same time, whis-
tle-blowers are led to feel unsafe, not listened to
and their complaints are oftentimes not acted
upon. Another frequently cited barrier to
whistle-blowing is the nature of libel laws
which, in the United Kingdom and some other
countries, place the burden of proof on the com-
plainant. At the very least, when misconduct is
covered up behind closed doors, there needs to
be a right of appeal to an independent
Ombudsperson responsible for research integ-
rity as an ultimate backstop.
An appeal for research
integrity
The evidence published by Dr Pelosi indicates
major causes for concern about the contribution
and legacy of H.J.E. Over the 26-year period
since this matter was first made public by Drs
Pelosi and Appleby (1992, 1993), nothing has
Marks 5
been done to rectify the situation. The scientific
record remains in jeopardy with published find-
ings that bear no relationship to fact and which
distort the scientific record. H.J.E.’s mantra was
to ‘discover the facts’ and to ‘tell the truth’. The
2017 edition of his autobiography states,
I think the scientist owes the public one thing
above all, and that is honesty in telling the truth
as he sees it. That I shall try to do; whether the
truth is even approximately as I see it is of course
another matter; that readers will have to judge
for themselves. Many readers will already know
that in many ways I am a rebel – this book will
make it clear why I think I have a cause. (Eysenck,
2017: Kindle Locations 149–152)
In stark contrast to this statement, H.J.E.’s
legacy includes a mountain of unbelievable
claims and questionable data sets. The unwill-
ingness of the BPS to investigate H.J.E.’s col-
laboration with R.G.-M is notable. Perhaps,
H.J.E. was not actually a member of the BPS.
However, the scandal is potentially as signifi-
cant as the well-known ‘Burt Affair’. When Dr
Pelosi submitted a formal complaint to the BPS
in 1995, he was informed, ‘The Investigatory
Committee decided that it would not be appro-
priate to appoint an Investigatory Panel to con-
duct further enquiries into the matter. Its
decision has been confirmed by the independ-
ent non-psychologist representative of the
Disciplinary Board’.
With the publication of Dr Pelosi’s new paper,
the time is ripe to take concrete corrective action.
Those who bear witness to scientific misconduct
and do nothing are themselves culpable. Taking
no action aids and abets perpetrators and the
harms committed as a consequence. If one does
nothing to correct the scientific record, knowing
that the record is wrong, we ourselves are guilty
of complicity. Current and future generations of
students and patients pay the price.
The time is long overdue to cease a conspir-
acy of pretence, a knowing tolerance of bent
science. All parties involved need to restore
confidence, respect and dignity in themselves
and their establishments. The desired outcome
can only be achieved by conducting a thorough,
open and transparent investigation. Any other
course of action is an abuse of trust placed in
academic institutions and professionals socie-
ties by patients, the public, policy makers and
government itself.
The Journal of Health Psychology is pleased
to publish Dr Pelosi’s review article. This land-
mark paper presents the relevant authorities and
journal editors the opportunity to wipe the
Eysenck slate clean. Dr Pelosi’s article rings a
toll bell to the many errors committed with
Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek’s unbelievable
data sets. With the publication of Dr Pelosi’s
paper, we are seeking three correctives: (1) for-
mal investigations by King’s College London
and the BPS; (2) the retraction or correction of
61 publications including more than 40 journal
articles, 10 book chapters and 2 books, each in
3 editions (see Supplementary file for detailed
listing); and (3) the establishment of a National
Research Integrity Ombudsperson to investi-
gate allegations.
The need for an independent UK body to
promote good governance, management and
conduct of academic, scientific and medical
research could never be stronger than in the pre-
sent situation. The Eysenck affair requires the
full attention of the institutions that govern sci-
entific practice. This is not an issue about a sin-
gle individual’s alleged misconduct, or a single
institution, it is about the integrity of science.
Without a genuine ability to assure governance,
quality and integrity, science is a failure unto
itself, to reason and to ethics.
Open letter to the President
and Principal of King’s College
London
Professor Edward Byrne
President and Principal
King’s College London
3 December 2018
Dear Professor Byrne,
I am writing about a serious matter concern-
ing the research integrity of a late employee of
6 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)
your institution. In the interests of openness and
transparency, this is an Open Letter. If left unre-
solved this is a matter that can be expected to
produce potential harm to patients, to biomedi-
cine and science, to your institution, to its staff
and students. Although Professor Hans Eysenck
died in 1997, the issue of alleged falsified sci-
ence committed by the late Professor remains
current to the present day.
To give a few examples, the 2017 edition of
Eysenck’s autobiography published by
Springer, in relation to the causal link between
smoking and cancer, states, ‘On a purely statis-
tical basis the causal efficacy of smoking – if
this can be deduced at all from a simple corre-
lation – is very much less than that of psychoso-
cial factors; about one-sixth in fact’ (Eysenck,
2017, Rebel with a Cause. Kindle Locations
3759–3761). Is the claim that psychosocial fac-
tors are six times more important than smoking
something that King’s College London is con-
tent to endorse or is it a claim that KCL would
like to see corrected? Or consider where
Eysenck describes the effectiveness of psycho-
therapy in preventing cancer: ‘The total number
of deaths in the control group was 83 per cent,
in the placebo group 81 per cent, and in the
therapy group 32 per cent, again demonstrating
the efficacy of the method in preventing death
from cancer and coronary heart disease’
(Eysenck, 2017, Kindle Location 3804–3806).
Or the section where Eysenck claims that ‘there
is some evidence that behaviour therapy may be
useful in prolonging life, as well as in prevent-
ing disease’ (Eysenck, 2017: Kindle Locations
3821–3822).
I hope that King’s College London will add
its voice to those who are requesting that the
relevant publishers and journals should correct
or retract Eysenck’s publications wherever they
can be shown to contain questionable data-sets
or claims that are known to be false.
A complete dossier of information is pub-
lished herein and so I can be brief. It is recorded
on the King’s College London website that
‘King’s has adopted the UKRIO Code of
Practice for Research’. In line with the COPE
guidelines I am referring this matter to you as
the President of the relevant academic institu-
tion. I bring to your attention the research pro-
gramme led by the late Professor Hans J
Eysenck at the Institute of Psychiatry over a
40-year period. The evidence reviewed in the
attached documentation suggests the late
Professor’s research involved systematic
breaches of conduct by himself and his collabo-
rator, R Grossarth-Maticek. The joint publica-
tions of immediate concern are from the period
1985 to 2000 when Professor Eysenck was
employed at the Institute of Psychiatry, now
administratively a part of KCL. During the
period 1985–1990, there are at least 27 publica-
tions authored by Eysenck and Grossarth-
Maticek, 19 of which cite the Institute of
Psychiatry as Grossarth-Maticek’s only affilia-
tion (see Supplementary file).
The case to be answered is fully documented
in Dr. Anthony Pelosi’s peer-reviewed article:
‘Personality and fatal diseases: revisiting a sci-
entific scandal’. As the Editor responsible for
the peer review and publication of Dr. Pelosi’s
article, I have every confidence that Dr. Pelosi’s
evidence and conclusions are reliable and true.
In light of the policies and statutes of King’s
College London concerning research integrity I
bring this case to your attention for investiga-
tion. A full and thorough investigation would be
good for science, for the research integrity of
your esteemed institution and for the welfare of
patients and the general public.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
David F Marks BSc PhD CPsychol FBPsS
Editor, Journal of Health Psychology
Open letter to the Chief
Executive of the British
Psychological Society
Mr Sarb Bajwa
Chief Executive
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Road East
Marks 7
Leicester
LE1 7DR
3 December 2018
Dear Mr Bajwa,
I am writing about a serious matter concern-
ing the research integrity of a person who one
can presume was a member of the British
Psychological Society. In the interests of open-
ness and transparency, this is an Open Letter. If
left unresolved this is a matter that can be
expected to produce potential harm to patients,
to biomedicine and science, to your institution,
to its members and students. Although Professor
Hans Eysenck died in 1997, the issue of alleged
falsified science committed by the late Professor
remains current to the present day.
To give a few examples, the 2017 edition of
Eysenck’s autobiography published by
Springer, in relation to the causal link between
smoking and cancer, states, ‘On a purely statis-
tical basis the causal efficacy of smoking – if
this can be deduced at all from a simple corre-
lation – is very much less than that of psychoso-
cial factors; about one-sixth in fact’ (Eysenck,
2017, Rebel with a Cause. Kindle Locations
3759–3761). Is the claim that psychosocial fac-
tors are six times more important than smoking
something that the British Psychological
Society is content to endorse or is it a claim that
the BPS would like to see corrected? Or con-
sider where Eysenck describes the effectiveness
of psychotherapy in preventing cancer: ‘The
total number of deaths in the control group was
83 per cent, in the placebo group 81 per cent,
and in the therapy group 32 per cent, again
demonstrating the efficacy of the method in pre-
venting death from cancer and coronary heart
disease’ (Eysenck, 2017, Kindle Location
3804–3806). Or the section where Eysenck
claims that ‘there is some evidence that behav-
iour therapy may be useful in prolonging life, as
well as in preventing disease’ (Eysenck, 2017,
Kindle Locations 3821–3822).
I hope that the Society will add its voice to
those who are requesting that the relevant pub-
lishers and journals should correct or retract
Eysenck’s publications wherever they can be
shown to contain questionable data-sets or
claims that are known to be false.
The case is fully documented in Dr. Anthony
Pelosi’s peer-reviewed article: ‘Personality and
fatal diseases: revisiting a scientific scandal’.
As the Editor responsible for the peer review
and publication of Dr. Pelosi’s article, I have
every confidence that Dr. Pelosi’s evidence and
conclusions are reliable and true. In light of the
policies and statutes of the British Psychological
Society concerning research integrity I bring
this case to your attention for investigation. A
full and thorough investigation would be good
for Psychology, for the research integrity of the
BPS as a professional society and for the wel-
fare of patients and the general public.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
David F Marks BSc PhD CPsychol FBPsS
Editor, Journal of Health Psychology
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
David F Marks https://orcid.org/0000-0002-40
96-2883
References
Amazon (2018) Product description for Hans J
Eysenck’s Rebel with a Cause (2nd edn),
Kindle Edition. Available at: https://www.ama-
zon.co.uk/Rebel-Cause-Hans-Eysenck-ebook
/dp/B074VG6ZSD/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie
=UTF8&qid=1540709025&sr=1-1&keywords
=Hans+J+Eysenck
Amelang M, Schmidt-Rathjens C and Matthews G
(1996) Personality, cancer and coronary heart
disease: Further evidence on a controversial
issue. British Journal of Health Psychology
1(3): 191–205.
Buchanan RD (2016) A unique British psychologist:
Why there can never be another Hans Eysenck.
Personality and Individual Differences 103:
24–31.
8 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)
Chida Y, Hamer M, Wardle J, et al. (2008) Do stress
related psychosocial factors contribute to can-
cer incidence and survival? Nature Reviews
Clinical Oncology 5(8): 466.
Cohen S, Murphy ML and Prather AA (2018) Ten
surprising facts about stressful life events and
disease risk. Annual Review of Psychology.
Epub ahead of print 27 June. DOI: 10.1146/
annurev-psych-010418-102857.
Colman AM (2016) Race differences in IQ: Hans
Eysenck’s contribution to the debate in the
light of subsequent research. Personality and
Individual Differences 103: 182–189.
Corr PJ (ed.) (2016) Hans Eysenck: One hundred
years of psychology. Personality and Individual
Differences 103: 1–220.
Committee on Publication Ethics (2012) Cooperation
between research institutions and journals on
research integrity cases: guidance from the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/
Research_institutions_guidelines_final_0_0.pdf
Coyne JC, Ranchor AV and Palmer SC (2010) Meta-
analysis of stress-related factors in cancer.
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 7(5): 1–2.
Eysenck HJ (2012) Smoking, Personality, and
Stress: Psychosocial Factors in the Prevention
of Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease (Kindle
Edition). Berlin: Springer Nature.
Eysenck HJ (2017) Rebel with a Cause: The
Autobiography of Hans Eysenck (Revised and
expanded Kindle Edition). London and New
York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Gottfredson LS (2016) Hans Eysenck’s theory of intel-
ligence, and what it reveals about him. Personality
and Individual Differences 103: 116–127.
Grossarth-Maticek R, Eysenck HJ and Vetter H
(1988) Personality type, smoking habit and
their interaction as predictors of cancer and cor-
onary heart disease. Personality and Individual
Differences 9(2): 475–495.
Hughes BM (2018) Psychology in Crisis. London:
Palgrave.
Journal of Health Psychology (2017) Retraction
notice concerning Khani Jeihooni A, Hidarnia
A, Hossein Kaveh M, Hajizadeh E and Askari
A (2015) The effect of an education pro-
gram based on health belief model and social
cognitive theory in prevention of osteoporo-
sis in women. Journal of Health Psychology.
Epub ahead of print 8 September. DOI:
10.1177/1359105315603696.
Kreitler S (2016) Hans Eysenck as a health psychol-
ogist. Personality and Individual Differences
103: 153–155.
Marks DF (2018) A General Theory of Behaviour.
London: SAGE.
National Science Foundation (2001) New research
misconduct policies. Available at: https://www.
nsf.gov/oig/_pdf/presentations/session.pdf
Pelosi AJ and Appleby L (1992) Psychological
influences on cancer and ischaemic heart
disease. British Medical Journal 304(6837):
1295–1298.
Pelosi AJ and Appleby L (1993) Personality and fatal
diseases. British Medical Journal 306(6893):
1666–1667.
Perkins AM (2016) The welfare trait: Hans Eysenck,
personality and social issues. Personality and
Individual Differences 103: 172–178.
Pressman SD, Jenkins BN and Moskowitz JT (2018)
Positive affect and health: What do we know
and where next should we go? Annual Review of
Psychology. Epub ahead of print 27 September.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102955.
Revelle W (2016) Hans Eysenck: Personality theo-
rist. Personality and Individual Differences
103: 32–39.
Spiegel D (2012) Mind matters in cancer survival.
Psycho-Oncology 21(6): 588–593.
Stefanek ME, Palmer SC, Thombs BD, et al. (2009)
Finding what is not there: Unwarranted claims of
an effect of psychosocial intervention on recur-
rence and survival. Cancer: Interdisciplinary
International Journal of the American Cancer
Society 115(24): 5612–5616.
Steptoe A, Chida Y, Hamer M, et al. (2010) Author
reply: Meta-analysis of stress-related factors
in cancer. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
7: 1.
Strelau J (2016) Hans Eysenck: The ‘Great Scientist’.
Personality and Individual Differences 103:
11–15.
Stroebe W, Postmes T and Spears R (2012) Scientific
misconduct and the myth of self-correction in
science. Perspectives on Psychological Science
7(6): 670–688.
Thomson W (2016) Comorbidity between depres-
sion and the results of mortality. Journal of
Depression and Anxiety 5(236): 2167–1044.
Marks 9
Appendix
PUBLICATIONS BY H J E & RG-M
1985 – 2000 THAT COULD REQUIRE
RETRACTION
*Publications in journal s edited by HJE.
1985: HJE’s affiliation was the Institute of
Psychiatry, University of London;
The affiliation of RG-M at that
time is uncertain.
 1) CONFERENCE PAPER: Grossarth-
Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., Vetter, H.,
& Schmidt, P. (1985). Results of the
Heidelberg prospective psychosomatic
intervention study. International Con­
ference on Health Psychology, Tilburg
University.
1988-1991
Both authors give the Institute of Psychiatry,
University of London, as their affiliation
 2) *Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
& Vetter, H. (1988). Personality type,
smoking habit and their interaction as
predictors of cancer and coronary heart
disease. Personality and Individual
Differences, 9(2), 479 -495.
  3) Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
& Vetter, H. (1988). Antismoking atti-
tudes and general prejudice: An empiri-
cal study. Perceptual and motor skills,
66(3), 927-931.
  4) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1989). Length of survival and lympho-
cyte percentage in women with mam-
mary cancer as a function of
psychotherapy. Psychological Reports,
65(1), 315-321.
  5) *Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
& Vetter, H. (1989). The causes and
cures of prejudice: An empirical study
of the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
Personality and Individual Differences,
10(5), 547-558.
  6) Eysenck, H. J., & Grossarth-Maticek, R.
(1989). Prevention of cancer and coro-
nary heart disease and the reduction in
the cost of the National Health Service.
The Journal of Social, Political, and
Economic Studies, 14(1), 25.
  7) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1990). Prophylactic effects of psychoa-
nalysis on cancer-prone and coronary
heart disease-prone probands, as com-
pared with control groups and behav-
iour therapy groups. Journal of behavior
therapy and experimental psychiatry,
21(2), 91-99.
  8) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1990). Personality, stress and disease:
description and validation of a new
inventory. Psychological Reports,
66(2), 355-373.
  9) Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
Uhlenbruck, G., Rieder, H., Vetter, H.,
Freesemann, C., … & Liesen, H. (1990).
Sport activity and personality as ele-
ments in preventing cancer and coro-
nary heart disease. Perceptual and
motor skills, 71(1), 199-209.
10) Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
Rieder, H., & Rakic, L. (1990).
Psychological factors as determinants
of success in football and boxing: The
effects of behaviour therapy.
International Journal of Sport
Psychology. 21(3), 237-255.
11) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1990). Personality, smoking, and alco-
hol as synergistic risk factors for cancer
of the mouth and pharynx. Psychological
reports, 67(3), 1024-1026.
12) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1990). Coffee-drinking and personality
as factors in the genesis of cancer and
coronary heart disease. Neuropsycho­
biology, 23(3), 153-159.
13) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1989). Is media information that smoking
causes illness a self-fulfilling prophecy?.
Psychological reports, 65(1), 177-178.
10 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

14) BOOK CHAPTER: Grossarth- 21) BOOK CHAPTER: Grossarth-

Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., & Rakic, L.
Personality and Cancer: Prediction and (1991). Central nervous system and
Prophylaxis. In Anticarcinogenesis and cancer. In Anticarcinogenesis and
Radiation Protection 2 (pp. 451-458). Radiation Protection 2 (pp. 429-435).
Springer, Boston, MA. Springer, Boston, MA.
15) *Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H.
J. (1991). Creative novation behaviour
1993:Corrigendum
therapy as a prophylactic treatment for
cancer and coronary heart disease: Part
*CORRIGENDUM H. J. EYSENCK
I—Description of treatment. Behaviour
and R. GROSSARTH-MATICEK (1991).
Research and Therapy, 29(1), 1-16.
Creative novation behaviour therapy as a
16) *Eysenck, H. J., & Grossarth-Maticek,
prophylactic treatment for cancer and coro-
R. (1991). Creative novation behaviour
nary heart disease. Parts I and II. Behav-
therapy as a prophylactic treatment for
iour Research and Therapy, 29, 1-31.
cancer and coronary heart disease: Part
II—Effects of treatment. Behaviour
“In the above articles Dr Grossarth-Maticek’s
Research and Therapy, 29(1), 17-31.
affiliation is cited as The Institute of Psychiatry,
17) Eysenck, H. J., Grossarth-Maticek, R.,
Department of Psychology, University of
& Everitt, B. (1991). Personality, stress,
London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill,
smoking, and genetic predisposition as
London. Dr Grossarth-Maticek is not, and never
synergistic risk factors for cancer and
has been, a member of staff at the Institute of
coronary heart disease. Integrative
Psychiatry.”
Physiological and Behavioral Science,
26(4), 309-322.
1994-2000: Grossarth-Maticek’s affiliation
18) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
given as “University for Peace, United Nations
(1991). Personality, stress, and motiva-
England” or “ECPD Institute for Preventive
tional factors in drinking as determi-
Medicine, University for Peace (United
nants of risk for cancer and coronary
Nations)” or “Institute for Preventive Medicine
heart disease. Psychological reports,
European Centre for Peace & Development
69(3), 1027-1043.
(University for Peace, established by the United
19) *Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H.,
Nations) Heidelberg Germany”.
Gallasch, G., Vetter, H., & Frentzel-
Beyme, R. (1991). Changes in degree of
22) Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
sclerosis as a function of prophylactic
& Boyle, G. J. (1994). An empirical
treatment in cancer-prone and CHD-
study of the diathesis-stress theory of
prone probands. Behaviour research
disease. International Journal of Stress
and therapy, 29(4), 343-351.
Management, 1(1), 3-18.
20) Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H. J.
23) BOOK CHAPTER: Grossarth-
(1991). Coca-Cola, cancers, and coro-
Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., & Boyle,
naries: personality and stress as mediat-
G. J. (1994). An empirical study of the
ing factors. Psychological reports,
diathesis-stress theory of disease.
68(3_suppl), 1083-1087.
Reprinted in: Boyle, G. J., & Saklofske,
D. H. (2004). Psychology of individual
1991:Authors’ affiliations given as “Institute differences. Volume 4.
of Psychiatry University of London UK and 24) *Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H.
University Clinical Center Belgrade Yugoslavia” J. (1995). Self-regulation and mortality
Marks 11
from cancer, coronary heart disease, and
other causes: A prospective study.
Personality and individual differences,
19(6), 781-795.
25) Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
& Boyle, G. J. (1995). Alcohol con-
sumption and health: Synergistic inter-
action with personality. Psychological
reports, 77(2), 675-687.
[September 4, 1997: H J E deceased]
26) *Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
Pfeifer, A., Schmidt, P., & Koppel, G.
(1997, December). The specific action
of different personality risk factors on
cancer of the breast, cervix, corpus uteri
and other types of cancer: a prospective
investigation. Personality and individ-
ual differences, 23(6), 949-960.
27) Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J.,
Boyle, G. J., Heeb, J., Costa, S. D., &
Diel, I. J. (2000). Interaction of psycho-
social and physical risk factors in the
causation of mammary cancer, and its
prevention through psychological meth-
ods of treatment. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 56(1), 33-50.
PUBLICATIONS BY HJE WHICH CITE
PUBLICATIONS CO-AUTHORED WITH
G-M THAT COULD REQUIRE RETRACTION
28) Eysenck, H.J. (1987). Personality as a
predictor of cancer and cardiovascular
disease, and the application of behav-
iour therapy in prophylaxis. European
Journal of Psychiatry, 1,29-41.
29) Eysenck, H. J. (1988). Personality,
stress and cancer: prediction and proph-
ylaxis. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 61(1), 57-75.
30) Eysenck, H. J. (1988). Behaviour ther-
apy as an aid in the prevention of cancer
and coronary heart disease. Cognitive
Behaviour Therapy, 17(3-4), 171-188.
31) *Eysenck, H. J. (1988). The respective
importance of personality, cigarette
smoking and interaction effects for the
genesis of cancer and coronary heart
disease. Personality and Individual
Differences, 9(2), 453-464.
32) Eysenck, H.J. (1988). Personality as a
predictor of cancer and cardiovascular
disease, and the application of behav-
iour therapy in prophylaxis. British
Journal of Clinical & Social Psychiatry,
6, 4-12.
33) *Eysenck, H. J. (1990). The causes and
cures of prejudice: A reply. Personality
and IIndividual Differences, 11(6), 649.
34) Eysenck, H. J. (1990). The prediction of
death from cancer by means of person-
ality/stress questionnaire: too good to be
true?. Perceptual and motor skills,
71(1), 216-218.
35) Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Clinical Psycho­
logy in Europe and in the United States:
Development and Future. European
perspectives in psychology, 2, 3-17.
36) Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Personality,
stress, and disease: An interactionist per-
spective. Psychological Inquiry, 2(3),
221-232.
37) Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Personality as a
risk factor in coronary heart disease.
European Journal of Personality, 5(2),
81-92.
38) Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Were we really
wrong?. American journal of epidemiol-
ogy, 133(5), 429-36.
39) Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Neuroticism,
anxiety, and depression. Psychological
Inquiry, 2(1), 75-76.
40) BOOK: Eysenck, H.J. (1991). Smoking,
personality and stress: psychosocial
factors in the prevention of cancer and
coronary heart disease. Springer-Verlag
Berlin.
41) BOOK: Eysenck, H.J. (2011). Smoking,
personality and stress: psychosocial
factors in the prevention of cancer and
coronary heart disease. Soft cover edi-
tion. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
42) BOOK: Eysenck, H.J. (2012). Smoking,
personality and stress: psychosocial
12 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)
factors in the prevention of cancer and
coronary heart disease. Kindle edition.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
43) Eysenck, H.J. (1991). Reply to criti-
cisms of the Grossarth-Maticek studies.
Psychological Inquiry, 2, 297-323.
44) Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Behavioral psy-
chotherapy. In Clinical Psychology (pp.
417-442). Springer, Boston, MA.
45) Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Psychosocial fac-
tors, cancer, and ischaemic heart disease.
British Medical Journal, 305(6851), 457.
46) Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Prediction of
cancer and coronary heart disease mor-
tality by means of a personality inven-
tory: results of a 15-year follow-up
study. Psychological Reports, 72(2),
499-516.
47) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H. J.
(1993). Forty Years On. In Handbook of
effective psychotherapy (pp. 3-20).
Springer, Boston, MA.
48) Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Personality,
stress and disease: The Grossarth-
Maticek contribution. Zeitachrift fur
Geoundheitpsychologie, 1, 204-211.
49) Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Neuroticism and
the illusion of mental health. American
Psychologist, 49(11), 971-972
50) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H. J.
(1994). Cancer, personality and stress:
prediction and prevention. Advances in
Behaviour Research and Therapy,
16(3), 167-215.
51) Eysenck, H. J. (1995). The causal role
of stress and personality in the etiology
of cancer and coronary heart disease.
Stress and Emotion, 15, 3-12.
52) Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Does smoking
really kill anybody?. Psychological
reports,77(3_suppl), 1243-1246.
53) Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Editorial Mental
health and physical disease: A new
View publication stats
paradigm. Journal of Mental Health,
4(3), 221-226.
54) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H. J.
(1996). Psychosocial Stress and Cancer.
In Bittles A.H., Parsons P.A. (eds) Stress.
Studies in Biology, Economy and
Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London
55) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H.
(1996). Personality and cancer.
Handbook of stress, medicine, and
health, 10, 193-215.
56) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H. J.
(1991). In search of coronary-prone
behavior: Beyond type A: Aron W.
Siegman and Theodore M. Dembroski
(Eds), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1989).
57) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H.J.
(2000). Personality as a risk factor in can-
cer and coronary heart disease. In Stress
and health: research and clinical appli-
cations (ed. D T. Kenny and J.G. Carlson),
pp. 291-318. Harwood, Amsterdam.
58) BOOK CHAPTER: Eysenck, H. J.
(2000). Coronary Artery Disease and
Essential Hypertension in Relation to
Personality Stress Questionnaire:
Validation in India. Personality Across
Cultures: Recent Developments and
Debates, 250.
59) BOOK: Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Rebel
with a cause : the autobiography of
Hans Eysenck. London: W.H. Allen.
60) BOOK: Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Rebel
with a cause : the autobiography of
Hans Eysenck (2nd edition) Revised and
Expanded, January 30th 1997. London
and New York: Routledge (first pub-
lished 1990).
61) BOOK: Eysenck, H. J. (2017). Rebel
with a cause : the autobiography of
Hans Eysenck. — Rev. and expanded.
Kindle Edition. London and New York:
Routledge (first published 1997).