Noise Annoyance & the Enneagram:

published research paper

Below is given the text of the paper entitled :

Personality and Annoyance by Low & Mid Frequency Environmental Noise

This paper was presented at

10th International Meeting on
Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and its Control at
York, England 11-13 September 2002

M E Bryan, formerly Reader, Audiology Group, University of Salford
695 Burnley Road East, Rossendale, BB4 9PG UK mike.bryan@ukgateway.net

Summary

The three types of response in the population to environmental noise, the "Sensitive", the "Insensitive" and the "Neutral"(Langdon, 1985) are three groups of people of approximately equal size. This behaviour is predictable and described by the personality of those working from the three Centres of the Enneagram: The Gut, the Head and the Heart respectively. Questionnaires determining a) noise annoyance sensitivity and b) personality in terms of Enneagram Centre and Type were administered to 107 adults, of whom 63 females (average age 53 years) and 44 males (average age 55 years). There were significant differences, in response to noise of those operating from the Gut(most sensitive) and Heart Centres, to those operating from the Head Centre (least sensitive). Also a tentative hierarchy of noise sensitivity put the "Perfectionist" and the "Artist" Types One and Four respectively, first whilst the least sensitive was the "Observer" Type Five. There were also found to be gender differences in noise sensitivity with females bothered more frequently than males. Those subjects living in urban areas were also more annoyed than those living in suburban or rural areas. Further work is ongoing and some results have been obtained, using the same two questionnaires, on subjects reporting being affected by low frequency/infrasonic noise.

Introduction

"The world is a much louder,dirtier, smellier place for some than it is for others," (Reason, 1972). This may be seen as stating the obvious to those of us in this category, or in close relationship to a person so blessed or cursed. But it is a fact not generally accepted by the scientific community or taken account of in framing environmental noise legislation where it is assumed that the population is homogenous in its response to noise ( Bryan, 1973).

How do we identify such persons? Is noise sensitivity and sensitivity to the environment, in general, related to sex, age, social class, background? And perhaps more important how should our noise legislation take into account that some of us are literally driven "mad", or forced to move house by noises which don't bother the rest of us. This paper is an attempt to go some way to answering the first of these questions - who or what type of personality is likely to be annoyed by noise.

A laboratory study by Moreira and Bryan, (1972), using tape recordings of 1) aircraft noise, 2) traffic noise and 3) industrial noise, found significant and stable differences in annoyance for a group of 34 normal hearing subjects. This variability did not depend upon such personal factors as sex or age, education, or job responsibility. Neither was it related to such personality traits as determined by the EPI ( Eysenck Personality Inventory, Eysenck and Eysenck, (1969) or the MMPI ( Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory, Hathaway and McKinley, 1951). However it was quite strongly correlated with some measures of personality given by the Rorschach Projection Test ( Klopher and Davidson,1962). This suggests that noise sensitive personalities would have high levels of Empathy and would have strong social and human instincts.

The comments of Langdon (1985)(at p165) on the use of such tests are very interesting and relevant. "It may be that differences in noise tolerance may require a more broadly based and less clinically derived criteria against which to be tested and that traits embodied in the required clinical testing only apply to some of the quite large section of the population highly sensitive to noise."

As would be anticipated from the work of Reason (ibid.), Moreira and Bryan (ibid.) showed a positive correlation between an individual's noise annoyance and their loudness function. Barbenza,. Bryan and Tempest (1970) showed that those people with steep loudness functions and therefore those likely to be sensitive to annoyance by noise, could be described as "excitable" or having a high level of response to external stimuli. Whilst those individuals with lower levels of loudness function slope were relatively "unexcitable" or having a low level of response to their environment.
Interesting and coherent though the work of Moreira and Bryan and of Barbenza et al are, neither the Rorschach test nor the MMPI tests, as used by these workers, are particularly easy to use, requiring clinical training, or are their results easy to assess or to apply.

Enneagram Personality Typing

In the last few years a much more understandable and broadly based test and applicable body of work on personality has become available based around the Enneagram method of Typing,(See for instance Riso, 1987 and Palmer, 1988).

Enneagram theory suggests that we occupy and work from three centres of being or of energy, the Head-Heart-Gut triad ( Mahon, 1998).
As Mahon writes (ibid.) "We all dip into these spaces quite frequently. Our thinking and planning takes us into the head, our value system takes us into the heart and when we use intuition we are said to be 'coming from the gut' ". Each centre consists of three personality
types making up nine types in all.

Figure 1. Shows the Enneagram personality Centres and Types with descriptions of each of the nine types. Descriptions are based on those used by Mahon (1998).

"If we were truly 'perfect' people we would act out of all three centres equally but because we aren't we tend to act out of one to the detriment of the other two."

"We can, for example, describe FIVE, SIX and SEVEN types on the Enneagram as head people. Their control centre - the one they occupy most of the time - is the head. They are strong on thinking, as opposed to feeling (heart) or intuition (gut). In any new situation, the inclination of the head person is to step back, take in the evidence and use logic. They tackle assignments methodically and may attempt to construct patterns of meaning. They are inclined to overlook their feelings and can remain objectively uninvolved."

"Types TWO, THREE and FOUR are the heart people - the social animals. Whereas people in the head space are inclined to move away from people, heart types naturally move towards other people. They are concerned to be with others. They function on the level of feelings. Touch and taste are important to them. They regard relationship as a task to be confronted and mastered. In a new situation they are likely to ask, 'Do you like me?' "

"The gut people occupy EIGHT, NINE and ONE stances on the Enneagram. Gut people act instinctively and they don't have to process thought through their head or heart centres." Mahon continues to write that they move spontaneously often in reaction to external stimuli. They can be concerned even unconsciously with issues of power and justice.

The potential of the Enneagram as a tool for predicting Noise Annoyance

Mahon (ibid.) states that the strongest senses of Gut people, i.e. the Eight, Nine and One types are hearing and smell. This would suggest that people acting predominantly from this centre may well be more sensitive to annoyance by noise than those acting from the heart or head centres. A similar view is held by Elisabeth McNulty, an experienced Enneagram teacher (personal communication, 1995). She writes, "the profile of noise sensitive people as given in the Moreira and Bryan paper (1972), at p 460, as being 'typically friendly, generous and sociable and very much aware of their environment' is an exact description of gut personalities according to the Enneagram."

On the other hand the implication of Moreira and Bryan's work (ibid.) is that those least sensitive to annoyance by noise might be those expected to act predominantly from the Head centre of the Enneagram. To quote from p 460 again, "such subjects tend to give the smallest number of Total Responses (on the Rorschach test), which can indicate unproductively, fewer Original responses and to have Rigid succession, both the latter traits apparently distracting from high intellectual efficiency." According to Brady (1994), at p 46, "while Gut people relate most to the Environment, the Head people, on the other hand, relate most to Ideas. In fact the latter can be said to "live in their heads."

Another reason why the Enneagram might be a useful tool for investigating the role of personality in predicting annoyance by noise is the evidence reviewed by Bryan (1973) of the existence of three groups who differ markedly in their response to environmental noise. The "noise sensitives" who make up around 20-30% of the population, those "imperturbables" who are relatively insensitive compose about 30% of the population, while the remaining 30-40% degree of response depends on noise level. It is tempting to see an analogy between these three groups and the Gut, Head and Heart distribution as given by Enneagram, where clearly, to a first degree of approximation, each of the three groups must compose approximately one third of the population.

The Experiment

This took the form of using two self-administered questionnaires on a group of adults.
The first questionnaire was used to determine Enneagram personality Type and Centre, using a questionnaire developed from the list of 20 statements given for each of the nine enneagram types in the book by Beesing, Nogosek and O'Leary, "The Enneagram, A Journey of Self Discovery" (1984). The order of presentation of the 180 statements was randomised and the participants were invited to tick those statements which generally they agree with the way they are now or the way they have been in the past.

The second questionnaire was concerned with assessing the participants' sensitivity to annoyance by "every day" environmental noises such as traffic, aircraft, neighbours, etc. It was based upon the questionnaire used in previous research, Bryan (1973) and consists of some nineteen questions where subjects were asked to rate their response to such questions as "How would you rate noise in general?" Where the categories they had to choose from were Quiet, Noticeable, Intrusive, Annoying,Very Annoying and Unbearable, (Q3). Questions also were concerned with frequency of annoyance due to noise, rating from Not at all to All the time,(Q6); What Noise most disturbs You? (Q8). Do you consider you are: Less sensitive, Average or More sensitive, to noise than your contemporaries?(Q4).
Has there been or is there some particular noise which distresses you? (Q10). Questions also asked for symptoms the distressing noise caused, Q12,Q13, Q14, Q15,Q16 and Q17. While Q2 was concerned with placing noise in ranking order with other environmental nuisances such as litter, lack of public transport, the neighbours etc.

There are three phases to this experiment:

Phase One This phase is to validate the use of the Personality questionnaire based upon the work of Beesing et al (ibid.), called the BNOE Questionnaire. This questionnaire was administered to a group of subjects who had attended an Enneagram Course and who knew their Enneagram Centre (Head, Heart or Gut) and Type. So it is possible to compare the accuracy of prediction of Centre and Type by comparing the two measures. These subjects also were given the noise sensitivity questionnaire to complete.

Phase Two In this phase the two questionnaires on noise annoyance sensitivity and BNOE Questionnaire are administered to a relatively large group of subjects who have no knowledge of the Enneagram.

Phase Three Here the same two questionnaires are given to subjects who might be described as low frequency noise sufferers i.e. they have reported that they have been disturbed by what might be termed low frequency/infrasonic noise usually of an unknown source.

Results

Phase One

The BNOE Questionnaire was given to 33 adults, average age 56 years, all of whom had attended an Enneagram course and were able to give a self rating (SR) of their Centre and Type which could be compared with their Centre and Type predicted from scoring the questionnaire. The criteria used for scoring the BNOE questionnaire was to total the number of statements with which the subject agreed with for each of the nine Enneagram Types. Each subject was assigned to the Type for which they had the highest score. Their Centre, Head, Heart or Gut was deemed to be the Centre for which they had the highest score. Each subject was also given the noise sensitivity questionnaire to complete. The results of the comparison between Self rating of Enneagram type (SR) and prediction from the BNOE Questionnaire are shown in Table 1 below.

As can be seen the agreement was 70% (for 23 subjects out of a total of 33). Thus it was considered that the use of the BNOE Questionnaire was a sufficiently reliable predictor of Enneagram personality Type (and Centre). It was decided therefore to proceed to Phase Two of the experiment and to use the BNOE Questionnaire on a much larger group of subjects who had no knowledge of the Enneagram. Further it was decided that it would be acceptable to incorporate the results of the 33 subjects from Phase One with those of Phase Two.
For the sake of consistency, however, the BNOE Questionnaire prediction of Type and Centre was used rather than the subject's own selfrating (SR).

Table 1 Comparison between assessment of Enneagram Type by self rating (SR ) and BNOE Questionnaire

Phase Two

Some 107 subjects, including the 33 subjects from Phase One, were given both questionnaires, BNOE Personality Questionnaire and Noise Sensitivity Questionnaire to complete. They were composed of 44 men (average age 55 years) and 63 women (average age 53 years) and were contacted mostly by post but in around 20% of the cases by amyl. Most subjects were in the age range 30 years up to 70 years, although the youngest was 16 years old and the eldest 73 years.

Female v Male Differences in Noise Sensitivity

The first step in analysing the data is to look for differences in response to noise between men and women. The only differences to emerge in their answers to the nineteen questions in the noise sensitivity questionnaire are summarised in Table 2 below. The ranking of answers to the questions have been converted into numbers. The t test for the level of probability of differences has been used on the average score for both males and females.

Table 2 Level of significance of differences of average score in response to noise for 64 females and for 41 males. Q4 = self rating of noise sensitivity, Q5 = self rating of acuity of hearing, Q6 = frequency of annoyance, Q8 the number of noises most disturbing the subject and Qb is the total score of the sum questions Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q6. PS>5%, S>1%, HS>0.1% level.

Females rated themselves more sensitive to noise than males (Q4, p = 0.002 level), as having more sensitive hearing (Q5, p = 0.045), more frequently annoyed (Q6, p = 0.045 ) and being disturbed by approximately twice as many noises (Q8, p = 0.001). The only other difference in score of interest, although it did not reach a probability of 5%, was in Qb, a total score for questions, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q6.

There were no significant differences in average score between females and males for Q2, (ranking of noise compared with other environmental nuisances); Q3, (degree of annoyance caused by noise); Q9, Opinion as to whether the Government pays enough attention to controlling noise in the environment or to Q10, whether there has been or is there some specific noise that bothers them.

Place of Residence and Noise Annoyance
There was no correlation between place of residence (rural to busy urban, Q1) and frequency of annoyance by noise, (Q6) and a weak positive correlation (Pearson r = + 0.22) and degree of annoyance, Q3). The correlations with residence and composite noise rating (Qa) and (Qb)
were also low at r = + 0.15 and r = + 0.19 respectively.

Age and Noise Annoyance
There were no correlations between a subject's age and degree of annoyance (Q3) and with frequency of annoyance (Q6), or with the composite noise ratings (Qa) or (Qb).

Enneagram Centres v Noise Annoyance

The 107 subjects of Phase 2 of the experiment were sorted into one of the three Enneagram Centres, Gut, Heart or Head, according to the results of their score on the BNOE Questionnaire. The Centre for which they had the highest score was considered to be the Centre from which they predominantly operated.

Table 3 shows the results of the Chi Squared Test on a comparison of distribution of numbers of subjects for the Gut , Heart and Head Centres for different measures of annoyance by noise. There are significantly different distributions in noise ratings for the three Centres for degree of annoyance (Q3), frequency of annoyance (Q6), and the composite annoyance score (Qa). While the differences are possibly significant for self rating of sensitivity to annoyance by noise (Q4) and for the composite measure of annoyance (Qb).

Table 3 Chi Squared test giving levels of significance of differences in the distribution of Gut, Heart and Head Centres in response to Q3, Annoyance from noise; Q6, frequency of annoyance and Qa, composite noise annoyance. All significant at the 1% level (S). For Q4, self assessment of sensitivity and for Qb, composite noise annoyance, significance levels are 5% (PS) and 2.5 - 1% (PS-S) respectively.

Figure 2 Distribution of subjects operating from Gut, Heart and Head Centres as a function of Annoyance by Noise (Q3). Head people tend to be less bothered by noise than do those operating from the Gut and Heart Centres.

Figure 2 shows that more of those subjects operating from the Head Centre find environmental noise quiet (score 0) compared with those operating from the Gut and from the Heart Centres. Response to noise for the other questions, Q4, Q6, Qa and Qb show similar differences between Head and the Gut and Heart Centres, (see Table 3) i.e. Head people are less aware of environmental noise than those operating from the Gut and Heart Centres.

Table 4 Shows the significance level in the difference in mean values for Gut and Heart v Head Centres in response to different measures of annoyance caused by environmental noise. PS = significant at the 5% level, S = significant at the 1% level and HS = significant at the 0.1% level.

Quite clearly the Head Centre subjects are less sensitive to annoyance by noise than either those subjects operating from the Gut or the Heart Centre. The most marked difference is in the frequency of annoyance (Q6).

An examination of the response to noise of each of the nine Enneagram types was also made which again reveals some interesting differences between types and details of which are given in the next section.

Enneagram Types v Noise Annoyance

The 107 subjects were divided into nine groups where the Type to which hey were assigned was determined by examining their scores in the BNOE Questionnaire. A subject was considered to be that Type for which they gave the greatest number of responses.

Table 5 (below) shows clearly that the Gut and Heart Centred subjects have a greater response to noise (i.e. higher mean scores) than do the Head Centred subjects but in addition shows some interesting differences between Types. However because of the relatively small number of subjects in each Type only the differences in means at the extreme top and bottom of the table tend to reach a difference which becomes significant.

However differences between Types in their noise sensitivity become more obvious and interesting if they are regrouped and ranked according to their scores to composite questions Qa and Qb as is shown in Table 6 below.

Table 5 Shows the mean score for each of the nine Enneagram Types in response to the questions on annoyance by noise together with the number of subjects for each Type.
Q3 is degree of annoyance, Q6 the frequency of annoyance and Qa and Qb are composite measures of annoyance by noise.

Table 6 Ranking of mean scores of the nine Enneagram Types in annoyance by noise according to composite questions Qa ( = sum of scores for Q3, Q4 and Q6) and for Qb( = sum of mean scores for Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q6). The most annoyed types are first and the least annoyed are ninth in rank order of annoyance.

It is interesting to note, from Table 6, that generally the Gut Centre Types, Eight, Nine and One tend to be most noise sensitive with the Head Centre Types, Five, Six, Seven the least noise sensitive and the Heart Centre Types in between. However there is some deviation from this pattern with Types One and Four vying for the most noise sensitive type. Indeed the mean score for the Four is different from the mean score for the Two at between the 5 and 1% level for Question 6 and Question 4 (2% and 4% respectively) and is at the 10 - 5% level for Question a and Question b (8% and 6% respectively). Further the mean of Type One is different from Type Eight at the 7% level for both Question 3 and for Question 4.

We conclude therefore that, even with relatively few subjects, it is possible to establish that there are real differences between Types within the Enneagram Centres in their response to annoyance by noise.

To get some idea of the spread of annoyance by noise within the group an examination of Table 5 shows that the average Type Five, the least noise sensitive Types "notices" noise (Q3, score = 1.7) while the average Type Four and One finds it "intrusive" (Q3 score = 4). While the average Type Five is only bothered by noise "a little" (Q6 score = 2), the average Type Four is bothered "fairly often" to " frequently" and the average Type One is bothered "fairly often" (Q6 scores = 5 and 4 respectively).

An examination of the individual data for the Noise Annoyance Questionnaire shows even more marked differences between Type Five, least sensitive, and Type One and Type Four, most sensitive to annoyance by noise. At the extreme an individual Type One places noise as the thing "they most dislike about the area where they live" (Q2), find it "very annoying" (Q3) and are "bothered all the time" by it (Q6) and a Type Four places it near the top of things they dislike about their area, find noise "very annoying" and are "frequently annoyed" by it. In contrast, the least sensitive to noise, the Type Five can find nothing they dislike about the place they live, including noise of course, (Q2), rate noise as "quiet" (Q3) and are "not at all" bothered by noise, (q6).

Two Heart Centred female subjects were clearly highly noise sensitive; a Type Two and a Type Three both reported having moved house because a particular noise upset them so much and in both cases it was due to noisy neighbour. Another three subjects also could be described as noise sensitive, all females. These were two Gut Centred, (a Type Nine, who was "very irritated" by cocks crowing and dogs barking early in the morning and a Type One who reported sirens, drills and Muzack "Got on her nerves") while a Head Centred, Type Six, "felt frightened" by young adults shouting in the street.

Phase Three

At the time of writing, 20 June 2002, some six "low frequency noise sufferers" have been traced and contacted and completed Questionnaires returned by two of these. There are obviously far too few results to draw any firm conclusions as to the type of disturbance caused or how the degree compares with mid frequency environmental noise.

Discussion

The BNOE Questionnaire predicted a subject's Enneagram Type and Centre with an accuracy of 70% which was of sufficient reliability for it to be used in this experiment with a relatively large number of subjects (107) to establish significant differences in noise sensitivity between Centres. The results also suggested that there were differences between Types although a rather larger group of subjects would have to be used to confirm the tentative findings. Alternatively confirmation of the tentative findings on the difference in noise sensitivity for different Types may be obtained by employing a larger group of subjects (than 33) who knew their Enneagram Type.

There is quite good agreement between the results of this experiment and the predictions of the earlier work on personality and noise sensitivity discussed earlier (Bryan 1973, Moerira and Bryan 1972 and Barbenza et al 1970). This earlier work suggested that "excitable" personalities (those having a high level of response to their environment) would also be noise sensitive which is a description of the Gut Centred of the Enneagram. Whilst at the other end of the spectrum, the "unexcitables" are a description of those operating from the Head Centre. Generally subjects operating from the Heart Centre fit in nicely between these two extreme responses. To a first degree of approximation, at least, it might be expected too that each group, "excitables" "unexcitables" and the remainder of the population as suggested by Bryan (1973) would be equal in numbers, i.e. a third of the population, as are the Gut, Head and (1973) would be equal in numbers, i.e. a third of the population, as are the Gut, Head and Heart Centres of the Enneagram.

The author has carried out several searches of the literature published since 1973 and has found very little work concerned specifically with personality and sensitivity to annoyance by noise (Langdon, gives a good review of the situation in 1985) and found none on Enneagram Typing and noise sensitivity. This is very disappointing considering what a large part appears to be played by personality differences in determining an individual's response to noise. As Moreira and Bryan pointed out (1972), "Whilst these criteria (annoyance by noise) are generally successful in predicting community response, with high correlation between noise measures and average annoyance, they all show poor predictive accuracy in determining individual noise susceptibility with correlation's below 0.5." Langdon (ibid.) quotes correlations with community response of around 0.8-0.9 but with individuals this falls to a level as low as 0.2-0.3, Some thirty years on our community noise criteria still do not take into account the large personality differences in sensitivity to noise and it is still true in 2002 as it was in 1973 that "Noise Laws don't protect the sensitive" (Bryan, 1973).

Females considered themselves to be more sensitive to noise than males (Q4) and were annoyed more frequently (Q6)(Q8) (See Table 2). Although they did not rank it any higher in things that bothered them than did males (Q2) neither was the mean degree of annoyance any greater (Q3). This is in contrast to the findings of Moreira and Bryan (1972), in their laboratory study on 34 subjects. However Bronzaft et al (2002), in their community study on 647 subjects, also found differences in sensitivity between the sexes where generally females were the most bothered by noise.

There is agreement between Moreira and Bryan (ibid.) and this paper that age did not correlate with degree of annoyance with noise. Although weak positive correlations were found in this study with place of residence and degree of annoyance (Q3)(Qa)(Qb). Not surprisingly, Bronzaft et al (ibid) also found that urban dwellers were more bothered by noise than those living in suburban or rural areas.

1. As might be predicted, from earlier work on personality and sensitivity to annoyance by noise (Moreira and Bryan (1972) and Barbenza et al (1970), the Enneagram personality Centres of Gut, Head and Heart describe the three groups in the population who are "noise sensitive", "noise insensitive" and "neutral" as proposed by Langdon (1985) and Bryan (1973) in their response to environmental noise.

2 The use of the Enneagram Centre and Typing of Personality also meets the requirement of Langdon (ibid.) of "more broadly based and less clinically orientated criteria" such as the Eynsenck (EPI) that have been unsuccessfully used in the past to explain the large differences in response to noise that exist in the population.

3. It is tentatively proposed that a hierarchy of noise sensitivity would place the Enneagram Types One and Four as the most susceptible to annoyance by noise while the Type Five is the least sensitive.

4. Further work with a larger group than the present one (107 subjects) would be needed to confirm the finding of Conclusion 3.

5. In agreement with the work of Bronzaft et al (2000) the present research found that females rated themselves more sensitive to noise than males and were more frequently annoyed by it. Also, perhaps not surprisingly, those people living in urban areas tended to be more disturbed by noise than those living in rural or suburban areas.

6. At the time of writing too few results have been obtained from subjects who have been annoyed by low frequency/infrasonic noise to make any comparisons with the personality types of those who are bothered by mid frequency noises.

References

Barbenza, C.M.de, Bryan, M.E. and Tempest, W. (1970). Individual Loudness Functions, J. Sound Vib, 11,399-410.
Beesing, M. Nogosek R.J., O'Leary, P.H. (1984). "The Enneagram, A journey of self discovery" Dimension Books, Inc, Denville, New Jersey.
Brady, L. (1994). "Beginning your Enneagram journey" Tabor Publishing, Texas.
Bronzaft, A. L. Deigman, E . Bai-Chava, Y. and Nadler, N. B. (2000).
Intrusive Community Noise Yield more complaints Hearing Rehabilitation Quarterly, 25,.1,
Bryan, M. E. (1973). Noise laws don't protect the sensitive, New Scientist, 27 September.
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B. G. (1969). " Eynseck Personality Inventory -Form B"London University Press, London.
Hathaway, S.R. and McKinley, J.C. (1951)." The Minnesota Muliti-Phasic Personality Inventory" The Psychological Corporation, New York.
Klopher, B. and Davidson, H.H. (1962). " The Rorschach Test: An Introductory Manual": Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc, New York.
Langdon, F. J. (1985) " Noise Annoyance" in The Noise Handbook Ed Tempest, W. Academic Press, London.
McNulty, E. (1995). Personal Communication.
Mahon, D. (1998) "Full face to God-An introduction to the Anagram" Carton Longman and Todd, London.
Moreira, N.M. and Bryan, M.E. (1972). Noise Annoyance Susceptibility, J. Sound Vib, 21, 449-461.
Palmer, H. (1988)."The Enneagram-Understanding Yourself and others in your life" Harper. San Francisco.
Reason, J.T. (1972). Some correlates of the loudness function, J. Sound Vib,,.20, 305-309.
Riso, D.R. (1987). "The Enneagram- Discovering your personality type." Thorsons, London.

If you would like to help to see this work continue and to consolidated your cooperation would be gratefully appreciated.

Yes I would like to help

back to Homepage