Type A personality, self-control, and vulnerability to stress

Type A behavior (hard-driving, competitive, time-urgent, hostile-irritable) has been linked to high stress levels and the risk of eventual cardiovascular problems (i.e., coronary heart disease, CHD). However, this pattern of behavior closely resembles the traditional masculine instrumental (goal-oriented) orientation, and, if kept within limits, may be viewed as adaptive in success-oriented, middle-class college students. Hypothetically then, Type A behavior may be displayed by a broad group of individuals, and only in those cases when it is allowed to reach extreme proportions is stress sufficient enough to confer risk. This article considers two lines of reasoning. Is greater self-control required for college women to be Type As, because it involves crossing into traditional male role behavior? Type A women displayed significantly better self-control then Type B women; the opposite result was disclosed for college men with Type As displaying poorer self-control than Type Bs. The question of whether risk-conferring Type A behavior would result from poorer self-control was answered in the affirmative. Self-control assumed moderator status; poorer self-control in both male and female Type As was associated with high levels of day-to-day stress relative to Type As with better self-control. Self-control did not influence stress level in Type Bs. This moderator effect suggests that only Type As who cannot contain their behavior within adaptive limits will be vulnerable to excessive stress and at risk for CHD.     

Self-esteem and reactance: Further evidence of attitudinal and motivational consequences

The present experiments were designed to explore further the relationship between self-esteem and reactance within the domains of achievement and persuasion. Previous research in the achievement context has shown that self-esteem and reactance are positively related. Experiment 1 sought to extend this relationship into the persuasion setting. As predicted, a positive self-esteem/reactance relationship was obtained. The second experiment was designed to identify a factor that might moderate the relationship between self-esteem and reactance: degree of freedom threat. Previous research in the persuasion context has shown that the aforementioned self-esteem/reactance relationship is attenuated or even reversed when freedom threat is low rather than high. Experiment 2 sought to extend this relationship into the achievement context. As predicted, the positive self-esteem/reactance relationship was considerably weakened in the low-threat environment of Experiment 2, especially in comparison to previous research in which freedom threat was considerably higher. Taken together, the present and previous studies show consistent relationships between self-esteem and reactance across achievement and persuasion domains, suggesting that the essence of reactance is similar in these two domains. Practical implications are also discussed.     

Postperformance attributions and task persistence among type A and B individuals: a clarification

We examined task persistence and postperformance attributions by Type As and Bs on tasks that varied in level of difficulty. On the basis of past research, we hypothesized that Type As would be more self-serving than Type Bs in their attributions for success and failure. We also hypothesized that task persistence would differ among Type As and Bs and would be dependent on task difficulty and perceived task diagnosticity. Type As and Bs attempted multiple sets of anagrams that were either easy or difficult. We measured persistence by the number of anagram sets attempted, and, after task performance, we assessed attributions for success and failure. Results supported both hypotheses. Type As took more credit for success than for failure, whereas Type Bs did not provide reliably different attributions for success and failure. Furthermore, Type As persisted longer at the task when it was difficult and when it was viewed as relatively low in information value. Type Bs persisted longer at the task when it was difficult but viewed as relatively high in information value. Results are discussed in the context of current debates regarding the responses of Type As and Bs to performance settings.     

Time Urgency and the Type A Coronary-Prone Behavior Pattern1

Two experiments were conducted to examine behavioral consequences of a sense of time urgency, which presumably characterizes individuals classified as manifesting a so-called “Type A” coronary-prone behavior pattern. Experiment I indicated that time-urgent Type A Ss were reliably less successful than noncoronary-prone “Type Bs” in performing a task requiring a low rate of response for reinforcement (DRL). Type As were not only unable to delay their responses; they also showed greater evidence of tension and hyperactivity than Type Bs during DRL performance. Experiment II extended these results to the interpersonal domain. Time-urgent Ss became more impatient and irritated than less urgent Ss when both types were systematically slowed down in their efforts to reach a solution on a joint decision-making task. The results were discussed in terms of a conceptualization of the A-B dimension as reflecting differential expectations of and needs for environmental control. Additional evidence was presented in support of this approach. Consideration was also given to possible physiologic mechanisms mediating the relationship between psychological variables such as the Type A pattern and actual occurrence of coronary heart disease.     

The type A behavior pattern, physical fitness, and psychophysiological reactivity

Joint effects of the Type A behavior pattern and aerobic fitness were examined with regard to heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) changes elicited by laboratory challenges. Sixty-one college students were classified as Type A or B using the Structured Interview (SI), and as physically fit or sedentary using self-reports of activity level and estimated VO2max values obtained on a step test. Subjects were challenged with the SI, presentation of a snake, mental arithmetic, a cold pressor task, and two competitive card games. Significant A-B differences were found only on the SI and the card games. During the SI: As displayed significantly greater BP increases than Bs; sedentary subjects showed greater BP increases than fit subjects; and sedentary As revealed greater BP increases than either fit As, fit Bs, or sedentary Bs. In contrast, during the competitive games, physically fit As showed reliably greater BP increases than either sedentary As, sedentary Bs, or fit Bs. Since the physically fit subjects were almost exclusively varsity athletes and the sedentary subjects were college students who reported following a sedentary lifestyle, the differences between sedentary and fit groups may have been due to differences in aerobic fitness or to the improved ability of competitive athletes or those engaged in fitness training to match arousal level to task requirements.     

The Type A behaviour pattern,induced mood,and the illusion of control

This study investigated the hypothesis that mood moderates the illusion of control among Type As and Bs. A facial positioning procedure was used to induce either positive, negative, or neutral moods in Type As and Bs during a control judgment task where no objective control was possible. Type Bs induced to experience a positive mood perceived greater control than did Type Bs experiencing a negative mood. There was no effect of induced mood on judged control for Type As.     

Goal utility, task satisfaction, and the self-appraisal hypothesis of type A behavior

Strube's (1987) self-appraisal model of Type A behavior suggests that externally mediated performance goals that are useful for assessing task-related competencies will possess greater utility and be more satisfying to Type A persons than to Type B persons. In contrast, because Type Bs may have an aversion to competency verifications, they should be more satisfied than Type As when goals are uninformative about task-related competencies. The 102 undergraduate Ss performed either a word puzzle or proofreading task under 1 of 4 goal conditions that varied in terms of the goal's instrumentality for assessing competencies and for obtaining a financial incentive. Results are generally consistent with this prediction, thereby providing verification for one of the more basic propositions derived from the self-appraisal model.     

The Time-Urgency Component of the Type A Behavior Pattern: Time Pressure and Performance1

We investigated the effects of time pressure on the performance of Type A and Type B individuals. We predicted that Type As would perform more poorly than Type Bs on an anagram task during a timed condition, but not during an untimed condition. Subjects were 40 female undergraduates and the Jenkins Activity Survey was used to measure Type A behavior. The results confirmed our hypothesis. Type As made significantly more errors than Type Bs when timed, but not when untimed. Implications of these findings and the time-urgency component of the Type A behavior pattern are discussed.     

Type A behavior, need for control, and reactions to group participation

The present study examines the behavior of Type A coronary-prone subjects in group problem-solving sessions. Subjects discuss possible solutions to two problems in same-sex groups containing both Type As and Bs. As are much more likely than Bs to be seen as leaders and are rarely nominated as the least helpful member. Although A and B leaders are both seen as moderately likeable, A leaders' problem solutions are rated as lower in quality. Manipulations of problem importance and incentive for good solutions have similar effects on As and Bs. The results are discussed as being generally consistent with the proposal that Type As are primarily motivated by a need for control. Some indirect support is obtained for the idea that As are more susceptible than Bs to learned helplessness.     

Type A behavior pattern and self-evaluation of abilities: empirical tests of the self-appraisal model

The self-appraisal model proposes that Type A behavior reflects active attempts to generate diagnostic information about abilities, particularly in situations that evoke high uncertainty. In Study 1, subjects were provided feedback indicating high or low uncertainty about underlying abilities in two domains. When subjects were more uncertain of their ability in one domain than in the other, Jenkins-Activity-Survey-defined Type As (but not Type Bs) subsequently constructed tests that were biased to assess the more uncertain domain. Study 2 examined postfailure performance. The model holds that Type As perform poorly because they suspend information gathering when faced with evidence that requisite abilities are absent. Results indicated that deficits emerged only if Type As believed that a second task assessed the same abilities as the initial task on which they failed. A final study examined social comparison among Type As and Bs. Results indicated that Type As engaged in social comparison to obtain diagnostic information, primarily when they were uncertain of their ability levels.     

Functional similarity and interpersonal attraction

A pair of related experiments examined the relationship of functional similarity (i.e., the degree of similarity between two interactants in assessing mutually known others on personal construct dimensions) to interpersonal attraction. In Experiment I, 10 previously unacquainted college students of both sexes participated in 10 hours of dyadic disclosure exercises over a 5-week period. As predicted, members of high functional similarity dyads evidenced greater attraction to one another than did members of low functional similarity dyads. Experiment II investigated the relationship of functional similarity to level of acquaintance (i.e., friends, nominals) and type of assessment (i.e., physical, interactional, psychological) in a 2 × 3 factorial design. As hypothesized, “friendship” pairs of male undergraduates displayed greater functional similarity than did “nominal” pairs from the same population, particularly at the deeper level of “psychological” assessment. Results are discussed in relation to classical conditioning (D. Byrne, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 4. New York. Academic Press, 1969), affect-reinforcement (G. L. Clore, In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction. New York/London: Academic Press, 1977) and information processing ( I. Ajzen, In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction, New York/London: Academic Press, 1977) models of interpersonal attraction, and are interpreted as supporting and extending (S. Duck's Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction, New York/London: Academic Press, 1977) filtering theory of friendship formation.     

Mindless resistance to persuasion: Low self‐control fosters the use of resistance‐promoting heuristics

In our consumer society, people are confronted on a daily basis with unsolicited persuasion attempts. The present research challenges the prevailing view that resisting persuasion is more likely to fail when consumers have low self‐control. Four experiments tested the hypothesis that impaired self‐regulation may actually facilitate resistance to persuasion when the influence context contains resistance‐promoting heuristics. Indeed, participants with low self‐control were less likely to comply with a persuasive request (Experiments 1 and 3), reported a less favourable attitude towards an advertised product (Experiment 2), and generated more negative responses towards a persuasive message (Experiment 4) than participants with high self‐control, when they could rely on resistance‐promoting heuristics: a violation of the norm of reciprocity (Experiments 1 and 3), an advertisement disclaimer (Experiment 2), or negative social proof (Experiment 4). Together, these studies demonstrate that contextual cues can bolster resistance when one does not carefully scrutinize an influence attempt.     

Type A Behavior and Diabetic Control: Implications of Psychological Reactance for Health Outcomes1

According to laboratory research, Type A coronary-prone individuals are sensitive to threats to their personal control and react to such threats with active and often stressful coping responses. The present investigation tested the prediction that these features of Type A behavior would interfere with blood glucose regulation in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients. Two independent hypotheses were investigated. Because elevated sympathetic arousal, a concomitant of stressful coping, is associated with elevated glucose levels, it was predicted that Type A diabetics experiencing high levels of life stress would display poorest blood glucose control (indexed by Hemoglobin A₁c). The second hypothesis was derived from the observation that Type As are more likely than Type Bs to respond to control threats with reactance in order to restore the perception of control. Given that illness or treatment can reduce personal control, it was predicted that Type A diabetics would be most reactant and, thus, most medically noncompliant. To test these hypotheses, 37 Type 1 diabetics were assessed for Type A behavior, life change, attributional style, desire for control (both within treatment and in general), and specific perceptions of and actions to their diabetes. Type As were more likely than Type Bs to show poor blood glucose control. However, for patients in general, and Type As in particular, blood glucose regulation was not related to life stress. Rather, those Type As who displayed poor glucose control made more extreme self-attributions about the cause of their diabetes, were angrier about it, and felt they should fight it. The implications of these findings for a reactance-Type A model of medical compliance are discussed.     

Interpersonal dominance and coronary prone behavior

Type A “coronary-prone behavior” is a risk factor for coronary artery and heart disease. Questionnaire research indicates that interpersonal dominance is one of the strongest behavioral correlates of the Type A behavior pattern, although little effort has been made to demonstrate a link between the behavioral manifestations of interpersonal dominance and Pattern A responding. This study was conducted to establish such a link. All possible combinations of extreme As (N = 42) and Bs (N = 42) were matched in dyads that negotiated extreme bipolar opposite positions on a “teacher dismissal” issue. Analysis of process and outcome behaviors suggested that type A individuals are unilaterally more dominant than their Type B counterparts. Possible physiological mechanisms mediating dominance and cardiovascular disease are discussed.     

Stress and Distress as a Function of Jenkins Activity Survey-Defined Type A Behavior and Control Over the Work Environment

Although laboratory studies have demonstrated that situational factors which are particularly threatening to Type A individuals induce both Type A behaviors and cardiovascular reactivity, field studies have failed to demonstrate consistent differences between Types A and B in response to stress. Rhodewalt, Hays, Chemers, and Wysocki (1984) argued that this inconsistency is caused by the failure to take into account the individual's perception of the situation. They demonstrated that Type A individuals who perceived high levels of job stress reported more psychological and physical health problems than Type As under low stress or Type Bs under high or low stress. This study attempted to replicate this earlier finding, as well as identify factors in the situation which lead Type A individuals to perceive their job as stressful. Three hundred thirty-six male school principals (categorized as Type A or Type B by the Jenkins Activity Survey [JAS]) completed questionnaires assessing their degree of control in their work environment, perceived job stress, and physical and psychological well-being. A path mediation analysis indicated that Type A individuals reported more job stress under lower levels of perceived control, and that higher job-stress levels subsequently lead to greater incidence of physical and psychological symptoms, especially for Type As.     

Self-schematic representation of the type A and B behavior patterns

Past research has established clear behavioral differences between Type A and B individuals. The purpose of our research was to examine how these behavioral differences are represented in the self-definitions of Type As and Bs. We investigated the existence of Type A and B self-schemata by using two tasks designed to measure the influence of these hypothetical structures on speed of processing and memory interference. During an initial task, Type As and Bs made self-relevant decisions (like me, not like me) in response to trait adjectives previously scaled as Type A, Type B, or neutral in content. Reaction times for the decisions were measured, and results indicated that both Type As and Bs made faster decisions for schema-compatible responses than for schema-incompatible responses. On a second task, Type As and Bs were tested for recognition memory after they attempted to memorize half of the aforementioned trait list. Memory errors were examined and indicated that Type As and Bs made more errors that were compatible with their respective self-schemata. Taken together, these results indicate that a Type A and B distinction forms a reliable organizing framework for the self-definitions of Type As and Bs. The existence of stable cognitive structures that parallel the behavioral differences between Type As and Bs has important implications for both theory and application.     

Effect on retaliation of causal attributions concerning attack

In two studies, men were defeated on either 17%, 50%, or 83% of reaction time trials, received aversive noise, and could ostensibly retaliate by delivering shock to their partner. The noise level delivered was described in Experiment 1 as typical of most other people (high consensus) or atypical of most other people (low consensus) and in Experiment 2 as from a partner who knew (high foreseeability) or did not know (low foreseeability) the kind and level of stimulation controlled by the switches delivering reinforcement to the recipient. Hypotheses were based on the notion that retaliation increases as more personal causality is attributed to a provoker and that more personal causality is inferred in highly foreseeable--or low consensus--50% defeat conditions. As expected, greater differences in aggression between high and low consensus and between high and low foreseeability were displayed in the 50% defeat condition than in the other defeat conditions. Anticipated differences in inferences were obtained.     

Perceptions of coercive sexual behavior by males and females

In this study male and female subjects were given six vignettes depicting heterosexual interactions between acquaintances. The vignettes described sexual advances representing different points along a coerciveness continuum. The gender of the aggressor and the victim were varied. The subjects were then asked to indicate their perception of the degree of coerciveness involved. In addition, they were asked to attribute both positive and negative feelings to the victim. The results indicated that male subjects perceived these sexual advances as slightly more coercive when the victim was a female, whereas females perceived the advances as slightly more coercive when the victim was a male. Also, there was a tendency to view the low-coercion activities as more coercive when the males were the victim, whereas the opposite was true for the vignettes rated high on coercion, especially the one describing physical coercion. The attributions of positive and negative feelings tended to parallel the coerciveness ratings. Typically, the more coercive activity was seen as, the less positive feelings and more negative feelings the subjects attributed to the victim. The results were discussed in terms of stereotypical beliefs regarding the sexuality of males and females and attribution theory.     

Temporal delay,type of forewarning,and resistance to influence

Previous researchers have manipulated forewarning by providing premessage information about the topic and position of the upcoming communication, or the communicator's persuasive intent. Subjects in the present experiment were force-warned either 10 min prior to the communication, or just before the message began of the speaker's topic and position, persuasive intent, or topic only. As hypothesized, forewarning of the communicator's persuasive intent inhibited persuasion regardless of the length of the delay period, but forewarning of the topic and position required a delay in order to confer resistance to subsequent persuasion, suggesting that although both manipulations have been called “forewarning they may lead to reduced persuasion through different mechanisms. Foreknowledge of the source's topic, but not his position also increased resistance to persuasion when followed by a delay period. The results were discussed in terms of both cognitive and motivational mechanisms that may underly the persuasion inhibiting effects of forewarning.