Work Performance and the Achievement—Strivings and Impatience—Irritability Dimensions of Type A Behaviour

On propose dans cette étude un modfèle selon lequel les efforts en vue de la réussite et les dimensions impatience-irritabilité du comportement de type A prédisent directement et/ou indirectement la performance au travail. Dans un échantillon de 92 hommes et de 69 femmes (âge moyen: 30 ans), les efforts en vue de la réussite sont tenus de prédire la performance professionnelle directement et par l'intermédiaire de leur action positive sur la concentration. On suppose que l'impatience-irritabilité va détériorer la santé; et tout problème de santé devrait influencer négativement la concentration. On a recueilli, pour apprécier la performance au travail, à la fois des auto-évaluations et celles du contremaître. Une analyse taxinomique a fortement corroboré le modèle retenu bien que la liaison indirecte entre les efforts en vue de la réussite et les évaluations de la performance par le contremaître ne soit pas statistiquement significative.
In this study, a model is proposed whereby the achievement-strivings and impatience–irritability dimensions of Type A behaviour predict work performance directly and/or indirectly. In a sample of 92 males and 69 females ( M age = 30 years), achievement strivings are held to predict work performance directly and through their positive effects on concentration. impatience–irritability is predicted to negatively influence health; and any health problems are predicted to negatively influence concentration. Both self- and supervisor ratings of work performance were obtained. Path analyses provided strong support for the proposed model, although the direct link between achievement strivings and supervisor ratings of performance was not statistically significant.     

Learned irrelevance and retrospective correlation learning

In 1973 Mackintosh reported an interference effect that he called learned irrelevance in which exposure to uncorrelated (CS/US) presentation of the unconditional stimulus (US) and the conditioned stimulus (CS) interfered with future Pavlovian conditioning. It has been argued that there is no specific interference effect in learned irrelevance; rather the interference is the sum of independent CS and US exposure effects (CS + US). We review previous research on this question and report two new experiments. We conclude that learned irrelevance is a consequence of a contingency learning and a specific learned irrelevance mechanism. Moreover even the “independent exposure controls”, used in previous experiments to support the CS and US exposure account, provide support for the correlation learning process.