Relinquishment of control and the Type A behavior pattern.

Past research suggests that Type A (coronary prone) Ss have a higher need for control than Type B (noncoronary prone) Ss, and empirical evidence documents their greater reactivity to control loss. The present study investigated the case of control decisions and examined the hypothesis that Type A's would be less willing than Type B's to relinquish control to another person. On an initial 20-trial RT task, 160 male undergraduates (typed on the basis of the Jenkins Activity Survey, Form T) received feedback about their own performance and about that of a partner. The feedback indicated equal or superior performance by the partner. On a subsequent replication of the task in which only 1 S could work on any 1 trial, Type A's relinquished fewer trials to their partners than did Type B's, particularly when the partner had exhibited a superior initial performance. Attribution data indicated that Type A's were less convinced of their partners' ability, thus justifying lower relinquishment. Implications for job stress and management decision making are discussed. (60 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Type A behavior pattern and the judgment of noncontingency: Mediating roles of mood and perspective.

Tested past research findings that Type A's (coronary-prone) and Type B's (non-coronary-prone) differ in their behavioral responses to lack of control. 73 undergraduates, classified as Type A or B on the Jenkins Activity Survey, were used to examine perceptual judgments of noncontingency. Types A's and B's assumed the role of either an actor or an observer on a standard contingency-judgment task. Consistent with previous research, both Type A's and B's exhibited an illusion of control when in the role of actor. Only Type B's exhibited an illusion of control when observing another person perform the task. Additional analyses indicated that the absence of an illusion of control by Type A observers reflected accuracy rather than a motivational distortion. Mood was also found to mediate control judgments, but only for actors. The plausibility of a memory-based interpretation for the mood effects is discussed. (44 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Modifying the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Compared 3 treatments for modifying the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern (TABP). Comprehensive behavior therapy (CBT), emphasizing self-control procedures, and group support (GS), encouraging change in TABP targets but without behavioral techniques, were contrasted to brief information (BI), a minimal treatment control simulating "usual care." At posttreatment, results with 38 26–50 yr old healthy male executives showed many TABP components (e.g., Jenkins Activity Survey) were significantly reduced by CBT and GS. Generally, these groups exceeded BI. Ratings of self-reported change in stress reactions showed a similar pattern of reduction, as did free fatty acids reactivity assessed as a response to an experimental stressor task. No changes were found on other characteristics thought to be associated with TABP (e.g., trait anxiety, life satisfaction), or on condition-related differences in heart rate and blood pressure. Unexpectedly, serum cholesterol increased significantly across all conditions, though CBT showed significant reduction in triglyceride. Results show that TABP components, especially specific reactions of anger and impatience are useful treatment targets and that change in them may not require more generalized personality modification. Comparable effects of CBT and GS are discussed in terms of sample characteristics and shared treatment elements. (45 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Type A behavior pattern and escalating commitment.

98 Ss were randomly assigned to high- and low-responsibility conditions in a commitment-escalation experiment. Global Type A behavior pattern and the underlying dimension of achievement strivings were positively related to the desire to continue the same course of action in the high prior-responsibility condition but not in the low prior-responsibility condition. These findings are discussed in terms of future research into the judgment processes of people with Type A personality and the possible role of escalating commitment in disorders experienced by people with Type A personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychobiological substrates of the Type A behavior pattern.

Argues that Type A (coronary prone) behavior may reflect excessive sympathetic responsiveness to environmental stressors rather than just person–situation interactions, and that an underlying biological or psychobiological factor might affect the expression of Type A behavior. Data consistent with a psychobiological view are provided by studies of (1) patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery and (2) the effects of beta-adrenergic blocking drugs in decreasing Type A behavior. A somatopsychic model of Type A behavior is formulated that considers the role of sympathetic nervous system responses and the processing of information about these responses in contributing to emotional behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Relinquishment of control and the Type A behavior pattern: The role of performance evaluation.

Investigated the role of information processing in the control relinquishment decisions of individuals with Type A (coronary prone) and Type B (noncoronary prone) personalities. Pairs of undergraduates (N?=?147) who had previously completed the Jenkins Activity Survey worked independently on a task and received feedback indicating that their partner had performed at a comparable or superior level. On a 2nd task, Ss combined their efforts and made decisions concerning who would work on different parts of that task. One-third of the Ss made this decision before completing an evaluation of the initial performances. Another third completed the evaluation without knowing that they would subsequently make a control decision. The final third of the Ss completed their evaluations knowing that a control decision would follow. Results indicate that when the evaluations were completed last, or when the evaluations were completed first but without knowledge of the impending decision, Type A's relinquished less control to a superior partner than did Type B's. When evaluations were completed with knowledge of an impending control decision, Type A's and B's did not differ in their decisions. Results suggest that under certain conditions, Type A's use an automatic or mindless decision style with potentially maladaptive consequences. (33 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Challenge seeking and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

60 Type A (coronary prone) and 60 Type B (noncoronary prone) male undergraduates (Jenkins Activity Survey for Health Prediction—Form T) engaging in tasks that required varying degrees of activity before an assessment of challenge-seeking tendencies. Type A's sought greater degrees of challenge than did their Type B counterparts. Also, the more active Type-A S had been immediately before the challenge-seeking opportunity, the greater the degree of challenge sought. Precedent activity level did not significantly influence challenge seeking in the Type B population. The Type A's also had significantly faster heart rates during performance of a challenging task. Pattern A behavior may be translated into heart disease through the cumulative deleterious effects of chronic and excessive challenge-induced cardiovascular excitation. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attributional style and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Examined the attributional styles of Types A (coronary-prone) and B (non-coronary-prone) individuals in 2 studies in which 62 undergraduates and 199 18–65 yr old county residents, classified on the Jenkins Activity Survey, completed an attributional style questionnaire. Past research suggests that Type A's exhibit greater performance deficits than Type B's following exposure to extended, salient uncontrollable stimuli. The reformulated learned-helplessness model suggests that individuals most prone to such performance deficits should exhibit an attributional style characterized by internal, stable, and global attributions for negative outcomes, but external, unstable, and specific attributions for positive outcomes. However, a self-esteem protection explanation of learned-helplessness findings predicts an opposite, self-serving attributional style. Results from both studies indicate that Type A's were more self-serving than Type B's in their attributions for positive and negative outcomes. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Person perception and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Investigated the influence of the Type A behavior pattern on attribution processes using 48 male undergraduates. It was predicted that Type A Ss would be more motivated to succeed in the Prisoner's Dilemma game than would Type B's. Increased motivation to succeed was predicted to lead Type A's to exaggerate the amount of dispositional information they would believe they had inferred from observing the behavior of a future opponent, since such a belief would lead to increased confidence about predicting the target's behavior and thus increase Ss' perceived control over the outcome. Results support the predictions when the hard-driving competitiveness dimension of the Type A pattern was used as the individual difference variable. Moreover, evaluations of future opponents in the Prisoner's Dilemma game also differed as a function of the hard-driving competitive dimension. Results are discussed in terms of a person by situation interactive model of motivational influences on attribution processes and in terms of potential interpersonal effects of the cognitive behavior of Type A individuals. (41 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern.

Although the Type A behavior pattern is firmly established as a risk factor for coronary heart disease, it is not well understood from a psychological perspective. The present article (a) summarizes the behavior that empirical data indicate characterizes persons who score high and low on measures of Type A, (b) evaluates existing efforts to specify psychological dimensions underlying Type A in light of these verified behavioral characteristics, and (c) discusses some potential difficulties inherent in doing Type A research. Gaps in knowledge are made apparent, thereby suggesting some directions for future psychological research. (5 p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and social facilitation.

Investigated the task performance of 120 Type A coronary-prone undergraduates relative to 120 Type B's (as determined by the Jenkins Activity Survey, Form T) in 3 types of social situations: alone, with a similarly performing coactor, or with a better performing coactor. Results indicate that Type A's performance on a simple task was facilitated by the presence of either a similar or superior coactor, whereas the presence of coactors impaired performance on a complex task. Type B's showed weak and nonsignificant facilitation effects that occurred only in the presence of similar coactors. Results are discussed in terms of (a) the Type A's concern about evaluation, achievement, and social comparison and (b) G. S. Sanders and R. S. Baron's (see record 1976-06212-001) distraction–conflict theory of social facilitation. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Allocation of attention and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Three studies with 88 undergraduates assessed the attentional style of Ss with the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern as classified by the Jenkins Activity Survey. Exp I, which used a dual-task paradigm, revealed that Type As focused their attention on central tasks; thus, they attended less to peripheral tasks than did Type Bs. Exps II and III, which used a single task performed in the presence of a distracting stimulus, indicated that Type As actively inhibited or suppressed their attention to task-irrelevant peripheral events that might distract them from task performance. Findings validate observations that Type As appear hyperalert (focused in their attention) but neglect task-irrelevant cues. Previous research has demonstrated that Type As fail to report fatigue as well as other physical symptoms of illness during task performance. To the extent that symptoms are analogous to peripheral events that distract from task performance, the data suggest that Type As suppress their attention to symptoms. Implications of the attentional style of Type As for the pathogenesis of coronary artery and heart disease are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cognitive characteristics of the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Reasoned that across a series of acquisition stimuli, Type A's, compared to Type B's, would be more responsive to the development of central tendencies in the frequency of appearance of the attributes that comprise the stimuli. This difference in attention should lead to a difference in encoding. On a subsequent recognition-memory task, then, Type A's should report with greater certainty than Type B's that they had seen stimuli composed of frequently observed attributes and should report with greater certainty that they had not seen stimuli composed of rarely observed attributes. In a test of this reasoning, 160 undergraduates classified as A's and B's by the Jenkins Activity Survey completed concept-formation and recognition-memory tasks under 1 of 4 levels of situational challenge. The predicted patterns occurred among Ss in whom moderate and high levels of challenge had been induced. Findings thus support the arguments that Type A's and B's process information differently and that this processing difference must be elicited by situational challenge. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

EMG biofeedback training of Type A and Type B behavior pattern subjects.

Assessed the relative efficacy of EMG biofeedback training to reduce tension levels in Ss characterized either by the presence of the coronary-prone behavior pattern (Type A) or by its absence (Type B). 55 college students, classified as Type A or B on the basis of Jenkins Activity Survey (Form T) scores, were randomly assigned to either a biofeedback or a control group. Ss met for 6 training sessions, then returned for a 7th session to perform without biofeedback a series of easy (4-digit recall) and difficult (7-digit recall) tasks. Biofeedback Ss attained a greater degree of relaxation during training than did control Ss, regardless of A/B status. Also, biofeedback Ss maintained greater relaxation during task performance than did control Ss. Across groups, Type A's performed significantly better than Type B's on difficult tasks, and although Type A biofeedback Ss had EMG levels as high as Type B controls for the actual duration of performance tasks, they maintained significantly lower EMG levels than either group prior to, between, and after performance tasks. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Time consciousness, achievement striving, and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Investigated some behavioral consequences of a coronary-prone behavior pattern called Type A, which is characterized by excessive achievement striving and a sense of time urgency. Ss were 62 undergraduates who were classified by the Jenkins Activity Survey for Health Prediction. The impatient tendencies of Type A Ss led them to judge the lapse of 1 min sooner than non-coronary-prone Type B Ss. Results also indicate that Type As worked on a task at near maximum capacity, irrespective of the presence or absence of a time deadline. Type Bs, by contrast, exerted more effort only when the task had an explicit deadline. Both time-estimation and performance findings are discussed in terms of Pattern A as a coping strategy for maintaining control over the physical and social environment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Type A behavior pattern and emotion expression in younger and older adults.

80 younger (M?=?28 yrs) and 80 older (>50 yrs, M?=?69 yrs) Type A and Type B Ss were evaluated for Type A behavior pattern using the Structured Interview (SI) and given personality tests for anxiety, depression, anger, aggression, hostility, and anger-in–anger-out. Ss also underwent an emotion induction procedure. Videotapes of the emotion induction procedure (N?=?160) and the SI (N?=?80) were coded for facial expression of emotion. Type As did not differ from Bs on anxiety or depression but did on anger and aggression. Type As showed anger inhibition and anger bound to shame, as predicted by emotion socialization theory. The greatest number of differential effects were observed between age groups. Older individuals, in general, were more emotionally expressive than younger Ss across a range of emotions. Women appeared more conflicted about anger expression than men, and Type A women more so than Type A men. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stimulus specificity of physiological response to stress and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Conducted 2 experiments with male undergraduates to determine the influence of stimulus specificity on differences in physiological response to stress of coronary-prone (Type A) and noncoronary-prone (Type B [Jenkins Activity Survey]) individuals. In Exp I, a RT task was presented to 51 Ss with and without stress relevant to the Type A behavior pattern. The physiological responses of Type A Ss were greater in the relevant stress compared to the neutral task condition, but responses of Type B Ss were similar in the 2 conditions. In Exp II, 25 Type A and Type B Ss performed a stressful task that was not theoretically relevant to the Type A behavior pattern. Physiological response elevations were found for both groups, but as predicted, there were no differences between Type A and Type B Ss. Results support the discriminant validity of the Type A construct and provide additional evidence for the role of physiological response differences as mediators of the behavior-pattern–disease relationship. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)