Postperformance attributions and task persistence among Type A and B individuals: A clarification.

Tested the hypothesis that Type A (coronary-prone) Ss would be more self-serving than Type B (noncoronary-prone) Ss in their attributions for success and failure. It was also hypothesized that task persistence would differ among Type A's and B's and would be dependent on task difficulty and perceived task diagnosticity. 78 undergraduates classified on the basis of scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey as Type A's and B's attempted multiple sets of anagrams that were either easy or difficult. Persistence was measured by the number of anagram sets attempted, and, after task performance, attributions for success and failure were assessed. Results support both hypotheses. Type A's took more credit for success than for failure, whereas Type B's did not provide reliably different attributions for success and failure. Furthermore, Type A's persisted longer at the task when it was difficult and when it was viewed as relatively low in information value. Type B's 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 A's and B's to performance settings. (47 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)     

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

Examined joint effects of the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern and aerobic fitness with regard to heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) changes elicited by laboratory challenges. 61 male college students were classified as Type A or Type B (noncoronary prone) using R. H. Rosenman's (1978) structured interview (SI), and as physically fit or sedentary using self-reports of activity level and estimated VO?max values obtained on a step test. Ss were challenged with the SI, presentation of a snake, mental arithmetic, a cold pressor task, and 2 competitive card games. Significant A-B differences were found only on the SI and the card games: During the SI, (a) Type A's displayed significantly greater BP increases than B's; (b) sedentary Ss showed greater BP increases than fit Ss; and (c) sedentary A's revealed greater BP increases than either fit A's, fit B's, or sedentary B's. In contrast, during the competitive games, physically fit A's showed reliably greater BP increases than either sedentary A's, sedentary B's, or fit B's. Since the physically fit Ss were almost exclusively varsity athletes and the sedentary Ss 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. (47 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Interpersonal aggression and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern: A theoretical distinction and practical implications.

In Study 1, 85 male undergraduates were classified as Type A (coronary prone) or Type B (noncoronary prone) on the basis of scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey. Ss participated in a version of A. H. Buss's (1961) teacher–learner procedure that allowed the isolation of hostile from instrumental acts. Results indicate that a prior task frustration produced greater aggression by Type A's than Type B's, but only under conditions where the aggressive act could not affect a confederate's immediate performance (i.e., hostile aggression). Study 2 examined the representation of Type A's and Type B's among 20 women in treatment for child abuse, 20 women who were victims of spouse abuse, and 20 control women. Findings show that Type A's were more likely than Type B's to exhibit the extreme hostility found in child abuse. Both studies suggest that a lack of control may underlie the greater aggression displayed by Type A's and Type B's. (39 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-schematic representation of the Type A and B behavior patterns.

Two studies with 68 undergraduates who were identified as Type A (coronary prone) or Type B (noncoronary prone), based on their scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey—Form T, investigated the existence of Type A and Type B self-schemata, using 2 tasks designed to measure the influence of these hypothetical structures on speed of processing and memory interference. During an initial task, Type A's and B's 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. Reactions times (RTs) for the decisions were measured. Results indicate that both Type A's and B's made faster decisions for schema-compatible responses than for schema-incompatible responses. On a 2nd task, Type A's and B's were tested for recognition memory after they attempted to memorize half of the aforementioned trait list. Memory errors were examined and showed that Type A's and B's made more errors that were compatible with their respective self-schemata. Overall findings indicate that a Type A and Type B distinction forms a reliable organizing framework for the self-definitions of Type A's and B's. The existence of stable cognitive structures that parallel the behavioral differences between Type A's and B's has implications for both theory and application, such as the importance of examining how Type A and Type B self-schemata influence judgments of others in the achievement and performance domains. (57 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

Performance of Type A (coronary-prone) men during and after exposure to uncontrollable noise and task failure.

42 medical students, ages 20–35 yrs, were classified in either Type A or Type B groups to test D. C. Glass's (1977) assertions (a) that Type A Ss would initially react to uncontrollable noise with increased coping efforts, as indexed by improved task performance on pretreatment tasks, and (b) that following exposure they would react with decreased coping, as measured by poor performance on a final task. Type B's were predicted to perform consistently throughout. Instead, Type B's showed initial coping attempts during exposure to uncontrollability and showed decreased coping following exposure, whereas A's performed consistently throughout. It is concluded that Type A and B persons do react differently to a threat to their control of a situation, but that this experimental paradigm may lack the precision necessary to elucidate the psychological factors motivating the behavior of the coronary-prone individual. (20 ref) (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)     

Reactance and the coronary-prone behavior pattern: The role of self-attribution in responses to reduced behavioral freedom.

40 Type A and 40 Type B college students (Jenkins Activity Survey) were placed in a choice elimination reactance paradigm. In addition to the standard control and choice elimination conditions, Ss were induced to attribute having a choice among evaluated items either to themselves or to the situation prior to experiencing the elimination of choice. Reactance was measured by Ss' reevaluations of the eliminated choice alternative. Results indicate that when a behavioral freedom was blocked, without manipulating attributions, only Type A's experienced reactance. When Ss were induced to attribute having a choice to themselves, the magnitude of the reactance responses increased for both Types A and B. In contrast, when Types A and B were induced to attribute having choice to the situation, neither group reacted to the loss of choice. Results are integrated with previous findings on the coronary-prone behavior pattern. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of time limits on the interview behavior of Type A and B persons within a brief counseling analog.

48 undergraduates identified as Type A's or B's on the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey completed an experimental task that required a discussion of positive and negative aspects of one's social life with a counselor in time-limited or time-unlimited conditions. Measures were taken of verbal productivity and anxiety demonstrated during the interview. Type A's talked more and faster than Type B's under both conditions. The presence of time limits increased productivity in terms of speech rate for both groups, but increased the anxiety level of Type A's only. Implications for time-limited counseling and the treatment of Type A behavior are discussed. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Preference for control and the coronary-prone behavior pattern: "I'd rather do it myself."

Explored differential preference for control among 23 Type A (coronary-prone) and 23 Type B (non-coronary-prone) undergraduates who were chosen for participation because of highest or lowest scores on a modified version of the Jenkins Activity Survey. 23 male and 23 female Ss were threatened with an aversive event (loud noise) and were allowed to choose whether to turn off the noise themselves or to yield control to another (more competent) individual. Results show that Type B Ss (regardless of sex) tended to relinquish control to their more competent confederates and thus reduced the aversive stimulus, whereas the choice behavior of Type A's was less clear. Although female Ss tended to yield control, male Ss were more inclined to retain it. Because the willingness to yield control in general appears to be stronger in women than in men, the behavior observed in Type A's may be partly moderated by the S's sex. Although there were suggestive trends in the data, the central psychological features of the Type A pattern remain ambiguous and await studies in which researchers explore these effects, using a variety of situations and larger sample sizes. (41 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)     

Role ambiguity, Type A behavior, and job satisfaction: Moderating effects on cardiovascular and biochemical responses associated with coronary risk.

Studied 217 male managers (mean age 44 yrs), classified as Type A (coronary-prone) or Type B (non-coronary-prone), to examine the effects of job satisfaction as a moderator between a common job stressor (role ambiguity) and coronary risk indicators. For Type A's, the results support the hypotheses that changes in ambiguity are associated with changes in blood pressure and that intrinsic job satisfaction has both a direct and moderating effect on these changes. Few similar effects were found for extrinsic job satisfaction. For Type B's, the effects on systolic blood pressure were opposite to those for type A's. It is suggested that either Type A's and Type B's differ in autonomic and cardiovascular response or that ambiguity as a stressor may have differential effects for Type A's and Type B's, indicating that their "fit" with ambiguous environments may be opposite. (53 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Type A and Type B attentional responses to aesthetic stimuli: Effects on mood and performance.

Recent investigations of the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern have found that Type A's focus their attention on a central task and actively inhibit attention to peripheral distracting stimuli. This attentional difference has resulted in greater performance for Type A's than for Type B's (noncoronary prone behavior). However, research on aesthetic stimuli suggests that the focused attention of Type A's may not always be adaptive for solving frustrating cognitive tasks, particularly when paying attention to a peripheral stimulus could enhance performance by reducing negative emotions. Simple, predictable, aesthetic stimuli can have a soothing effect, which reduces negative emotions and enhances performance. The present study, conducted with 62 undergraduates (mean age 24 yrs) who had completed the Jenkins Activity Survey for Health Prediction, found that Type B's had improved affect and performance from attending to a soothing peripheral stimulus (simplex melodies) while working on a frustrating cognitive task (anagrams). Neither the performance nor the affect of Type A's was influenced by the simplex music, because they apparently suppressed paying attention to these melodies. (32 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Experimenter approval, social desirability, and statements of self-reference.

Using 40 undergraduate Ss high or low on a social desirability scale, a verbal conditioning attempt was made to alter the relative frequency of self-referent statements that were either positive or negative. Before reinforcement, high and low social desirability Ss responded very similarly, and used more positive than negative self-references. High social desirability Ss responded to reinforcement by increasing equally the frequency of both positive and negative self-referent statements. Low social desirability Ss did not condition, but continued to make more positive than negative self-references. Although high and low social desirability Ss both have the need to impress others favorably, the high social desirability person is apparently more dependent on the overt, evaluative behavior of others, and for this reason he can be manipulated more easily than low social desirability Ss. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Influence of personal and universal failure on the subsequent performance of persons with Type A and Type B behavior patterns.

Compared the task performance of Type A (coronary prone) and Type B (noncoronary prone) persons following failure on a task in which no one succeeded (universal failure) vs failure on a task in which others had succeeded (personal failure). Postfailure performance was measured in terms of speed of completion of anagrams. 26 Type A and 28 Type B undergraduates were selected based on their scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey. Initial analyses indicated that the failure manipulation was effective in influencing the Ss' perceived cause of their failures and that Ss were more anxious and depressed following personal than universal failure. Type A's performed better following personal than universal failure, whereas type of failure had no effect on the performance of Type B's. Results suggest that, contrary to what is usually thought, Type A's do not struggle for success indiscriminately and that there are situational determinants of the level of effort that Type A's will expend. (15 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)     

Control over stress, Type A behavior pattern, and response to stress.

Examined (a) differences in physiological response of Type A and Type B individuals to conditions that varied in both controllability and consistency of controllability over an aversive stimulus and (b) whether Type A relative to Type B individuals use more denial and/or projection in cognitively coping with arousing situations as well as whether they differ in being preoccupied in such situations. 96 male undergraduates were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: no control over shock, consistent control over shock, intermittent control over shock, and low stress. Type A and B behaviors were assessed with the Activity scale of the Thurstone Temperament Schedule. Results indicated that relative to Type B Ss, Type A's manifested (a) greater pulse rates and systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the consistent control condition, (b) greater systolic blood pressure in the no-control condition, and (c) greater diastolic blood pressure in the intermittent control condition. Type A's also used more denial and projection across the 3 high-stress conditions but did not differ in how preoccupied they were as compared to Type B's. (39 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Responses of A and B subjects to normal, neurotic, schizophrenic, and ambiguous communications.

Investigated the initial reactions of 20 A and 20 B undergraduates to "encounter situations" in which they were asked for help by 4 hypothetical patients communicating in normal, neurotic, schizophrenic, or ambiguous styles. For each patient communication, Ss responded to the following questions: (a) "What might he mean?" (b) "What might he be feeling?" (c) "How would you feel in this situation?" (d) "What do you think you would do?" Results indicate that (a) A's more frequently interpreted patient communications symbolically than did B's; and (b) A's exhibited greater congruence than B's, as indicated by their greater use of feeling words in describing their reactions to the hypothetical patients. Results were related to previous A-B findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)