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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Stress effects on affiliation preferences among subjects possessing the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Conducted 3 studies to test the hypothesis that when Ss who display the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern are placed under stress, they prefer to wait for the stressful event with others, but desire to work under stress alone. In Exp I, 50% of the 25 Type A and 25 Type B (non-coronary-prone) undergraduates were told that they would receive painful electric shock while working on a mental task, while the other 50% were told that they would receive subliminal stimulation. Both groups were then given the choice of waiting for the event with others or alone and the choice of working on the task alone, in the company of others, or in a leader-directed group. Results show that Type As relative to Type Bs tended to wait in the company of others regardless of threat level, but displayed a preference to work alone under high threat. This decision to work alone was not influenced by waiting preference. Results of Exp II show that 40 coronary patients reported a greater preference for working alone when under pressure than 40 matched controls, as did Type A college students (77% vs 14% for Type Bs) when asked their preference within the context of the structured interview used to assess the Type A pattern. The significance of the findings for increasing the understanding of affiliative preferences and coronary-prone behavior are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reported physical symptoms elicited by unpredictable events and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern.

Hypothesized that unpredictable aversive events are causally linked to physical symptom reporting and that the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern affects symptom reporting, such that Type A individuals fail to report symptoms when they expect to continue working on a task as compared to when they believe they have completed it. In the present study, 120 Type A and Type B female undergraduates (classified by scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey for Health Prediction) reported symptoms either at the end or in the middle of listening to unpredictable, predictable, or ambient noise in the laboratory. Unpredictable noise produced more symptom reporting than predictable noise, which in turn produced more symptom reporting than the ambient noise; Type A Ss reported fewer symptoms in the middle of the task than at the end, whereas Type Bs did not. Thus, both hypotheses were confirmed. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Component analysis of the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern in male and female college students.

Two studies investigated the psychological dimensions encompassed by the Rosenman Structured Interview (SI) method of assessing Type A (coronary prone) behavior. 164 female undergraduates completed the SI and Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) for Health Prediction. Factor analysis of the verbal stylistic and answer content components of the SI yielded a 5-factor solution, with 1 factor—Clinical Rating—accounting for most nonerror variance in Type A ratings. The remaining factors were derived from answer content and correlated more substantially with JAS Type A ratings than with SI Type A ratings. In Study 2, 70 male and 74 female college students completed the SI and JAS and a battery of questionnaires that assess trait dimensions implied by the conceptual definition of Type A. For both males and females, SI ratings of Type A could almost be completely predicted by scores on the Clinical Rating factor. For both sexes, content dimensions of the SI related to other measures of Type A and to Type A-consistent traits, whereas the Clinical Rating factor was only modestly associated with such traits. Moreover, sex differences were observed in the trait constellations composing SI and JAS definitions of Type A. Results suggest that a discrepancy exists between conceptual and operational definitions of the Type A pattern. (42 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)     

Type A coronary-prone behavior in the work environment

The model presented in this paper accounts for the relationship between Type A behavior and the work environment and identifies: (1) susceptible Type A individuals; (2) potential occupational stressors in the work environment; (3) subsequent resulting control conflict and maladaptive coping behavior; (4) feedback error and time lag resulting in detrimental symptoms; and (5) methods of changing Type A behavior (Fig 1). From this literature review, it becomes clear that there is a need for further prospective research especially in the area aimed at isolating and determining the specific work environment variables which enhance Type A behavior. As yet, no prospective research project is known which has followed a sample of employees from their job application and interview situation through their careers, in order to investigate changes in, and influences on, Type A behavior patterns. Finally, there is an obvious need for the introduction of more Type A behavior modification programs for workers, and perhaps more emphasis should also be directed toward changing the Type A behavior pattern socialization process, which appears to be so prevalent in urban, middle-class home environments.     

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)     

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)     

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 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)     

Type A behavior pattern and the judgment of control.

Investigated the control judgments of Type A (coronary-prone) and Type B (noncoronary-prone) actors and observers after 5 tasks in which actual response–outcome contingency and success were varied systematically. 40 male and 40 female undergraduates, classified as Type A or B on the Jenkins Activity Survey, performed the control task or served as observers in same-sex pairs. Overall, actors provided higher control judgments than did observers, and both actual contingency and success influenced judged control. Type A and B actors did not differ in their self-perceptions of control, but observers judged the Type A actors to have exerted more control than the Type B actors, primarily on positive contingency tasks. Findings suggest that Type A's, because of their more dynamic style, may be credited by observers with more control or competence than is warranted. By contrast, the more relaxed style of the Type B may lead to lower than warranted evaluations of control or competence. Type A's were found to learn the contingencies better than Type B's, which has important implications for the actual exercise of control. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and reactions to uncontrollable stress: An analysis of performance strategies, affect, and attributions during failure.

Examined the experience of 20 Type A and 20 Type B male undergraduates (as identified through the Jenkins Activity Survey) during prolonged exposure to unsolvable discrimination problems in which the cue signaling failure was highly or moderately salient. The results reveal that the problem-solving strategies of high-salience Type As deteriorated across failure trials. They commented on their lack of ability and on the task's difficulty as accounting for their failure, expressing annoyance and anger. On the other hand, Type Bs did not use ineffectual strategies; they continued to perform appropriately during failure. However, they did comment on task difficulty as well as on chance and the experimenter as playing critical roles in their failure to do well. The results suggest that deficits in performance of Type As and Bs in previous investigations are the outcomes of different processes: As may be helpless, whereas Bs may be pseudohelpless. The findings support Pattern A as a specific coping style aimed at maintaining and asserting control over stressful aspects of the environment. Implications for the reformulated models of learned helplessness are discussed. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)