Psychological correlates of the Type A behaviour pattern in coronary angiography patients

Abstract

The convergent validity of two popular self-report Type A questionnaires (the Jenkins Activity Survey and Framingham Scale), and their association with personality traits related to Type A, affective states and traits, and history of nervous illness, were assessed in a sample of 92 coronary angiography patients. The correlation between the two Type A measures, although significant, was modest. Both Type A measures had strong associations with standard personality traits (neuroticism and trait tension). The Framingham Scale was strongly correlated with distressing psychological states (tension, anxiety and depression) while the JAS showed a lesser association with these measures. The implications of these findings in terms of the convergent validity of the two Type A measures, and the independence of the Type A concept from other personality and emotional variables, are discussed.

Genetics of type a behavior in two European countries: Evidence for sibling interaction

“…In their paper, Eysenck and Fulker (1983) discussed the possibility that Type A behavior may be subsumed under the more well established extraversion-neuroticism personality domain. Subsequent research has related neuroticism and, less frequently, extraversion to Type A scores (e.g., Langeluddecke and Tennant, 1986;Llorente, 1986). Nevertheless, May and Kline (1987) have recently argued that the Type A behavior pattern is only partially related to extraversion and neuroticism, and cannot be totally accounted for by these factors.…”

Type A behaviour pattern, extraversion, neuroticism and psychological distress

“…Traditionally, Type A has been thought of as being distinct from psychological distress and neuroticism (Jenkins, 1978 ;Rosenman & Chesney, 1980). However, since this behaviour pattern has been found to be positively associated with indices of psychological distress, it has been argued that it may measure psychopathology (Byrne & Rosenman, 1986;Chesney, Black, Chadwick & Rosenman, 1981 ;Eysenck & Fulker, 1983;Haynes et al, 1978;Irvine, Lyle & Allon, 1982;Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986;Smith, 1984). Furthermore, Eysenck & Fulker (1983) have also suggested that Type A may reflect extraversion.…”

“…While subcomponents of Type A have been observed to be associated with extraversion (Eysenck & Fulker, 1983; * Requests for reprints. May & Kline, 1987), the total score appears unrelated to extraversion (Furnham, 1984;Irvine etal., 1982;Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986;May & Kline, 1987;Ray & Bozek, 1980). Since different measures of Type A have not always been found to be highly interrelated themselves (Chesney et al, 1981 ;Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986;Mathews, Krantz, Dembroski & MacDougall, 1982), caution must be exercised when generalizing across measures.…”

“…May & Kline, 1987), the total score appears unrelated to extraversion (Furnham, 1984;Irvine etal., 1982;Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986;May & Kline, 1987;Ray & Bozek, 1980). Since different measures of Type A have not always been found to be highly interrelated themselves (Chesney et al, 1981 ;Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986;Mathews, Krantz, Dembroski & MacDougall, 1982), caution must be exercised when generalizing across measures. The Framingham Type A Scale used in the present study, or shorter versions of it, have been shown to be positively correlated with psychological distress and neuroticism (Chesney et al, 1981 ;Cramer, 1990;Haynes et al, 1978;Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986;Smith, Houston & Zurawski, 1983 ;Smith & O'Keeffe, 1985) but unrelated to extraversion (Langeluddecke & Tennant, 1986).…”

Type A Behavior Pattern and Coronary Heart Disease: Philip Morris’s “Crown Jewel”

“…102,103 One frequently used instrument, the Jenkins Activity Survey, has low reliability, and a factor analysis has found that what it measures as type A behavior is actually the traits of authoritarianism and dominance, along with slight extraversion. 105 The inconsistent findings in epidemiological studies of TABP have puzzled researchers for some time, in particular the phenomenon of initially promising results, followed by mostly negative findings. 102 Subsequent work has supported these concerns, finding low internal consistency, low test--retest reliability, and problems with the scoring scheme.…”