Unique and common variance in Structured Interview and Jenkins Activity Survey measures of Type A behavior pattern.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify factors that account for similarities and discrepancies in classification of Type A and B behavior by the Structured Interview (SI) and by the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS). Two diverse samples were administered the SI and the JAS. SI questions were coded for content of response and psychomotor behavior during the interview. Frequency of specific Type A speech characteristics and clinical judgments were also rated. Analyses revealed that the SI estimate of Type A could be predicted by the subjects' promptness of response, voice emphasis, hurried speech, and judgements of competitiveness, hostility, and energy level. The latter three judgments were also measured somewhat by the JAS. Interviewer ratings of subjects' overt motor behavior and appearance did not relate to SI assessments. The JAS estimate of Type A could be predicted by subjects' reports of pressured drive, which was also measured by SI. This pattern of interrelationships was similar in the two samples in spite of sample differences in age, health status, geographical location, interview and JAS forms, and raters. Overall, the correlations between the SI and JAS assessment were low and suggested a considerable degree of independence between the two measures. In light of these results, they should not be used as interchangeable measures of Type A behavior.

Type A behavior, personality hardiness, and cardiovascular responses to stress.

“…It is generally recognized that the SI and the JAS measure substantially different aspects of the Type A behavior pattern. Behavioral classifications derived from the SI are based mainly on manifest hostility and the use of vigorous speech and motor mannerisms, whereas the JAS is largely a self-report measure of a pressured drive to succeed (Matthews, Krantz, Dembroski, & MacDougall, 1982). It remains for future research to determine how the specific Type A behaviors reflected in SI and JAS assessments may interact with hardiness in determining health outcomes.…”

Nonverbal behavior of the Type A individual

“…This finding appears to contradict the study of Gastorf (1980) which reported that subjects defined as Type A by the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) arrived earlier to an appointment than subjects defined as Type B; however, the results of Gastorf's study and the present study can be reconciled. Matthews et al (1982) compared SI and JAS determinations of Type A behavior pattern and concluded that time urgency is a component of the JAS determination of Type A but is not a component of the SI determination of Type A; thus, SI-determined Type A's would not be expected to arrive earlier than SI-determined Type B's.…”

What does potential for hostility measure? Gender differences in the expression of hostility

“…Further, we regularly test the legitimacy of our scales on one gender (most typically males) and then assume that these psychometric properties generalize to the other gender. For example, the standardized clinical rating of hostility (Potential for Hostility, PH; Dembroski, 1978;Dembroski andMacDougall, 1983, 1985) was developed to assess expressive behavior observed during the Structured Interview (SI: Rosenman, 1978), and this rating system has been studied extensively for convergent and predictive validity and interrater reliability (Dembroski and MacDougall, 1983;Matthews et al, 1982;Musante et al, 1989;Swan et al, 1990). Unfortunately, the majority of these studies relied upon male-only or mixed gender samples, and consequently the psychometric properties of PH for females have not been assessed (but see Engebretson and Matthews, 1992).…”