Hubbry Logo
Type A and Type B personality theoryType A and Type B personality theoryMain
Open search
Type A and Type B personality theory
Community hub
Type A and Type B personality theory
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Type A and Type B personality theory
Type A and Type B personality theory
Type A and Type B personality theory
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Type A and Type B personality concept describes two contrasting personality types. In this hypothesis, personalities that are more competitive, highly organized, ambitious, goal-oriented, impatient, and highly aware of time management are labeled Type A, while more relaxed, "receptive", less "neurotic" and "frantic" personalities are labeled Type B.

The two cardiologists, Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, who developed this theory came to believe that Type A personalities had a greater chance of developing coronary heart disease.[1] Following the results of further studies and considerable controversy about the role of the tobacco industry funding of early research in this area, some reject, either partially or completely, the link between Type A personality and coronary disease. Nevertheless, this research had a significant effect on the development of the health psychology field, in which psychologists look at how an individual's mental state affects physical health.[2]

History

[edit]

Type A personality behavior was first described as a potential risk factor for heart disease in the 1950s by cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman. They credit their insight to an upholsterer who called to their attention the peculiar fact that the chairs in their waiting rooms were worn out only on the arms and on the front edge of the seat. This suggested to Friedman and Rosenman that their patients were getting up from the chairs frequently and were otherwise waiting anxiously.[3] After an eight-and-a-half-year-long study of healthy men between the ages of 35 and 59, Friedman and Rosenman estimated that Type A behavior more than doubled the risk of coronary heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals.[4] The individuals enrolled in this study were followed well beyond the original time frame of the study. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire, that asked questions like "Do you feel guilty if you use spare time to relax?" and "Do you generally move, walk, and eat rapidly?"[5] Subsequent analysis indicated that although Type A personality is associated with the incidence of coronary heart disease, it does not seem to be a risk factor for mortality.[6] It was originally called 'Type A Personality' by Friedman and Roseman who defined it as "an action-emotion complex that can be observed in any person who is aggressively involved in a chronic incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or other persons."[7] It has now been conceptualized as the Type A behavior pattern.[8]

Some contemporary psychologists argue that the Type A and Type B personality concept is outdated and oversimplified. A 1997 study found that Type A behavior, described by traits such as competitiveness and time urgency, could be correlated with higher scores for neuroticism and extraversion in the Five-Factor Model of personality. This suggests a more nuanced understanding of personality traits is necessary. [9]

The types

[edit]

Type A

[edit]

The hypothesis describes Type A individuals as outgoing, ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status-conscious, impatient, anxious, proactive, and concerned with time management. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving workaholics. They push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence.[10] People with Type A personalities experience more job-related stress and less job satisfaction.[11] They tend to set high expectations for themselves, and may believe others have these same high expectations of them as well.[12] Interestingly, those with Type A personalities do not always outperform those with Type B personalities. Depending on the task and the individual's sense of time urgency and control, it can lead to poor results when there are complex decisions to be made.[13] However, research has shown that Type A individuals are in general associated with higher performance and productivity.[14] Moreover, Type A students tend to earn higher grades than Type B students,[15] and Type-A faculty members were shown to be more productive than their Type B behavior counterparts (Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984).[16]

In his 1996 book, Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment, Friedman suggests that dangerous Type A behavior is expressed through three major symptoms: (1) free-floating hostility, which can be triggered by even minor incidents; (2) time urgency and impatience, which causes irritation and exasperation usually described as being "short-fused"; and (3) a competitive drive, which causes stress and an achievement-driven mentality. The first of these symptoms is believed to be covert and therefore less observable, while the other two are more overt.[17]

Type A people were said to be hasty, impatient, impulsive, hyperalert, potentially hostile, and angry.[18] Research has also shown that Type A personalities may use certain defenses or ways of dealing with reality to avoid difficult realizations.[clarification needed][19] For example, one study found that those with Type A personality are more likely to show higher levels of denial than Type B in stressful situations.[19]

There are two main methods to assessing Type A behavior, the first being a structured interview (SI) developed by Friedman and Rosenman, and the second being the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS).[1] The SI assessment involves an interviewer's measuring a person's emotional, nonverbal, and verbal responses (expressive style). The JAS involves a self-questionnaire with three main categories: Speed and Impatience, Job Involvement, and Hard-Driving Competitiveness.[1]

Individuals with Type A personalities have often been linked to higher rates of coronary heart disease, higher morbidity rates, and other undesirable physical outcomes due to their higher levels of stress, impatience, and competitiveness.[20]

Type B

[edit]

Type B is a behavior pattern that is lacking in Type A behaviors. A-B personality is a continuum over which one either leans to be more Type A or Non Type A (Type B).[21]

The hypothesis is that Type B individuals are noted to live at lower stress levels. They typically work steadily and may enjoy achievement, although they have a greater tendency to disregard physical or mental stress when they do not achieve. When faced with competition, they may focus less on winning or losing than their Type A counterparts, and more on enjoying the game regardless of winning or losing.[8] Type B individuals are also more likely to have a poorer sense of time.[22]

Type B personality types are more tolerant than individuals in the Type A category.[5] This can be evident through their relationship style that members of upper management prefer. Type B individuals can "...see things from a global perspective, encourage teamwork, and exercise patience in decision making..."[23]

Interactions between Type A and Type B

[edit]

Type A individuals' proclivity for competition and aggression is illustrated in their interactions with other Type As and Type Bs. When playing a modified Prisoner's Dilemma game, Type A individuals elicited more competitiveness and angry feelings from both Type A and Type B opponents than did the Type B individuals. Type A individuals punished their Type A counterparts more than their Type B counterparts, and more than Type Bs punished other Type Bs. The rivalry between Type A individuals was shown by more aggressive behavior in their interactions, including initial antisocial responses, refusal to cooperate, verbal threats, and behavioral challenges.[24]

A common misconception is that having a Type A personality is better than having a Type B personality. This largely comes into play in the workforce because people with Type A personalities are often viewed as very hardworking, highly motivated, and competitive, while Type B personalities often don't feel a sense of urgency to get projects completed and are more relaxed and easy-going.[25] In reality, both personality types are required and bring their own set of strengths to the workplace.

Expanding the understanding of Type A and Type B behavior in the workplace

[edit]

Recent research has refined the traditional Type A and Type B personality framework, emphasizing that Type A behavior is multifaceted rather than a singular trait. According to Day and Jreige (2002), Type A behavior consists of two distinct components: Achievement Striving (AS) and Impatience/Irritability (II).[26] While Achievement Striving is associated with higher job performance, motivation, and career success, Impatience/Irritability correlates with negative stress responses, interpersonal conflict, and health risks such as coronary heart disease. This distinction suggests that not all Type A traits are detrimental, and organizations may benefit from fostering achievement-oriented behaviors while mitigating the negative consequences of impatience and irritability.

Workplace implications of Type A and Type B personality traits

[edit]

The study further highlights how Type A individuals experience workplace stress differently based on whether they exhibit high Achievement Striving or high Impatience/Irritability. Employees with high Achievement Striving tend to report greater job control, lower role ambiguity, and higher job satisfaction, making them more resilient to workplace challenges. In contrast, those with high Impatience/Irritability are more likely to perceive stressors as overwhelming, leading to lower job satisfaction, increased burnout, and strained professional relationships. Organizations that recognize these nuances in personality can develop targeted interventions, such as stress management programs and leadership training, to help employees leverage the positive aspects of Type A behavior while reducing its negative effects. Understanding the complexity of these personality types allows for a more nuanced approach to employee well-being and performance optimization.[26]

Criticism

[edit]

Friedman et al. (1986)[27] conducted a randomized controlled trial on 862 male and female post-myocardial infarction patients, ruling out (by probabilistic equivalence) diet and other confounds. Subjects in the control group received group cardiac counseling, and subjects in the treatment group received cardiac counseling plus Type-A counseling, and a comparison group received no group counseling of any kind. The recurrence rate was 21% in the control group and 13% in the treatment group, a strong and statistically significant (p < .005) finding, whereas the comparison group experienced a 28% recurrence rate. The investigative studies following Friedman and Rosenman's discovery compared Type A behavior to independent coronary risk factors such as hypertension and smoking; in contrast, the results here suggest that the negative effects on cardiovascular health associated with Type A personality can be mitigated by modifying Type A behavior patterns.[citation needed]

Funding by tobacco companies

[edit]

Further discrediting the so-called Type A Behavior Pattern (TABP), a study from 2012 – based on searching the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents – suggests the phenomenon of initially promising results followed by negative findings to be partly explained by the tobacco industry's involvement in TABP research to undermine the scientific evidence on smoking and health. Documents indicate that around 1959, the tobacco industry first became interested in the TABP when the Tobacco Institute Research Committee received an application for funding from New York University in order to investigate the relationship between smoking and personality.[28] The industry's interest in TABP lasted at least four decades until the late 1990s, involving substantial funding to key researchers encouraged to prove smoking to simply correlate with a personality type prone to coronary heart disease (CHD) and cancer.[29] Hence, until the early 1980s, the industry's strategy consisted of suggesting the risks of smoking to be caused by psychological characteristics of individual smokers rather than tobacco products by deeming the causes of cancer to be multifactorial with stress as a key contributing factor.[30][31][32] Philip Morris (today Altria) and RJ Reynolds helped generate substantial evidence to support these claims by funding workshops and research aiming to educate about and alter TABP to reduce risks of CHD and cancer. Moreover, Philip Morris primarily funded the Meyer Friedman Institute, e.g. conducting the "crown-jewel" trial on the effectiveness of reducing TABP whose expected findings could discredit studies associating smoking with CHD and cancer but failing to control for Type A behavior.[29]

In 1994, Friedman wrote to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration criticising restrictions on indoor smoking to reduce CHD, claiming the evidence remained unreliable since it did not account for the significant confounder of Type A behavior, although by then, TABP had proven to be significant in only three of twelve studies. Though apparently unpaid for, this letter was approved by and blind-copied to Philip Morris, and Friedman (falsely) claimed to receive funding largely from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.[33]

When TABP finally became untenable, Philip Morris supported research on its hostility component,[34] allowing Vice President Jetson Lincoln to explain passive smoking lethality by the stress exerted on a non-smoking spouse through media claiming the smoking spouse to be slowly killing themselves.[35] When examining the most recent review on TABP and CHD in this light, the close relationship to the tobacco industry becomes evident: of thirteen etiologic studies in the review, only four reported positive findings,[36] three of which had a direct or indirect link to the industry. Also on the whole most TABP studies had no relationship to the tobacco lobby but the majority of those with positive findings did.[29] Furthermore, TABP was used as a litigation defence, similar to psychosocial stress.[37] Hence, Petticrew et al. proved the tobacco industry to have substantially helped generate the scientific controversy on TABP, contributing to the (in lay circles) enduring popularity and prejudice for Type A personality even though it has been scientifically disproven.[29]

Other issues

[edit]

Some scholars argue that Type A behavior is not a good predictor of coronary heart disease.[38] According to research by Redford Williams of Duke University, the hostility component of Type A personality is the only significant risk factor.[39] Thus, it is a high level of expressed anger and hostility, not the other elements of Type A behavior, that constitutes the problem.[40] Research done by Hecker et al. (1988) showed that the ‘hostility’ component of the Type A description was predictive of cardiac disease.[40] As time continued, more research was conducted which focused on different components of type A behavior such as hostility, depression, and anxiety predicting cardiac disease.[40]

The initial study that pointed to the association of Type A personality and heart attacks had a massive number of questions under consideration. When there are a lot of questions there is a high probability of a false positive. A study undertaken by the U.S. National Institute of Aging, Sardinian and Italian researchers, as well as bio-statisticians from the University of Michigan, had specifically tested for a direct relationship between coronary heart disease and Type A personalities, and the results had indicated that no such relation exists.[38] A simple explanation is that the initial finding was chance due to multiple questions being under consideration. Those considerations may have changed.[citation needed]

Other studies

[edit]

A study (that later was questioned for nonplausible results[41] and considered unsafe publication[42][43]) was performed that tested the effect of psychosocial variables, in particular personality and stress, as risk factors for cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD).[44] In this study, four personality types were recorded. Type 1 personality is cancer-prone, Type 2 is CHD-prone, Type 3 is alternating between behaviors characteristic of Types 1 and 2, and Type 4 is a healthy, autonomous type hypothesized to survive best. The data suggest that the Type 1 probands die mainly from cancer, type 2 from CHD, whereas Type 3 and especially Type 4 probands show a much lower death rate. Two additional types of personalities were measured Type 5 and Type 6. Type 5 is a rational anti-emotional type, which shows characteristics common to Type 1 and Type 2. Type 6 personality shows psychopathic tendencies and is prone to drug addiction and AIDS.[45]

While most studies attempt to show the correlation between personality types and coronary heart disease, studies (that also later were questioned for non plausible results[41] were considered unsafe,[42][43] and were retracted in 2021) suggested that mental attitudes constitute an important prognostic factor for cancer and that as a method of treatment for cancer-prone patients, behavior therapy should be used.[46] The patient is taught to express his/her emotions more freely, in a socially acceptable manner, to become autonomous and be able to stand up for his/her rights. Behavior therapy would also teach them how to cope with stress-producing situations more successfully. The effectiveness of therapy in preventing death in cancer and CHD is evident.[47] The statistical data associated with higher death rates is impressive. Other measures of therapy have been attempted, such as group therapy. The effects were not as dramatic as behavior therapy, but still showed improvement in preventing death among cancer and CHD patients.[citation needed]

From the study above, several conclusions have been made. A relationship between personality and cancer exists, along with a relationship between personality and coronary heart disease. Personality type acts as a risk factor for diseases and interacts synergistically with other risk factors, such as smoking and heredity. It has been statistically proven that behavior therapy can significantly reduce the likelihood of cancer or coronary heart disease mortality.[48] Studies suggest that both body and mental disease arise from each other. Mental disorders arise from physical causes, and likewise, physical disorders arise from mental causes. While Type A personality did not show a strong direct relationship between its attributes and the cause of coronary heart disease, other types of personalities have shown strong influences on both cancer-prone patients and those prone to coronary heart disease.[47]

A study conducted by the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine re-examined the association between the Type A concept with cardiovascular (CVD) and non-cardiovascular (non-CVD) mortality by using a long follow-up (on average 20.6 years) of a large population-based sample of elderly males (N = 2,682), by applying multiple Type A measures at baseline, and looking separately at early and later follow-up years. The study sample was the participants of the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, (KIHD), which includes a randomly selected representative sample of Eastern Finnish men, aged 42–60 years at baseline in the 1980s. They were followed up until the end of 2011 through linkage with the National Death Registry. Four self-administered scales, Bortner Short Rating Scale, Framingham Type A Behavior Pattern Scale, Jenkins Activity Survey, and Finnish Type A Scale, were used for Type A assessment at the start of follow-up. Type A measures were inconsistently associated with cardiovascular mortality, and most associations were non-significant. Some scales suggested a slightly decreased, rather than increased, risk of CVD death during the follow-up. Associations with non-cardiovascular deaths were even weaker. The study's findings further suggest that there is no evidence to support the Type A as a risk factor for CVD and non-CVD mortality.[49]

Substance use disorder

[edit]

In a 1998 study done by Ball et al., they looked at differences in Type A and Type B personalities based on substance use. Their results showed that Type B personalities had more severe issues with substance use disorders than Type A personalities.[50] Another discovery in their research was more Type B personalities had been diagnosed with a personality disorder than users who had Type A personalities.[50] Type B personalities were rated higher than Type A personalities on symptoms of all DSM-IV personality disorders, with the exception of schizoid personality disorder.[50]

The research conducted in the experiment was tested on 370 outpatients and inpatients who used alcohol, cocaine, and opiates. The personality types and distinctions were replicated.[50] Additionally within the personality dimensions Type A and Type B exhibited different results. Type A personality portrayed higher levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, cooperativeness, and self-directedness. In contrast, Type B personality showed higher levels of neuroticism, novelty seeking, and harm avoidance.[50] These dimensions can have high correlational levels with mental illness or substance use disorders. Furthermore, even after antisocial personality and psychiatric symptoms, these effects remained.[50]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Type A and Type B personality theory

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Type A and Type B theory, originally termed the Type A behavior pattern (TABP) by cardiologists and Ray H. Rosenman, delineates two contrasting al styles observed in s with coronary heart (CHD), wherein Type A individuals display traits of intense competitiveness, impatience, time urgency, and , while Type B individuals exhibit greater relaxation, , and emotional evenness. The framework emerged from clinical observations in the , including patterns of wear in waiting rooms suggesting patient impatience, and was formalized through the method to assess these behaviors. Initial longitudinal evidence from the Western Collaborative Group Study (1960–1980s) reported a significantly elevated CHD risk—up to twofold—for Type A middle-aged men compared to Type B counterparts, independent of traditional factors like and , propelling the theory into medical and psychological discourse. Despite early acclaim, the theory's predictive power has faced substantial empirical scrutiny, with large prospective trials such as the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention (MRFIT) failing to replicate the CHD association and meta-analyses of subsequent studies indicating no consistent link between overall Type A behaviors or and disease incidence. Critics highlight methodological issues, including reliance on interviewer subjectivity in assessments and confounding with socioeconomic or lifestyle variables, rendering the binary typology an oversimplification better viewed as dimensional traits within broader models like the Big Five. , isolated as the potentially causal element via physiological mechanisms like elevated sympathetic , retains modest support for cardiovascular but lacks the robustness to validate the full . Though influential in prompting research on factors in , the theory's legacy underscores the pitfalls of typological approaches in personality science, favoring nuanced, replicable trait-based analyses over categorical labels.

Historical Development

Early Observations and Formulation

In the mid-1950s, cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray H. Rosenman, practicing at Hospital in , began observing behavioral patterns among patients with recurrent or initial episodes of coronary heart disease that distinguished them from other cardiac patients or healthy individuals. These patients frequently exhibited traits such as extreme competitiveness, a chronic sense of time urgency, impatience with the pace of events, hostility toward obstacles or others, and an aggressive drive for achievement, often manifesting in rapid speech, explosive gestures, and polyphasic (multitasking) activities. A striking clinical cue emerged from their waiting room, where chair upholstery frayed unusually at the front edges rather than the back, attributed to patients' tendency to perch forward restlessly, frequently checking watches, interrupting receptionists, and displaying overt impatience while awaiting appointments—behaviors more prevalent among those with coronary issues. This pattern, absent in less affected patients, prompted Rosenman to systematically interview and classify behaviors, revealing consistent associations between such traits and or histories. Friedman and Rosenman formulated the Type A behavior pattern (TABP) as an action-emotion complex predisposing individuals to coronary , contrasting it with Type B, characterized by relative absence of these traits, greater relaxation, and lower reactivity to stressors. Initially termed the "coronary-prone behavior pattern," this dichotomy was grounded in clinical impressions rather than formal metrics, hypothesizing that Type A's chronic psychic activation and suppressed hostility accelerated vascular pathology beyond traditional risk factors like or . The framework gained initial publication traction in , with early papers linking these observations to adrenal and cardiovascular responses in Type A individuals.

Key Studies and Timeline

In the mid-1950s, Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman began observing distinct behavioral patterns among their patients, noting accelerated wear on the armrests of chairs, which they attributed to the impatient gesturing and of a subset of individuals exhibiting high-strung, achievement-oriented traits. This led to their hypothesis that such behaviors, later termed the Type A behavior pattern (TABP), might contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD) independently of traditional risk factors like levels. Friedman and Rosenman first formally described Type A and Type B behaviors in a 1959 publication, characterizing Type A as involving extreme competitiveness, time urgency, , and a sense of pressure, in contrast to the more relaxed Type B pattern. To test the hypothesis empirically, they launched the Western Collaborative Group Study (WCGS) in 1960-1961, recruiting 3,524 healthy white men aged 39-59 from 10 communities across diverse occupations. Participants underwent structured interviews to classify TABP, alongside assessments of physiological and risk factors, with follow-up over 8.5 years tracking incident CHD events such as and . Interim analyses from the WCGS appeared in the early 1970s, but the landmark final report, published in , revealed that Type A men experienced approximately twice the rate of first-time CHD compared to Type B counterparts, with the association persisting after controlling for age, serum cholesterol, , and —yielding a relative risk of about 2.0 for Type A classification via . This finding prompted and Rosenman to publish Type A Behavior and Your Heart in 1974, popularizing the theory and advocating behavioral interventions to mitigate cardiovascular risks. Subsequent WCGS follow-ups extended observations to 22 years (reported in 1989), confirming the initial CHD incidence link but finding no independent association with long-term mortality, suggesting TABP's influence may wane or interact with aging and other factors. A 27-year follow-up in 1991 further examined Type A stability, noting moderate persistence of the over decades among survivors. These studies established the foundational empirical basis for the theory, though later replications varied in strength, highlighting the structured interview's superiority over self-report questionnaires for TABP assessment.

Core Concepts and Characteristics

Defining Type A Traits

The Type A pattern (TABP), originally conceptualized by cardiologists Meyer and Ray Rosenman in the late , encompasses a cluster of behavioral dispositions rather than innate traits alone. It manifests as an action-emotion complex driven by chronic struggle against external and internal constraints, marked by heightened responsiveness to environmental challenges. Empirically, TABP individuals exhibit accelerated speech patterns, facial muscle tension, and rapid gestures during interviews, distinguishing them from more relaxed counterparts. Core traits include extreme competitiveness and ambition, where individuals pursue goals with intense drive and a relentless focus on achievement, often prioritizing success over interpersonal harmony. This is coupled with impatience and a sense of time urgency, leading to frequent clock-watching, multitasking, and frustration with delays or inefficiency in others. Hostility and aggression, particularly free-floating hostility, form a critical component, involving irritability, cynicism, and overt or suppressed anger toward people or obstacles, which observational studies link to elevated physiological arousal. Further characteristics encompass work involvement and hard-driving behavior, with Type A individuals displaying polyphasic activities—attempting multiple tasks simultaneously—and a polycentric job orientation, deriving self-worth primarily from occupational performance. These traits are not merely stylistic but involve underlying motivational tensions, such as suppressed needs for recognition amid fear of failure, as evidenced in structured interviews like the Jenkins Activity Survey, which quantifies components including speed, impatience, and job involvement. While TABP correlates with higher productivity in controlled settings, its defining elements emphasize reactive striving over relaxed proficiency.

Defining Type B Traits

Type B behavior pattern, as originally formulated by cardiologists Meyer and Ray Rosenman in their 1959 observations of coronary patients, represents the counterpart to Type A, characterized primarily by the relative absence of intense achievement-striving, time urgency, impatience, and hostility. Individuals exhibiting Type B traits demonstrate a more relaxed, even-tempered approach to tasks and interpersonal interactions, with lower reactivity to competitive pressures or deadlines. This pattern was empirically linked to reduced psychophysiological during structured interviews, where Type B subjects showed minimal signs of muscular tension or verbal explosiveness compared to Type A counterparts. Key defining traits include patience and flexibility in handling delays or ambiguities, without the free-floating hostility or aggressive posturing seen in Type A. Type B persons tend to prioritize enjoyment and relational harmony over rapid goal attainment, often displaying emotional stability and adaptability to change rather than rigidity. Research operationalizing the construct via the Jenkins Activity Survey (developed in 1971 to quantify these behaviors) scores Type B low on factors like speed-impatience and job involvement, correlating with self-reported lower levels in daily activities. Unlike Type A, where traits cluster around potential cardiovascular risk factors like suppressed anger, Type B is associated with reduced vigilance to potential threats, fostering resilience to acute stress but potentially leading to procrastination or underachievement in high-stakes environments. Longitudinal data from the Western Collaborative Group Study (initiated 1961) confirmed Type B participants exhibited fewer behavioral indicators of chronic arousal, such as hurried speech or polyphasic activities (performing multiple tasks simultaneously). These characteristics underscore a behavioral style oriented toward equilibrium rather than dominance, though the dichotomy is better viewed as a continuum influenced by situational factors.

Interactions and Continuum Between Types

The Type A and Type B personality constructs represent opposing poles on a behavioral continuum, with the majority of individuals exhibiting intermediate traits rather than fitting neatly into one category. Empirical assessments, such as the Jenkins Activity Survey, yield scores distributed normally along this , indicating gradations in competitiveness, urgency, and rather than bimodal clusters. Taxometric analyses have provided mixed results, with some evidence for underlying latent categories in extreme cases, but broader psychometric data support a dimensional model over a strict typology. Individuals with mixed Type A and Type B characteristics, sometimes termed Type AB, demonstrate blended responses to stress and achievement demands, adapting behaviors contextually. For instance, a might display Type A impatience in high-stakes deadlines but Type B flexibility in pursuits, reflecting situational modulation rather than fixed . This continuum allows for within-person variability, where environmental cues amplify or dampen specific traits, as observed in longitudinal studies tracking behavioral patterns over time. In interpersonal interactions, the continuum manifests as complementary or frictional dynamics between individuals leaning toward different ends. Type A-dominant persons often perceive Type B counterparts as procrastinating or unambitious, fostering tension in team settings where urgency mismatches occur, such as in versus roles. Conversely, Type B influences can buffer Type A stress reactivity, promoting relaxation and reducing escalation during conflicts, as evidenced in observational studies of mixed dyads. Hybrid interactions, common in workplaces, yield adaptive outcomes like enhanced when Type A's drive pairs with Type B's , though unresolved trait clashes correlate with higher relational dissatisfaction.

Measurement and Validation

Assessment Methods

The primary method for assessing Type A behavior pattern was the (SI) developed by Meyer and Ray H. Rosenman in the late , involving a 10- to 15-minute semi-structured clinical . During the SI, examiners observe and score overt behavioral indicators such as rapid or explosive speech patterns, impatience with delays, facial muscle tension, and hand gestures, while posing questions about work habits, competition, and time urgency to elicit responses revealing traits like polyphasic thought and free-floating . Subjects are classified on a continuum from A1 (extreme Type A, highly competitive and aggressive) to X (ambivalent) to B (relaxed, with Type B as the relative absence of Type A markers). To address limitations in the SI's subjectivity and time requirements, the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) was introduced in 1971 by Charles D. Jenkins, Stephen J. Zyzanski, and Rosenman as an objective, self-report questionnaire. The original Form A consists of 52 multiple-choice items, computer-scored across four subscales—job involvement (21 items), hard-driving and competitive (10 items), speed and impatience (15 items), and (6 items)—yielding a global Type A score that categorizes individuals as A (above a threshold indicating proneness), B (below, indicating low proneness), or intermediate (near the cutoff). Subsequent versions, such as Form C (developed in 1976 for broader populations) and Form T (a student-adapted 21-item version from 1980), maintain similar structure but adjust for demographics, with Form T emphasizing temporal stability in young adults via retest correlations exceeding 0.80 over short intervals. Shorter self-report alternatives include the Bortner Rating Scale (1969), a 14-item instrument where respondents mark positions on continua between Type A descriptors (e.g., "very competitive") and Type B opposites (e.g., "never competes"), scored by distance from the Type B pole to yield a total indicating behavioral intensity. The Framingham Type A Scale (1978), derived from epidemiological data, uses 10 true/false items focusing on cognitive and emotional aspects like time urgency and , primarily for coronary risk prediction in women and general populations. These methods collectively operationalize the Type A-B , though classification often treats it as a continuum rather than binary categories.

Psychometric Properties and Challenges

The (SI), the original assessment tool for the Type A behavior pattern (TABP), demonstrates moderate to high , with coefficients typically ranging from 0.70 to 0.80 across studies involving trained raters scoring al responses to standardized probes. Test-retest reliability for the SI is also robust, showing high stability (e.g., r > 0.70) over intervals of four months or more in adult male samples, indicating consistent of Type A versus Type B over time. The Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS), a self-report developed to quantify TABP dimensions like speed, job involvement, and hard-driving competitiveness, exhibits good (Cronbach's α ≈ 0.70–0.80) and excellent test-retest reliability (r > 0.80) in student and general populations. Construct validity for both measures is supported by correlations with observed behaviors, such as impatient mannerisms during the SI or self-reported time urgency on the JAS, and convergence with related traits like achievement striving. Predictive validity for coronary heart disease (CHD) outcomes, however, varies: the SI has shown prospective associations with CHD incidence in landmark studies (relative risk ≈ 2.0 for Type A), while the JAS yields weaker or inconsistent predictions, failing to forecast myocardial infarction in multiple cohorts. Criterion validity against the SI is moderate for the JAS (r ≈ 0.50), highlighting only partial overlap in captured variance. Key challenges include low between the SI and JAS, leading to discrepant Type A classifications in up to 40% of cases, attributed to the SI's emphasis on observable hostility versus the JAS's reliance on self-perception. Self-report biases in the JAS inflate scores via social desirability or retrospective distortion, undermining behavioral fidelity, while the SI's dependence on interviewer introduces rater drift and subjectivity. is compromised by substantial overlap with traits like and anxiety (r > 0.40), suggesting TABP measures capture general distress rather than unique coronary-prone factors. Generalizability falters across demographics, with diminished reliability and validity in women and non-Western samples due to cultural variations in expressing impatience or competitiveness. These issues have prompted critiques of measurement instability since the theory's inception, complicating replicability and causal inferences about health risks.

Empirical Evidence on Health Impacts

The Type A behavior pattern (TABP), characterized by traits such as competitiveness, time urgency, and , was first linked to increased risk of (CHD) through observational studies in the mid-20th century. Cardiologists Meyer and Ray Rosenman identified TABP in the 1950s based on clinical observations of patients exhibiting impatient behaviors, such as tearing phone book pages, which led to the that such patterns contributed to . Their prospective Western Collaborative Group Study (WCGS), initiated in 1960 with over 3,200 healthy men aged 39-59 followed for 8.5 years, found that Type A individuals experienced a 2.2-fold higher incidence of CHD events compared to Type B counterparts, an association independent of traditional risk factors like levels, , and . Subsequent research refined the TABP-CHD link, emphasizing and as the primary cardiotoxic components rather than achievement striving or impatience alone. In angiographic studies, such as one involving 187 patients undergoing coronary arteriography in 1980, both TABP and scores independently predicted the presence and extent of , with showing a stronger in multivariate models. Meta-analyses of prospective cohorts have corroborated this, with a 2009 review by Chida and Steptoe analyzing 25 studies finding that and were associated with a 19% increased of CHD incidence and a 24% higher risk of cardiovascular mortality, effects persisting after adjusting for demographics and behavioral risks. These findings extend to secondary prevention, where predicts recurrent events in post-myocardial patients. However, not all evidence uniformly supports a broad TABP effect; large trials like the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention (MRFIT) in the 1980s, involving over 12,000 men, failed to replicate the full Type A association with CHD endpoints, prompting scrutiny of measurement tools like the Jenkins Activity Survey. Despite this, 's role remains robust across meta-analyses, potentially mediated by physiological pathways such as heightened activity and inflammation, though causal mechanisms require further longitudinal validation. Recent cohort data also link Type A-like traits in adolescents to elevated CVD markers in young adulthood, suggesting early-life implications. Overall, while the TABP construct has faced replicability challenges, empirical data consistently implicate within it as a modest yet independent for cardiovascular outcomes.

Other Health and Behavioral Correlations

Type A individuals demonstrate a positive with workaholism, as evidenced by meta-analytic reviews identifying Type A traits such as competitiveness and time urgency as significant predictors of excessive work involvement and compulsive . This behavioral pattern often manifests in , where Type A persons are more likely to attend work despite illness or fatigue, increasing exposure to occupational hazards and prolonging recovery from minor ailments. In contrast, Type B individuals exhibit lower work addiction tendencies and greater flexibility in balancing professional demands with rest, potentially reducing chronic fatigue accumulation. Mental health correlations highlight Type A's vulnerability to stress-mediated outcomes, with longitudinal data showing that Type A traits amplify the effects of occupational stressors on burnout and depressive symptoms, particularly through heightened impatience and components. For example, among healthcare workers, Type A moderates the pathway from job demands to , elevating burnout risk by up to 20-30% in high-stress environments compared to Type B counterparts. Type B profiles, characterized by emotional stability, correlate with lower neuroticism-driven anxiety and better under pressure, fostering resilience against mood disorders. Evidence for non-cardiovascular physical health links remains limited and mixed. Studies on immune reactivity indicate that Type A individuals may exhibit greater suppression of secretory (sIgA) under acute stress, suggesting impaired mucosal immunity and heightened susceptibility to infections, though these effects are small and context-dependent. Prospective research on cancer, including a 16-year cohort tracking over 10,000 participants, finds no independent association between Type A behavior and incidence after controlling for confounders like and diet, attributing apparent links to behavioral rather than direct causal pathways. Type B traits show neutral or weakly protective patterns in these domains, underscoring the theory's primary relevance to rather than broad somatic risks.

Applications in Work and Daily Life

Workplace Performance and Stress

Type A individuals, characterized by competitiveness, impatience, and a sense of time urgency, often demonstrate heightened job involvement and achievement striving in settings, which can translate to superior in structured, high-demand tasks. For instance, among healthcare professionals, Type A participants scored significantly higher on self-reported in teaching/training (t = 3.02, P < 0.01) and relationships with colleagues (t = 3.95, P < 0.01) compared to Type B counterparts. However, empirical evidence remains inconsistent across occupations; in a sample of 355 life insurance agents, Type A behavior showed no significant association with sales metrics. Similarly, among 420 Canadian college teachers, global Type A behavior correlated neither with teaching hours nor course preparations, suggesting that performance benefits may depend on task type, such as those emphasizing speed and competition over routine or creative elements. Regarding stress, Type A personalities exhibit greater vulnerability to workplace stressors, particularly those involving interpersonal dynamics or workload intensity, often leading to elevated burnout and reduced well-being. In the healthcare study, Type A professionals reported higher stress from patient identification (t = 2.05, P < 0.05), while Type B individuals managed job criticism and daily work demands more effectively. Among college teachers, Type A behavior positively correlated with burnout and turnover intentions (r > 0) but negatively with work satisfaction and perceived (r < 0). Type A workers also perceive management as potentially stressful under heavy workloads, unlike Type B individuals, whose stressor profiles differ markedly, with fewer instances of support-induced tension. These patterns indicate that while Type A traits may fuel short-term productivity, they heighten chronic stress responses, potentially undermining long-term performance through exhaustion or health complaints, as observed in sales personnel where Type A agents reported more stress-related issues despite equivalent output. Type B personalities, marked by relaxation and flexibility, generally experience lower stress reactivity, fostering resilience in ambiguous or criticism-heavy environments but sometimes at the expense of proactive drive. In healthcare settings, Type B scored higher on good medical practice (M = 3.76), though overall performance edges favored Type A in select areas. Negative correlations between stressors like patient relationships and clinical care (r = -0.197 to -0.210, P < 0.05) underscore how unmanaged stress impairs performance across types, yet Type B's calmer disposition may buffer such effects, promoting sustained satisfaction without the Type A propensity for overcommitment. Overall, workplace applications highlight the need for tailored stress mitigation, such as time management training for Type A to curb hostility-driven tension, while leveraging Type B's adaptability for collaborative roles.

Interpersonal and Leadership Dynamics

Type A individuals frequently exhibit assertive and competitive tendencies in interpersonal interactions, often prioritizing achievement over relational harmony, which can lead to conflicts and perceived dominance by others. This pattern stems from core traits like time urgency and hostility, with empirical evidence linking the hostility subscale of Type A behavior to increased interpersonal aggression during simulated social encounters. For instance, in controlled studies, Type A participants responded to interpersonal challenges with heightened defensiveness and verbal hostility compared to Type B counterparts, potentially exacerbating relational strain in everyday settings such as family or peer groups. In contrast, Type B personalities are characterized by a more patient and adaptable approach to social exchanges, fostering collaborative dynamics and reducing conflict escalation. Research on behavior patterns indicates that Type B individuals report higher satisfaction in cooperative tasks, attributing this to lower impulsivity and greater tolerance for ambiguity in interactions. However, this relaxed style may sometimes be interpreted as passivity, limiting influence in high-stakes negotiations where assertiveness is valued. Regarding leadership, Type A traits align with task-oriented styles that drive goal attainment in competitive environments, as seen in naval officer studies where Type A leaders correlated with lower subordinate absenteeism under directive approaches, reflecting their emphasis on structure and urgency. Yet, the same impatience and hostility can undermine long-term team morale, with evidence suggesting Type A leaders provoke higher stress responses in followers during prolonged collaborations. Type B leaders, conversely, excel in relational leadership, promoting innovation through inclusive decision-making and adaptability, though they may underperform in crisis scenarios requiring rapid, decisive action. Overall, empirical linkages remain modest, with leadership outcomes moderated by contextual factors like organizational demands rather than personality type alone.

Criticisms and Controversies

Methodological and Replicability Issues

The structured interview (SI) developed by Friedman and Rosenman to assess Type A behavior pattern (TABP) relies heavily on observer ratings of behavioral cues such as speech style and motor mannerisms, which are susceptible to interviewer subjectivity and variability in training. Inter-rater reliability for SI classifications has been reported as moderate at best in validation studies, with kappa coefficients around 0.60-0.70, limiting its scalability for large-scale research. To mitigate these issues, the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS), a self-report questionnaire introduced in 1971, was created as an objective alternative, but it exhibits low convergent validity with the SI (correlations often below 0.40) and inadvertently captures traits like neuroticism or general psychopathology rather than core TABP elements. Efforts to refine measurement, such as the Framingham Type A Scale or student-adapted JAS versions, have yielded inconsistent factor structures, with principal components analyses revealing unstable loadings for subscales like speed/impatience and job involvement across samples. These psychometric shortcomings contribute to classification errors, where up to 20-30% of individuals may be misassigned in cross-validation attempts, undermining causal inferences about TABP's role in health outcomes. Replicability of TABP's association with coronary heart disease (CHD) has faltered in prospective studies beyond the original Western Collaborative Group Study (WCGS; 1960-1970s), which reported a relative risk of approximately 2.0 for Type A men but suffered from small sample sizes (n≈3,200) and potential selection biases in participant recruitment from San Francisco clinics. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT; 1973-1982), involving 3,110 men assessed via SI, found no significant link between TABP and first major CHD events (hazard ratio near 1.0 after covariate adjustment), attributing null results to broader risk factor controls like cholesterol and smoking. Similarly, JAS-based predictions in post-myocardial infarction cohorts (n=244) showed no relation to recurrent events, with Type A scores unrelated to 4-year outcomes. Meta-analytic reviews of TABP-CHD links report small, heterogeneous effect sizes (odds ratios 1.1-1.5), often vanishing after stratifying by assessment method or controlling for hostility—a TABP subcomponent with stronger, more replicable associations (r≈0.15-0.20 with CHD). Recent reanalyses of large datasets (n>4,500) using modern latent class modeling fail to identify discrete Type A/B clusters, instead supporting dimensional trait distributions without bimodal cutoffs, as dichotomous categorizations from studies employed outdated forced-choice formats incompatible with continuous data. These findings highlight how early reliance on categorical models exacerbated non-replication, with effect sizes implausibly large in foundational work compared to contemporary .

Influence of Funding Sources

A significant portion of research on the Type A behavior pattern (TABP), central to the Type A and Type B personality theory, was funded by major tobacco companies, including and , from the 1960s through the 1990s. These companies provided substantial grants to Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, the theory's originators, totaling nearly $11 million from alone to the Meyer Friedman Institute by 1997, supporting multiple studies on TABP and its links to coronary heart disease (CHD). Internal tobacco industry documents reveal that such funding aimed to elevate psychosocial and behavioral factors like Type A traits as alternative CHD risk factors, thereby diverting attention from the established role of smoking. Friedman actively sought and received diversified funding from non-tobacco sources, including the (NIH) and the (AHA), for early longitudinal studies such as the Western Collaborative Group Study, to mitigate perceptions of industry influence. Nonetheless, the tobacco industry's financial support enabled the scaling of TABP research, including the establishment of the Institute at the in 1983, which focused on Type A interventions until Friedman's death in 2001. Critics argue this funding introduced conflicts of interest, as the promotion of Type A as a modifiable CHD risk factor aligned with tobacco companies' strategies to counter antismoking campaigns and regulatory pressures during the mid-20th century. Subsequent analyses of declassified industry documents have highlighted how tobacco-funded TABP studies were strategically positioned in public discourse to emphasize stress and personality over tobacco use, potentially inflating the perceived causal weight of Type A behaviors despite mixed empirical replicability in later independent trials. For instance, while early Friedman-Rosenman work reported ratios of 2.0-6.6 for CHD incidence among Type A individuals, large-scale NIH-sponsored trials like the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) in the found no significant TABP-CHD association after controlling for confounders like . This funding dynamic underscores a broader that industry-backed may have prolonged the theory's prominence in clinical and , even as evidence for its independent predictive power waned.

Oversimplification and Causal Assumptions

The Type A and Type B dichotomy oversimplifies human by imposing discrete categories on traits that operate along continuous spectra, ignoring individual variability and the frequent coexistence of characteristics from both types. This reductionist approach fails to capture the multifaceted nature of behavior, as empirical assessments reveal that rarely embody pure forms of either type but instead exhibit hybrid profiles influenced by context and situational factors. For instance, a 2018 analysis of data from approximately 4,500 individuals in the and could not replicate the stark behavioral contrasts central to the model, underscoring its inadequacy for precise description. Critics further argue that the framework neglects interactions among traits, environmental influences, and cultural differences, leading to stereotyping without predictive utility in diverse populations. Peer-reviewed evaluations emphasize that such typologies, while intuitively appealing, lack the granularity of dimensional models like the Big Five, which better account for trait covariation and empirical variance in . The theory's causal claims—that Type A behaviors directly engender coronary heart disease (CHD) via sustained sympathetic activation and vascular strain—rest on tenuous evidence, as prospective meta-analyses demonstrate no consistent association between Type A patterns and CHD onset or progression. A 1989 quantitative review of multiple studies concluded that Type A fails as a reliable CHD predictor across various measures and designs, attributing early positive findings to methodological artifacts or selective reporting rather than robust causation. Subsequent large-scale cohorts, including the PRIME and GAZEL studies involving thousands of participants tracked over years, reported null or inverse links, particularly after adjusting for confounders like , , and . These shortcomings highlight flawed causal inference, where correlation (if present) may stem from reverse causation—early CHD symptoms prompting impatience or urgency—or unmeasured mediators such as occupational stress unrelated to inherent personality. Systematic 2002 reviews of 18 etiologic and 15 prognostic investigations confirmed only sporadic significance, insufficient to support unidirectional causality and prompting reappraisal of the model's physiological hypotheses. This evidentiary gap underscores the need for experimental or longitudinal designs isolating Type A effects from entangled risk pathways.

Modern Perspectives and Refinements

Shift to Dimensional Models

As empirical studies revealed inconsistencies in the of Type A and Type B personalities—particularly following the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) in 1986, which failed to confirm a strong overall link between holistic Type A behavior and coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence—researchers increasingly adopted dimensional approaches to TABP. These models treat traits such as competitiveness, time urgency, and as continuous variables varying in intensity across individuals, rather than all-or-nothing categories, allowing for more precise prediction of health outcomes through gradated scoring. The Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS), introduced in 1971 by Jenkins, Zyzanski, and Rosenman, exemplifies this shift by providing a self-report that yields quantitative scores on a continuum for TABP components, including job involvement, speed/impatience, and hard-driving competitiveness, rather than mere typological labels. Subsequent factor analyses of JAS data and ratings identified underlying dimensions, such as achievement striving ( for success) and impatience-irritability (rushed behavior and ), which better captured variability than categorical cutoffs. This dimensionalization addressed criticisms of oversimplification, as mixed "Type AB" profiles were common and binary models ignored dose-response relationships in trait expression. A pivotal refinement focused on as a separable dimension within TABP, emerging from component analyses in the early 1980s. Meta-analyses, such as Booth-Kewley and Friedman's 1987 review, demonstrated that —characterized by cynicism, expression, and mistrust—correlated more robustly with CHD endpoints (e.g., ) than other Type A elements, with odds ratios indicating elevated risk at higher dimensional levels. Tools like the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale (Ho) further operationalized this as a continuous trait, linking elevated scores to physiological markers such as increased reactivity and , independent of overall Type A classification. This dimensional paradigm integrated TABP with broader trait models, mapping components onto frameworks like the Big Five, where Type A correlates with high extraversion (ambition) and low (hostility), emphasizing causal pathways from chronic emotional to via activation. By prioritizing verifiable trait intensities over typologies, these models enhanced replicability and intervention targeting, such as hostility-reduction therapies showing modest CHD risk reductions in randomized trials.

Integration with Broader Personality Frameworks

Type A behavior pattern aligns with specific facets of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality, comprising , , Extraversion, , and , by manifesting as a composite profile rather than a singular trait. Empirical studies using instruments like the Jenkins Activity Survey for Type A/B classification and the for FFM assessment have demonstrated that Type A individuals score higher on —driven by achievement-striving and orderliness subfacets—and Extraversion, characterized by and activity levels, compared to Type B counterparts. These associations reflect the core Type A elements of goal-directed urgency and interpersonal dominance. A pronounced negative exists between Type A and , with standardized coefficients indicating large effect sizes, attributable to antagonism and low compliance facets that underpin the dimension long implicated in Type A's cardiovascular risk profile. Discriminant function analyses of undergraduate samples (n=243) have successfully differentiated Type A from Type B groups using , , and Extraversion as primary discriminators, with supporting distinct FFM profiles (p < 0.05). In contrast, consistent links to or remain weak or absent in these mappings, suggesting Type A/B does not capture emotional instability or imaginative tendencies inherent to those dimensions. This integration posits Type A/B as a behavioral syndrome overlapping with FFM clusters, where extreme Type A profiles approximate high /Extravasersion paired with low , facilitating predictive utility in and contexts without necessitating categorical typology. Broader frameworks, such as Eysenck's three-dimensional model (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism), further parallel this by associating Type A competitiveness with elevated Psychoticism—congruent with low FFM —and Extraversion, though empirical cross-validation remains limited to correlational evidence from mid-20th-century cohorts. Such mappings underscore the FFM's dimensional granularity over Type A/B's binary framing, enabling refined hypotheses on causal pathways like hostility's of stress reactivity.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3477961/
  2. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300816
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11461748/
  4. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.11.044
  5. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0117.xml
  6. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-stressful-discovery-of-type-a-personality/
  7. https://www.stress.org/type-a-and-coronary-disease-part-1/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/type-a-behavior
  9. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110417759
  10. http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/western-collaborative-group-study/
  11. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00005174
  12. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/337636
  13. https://myheartsisters.org/2016/06/05/type-a-personality/
  14. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00867173
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1245042/
  16. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1982-12120-001
  17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3210115/
  18. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=7089
  19. https://dictionary.apa.org/type-b-personality
  20. https://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-a.html
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/type-b-behavior
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC101259/
  23. https://www.utoronto.ca/news/turns-out-there-s-no-type-type-personality-u-t-research
  24. https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/type-a-and-type-b-behaviour
  25. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201206/are-you-a-type-a-or-b-personality
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232489353_Evidence_for_the_Type_in_Type_A_Behavior_A_Taxometric_Analysis
  27. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_394-1.pdf
  28. https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/jfp-archived-issues/1986-volume_22-23/JFP_1986-09_v23_i3_type-a-behavior-clinical-significance-e.pdf
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4320720/
  30. https://www.shobhituniversity.ac.in/pdf/econtent/Personality-Jitendra-Jadon.pdf
  31. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lets-talk-tween/201609/my-easygoing-kid-is-stressing-me-out
  32. https://davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/63c8ac285d655.pdf
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6520801/
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3746906/
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021968169900617
  36. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED249262.pdf
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2709081/
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6494385/
  39. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00845123
  40. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-02917-001
  41. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00845348
  42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3611294/
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7057355/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022399983900557
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40472016
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1173896/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7465739/
  48. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.018
  49. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/jaha.113.000052
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167527301004417
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6310178/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791370/
  53. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-51185-034
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8969726/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9013170/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10476868/
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389705833_The_Type_a_Behavior_Pattern_and_Immune_Reactivity_to_Brief_Stress_Change_of_Volume_of_Secretory_Immunoglobulin_a_in_Saliva
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3977138/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3893969/
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0001879184900447
  61. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011343226440
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9245671/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3893969
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1492050/
  65. https://awspntest.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.839
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009265669190032L
  67. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc500996/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022399988900578
  69. https://crestcom.com/blog/2023/12/12/type-a-vs-type-b-leadership-and-personality-differences/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5058439/
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4025299/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021968168900167
  73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6620209/
  74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_10
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0021968187901469
  76. https://www.ajconline.org/article/0002-9149%2885%2990838-0/abstract
  77. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181030-why-type-a-isnt-really-a-thing
  78. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/202111/the-myth-the-type-personality
  79. https://www.businessinsider.com/type-a-personality-traits-smoking-marketing-2016-8
  80. https://priceonomics.com/the-invention-of-the-type-a-personality/
  81. https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/the-tobacco-industry-helped-create-the-type-a-personality.html
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12379021/
  83. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-12453-001
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3612469/
  85. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-01478-001
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879185900399
  87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6644538/
  88. https://unhealthywork.org/psychological-risk-factors/hostility-and-coronary-heart-disease/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673696031418
  90. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9354086/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.