Home  About us  Contact
 

Type A Behaviour (type a + behaviour)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Psychology100%

Selected Abstracts

Personality variable differences between disease clusters

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 2 2003
G. Matthews
Previous studies of personality and health have focused mainly on the influence of psychological factors on single diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD), thereby neglecting the problem of comorbidity (i.e. the combination of different diseases). The main focus of the present study was the discrimination between single- and multiple-disease conditions on the basis of personality traits. An extensive battery of personality scales implicated in health was administered to a sample of n=5133 individuals of both genders between the ages of 40 and 65. Subjects also reported their health or illness status. A factor analysis of the personality scales yielded five dimensions clearly interpretable as "Emotional Lability", "Type A Behaviour", "Behavioural Control", "Locus of Control over Diseases", and "Psychoticism". Hierarchical cluster analyses of the subsample of participants who reported suffering from more than one disease led to eight clusters representing individuals with different combinations of diseases. Generally, there were very few significant differences between healthy and single-disease participants with regard to personality. However, mean factor scores calculated for "Emotional Lability" were higher across the multiple-disease groups than in the healthy and single-disease groups. No other personality factor showed this trend. In general the results reported here show the important role negative affectivity (e.g. Emotional Lability, Neuroticism, Depression) plays in differentiating between single and multiple diseases. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Predicting psychological health: assessing the incremental validity of emotional intelligence beyond personality, Type A behaviour, and daily hassles

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 6 2005
Arla L. Day
Although some research has linked emotional intelligence (EI) and psychological health, little research has examined EI's ability to predict health outcomes after controlling for related constructs, or EI's ability to moderate the stressor,strain relationship. The present study explored the relationships among EI (as assessed by a trait-based measure, the EQ-i), Big Five personality factors, Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP), daily hassles, and psychological health/strain factors (in terms of perceived well-being, strain, and three components of burnout). The EQ-i was highly correlated with most aspects of personality and TABP. After controlling for the impact of hassles, personality, and TABP, the five EQ-i subscales accounted for incremental variance in two of the five psychological health outcomes. However, the EQ-i scales failed to moderate the hassles,strain relationship. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Differentiating Type A behaviour and hyperactivity using observed motivation during a reaction time task

INFANT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, Issue 2 2003
Lilianne Nyberg
Abstract In light of the previously found overlap between Type A behaviour as measured by the Matthews Youth Test for Health (MYTH) and hyperactivity scales, the overall aim of this study was to clarify the standing of MYTH-defined Type A behaviour relative to hyperactivity and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), using observed task motivation and performance on a choice reaction-time task, the Complex Reaction Time (CRT) measure. This study included 21 boys exhibiting Type A behaviour, 22 ADHD boys, 20 non-clinically hyperactive boys, and 20 non-hyperactive boys, between the ages of 6 and 13 years. It was proposed that a differentiation of constructs would be possible using observed task motivation if the MYTH were a discriminantly valid measure of Type A behaviour. Results showed that the MYTH-defined Type A group differed from the clinically diagnosed ADHD group, although it was markedly similar to the non-clinical hyperactive group, displaying comparable CRT performance and low level of task motivation. Type A behaviour correlated to CRT performance and task motivation in a way which was conceptually more indicative of hyperactivity than of Type A behaviour, which questions the validity of the MYTH as a measure of the Type A construct. The MYTH Impatience subscale was found to be particularly impure with regard to hyperactivity. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]