Personality type (individual differences)

• Personality definition

  • A combination of characteristics and qualities that form an individuals distinct character
• Friedman and Rosenman

  • Observed that patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) shared a pattern of behaviours, which they called a type A personality
  • They also identified characteristics of type B personality
• type A personality

  • Competitive = achievement-motivated, ambitious, aware of status
  • Time-urgent = fast-talking, impatient, proactive, multitaskers
  • Hostile = aggressive, intolerant, quick to anger
• type B personality

  • Relaxed
  • Tolerant
  • Reflective
  • ‘Laid back‘
  • Less competitive than type As
• western collaborative group study (WCGS) (Friedman and Rosenman)

  • 3000 males in california were medically assessed as free of CHD at the start of the study
  • Assessed for personalits type by answering 25 questions in a structured interview
  • Interviews were conducted to incite type-A related behaviour (eg interviewer would be aggressive and frequently interrupt)
• type A link to CHD (Friedman and Rosenman)

  • 8 1/2 years later = 257 men had developed CHD
  • 70% of these had been assess at the start of the study as type A
  • Type As had higher levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline AND higher blood pressure/cholesterol
  • Suggests type A personality makes people vulnerable to stressors because impatience and hostility caused raised physiological stress response
• type C personality

  • Pathological niceness
  • People pleasers
  • Compliant
  • Self-sacrificing
  • Avoid conflict by repressing emotions, especially anger (particularly relevant to cancer proneness)
• type C link to cancer (proposed by Temoshok and studied by Dattore et al)

  • Dattore et al = studied 200 veterans of the Vietnam war (75 cancer patients and others with non-cancer diagnosis)
  • Cancer patients reported significantly greater emotional repression and fewer depression symptoms (unlikely to acknowledge depression because repressing emotions)
  • This is evidence of a link between type C and cancer proneness
• strength = type A/B has RWA

  • Ragland and Brand = followed up heart attack survivors for the WCGS - years later death rate for type B was higher than for type As
  • One explanation is that type A survivors of a heart attack were more likely than type Bs to change their behaviour (healthier, less stress)
  • => data from research can be useful in convincing type A individuals to change their behaviour and thus live longer
• counterpoint to type A/B having RWA

  • WCGS and flow-up pps were men = knowledge based on how men respond to stress, not tested with women and may be less relevant to women (beta bias)
  • => research into type A/B may be gender-biased as some of our knowledge is based on male pps only
• limitation = type A concept is too broad

  • Researchers have focused on the hostility component (selfish, mistrusting, contemptuous) to explain the link between stress and CHD
  • Carmelli et al = found very high CHD-related deaths after 27 years in a subgroup of WCGS men with high hostility scores
  • => its not the broad type A personality that is linked to illness but the narrower hostility component
• limitation = evidence challenging the role of type C in cancer

  • Greer and Morris = found a link between breast cancer and emotional suppression of type C (as predicted by the theory)
  • BUT = the link only existed in women under the age of 50 AND research generally has inconsistent findings
  • Suggests that the role of personality in cancer is not straightforward and is moderated by age and probably other biological factors
• extra evaluation = type A and type B difference

  • Evidence suggests 2 distinct personality types (A and B) tha response to stress differently
  • Type As are more likely to deal with stress in a way that harms their health
  • BUT = other evidence shows the link is weak and correlational - inconsistent and contradictory findings suggest the type A/B distinction is blurred
  • => type A is no longer a particularly useful concept because it cannot be used to predict who will become in response to stress