JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY MONOGRAPH

The Nomological Validity of the Type A Personality Among Employed Adults Daniel C. Ganster

John Schaubroeck

Department of Management University of Arkansas

Department of Management University of Nebraska

Wesley E. Sime

Bronston T. Mayes

Stress Physiology Laboratory University of Nebraska

Center for Organizational and Economic Studies California State University, Fullerton

The nomological validity of the Type A behavior pattern was explored. The Structured Interview (SI) and a battery of personality trait, physical health, and strain measures were administered to an occupationally diverse sample of 568 workers. Ss were also monitored for physiological reactivity and recovery (blood pressure, heart rate, skin temperature, and electrodermal response) to the SI and a subsequent Stroop Color-Word Conflict Task. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that SI scores can be factored into three distinct dimensions. There was considerable overlap in the patterns of personality traits that characterized the Type A components, but only a Hostility dimension was significantly related to physiological reactivity and recovery. The results have implications for distinguishing coronary-proneness from the more traditional Type A conceptualization.

Since the original work of M. Friedman and Rosenman in the 1950s (Rosenmann et al., 1964), several studies in the fields of behavioral medicine and psychology have found evidence of a psychobehavioral risk factor that partially explains adverse health outcomes, such as coronary heart disease (CHD) and coronary artery disease (CAD). The Structured Interview (SI; Dembroski, MacDougall, & Lushene, 1979), an instrument assessing "the outcome of a set of [individual] predispositions interacting with specific types of eliciting situations, including those that might be considered stressful and challenging" (Matthews, 1985, p. 154), evolved out of the original research and has demonstrated validity in predicting the onset of cardiovascular distress independent of traditional risk factors, such as poor diet, cigarette smoking, untreated hypertension, and chronic exposure to acute environmental stressors (BoothKewley & H. S. Friedman, 1987). The individual difference that this instrument attempts to measure is conventionally labeled

the Type A behavior pattern (TABP), and much research has explored its plausible antecedents and the mediational mechanisms that might explain health effects (see review by Suls & Sanders, 1989). Moreover, research into TABP is increasingly concerned with its role in working populations, including its effects on occupational selection, reactions to work stress, and job performance (see reviews by Ganster, Sime, & Mayes [1989] and Ivancevich & Matteson [1988]). As noted by H. S. Friedman and Booth-Kewley 0987a), however, a major impediment to TABP research has been the broad and vague conceptualization of the TABP construct, "ranging from workaholism and aggression to a particular expressive and emotional style" (p. 783). This ambiguity, coupled with evidence that other psychological factors underly TABP (Matthews, 1982), has led researchers to explore a broader range of individual differences in TABP studies. In this more recent research, stable indicators of the coronary-prone person are considered as a composite of personality traits rather than as a single unitary dimension (Booth-Kewley & H. S. Friedman, 1987; H. S. Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987a). It is also not clear what general individual differences are measured by the SI. It has been called the "gold standard" of TABP because of its superior success in predicting CHD and CAD in research and because many researchers are convinced that the other TABP measures, which rely exclusively on written self-reports, cannot measure TABP as it is conceptualized (Dembroski & Czajkowski, 1989). The SI includes self-reported historical (or content) components concerning such states as

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (1 RO1 MH34408 and 1 RO1 MH40368). Additional support for remote site testing was provided by the Commonwealth Electric Company. We would like to thank Mary Barton, Pamela Perrewe, and Marcelline Fusilier for their help in various stages of the research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel C. Ganster, Department of Management, University of Arkansas, 402 Business Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, Vol. 76, No. 1,143-168 Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 002I-9010/9I/S3.00

143

144

GANSTER, SCHAUBROECK, SIME, AND MAYES

hostility, competitive drive, and impatience, some interviewerobserved auditory stylistics, such as response latency and rapid speech, and evaluations of the subject's interpersonal style as it is represented in a stimulus-intense exchange. Research evidence suggests that the SI does not measure a unitary trait, nor should TABP be conceptualized as such (Matthews, 1985). As stated by Scherwitz (1989): "We must get away from the trait idea and the trait measure, which has blocked creative thinking, and continue the search for the nature of the Type A behavior pattern" (p. 143). The dimensionality of the SI and the psychological profile of the coronary-prone individual are clearly interrelated. First, some variables measured by the SI, such as hostility, stand out in terms of their predictive potential (Dembroski & Czajkowski, 1989). Distinct SI factors need to be identified so that future research can focus on the more predictive components of the TABP conceptualization and can identify factors that are simply benign correlates of TABP. Without such knowledge, the common practice of assuming that an instrument is a pure exemplar of the TABP construct leads to interpretational confounding in substantive studies. Conversely, insofar as the SI is the most successful trait measure in predicting CHD and CAD, understanding what the SI measures and what it does not measure is a critical starting point for researchers attempting to discover other traits that can be used to form a more predictive composite. For these reasons, Matthews (1985) suggested that investigations of the nomological validity of TABP and its exemplars, particularly in terms of psychological correlates, could be most revealing. Distinct dimensions of TABP may also be differentially related to health outcomes. Examining the SI dimensions in relation to personality variables and health-related indices will lend precision to the conceptualization of TABP by establishing its nomological network (i.e., its pattern of convergent and discriminant validity with respect to other scientific constructs). Development of the nomological network will provide a basis for theoretical understanding of mediating processes underlying overt expressions of the TABP, and it will aid in the identification of particular subgroups of the traditional Type A population who are more at risk of developing various clinical manifestations of coronary disease (Matthews, 1985; McCranie, Simpson, & Stevens, 1981; Scherwitz, Berton, & Leventhal, 1978). In the present study, we developed and empirically explored a nomological network for TABP as it is operationalized by the SI. We began by hypothesizing a factor structure of the SI on the basis of previous research. We then identified plausible personality-trait correlates of the hypothesized TABP factors. The network also includes psychological strain, illness, and physiological reactivity outcomes that may be related to the TABP and personality indices and may mediate their effects on morbidity. Following confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of TABP exemplars (including SI variables), we used the resultant factors in an exploratory investigation of their relationships with cognate personality constructs, physical and psychological strains, and physiological reactivity and recovery.

Type A Assessment With the Structured Interview M. Friedman and Rosenman developed the SI from their clinical observations of cardiac patients (Rosenman et al.,

1964). Rosenman et al. observed that the patients manifested a variety of dispositions that appeared to distinguish them from the healthy population. After conducting exploratory surveys of other physicians, Rosenman et al. suggested that a set of observed characteristics represented a pattern of traits, including a drive to accomplish many poorly defined things, a love of competition, a proclivity for recognition and advancement, habitual time urgent behavior, acceleration of physical and mental activity, and intense concentration and alertness (Dembroski & Czajkowski, 1989; Rosenman, 1986). They further suggested that these traits were observable in terms of "emotional overtones" contained in the individual's physical responses to questions as well as within the expressed content of the verbal responses. Hence, the SI was developed in an effort to elicit characteristic responses by using provocative interviewer tactics (e.g., interrupting the subject's answers, taking lengthy pauses during questions) as well as to provide a vehicle for subjects to describe their Type A tendencies in an unconstrained format. Though current forms of the SI vary considerably, all contain variables relating to speech characteristics (e.g., explosive speech, response latency), physically expressed attitudes (e.g., competitiveness with the interviewer), and answer content (e.g., self-reports of impatience in daily life). Type A categorization is done with a global A versus B classification and with a four- or five-category assignment that essentially represents a continuous A-B scale. For each type of categorization, individual variables (e.g., answers to questions) are summed to dimension level, and the dimensions are then combined to arrive at a categorization. Two or more interviewers trained and certified in the SI conduct independent interviews. Interrater agreement usually ranges from 65% to 85% on the simple A versus B dichotomy (Scherwitz, 1989).

Global Type A-B Categorization The Western Collaborative Group Study (WCGS; Rosenman et al., 1964,1975) was the first prospective study of the relationship between TABP and CHD. After controlling for traditional CHD risk factors (e.g., blood pressure, obesity, physical activity, serum cholesterol, smoking), Rosenman et al. found that, among nearly 3,200 men free of CHD symptoms at the beginning of the study, those categorized as Type A by the SI were twice as likely as those categorized as Type B to manifest symptoms within 8.5 years. In fact, the SI proved to be as strong a predictor of CHD as any traditional risk factor. Autopsy data from subjects who died during the course of the study demonstrated that SI categorization was positively related to CAD. The SI has been significantly associated with these and related outcomes (e.g., incidence of myocardial infarction) in other studies (e.g., M. Friedman et al., 1984; Williams et al., 1986). On the whole, however, there have been enough nonsignificant findings (e.g., Shekelle et al., 1985) to weaken the argument regarding the relationship between SI categorization and cardiovascular health (Dembroski & Czajkowski, 1989).

SI Components Inconsistent research results have led researchers to question the viability of studying global TABP as a strategy for identify-

MONOGRAPH: TYPE A PERSONALITY

ing coronary-prone persons. It has been observed that some components of the SI scoring system (e.g., achievement-oriented striving), which largely subsume other TABP measures (e.g., the Jenkins Activity Scale, the Framingham Type A Scale, the Thurstone Activity Scale, the Bortner Scale), are unassociated with health. The hostility and speech characteristics components of the SI, on the other hand, consistently predict CHD and CAD. Matthews, Glass, Rosenman, and Bortner (1977) and Hecker, Frautschi, Chesney, Black, and Rosenman (1985), in separate subsample analyses of WCGS participants, observed that the hostility component of the SI best discriminated CHD cases from controls. Dembroski, MacDougall, Williams, Haney, and Blumenthal (1985) reanalyzed audiovisual tapes from a Duke University hospital patient sample and found that anger expressed inward and hostility were positively correlated with CAD severity but that the global A-B designation did not discriminate cases. Similarly, within a different sample for which no global SI effect on CAD was found, MacDougall, Dembroski, Dimsdale, and Hackett (1985) observed that hostility (in addition to time urgency) was positively associated with CAD. In several other studies conducted by Dembroski et al. (1985), Si-measured hostility was correlated with CAD severity. However, the SI is not the only measure that provides a predictive hostility index. Williams et al. (1986) have consistently succeeded in predicting CHD and CAD with the self-report CookMedley Hostility Scale (see review by Dembroski & Czajkowski, 1989). Literature reviewed by Siegman (1989) and H. S. Friedman (1989) also suggests that speech characteristics measured by the SI may explain unique variance in CAD and CHD. For example, in separate hospital patient studies conducted by Siegman, Feldstein, Tommaso, Ringel, and Lating (1987) and Siegman (in press), expressive vocal behavior (e.g., loudness) was significantly correlated with CAD severity, even in the absence of a significant relationship between global TABP and CAD. More recently, after controlling for traditional risk factors, Scherwitz, Graham, Grandits, and Billings (1990) observed that CHD incidence was positively related to vocal emphasis and response latency in a case-control study of participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Rosenman (1978) argued that interviewees' speech characteristics (i.e., short response latencies, loud speech, rapid and accelerating speech, and frequent interruptions of the interviewer) should be the primary determinant of A-B categorization, and interviewers apparently heed this advice. Actual answer content (self-reports of ratees) typically carry little weight in the overall judgment, and answer content is relatively unpredictive when examined in isolation from other SI components (see review by Scherwitz, 1989). When component correlation matrices have been inspected, SI content has also directly evidenced discriminant validity in relation to speech characteristics (Anderson & Waldron, 1983; Dembroski, MacDougall, Shields, Petitto, & Lushene, 1978; Mayes, Sime, & Ganster, 1984). Matthews et al. (1977) and Musante, MacDougall, Dembroski, and Van Horen (1983) reported results of exploratory factor analyses of the SI that reinforce this distinction, but we found no efforts to determine the viability of hostility as a factor distinct from speech characteris-

145

tics and answer content. One goal of the present study was to examine this three-factor model by using a CFA approach. In summary, the stimulus-intense nature of the SI is most appropriate for measuring the "action-emotion," environmentally elicited nature of the TABP concept; empirical research supports the Si's superiority over other instruments. The SI also assesses a greater range of TABP-relevant characteristics (e.g., hostility, vocal expressiveness) than do the self-report mainstays. Nevertheless, though better than its counterparts, the global TABP designation derived from the SI is inconsistent as a predictor of major health outcomes. Components of the SI that appear to have distinct psychological interpretations, however, seem to consistently explain unique variance in CHD and CAD, even in studies in which no global A-B effects have been found. Specifically, hostility and speech characteristics appear to be distinct and toxic dimensions of the TABR Answer-content components of the SI are distinct from these factors and are relatively benign in the prediction of morbidity. On the basis of the limited available evidence, we hypothesized that a factor structure (hereinafter referred to as Model 1) including hostility (measured through answer content and nonverbal interview behavior), speech stylistics and characteristics, and answer content unrelated to hostility would account for most of the information contained in the SI.

Physiological Correlates of the TABP The prospective studies of the relationship between TABP and cardiovascular morbidity are augmented by additional field research examining strain and physical symptomatology outcomes, as well as by laboratory work examining plausible mediational mechanisms for health effects. What follows is a brief review of this literature. Physiological Reactivity The abundant research on the TABP-reactivity linkage is based on the hypothesis that chronic elevations of the sympathetic nervous system lead to deterioration of the cardiovascular system. "Indeed, it has been proposed that an exaggerated physiologic responsivity to behavioral challenges may be implicated in the development or clinical expression of major cardiovascular disorders, such as coronary heart disease (CHD) and essential hypertension" (Manuck & Krantz, 1986, p. 12). It has also been suggested that chronic hyperreactivity may compromise the immune system and thereby facilitate other illnesses (see review by Dienstbier, 1989). Hyperreactivity has been implicated as a possible explanation for Type A individuals' disproportionate tendency toward serious accidents leading to injury and death (see review by Suls & Sanders, 1988). In addition, reactivity has been studied as a mediator between TABP and task performance (cf. Dembroski et al., 1978; Krantz, Manuck, & Wing, 1986). Reactivity is tested by correlating the independent variable of interest (e.g., TABP) with the level of change in a physiological indicator (e.g., diastolic blood pressure) in response to a challenging stimulus, most commonly the SI or the Stroop ColorWord Conflict Task (Stroop, 1935). Suls and Sanders (1989)

146


conducted a meta-analysis of the reactivity literature and concluded that laboratory studies consistently found higher systolic blood pressure reactivity among Type A individuals (as measured by the SI). In about half of the studies reviewed by Houston (1986), corresponding effects on heart rate and diastolic blood pressure reactivity were observed. The meta-analysis conducted by Suls and Sanders (1989), however, indicated that these indices have not proved to be robust SI correlates. In contrast, Harbin (1989) observed, in a separate meta-analysis, that the SI global rating was a strong and consistent predictor of blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure reactivity. In both cases, the SI fared much better than its counterparts in predicting reactivity. SI components are also distinguished by their success in predicting physiological reactivity. Houston (1986) reviewed reactivity studies of anger and hostility trait effects (including stylistic and content components of hostility from the SI) and found a "fairly consistent" positive relation between hostility and reactivity (p. 214). In at least two studies, a positive relationship has been found between Si-derived verbal competitiveness scores and various indicators of physiological reactivity (Dembroski et al., 1978; Glass, Lake, Contrada, Kehoe, & Erlanger, 1983). Dembroski, MacDougall, and Lushene (1979) observed that content ratings of competitiveness from the SI were positively associated with systolic blood pressure reactivity. Physiological Recovery The period of recovery following the apex of an individual's physiological reaction to a stressor has recently received attention as an effect that may have relationships to immunosuppression and vascular deterioration that are distinct from or stronger than the reactivity itself (Dienstbier, 1989). "In fact, recovery period responses might be the most diagnostic of compromised functioning. Thus it is interesting to note that, with few exceptions, reactivity studies do not even discuss recovery data" (Matthews, 1986, p. 463). Accordingly, in the present study, we explored linkages between theoretical psychological dimensions and recovery as well as the traditional reactivity indices. Other Strain Correlates of the TABP

Because Type A individuals may be prone to sympathetic nervous system arousal, which in turn can produce immunosuppression, TABP may be a general risk factor for physical disorder (Dienstbier, 1989). Rosenman et al. (1975), analyzing the 8'/2 year follow-up study of the WCGS participants, found that Type A individuals were 1.35 times more likely to have died from causes not related to vascular disease than were Type B individuals. Of five studies in which the SI Type A-physical symptomatology linkage was explicitly studied, only one yielded a significant association (see review by Suls & Sanders, 1988). These studies, however, were focused only on the global Type A categorization and involved relatively small samples of subjects. In the present study, to further develop the TABP nomological network, we followed the recommendations of Suls and Sanders (1988), who suggested that the effects of SI compo-

nents on symptomatology should be studied further (pp. 220-221).

Personality Correlates of TABP It should be clear that TABP is not viewed as a trait in the sense of being stable across situations. TABP is seen, however, as a propensity to respond to stimuli in a characteristic manner, with a set of underlying psychological attributes associated with the response (Matthews, 1982). Cognate personality constructs are of interest because they enable researchers to establish the construct validity of TABP and its exemplars. As stated by Matthews (1982), "it would be beneficial to develop and include in the assessment battery of future studies measures of the various psychological dimensions proposed to underlie the Type A construct. . . . By doing so, a more direct test of the importance of these dimensions can be made. Similarly, it would be useful to inspect the existing Type A measures for their ability to assess the Type A dimensions of interest" (p. 316). Although there have been several investigations of psychological states associated with TABP (e.g., depression, state anxiety), interest in TABP as a risk factor determining long-term health outcomes implies that its underlying psychological attributes are commensurately stable. Following Matthews' (1982) prescription, we identify in the following sections conventional personality constructs that are thought to be related to behavioral and psychological dimensions of TABR An exploratory examination of the relationships between these constructs and TABP dimensions provides a necessary first stage of a nomological approach to the construct validation of the TABP. Such an approach will help determine the traits underlying specific TABP instrumentation as well as enhance understanding of the relative importance of posited personality dimensions of TABP. Neuroticism and Trait Anxiety The concepts of neuroticism and trait anxiety are closely allied in research and theory. Neuroticism is conceptualized as "a broad dimension of individual differences in the tendency to experience negative, distressing emotions and to possess associated behavioral and cognitive traits" (Costa & McCrae, 1987, p. 301). Costa, McCrae, and Dembroski (1989) suggested that neurotics tend to experience intense anger and "antagonistic hostility, which is characterized by cynicism, callousness, and uncooperativeness" (p. 48). Trait anxious persons live in a constant state of psychological vigilance and physiological arousal. Neuroticism and trait anxiety measures are mutually posited to represent the broader concept space of trait negative affectivity (trait NA), which "subsumes a broad range of aversive mood states, including anger, disgust, scorn, guilt, fearfulness, and depression. . . . High NA subjects . . . tend to focus on the negative side of others and are less satisfied with themselves and their lives" (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989, p. 234-235). Both neuroticism and anxiety (state and trait) have been positively associated with cortisol (Anisman & LaPierre, 1982) and salivary immunoglobulin (S-IgA; Ursin et al., 1984). Cortisol has been identified as a marker of endogenous depressive disorders, and S-IgA is a demonstrated factor in immunological


functioning. Perhaps as a consequence of these biological factors, neuroticism and trait anxiety are positively associated with psychological strains, such as chronic depression and self-reports of illness on health-complaint instruments (see Costa & McCrae's [1987] review of neuroticism outcomes and H. S. Friedman & Booth-Kewley's [1987a] meta-analysis, which included anxiety outcomes). Neuroticism and trait anxiety demonstrate a consistent significant (albeit modest) correlation with cardiovascular disease (Booth-Kewley & H. S. Friedman, 1987). They are more strongly correlated with complaints associated with heart disease, such as angina pectoris (persistent attacks of severe chest pain). In fact, Costa, Fleg, McCrae, and Lakatta (1982) found a trait NA measure to predict chest pain and angina in a 20-year prospective study. Perhaps not surprisingly, trait anxiety and neuroticism scores are as a rule highly correlated. As conceptualized, neuroticism and trait anxiety ought to predict hostility scores from the SI or other instruments. It is not clear, however, whether neuroticism and trait anxiety are associated with more traditional TABP exemplars. Neuroticism and trait anxiety do not tend to be associated with the global TABP categorization (from either the Jenkins Activity Survey or the SI; Chesney, Black, Chadwick, & Rosenman, 1981), although significant correlations have been observed (Bass, 1984; also see Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger, 1987). However, correlations between these personality constructs and SI speech characteristics have been reported in several studies. For example, in all six studies reviewed by Murray (1971), significant negative associations between response latency and trait anxiety were found, with three correlations being statistically significant. Given the very high association between neuroticism and trait anxiety, any contrast in the effects of these constructs on hostility, expressive behavior (i.e., speech characteristics), and impatience and hurried behavior (i.e., SI content and other TABP measures) when examined in a multivariate context may provide important insights. Extroversion The conventional conceptualization of TABP conjures an image of an individual actively responding to stimuli and initiating events. Accordingly, Type A individuals are pictured as socially outgoing (at least when not submerged in work), and this picture is borne out by empirical research. Extraversion, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963), has been significantly associated with the global SI Type A categorization (e.g., Chesney et al., 1981). A positive association between extraversion and CHD, and between extraversion and other health outcomes, has been reported in several studies. The statistical significance of these effects, however, has varied across studies (Booth-Kewley & H. S. Friedman, 1987; H. S. Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987a). As noted by H. S. Friedman and Booth-Kewley (1987a), the active, vigorous person, who is often characterized as Type A, may not share the enhanced impatience, hostility, and tenseness that also constitute the conventional Type A constellation (p. 784). Therefore, relating extraversion to various TABP dimensions (e.g., expressive style, hostility, and impatience) ought to provide more information about the variety of expressive

147

styles observed in the Type A population. In addition, introverts are posited to be more cortically aroused than extraverts and to have lower thresholds for responses to sensory stimulation (Houston, 1986). Thus, whereas extraverts may carry some markers of TABP, introverts may be more reactive. Therefore, if indeed introversion is negatively correlated with TABP, it may have a suppressing effect on the relationship between TABP and reactivity. Extraversion scales are also the predominant means of measuring trait positive affectivity (PA), a predisposition to be secure and satisfied with oneself and the world in general (Watson, 1988). Although trait PA would seem to be the opposite of trait NA, trait PA is not consistently related to health complaints, nor is there any apparent linkage with cardiovascular health. Examining the effects of both trait NA and trait PA on TABP dimensions within the same study may therefore be critical for the TABP nomological network. As stated by Watson et al. (1987), the variables traditionally associated with the Type A personality (e.g., drive, ambition, time urgency) may correlate positively with both trait NA and trait PA. Need for Achievement and Need for Power Achievement and power orientations have been studied in relation to stress and TABP because of their clear conceptual link to driving, ambitious, control-oriented behaviors. Need for achievement (nAch) has been positively linked to the self-setting of challenging goals, persistence in goal-oriented behavior, and the seeking of responsibility for solving problems (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). The avoidance of easy and extremely difficult goals would seem to be consistent with the Type A individual's drive to accomplish many things. Individuals high in the need for power (nPower) are similarly characterized. They are posited to be competitive and aggressive, interested in the accumulation of things and memberships, and to prefer action over reflection (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Therefore both hostility and the more traditional Type A variables can be expected to correlate positively with nPower. Several empirical studies conducted in university student populations indicate a positive linear relationship between nPower and stress symptoms and reactivity. For example, high nPower student supervisors in a group stress experiment conducted by Fodor (1984) reported higher cognitive arousal in response to stressful interpersonal stimuli than did their low nPower counterparts. Among 45 undergraduates in an exam situation, high nPower subjects studied by McClelland, Ross, and Patel (1985) showed significantly higher norepinephrine saliva concentration and a significantly greater subsequent drop in S-IgA. Both of these effects indicate depressed immune system functioning. McClelland, Davidson, andSaron(1985)replicated these findings with a separate sample of 27 college students, and they further observed that nPower was negatively associated with S-IgA. Although McClelland and his colleagues (McClelland, Davidson, & Saron, 1985; McClelland, Ross, & Patel, 1985) suggested that these findings may be attributed to greater responsivity on the part of high nPower individuals, it is not clear whether nPower is associated with the TABP phenomenon. Much research supports a link between the SI and power and

148


control orientations (not directly analogous to nPower) and nAch (see review by Matthews, 1982). Blumenthal, Lane, and Williams (1985) observed that Si-measured TABP was not related to the Thematic Apperception Test measure of nPower. Inasmuch as they use strong, forceful actions to control others, persons characterized by high SI hostility may be expected to exhibit high power motivation. Musante et al. (1983) and Fontana, Rosenberg, Kerns, and Marcus (1984) reported significant positive correlations between SI hostility and control motivation. Literature on aggression from the field of social psychology also suggests such relationships. For example, Mason and Blankenship (1987) reported that high nPower was positively associated with men's physical abuse of their intimate female partners. Internal Locus of Control Matthews (1982, p. 309), after reviewing the literature, concluded that Type A individuals are more easily threatened by a loss of control than are Type B individuals. There is further evidence that Type A individuals may perceive more or less self-control over stressors and other environmental influences. Brunson and Matthews (1981) observed that Type A individuals attributed their failures on a difficult laboratory task to a lack of ability (an internal cause), whereas Type B individuals attributed failure to external factors, such as luck and task difficulty. Contrada, Wright, and Glass (1985) similarly observed that Type A individuals made more use of control mechanisms to avoid noxious stimulation than did Type B individuals, suggesting that Type B individuals experienced helpless cognitions more readily than did Type A individuals. Using participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trials, H. S. Friedman, Hall, and Harris (1985) found that Type A individuals, defined by triangulating the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) and the Affective Communication Test (ACT; a behavior observation system very similar to the stylistic components of the SI), scored significantly higher on internal locus of control than did persons scoring low on either the JAS or ACT. Furthermore, internal locus of control has been associated with higher resistance to stress in the hardiness research conducted by Kobasa and her colleagues (e.g., Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983; Nowack & Sassenroth, 1980). In several studies, internal locus of control has been positively associated with systolic blood pressure reactivity (e.g., Manuck, Craft, & Gold, 1978), diastolic blood pressure reactivity (DeGood, 1975), and heart rate (blood pressure) reactivity (Houston, 1972). In fact, in his review of psychological predictors of reactivity, Houston (1986) stated that locus of control is among the most important correlates of cardiovascular reactivity (p. 222). In view of the importance of the concept of control to understanding TABP and its relation to major health outcomes (Matthews, 1982), personality concepts such as nPower and internal locus of control may prove informative about the psychological dispositions underlying TABR Self-Esteem Although there is little evidence that self-esteem is directly related to CHD (H. S. Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987a), self-

esteem has been significantly correlated with systolic blood pressure reactivity to stressors in the laboratory (Scherwitz et al., 1977) and with SI categorization (e.g., Chesney et al., 1981). H. S. Friedman and Booth-Kewley (1987b) included self-esteem in their predictive study of SI categorization and health status in recognition of suggestions made by Matthews (1982) and Strube (1985), among others, that "Type As are particularly concerned with self-esteem enhancement and protection" (H. S. Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987b, p. 785). They observed negligible correlations with both outcomes. One possible explanation for these equivocal findings is that self-esteem is negatively correlated with the unhealthy conditions of neuroticism, anxiety, and depression. For this reason, self-esteem may have a suppressing effect, as does extraversion, on the relationship between TABP and reactivity. Aggression and anger are plausible psychological strategies that individuals with low self-esteem may use to bolster their negative self-images (Novaco, 1975). However, the relationship between self-esteem and expressive hostility as measured by the SI has been investigated in only one study. Musante et al. (1983) observed no relationship between these measures. Sex Role Orientation As we noted earlier, the relative potency of SI behavioral components (e.g., speech characteristics) in predicting CHD and CAD has led to an interest in understanding the role of emotional expression (H. S. Friedman, 1989; H. S. Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987a). In conventional perceptions, individual differences in expressive orientation are viewed as distinguishing societal norms for the sexes. The stereotype of men as confident, outgoing, active, competitive, and ambitious, observed in the research of Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1975), constitutes a composite, albeit naive, of TABR Waldron (1978) even suggested that TABP results from social reinforcement for engaging in traditionally masculine activities. At least two studies support this proposition. Degregorio and Carver (1980) and Nix and Lohr (1981) observed that JAS-defined Type A individuals scored significantly higher than Type B individuals on the Masculinity subscale of the Bern Sex Role Inventory. The stereotypic woman also exhibits a range of expressive behavior. Chesney et al. (1981), for example, found "nurturance" and "abasement" from the Adjective Checklist to be significantly correlated with SI Type A categorization. However, neither DeGregorio and Carver (1980) nor Nix and Lohr (1981) found a correlation between A-B designation and the Femininity subscale of the Bern Sex Role Inventory. The inventory, however, is based on actual differences between the self-descriptions of men and women, and hence the scores may not reflect cultural stereotypes. Accordingly, we investigated the relationship of a behavior pattern reflecting ideal gender images, as did Spence et al. (1975). Tolerance of Ambiguity

A hallmark of TABP has been the Type A individual's proclivity for developing and concurrently maintaining many ambiguously defined goals (Rosenman, 1986). Matthews (1982) suggested that TABP can be perpetuated by avoidance of


clearly defined standards for such behavior as productivity. It is not clear, however, whether Type A individuals constitutionally seek ambiguity or whether the drive to complete many activities and obtain many objects incidentally results in some discordant standards and goals. Although we found no research in which the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and TABP was examined, a study by Ray and Simons (1982) provides indirect support for a positive relationship. Specifically, their measure of authoritarianism was correlated with the JAS and was asserted to be the primary determinant of TABP. Authoritarianism bears a strong negative relationship to tolerance of ambiguity, both empirically and conceptually (Budner, 1962). Inasmuch as authoritarianism and rigidity can be seen as symptomatic of the aggressive and cynical personality, tolerance of ambiguity may bear a positive relationship with hostility as well as with more traditional Type A variables. Although tolerance of ambiguity may help to define the TABP personality composite, it is also conceptually related to effective stress coping because the ability to adapt to changes in one's environment is viewed as a facet of hardiness (Howard, Cunningham, & Rechnitzer, 1986, p. 230). Tolerance of ambiguity is, in addition, conceptually akin to the concept of field independence, which has been negatively correlated with TABP and serum cholesterol levels in several studies (cf. McCranie et al., 1981). Job Involvement Job involvement is frequently cited as a major correlate of traditional TABP. Job involvement serves as a subscale of the JAS and has been consistently shown to be related to other self-report measures of TABP (Matthews, 1982). Nevertheless, job involvement is not consistently associated with the global SI designation, and, in a meta-analysis of 17 studies of the relationship between job involvement and cardiovascular distress (Booth-Kewley & H. S. Friedman, 1987), no population correlation was supported. We hoped that examining the effects of job involvement on more specific dimensions of TABP (e.g., speech characteristics, answer content) while controlling for other factors associated with TABP, stress, and hardiness (e.g., nAch, nPower, internal locus of control, and self-esteem) would enable us to determine the extent to which the orientation toward work is endemic to TABP. Job involvement may also be related to effective coping in that "a deep feeling of involvement. . .in daily activities," as an aspect of the hardy personality, has been related to stress resistance (Howard et al., 1986, p. 230).

TABP-Personality Interactions H. S. Friedman (1989) suggested that there may be a range of individual differences within TABP subpopulations that, if identified, could help form a more predictive composite of the coronary-prone personality. In fact, H. S. Friedman and BoothKewley (1988) urged a stronger research emphasis on interactions in TABP-morbidity research. For example, they suggested that TABP components may interact with anxiety. To explore these issues, it is reasonable to examine interactions between TABP components and other personality variables that have been independently linked to reactivity or strain or

149

both. These latter variables include trait anxiety, neuroticism, extraversion, self-esteem, internal locus of control, nAch, and nPower. Because neuroticism and introversion are commonly found to interact in predicting stress and behavioral outcomes, three-way interactions that include a TABP component may provide a more precise test of their effects. The same can be said of nAch and nPower (McClelland & Burnham, 1976; McClelland, Davidson, & Saron, 1985; McClelland, Ross, & Patell, 1985). Interactions among the TABP components themselves also merit examination. Interactions among personality variables may also lend precision to their observed relationships with TABP components. Here again, we expected interactions between manifest needs as well as between neuroticism and introversion. Gender-specific role orientations are also known to interact among themselves and with gender.

Present Study As described in the previous sections, studies of the SI and its relation to personality variables have been limited by the scope of the personality variables examined. Small sample sizes have also characterized both the research in this area and research relating the SI and its components to reactivity and recovery, reflecting the difficulty of conducting the SI en masse in normal settings (vs. hospitals, for example). Indeed, our review of the TABP and reactivity literatures revealed that sample sizes have typically been quite small. For example, in Harbin's (1989) meta-analysis of Si-reactivity relationships, systolic blood pressure was the reactivity index having the largest cumulated sample size and the largest average sample size per study. Across 33 studies, 509 subjects were sampled (p. 113). Hence, the average study contained fewer than 16 subjects, and this may be an important factor explaining variability across studies in certain areas. Furthermore, nearly all investigations involving the SI or physiological reactivity or both have also been conducted in post-infarct or other clinical populations or have used students as research subjects. Because we used a sample of healthy, employed adults, the nomological relationships observed in this study should have greater generalizability. Matthews (1988) observed that the SI has fared much better at predicting cardiovascular distress in population-based studies. Thus, a broad theoretical scope and an unusually large sample of employed adults enabled us to examine several issues in the nomology of TABR The relationships portrayed in Figure 1 are derived from our review of previous research and theory concerning the TABP and its effects on other personality variables, strain indices, and physiological reactivity and recovery. Personality constructs are posited to have links with TABP only if such effects are consistent with previous research or theory (cf. introversion). Although some of the posited personality and strain variables have previously been shown to correlate with reactivity, these linkages are not illustrated in the diagram because the TABP exemplars are the focus of this investigation. As described in the previous sections, however, we did explore certain plausible interactions between TABP components and personality variables in the prediction of strain, reactivity, and recovery. The network displayed in Figure 1 is entirely literature-based, and no causal specification is asserted or implied. It is also

150

GANSTER, SCHAUBROECK, SIME, AND MAYES N - Power

Introversion Physiological Reactivity and Recovery Hostility,

-Blood pressure

Neuroticism

-Skin temperature Trait -Sweat

Anxiety

response

-Heart rate

peech Characterise

Tolerance of Ambiguity

Traditional Type A Personality

Internal LOG

Physical and Psychological Strains -physical symptoms -depression -life dissatisfaction -job dissatisfaction

-SI Content -Global SI rating -Thurstone

Self-esteem

N - Ach

Job Involvement

Sex Role Orientation

Figure 1. Nomological network of personality, traditional Type A behavior pattern variables, psychological and physical strain, and physiological reactivity variables. (N-Power = need for power; LOC = locus of control; SI = Structured Interview; and N-Ach = need for achievement.)

likely that few of these relationships represent viable etiological linkages. With the current diffuse state of theory and research in behavioral medicine, however, there is clearly inadequate guidance for the testing and trimming of a structural model. Accordingly, we took an incrementalist approach, first exploring the relationships between TABP constructs and personality indices in a multivariate context, and then examining relationships between these variables, strain, reactivity, and recovery. Discriminant validity is integral to the development of a nomological network. Thus, the relationships that are not posited here were as important to the examination as those that are. For example, whereas job dissatisfaction, depression, other psychological strains, and various physiological outcomes have been shown to be positively correlated with measures of NA (e.g., neuroticism), only reactivity has been a consistent correlate of global Type A instruments. Similarly, heart-rate reactivity has not proved to be a reliable covariate of TABP indices. We included such outcome measures in the network to examine discriminant validity. The first goal of the present study was to test a confirmatory factor model with measures of TABP. We tested the three-factor model of the SI (Model 1) developed earlier in this article. To reiterate, the model includes as common factors answer content (essentially reports of drive, hurriedness, and competitive orientation), speech characteristics, and hostility (expressed in terms of both answer content and nonverbal aggression). To examine the discriminant validity of the SI dimensions in reference to self-report operations, we incorporated an additional index of TABP, the Thurstone Activity Scale from the Thurstone Temperament Schedule (Thurstone, 1953). The Thurstone Activity

Scale has demonstrated convergence with other self-report measures of TABP, including the Bortner scale, the Framingham scale, and the JAS (Chesney et al., 1981; MacDougall, Dembroski, & Musante, 1979; Mayes et al., 1984). The Thurstone Activity Scale has also demonstrated convergent validity with the SI on a level superior to all other questionnaires (Dodd, Conti, & Sime, 1983; Chesney et al., 1981; MacDougall et al., 1979; Rahe, Hervig, & Rosenman, 1978). In fact, Rosenman and Chesney (1980) concluded that the Thurstone Activity Scale "shows the highest correlation with TABP of any psychometric questionnaires" (p. 14). Moreover, the Thurstone scale is positively associated with physiological reactivity (e.g., blood pressure lability, pulse rate; Pittner, Houston, & Spiridigliozzi, 1983) and has shown some potential as a predictor of CHD (Brozek, Keys, & Blackburn, 1966). Because the SI content includes speed and impatience variables and the Thurstone instrument primarily captures speed and time urgency, we compared an alternative model (Model 2), positing that the SI answer content variables and the Thurstone variables would load on the same common factor, with Model 1, in which SI hostility, speech characteristics, and answer content dimensions and the Thurstone Activity Scale each represent separate common factors. In the remainder of the study we investigated the nomological validity of the factors emerging from the CFA. TABP factors' nomological relationships were examined in blocks formed on the basis of type of outcome. Separate blocks included (a) other personality variables, (b) physical and psychological strain, (c) physiological reactivity, and (d) physiological recovery. We examined multivariate and bivariate relationships

MONOGRAPH: TYPE A PERSONALITY within each block to assess the pattern of effects among the different TABP factors. The personality-TABP interactions are presented after each assessment of main effects.

Method Sample and Procedure A total of 568 full-time workers from 26 occupations were surveyed and interviewed over several days at their places of employment. Each subject was administered the SI, a Stroop Color-Word Conflict Task, and a battery of survey instruments measuring personality, psychological strain, and health symptoms. Five separate sites are represented in the sample, including the headquarters of a major electrical contractor, two large construction sites, and the fire and police departments of a major metropolitan area. Each of these sites was located in the midwestern United States. Approximately 63% of the subjects were in blue-collar occupations (skilled and unskilled trades); the rest were in whitecollar occupations, including clerical and professional positions. The blue-collar workers included electricians, plumbers, carpenters, welders, laborers, firefighters, and police officers. The white-collar workers included engineers, draftsmen, accountants, middle and upper managers, data processing staff, and secretaries. The research participation rates were quite high across the five sites (70-80%). The participating organizations were selected for the study because their employee populations represented a high degree of occupational diversity and because they were willing to donate several hours of each employee's time on the job for purposes of data collection. The research team recruited employees at each site for a study on "work and health" by making a series of presentations to employee groups. At these presentations, the study protocol was described along with the rationale for the study. Employees were given time off from their jobs for interviews, questionnaire administrations, and physiological testing. All employees were also promised a personalized report on their data and its implications for their health. We attributed the high response rate mostly to these two inducements. The average age of the subjects was 33.6 years, educational attainment averaged just over one year of college, and the sample was 18% female.

Reactivity and Recovery Indices During the Structured Interview and Stroop Color-Word Conflict Task Subjects were brought directly from their job site to a quiet area designated as the field laboratory. Baseline measures of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, skin temperature, and electrodermal response (sweat) were obtained 2, 4, and 6 min before the SI (or longer until stable readings were observed). Five readings were taken at 2- to 3-min intervals during the interview. During baseline and recovery, measures were obtained at 2-min intervals. The reactivity measures were obtained at baseline (Tl), prior to (T2) and during (T3-T5) the SI, during the Stroop Color-Word Conflict Task (T6; Shapiro, 1961), and during a recovery period after the Stroop task (T7 and T8). Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were recorded with a remote, automated sphygmomanometer throughout the 20-30 min monitoring period. Skin temperature and electrodermal response were monitored continuously but were recorded only at the same 2-min intervals as heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart-rate measures were obtained by automated means with an IBS SD-700 Digital Monitor. A sound detection sensor picks up the Korotkoff sounds to register systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and a rate monitor registers the average heart rate. Measures of electrodermal re-

151

sponse (micromohs of skin conductance) and skin temperature (taken from the dorsal surface of the middle phalanx of the left index finger) were obtained with a Bio-Logic Systems Device SR-510 and T-808, respectively. Except in the case of blood pressure, which tends to be more volatile (Schneiderman & Pickering, 1986), the initial baseline reading (Tl) and the third SI reading (T5) were used to calculate an index of SI reactivity, expressing the rise or fall in response as a percentage of baseline: (T5 - T1)/T1. Increases in the indices indicate reactivity except in the case of skin temperature, for which drops in temperature signify hyperresponsivity. As is customary for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the reactivity index was based on the minimum of the two baseline readings (Tl or T2) and the maximum of the three SI readings (T3, T4, or T5). An additional set of reactivity measures corresponding to the five physiological indicators was facilitated by the use of the Stroop ColorWord Conflict Task immediately after the SI. With the Stroop test, hyperresponsivity is elicited by presenting increasingly incongruent colors and color labels onto a screen and asking the respondent to identify the color under severe time constraints. This is followed by standardized verbal harrassment. Stroop reactivity was also scored as a percentage of baseline for each physiological indicator: (T6 - T1)/T1. For the recovery indices, the Stroop reading was used as the baseline measure because at this point most subjects seemed to be at their apex in terms of the physiological indicators. Two recovery readings (T7 and T8) were made 2 and 4 min after completion of the Stroop test. The final recovery score (T8) was used to calculate the indices. These indices are expressed (without exception) as a percentage of the initial baseline measure: (T6 - T8)/T1.

TABP Measures As described in previous sections, the TABP measures examined in this study were the SI and the Thurstone Activity Scale of the Thurstone Temperament Schedule (Thurstone, 1953). The SI was conducted in a private room at or near each worksite during work hours. The Stanford Research Institute version of the SI was used (cf. Dembroski et al., 1979). A patterned questionnaire containing 25 items structures this interview. Several of the items have two or more followup questions, and some include instructions to the interviewer to modulate delivery of the question. For example, one item reads, "Most people who work have to get up fairly early in the morning. In your particular case, uh-what-time-uh-do-you-uh, ordinarily uh-uh-have to-uh uh get-up?" In this case, the interviewee is baited to interrupt the question, thereby exhibiting characteristic verbal competition in conversation. Collectively, these devices enable the interviewer to elicit characteristic Type A responses. Each subject was interviewed by one of three trained interviewers. Two interviewers were female and one was male. The latter was trained and certified by Rosenman and Dembroski in the Stanford SI procedure, and he in turn trained the female interviewers. After rating individuals on the dimensions, the interviewers independently classified subjects into the global A and B categories and a 5-point (Al, A2, X, Bl, B2) continuum. The male interviewer supervised the interviewing process and helped to resolve conflicts in weighting criteria for classification. Each interview was tape recorded and was subsequently reviewed and scored by one of the other two interviewers at a later date. The scorer in this role was blind to the interviewer's ratings. Because ratings in the Stanford Research Institute's version are based on speech characteristics and answer content and do not explicitly incorporate visual cues, the audiotapes of each interview provided a complete basis for scoring. With the two-category scheme, 45% of the sample was classified as Type A and 55% as Type B. A total of 156 individuals were classified as

152


either extreme Type A (Al; 65%) or extreme Type B (B2; 35%) in the five-category scheme. There was very high interviewer agreement for the global A versus B classification (r= .85). Scherwitz (1989) noted that SI interviewers tend to classify some subjects with little confidence because these subjects are observed to be borderline cases in terms of the observed attributes; disregarding the middle category (X) in this study provided a significant improvement in interrater agreement (r = .92). Each of two scorers evaluated subjects on observed speech characteristics. The dimensions and their respective interscorer correlations were response latency (r = .58), loud and explosive speech (r = .57), rapid and accelerating speech (r= .55), and verbal competitiveness (r = .52). There was also a voice stylistic dimension of potential for hostility (e.g., voice surliness, condescension; r = .51). Dimensions scored solely on the basis of answer content were separate hostility (r = .51), competitiveness (/• = .48), speed of activity (r = .48), and impatience (r = .57). As noted in the introduction, the Thurstone Activity Scale served as the self-report TABP instrument to be included in the CFA. Twenty declarative items (e.g., "I am more restless and fidgety than most people"; "I prefer to linger over a meal and enjoy it" [reverse scored]) are scaled on a 5-point continuum (definitely false-definitely true). A coefficient alpha (a) reliability estimate of .76 was obtained for this instrument.

Personality Measures The self-report personality measures were obtained with a survey distributed to the respondents during working hours. The questionnaires were completed in areas separate from employee work stations, and the respondents were permitted ample time for the administration. The personality concepts of extraversion and neuroticism were measured with the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963). Both sets of items are dichotomously scored (yes or no). The extraversion scale (K-R20 = .69) contains 22 items. The neuroticism scale contains 23 items (K-R20 = .85). Self-esteem was measured with the 10-item scale (« = .82) developed by Rosenberg (1965). The 19-item trait anxiety measure (a = .87; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) asked respondents how they "generally feel." On a 4-point continuum (almost never-almost always), respondents evaluated how often they experienced various psychological conditions indicative of anxiety (e.g., "feel secure," "avoid facing a crisis or difficulty"). The constructs of nPower and nAch were assessed with the corresponding scales from the Manifest Needs Questionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976). The nAch scale contains six items (a = .58), and the nPower scale contains five items (a - .82). As described in the introduction, traditional sex role measures used in TABP research have been based on variables identified to discriminate between the sexes rather than variables that represent behavior that is differentially valued for the sexes. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire developed by Spence et al. (1975) discriminates between male-valued and female-valued traits. The instrument was developed from respondents' perceptions of the ideal male and the ideal female. There are nine male-valued traits (a = .80), which are largely instrumental in orientation (e.g., independence, adventurousness) and nine female-valued traits (a = .75), which are largely expressive in orientation (e.g., helpful to others, expresses tender feelings). Respondents indicate the extent to which each trait is characteristic of their personal behavior. Hereinafter, we refer to these two scales as the male sex role scale and the female sex role scale. The job involvement instrument (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965) contains 6 items (a = .78). Levenson's (1973) locus of control scale includes a 7item subscale for internal locus of control (a = .89; e.g., "I can pretty

much determine what will happen in my life"). Tolerance of ambiguity was measured with the 16-item instrument developed by Budner (1962; a - .57; e.g., "Teachers and supervisors who hand out vague assignments give a chance for one to show initiative and originality"). Items for job involvement, internal locus of control, and tolerance of ambiguity are scaled on 7-point Likert continua.

Physical and Psychological Strain Indices Psychological strain was measured with various self-report instruments, including indices for depression, life dissatisfaction, and job satisfaction facets. The depression scale was a 10-item (e.g., "I feel down-hearted and blue") instrument (a = .82) adapted from the Quality of Employment Survey developed by Quinn and Shepard (1974). Responses are provided on a 4-point Likert format. Life dissatisfaction was measured with the nine-item (a = .91) Specific Life Satisfaction subscale of the QES. Responses for these items are scaled on a 7-point semantic differential (e.g., "Describe how you feel about your life.. . . Rewarding. . . Disappointing"). Hackman and Oldham's (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey provides specific measures of job satisfaction, rated on 7-point scales. The facets include satisfaction with co-workers, growth satisfaction, satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with security, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with workload. These scales were combined to form a 17item measure of overall job satisfaction (a = .87). Physical symptomatology was measured with a 17-item expanded version of Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, and Pinneau's (1975) somatic complaints index (a = .87). Respondents are asked, "How often have you experienced any of the following during the past month? (e.g., "Were bothered by a headache?").

Analysis Procedure Model 1 (see Figure 2) was tested with LISREL VI (JSreskog & Sorbom, 1985). The nine SI dimensions served as indicators of the Speech Characteristics, Answer Content, and Hostility latent variables. The Answer Content factor included all dimensions based solely on answer content (impatience, speed, and competitiveness), and Hostility was represented by the behavioral stylistic dimension of potential for hostility and answer-content rating of hostility. There were four Speech Characteristics indicators, as described in the Measures section. Items from the Thurstone Activity Scale represented a separate latent variable. The 5 items having the highest item-total correlations within the 20-item Thurstone scale were selected to serve as indicators of this latent variable. As described in the introduction, Model 2, in which the SI Answer-Content and Thurstone Activity Scale variables represent the same common factor, was tested as an alternative. Support for Model 2 over Model 1 would indicate a lack of discriminant validity between the SI Answer Content factor and the Thurstone Activity Scale. Recently, a great deal of attention has been paid to identifying the types of statistics best suited to examining the goodness of fit of confirmatory factor models. Mulaik et al. (1989) provided a strong argument in favor of using indexes adapted from the conventional normed fit index (NFI; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980) and parsimonious fit index (PFI; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982). In lieu of the NFI, Mulaik et al. recommended NFI-2. This index is like the NFI in that it transforms the chi-square value in reference to a null baseline model that has no factor structure (i.e., there are no latent variables). Unlike the NFI, however, the NFI-2 does not have a tendency to underestimate the asymptotic index value (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Under the assumption that the model is correct, the NFI-2 index subtracts the expected value of the tested model, E(x2) = df, from the denominator: NFI-2 = (xi;uii ~

153


Speech Characteristics

Loud & Explosive

Rapid & Accelerating

Response Verbal |_atency Competitiveness Competitiveness Speed Impatience

Stylistic Rating Content Rating

VI

V2

V3

V4

V5

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor model of Type A behavior pattern dimensions. (SI = Structured Interview; Thurstone = Thurstone Activity Scale.)

X?)/(xLn ~~ df,). NFI-2 values below .90 indicate that a model can be substantially improved. Like the PFI, the parsimonious normed fit index 2(PNFI-2) statistic recommended by Mulaik et al. (1989) takes into consideration the parsimony (in terms of degrees of freedom) of the target model: PNFI- 2 = [2df,/k(k - 1)] [(xL. - x?)/(xLu - df,)], where k is the number of observed variables in the model. PNFI-2 values are useful for model comparison purposes. As noted in the previous section, high interrater reliabilities were observed for the SI subscales. We accordingly used the mean rater score for the two scorers on each SI variable (e.g., loud and explosive speech) to compute the covariance matrix used as input to the CFA. After the CFA, we examined the semipartial (or part) correlations between the TABP dimensions and the global A-B classification to interpret the effects of specific dimensions on the global rating. It was important that the relationship between SI dimension scoring and the global classification be consistent with previous research. After the CFA, we conducted a series of analyses that examined the relationships between the Type A scales and all the other study variables. These analyses were completed in a sequence of four blocks, with each block containing a different set of correlates from the nomological network. These blocks consisted of (a) the 11 personality trait constructs, (b) the 4 psychological strain constructs, (c) the 10 physiological reactivity measures, and (d) the 5 physiological recovery measures. Within each block of analyses, we attempted to strike a balance between maintaining some control over family-wise Type I error and extracting as much information from the data as possible. We began each block with a canonical correlation analysis between the set of TABP scales and the other variables in the block to gauge the overall degree of multivariate association between the sets of variables. We then conducted a series of multiple regressions in which each TABP scale was regressed on the set of variables in the block. This step gave us an indication of the variance shared between each TABP scale and the other variables. Next, we examined the partial correlations between each TA BP scale and each variable in the block. For the personality set, we partialled age, sex, and education. For the strain set, we also partialled smoking and caffeine consumption. For the physiological sets, we partialled age, sex, smoking, and caffeine consumption, but not education. Beginning with the canonical analyses, we used the presence of statistical significance at each step of the analysis to justify continuing to the next step. Our Type-I error-protection procedure,

then, is analogous to Fisher's "protected t" or least significant difference, test as adapted by Cohen and Cohen (1983) for use in multiple regression analyses. Thus, each successive statistical test was protected from large family-wise Type I error inflation by the requirement that the preceding test be statistically significant. To examine the interactions between personality variables predicting TABP scales and between TABP and personality variables predicting psychological strain and physiological responses, we used hierarchical multiple regressions in which product terms carried the interaction effects (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Within each set of variables from the nomological network, a large number of interaction tests were computed (ranging from 24 for the personality set to 240 for the physiological reactivity set). Because our Type-I error-protection approach, described in the preceding paragraph, could not provide adequate protection against large family-wise inflation in the case of these numerous interaction tests, we adopted a more stringent alpha level for each of these tests. In no case did we interpret any interaction for which the significance was not at least p < .001; generally, the interactions discussed were significant at p < .0001. Results Confirmatory Factor Model of TABP Model 1 (the SI Hostility, Speech Characteristics, and Answer Content dimensions and the Thurstone Activity Scale each constituting a separate factor) provided a strong fit with the data (see Table 1). The model chi-square value was 126.62 (df= 68), and the null-model chi-square value was 2,686.4 (df= 91); the NFI-2 value was a very high .978. The root-mean-square residual value was .03, which means that the average difference between the observed and fitted variances and covariances is small. Model 2 (in which the SI Answer Content dimension and the Thurstone Activity Scale represented the same common factor) provided a substantially poorer fit with the data. Accordingly, the data support the hypothesis of discriminant validity between the SI dimensions and self-report TABP data (i.e., the Thurstone Activity Scale). Three values from the normalized residual matrix of Model 1 exceeded 1.8. These included covariances between the competi-

154


Table 1 Goodness of Fit Indexes for Confirmatory Factor Models of Type A Behavior Pattern Measures Model

NFI

PFI

NFI-2

PNFI-2

rmsr

1 (SI Hostility, Speech Characteristics, and Answer Content dimensions and Thurstone Activity Scale each constitute separate factors) 2 (same as Model 1 except that the Thurstone Activity Scale and the SI Answer Content dimension represent a common factor)

.95

.71

.98

.73

.03

126.6*

68

.84

.66

.86

.67

.09

439.7* 2,686.4*

71 91

Null model

df

Note. NFI = normed fit index; PFI = parsimonious fit index; NFI-2 = normed fit index 2; PNFI-2 = parsimonious normed fit index 2; rmsr = root-mean-square residual; SI = Structured Interview. * p