The effects of type A behavior dimensions and optimism on coping strategy, health, and performance

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 14,143-157 (1993)

The effects of Type A behavior dimensions and optimism on coping strategy, health, and performance

CYNTHIA LEE Hwnan Resources Group. College of Business Administration, Northeastern University. US. A.

SUSAN J. ASHFORD School of Business Aahinistration. University of Michigan, US. A.

AND

LINDA F. JAMZESON Marketing Department. Providence College, U.S. A.

Summary Type A behavior dimensions and optimism were examined as predictors of health and performance. In addition, this research also explored the ways that Type As and optimists cope with stressful situations. The achievement striving dimension of the Type A behavior pattern and optimism were positively related to class performance, while the anger/ hostility dimension was positively related to the health symptom of anxiety. Optimism, on the other hand, was negatively related to anxiety. The interaction of achievement striving and optimism was negatively related to anxiety. Additionally, while achievement striving was positively related to problem-focused coping, irritability showed a negative association with problem-focused coping strategy. The results of this study provide insights for both individuals and organizations regarding how to cope with daily stresses in order to lower health risks and improve performance.

Introduction

Interest in the effects of personality on health and performance has grown considerably in recent years. Of the many personality variables, the effects of Type A behavior pattern on individual health and coronary heart disease have drawn extensive attention (Contrada, 1989). Type A individuals can be characterized by: (1) behavior dispositions (e.g. ambitiousness, aggres- siveness, competitiveness, and impatience); (2) specific or overt behaviors (e.g. muscle tenseness, alertness, rapid and emphatic speech stylistic, and accelerated pace of most activities); and (3) emotional responses (e.g. irritation, hostility and anger) (Rosenman, Swan, and Carmelli, 1988). In order to maintain control over events that threaten their sense of control (Glass, 1977) or to reduce any uncertainty that may exist about their abilities (Strube, 1987), Type As are thought to engage in behaviors characterized by time urgency, competitiveness, impatience, achievement striving, and vigorous speech and motor mannerisms. This behavior pattern has been found to intensify health complaints such as loss of appetite, depression, or headaches (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1982).

0894-3796/93/020143-15$12.50 0 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received October 1990 Accepted October 1992

144 C LEE, S . J. ASHFORD AND L. F. JAMIESON

Recent research suggests that only certain dimensions of the Type A behavior pattern may be associated with health outcomes (Williams, Barefoot and Shekelle, 1985). Spence, Helmreich and Pred (1987) factor analyzed the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS; Jenkins, Zyanski and Rosenman, 197 l), a widely-used paper-and-pencil measure of Type A behavior. They identified two underlying dimensions of Type A behavior: Achievement striving and impatiencehrritability. Achievement striving reflects the extent to which people work hard, are active, and take their work seriously. Impatiencehrritability reflects one’s temperament and obsession with time. Although there are studies examining these two dimensions’ relationships with outcomes (e.g. Edwards and Baglioni, 1991), for ease of comparison on these two Type A dimensions, we reviewed studies which used the revised JAS validated by Spence et al. (1987) and Spence, Pred and Helmreich (1989) since this is the instrument used in this study. Lee (1992), and Spence et al. (1987, 1989) reported that the achievement striving dimension

is positively related to students’ academic achievement and the impatience/irritability dimension is positively related to students’ self-report of physical complaints. In a sample of life insurance sales people, Bluen, Barling and Burns (1990) found that achievement striving (of the revised JAS) predicted the number of policies sold and job satisfaction but was not related to depression. Impatience/irritability, on the other hand, was associated with depression but not with the number of policies sold. However, in a study of hospital personnel, Lee, Begley and Czajka (1991) found that achievement striving was positively related to job performance and was negatively related to systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Moreover, impatientlirritability was not related to either performance or physiological health factors.

Additionally, the angedhostility dimension has increasingly been shown to be the Type A behavior dimension most predictive of coronary heart disease (Barefoot, Dallstrom and Williams, 1983; Booth-Kewley and Friedman, 1987; Williams el al., 1985). While this line of research has focused on the relations of Type A dimensions to individual health and performance, very little attention has been given to the effects of Type A behavior dimensions in conjunction with other personality factors that may contribute to an individual’s health-risk and performance. In fact, Friedman and Booth-Kewley (1988) urged that stronger emphasis be placed on interactions between Type A behavior and other personality variables that have been linked to coronary reactivity or strain.

One personality variable worth examining in this regard is optimism. Optimists generally expect things to go their way and believe that good rather than bad things will happen to them. Optimism relates to one’s overall expectancy judgment and is the subjective probability that desired outcomes, in general, will occur. Optimism has been found to be positively associated with physical and mental health outcomes, such that optimists reported fewer physical symptoms than did subjects who were less optimistic (Scheier and Carver, 1985). More importantly, optimism and symptom reporting are also negatively correlated across time (Scheier and Carver, 1985).

The possibility that dispositional optimism may have important implications for the way people cope with daily stresses is described by Carver and Scheier’s (198 1) self-regulation model. Their model describes a behavioral process such that when an individual becomes aware of a discrepancy between a behavioral goal or standard and his/her present situation, an assessment process is initiated. If the individual perceives that the discrepancy between the goal and the situation can be reduced and bring desirable outcomes, the individual will continue to exert efforts to attain those desirable outcomes. If, on the other hand, the individual perceives that desirable outcomes are unattainable, whether through personal inadequacies or through externally imposed impediments, reduced effort or cessation of additional attempts follows. From this perspective, it is expected that optimists would continue to strive, work hard, and cope

TYPE A AND OPTIMISM 145

actively with the problems they encounter, whereas pessimists would give up and turn away (Scheier and Carver, 1987; Scheier, Matthews, Owens, Magovern, Lefebvre, Abbott and Carver, 1989). Further, Scheier and Carver’s (1987) work suggests that when faced with a new record and potentially difficult situation, optimists are more likely than pessimists to persist in their goal-oriented efforts because they use more effective coping strategies which reduce the potential negative effects on performance and physical and emotional health.

To the extent that optimism protects an individual against the development of health problems, it may be predicted that individuals high in optimism will report less physical symptoms of somatic complaints and anxiety/insomnia. Research conducted by Scheier and Carver ( 1985; 1987) has consistently reported an inverse relationship between optimism and self-report health symptoms. Combining these results with the Type A - health risk findings reported earlier, it suggests that research on the health risk of Type A behavior might benefit from considering optimism as a personality characteristic.

The optimism and Type A behavior constructs seem to fit well together. Optimism is a generalized outcome expectancy that one can and will attain one’s desires. Achievement striving is the desire to achieve results. Research on a related construct, need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), has found that those high in need for achievement prefer to avoid activities in which they have little chance of succeeding. Therefore, the synergism between optimism and achievement striving produces a positive mindset in the pursuit of accomplishment. Optimists can be expected to show a negative relationship between achievement striving and health risk factors because the belief that success is possible will increase their motivation to strive. This positive approach may at the same time decrease health symptoms. On the other hand, individuals high in optimism, angerhostility, and impatienceh-itability may show no relation with physical health symptoms since optimism might interact with these Type A behavior dimensions and help buffer the negative effects of impatience/irritability and angerkostility. Further, the negative effects of impatiencehrritability and angerhostility on health will be reinforced by low optimism and offset by high optimism.

Scheier and Carver (1985) and Scheier, Weintraub and Carver (1986) have suggested that dispositional optimism may have implications for the manner in which people cope with stress. Coping refers to efforts to master conditions that tax or exceed adaptive resources (Monat and Lazarus, 1977). A study conducted by Scheier et al. (1986) found that optimists were more likely to deal with stressful encounters by usingprobfem-focusedstrategies such as formulat- ing action plans, keeping their minds on the task at hand, and not thinking about the negative emotions with which the stress was associated. Pessimism was associated with emotion-$ocused coping strategies of denial and distancing, focusing on stressful feelings, and avoidance or disengaging from the goal with which the stressor was interfering. Additionally, Scheier et al. (1989) found that optimism (assessed before patients’ coronary artery bypass surgery) was correlated positively with manifestations of problem-focused coping and negatively with emotion-focused coping such as denial. It appears that optimists do better in part because they use coping strategies that are more instrumental and problem-focused.

Similarly, Glass (1977) has suggested that the crux of the Type A behavior pattern lies in the inappropriate coping skills exhibited by Type A individuals. In order to assert control over the stressful aspects of their environment, Type As reported that they avoid attention to negative affect (e.g. anxiety or tension), and physical symptoms (e.g. pain or fatigue) and simultaneously work close to their capacity (Carver, Coleman and Glass, 1976; Pittner and Houston, 1980 Weidner and Matthews, 1978). According to Smith (1986), these active or problem-focused coping strategies may be physiologically taxing, especially if they persist over many years.

146 C. LEE, S. J. ASHFORD AND L. F. JAMIESON

Although Type As also use problem-focused coping strategies, it is possible that those high in the achievement striving, rather than those high in impatience/irritability and anger/hostility, engage in problem-focused coping strategies. Thus the fact that those exhibiting impatience/ irritability and angerlhostility behaviors use other coping strategies may explain why achievement striving individuals and optimists reported fewer symptoms than did those high in impatience/ irritability, angerihostility, and pessimism.

Taken together, it is hypothesized that (1) both Type A behavior dimensions and optimism will be associated with health complaints. Specifically, impatience/irritability and angerhostility will be positively associated with somatic complaints and anxiety/insomnia, achievement striving will be unrelated to somatic complaints and anxietyhnsomnia; and optimism will be negatively related to somatic complaints and anxiety/insomnia. (2) Optimism will moderate the Type A behavior dimensions and health relationship such that the relationship between achievement striving with somatic complaints and anxietyhnsomnia will be negative only for optimists; and there will be no relationships between impatiencelirritability and angerhostility with somatic complaints and anxiety/insomnia only for optimists.

Further, we replicate the earlier findings relating optimism and Type A behavior dimensions to problem-focused coping strategy in stressful situations. Specifically, it is hypothesized that (3) the achievement striving and optimism will be positively associated with problem-focused coping strategy while impatiencehrritability and anger/hostility will be unrelated to problem- focused coping strategy.

Latack ( 1986) found that problem-focused coping strategy is significantly and negatively related to anxiety and positively related to job satisfaction. As a replication and extension, this study hypothesized that (4) problem-focused coping strategy will be negatively related to somatic complaints and anxietyhnsomnia but will be positively related to classroom performance.

Finally, this study examines the relationships of Type A behavior dimensions and optimism on performance. First, as a replication of Spence et d ’ s (1987, 1989) findings that achievement striving is related to academic performance, we hypothesized that (5a) achievement striving will be positively related to academic performance while impatiencehrritability and angerlhostility will show no relation with academic performance. Second, as discussed earlier, optimists will continue to strive to attain their goals or reduce the discrepancy between goals and present situations. Therefore, as an exploratory hypothesis, it is predicted that (5b) optimism will be positively related to classroom performance.

Sample and procedure

One hundred and ninety-two undergraduate full-time students in a junior level management course (a total of six classes), participated in the study on a voluntary basis. Examination situations are generally stressful to students, and the examination situation served as the stressful event in this study. Surveys were distributed after students obtained their first examination scores. Coping strategies, achievement striving, impatience/irritability, anger/hostility, optimism, and self-report of somatic complaints and anxietyhnsomnia were measured at this time. These scales were coded or recoded so that higher scores reflect higher levels of the construct. Second examination scores and course grades were collected at the end of the academic quarter. All participants were assured confidentiality.

TYPE A AND OPTIMISM I47

Predictor measures The two dimensions of achievement striving (AS) and impatiencehrritability (11) were assessed using a revised 12-item Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) developed and validated by Spence et al. (1987, 1989). Additionally, the 4-item angerhostility scale was taken from Siege1 (1986). Optimism was assessed using an 8-item Life Orientation Test (LOT) scale developed and validated by Scheier and Carver (1985). Scheier and Carver (1985, 1987) presented preliminary evidence in support of the reliability and validity of the Life Orientation Test (LOT) to measure dispositional optimism. In addition to the satisfactory internal consistency and test-retest reliability in a sample of college students reported by Scheier and Carver (1985), the LOT was only moderately correlated with locus of control, hopelessness, and self-esteem supporting its discriminant validity. This 8-item scale assesses the extent to which individuals possess favorable expec- tations regarding life outcomes and consists of four positively and four negatively worded items.

Criterion measures Problem-focused coping strategy was measured by 11 items adapted from Latack’s (1986) coping instruments. Latack’s coping items were developed according to Folkman and Lazarus’ (1980) conceptualization of problem-focused coping.

Respondents self-report of somatic complaints and anxiety/insomnia were measured using the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg and Hillier, 1979). The two subscales have been validated against clinical ratings (Goldberg and Hillier, 1979). Respondents were asked to report symptoms experienced over the past month, and responses were scored on a 4-point Likert scale.

Students’ classroom performance consisted of their individual examination scores (on their second examination) and course grade. Both scores were z-transformed within each of the six classes.

Measure validation A composite scale is meaningful only if each of its item indicators is ‘acceptably unidimensional’ (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Hattie, 1985). In other words, each of the items in a set should have only one underlying trait or construct in common. Therefore, before testing the hypothesized relationships, the overall structure of the seven scales and their respective survey item measures were examined. A confirmatory measurement model specifying the relations of the 48 observed measures to their underlying constructs, with the constructs allowed to intercorrelate freely, was estimated using the maximum likelihood procedure in LISREL VI (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1984).

An overall chi-square measure and its associated degrees of freedom and probability levels, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the root-mean-square residual (RMR), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, 1973) were used to assess how well the scale items used to operationalize the seven constructs accounted for the data. Joreskog and Sorbom (1984) described the GFI as ‘a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance jointly accounted for by the model’ and RMR as ‘as a measure of the average of the residual variances and covariances’. GFI values close to one and RMR values close to zero are indications of good model fits. The TLI compares the relative improvement in fit for the proposed model over a strict null model of complete independence among the various items. Bentler and Bonnett (1980) suggest values of this index should be above 0.90 for sufficient fit. In contrast to the first three indices, the TLI appears


to be relatively unaffected by model situation (Wheaton, 1987) and by small or large sample sizes (Marsh, Balla and McDonald, 1988; Mulaik, James, Van Alstine, Bennett, Lind and Stilwell, 1989).

As indicated in Table 1, this seven factor48 indicator model (OM,) does not fit the data well ( x 2 = 1791.7, df = 1059, GFI = 0.704, RMR = 0.084, and TLI = 0.722). Moreover, 11 items have nonsignificant amounts of variance explained, and 83 normalized residuals are greater than 2.0 (30 are greater than 2.5).

Table 1. Goodness of fit measurement models Model x2 df GFI RMR TLI

Original 48 items OM,: Independent

OM7: factors 1791.70 1059 0.704 0.084 0.722 Respecified 27 Items: M,: Independent

M,: 1 factor 1103.26 324 0.612 0.134 0.437 M,: 7 factor 385.95 303 0.861 0.065 0.936

items 3941.05 1128 0.362 0.190

items 1849.94 35 1 0.414 0.225

M I 4 7 717.31 21

The pattern of residuals, similarity coefficients, and indicator correlations with the trait score partialled (Danes and Mann, 1984; Hunter and Gerbing, 1982), as well as content considerations, were then used to locate the source of the model misspecification. These aids helped detect 21 items which were not internally and/or externally consistent with other measures of any of the constructs. In other words, these 21 items were not unidimensional indicators of any of the seven constructs. After the deletion of these items, a respecified model was obtained and judged to provide acceptable goodness-of-fit (see Table 1). Although the chi-square value remains statistically significant(X2 = 385.95, df= 303,p < 0.001), this model (M7) does represent a sizeable improvement compared to the null model of no underlying constructs (TLI =0.936). Consistent with this, the GFI and the RMR also approach acceptable values. In addition, only 8 or 2 per cent of the 351 normalized residuals have absolute values greater than 2.0 and just one is larger than 2.5 (2.87).

An examination of the content of both the items retained in and deleted from this respecified measurement model suggest the following:( 1) The three items dropped from the achievement striving scale also seemed to be measuring job involvement and hard-driving dimensions; (2) irritability, impatience, anxiety, and insomnia appear to be separate dimensions. After deleting the two ‘bad’ items from the impatiencehrritability scale, the remaining items focus more closely on irritability. Items remaining in the anxiety/insomnia scale also seem to be just describing anxiety. Therefore, further reference in this paper is only made to irritability and anxiety; (3) only the negatively worded items in the optimism scale were kept; the positively worded items were dropped. The positively worded items were not even highly correlated among themselves. We attribute this to the thing of the administration of the survey. Students might have been in a very pessimistic state of mind upon receiving their first examination scores; (4) the items remaining in the angedhostility , problem solving strategy, and somatic complaints scales were


more related to specific student situations and classroom settings than the items that were dropped.

The final items used to operationalize each of the constructs and their respective standardized model parameters are reported in Table 2. All item indicators load significantly on the latent factors they were intended to represent, providing evidence of convergent validity. Composite reliability estimates, also shown in this table, indicate adequate levels of internal consistency for five of the seven scales. The reliabilities for irritability and angerhostility are, however, only marginally acceptable. More than likely, these lower reliability estimates are due lo the fact that only three items comprise each of these scales. However, it could be possible that the items on each of these scales are not measuring unitary dimensions. Therefore, the amount of measurement error exhibited might attenuate correlations with the other variables and impact to some degree the validity of our findings.

Next, various tests were used to determine if discriminant validity was achieved. First a one-factor model (M,), implying that all seven factors are manifestations of a common factor, was tested against the seven-factor model (M7) in order to assess the potential for same source biases or general method variance. As shown in Table 1, M7 offers a substantial improvement in fit over MI (x2 difference = 717.31, df = 21, p <0.001). Thus, although response biases cannot be ruled out totally, this analysis suggests that general method variance is not an adequate explanation for the findings in this study.

As seen in Table 3, some of the scale factors are moderately to highly correlated. However, the confidence intervals ( two standard errors) around the correlation estimates between any two factors never include 1 .O. A series of chi-square difference tests, in which the fit of a model constraining the estimated correlation parameter between one pair of factors at a time to be 1.0 was compared to the seven-factor model (M,), also indicated that none of the constructs were perfectly correlated. In sum, all tests generally provide support for the discriminant validity of the seven scales.

We recognize that the procedures used for examining the convergent and discriminant validity of these scales represent somewhat weak, adhoc tests (Schmitt and Stults, 1986). A more rigorous approach involves the use of multitrait-multimethod data in which variance estimates can be partitioned into trait, method, and random error factors (Cote and Buckley, 1987). Because a single method was used in our study, this analysis was not possible. Also, the respecification and reestimation of the measurement model using the same data is not exclusively confirmatory (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Since the size of our sample precluded cross-validation, the results reported in our next analysis section are qualified. Before generalizability can be inferred, this final measurement model needs to be cross validated on another sample drawn from the population to which results are to be generalized.

Analysis Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. A composite score for each of the constructs was obtained by averaging item responses. Table 3 shows the correlations of the variables used in the study. It also shows that the factor and scale correlations are similar in magnitude with the exception of the correlation between irritability and somatic complaints.

When testing the role of optimism, Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt and Poulton (1989), recommended that researchers consider the potential contaminating effects of neuroticism in order to produce less ambiguous findings. Neuroticism refers to a broad, stable dimension of personality of chronic negative emotions including anxiety or sadness. The dimension of neuroticism has been assessed


Table 2. Respecified measurement model

Factor item parameter Standardized

estimate

Achievement striving (p = 0.74’) 13. How would your best friends or others who know you well rate your general

level of activity? (too slow to very active, should slow down)

15. How seriously do you take your work? (much more to much less than most)

18. Compared with other people, I approach life in general: (much more to much less seriously)

19. Compared with other people, the amount ofeffort I put forth is: (much more than most people to much less than most people)

Irritability (p = 0.67) 14. Typically, how easily do you get irritated?

16. When you have to wait in line such as at a restaurtant, the movies, or the (extremely easily to not at all easily)

post office, how do you usually feel? (accept calmly to refuse to stay long)

(I seldom get angry to very hard to control)

1. People can bother me just by being around 2. I get angry when I have to take orders from someone less capable than I 3. I get angry when I have to work with incompetent people

3. If something can go wrong for me, it will 8. 1 hardly ever expect things to go my way 9. Things never work out the way 1 want them to

12. I rarely count on good things happening to me

14. Throw yourself into your class work and work harder, longer hours 16. Work your hardest for the assignments given to you by your professor 34. Devote more time and energy to your class assignments 35. Give your best effort to do what you think is expected of you

17. How is your ‘temper’ these days?

Anger/hostility (p = 0.66)

Optimismt (p = 0.78)

Problem-focused coping (p = 0.77)

Somatic complaints (p = 0.81) 3. Been feeling run down and sick 4. Been getting pains in your head (e.g. headaches, neck pain) 5. Been getting a feeling of tightness or pressure in your head 6. Been having hot or cold spells

7. Lost much sleep over worry 9. Felt constantly under strain

10. Been getting edgy and bad-tempered 12. Found everything getting out of control 13. Been feeling nervous and easily upset

Anxiety @ = 0.87)

0.480

0.735

0.608

0.743

0.745

0.420

0.750

0.457 0.734 0.684

0.551 0.763 0.721 0.704

0.777 0.720 0.708 0.479

0.761 0.742 0.756 0.602

0.595 0.778 0.852 0.712 0.824

~ ~ ~

*Composite reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). t Denotes negatively worded items.


Table 3. Correlations of variables used in the study*

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Achievement striving - 35t -01 03 61t 14 15$ 28t 29t

2. Irritability 32t - 48t -427 -03 19$ 41t 07 -09 3. Angerhostility -04 34t - -28t -03 15 38t 09 -02 4. Optimism -00 -29t -25t - 05 -29t -40t 18t 20t

coping 45t 01 -03 02 - 14 05 13$ 15$ 5. Problem-focused

6. Somatic complaints 11 11 15 -25t 09 - 70t -03 -11

7. Anxiety 16$ 28t 31t - 3 3 05 60t - 00 -04 8. Examination

73 t 9. Course grades 21t -04 -00 18t 14$ -10 -05 73t -

score4 21t 08 10 14$ 12 -04 -02 -

Decimal points are omitted. n = 113-195 t p < 0.01; $p < 0.05. * Below the diagonal are average composite score correlations; above the diagonal are measurement model factor correlations. 8 Measurement loading fixed to 1 and included as a separate factor in the measurement model.

by a variety of self-report measures such as trait anxiety, depression, and other dysphoric individual differences (Watson and Clark, 1984). As suggested by Brief, Burke, George, Robinson and Webster (1988), Costa and McCrae (1987), Smith et al. (1989), and Watson and Pennebaker (1989), neuroticism is an important variable to be included in a study because (1) neuroticism is an established dimension of normal personality, (2) it is an important potential confound when examining the relationship between optimism and symptom reports or physical health, and (3) it represents a possible alternative explanation for several studies measuring optimism with the Life Orientation Test. Therefore, before testing the hypotheses, we studied the relations among optimism, anxiety, and the other predictor and criterion variables.

Table 4 shows that when anxiety was controlled using partial correlations, the negative significant association between optimism and somatic complaints disappeared. However, controlling for anxiety, the expected correlations of optimism with examination score, course grade, anger/ hostility, and irritability remained similar to the simple correlations. Further, when optimism scores were controlled via partial correlation, anxiety’s associations with all the other variables remained the same as in the simple correlations, Overall, Table 4 suggests that optimism’s correlation with somatic complaints may simply reflect optimism’s association with anxiety. Thus, anxiety was controlled and entered first in the hierarchical regression when predicting somatic complaints.

To test optimism’s hypothesized moderating effect in the relation of Type A behavior dimensions to somatic complaints and anxiety, we used hierarchical moderated regression analysis (Cohen and Cohen, 1975). In this type of analysis, an hypothesized moderator effect is supported if the interaction term significantly increases the variance explained by the predictors. To test optimism’s moderating effect on somatic complaints (see Table 5), we entered anxiety or the control measure first, then Type A behavior dimensions, optimism, and finally, the interactions of Type A behavior dimensions and optimism.

When several correlated dependent variables are being analyzed in the same study, some variables may be statistically significant simply because the number of coefficients developed for the equations is large. Multivariate multiple regression provides an omnibus test of signifi-


Table 4. Correlations of optimism and anxiety with variables used in this study

Correlations with optimism Correlations with anxiety

Controlling Controlling All other measures Simple for anxiety Simple for

optimism

Somatic complaints -0.25* -0.05 0.60* 0.57* Exam score 0.14t 0.147 -0.02 0.03

Problem-focused coping 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 Angerhostility -0.25* -0.16f 0.31* 0.25* Irritability -0.29* -0.22* 0.28* 0.20* Achievement striving -0.01 0.06 0.167 0.18*

Course grade 0.177 0.18* -0.05 0.01

* p < 0.01; t p < 0.05.

cance for the set of dependent variables (Dwyer, 1983). We entered the dependent variables and the independent variables from our hypotheses as separate sets. Wilks lambda provides an indicator of the relationship between the two sets, enabling the development of an approxima- tion of the familiar F-ratio ( F = 3.70, p < 0.01). Thus the correlations among our dependent variables probably did not account for the significant observed relationships.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that irritability and angerhostility would be positively related to somatic complaints and anxiety, achievement striving would be unrelated to somatic complaints and anxiety, and optimism would be negatively related to both health measures. These three Type A dimensions were entered as the predictor set followed by optimism. Results in Table 5 demon- strate that after controlling for anxiety, none of the variables were significantly related to somatic complaints. However, angerhostility was positively related to anxiety @ = 0.27, p < 0.01). As predicted, optimism was negatively related to anxiety (B = 0.27, p < 0.01). Thus, hypothesis 1 received mixed support.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that optimism will moderate the Type A behavior dimensions and health relationship. As predicted, only the interaction of optimism and achievement striving was negatively related to anxiety ( A F = 2 . 2 , ~ c 0.05). However, this interaction was not significantly related to somatic complaints. Thus, the data provided mixed support for the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that achievement striving and optimism would be positively related to problem-focused coping, while irritability and angerhostility would be unrelated to this coping strategy. Regression analysis showed that achievement striving was positively related to problem-focused coping strategy (B = 0 . 5 1 , ~ < 0.01), but optimism was unrelated to problem- focused coping (also see Table 4). Similarly, angerhostility was unrelated to problem-focused coping, but irritability was negatively related to problem-focused coping (B = -0.17, p < 0.05). The data provided mixed support for hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 related the coping strategy to outcome variables. The correlations (see Table 3) showed that, as hypothesized, problem-focused coping strategy was significantly related to course grade (r = 0.14, p < 0.05), but its positive relationship to examination score was not significant (r = 0.12, n.s.). Moreover, problem-focused coping was unrelated to anxiety (r=0.05,


Table 5. Moderated regression of outcome variables regressed on Type A behavior and optimism

Order of entry Beta Overall R2 F AR2 AF A. Somatic complaints

Anxiety Achievement striving PAS) Irritability (IRR) Angerhostility (HOS) Optimism (OPT) TAS x OFT IRR x OFT HOS x OPT

0.60* 0.03

-0.06 -0.02 -0.07 -0.06

0.05 0.04

B. Anxiety 1. Achievement striving (TAS) 0.13

Irritability (IRR) 0.15 Angerhostility (HOS) 0.27*

2. Optimism (OPT) -0.27* 3. TAS xOPT - 1.25t

IRR x OPT -0.10 HOS x OFT 0.01

1. Achievement striving 0.51* C. Problem-focused coping

Irritability -0.17t Angerhostility 0.04

2. Optimism -0.02

Irritability -0.04

D. Second examination score 1. Achievement striving 0.23*

Angerhostility 0.13 2. Optimism 0.18t

1. Achievement striving 0.25*

Angerhostility 0.05 2. Oorimism 0.17t

E. Course grade

Irritability -0.13

0.36*

0.36* 0.37*

0.37*

0 . 1 s 0.21*

0.24*

0.23* 0.23*

0.05t 0.08t

0.03 0.08f

89.6*

22.4* 18.1*

11.4*

8.9* 10.3*

6.9*

15.8* 11.8*

3.3t 3.7*

3.2t 3.5*

0.00 0.01

0.00

0.06*

0.03t

0.00

0.03t

0.03t

0.4 0.9

0.5

12.2*

2.2t

0.01

4.7t

4.3t

n = 113-195. * p < 0.01; t p < 0.05.

n.s.), and somatic complaints (r = 0.09, as.). Thus, the data provided weak support for the truth hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5 predicted positive relationships of achievement striving and optimism to classroom performance. Our results confirmed the hypothesis since achievement striving and optimism were positively associated with second examination score (B = 0.23, p < 0.01; /3 = 0.18, p < 0.05 respectively), and course grade (B = 0 . 2 5 , ~ < 0.01; /3 = 0 . 1 7 , ~ < 0.05 respectively).

Discussion This research investigated the effects of some Type A behavior dimensions and optimism on individual health and performance, as well as the effects of problem-focused coping strategy that Type As and optimists use to cope with a stressful situation. As predicted, angerhostility


was positively related to anxiety, while optimism related negatively to anxiety. However, the lack of relation between irritability and health symptoms is quite perplexing. It is possible that the most toxic Type A dimension is angerhostility and not irritability since angerhostility has been found to be associated with illness and coronary heart disease (Barefoot et af., 1983; Williams et uf., 1985). Another explanation may be that irritability represents a proxy for anger/ hostility. If angerhostility is controlled, then the positive relationship between irritability and health risk may disappear. The results here suggest the potential benefit in reducing anger/ hostility while increasing dispositional optimism in order to lower anxiety which impacts health risks for individuals.

The pattern of interaction between optimism and achievement striving was as predicted. Specifically, optimism moderates achievement striving and helps lower anxiety. Thus, it may be beneficial to help achievement striving individuals become more optimistic. However, the lack of significant independent relationships between optimism, irritability, or angerhostility and somatic complaints suggests that other possible moderating and/or mediating mechanisms, such as self-esteem or self-efficacy, may also help Type As cope with their daily stresses.

Another explanation, as suggested by Smith et af. (1989), involves the confounding role of neuroticism or anxiety. Although controlling for the effects of anxiety did not alter the significant relations of optimism with examination score, course grade, angerhostility, and irritability, the negative significant association of optimism with somatic complaints disappeared (see Table 4). In support of Smith et d ’ s (1989) findings, Table 4 shows that controlling for optimism did not eliminate the positive association of anxiety with somatic complaints. Such a finding indicates that optimism, as defined by the Life Orientation Test, is not related to symptom reports independently of neuroticism or anxiety. However, this study shows that the relations of optimism with other correlates, examination score, course grade, angerhostility and irritability, may be independent of anxiety. Also, while it is true that the relationship between optimism and symptoms disappears when anxiety is controlled, this does not mean that optimism is indistinguishable from anxiety. This was already established by the confirmatory factor analysis, where the disattenuated correlation between anxiety and optimism was significantly less than 1. Furthermore, the absence of an independent effect of optimism on symptoms does not rule out an optimism to anxiety to symptoms causal chain. Replications and extension to other samples are needed before general conclusions can be made in this regard. For the time being, it is necessary to statistically control neuroticism when examining the relationships between optimism and symptoms reporting.

This study assumed that differences in coping style are intrinsically tied to personality differences. This study does not assume that coping tactics are relatively stable preferences. We agree with Carver, Scheier and Weintraub (1989) that both personality traits and coping disposition play roles in situational coping, roles that may be somewhat complementary rather than competing. Contrary to Scheier et ul.’s (1986) finding, optimism was unrelated to the use of problem-focused coping. However, in Scheier et al.3 study, the positive relationship between optimism and problem-focused coping was more pronounced when subjects rated the situations as controllable. Future studies should include a measure of respondents’ perception of situational control.

The achievement striving individuals engage in the use of problem-focused coping strategy, but irritable individuals show just the opposite trend. This same coping strategy may explain the positive association between achievement striving and short-term performance. However, as predicted, angerhostility was unrelated to problem-focused coping strategy. Future studies should investigate the costs and benefits of modifying this coping strategy with respect to situational parameters in reducing health risks and increasing performance for Type As and optimists.


Similar to Spence et ul.’s (1987, 1989) findings, achievement striving related to classroom performance while irritability did not. These results suggest that Type A behavior is a multifaceted personality construct. According to Carver (1989), using a composite index of summing the facts of Type A behavior may result in ambiguity in explanation and a loss of information. Such differences in the observed relationships between self-report Type A dimensions and health outcomes might be attributed to the weaknesses of global Type A measures (Edwards and Baglioni, 1991). As suggested by Edwards and Baglioni (1991), studies of Type A behavior should avoid using global TABP measures in favor of using TABP dimensions. They recommend the development of a new TABP measure by ‘carefully defining the components of interest, constructing items that convincingly represent their corresponding content domains, and verify- ing the psychometric properties and hypothesized underlying structure of the resulting measures’ in order to enhance the understanding of the effects of TABP on behavioral and health outcomes. Based on the measurement validity presented in this study, we concur with Edwards and Baglioni (1991) and Smith et ul. (1989) that more careful and complete studies of theory-driven construct validation efforts are needed in the personality area.

One could identify several limitations of the current study. For example, our data were collected on college undergraduates which limits the generalizability of the results. However, our results on the association between achievement striving and classroom perfonnance are similar to those obtained by Bluen et al. (1990) in a life insurance sales environment. Second, the cross-sectional design limits the interpretation of several key results. For example, the associations between optimism and self-report health risks of somatic complaints and anxiety are open to plausible alternative interpretations. That is, rather than optimism lowering health risks, it is possible that higher health risks decrease optimism. Future investigations should replicate this study using a longitudinal design in field settings.

An implication of our findings is the moderating role of optimism in the Type A behavior dimensions and health risk relationships such that optimism lowers the health risks for the achievement striving individuals. The results here further suggest that Type A intervention studies should avoid attempts to simultaneously change all TABP dimensions but should focus on modifying specific TABP dimensions such as increasing achievement striving and at the same time focus on reducing angerhostility .

References Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach’, Psychological Bulletin, 103,411423. Barefoot, J. C., Dallstrom, G. and Williams, R. B. (1983). ‘Hostility, CHD incidence and total mortality:

A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians’, Psychosomatic Medicine, 45,5943. Bentler, P. M. and Bonnett, D. 0. (1980). ‘Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance

structures’, Psychological Bulletin, 88,588-606. Bluen, S. D., Barling, J. and Bums, W. (1990). ‘Predicting sales performance, job satisfaction, and

depression by using the achievement striving and impatience-irritability dimensions of Type A behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,212-216.

Booth-Kewley, A. A. and Friedman, H. S. (1987). ‘Psychological predictors of heart disease: A quantitative review’, Psychological Bulletin, 101,343-362.

Brief, A. P, Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S. and Webster, J. (1988). ‘Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study ofjob stress?’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193-198.

Carver, C. S. (1989). ‘How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues illustrated by setf-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 577-585.


Carver, C. S., Coleman, A. E. and Glass, D. C. (1976). ‘The coronary-prone behavior pattern and the suppression of fatigue on a treadmill test’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33,46&466.

Carver, C. S. and Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and Ser-Regulation: A Control Theory Approach to Human Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). ‘Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,267-283.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1975). Applied Multiple Regression Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.

Contrada, R. J. (1989). ‘Type A behavior, personality hardiness, and cardiovascular responses to stress’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,895-903.

Costa, P. T., Jr and McCrae, R. R. (1987). ‘Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite?’ Journal of Personality, 55,299-316.

Cote, J. A. and Buckley, M. R. (1987). ‘Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies’, Journal of Marketing Research, 24,315-318.

Danes, J. E. and Mann, 0. K. (1984). ‘Unidimensional measurement and structural equation models with latent variables’, Journal of Business Research, 12,337-352.

Dwyer, J. H. (1983). Statistical Models for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Oxford University Press, New York.

Edwards, J. R. and Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (1991). ‘Relationship between Type A behavior pattern and mental and physical symptoms: A comparison of global and component measures’, Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 76,276290.

Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R. S. (1980). ‘An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21,219-239.

Fornell, C . and Larcker, D. F. (1981). ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, 18,39-SO.

Friedman, H. S. and Booth-Kewley, S. (1988). ‘Validity of the Type A construct: A reprise’, Psychological Bulletin, 104, 381-384.

Gerbing, D. W. and Anderson, J. C. (1988). ‘An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment’, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186-192.

Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior Patterns, Stress, and Coronary Disease, Wiley, New York. Goldberg, D. and Hillier, V. F. (1979). ‘A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire’, Psychological

Hattie, J. (1 985). ‘Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items’, Applied Psychologi-

Hunter, J. E. and Gerbing, D. W. (1982). ‘Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis,

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J. and Rosenman, R. H. (1971). ‘Progress toward validation of a computer-

Joreskog, K. G. and SBrbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI User’s Guide, Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN. Latack, J. C. (1986). ‘Coping with job stress: measures and future directions for scale development’,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,377-385. Lee, C. (1992). ‘The relations of personality and cognitive styles with job and class performance’, Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 13, 175-185. Lee, C. Begley, T. and Czajka, J. M. (1991). ‘The relationships of Type A behavior and optimism with

job performance and physiological health’. Northeastern University working paper. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. and McDonald, R. P. (1988). ‘Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor

analysis: The effect of sample size’, Psychological Bulletin, 103,391-410. Matteson, M. T. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1982). ‘Type A and B behavior patterns and self-reported health

symptoms and stress: Examining individual and organizational fit’, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 24,585-589.

McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society, D. Van Nostrand, New Jersey. Monat, A. and Lazarus, R. S. (1977). Stress and Coping: An Anthology, Columbia University Press,

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J. Bennett, N., Lind, S. and Stilwell, C. D. (1989). ‘An evaluation

Pittner, M. S. and Houston, B. (1980). ‘Response to stress, cognitive coping strategies, and the Type

Medicine, 9, 139-145.

cal Measurement, 9,139-164.

and causal models’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 4,267-320.

scored test for the Type A behavior pattern’, Psychosomatic Medicine, 33,193-202.

New York.

of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models’, Psychological Bulletin, 105,430-445.

A behavior pattern’, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 39, 147-1 57.


Rosenman, R. H., Swan, G.E. and Carmelli, D. (1988). ‘Definition, assessment, and evolution of the Type A behavior pattern’. In: Houston, B. K. and Snyder, C.R. (Eds) Type A Behavior Pattern: Research, Theory andlntervention, Wiley, New York, pp. 8-31,

Scheier, M. F. and Carver, C. S . (1985). ‘Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies’, Health Psychology, 4 2 1 9-247.

Scheier, M. F. and Carver, C. S. (1987). ‘Dispositional optimism and physical well-being: the influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health’, Journal of Personality, 55, 169-210.

Scheier, M. F., Matthews, K. A., Owens, J. F., Magovern, G. J., Lefebvre, R. C., Abbott, R. A. and Carver, C. S. (1989). ‘Dispositional optimism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and psychological well-being’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, I 024- 1040.

Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K. and Carver, C.S. (1986). ‘Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257-1264.

Schmitt, N. and Stults, D. M. (1986). ‘Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod mat rices’, Applied Psychological Measurement, 10,l-22.

Siegel, J. M. (1986). ‘The multidimensional anger inventory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Smith, T. W. (1986). ‘Type A behavior and cardiovascular disease: An information processing approach’. 51,191-200.

In: Ingram, R. (Ed) Information Processing Approaches to Clinical Psychology, Academic Pre<s,-Orlando, FL, DO. 95-108.

Smith,’T. W., Pope, M. K., Rhodewalt, F. and Poulton, J. L. (1989). ‘Optimism, neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: an alternative interpretation of the Life Orientation Test’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,640-648.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L. and Pred, R. S. (1987). ‘Impatience versus achievement strivings in the Type A pattern: Differential effects on students’ health and academic achievement’, Journal of Applied

Spence, J. T., Pred, R. S. and Helmreich, R.L. (1989). ‘Achievement strivings, scholastic aptitude, and academic performance: a follow-up to “Impatience versus achievement strivings in the Type A pattern” ’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,176-178.

Strube, M. J. (1987). ‘A self-appraisal model of the Type A behavior pattern’. In: Hogan, R. and Jones, W. (Eds) Perspectives in Personality Theory, Vol. 11, J A I Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-250.

Tucker, L. R. and Lewis, C. (1973). ‘The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis’, Psychometrika, 38,l-10.

Watson, D. and Clark, L. A. (1984). ‘Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states’, Psychological Bulletin, %, 465490.

Watson, D. and Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). ‘Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity’, Psychological Review, %, 233-253.

Weidner, G. and Matthews, K. A. (1978). ‘Reported physical symptoms elicited by unpredictable events and Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, I21 3- 1220.

Williams, R. B., Barefoot, J. C. and Shekelle, R. B. (1985). ‘The health consequences of hostilit)’. In: Chesney, M. A. and Rosenman, R. H. (Eds) Anger, Hostility, and Behavioral Medicine, Hemisphere/ McGraw-Hill, New York.

Wheaton, B. (1987). ‘Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables’, Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 1 18-1 54.

Psychology, 72,522-528.

The effects of type A behavior dimensions and optimism on coping strategy, health, and performance

Documents

Transcript of The effects of type A behavior dimensions and optimism on coping strategy, health, and performance