The relations of personality and cognitive styles on job and class performance

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 13,175-185 (1992)

Research The relations of personality and cognitive Note styles on job and class performance

CYNTHIA LEE Human Resources Group, College of Business Administra tion. Northeastern University, U. S. A .

Summary This research examines the relations of the cognitive factors of beliefs and fears proposed by Price (1982) with the revised Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) factors of achievement striving and impatience-irritability as well as the outcome measures of job and class performance. Results provide support for Spence, Helmreich, and Pred (1987), and Spence, Pred, and Helmreich’s (1989) findings of the positive association between achievement striving and class performance but provide limited support for Price’s (1982) model.

Introduction

Type A behavior pattern (TABP) is an epidemiological construct originated from Friedman and Rosenman’s (1959, 1974) clinical observations of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Friedman and Rosenman (1974) described TABP as ‘an action-emotion complex’ that involves in competitive, aggressive, hard-driving, highly achievement-oriented and work involved behaviors. Type A individuals are impatient, have a sense of time urgency, and have explosive speech which accents key words. Early research on TABP have suggested that TABP is an independent risk factor in CHD (Cooper, Detre and Weiss, 1981; Dembroski, Weiss, Shields, Haynes and Feinleib, 1978; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1980). Recently, it has been suggested that whereas certain Type A behavior dimensions, such as job involvement or achievement striving, are associated with positive consequences (such as academic or job performance; Bluen, Barling and Burns, 1990; Spence et al., 1987, 1989; Matthews, 1982; Taylor, Locke, Lee and Gist, 1984), other Type A dimensions such as impatiencehrritability and angerhostility have been found to be associated with illness and coronary heart disease (Barefoot, Dallstrom and Williams, 1983; Bluen et ul., 1990; Booth-Kewley and Friedman, 1987; Williams, Barefoot and Shekelle, 1985; Spence et al., 1987, 1989). The differential correlates of achievement striving and impatiencehrritability have been replicated (Bluen et al., 1990; Spence el al., 1989) and appeared to have considerable practical implications. According to Bluen et al. (1990), it may be possible to simultaneously reduce those dimensions of Type A behavior that have negative outcomes such as illness, while enhancing others that lead to positive consequences such as higher job performance.

Recently, Spence et ul. (1987) factor analyzed the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS; Jenkins, Zyzanski and Rosenman, 1971) and have identified two relatively independent factors of achievement striving and impatiencehrritability. Achievement striving reflects

The author thanks M. Susan Taylor, P. Christopher Earley and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

0894-3796/92/020175-11$05.50 0 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 12 October 1989 FinaI Revision 4 October 1990

176 C. LEE

the extent to which people take their work seriously, are active and work hard. Impatience/ irritability reflects anger, hostility, intolerance for waiting and an obsession with time. They subsequently revised the items of these two subscales and found that the achievement striving factor is related to students’ grade point averages (GPA), but is unrelated to Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT; Spence et al., 1989). However, the impatiencehrritability factor is related significantly to students’ self-report of physical complaints, and is unrelated to GPA. In another study, Helmreich, Spence and Pred (1988) found achievement striving to be significantly related to academic social psychologists’ performance (i.e. number of publications and citations). Unfortu- nately, Spence et al. (1987; 1989) did not examine the relation of the revised JAS factors with outcome variables such as job performance relevant to organizational settings. One objective of this research is to examine the relation of the revised JAS factors with both job and class performance.

A growing number of investigators have turned their attention to intervention, or the preven- tion of the negative aspects of the Type A behavior (Friedman and Ulmer, 1984; Suinn and Bloom, 1978). In so doing, effort is now being devoted to examine questions of why and how Type A individuals acquire that pattern of behavior initially, and why the individuals persist in such behavior. According to Ivancevich and Matteson (1988), in order to prevent the development of the potentially destructive part of the TABP (e.g. angedhostility), it is necessary to find the factors in the environment and person that encourage the evolution and support of excessive Type A behavior. Such research findings should yield important implications regarding different therapeutic approaches, and have the potential for helping not only the destructive aspect of these individuals, but also improving organizational performance and lower their health costs.

Price (1982) has proposed a comprehensive conceptualization of Type A behavior based on cognitive social learning theory developed by Bandura (1977). Her approach suggests that human functioning can be explained by understanding the interactive role of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors. Price (1982) proposed that cognition, or personal beliefs, form the core of TABP. Price (1982) has suggested that these cognition or beliefs foster a variety of fears or anxieties, and together these beliefs and fears promote the development and maintenance of TABP. Thus, TABP is developed in order to help individuals cope with the fears and anxieties associated with particular beliefs these individuals have about their environment. These cognitive factors are the result of sociocultural values which are communi- cated to children through family, schools, media, and friends during the socialization process.

Based on her clinical observations, Price (1982) has identified three basic beliefs, each with accompanying fears, which characterize Type A’s cognitive styles. The first belief, one must constantly prove oneself through achievements (the accompanying fear is that of being judged worthless), may lead individuals to chronic struggles for achievement and mastery (Friedman and Rosenman, 1074; Glass, 1977), or the setting of excessively high performance standards (Snow, 1978).

The second belief, no universal moral principle exists (the accompanying fear is that good may not prevail), suggests that moral actions may produce adverse consequences as often as immoral actions may lead to positive outcomes. Among other responses, this belief can lead to revenge behavior and the belief that Type A’s must ensure personal justice.

The third belief, all resources are scarce, or things that are worth having are of limited supply (the accompanying fear is that the individual may not get hidher share of things worth having), may lead to hard-driving, competitive, time urgent behaviors among Type A’s since time itself is a limited resource.

Of the four studies which examined the relations of the above beliefs and fears with TABP

BELIEFS AND FEARS 177

and its components, none of these studies have concurrently examined the relations of the beliefs and fears with TABP, academic and vocational performance. For example, Burke (1984) found that the beliefs were positively correlated with the JAS Type A measure, the speed and impatience factor using a student sample, and these beliefs were also correlated positively with hostility and time urgency factors in a male dominated police officers sample. However, although the fears were correlated positively with time urgency and self-centeredness in the police sample, they were correlated positively with speed and impatience, but correlated negatively with job involvement in the student sample.

The second study was conducted by Matteson, Ivancevich and Gamble (1987). Using a large student sample, they found strong associations between Type A behavior (measured by Thur- stone Temperament Schedule), and the beliefs and fears, with no significant gender difference in the pattern of relationships. The third study, conducted by Watkins, Ward and Southard (1987), found significant positive associations between the beliefs and Framingham Type A Scale, the JAS Type A scale, the hard-driving, and speed and impatience factors of the JAS scale, as well as the Cook and Medley’s (1954) hostility scale. In a subsequent study, Watkins, Fisher, Southard, Ward, and Schechtman (1989) found significant positive relations between the beliefs and the JAS Type A scale, Cook and Medley’s hostility scale, physiological indicators of cardiovascular disease, and psychosocial distress. Similar to the results obtained by Matteson et al. (1987), Watkins et al. (1987) did not find any gender differences in the beliefs and Type A relationships. In addition, Watkins et al. (1987) found Type A beliefs to correlate positively with various facets of anger and anxiety. In their student sample, those who endorsed a high degree of Type A beliefs set significantly higher performance standards and were less likely to achieve these standards than their low-scoring Type A counterparts.

Taken together, the above studies suggest that these cognitive factors of beliefs and fears relate differentially to various Type A dimensions and measures, with no apparent gender differences in the TABP and beliefs relationships. The difference in findings from the above studies may be the result of using different beliefs and fears and Type A behavior measures. Additionally, although Watkins et al. (1987) found associations between various facets of anxiety with Type A beliefs, these studies did not concurrently examine the relations of Type A beliefs with class and job performance. Another objective of this study is to examine the relations of Type A beliefs and fears, using Burke’s (1984) beliefs and fears measure, with the revised JAS components of achievement striving and impatiencehrritability (Spence et al., 1987, 1989), and to explore the relations of beliefs and fears with both class and job performance.

Price (1982) suggests high achievers would be considered Type A if they believe they must be achieving constantly in order to obtain and gain the approval of others. Thus, if one’s self-approval is contingent upon constantly achieving, one would be in pursuit of an ever increas- ing amount of achievements or engaged in achievement striving behaviors. Moreover, if one believes that resources are scarce and there is insufficient time for achievements, this will lead to impatient behavior of rushing incessantly, subject oneself to the stress-producing pressures of multiple, diverse deadlines and achievement striving. Lastly, the belief that no universal moral principle exists and the fear that good things may not prevail draw on two characteristics of Type A individuals: (1) a substantially greater reliance on material theories; (2) a focus on short-term rather than long-term consequences (Price, 1982, p. 69). Thus this belief and accompanying fear may also lead Type As to focus on achieving more and more in a shorter period of time since good things may not last. The other accompanying fear in the absence of universal moral principles is revenge behavior. This behavior, according to Price (1982, p. 70), may be one of the important sources of irritability or hostility commonly observed in Type As. Although Price (1982) has suggested relationships between beliefs and fears with

178 C. LEE

other Type A dimensions, this study will focus on the beliefs and fears with the revised JAS achievement striving and impatienceiirritability dimensions.

In summary, it is hypothesized that (Hl) the revised JAS factor of achievement striving will be positively related to job and class performance while the impatienceiirritability factor will show no relations with job or class performance. Additionally (H2) the beliefs and fears of TABP will be positively related to the revised JAS factors. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the belief that one must constantly prove oneself and the accompanying fear of being judged unsuccessful and unworthy will be positively related to JAS factor of achievement striving. The belief that no universal moral principle exists and one of its accompanying fears that good may not prevail are hypothesized to relate positively to achievement striving. The other fear which manifests in revenge behavior is hypothesized to relate positively to impatience/ irritability. Lastly, the third belief of all resources are scarce and the accompanying fear (an insufficient supply of life’s necessities) are hypothesized to relate positively to achievement striving and impatienceiirritability.

Sample Data were obtained from four classes of 142 full-time third-year undergraduate college students and 39 part-time MBA students working full-time enrolled in several upper division business administration courses at a large university in the northeast of United States. The sample consisted of 104 males and 77 females. The average age was 23. Participants voluntarily completed the questionnaire packet during class time and were assured confidentiality.

Measures Type A behavior The TABP instrument used was the revised JAS by Spence et at. (1987, 1989). The 12-item revised JAS represents the two factors of achievement striving and impatienceiirritability (Spence et al., 1987, 1989). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the revised JAS. For Spence et al.’s (1987, 1989) model to be supported, one needs to establish that the sample data ‘fit’ a theoretical model that contains two interrelated latent factors of achievement striving and impatienceiirritability. The LISREL VI was used to compute a series of maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1984). Table 1 presents the maximum likelihood factor loadings for the two-factor JAS model.

Several statistics were used to assess whether the data gathered ‘fit’ the theoretical model. Marsh and Hocevar (1985) suggest that one should divide the x 2 value by its degrees of freedom (dl) and the subsequent ratio of less than 5 indicates a reasonable fit of the model to the observed data. Joreskog and Sorbom (1984) provide an ‘adjusted goodness of fit index’ for assessing a model’s fit ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. The closer to 1.0 the better the fit of the model. Another method for evaluating the soundness of a theoretical model involves an ‘increment fit index’ (coefficient delta) developed by Bentler and Bonett (1980) for comparing a given theoretical model against other possible models. According to Breckler (1989, a coefficient delta value of greater than 0.9 generally indicates a good fit. As in Breaugh (1989), the two-factor model was compared against a null model and against a one-factor model.

The results of the confirmatory factor analyses are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, the two-factor model of Spence et al. (1987, 1989) provides the best fit to the data. For this


Table 1. Maximum likelihood factor loadins matrix (lambda X)

Type of behavior items AS IMPIIRR

Achievement striving (AS) 2. Nowadays, do you consider yourself to be:

3. How would your best friends or others who know you well rate (very relaxed and easy going to very hard-driving)

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

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

8. Compared with other people, 1 approach life in general: (much less seriously to much more seriously

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

1 1. How often do you set deadlines or quotas for yourself in courses or in other activities? (much more than others to much less than others)

(much more than others to much less than others) 12. How much does work ‘stir you into action?’

Impatiencehrritability (IMPIIRR) 1. When a person is talking and takes too long to come to the point,

how often do you feel like hurrying the person along? (almost never to very frequently)

4. Typically how easily do you get irritated? (not at all easily to extremely easily)

6. When you have to wait in line such as at a restaurant, the movies, or the post office, how do you usually feel? (accept calmly to feel very important and refuse to stay long)

(I seldom get angry to very hard to control)

(not at all true to definitely true)

7. How is your ‘temper’ these days?

10. Do you tend to do most things in a hurry?

0.66

0.33

0.52

0.64

0.62

0.47

0.36

0.29

0.67

0.51

0.81

0.31

two-factor model, the x’ldf index was 2.09, the adjusted goodness of fit index was 0.851 and the coefficient delta was 0.73. The result of this confirmatory factor analysis was similar t o Bluen et d . ’ s (1990) who reported a x2/df of 2.16 and an adjusted goodness of fit index of 0.67. The alpha coefficient for achievement striving was 0.71 and 0.66 for impatience1 irritability.

Table 2. Summarv statistics for goodness of fit tests

Adjusted goodness Model X 2 df X 2 N f of fit index Coefficient delta

Null model 408.83 66 6.19 0.574 -

One factor 191.58 54 3.55 0.739 0.53 Two factor 111.01 53 2.09 0.851 0.73

Beliefs and fears Price’s (1 982) three beliefs and accompanying fears were measured using the 50-item scales

180 C. LEE

constructed and validated by Burke (1984). These items were combined as those reported in Burke’s (1984) study.

The first belief, self-worth is a function of one’s accomplishment, was assessed by 10 items (e.g. ‘People are measured by what they achieve and how well off they are economically’). The accompanying fear of being worthless was measured by eight items (e.g. ‘I often worry that others will not find me worthy of their esteem and liking’, ‘It is important to me that I be liked by other people’ and ‘I frequently worry that I am not talented enough to be really successful at what I want to do’). The reliability coefficients for these two scales were 0.83 and 0.82 respectively.

The second belief, no universal moral principles, was assessed by seven items (e.g. ‘There are no universal moral principles that guide the actions of people’). The accompanying fears of justice will not prevail was measured by six items (e.g. ‘I sometimes worry that an impartial justice does not exist in this world - there is no one guaranteeing that the “good guys” will win’), and the other fear, revenge, was assessed by five items (e.g. ‘I believe in the old adage “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”)’. The respective alpha coefficients were 0.23, 0.66 and 0.67.

The third belief, things worth having are in scarce supply, was assessed by eight items (e.g. ‘I believe that your gain is my loss’), and the accompanying fear of not getting one’s share was measured by six items (e.g. ‘I often worry that I won’t have the ability to accomplish what I want to achieve’). The respective reliability coefficients were 0.78 and 0.81.

Job performance Six items were used to assess an individual’s job performance (e.g. ‘How effective is this employee in his or her job?’). Since only the 39 MBA students in this sample were all working full-time, these part-time MBA students were asked to have their immediate superior complete this one- page survey and to mail back their responses in the self-addressed stamped envelopes provided. These responses were later matched to the particular respondent using a coded number. The Cronbach’s alpha for these items was 0.66. These items were averaged for a composite performance score.

Class performance Students’ scores on their individual examinations were z-transformed within each of the four classes.

Results

Overall, this study provided support for Spence et aZ.’s (1987) results. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two-factor solution is a relatively good fit to the observed data. The correlation between achievement striving and impatience/irritability was v=0.28 (p < 0.01).

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the first hypothesis regarding the relation of the revised JAS factors with class and job performance. As in Spence et al. (1987; 1989, see Table 3), the achievement striving factor again showed a positive relation with class performance: examination scores (8=0.23, p < 0.05). No significant relationships were found in the impatience/ irritability factor. Job performance was also positively related to the achievement striving factor but such association did not reach significance level.

The other objective of this study was to examine the relations of the beliefs and fears with the revised JAS dimensions, and with job and class performance. As shown in Tables 4 and


Table 3. Multiple regression results of outcomes regressed on Type A behavior

AS IMP/IRR Beta Beta R2

1. Exam scores (n = 83-86) 0.23* 0.13 0.09* 2. Performance (n = 35-38) 0.16 -0.02 0.02

* p < 0.05. AS = Achievement strivings. IMP/IRR = Impatienceiirritability.

Table 4. Correlations of beliefs and fears with Type A behavior and outcome measures

AS IMP/IRR Exam Performance (n = 150-172) (n = 83-86) (n = 35-38)

Beliefs 1. Self-worth is a function of one’s

2. No universal moral principles 05 20* -21t 07 3. Things worth having are in scarce

accomplishment 06 30* -15 - 05

supply 00 39* - 03 - 07

Fears 4. Revenge - 02 37* 13 19

6. Fear that justice will not prevail -01 32* - 07 06 5. Fear of being worthless 08 29 * -08 33t

7. Fear of not getting one’s share 157 31* - 16 - 04 ~~ ~

* p < 0.01; AS =Achievement striving.

t p < 0.05 ~

IMP/IRR = Impatience/irritability. Decimal points are omitted.

5, only partial support for Price’s cognitive social learning model on the explanation of the formation and development of TABP was found in this study. Table 4 shows that the Type A beliefs and fears were significantly and positively related to the impatiencehrritability factor. With the exception of the fear of not getting one’s share, the other beliefs and fears were unrelated to the achievement striving factor. Thus, the hypothesized association of Type A beliefs and fears with achievement striving and impatiencelirritability received limited support. In the multiple regression analysis (Table 5), as hypothesized, the fear of not getting one’s share showed independent positive relation with achievement striving (/3=0.25, p < 0.10) and revenge behavior also showed positive association with impatiencehrritability Cp=0.30,p < 0.01).

In addition, the fear of being worthless showed independent positive association with job performance (p= 1 . 0 5 , ~ < 0.01). The fear of not getting one’s share showed independent negative relation while revenge behavior showed positive association with job performance @=0.72, p < 0.01; p=0.41, p < 0.05 respectively).

Discussion This study provides support of Spence et al.’s (1987, 1989) finding regarding the dimensionality of the revised JAS. This study suggests future studies of Type A behavior should continue to examine the relations of Type A behavior dimensions with outcome variables since past

182 C. LEE

Table 5. Multiple regression results of Type A behavior, class and job Performance regressed on beliefs and fears

~

AS IMPIIRR Exam scores Job performance Beta R2 Beta R2 Beta R2 Beta R2

Beliefs (a) Self-worth 09 01 - 17 - 17 (b) Moral principles 00 -05 - 20 17 (c) Scarce supply - 10 16 14 - 22

(a) Revenge - 02 30* 20 41t

(c) Justice will not prevail - 10 09 - 02 - 10

Fears

(b) Worthless - 05 16 18 1.05*

(d) Not getting one’s share 25 04 05 26* -22 1 1 -12* 48t

* p < 0.01; t p < 0.05. n=152-172.

~ ~~ ~ ~

Decimal points are omitted. AS =Achievement striving.

IMPiIRR = Impatienceiirritability

research failed to find relationships between the global Type A behavior with sales performance (Lee and Gillen, 1989; Matteson, Ivancevich and Smith, 1984). It is possible that certain aspects of Type A behavior (such as impatienceiirritability and hostility) may detract from vocational and academic performance (Bluen et a[. , 1990; Lee and Earley, 1990). This study, along with Bluen et at. (1990), Spence et al. (1987, 1989) and Helmreich et al.’s (1988), suggests the utility of examining Type A behavior as a multifaceted construct. According to Carver (1989), using a composite index or summing the facets of Type A behavior may result in ambiguity in explanation and a loss of information. Other Type A dimensions (e.g. hostility, competitiveness, or speech mannerism) should be included in future studies to examine the role of these dimensions to various organizational outcome variables and health-risk indices in different organizational settings.

In support of Spence et aZ.’s findings, this study also found achievement striving to be related positively and significantly with classroom performance. As predicted, the irnpatiencehrritability factor did not relate to either job or class performance. Additionally, the small sample size on job performance may explain the positive but nonsignificant correlations found in this study.

The second objective of this study was to examine Price’s proposed link between Type A behavior and the cognitive factors of beliefs and fears. The results of this study found limited support for Price’s model. Table 4 shows that as hypothesized, the fear of not getting one’s share showed a positive significant relation with achievement striving. Also as hypothesized, revenge behavior, the belief of all resources are scarce and the accompanying fear of insufficient supply of life’s necessities were positively and significantly related to impatiencehrritability. Contrary to hypothesis, the belief that self-worth is a function of one’s accomplishment, the belief of no universal moral principles and the fear that justice will not prevail were positively related to impatiencehrritability.

It is possible that a different set of beliefs and fears may account for the achievement striving aspect of TABP. The fear of not getting one’s share was the only fear which showed a modest positive relation to achievement striving. It is possible that such fear may entice the Type A individuals to achieve more and more in less time. This may also explain the reasons why the belief of self-worth as a function of one’s own accomplishment is related to the Type A individual’s being more impatient and irritable since accomplishing more in less time is critical to one’s self-worth belief. Employing the social learning framework (Bandura, 1977), future


studies should consider the roles of vicarious learning, performance accomplishments, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal by role models in enhancing the achievement striving aspects of the TABP. This may require longitudinal research of observing how Type A behavior develops in children, and follow-up research efforts into their adult working life.

The positive association found between Type A beliefs and fears with impatiencehrritability supports Watkins et al. (1989) notion that Type A beliefs are associated with a disposition toward negative emotions. Watson and Clark (1984) have described a mood-dispositional dimension which predisposes an individual toward ‘negative affectivity ’. Negative affectivity is a tend- ency for individuals ‘to focus differentially on the negative aspects of themselves, other people, and the world in general’ (Watson and Clark, 1984). In any situation, this individual will be more likely to experience significant levels of distress than low negative affectivity individuals (Tellegan, 1985). Since the impatienthrritable dimension represents the time urgent, angry and hostile aspects of the Type A behavior pattern, or those with cynical views about others and the world, future studies should assess the role of negative affectivity in the beliefs and fears with Type A behavior, and in the Type A behavior and health relationships.

Of all the beliefs and fears investigated in this study, revenge behavior is the only variable which showed a positive independent association with impatiencehrritability. On a practical level, since studies have observed the positive relation between impatiencehrritability and health- risk indices (Bluen et al., 1990; Spence et al., 1987), interventions aimed at reducing revenge behavior can decrease health risks or risks associated with cardiovascular disease.

Another reason for the lack of significant relationships between beliefs and fears with Type A behavior may be the result of the beliefs and fears instrument used. So far, only one published study (Burke, 1984) has employed this beliefs and fears measure. Since the sample of this study consisted of a total of 181 respondents, conducting exploratory or confirmatory factor analyses may result in unstable factor structures. The reliability coefficients reported here fall between 0.83 and 0.22 which were slightly lower than those reported by Burke (1984) to be between 0.88 and 0.42. Incidentally, in this study as well as Burke’s, the belief of no universal moral principles appeared to have the lowest scale reliability. Thus, future studies should examine the construct validity of this beliefs and fears measure and to refine the instruments available for use to test Price’s (1982) model.

In exploring the relations of Price’s proposed Type A’s beliefs and fears with class and job performance, a positive independent relation was observed between the fear of being worthless and job performance. This finding is consistent with Price’s (1982) conceptualization that the fear of being worthless, or not being valued or esteemed, leads individuals to chronic struggle for mastery and personal accomplishment. However, it is quite perplexing that this fear was unrelated to class performance. It is possible that the differences in the quantification of class performance and the subjective nature of job performance ratings may account for the difference in results. It is also possible that people with the fear of being worthless employed effective self-presentational strategies which resulted in positive supervisory performance ratings.

This study also found that revenge behavior showed positive independent contribution to job performance. It is possible that, although impatient and irritable, revenge behavior may lead Type As to focus on short-term gain. The negative independent relationship between the fear of not getting one’s share and job performance, on the other hand, may be because individuals focus on producing more all too quickly which results in poorer performance quality. Future studies should continue to examine if personal beliefs and fears are involved in the development and maintenance of TABP, and the consequences of these personal beliefs and fears. It is by knowing these relationships that we know what and how to help Type As more effectively change their behavior in order to reduce health risks and other negative outcomes.

IS4 C L E E

The results of this research suggest the revised JAS dimensions should be examined in other contexts by including outcomes measures relevant to organizational settings and to further investigate the generalizability of the findings of this study. This study provides limited support for Price’s ( 1982) cognitive social learning model. Revenge behavior showed the strongest independent association with impatiencehrritability. Price (1982) discussed the beliefs and fears in relation to a spectrum of Type A behavior such as aggressiveness, hard-driving, speech and motor characteristics, hostility, competition, impatience, achievement striving, ambition and time urgency. The Type A behavior dimensions as measured by the revised Jenkins Activity Survey failed to assess all of the Type A dimensions addressed by Price. Future studies should include the Type A dimensions suggested by Price and to further examine the construct validity of the Type A belief‘s and fears.

References Bandura, A. (1 977). Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 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., P.ychosnmatic Medicine, 45, 59-63. Bentler, P. M. and Bonett, D. G. (1980). ‘Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of covariance

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

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

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

Breaugh, J. A. (1989). ‘The work autonomy scales: Additional validity evidence’, Human Relations, 42,

Breckler, S . J. (1985). ‘Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude’, Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog>], 47, 1 191-1205.

Burke, R. J . (1984). ‘Beliefs and fears underlying Type A behavior: what makes Sammy run - so fast and aggressively?’ Journal of Human Stress, Winter, 1741 82.

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

Cook, W. W. and Medley, D. M. (1954). ‘Proposed hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI.

Cooper, T., Detre, T. and Weiss, S. M. (1981). ‘Coronary prone behavior and coronary heart disease:

Dembroski, T. M., Weiss, S. M., Shields, J . L., Haynes, S. G. and Feinleib, M. (1978). Coronury-Prone

Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R. H . (1959). ‘Association of specific overt behavior patterns with blood

Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Tijpe A Behavior and Your Heart, Fawcett, Greenwich,

Friedman, M. and Ulmer, D. (1984). Treating Type A Behavior and Your Heurt, Knopf, New York. Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior Patferns, Stress, und Coronary Disease, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Helmreich, R . L., Spence, J. T. and Pred, R. S. (1988). ‘Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement

motivation, and scientific attainment revisited’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,495-504. Ivancevich, J. M. and Matteson, M. T. (1988). ‘Type A behavior and the healthy individual’, British

Journal of Medical Psychology, 61,37-56. Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J . and Rosenman, R. H. (1971). ‘Progress toward validation of a computer-

scored test for the Type A coronary-prone behavior’, Psychosomatic Medicine, 33, 193-202. Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1984). IN. LISREL VZ User’s Guide, Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN. Lee, C. and Earley, P. C. (1990). ‘Beliefs and fears, Type A behavior and the implications for health

1033-1056.

577-585.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 38,414418.

a critical review’, Circulalion, 63, 1199-1215.

Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York.

and cardiovascular findings’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 169, 12861296.

CT.

and academic performance’. Northeastern University working paper.


Lee, C. and Gillen, D. J. (1989). ‘Relationship of Type A behavior pattern, self-efficacy perceptions on sales performance’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,75-8 1.

Marsh, H. M. and Hocevar, D. (1985). ‘Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self- concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 97,562-582.

Matthews, K. A. (1982). ‘Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern’, Psychological Bulletin, 91.293-323.

Matteson, M. T. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). ‘The coronary-prone behavior pattern: A review and appraisal’, Social Science and Medicine, 14A, 337-351.

Matteson, M. T., Ivancevich, J. M. and Gamble, G. 0. (1987). ‘Examining the cognitive social learning model of Type A behavior’. University of Houston working paper.

Matteson, M. T., Ivancevich, J. M. and Smith, S. V. (1984). ‘Relation of Type A behavior to performance and satisfaction among sales personnel’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25,203-214.

Price, V. A. (1982). Type A Behavior Pattern: A Model for Research and Practice, Academic Press, New York.

Snow, B. (1978). ‘Level of aspiration in coronary prone and noncoronary prone adults’, Personaliry and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4,478486.

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 Psychology, 72, 522-528.

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, 176-1 78.

Suinn, R. M. and Bloom, L. J. (1978). ‘Anxiety management for Type A persons’. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 25-35.

Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C. and Gist, M. (1984). ‘Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?’ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34,40241 8.

Tellegen, A. (1985). ‘Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report’. In: Tuma, A. H. and Maser, J . D. (Eds) Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 681-706.

Watkins, P. L., Ward, C. H. and Southard, D. R. (1987). ‘Empirical support for a Type A belief system’, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 9, 1 19-1 34.

Watkins, P. L., Fisher, E. B., Jr., Southard, D. R., Ward, C. H. and Schechtman, K. B. (1989). ‘Assessing the relationship of Type A beliefs to cardiovascular disease risk and psychosocial distress’, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 11, 113-125.

Watson, D. and Clark, L. A. (1984). ‘Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states’, Psychological Bulletin, 96,465490.

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

The relations of personality and cognitive styles on job and class performance

Documents

Transcript of The relations of personality and cognitive styles on job and class performance