JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 24, 258-269 (i!i%@)

Exaggerated Social Control and Its Relationship to the Type A Behavior Pattern

LOGAN WRIGHT, KURT VON BUSSMANN, ALICE FREIDMAN, MARY KHOURY, AND FREDETTE OWENS

University of Oklahoma

AND

WAYNE PARIS

Baptist Medical Center, Oklahoma City

This study reports on the development and early psychometric refinement of the Way of Life Scale (WOLS), a measure of exaggerated social control or “nonmutuality.” This construct pertains to a form of control which is thought to be related to the Type A behavior pattern (TABP). Since the TABP has been associated not only with coronary heart disease, but with other functions such as academic performance, vocational success, and a variety of per- sonal/psychological tendencies, an instrument for measuring nonmutuality could prove useful for clinical and research work involving both physical and psycho- logical health. Two samples, one with and one without manifest heart disease. were administered the WOLS along with a battery of measures for assessing the TABP and other forms of control. Results were reliable across groups, suggesting that the WOLS is a reliable and valid means for assessing a unique form of SOCial/iIIteQXrSOnal COntfOl. 0 1990 Academic Press, Inc.

The original (Rosenman et al., 1964) Type A behavior pattern (TABP) as identified by traditional methods such as the Jenkins Activity Scale (JAS-Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1979) and the structured inter- view (SI-Rosenman, 1978), has been clearly linked to coronary heart disease (CHD-Review Panel on Coronary-Prone Behavior and Coronary Heart Diease, 1981, p. 1200). Spence, Helmreich, and Pred (1987) have also linked certain TABP aspects (achievement strivings on one hand, and impatience-irritability on the other) to academic success, and suggest

Alice Friedman is now at SUNY, Binghamton, NY. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Logan Wright, Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey Street, Norman, OK 73019.

258 0092-6566/!90 $3.00 Copyright 0 1990 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

TYPE A/CONTROL 259

that these aspects are also related to vocational performance. The TABP and/or some of its subcomponents are undoubtedly related to a variety of other interpersonal and psychological functions beyond the realm of CHD or academic/vocational performance.

Some recent reviews (e.g., Dimsdale, 1988) conclude that the Type A construct is poorly defined and thus confusion still remains concerning the role of Type A behavior in the etiology of CHD. Nonetheless, based on a review of their own and other meta-analyses, Friedman and Booth- Kewley (1988) conclude that a significant relationship exists between the TABP and various disease endpoints.

A solution to more adequately defining the TABP, and thus clarifying its relations to health and other variables, could come about from a clearer understanding of its component structure. For some time, the global TABP has been viewed as a composite of subcomponents. Some of these subcomponents are even thought to have positive consequences for physical and/or psychological health (Hannson, Hogan, Johnson, & Schroeder, 1983; Matthews, Helmreich, Beane, & Lucker, 1980). As stated by Dembroski and Williams (1989): “only certain aspects of the multidimensional TABP are ‘toxic,’ . . . assessment of the global TABP will provide a measure which contains a considerable amount of ‘noise’ in addition to the coronary-prone ‘signal’.” Other attempts to distinguish the coronary-prone components of the TABP from its other elements have produced terms such as “major facets” and “core elements” (Mat- thews, 1982) and “active ingredients” (Watkins, 1986).

Greater sensitivity to the distinction between the global TABP and its subcomponents/aspects has increased research aimed at identifying those subcomponents (e.g., time urgency, hostility, etc.) of the TABP which separately or in new and differently weighted combinations, may be more highly correlated with physical and mental health end points than is the global Type A rating. A most recent meta-analysis by Matthews (1988) has demonstrated that one “aspect” of the TABP (hostility) is clearly related to CHD, and a review (Wright, 1988) has speculated that other subcomponents such as time urgency and perceptual activation may be similarly linked to CHD.

Glass (1977) was the first to provide a rationale for how control-related variables may be associated with the TABP. Glass feels that Type A behaviors are evoked by environmental challenges that threaten per- ceived control over the physical or social environment. If so, under- standing the control related aspects of the TABP could potentially shed light not only on coronary risk, but on other inter/intrapersonal behaviors as well.

Strube, Berry, and Moergen (1985) found that Type As were more reluctant than Type Bs to relinquish control in tasks requiring cyoper-

260 WRIGHT ET AL.

ation. They proposed a “self-appraisal”-based mechanism or theory to explain these results. Several other laboratory (as opposed to psychom- etric) studies have shown a relationship between the TABP and various forms of control. For instance, Type As strove harder to gain control over an environmental situation while Type Bs conversely were likely to relinquish control in a study by Miller, Lack, and Ascroff (1985). Yarnold, Muesser, and Grimm (1985) found that the TABP related to a tendency to control others in group discussions. In situations involving uncontrollable failure, Type As tend to resign quickly (Brunson & Mat- thews, 1981; Jones, 1985), suggesting that Type A individuals are more careful monitors of control over outcome.

Pittner, Houston, and Spiridigliozzi (1983) found Type A individuals to manifest greater physiological response to uncontrollable stressors than did Type B individuals, indicating that control variables may be uniquely capable of impacting Type A individuals physiologically. In addition, Contrada, Glass, Krakoff, Krantz, Kenoe, Dsecke, Collins, and Elting (1982) found that the degree of control which Type As main- tained over aversive events significantly affected their output of adrenalin and noradrenalin. A similar finding with rats is reported by Weiss, Stone, and Harrell (1972).

In a direct attempt to investigate Glass’s (1977) control hypothesis, Dembroski, MacDougall, and Musante (1984) examined the relationship between JAS measured TABP and two separate psychometrically mea- sured concepts of control in undergraduate males. One involved pref- erence for control of one’s physical and social environment as measured by the Burger and Cooper Scale (Burger & Cooper, 1979). This instru- ment assesses whether one enjoys influencing others, wants to run one’s own business, desires to solve a problem by one’s self, etc. The second aspect of control assessed by Dembroski et al. (1984) involved belief in control outcomes following Rotter’s (1966) construct of internal versus external locus of control. Dembroski and colleagues found a relationship between the JAS and both locus of control (r = - 44, indicating internal locus of control) and desirability of control (r = .37, indicating high desirability of control).

Later, Burger (1985) also using an undergraduate male sample, found a .39 correlation between the JAS and the Burger/Cooper Scale. Finally, Smith and O’Keeffe (1985) report a .46 correlation between the Jas and the Burger/Cooper Scale, but no significant relationship of the JAS to locus of control as measured by the Nowicki and Duke (1974) Locus of Control Scale. Smith and O’Keeffe utilized both male and female un- dergraduates as subjects.

Wright (1987) has reported on a form of control observed clinically with CHD patients, which differs from both locus of control and desir-

TYPE A/CONTROL 261

ability of control. It is a tendency to control others inappropriately in social situations. The term “nonmutuality” has been used to describe this inclination to usurp unto one’s self a disproportional share of decision making. Most of the observations suggesting the influence of this addi- tional form of control have been made in clinical (coronary care) settings. However, they involve not only behavior exhibited there, but comments made by others about patients’ behaviors in other (especially domestic) more in vivo situations. Examples of exaggerated social control in hos- pital settings include such things as competing with the interviewer for control of the SI, as well as controlling interactions with staff about procedures such as drawing blood, medication, diet, when to be dis- charged, etc. Reports of nonmutual behavior by TABP types outside clinical settings include such things as unilaterally deciding which movie to see, or at what setting to put the thermostat. The present study attempted to provide for the psychometric measurement of exaggerated social control. An instrument, the Way of Life Scale (WOLS) was cre- ated. Its items (see Appendix A) constitute further elaborations of the behaviors described above.

METHOD The following is a report of a series of four studies designed to evaluate the WOLS.

The first investigation deals with its initial creation (e.g., item selection and analysis, structural analysis, etc.), the second discusses temporal reliability, the third presents cur- rent data for a nonCHD sample, and the fourth provides current data for a CHD group. In order to construct the WOLS, true/false items designed to assess an individual’s need for exaggerated forms of interpersonal control were solicited from a panel of nine health care professionals and trainees. All panel members were associated with the same cardiac rehabilitation unit. Additional filler or distractor items (such as “I enjoy detective or mystery stories”), were also solicited from the above-described panel, in an effort to obscure what the WOLS was attempting to measure.

A pool of 54 possible exaggerated control items and 27 possible distractor items was created. The nine-member panel selected (by unanimity) the 21 items believed to possess face validity for measuring nonmutuality, and the 21 distractor items, all of which comprise the final form of the WOLS.

The internal consistency of the WOLS was investigated by applying coefficient alpha to the responses of 62 males university faculty members at a large southwestern university, none of whom possessed documented coronary heart disease (CHD). Alpha, a lower bound estimate of reliability computed by using the internal structure of the scale, was found to be .63. This represents a moderately low alpha index.

Next, a more sophisticated structural analysis was performed using the WOLS responses of a single sample of 123 subjects. The sample included the 62 male faculty members mentioned above, 52 middle-aged males with documented CHD, and 21 undergraduate males. Since the common factor model does not fit binary items (McDonald, 1985), a composite components analysis (Nicewander, Urry, & Starry, 1%9) was performed. In accordance with this method, the items were sorted into give conceptual subsets based on the authors’ analysis of the 21 relevant WOLS items. The five factors were: control of family members, control of others, nosiness, domination, and need for structure.

A principal components analysis was performed on these five groups of items. The

262 WRIGHT ET AL.

analysis produced two components which accounted for 64% of the common variance. These components were (1) need for exaggerated social/interpersonal control and (2) a need for structure. Since only the first two factors had negative coefficient alphas, the latent two factor composition of scale items seemed clear. The individual items were then regressed on these two components only. However, as Table 1 shows, only two items (15 and 35) load significantly on the second factor, and one of these (15) has a higher loading on factor I. Thus, while possessing two statistically significant factors, the WOLS appears to be predominate/y a unidimensional scale. with the loadings on the first factor best describing each item’s relationship to that dimension. Also, three of the WOLS items (7, 9, and 37) do not load significantly on either factor. The fact that two of these items reference dealings with children (and the other “social events”) suggests that sex differ- ences may be involved. That is, males who are controlling elsewhere may be willing to relinquish control in dealings with children or in conjunction with “social events.” None- theless, these three items are retained within the final scale, since their correlations with the principal factor are all positive.

The second in our series of four studies investigated the temporal reliability of the WOLS by assessing its test-retest reliability (over a 3-week period) with 45 male undergraduates, and with 30, 40- to 55year-old hospitalized male patients with serious CHD (over a 3- month period-with hospitalization occurring at the beginning of the 3-month interval, and with all having been released by the end of that time). In both cases, the obtained test- retest reliability coefficient was r = .77.

A third phase in the series of studies looked at correlations between the WOLS and

TABLE 1 CORRELATION OF EACH RELEVANT SCALE ITEM WITH Two PRINCIPAL COWONENTS

Item numbeP Factor I Factor II

2 .37 .03 3 .32 .02 7 .I0 .06 9 .I5 .06

10 .59 .02 12 .60 .I6 15 .44 .28 17 .86 - .07 18 .22 - .03 19 .30 .06 21 .31 - .08 24 .52 .I7 28 .61 -.09 29 .41 - .05 30 .53 .08 32 .20 -.ll 35 .08 56 37 .09 .ll 38 .42 -.12 39 .23 .06 40 .35 - .lO

” See Appendix A for item content.

TYPE A/CONTROL 263

other TABP and control measures with a nonCHD sample. This was done in attempt to provide evidence for the unique construct validity of the WOLS. Specitically, it was predicted that the WOLS would yield statistically significant correlations with the (JAS measured) TABP. It was also predicted that measures of control other than nonmutuality (i.e., locus of control and desirability of control) would not correlate significantly with the JAS. This is based on an assumption that the WOLS taps a special variety of control, which is more closely related to the TABP than are other types of control.

Instruments Zyanski and Jenkins (1970) report that the internal consistency of the JAS falls between

.75 and X5, and test-retest reliabilities from 1 to 4 years, fall between 60 and .70. They also report that agreement between the JAS and the SI to be 72%, with a 50% agreement expected by chance. The internal consistency of the Rotter Scale, which was used to measure locus of control, has been estimated at .69, and its test-retest reliability for a l-

month period at .72 (Rotter, 1975). The internal consistency of the Desirability of Control Scale has been estimated at .80, and the test-retest reliability found to be .75 over a 6- week period (Burger & Cooper, 1979).

Procedure The WOLS, along with the JAS, the Rotter Locus of Control Scale and the

Burger/Cooper Desirability of Control Scale were administered to the 62 male faculty members cited earlier. These subjects were obtained by securing the cooperation of five department chairs who agreed to retrieve the requested data from male members of the department who were 40- to 55-year-old, white married males. No refusals to participate were reported.

RESULTS

A correlation matrix for all study variables involving the 62 male faculty members is presented in Table 2.

The only measure of control which correlated with the JAS was the WOLS, r = .38, p < .OOS. While the Desirability of Control Scale did not correlate at a statistically significant level with the JAS, a significant correlation of .30 (p < .05) was found between the Burger/Cooper de- sirability of control measure, and nonmutuality as measured by the

TABLE 2 INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL STUDY VARIABLESFACULTY SAMPLE

JAS Rotter factor A scale

Burger/ Cooper

JAS-A Rotter B/C WOL Scale

.03 39 -.04 .38** .12 .30*

* p < .05. ** p < -005

264 WRIGHT ET AL.

WOLS. Locus of control did not correlate significantly with any of the other study measures.

The final phase in our series of studies attempted to further examine the construct validity of the WOLS, using a sample of CHD patients. The three control-type scales and the JAS were first administered to the sample of 52, 40- to %-year-old white, married male CHD patients cited earlier. Based on clinical observations, the authors felt that hospitalized CHD patients may undergo crisis-related change in Type A or other “state” (as opposed to “trait”) aspects of personality. Thus the 52 hospitalized subjects were asked to complete all study instruments a second time, responding as they thought they would have responded prior to the discovery of their CHD. And, since concern has also been expressed about the effects of both social desirability and denial in CHD patients on self-report measures such as the JAS (Wright, 1988), the hospitalized subjects’ wives were asked to complete all study instruments for their spouses, answering as they perceived their husbands to be. Three correlation matrices were generated for the 52 CHD patients (one each for the “present,” “prior,” and “spouse” administration proce- dures). These correlations are presented in Table 3.

Results with this second sample were essentially identical to those of the faculty sample shown in Table 2. Among the measures of control, the WOLS was the only one which correlated significantly with Type A (the JAS). These correlations were: r = S3, p < .OOOl for the presenf or standard administration; r = .36, p < .Ol for the prior form; and r = .43, p < .OOl for the spouse ratings.

TABLE 3 INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL STUDY VARIABLES-CHD SAMPLE

Form of JAS administration A scale

Rotter locus

of control

Burger/Cooper desirability of control

Present/standard

Prior form

Spouse ratings

Rotter Burger/Cooper WOL Rotter Burger/Cooper WOL Rotter Burger/Cooper WOL scale

.I3

.24 - .03

.53**** .05 .39**

.I5

.2t -.24

.36* .02 .39**

.18

.19 -.26

.43*** -.09 .42***

* p < .Ol. ** p < ,005.

*** p -c .ool. **** p < .oool.

TYPE A/CONTROL 265

The Desirability of Control Scale did not correlate with either the JAS or the Rotter scales. However, significant correlations were found be- tween desirability of control and nonmutuality on all three (present, prior, and spouse) administrations. They were r = .39, p < .005 for the present or standard administration; r = .39, p < .005 for the prior form; and r = .42, p < .OOl for the spouse ratings. Again, locus of control did not correlate significantly with any of the other study measures.

DISCUSSION

As predicted, the WOLS was the only measure of control which cor- related significantly with (JAS-measured) TABP. Locus of control and desirability of control, both generally regarded as healthy from a personal adjustment standpoint, did not correlate significantly with the TABP. Thus the more maladaptive appearing control construct of nonmutuality appears to possess some independence from other control-like con- structs. The fact that the WOLS is the only control measure sufficiently related to a construct presumably containing maladaptive control-type components (the TABP-Glass, 1977), suggests that the WOLS possesses construct validity of its own.

Results of this study failed to replicate earlier findings of Dembroski et al. (1984) and Burger (1985), as well as Smith and O’Keeffe (1985) all of whom found a relationship between the TABP, as measured by the JAS, and desirability of control. There was also a failure to replicate a relationship between the JAS and locus of control reported earlier by Dembroski and colleagues. Possibly the relationship between the JAS and both desirability and locus of control is not reliable and, therefore, not valid or replicable. Or possibly, a relationship exists between the TABP (as measured by the JAS) and locus of control and desirability of control in subjects of undergraduate age (as employed in previous studies), but not in middle-aged men as employed in this study.

The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Strube et al. (1985) who found that Type A individuals working with a partner were more reluctant to relinquish control of a task, even when their partner was clearly superior at handling the situation. This supports further investigation into the merits of Strube’s self-appraisal theory concerning the person-by-situation connection between control-relevant circumstances and the TABP. The WOLS offers a psychometric method for studying this theory.

Future research on the WOLS should first attempt (prospectively) to evaluate whether exaggerated social control or “nonmutuality” is an active ingredient which is predictive of CHD. If so, later investigations could explore the mechanism(s) involved. In this regard, a possible re- lationship between nonmutuality and an adrenalin or noradrenalin related

266 WRIGHT ET AL.

mechanism (as suggested by Contrada et al., 1982; Weiss et al., 1977) may warrant further consideration. Finally, the relationship of exagger- ated social control (as measured by the WOLS) to other TABP related behaviors (such as academic and vocational success, interpersonal func- tioning, etc.) might also be explored.

APPENDIX A

Way of Life Scale The following questionnaire should be filled out according to how you feel at the present.

Respond with the True or False choice which most accurately describes you, the respond- ent. The time should not exceed 5 minutes. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

1. I am easily awakened by noise. True False 2. When it’s time to make a major decision

like purchasing a house or a car I usu- ally make that decision. True False

3. When it’s time to make a major decision about moving I usually make that decision. True False

4. My daily life is full of things that are interesting. True False

5. I enjoy detective or mystery stories. True False 6. I work under a great deal of tension. True False 7. When it’s time to discipline the children

I make that decision. True False 8. No one seems to understand me. True False 9. When it’s time to decide about social

events with friends or family I usually make that decision. True False

10. I like to be bossy. True False 11. At times I feel like swearing. True False 12. I like to get in the last word. True False 13. I lind it hard to keep my mind on a

task. True False 14. At time I feel like smashing things. True False 15. I like to know the details about other

people’s phone conversations. True False 16. I do not always tell the truth. True False 17. I like to have rules and structure for

handling most or all situations. True False 18. I like to monitor other people to make

sure things are going the way they should be. ‘he False

19. I like to make sure everything goes ac- cording to plan. True False

20. I am a good mixer. True False 21. I like to lead conversations or group

discussions. True False 22. I am liked by most people. True False 23. I get angry sometimes. True False

TYPE A/CONTROL 267

24. I may be inclined to interrupt people if they are not responding in the way they should be.

25. I think most people would lie to get ahead.

26. I am lacking in self confidence. 27. I am an important person. 28. I have a tendency to manipulate, maneu-

ver, or control other people. 29. 1 am a good leader but not particularly a

good follower. 30. I like to give directions about driving or

other activities. 3 I. I am happy most of the time. 32. I am a person who, if I am going out for

an evening, like to decide where to eat, what movie to attend, etc.

33. My hardest battles are with myself. 34. I seem to be about as capable and smart

as most others around me.

True

True True True

True

True

True True

True True

True

False

False False False

False

False

False False

False False

False

False False

False

False

True True

True

True

35. I tend to overstructure spontaneous time such as vacation, etc. and turn them into controlled events.

36. I feel useless at times. 37. I have ideas about controlling other

things with the children and other people such as how much food they should have on their plate, etc.

38. I am seen by relatives as being a domi- nant member of our extended family.

39. I am the one who usually decides which television channel to watch. True False

40. I am the one who usually controls the thermostat in the house. True False

41. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. True False 42. 1 would rather win than lose in a game. True False 43. I do not tire quickly. True False

Key = 1 point for a true response on each of the following questions: 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, IS, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40.

REFERENCES

Brunson, B., & Matthews, K. A. (1981). The Type A coronary prone behavior pattern and reactions to uncontrollable stress: An analysis of performance strategies, affect, and attribution during failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 906- 918.

Burger, J. M. (1985). Desire for control and achievement-related behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1520-1533.

Burger, J. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation andEmotion, 3(4), 381-393.

Contrada, R. J., Glass, D. C., Krakoff, L. R., Krantz, D. S., Kenoe, K., Dsecke, W.,

Collins, C., & Elting, E. (1982). Effects of control over aversive stimulation and type

268 WRIGHT ET AL.

A behavior on cardiovascular and plasma catecholomine responses. Psychophysiology, 19, 408-419.

Dembroski, T. M., MacDougall, J. M., & Musante, L. (1984). Desirability of control vs. locus of control: Relationship to paralinguistics in the Type A interview. Health Psychology, 3, 15-26.

Dembroski, T. M., & Williams, R. B. (1989). Definition and assessment of coronary-prone behavior. In N. Schneiderman, P. Kaufmann, & S. M. Weiss (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in cardiovascular behavioral medicine. New York: Plenum.

Dimsdale, J. E. (1988). A perspective on Type A behavior and coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 110-l 12.

Friedman, H. S., & Booth-Kewley, S. (1988). Validity of the Type A construct: A reprise. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 38 l-384.

Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hannson, R. O., Hogan, R., Johnson, J. A., & Schroeder, D. (1983). Disentangling Type A behavior: The roles of ambition. intensity, and anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 186-197.

Jenkins, C. D., Zyzanski, S. J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1979). Jenkins Activity Survey Form C. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Jones, K. V. (1985). The thrill of victory: Blood pressure variability and the Type A behavior pattern. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8(3), 277-285.

Matthews, K. A. (1982). Psychological perspectives on the type A behavior pattern. Psy- chological Bulletin, 91, 293-323.

Matthews, K. A. (1988). Coronary heart diseases and type A behaviors: Update on and alternative to the Booth-Kewley and Friedman (1987) quantitative review. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 104, 373-380.

Matthews, K. A.. Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W. E., & Lucker, G. W. (1980). Pattern A, achievement-striving, and scientific merit: Does pattern A help or hinder? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, %2-967.

McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Miller, S. M., Lack, E. R., & Ascroff, S. (1985). Preference for control and the coronary

prone behavior pattern: “I’d rather do it myself.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 492-499.

Nicewander, W. A., Urry, V. W., & Starry, A. R. (1969). Composite components analysis: A method for factoring large numbers of items. Paper presented at the Annual Amer- ican Psychological Association Meeting, Washington, DC.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1974). A locus of control scale for college as well as non- college adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136-137.

Pittner, M. S., Houston, B. K., & Spiridigliozzi, G. (1983). Control over stress, Type A behavior pattern and response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 626-637.

Review Panel on Coronary-Prone Behavior and Coronary Heart Disease. (1981). Coronary- prone behavior and coronary heart disease: A critical review. Circulation, 63, 1199- 1215.

Rosenman, R. H. (1978). The interview method of assessment of the coronary-prone behavior pattern. In T. M. Dembroski, S. G. Haynes, & M. Feinleib (Eds.), Coronary- prone behavior (pp. 55-69). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rosenman, R. H., et al. (1964). A predictive study of coronary heart disease: The Western Collaborative Group Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 189, 15- 22.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of re- inforcement. Psychological Monographs. 80, (1).

TYPE A/CONTROL 269

Rotter, J. G. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal verus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 43(l), 55-67.

Smith, T. W., & O’Keeffe, J. L. (1985). The inequivalence of self-reports of Type A behavior: Differential relationships of the Jenkins Activity Survey and the Framingham Scale with affect, stress, and control. Motivation and Emotion, 9, 299-311.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Pred, R. S. (1987). Impatience versus achievement strivings in Type A pattern: Differential effects on students’ health and academic achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 522-528.

Strube, M. J., Berry, J. M., & Moergen, S. (1985). Relinquishment of control and the Type A behavior pattern: The role of performance evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 831-842.

Watkins, P. L. (1986). Behavioral assessment of interpersonal skill among Type A and B college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Weiss, J. M., Stone, E. A., & Harrell, N. (1972). Coping behavior and brain norepinephrine in rats. Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology, 72, 1.53-160.

Wright, L. (1987). The Type A behavior pattern and coronary artery disease: Quest for the active ingredients and the elusive mechanism. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

Wright, L. (1988). The Type A behavior pattern and coronary artery disease: Quest for the active ingredients and the elusive mechanism. American Psychologist, 43, 2-14.

Yamold, P. B., Mueser, K. T., & Grimm, L. G. (1985). Interpersonal dominance of Type A’s in group discussion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94(2), 233-236.

Zyanski, S. J., & Jenkins, C. D. (1970). Basic dimensions within the coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of Chronic Disorders, 22, 781-795.