Sensory processing, cardiovascular reactivity, and the type a coronary-prone behavior pattern

Diamond, Eric L.; Carver, Charles S.

doi:10.1016/0301-0511(80)90039-3

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Psychophysiological studies reporting no A-B effects differed somewhat from the above in that they were more likely to include women (Lott & Gatchel, 1978;MacDougall et al, 1981) or cardiac patients (Corse et al, in press; Krantz, Arabian et al, in press) as subjects and to impose neutral tasks that failed to elicit large responses from any subject (Diamond & Carver, 1980). It is noteworthy, however, that several of the studies that failed to reveal an A-B difference-for example, in systolic blood pressure-when classifying subjects by the Jenkins Activity Survey did report A-B differences if Typing was based on the Structured Interview (e.g., Corse et al, in press;Krantz, Arabian et al, in press;MacDougall et al, 1981).…”

Section: Jenkins Activity Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately half of the studies that measured blood pressure and heart rate during task performance found that Type As exhibited elevations in systolic blood pressure but not in diastolic blood pressure or heart rate (Dembroski, MacDougall, Herd et al, 1979;Gastorf, 1981;Manuck, Craft, & Gold, 1978;Manuck & Garland, 1979;Scherwitz, Berton et al, 1978; Pardine, Napoli, & Dytell, Note 5; cf. Corse et al, in press;Diamond & Carver, 1980;Krantz, Arabian et al, in press;Lott & Gatchel, 1978;MacDougall et al, 1981;Manuck, Corse, & Winkelman, 1979;Price & Clarke, 1978;Van Egeren, 1979a).…”

Section: Jenkins Activity Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern.

Matthews¹

1982

Psychological Bulletin

631

383

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the Type A behavior pattern is firmly established as a risk factor for coronary heart disease, it is not well understood from a psychological perspective. The present article critically evaluates what is known about the psychological nature of the Type A construct. In this regard, it (a) summarizes the behavior that empirical data indicate characterizes persons who score high and low on measures of Type A, (b) evaluates existing efforts to specify psychological dimensions underlying Type A in light of these verified behavioral characteristics, and (c) discusses some potential difficulties inherent in doing Type A research. Throughout the article, gaps in knowledge are made apparent, thereby suggesting some directions for future psychological research.

show abstract

Section: Jenkins Activity Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jenkins Activity Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern.

Matthews¹

1982

Psychological Bulletin

631

383

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Approximately 11 published psychophysiological studies (30%) have reported either no differences in Type A and B or, on rare occasion, greater reactivity among Type B subjects. Several, but not all, of these studies have methodologic problems such as failure to take physiologic measures during taskshence not measuring responsiveness to stress (e.g., Lovallo & Pishkin, 1980), exposing subjects to relatively neutral tasks that may not have elicited large responses from any subject (e.g., Diamond & Carver, 1980), or using subject populations (e.g., nonemployed women, hypertensive patients) with unusual physiologic response characteristics or subjects who were not well suited to the particular Type A assessment instruments (e.g., the JAS version) used in the study. (See Glass & Contrada, 1984;Matthews, 1982;Wright et al, in press, for methodologic critiques).…”

Section: Atherosclerosis and Its Clinical Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute psychophysiologic reactivity and risk of cardiovascular disease: A review and methodologic critique.

Krantz¹,

Manuck²

1984

Psychological Bulletin

952

506

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent behavioral and biomedical research has suggested that psychophysiologic responsiveness (reactivity) to emotional stress may be a marker of processes involved in the development of cardiovascular disorders. The assessment of reactivity focuses on acute changes in functioning as opposed to the sole assessment of resting levels of variables. This article reviews evidence linking behaviorally induced cardiovascular and endocrine changes to coronary heart disease and essential hypertension. Particular attention is given to methodologic issues involving measurement. It is concluded that reactivity to stress is a construct with multiple dimensions: Different tasks and situations appear to elicit different patterns of physiologic responses. Further, an evaluation of evidence reveals that reactivity per se should currently not be regarded as a proven risk factor. Promising evidence does, however, justify continued laboratory and naturalistic, hypothesis-testing research. Recommended are methodologic studies to identify (a) the psychologic dimensions of stimuli that elicit reactivity in different subject groups, and (b) the patterns of physiologic responses produced. Such research would set the stage for epidemiologic studies to further examine relations between behavior and disease processes.Research on cardiovascular disorders has become one of the most developed areas in study of behavioral influences on health. As more evidence has focused on mechanisms linking psychological and behavioral factors to disease, it has been suggested that physiologic responsiveness to emotional stress might be a marker of pathogenic processes involved in the etiology of coronary heart disease (CHD) or essential hypertension (EH; see

show abstract

“…Previous work (e.g., Contrada, Glass, Krakoff, Krantz, Kehoe, Isecke, Collins, & Elting, 1982;Dembroski et al, 1978;Glass, Krakoff, Finkelman, Snow, Contrada, Kehoe, Mannucci, Isecke, Collins, Hilton, & Elting, 1980;Williams et al, 1982) has shown A/B differences in SBP, HR, and neuroendocrine responses to a variety of challenging and stressful situations. On the other hand, at least two earlier studies failed to detect blood pressure and heart rate differences between A's and B's during serial subtraction (Diamond & Carver, 1980;Williams et al, 1982). It is possible, therefore, that something about mental arithmetic militates against obtaining A/B differences on these measures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of individual differences in physiological responses to stress.

Glass¹,

Lake²,

Contrada³

et al. 1983

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiovascular and plasma catecholamine responses to a psychological stressor (audio-visual conflict) were studied in Type A and B male adults, who had been classified in terms of the magnitude of their systolic blood pressure (SBP) responses to a stressful subtraction task (High and Low Reactors) administered 2 months earlier. The conflict task was given to all subjects in both upright and supine positions, using completely counterbalanced ordering. The High/Low Reactor classification showed positive associations with physiologic reactivity to conflict, including measures of SBP, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and plasma catecholamines. Global A/B assessment had virtually no impact upon the dependent measures. On the other hand, correlational analysis revealed that related personality characteristics (e.g., feelings of anger, evaluative anxiety) were positively associated with being a High Reactor, whereas the outward display of hostile impulses showed an inverse relationship. These findings were discussed in terms of a distinction between anger and hostility, as well as the possible role of evaluation apprehension in Type A behavior. Consideration was given to the importance of stable differences in sympathetic nervous system reactivity to stress in delineating coronary-prone individuals.

show abstract

Sensory processing, cardiovascular reactivity, and the type a coronary-prone behavior pattern

Cited by 15 publications

References 27 publications

Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern.

Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior pattern.

Acute psychophysiologic reactivity and risk of cardiovascular disease: A review and methodologic critique.

Stability of individual differences in physiological responses to stress.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About