Journal

of Psychosomanc Research. Vol. 36, No. 7. pp. 625-634,

Prmted

in Great Bntain.

1992. 0

0022-3999/92 $S.OO+.Ml 1992 Perganmn Press Ltd

THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTING STYLES AND SOCIAL COMPETENCY TO TYPE A BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN TINA L. HARRALSON* and KATHLEEN A. LAWLER~ (Received

17 September

1991; accepted in revised

form27

February

1992)

Abstract-This study examined parenting styles, Type A behavior in parents and children, and social competence in children. Fifty lst-6th grade children, parents, and their teachers participated. Type A behavior in parents was associated with a controlling style of parenting, but not with pressuring the child to achieve. Parenting styles of achievement pressure and high control were related to impatient and aggressive behaviors in children, as measured by the MYTH, a teacher-scored Type A behavior instrument. In addition, impatience and aggressiveness in the children were negatively correlated with the child’s social competency and ability to function in school. Parenting practices, Type A behavior, and social competency in children may play important roles in the origins of detrimental components of Type A behavior, such as impatience and aggression.

INTRODUCTION

heart disease (CHD) is the number one cause of premature death in the U.S. [ 1 ] . Friedman and Rosenman [ 21 found that at least one-half of the heart attacks in the U.S. were not linked to the known risk factors associated with CHD. In an attempt to identify other risk factors, they noted that certain behavioral traits appeared with regularity in coronary-prone persons. The traits were referred to as the Type A Behavior Pattern and included such behaviors as excessive competitiveness, chronic time urgency, impatience, restlessness, a high achievement orientation, aggressiveness, and hostility [2, 31. Because these components are not all clearly linked to CHD, recent research has emphasized the importance of hostility as one detrimental or coronary-prone component in the etiology of CHD [ 4-7 ] . The origin of the Type A behavior pattern, whether primarily genetic or learned, has not been determined. Studies find that the pattern is somewhat heritable, but they are not in agreement as to which Type A components are heritable [ 8, 91. The development of the Type A behavior pattern, as well as other multidimensional behavioral patterns, is likely the result of an interaction between both genetics and environmental influences. Genetics may influence the development of coronaryprone behaviors through an intricate network of interactions between parent and child. The genotypical and phenotypical characteristics of both parents and child evoke certain responses from each other that influence the parent-child relationship, and ultimately, the child-rearing environment [ lo-121 . This study examines the role that child-rearing environment and parental characteristics play in the development of Type A behavior and hostility in children. CORONARY

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S.A. *This research was in partial fulfillment for the Masters Degree in Experimental Psychology at the University of Tennessee. Gratitude is expressed to committee members Anne McIntyre, Ph.D. and Robert Wahler, Ph.D. for their helpful comments. tAddress correspondence to Kathleen A. Lawler, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, U.S.A. 625

626

T. L. HARRALSON and K. A. LAWLER

Type A behavior has been measured in children, and related to both physiological and behavioral characteristics found in Type A adults [ 13-151. Among environmental factors that may be important in the development of this behavior are parental expectations. In the U.S., the incidence of Type A behavior in children increases with socioeconomic status [ 16, 171 . Butensky ef al. [ 181 found that rural, working-class children showed fewer Type A behaviors than suburban middle-class children. They suggested that the rural children have better-defined goals and strive for more attainable goals. In addition, the parents of working-class children may have lower expectations for their children’s accomplishments. Parents with high achievement expectations, or who evaluate his/her child’s performance compared to others, may contribute to components of the Type A behavior pattern such as competitiveness, aggressiveness, and high achievement-orientation. Price [ 191 theorizes that this type of family environment promotes the development of aggression and hostility, as well as losses in self-esteem and perceived control, in some children. Familial influences on Type A behavior, hostility and angry feelings have been studied retrospectively by asking Types A and B adults to recall the parenting characteristics they experienced as children [20] . Waldron and associates found that Type A women were more likely to recall physical punishment by their mothers than Type B women. Type A men reported that their fathers had been severe, used physical punishment, and that they experienced more resentment than guilt when punished. These reported parental patterns of discipline may be a contributing factor to the development of the angry, aggressive component of Type A behavior associated with the development of CHD. Similarly, Houston [ 2 1 ] examined the relationship between hostility, insecurity, stress, and general physical health in women. He found that Type A behavior and hostility were associated with childhood feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem which may lead to potentially harmful consequences for the individual’s physical health. Recent research has linked a particular type of hostility, called cynical hostility, to the development of CHD in a 25-yr prospective study [7] . Following up on this predictive relationship, others found high levels of cynical hostility associated with lower self-esteem, less acceptance of social support, and more suppressed anger [ 22, 231. Houston er al. [22] defined cynical hostility as a resentful, suspicious, and angry attitude toward others. His research suggests that this orientation develops in children, partly as a consequence of certain parenting behaviors: cynically hostile subjects reported that their parents were less accepting, more controlling, had higher expectations for conformity, and were more punitive than those subjects who reported a lack of cynical hostility. Smith et al. [23] found that persons reporting high cynical hostility also reported higher familial conflict, less familial support, and a greater parental emphasis on achievement. Price [ 191 proposes that cognitions, particularly personal beliefs, are the core of Type A behavior. These cognitive factors are thought to be a result of sociocultural values communicated to the child through the family, the school system, and the media. She feels that the Type A behavior pattern is most prevalent in the individual whose early family life was characterized by: (1) Unloving, unresponsive, or highly unpredictable parents; (2) Parental approval contingent on the child performing in an exceptional manner; (3) Parents that are more concerned with the outcome of the child’s performance

Parenting styles and Type A in children

627

rather than how the task was performed; (4) Parents that are severely critical of the child’s behavior when it does not meet the parents’ expectations; (5) Parental promotion of Type A behavior by constantly telling the child to ‘hurry up, ’ ‘try harder,’ and ‘be more aggressive’; (6) Parental modelling of Type A behavior at home. Matteson et al. [24] used Price’s model to assess beliefs, fears, and childhood family environments of Type A individuals. The results indicated that the students’ Type A scores were positively and significantly correlated with their perceptions of their parents’ responsiveness, approval, and expectations. While these studies provide fruitful bases for hypotheses, it is impossible to determine from retrospective studies whether Types A and B individuals actually experienced different family environments or whether they differ primarily in their memories of early experiences. In an attempt to clarify these issues, family influences on Type A behavior in children have also been investigated. One candidate for an early influence on the child would be the parents’ own Type A behavior pattern. Sweda et al. [25] examined the relationship between Type A status of the parents and the child. The relationship between parent and child scores was not statistically significant; however, there was evidence of a maternal influence on the child’s score. The mothers’ hard-driving behavior scores were correlated with the sons’ impatient -aggression behavior scores, and the mothers’ speed-impatience scores were correlated to daughters’ overall Type A scores and daughters’ impatient-aggression scores. These results suggest that the mothers’ hard-driving and impatient behaviors may influence their children’s impatient and aggressive behaviors. In addition, a parent’s own Type A behavior may influence their child-rearing practices and the manner in which they interact with their child, thus contributing to the development and maintenance of Type A behavior in the child, even if parental Type A behavior is not directly correlated with the child’s Type A behavior. Matthews [ 261 conducted a study examining the interaction between Types A and B caregivers and Types A and B boys, while they were involved in a cooperative, achievement-oriented task. Type A boys tended to elicit more pushing and positive motivating comments from the caregivers than did Type B boys. Thus, Type A children may evoke differential responses from their caregivers and parents. Another factor that may be linked to childhood Type A behavior is the level of parental aspirations. Kliewer and Weidner [27] found that fathers of Type A sons set unrealistically high goals for themselves and perceived that the son did not reach these goals. Fathers who perceive that their sons are not attaining the set goals may project a sense of failure onto their son and promote a relentless striving for achievement in them. Similarly, Woodall and Matthews [28] found that lack of positive familial affiliation and supportiveness, as measured by the Family Environment Scale, was related to anger and hostility in children. The excessive striving to achieve, which has been associated with the global Type A behavior pattern, may not be related to CHD, unless it is exhibited in conjunction with anger and hostility. Finally, Type A behavior in children may be linked to personal adjustment difficulties. Parker and Asher [29] reviewed a number of articles concerning peer relations and personal adjustment, and concluded that children who are not accepted

628

T. L. HARRALSON and K. A. LAWLER

by their peers are deprived of a normal socialization process and social support. Furthermore, rejection by peers has a negative effect on the child’s academic, social, and moral development leaving the child more vulnerable to stress, depression and psychosomatic illness. This appears to parallel what occurs in some Type A children. Murray et al. [ 161 found that Type A children were more aggressive in their interactions with others, and that Type A children were more likely to experience a greater number of aversive, significant life events and greater psychological distress than Type B children. In addition, Type A boys were found to have more difficult temperaments; Type A boys were shown to have lower attention span, higher reactivity to frustration, and lower peer acceptance. Steinkamp [ 301 observed that teachers treated preschoolers, who scored high on the impatience-aggression subscale of the MYTH, differently from preschoolers who had lower impatienceaggression scores. Children with higher scores received fewer positive affect remarks and were allowed less autonomy. She postulates that this environment may suggest to the child that he/she may not be worthy of autonomy or positive affect, thus lowering the child’s self-esteem and hampering social development. The goal of the present study was to examine Type A behavior in children and its association with both parent characteristics and child social characteristics. In adults, Type A behavior is most reliably assessed by a structured interview that focuses both on verbal style and content. We developed a similar interview for children in order to observe Type A behavior directly, as well as employing the teacher- or parentreported Type A questionnaire typically used, the MYTH [ 131. We hypothesized that children could be assessed as Type A or B in this interview setting, and that this classification would relate to the questionnaire assessment. Secondly, we hypothesized that the Type A/B classification of parents would affect endorsement of parenting practices, based on a self-report questionnaire. Thirdly, we hypothesized that Type A behavior in children would be inversely related to social competency in the classroom. Finally, we hypothesized that different parenting practices would be associated with Type A and Type B children. While this study is concurrent, rather than prospective, any differences found in the parenting styles of the parents of Types A and B children would highlight important dimensions to evaluate in future longitudinal studies. METHOD Subjects

The subjects of this study consisted of 50 Ist-6th grade children (26 females, 24 males) enrolled in a predominantly middle-class, private school. Their ages ranged from 6 to 12 yr with a mean age of 8.34 yr. All 102 students enrolled at the school were invited to participate in the study by way of letters sent home to their parents. Forty-nine percent of the parents responded; they were given a packet of questionnaires to complete and return in a stamped envelope.

The Matthews Youth Test for Health (MYTH) is a 17 statement measure devised to assess Type A behavior in children [ 131 The statements regarding the child’s degree of competitiveness, impatience, and aggressiveness are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from extremely uncharacteristic (1) to extremely characteristic (5). The MYTH yields two subscales, impatience/aggression and competitive achievement, as well as an overall Type A score. This questionnaire was completed by the child’s teacher and parent. The reliability of the MYTH has been found to range from 0.77 to 0.82 [ 13, 311. Meininger et al. [32] found a positive correlation between children’s cognitive competence, and the MYTH

Parenting

and Type A in children

styles

629

competitive achievement subscale. In addition, they found a negative relationship between MYTH impatience/aggression scores and teacher ratings of behavioral conduct. The validity of the MYTH has been tested and demonstrated in other studies [ 13, 291. The Health Resources Inventory measures a child’s personal and social competence [ 331. It consists of 54 statements (scored from 1-5) indicating how well the statement characterizes the child’s selfconcept, affective expression, classroom response, motivation, interpersonal skills and degree of socialization. Scores are summed, and the higher the score, the more socially and personally competent the child is considered. The HRI has been used to discriminate between a clinical population and a normative group on personal and social competency. The HRI has also been found to have a negative correlation with measures of classroom maladjustment. The test-retest reliability of the HRI has been found to be 0.87. The Children’s Structured Interview was devised as an observational measure for this study and consists of questions associated with Type A behavior, possible stressors at school and home, family life, and parental behavior. The CSI provides an opportunity for the child to make a self-report and to exhibit voice stylistics and hostility associated with Type A behavior in adults. The questions are based on the Parent-Child Inventory [ 341 and the Adult Structured Interview developed by Rosenman [ 351 This interview was audiotaped and evaluated by the authors for Type A behavior speech patterns, competitiveness and potential for hostility [36]. The CSI consists of three separate scores. The Type A score was derived from the child’s voice stylistics: response latency, voice tone (i.e. loud, mixed, low), and pace of speech. Second, potential for hostility was measured by the number of hostile or potentially hostile comments the child made during the interview. Third, the competitive score was based on the answer to the question ‘Do you like to win or do you just like to play for fun?’ The audiotapes were listened to and analyzed using the same criteria as used for the Adult Structured Interview [35]. The authors were at 100% agreement on both potential for hostility and competitive content of the CSI. Voice stylistic ratings for the CSI were also highly correlated (r = 0.94). The Parent Questionnaire was developed for this study* to measure parental expectations, authoritarianism, and child-rearing methods that may be associated with the development of Type A behavior in children. Fifteen statements are scored on a 5.point scale ranging from not at all true (I) to very true (5). Originally, the PQ consisted of three subscales: the level of achievement the parent wished the child to reach, the degree of control desired by the parent, and the degree of negativity projected by the parent. A reliability analysis of the PQ questions led to a revision of the subscales; the revised subscales are labeled parental striving for their child’s achievement (Achievement Pressure) and degree of parental authoritarianism (Authoritarianism). The Achievement Pressure scale consists of five items (coefficient alpha = 0.52, mean interitem correlation = 0.18) and the Authoritarianism scale consists of four items (coefficient alpha = 0.62, mean interitem correlation = 0.29). The scales were found to be significantly correlated (r = 0.32 p < 0.02). The Framingham Type A Scale is a lo-item self-report measure used to assess the parent’s competitive drive, sense of time urgency, and perception of job pressures. Framingham Type A scores have been related to the risk of developing CHD in individuals under the age of 65 yr. Results of the Framingham epidemiological study indicated that females rated as Type A were 2.4 times more likely to develop CHD than Type B cohorts, and Type A males were I .8 times more likely to develop CHD than their Type B counterparts. Reliability of the scale was found to be 0.71 for males and 0.70 for females [37. 381. Procedure A letter was sent home with the child inviting both the parent and the child to participate in the study. The parents were asked to complete the MYTH, the Framingham Type A scale, and the Parent Questionnaire. The child was interviewed at school. The child’s teacher was asked to complete the MYTH and the Health Resources Inventory, thereby assessing the child’s Type A behavior and social competency in the school environment. RESULTS

Descriptive

statistics

The mean and median values were calculated for the MYTH, as completed by parents and teachers, the Framingham Type A scale, and the Health Resources Inventory. These are presented in Table I. The CSI was scored based on an assessment of three stylistics (loudness, latency, *Parenting

questionnaire

available

on request

630

T. L. HARRALSON and K. A. LAWLER

and rate of speech); the sum varied from 1 (very Type B) to 7 (very Type A). The mean for this group was 4.58, median was 5 .O with a standard error of 1.95. Hostile content was scored as the number of hostile comments emitted; the range was O-5, with a mean of 2.4, median of 2.0 and a standard error of 1.57. Competitiveness was gauged by the response to the question: ‘Do you like to win or do you like to play for fun?’ Thirty-eight children indicated that they preferred to ‘play for fun’ while 12 responded ‘I like to win’. TABLE I.-DESCRIPTIVE

STATISTICS ON QUESTIONNAIRES

Questionnaire

Standard

55.3 28.0 27.3

56.0 28.5 28.0

7.91 4.26 5.55

TMYTHt-Type A TMYTH-competitiveness TMYTH-impatience

49.9 25.8 24.2

53.0 26.0 23.0

12.46 6.17 7.76

Framingham Health

Type A scale

Resources

*PMYTH TTMYTH

Correlational

Median

PMYTH*-Type A PMYTH-competitiveness PMYTH-impatience

Inventory

= MYTH = MYTH

completed completed

5.28 207.1

6.0 208.5

Error

2.29 33.8

by parent. by teacher.

analysis

Initial analyses examine the to sex, grade, and age. None graphic variables; however, correlated with age (r = 0.36, CSI content was also related a higher frequency of hostile

relationships of all questionnaires and their subscales of the questionnaires was related to any of the demoType A score derived from the CSI was positively p < 0.02) and grade (r = 0.3 1, p < 0.04), and hostile to gender (r = 0.31, p < 0.04), with boys exhibiting comments (females = 1.92, males = 2.92).

Tests of hypotheses We hypothesized that the CSI-Type A score would be correlated with MYTH scores, either as completed by parent or teacher. The CSI Type A score was correlated with the teachers’ evaluations: Type A (r = 0.45, p < 0.002), Impatience/ aggression (r = 0.43, p < 0.003) and Competitiveness (r = 0.36, p < 0.02). In addition, the CSI-hostile content was weakly related to MYTH-impatience/aggression (r = 0.26, p < 0.09). However, the CSI was unrelated to the MYTH scores as completed by parents. Our second hypothesis was that parental Type A/B behavior would be associated with different parental practices. This was assessed by computing a correlation between the parents’ Type A score and the factors of the parenting questionnaire. The Authoritarian factor was significantly correlated with parent Type A score (r = 0.32, p < 0.03), such that higher Type A scores were associated with increased scores on the authoritarian or control items. Type A scores were not related to agreement with Competitive pressure statements (r = 0.12). Our third hypothesis was that teacher-rated Type A behavior, especially the impatience-aggressiveness component, would be inversely related to social competency, as measured by the Health Resources Inventory. The correlations between

Parenting

styles

and Type A in children

631

Type A, impatience/aggression and HRI were significant only for the impatience/ aggression component (r = -0.30, p < 0.04). Children with higher impatience/ aggression scores were rated lower on social competency. The lack of relationship to total Type A is due to the positive correlation between teacher-rated competitiveness, also a component of Type A behavior, and social competency (r = 0.30, p < 0.03). Our fourth hypothesis proposed a relationship between parental practices and Type A behavior in children. This was assessed by computing correlations between overall Parenting Questionnaire scores, factors (authoritarianism and achievement pressure) and the Type A measures. Significant relationships were found between the teacherrated MYTH-impatience/aggressiveness scores and both total parenting scores (r = 0.33, p < 0.02) and the Achievement Pressure factor (r = 0.32, p C 0.03). A multiple forced regression was also computed in an attempt to examine the ability of the two parenting factors to predict teacher-rated impatience/aggression scores. The model was significant (r2 = 0.12,F (2, 46) = 3.22, p < 0.05), with the Achievement Pressure factor (beta = 0.275) contributing more than the Authoritarianism factor (beta = 0.147). Type A behavior and hostility as scored from the CSI were not significantly related to parenting style. Thus, self-reported parenting practices, particularly Achievement pressure items, were related to teacher’s perceptions of a child’s aggressive behavior. Because parenting practices may also reflect the parent’s perception of the child, we conducted a post hoc stepwise regression of parent-rated MYTH items onto the total parenting questionnaire score. This model was highly significant (r2 = 0.43, p < 0.005) and includes seven items from the MYTH as shown in Table II. TABLE

MYTH 4. 6. 9. 12. 13. 15. 16.

II.-MYTH

item #

ITEMS PREDICTIVE* OF PARENTING

CHARACTERISTICS

Statement

Beta Weight

This child does things in a hurry. This child interrupts others. He/she seems to perform better than usual when competing against others. When working or playing, she/he tries to do better than other children. This child can sit still long. Other children look to this child for leadership. This child is competitive.

-0.463 0.203 0.570 0.421 0.400 4.178 4.651

*r2 = 0.43, p < 0.005. Therefore, the way the parent petition, and attention is related

perceives the child with regard to parenting style.

to hurrying,

com-

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the psychosocial origins of Type A behavior in children. In particular, we were interested in examining the role that parenting style plays in the development of behaviors deemed to be coronary-prone, namely impatience and aggression. The data for this research were collected from parents, teachers, and the children themselves. The most critical question asked of

632

T. L. HARRALSON and K. A. LAWLER

these data was whether parenting styles were related to Type A behavior in children. We found that two dimensions of parental behavior, achievement pressure and authoritarianism, both predicted the impatience and aggression component of Type A behavior in children, as perceived by teachers. Furthermore, of these two, achievement pressure was the more strongly related. This factor reflects not simply the desire of the parent for the child to do well, but a suggestion that the child needs to do better. For example, two questions from this factor are ‘Concerning my child’s schoolwork, there is always room for improvement,’ and ‘In reality, the final grade is more important than the learning process’. As in all correlational research, the direction of effect between children’s aggressiveness and parenting behavior is an open question. Type A parents tended to endorse parenting items that were more controlling or authoritarian. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that Type A persons strive to maintain control of their environments [ 391, and therefore may desire more control in parenting. However, authoritarian parenting style was only weakly related to children’s Type A or impatient-aggressive behavior. Parental endorsement of achievement pressure items was not related to parental Type A, but was related to the parent’s perception of the child’s behavior. Parents who perceived their children as not moving quickly, not competitive but improved by competition, and having a long attention span (see Table II) reported that they applied more achievement pressure to their children. Children whose parents endorse achievement pressure items are perceived by teachers as impatient and aggressive. Attempting to untangle the direction of these effects, either statistically or longitudinally, is an important goal for future research. Another question of this study was the ability to assess Type A behavior in children with a structured interview. While the CSI and hostility measures did not relate to parenting styes, they were highly correlated with teacher-rated Type A behavior. This correlation provides convergent validity for the use of the CSI as a measure of Type A behavior in children. Although the potential for hostility score of the CSI is not significantly related to the teacher-rated impatience/aggression score of the MYTH, the correlation between the two suggests a positive relationship (r = 0.26, p < 0.09). The statistical non-significance may be due, in part, to the type of hostility and aggressiveness that is being focused on in the two measures. The CSI examine potential for hostility and the verbal expression of anger, whereas, the impatience/aggression subscale of the MYTH focuses more on the child’s irritation and impatience with others. Besides parental expectations, peer and teacher-child relationships also play a role in the psychosocial development of the child. We hypothesized that a child that scored high on Type A behavior would score low on the Health Resources Inventory, which measures the child’s ability to function well in the social environment. We found that the teacher-rated impatience-aggression subscale of the MYTH was negatively correlated with social competency scores. However, the achievement pressure subscale of the MYTH was positively related to social competency. Thus, these two aspects of Type A behavior have differential effects on the way a child is perceived. This lends further support to the argument that some components of Type A behavior may be beneficial, while others may be harmful. In summary, the results of this study suggest that achievement pressure is related to impatient and aggressive behaviors in children. The pressure to achieve and

Parenting styles and Type A

633

in children

compete successfully can come from a variety of sources: parents, peers, and school. The pressure to achieve is promoted throughout our culture [ 401, and may even be desirable. A person who lives a competitive and achievement-oriented life may be less vulnerable to illness than one who harbors resentment for being pressured into a role he or she does not desire [ 411. The outcome, with regard to CHD, may relate to the goodness-of-fit between achievement pressure and the abilities and interests of the child. Research with adults has emphasized the physiological cost of overachieving [ 421 and of status mobility [ 431. Future work should examine the child’s perception of achievement pressure as supportive or onerous; differential perceptions may be related to different physiological outcomes. On the other hand, parent achievement pressure may well be a response to child characteristics, and relate only weakly to subsequent physiological outcomes. Discriminating among the roles of the child, the parent, and their interactions on subsequent health outcomes is a complicated issue, important both for determining the etiology of Type A behavior and for making sound recommendations regarding effective child-rearing practices. REFERENCES COOPERT, DETRE T, WEISS SM. Coronary-prone

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

behavior and coronary heart disease: a critical review. Circularion 1981; 63: 1199-1215. FRIEDMAN M, ROSENMAN RH. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. New York: Fawcett Crest, 1974. MATTHEWS KA, HAYNES SG. Type A behavior pattern and coronary heart disease risk: Update and critical evaluation. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 123: 923-960. DEMRROSKI TM, CZAJKOWSKI S. Historical and current developments in coronary-prone behavior: Beyond Type A behavior. In In Search of Coronary-Prone Behavior: Beyond Type A (Edited by SIEGMAN AW, DEMBROSKI TM) pp. 21-39. New Jersey: Erlbaum 1989. DEMRROSKI TM, MACDOUGALL JM, COSTA PT, GRANDITS GA. Components of hostility as predictors of sudden death and myocardial infarction in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Psychosom Med 1989; 51: 514-522. HECKER MH, CHESNEY MA, BLACK GW, FRAUTSCHI N. Coronary-prone behaviors in the Western Collaborative Group Study. Psychosom Med 1988; 50: 153-164. WILLIAMS R, BAREFOOT J. Coronary-prone behavior: The emerging role of the hostility complex. In Type A Behavior Pattern: Research, Theory, and Intervention (Edited by HOUSTONBK, SYNDER CR) pp. 189-211. New York: Wiley, 1988. MATTHEWS KA, ROSENMAN RH, DEMBROSKI TM, HARRIS EL, MACDOUGALL JM. Familial resemblance in components of the Type A behavior pattern: A reanalysis of the California Type A Twin Study. Psychosom Med 1984; 46: 512-522. PEDERSEN NL, LICH~ENSTEIN BA, PLOMIN R, DEFAIRE U, MCCLEARN GE, MATTHEWS KA.

Genetic and environmental influences for Type A-like measures and related traits: reared apart and twins reared together. Psychosom Med 1989; 51: 428-440.

A study of twins

10. PLOMIN R, MCCLEARN GE, PEDERSEN NL, NESSELROADE JR, BERGEMAN CS. Genetic influence on childhood family environment perceived retrospectively from the last half of the life span. Dev

Psycho1 11. 12.

1988; 24: 738-745.

ROWE DC. A biometrical analysis of perceptions of family environment: A study of twin and singleton sibling kinships. Child Dev 1983; 54: 416-423. SCARR S, MCCARTNEY K. How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-

environment 13.

effects.

of children’s 14

Child Dev 1983; 54: 424-435.

MATTHEWS KA, ANGULO J. Measurement LAWLER

responses

comDetitiveness.

KA,

ALLEN

MT,

to the coronary-prone

of the Type A behavior

imuatience-anger.and CRI~CHER

behavior

aggression.

EC,-STANDARD

in children.

BA.

pattern in children: Assessment Child Dev 1980; 51: 466-475.

The

relationship

of physiological

J Behnv Med 1981; 4: 203-216.

responses to challenge in 3-6 year 15. LUNDBERG U. Notes on Type A behavior and cardiovascular old children. J Psychosom Res 1983; 27: 39-42. 16 MURRAY DM, MATTHEWS KA, BLAKE SM, PRINEAS RJ, GILLUM RF. Type A behavior pattern in

children.

17.

Demographic, behavioral, physiological correlates. Health Psychof 1986; 5: 159-169. BAL~ON PM, HUNTER SM, BERENSON GS, WILLIS AS. Comparison of the prevalence of Type A behavior in boys and girls from two contrasting socioeconomic status groups. J Human Stress 1987; 13: 116-120. MANNING DT,

634 18 19 20

21 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

T. L. HARRALSON and K. A. LAWLER BUTENSKY A, FARALLI V, HEEBNER D, WALDRON I. Elements of coronary prone behavior pattern in children and teenagers. J Psychosom Res 1976; 20: 439-444. PRICE VA. Type A Behavior Pattern: A Model for Research and Practice. New York: Academic Press, 1982. WALDRON I, HJCKEY A, MCPHERSON C, BUTENSKY A, GRUSS L, OVERALL K, SCHMADER A, WOHLMUTH D. Type A behavior pattern: Relationship to variation in blood pressure, parental characteristics, and academic and social activities of students. J Human Stress 1980; 6: 16-27. HOUSTON BK. Hostility, insecurity, stress and health. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Boston MA, 1988. HOUSTON BK, VAVAK CR. Cynical hostility: Developmental factors, psychosocial correlates, and health behaviors. Health Psychol 1991; 10: 9-17. SMJTHTW, POPEMK, SANDERSJD, ALLRED KD, O’KEEFE JL. Cynical hostility at home and work: Psychosocial vulnerability across domains. J Res Pen 1988; 22: 525-548. MATTESON MT, IVANCEVJCHJM, GAMBLE GO. A test of cognitive social learning model of Type A behavior. J Human Stress 1987: 13: 23-3 1. SWEDA MC, SINES JO, LAUER RM, CLARKE WR. Familial aggregation of Type A behavior. J Behav Med 1986; 9:23-32. MATTHEWS KA. Caregiver-child interactions and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Child Dev 1977; 48: 1752-1756. KLJEWERW, WEJDNERG. Type A behavior and aspirations: A study of parents’ and children’s goal setting. Dev Psycho1 1987; 23: 204-209. WOODALL KL, MAI.THEWS KA. Familial environment associated with Type A behaviors and psychophysiological responses to stress in children. Health Psycho1 1989; 8: 403-426. PARKER JG, ASHER SR. Peer relations and later personal adjustments: Are low accepted children at risk? Psycho1 Bull 1987; 102: 357-369. STEJNKAMPMW. The social concomitants of competitive and impatience/aggressive components of the Type A behavior pattern in preschool children: Peer responses and teacher utterances in a naturalistic setting. J Pers Sot Psycho1 1990; 59: 1287-1295. CORRJ~AN SA, MOSCKOWITZ DS. Type A behavior in preschool children: Construct validation evidence for the MYTH. Child Dev 1983; 54: 1513-1521. MFININGER JC, STASHINKO EE, HAYMAN LL. Type A behavior in children: Psychometric properties of the Matthews Youth Test for Health. Nurs Res 1991; 40: 221-227. GESTEN E. A health resources inventory: The development of a measure of the personal and social competence of primary-grade children. J Consult Clin Psycho1 1976; 44: 775-786. ROE A, SIEGELMAN M. A parent-child relations questionnaire. Child Dev 1963; 34: 355-369. ROSENMAN RH. The interview method of assessment of coronary-prone Behavior. In Coronapprone behavior (Edited by DEMBROSKI TM, WEISS SM, SHIELDS I, HAYNES S, FEINLJEBM) pp. 55-69. New York: Springer, 1978. DEMBROSKJTM, MACDOUGALL JM. Behavioral and psychophysiological perspectives of coronaryprone behavior. In Biobehuvioral Bases of Corona? Heart Disease (Edited by DEMBROSKITM, SCHMJDTTH, BLUMCHEN G) pp. 127-129. New York: Karger. 1983. HAYNES S, FEINLJEHM, KANNEL W. The relationship of psychosocial factors to coronary heart disease in the Framingham study: III, g-year incidence of CHD. Am J Epidemiol 1980; 111: 37-58. HAYNES SG, LEVINE S, SCOTCH N, FEJNLEIBM, KANNEL WB. The relationship of psychosocial factors to coronary heart disease in the Framingham Study: I. Methods and risk factors. Am J Epidemiol 1978; 107: 362-383. GLASS DC. Behavior Patterns, Stress, and Coronury Heart Disease, pp. 141-162. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977. MARGOLJS LH, MCLEROY KR. RUNYAN CW, KAPLAN BH. Type A behavior: An ecological approach. J Behav Med 1983; 6: 245-258. FRIEDMAN HS, BOOTH-KEWLEY S. Personality, Type A behavior and coronary heart disease: The role of emotional expression. J Per.7 Sot Psycho1 1987; 53: 783-792. RAUSTE-VON WRJGHT M, WRIGHT JV, FRANKENHAEUSER M. Relations between sex-related psychological characteristics during adolescence and catecholamine excretion during achievement stress. Psychophysiol 1981; 18: 362~-370. CASSEL. J, TYROLER HA. Epidemiological studies of cultural change: I. Health status and recency of industrialization. Arch Environ Hlth 1961; 3: 25-33.

The relationship of parenting styles and social competency to Type A behavior in children.

This study examined parenting styles, Type A behavior in parents and children, and social competence in children. Fifty 1st-6th grade children, parent...
880KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views