major personality attributes influencing OB

locus of control

Within psychology, Locus of Control is considered to be an important aspect of personality. The concept was developed originally Julian Rotter in the 1950s (Rotter, 1966).

Locus of Control refers to an individual's perception about the underlying main causes of events in his/her life.

Locus of control is a term in psychology which refers to a person's belief about what causes the good or bad results in his or her life, either in general or in a specific area such as health or academics. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an important aspect of personality studies.

Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are more likely to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external locus of control; they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation.

One's "locus" (Latin for "place" or "location") can either be internal (meaning the person believes that they control their life) or external (meaning they believe that their environment, some higher power, or other people control their decisions and their life).

Applications of locus of control theory

Locus of control's most famous application has probably been in the area of health psychology, largely thanks to the work of Kenneth Wallston. Scales to measure locus of control in the health domain are reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993). The most famous of these would be the Health Locus of Control Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale, or MHLC (Wallston, Wallston, & DeVellis, 1976; Wallston, Wallston, Kaplan & Maides, 1976). The latter scale is based on the idea, echoing Levenson's earlier work, that health may be attributed to three possible outcomes - internal factors, such as self-determination of a healthy lifestyle, powerful others, such as one's doctor, or luck. Some of the scales reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) relate to health in more specific domains, such as obesity (for example, Saltzer's ) (1982) Weight Locus of Control Scale or Stotland and Zuroff's (1990) Dieting Beliefs Scale), or mental health (such as Wood and Letak's (1982) Mental Health Locus of Control Scale or the Depression Locus of Control Scale of Whiteman,

Desmond and Price, 1987)and cancer (the Cancer Locus of Control Scale of Pruyn et alia, 1988). In discussing applications of the concept to health psychology, Furnham and Steele also refer to Claire Bradley's work, linking locus of control to management of diabetes mellitus. Empirical data on health locus of control in various fields has been reviewed by Norman and Bennett (1995). These authors note that data on whether certain health-related behaviours are related to internal health locus of control have been ambiguous. For example, they note that some studies found that internal health locus of control is linked with increased exercise, but they also cite several studies that have found only a weak or no relationship between exercise behaviours (such as jogging) and internal health locus of control. They note similar ambiguity for data on the relationship between internal health locus of control and other health-related behaviours, such as breast self-examination, weight control and preventative health behaviours. Of particular interest are the data these authors cite on the relationship between internal health locus of control and alcohol consumption. Norman and Bennett note that some studies which have compared alcoholics with non-alcoholics have suggested alcoholism is linked with increased externality for health locus of control, but other studies have found alcoholism to be linked with increased internality, and similar ambiguity has been found in studies which have looked at alcohol consumption in a more general, non-alcoholic population. Norman and Bennett appear a little more optimistic in reviewing the literature on the relationship between internal health locus of control and smoking cessation, although they also point out that there are grounds for supposing that powerful others health locus of control, as well as internal health locus of control, may be linked with smoking cessation.

Norman and Bennett argue that a stronger relationship is found when health locus of control is assessed for specific domains than when general measures of locus of control are taken. ("Overall, studies using behaviour-specific health locus scales have tended to produce more positive results (Lefcourt, 1991). Moreover, these scales have been found to be more predictive of general behaviour than more general scales, such as the MHLC scale" (Norman & Bennett, 1995, p72). Norman and Bennett cite several studies which have used health-related locus of control scales in specific domains, including smoking cessation (Georgio & Bradley, 1992), diabetes (Ferraro, Price, Desmond & Roberts, 1987), tablet-treated diabetes (Bradley, Lewis, Jennings & Ward, 1990), hypertension (Stantion, 1987), arthritis (Nicasio et al., 1985), cancer (Pruyn et al., 1988) and heart and lung disease (Allison, 1987). They also argue that health locus of control is better at predicting health-related behaviour if studied in conjunction with health value, i.e. the value people attach to their health, suggesting that health value is an important moderator variable in the health-locus of control relationship. For example, Weiss and Larsen (1990) (cited in Norman & Bennett, 1995) found increased relationship between internal health locus of control and health when health value was assessed. Despite the importance that Norman and Bennet (1995) attach to use of specific measures of locus of control, there are still some general textbooks on personality, such as Maltby, Day and Macaskill (2007), which continue to cite studies linking internal locus of control with improved physical health, mental health and quality of life in people undergoing conditions as diverse as HIV, migraines, diabetes, kidney disease and epilepsy (Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007).

Other fields to which the concept has been applied include industrial and organizational psychology, sports psychology, educational psychology and the psychology of religion. Richard Kahoe has published celebrated work in the latter field, suggesting that intrinsic religious orientation correlates positively, extrinsic religious orientation correlates negatively, with internal locus.[6] Of relevance to both health psychology and the psychology of religion is the work prepared by Holt, Clark, Kreuter and Rubio (2003), in preparing a questionnaire to assess spiritual health locus of control. These authors distinguished between an active spiritual health locus of control orientation, in which "God empowers the individual to take healthy actions"[7] and a more passive spiritual health locus of control orientation, where people leave everything to God in the care of their own health. In industrial and organizational psychology, it has been found that internals are more likely to take position action to change their jobs, rather than merely to talk about occupational change, than externals (Allen, Weeks & Moffat, 2005; cited in Maltby et al., 2007).

Machiavellianism

is, according to the OED, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) and other works. Machiavellian and variants became very popular in the late 16th century in English, though "Machiavellianism" itself is first cited by the OED from 1626. The word has a similar use in modern psychology.

Machiavelli, according to the popular view, although this is disputed at least in part by most Machiavelli scholars, held that people were by nature untrustworthy, malevolent and self-serving, and thus those in power could only maintain their position through exploitative and deceitful actions.[1]

Machiavellianism is also a term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. In the 1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism. This eventually became the MACH-IV test, a twenty-statement personality survey that is now the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism. People scoring above 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered high Machs; that is, they endorsed statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4). People scoring below 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered low Machs; they tend to believe, "There is no excuse for lying to someone else," (No. 7) and, "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11). Christie, Geis, and Geis's graduate assistant David Berger went on to perform a series of studies that provided experimental verification for the notion of Machiavellianism.

Machiavellianism is one of the three personality traits referred to as the dark triad, along with narcissism and psychopathy. Some psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be essentially a subclinical form of psychopathy. [6]

self esteem

In psychology, self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth.

Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, "I am competent/incompetent") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/shyness, confidence/caution).

Psychologists usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality characteristic (trait self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations (state self-esteem) occur.

Self-esteem can apply specifically to a particular dimension (for example, "I believe I am a good writer, and feel proud of that in particular") or have global extent (for example, "I believe I am a good person, and feel proud of myself in general").

Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include: self-worth,[1] self-regard,[2] self-respect,[3]

[4] self-love (which can express overtones of self-promotion),[5] and self-integrity. Self-esteem is distinct from self-confidence and self-efficacy, which involve beliefs about ability and future performance.

Given its long and varied history, the term has had no less than three major types of definition, each of which has generated its own tradition of research, findings, and practical applications:

1. The original definition presents self-esteem as a ratio found by dividing one’s successes in areas of life of importance to a given individual by the failures in them or one’s “success / pretensions”.[10] Problems with this approach come from making self-esteem contingent upon success: this implies inherent instability because failure can occur at any moment.[11]

2. In the mid 1960s Morris Rosenberg and social-learning theorists defined self-esteem in terms of a stable sense of personal worth or worthiness, (see Rosenberg self esteem scale). This became the most frequently used definition for research, but involves problems of boundary-definition, making self-esteem indistinguishable from such things as narcissism or simple bragging.[12]

3. Nathaniel Branden in 1969 briefly defined self-esteem as "...the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and being worthy of happiness". This two-factor approach, as some have also called it, provides a balanced definition that seems to be capable of dealing with limits of defining self-esteem primarily in terms of competence or worth alone.[13]

Branden’s (1969) description of self-esteem includes the following primary properties:

1. self-esteem as a basic human need, i.e., "...it makes an essential contribution to the life process", "...is indispensable to normal and healthy self-development, and has a value for survival."

2. self-esteem as an automatic and inevitable consequence of the sum of individuals' choices in using their consciousness

3. something experienced as a part of, or background to, all of the individuals thoughts, feelings and actions.

Self esteem is a concept of personality, for it to grow, we need to have self worth, and this self worth will be sought from embracing challenges that result in the showing of success.

Level and quality of self-esteem, though correlated, remain distinct. Level-wise, one can exhibit high but fragile self-esteem (as in narcissism) or low but stable self-esteem (as in humility). However, investigators can indirectly assess the quality of self-esteem in several ways:

1. in terms of its constancy over time (stability)2. in terms of its independence of meeting particular conditions (non-contingency)3. in terms of its ingrained nature at a basic psychological level (implicitness or

automatized).

Humans have portrayed the dangers of excessive self-esteem and the advantages of more humility since at least the development of Greek tragedy, which typically showed the results of hubris.

self monitoring

Self-monitoring theory is a contribution to the psychology of personality, proposed by Mark Snyder in 1974. The theory refers to the process through which people regulate their own behavior in order to "look good" so that they will be perceived by others in a favorable manner. It distinguishes between high self-monitors, who monitor their behavior to fit different situations, and low self-monitors, who are more cross-situationally consistent. Snyder designed a questionnaire to assess self-monitoring called the Self-Monitoring Scale, based on the assumption that high self-monitoring could be defined as consisting of:

1. High concern with the social appropriateness of one's actions;2. Use of social comparison information;3. Ability to monitor one's behavior to fit different situations;4. Ability to do this in specific situations;5. Trait variability

On his original version of the Self-Monitoring Scale, he found that Stanford University students scored significantly higher than psychiatric inpatients, but significantly lower than people in the acting profession. The theory is of interest in that it makes an original contribution to the debate on traits versus situationism. It effectively says that trait consistency can be found in low self-monitors, whereas a situationist framework is more appropriate for high self-monitors. Subsequent research using the self-monitoring scale, in which it has been analysed using factor analysis, has questioned whether the scale really - as Snyder believed - measures a homogeneous concept.

risk taking

Risk-taking behaviors have been the subject of much speculation, from

Sigmund Freud's belief that dare-devil stunts arise out of humans'

innate "death drive," to some modern psychologists' view that dangerous

activities canmake us feel more alive. In general, we think of risky

behavior as encompassing activities only a handful of courageous, or

"crazy," people would attempt,including skydiving, rock climbing, cliff

jumping, or other dramatic exploits. In reality, though, risk-taking

behaviors also include more mundane acts,like having unprotected sex,

gambling, robbing banks, and taking drugs. The reasons for these

behaviors are complex, although not mysterious, and can meandifferent

things to different people. In general, though, as poet Robert Browning

wrote, "Our interest's on the dangerous edge of things."

One commonly accepted theory about why people do risky things has to

do withevolution. This theory holds that in one of the deep, dark, old

parts of ourbrains, where the control centers for survival and

reproduction are located,there are preprogrammed impulses in some

people that stimulate them to take risks. These individuals are known in

psychological terms as "risk seekers," whereas their more conservative

counterparts are labeled "risk avoiders." (Inattempting to delineate the

characteristics of human risk taking, however, itis important to note that

we cannot reasonably divide the population into risk takers and risk

avoiders. All people will both seek risk and avoid risk atdifferent points in

their lives.) Sociologists and other experts believe that these very basic

personality types evolved eons ago, and that despite the easier, more

protected world most Western people now enjoy, they are not likely to

change any time soon.

One of the reasons that risk-taking might have become such a cross-

cultural and widespread human characteristic is endorphins. This word

has come to be synonymous with the whole range of natural opiates

(painkillers and relaxants)that the brain releases in response to imminent

physical danger. Discovered by neurobiologist Candace Pert, endorphins

enable us to balance the tremendousrush of adrenaline that flows into

our bloodstreams during dangerous moments(producing the famous

"fight-or-flight" response) with cool, calm thinking and an ability to give

undivided attention to crucial matters despite the surrounding chaos.

Pert believes that greater sensitivity to endorphins gave certain early

humans a survival advantage, which meant that more of these individuals

survived to transmit their genes to succeeding generations. Thus,

humanswho took risks and responded well to the chemicals released by

their brainsduring the ensuing danger lived to take other risks and pass

on their tendencies to their offspring. According to biologist Charles

Darwin's theory, thesewell-equipped individuals survived because they

were the fittest of their species.

Early human risk takers were probably more likely to wander off

established trails, possibly finding a new source of water or game. Such

individuals mightalso have risked being seen as different in order to

invent a new kind of weapon or animal trap, or to try eating a new plant

or other potential food item. These acts would have triggered a

pleasurable excitement in the risk taker, but might also have profoundly

benefited his or her group--not only becausethe group would reap the

rewards of the risk taker's discoveries, but because a single person took

the experiment upon him- or herself, saving the rest from the potential

danger involved in the risk.

Humans continue to take what are, in most modern cases, unnecessary

risks. Despite the virtual elimination of physical risk from our daily lives,

the craving for action still runs strong in our genetic makeup. This basic

trait maybe enhanced and even strengthened by the fact that many

societies give risk takers positive behavioral reinforcement. Everyone has

seen how admired the race car drivers, the astronauts, the deep-sea

explorers are. They risk their lives--sometimes for fun, sometimes to

broaden the entire species' horizons. This positive reinforcement is a

powerful force that, if it continues, will virtually guarantee the

continuation of the genetic characteristics that predispose individuals to

taking risks.

Besides bare survival, nature offers its own rewards for risk taking. The

endorphins and adrenaline act on the nervous system to produce an

exhilarating high that many people have compared to sex. Being in

danger, whether willinglyor not, causes the heart to speed up and the

breathing to quicken as we approach a peak of anticipation and

excitement, after which comes a feeling of release and relaxation. Over

the millennia, our bodies have grown accustomed tothis phenomenon and

have even come to crave it, although this is true in some individuals more

than others. For instance, some experts attribute the perennial

popularity of running and similar exercise to our bodies' age-old

conditioning to hunt prey and escape predators. The calm, relaxed, yet

exhilarating feeling during and after such exercise is what keeps many

runners "addicted" to the strenuous sport.

The motivation that the body offers as incentive for taking risks is

strong,but the mind offers an equally compelling reason for why people

do risky things. Ask any mountain biker, racecar driver, high-board diver,

or extreme skateboarder why they take part in their respective sports,

and most of them willmention the word "fun." Humans are one of only a

small number of species that do things for fun, and we are forever

inventing new ways to enjoy ourselves. However, some people get a

special thrill from engaging in activities thatcould hurt or even kill them.

For these people, the thought of leading a boring existence might be

even more frightening than the idea of jumping out of an airplane at

15,000 feet. Author Jack London expressed this phenomenon concisely

when he wrote, "The adventurer gambles with life to heighten sensation--

to make it glow for a moment."

There have been many studies on what kind of people take risks.

Scientists generally agree that the genetic makeup of the typical risk-

taking person is exhibited in certain characteristics. For instance, there

seems to be strong evidence that men are more likely to enjoy taking

risks than women. This makessense from an evolutionary standpoint,

since men have almost always been thehunters and explorers and women

have usually stayed close to the children andcared for them and the men

in less adventurous, but no less important, ways.However, there are

many women today who enjoy taking risks as well--among them many

distinguished aerobatic pilots, rock climbers, skiers, hang gliders,and

others. (It may be that cultural conditioning and lack of opportunity

account for the large gender difference in such activities.) In addition,

risk takers seem to have in common an enhanced ability for dopamine

reuptake, i.e.,their brains respond more strongly to the chemicals

released during stress.One Israeli study claimed in 1996 to have found

what it called the "risk gene," labeling it D4DR, for "fourth dopamine

receptor gene." They even located it on the 11th chromosome and

pinpointed its function in the limbic portion ofthe brain. However, the

study also said the gene would be responsible for only 10 percent of

human risk-taking behavior.

In terms of actual personality traits, a targeted personality test (adapted

in Israel from a U.S. template) has shown that risk takers tend to be

fickle,hot-tempered, exploratory, extravagant, and excitable, while their

risk-avoiding counterparts tend to be more stoic, thoughtful, frugal, even-

tempered, and loyal. Also, risk takers frequently experience arousal

similar to that associated with sex. Many skydivers, racecar drivers, and

other risk takers oftencompare their favorite activity with sex, calling it

"orgasmic" or even branding it "better than sex."

Another reason that some people like to take risks is that it unites them

with others who participate in the same sport or activity, producing an

intensecamaraderie centered around cheating death, injury, or other

mishap. To the outsider, these people, when questioned, will stress the

numerous safety precautions they take and their desire to pursue their

chosen hobbies in a judicious manner. Yet when a group of skydivers, for

instance, assemble after a dayof jumping, the talk is almost always about

close calls and near disasters. This discourse creates and emphasizes the

adventurers' corps d'esprit and serves to prove their mettle to each

other. Most studies agree that risk takers are likely to be extremely

individualistic, often to the point of being loners. Paradoxically, this is

true despite their enjoyment of interacting with others who participate in

their chosen activity. Most often, however, the intense friendships

engendered by participating in the chosen risk will end if thatshared

activity also ends.

Many people who love to take risks are also characterized by a

consuming desire to control their own destiny. Far from succumbing to

Freud's presumed death wish, they are avid proponents of living life to its

fullest, and only feardescending into the gray, shadowless world of the

mundane. By taking part inactivities in which they could be injured or

killed, and by repeatedly drawing back from the brink through their use

of skill and disciplined preparation, risk takers achieve the sense that

they can elude death at will and are, even if momentarily, omnipotent.

Thus, it is important to note that such risk takers as "extreme" athletes

are not interested in dangerous activities, per se, but in experiencing

danger that they can control and master to the utmostdegree. Author

Michael Apter describes this as the "the tiger in the cage" phenomenon,

wherein risk seekers want the danger of the tiger, but also the safety of

knowing the beast can be contained. Risk seekers have a strong need for

control in most or all areas of their lives. Indeed, some experts have

suggested that taking risks, ironically, may bring periods of welcome

abandon toindividuals who have trouble letting life "just happen."

Risk taking can occur in much more ordinary forms than the spectacular

outdoor exploits that most of us just watch with awe, horror, or disbelief.

For instance, some surgeons have reported getting the same adrenaline

surge that mountaineers and other athletes have experienced, although

their "rush" is the product of standing in one place for 13 hours to save

patients from cancer orother serious illness. Again, though, the surgeon

counteracts the possibly dire consequences of failure, i.e., the tiger, with

the "cage" created by his or her intense concentration and skill. Even

such personal acts as giving up adull but secure job to take an exciting

new position can produce the rejuvenating exhilaration of excitement and

risk. Indeed, some people might considerthis riskier than parachuting or

mountain climbing, depending on their priorities.

Taking risks is a form of what we might collectively call "gambling"--

whetherwith one's life or one's professional status. The pursuit of

gambling itself, for instance, can and does lead to financial losses, and,

like many of theother risk-taking behaviors, it also breaks up marriages

and other relationships, can lead to addiction, and may cause personal

ruin. However, to the risk-taking personality, gambling, with its threat of

financial ruin and promiseof easy riches, is just as seductive as deep-sea

exploration is to the diver.

Some scientists embody another variation on the risk-taker personality.

Exposing themselves to professional and public embarrassment, they

nevertheless persist in searching for clues to the cure for AIDS, to the

smallest unit of matter, to whether God exists. All of these might be

considered adventurous exploits of the mind, and are no less risky to the

individuals involved. Sociobiologist E. O. Wilson has commented,

"Scientists ... spend their productive lives struggling to reach the edge of

knowledge in order to make discoveries."Just as the mountaineer risks

death or injury to reach the summit of a difficult climb, these scientists

risk ridicule and failure to discover answers tolife's most perplexing

riddles.

But what of the individuals who take risks like having sex with a stranger

without a condom, shoplifting, committing an act of aggression or

violence, ortaking drugs? What motivates them? In short, the impetus for

such individualsis partially the same as for those who participate in such

risks as paragliding or cliff jumping--they get gratification from the

danger involved in these activities. However, there is an important

difference between the paraglider and the casual shoplifter: the latter is

engaging in antisocial behavior, i.e., in behavior inconsiderate of the

needs of others. One activity might beconsidered life affirming, the other

a manifestation of anger and alienation.

Antisocial risk takers generally have a socially negative outlook and

repeatedly engage in activities that society perceives as abnormal.

Granted, the teleskier might be perceived by some as "abnormal" in the

sense that most peoplewould never attempt such a dangerous exploit, but

society will simultaneously reward him or her in various ways for

"pushing the envelope" of human experience and endurance. Conversely,

the antisocial risk taker will usually receive only imprisonment, disease,

divorce, or condemnation in response to his orher activities. Gambling,

unsafe sex, crime, drug use: these rarely offer any sort of benefit to

either the person who does them or to anyone else. Instead, they

frequently lead to misery and destruction, whereas the more positiverisk-

taking behaviors could be regarded as having a spiritual aspect and

anelement of joy.

Yet as with most attempts to define the human character, it is impossible

toignore the dichotomies present in a single act. While we may not

condone or reward negative risk-taking activities, they can still serve a

purpose. For instance, the scientist who arrogantly suggests that the

accepted treatment fora disease is not the best method or the artist who

deliberately ridicules the revered works of the previous generation are

taking risks that they themselves will be shunned professionally for their

views. There might even be an argument that the drug user is

experimenting with accepted mental limitations.However, this type of

behavior represents negative risk taking in its best light: it manifests our

refusal to limit ourselves to the norm and our stubborncommitment to

self-determination and free will.

Just as the astronaut extends the horizons of mankind, the rebel helps to

point out areas where we can expand. Thus, while some negative risk

taking mightbe perceived as trouble making, raising hell, or just "stirring

the pot," itgenerally serves the same purpose, to various degrees, as the

more sociallyrewarded (and rewarding) risk-taking behaviors. Historian

A. J. P. Taylor summed up this idea when he wrote, "All change in history,

all advance, comes from nonconformity. If there had been no

troublemakers, no dissenters, we should still be living in caves."

type A personality

The Type A and Type B personality theory is a personality type theory that describes a pattern of behaviors that were once considered to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease. Since its inception in the 1950s, the theory has been widely popularized and also widely criticised for its scientific shortcomings.

Type A individuals can be described as impatient, time-conscious, concerned about their status, highly competitive, ambitious, business-like, aggressive, having difficulty relaxing; and are sometimes disliked by individuals with Type B personalties for the way that they're always rushing. [1] They are often high achieving workaholics who multi-task, drive themselves with deadlines, and are unhappy about delays. Because of these characteristics, Type A individuals are often described as "stress junkies." Type B individuals, in contrast, are described as patient, relaxed, and easy-going under-achievers, generally lacking any sense of urgency. Because of these characteristics, Type B individuals are often described as apathetic and disengaged. There is also a Type AB mixed profile for people who cannot be clearly categorized.

In his 1996 book, Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment, Meyer Friedman suggests that Type A behavior is expressed in three major symptoms. One of these symptoms is believed to be covert and therefore less observable, whereas the other two are more overt.

Symptoms of Type A Behavior[2]

1. An intrinsic insecurity or insufficient level of self-esteem, which is considered to be the root cause of the syndrome. This is believed to be covert and therefore less observable.

2. Time urgency and impatience, which causes irritation and exasperation.3. Free floating hostility, which can be triggered by even minor incidents.

Traits of Type A BehaviorKey Characteristics:While the term “Type A” is thrown around often, it’s not always fully known what specific characteristics make up “Type A” personality, even among experts. For example, some people, the term applies to rude and impatient people. Others see workaholics as “Type A”. Many see competitiveness as the main characteristic. According to research, the following characteristics are the hallmark characteristics of Type A Behavior (TAB):

4. Time Urgency and Impatience, as demonstrated by people who, among other things, get frustrated while waiting in line, interrupt others often, walk or talk at a rapid pace, and are always painfully aware of the time and how little of it they have to spare.

5. Free-Floating Hostility or Aggressiveness, which shows up as impatience, rudeness, being easily upset over small things, or ‘having a short fuse’, for example.

Additionally, Type A behavior often includes:

Competitiveness Strong Achievement-Orientation Certain Physical Characteristics That Result From Stress and Type A Behavior Over Years

Physical Characteristics:The following physical characteristics often accompany TAB:

Facial Tension (Tight Lips, Clenched Jaw, Etc.) Tongue Clicking or Teeth Grinding Dark Circles Under Eyes Facial Sweating (On Forehead or Upper Lip)

Negative Effects of Type A Behavior:Over the years, the type of extra stress that most “Type A” people experience takes a toll on one’s

health and lifestyle. The following are some of the negative effects that are common among those exhibiting TAB:

Hyptertension: High blood pressure is common among “Type A” personalities, and has been to be as much as 84% more of a risk among those with Type A characteristics..

Heart Disease: Some experts predict that, for those exhibiting TAB, heart disease by age 65 is a virtual certainty.

Job Stress: “Type A” people usually find themselves in stressful, demanding jobs (and sometimes the jobs create the Type A behavior!), which lead to metabolic syndrome and other health problems.

Social Isolation: Those with TAB often alienate others, or spend too much time on work and focus too little on relationships, putting them at risk for social isolation and the increased stress that comes with it.

type B............

type B personality, a child ego state characterized by a form of behavior associated by Friedman and Rosenman with people who appear free of hostility and aggression and who lack a compulsion to meet deadlines, are not highly competitive at work and play, and have a lower risk of heart attack. Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

type B personality, n a form of behavior associated with people who appear free of hostility and aggression and who lack a compulsion to meet deadlines, are not highly competitive at work or play, and have a lower risk of heart attack.Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

type B personality

Psychology A personality typical of those persons who tend to be relaxed and inclined to do things 'mañana'; a temperament characterized by an easy-going demeanor; less time-bound and competitive than the type A personality. Cf Type A personality.