Human Reltions, Vol. 37, No. 7, 1986, pp. 491-513 A Type A-B Person-Work Environment Interaction Model for Examining Occupational Stress and Consequences John M, Ivancevich! and Michael T. Matteson University of Houston The physiological, psychological, and organizational effects of occupation- al stress are not only costly to individual employees and managers, but also 10 the organization, society, and family. This paper examines the notion of interaction between the employee and the work environment. Stress is de- ‘fined in terms of a relationship between a person and the work environment. Instead of using a global model of person-environment interaction, a more specific approach incorporating the notion of Type A-B behavior pattern and Type A-B work environment is developed. The paper examines the the- ory, research, and implications of a personenvironment model as an expla- nation of occupational stress and various behavioral, psychological, and organizational consequences. The model is suggested as a formulation of a dynamic interactional view that emphasizes the reciprocal person- environment processes found in the workplace. It is proposed that the inter- action between Type A-B behavior patterns and Type A-B work environ- ‘ment is a fertile area for further theoretical and empirical research. INTRODUCTION A casual review of biological, behavioral science, medical, and engineer- ing literature in the area of stress will point to the multiple uses of the “stress” Requests for reprints should be sent to Prof, John M. Ivancevich, Department of Organiza: tional Behavior, College of Business Administration, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77008.on Wwancevich and Matteson concept. Despite recent efforts at conceptualization and operationalizing, terms such as “stress,” “strain,” “pressure,” “anxiety,” “discomfort,” “dis- equilibrium,” and so forth have been used interchangeably (Baum, Singer, ‘& Baum, 1981; Davidson & Cooper, 1981; Hinkle, 1973; Selye, 1946, 1974, 1976). It is beyond the scope of this paper to reconceptualize the stress con- cept; neither will we try to verify the validity and reliability of the concept. Rather, we adopt the theoretical position that the degree of person-environ- ment interaction defines what is referred to as job or occupational stress. ‘Thus, stress is defined in terms of a relationship between a person and the environment. Consequently, where either an environmental (work) demand ‘exceeds a person's response capability or the person’s response capability ex- ceeds the environmental demand, the resulting misfit represents stress, Despite extensive medical and behavioral science laboratory and field studies of stress, many researchers remain dismayed at the large amount of inter-individual and intra-individual variability in response to environmen- tal situations. One attempt to solve this problem of excessive unexplained variance has been the interactional approach (Bem & Funder, 1978; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Terborg, 1981). This approach is emerging as a con- ceptually and empirically feasible one which can be used to examine occupa- nal stress and its consequences (Magnusson, 1981). In the interactional approach, researchers assess how the characteristics of the individual (em- ployee) and those of the situation (work or job) work simultaneously and in interaction to produce stress and physiological, psychological, and or- ganizational consequences (Sarason & Sarason, 1981). This paper suggests paradigm that emphasizes the interaction of the person and work environ- ‘ment and the consequences of such an interaction in terms of occupational stress and consequences. THE INDIVIDUAL: INTERACTIONISM An intriguing problem in recent occupational stress research is that of differential processes and patterns of reactions to apparently the same stressful stimuli, i.e., work environment stressors. Individuals in the same work area, with the same supervisor, and possessing similar educational and experience backgrounds often respond to stressors differently. Of course, these obser- vations are not unique in themselves to occupational stress research (Chan, 1977). Students of conformity, fear, learning, and influence in analyzing em- pirical data have been alerted to the fact that knowledge of stimuli proper- ties can at best only partially predict individual responses (Chan, 1977). Differential responses or reactions, thus, have become recognized as having important implications in explaining the consequences of stress.Type A-B Interaction 3 Stress researchers, years after the pioneering laboratory work of Selye (1946), are still having difficulty describing, explaining, and classifying reac- tion patterns to stress (Cooper & Payne, 1980; Holt, 1982; Schuler, 1980). There are a limited number of attempts at conceptually and systematically predicting individual reactions. For example, Burke (1971), in analyzing stress reactions in work and career situations, offers a number of predictions about individual reaction patterns: engagement in physical activity, physical with- drawal, and harder work. In another attempt at indicating the variation in stress reactions, House (1974, p. 15) made the following comment: One person faced with extreme work load may reorganize his schedule and activ- ties, gan new skills, or call on others for assistance in meeting the demands made ‘on him (all forms of coping). Another may try to deny or repress his suessful per- ceptions (defences. Sill another may be immobilized and do nothing (a possible Fesponse in any situation). The interaction view holds that work environments are not inherently stressful; rather, itis the relationship of the person and the environment that can result in stress. Sells’ (1963) principle of interaction aptly illustrates the person-environment dynamic: ‘The principle that behavior represents the interaction ofthe individual and the en- vironmental situation implies thatthe total variance of any esponse canbe account {ed Tor only in part by individual differences in characteristics of the participating persons. It depends also onthe stimulus characteristics of the environmental stva ‘ions (both physical and socal) and in parton the interactions between aspects of each. (p. 696) According to the interactionists’ view of occupational stress, theoreti- ividual perceptions, constructions, and categorizations of the work environment (Ekehammar, 1974; Magnusson, 1981). A vital research question that emerges from the interactionist view is: What are some of the more crucial behavioral patterns and work environ- ment variables whose interaction might function to explain why individuals react to the same stress mix differently? A CONCEPTUAL MODEL: PERSON-ENVIRONMENT CONGRUENCE, A model concerning person-environment congruence was presented by French, Rogers, and Cobb (1974). The foundation of the model rests on descriptions of motivation offered by Lewin (1951) and Murray (1959). Two kinds of congruence between the person and the work environment are con- sidered. One deals with how the job incumbent's skills and abilities match the demands and requirements of the job. Another kind of fit is the degree to which the work environment provides supplies to meet the job incumbent's needs. If and when misfit or incongruence exists, various health strains may4 Iwancevieh and Matteson Fig. 1. Person-environment congruence mode ‘emerge. These health strains can eventually manifest themselves in the form of illness, i.e., psychological and/or physical. ‘The model is presented as originally stated by French et al. (1974) in Fig. 1. A crucial distinction reflected in the model isthe clear differentiation of the person and the work environment (McMichael, 1978; Harrison, 1978), Another important point is that a distinction is made between the environ- ‘ment as it exists independent of the person’s perception and the environment as it is subjectively perceived. ‘The objective environment exists independent of the person's percep- tion, Included in the environment are the physical and family environment that is independent of the person's perception. In this paper, emphasis will be on the person's immediate or proximal work environment and not the ‘external (distal) environments that exist. ‘The subjective environment represents the person’s perception of his or her objective environment. This includes perceptions of various kinds of supplies, i.e., rewards and social opportunities, available to the person’s needs and the demands on the person to perform before the supplies will be made available. ‘A central hypothesis in the French etal. (1974) model suggests that stress (subjective P-E fit) is a major cause of behavioral, psychological, and phys-‘Type A-B Interaction 5 iological strains. The predicted relationship between stress and strain is based ‘upon the assumption that prolonged motive arousal will produce response deviations Blau, 1981). This is in line with definitions that strain represents any deviation of normal responses in a person. These job strains are, in turn, proposed to affect various measures of health and illness, e.g., diseases of adaptation, such as coronary heart disease and peptic ulcer. ‘The present paper discusses person-environment interaction. It is pro- posed here that fit is an ideal that offers a number of theoretical considera- tions. As researchers learn to define and measure what constitutes relevant person-environment interaction and consequences, it will be possible to place, train, and motivate workers in work environments in which they must perform job activities. Furthermore, the improved understanding could result in intervention programs to enhance the overall productivity of the work force, since management would have better insights about person-environ- ‘ment interaction and consequences, THE TYPE A (PERSON) BEHAVIOR PATTERN Perhaps the most widely discussed and researched person-based charac- teristic that affects an individual's response capability has been the coro- nary heart disease (CHD)-linked Type A-B behavior pattern (Friedman & Rosenman, 1959; Rosenman & Friedman, 1959, 1980). At the turn of the centu- ry, CHD was rare. Today, this disease alone is responsible for one-third of all deaths in the industrialized world (Chesney & Rosenman, 1980; Rosen- man & Chesney, 1982). As early as 1868, Von Dusch, a German physician, noted that excessive work involvement and other behavioral characteristics seemed typical of people who develop CHD. Subsequent observations have pointed to the same relations! In the late 1950s, two cardiologists, Rosenman and Friedman, observed that their heart disease patients, particularly those under 60 years of age, ex- hibited a set of behaviors and emotional characteristics that they called the ‘Type A behavior pattern (TABP). The absence of these characteristics was designated the Type B behavior pattern (TBBP). Friedman and Rosenman (1959) found that Type A individuals exhibit enhanced, hostility, ambitious- ness, and competitiveness, and were often preoccupied with deadlines and with work. Caught or placing themselves in a chronic struggle to reach an ‘ever-growing number of goals in the shortest time and/or against opposing environmental forces, Type As continually experience impatience and a sense of time urgency. Type A persons are also motivated to assert control over their environment. The Type A needs to master or control the environ- ‘ment (Seligman, 1975).6 Iamcevich and Matteson Strictly speaking, the Type A behavior pattern is not considered to be a trait. Rather, itis a set of overt behaviors that is elicited from susceptible individuals by the environment (Howard, Cunningham, & Rechnitzer, 1976; Matthews, 1982; Mettlin, 1976). Terms used by Rosenman and Friedman (1980) to describe the Type A person’s patterns of behaviors include aggres- siveness (often strongly repressed), striving for achievement, impatience, hyperalertness, tense facial musculature, explosive speech stylistics, and com- petitiveness. It should be noted that the environmental factors that elicit or interact Type A behavior in individuals have not been examined in a sys- tematic, conceptual, and/or empirical manner. Persons without Type A behavioral patterns are called Type B. The ‘Type B behavior pattern is far more relaxed, easy-going, satisfied, and un- hurried. The Type Bis the opposite of the Type A, and would be considered non-Type A behavior pattern. Friedman and Rosenman (1959) point out that the Type B has a considerable amount of “drive” but its characteris such that it seems to be a steadying and confidence-building influence, rather than grating, irritating, and infuriating, as is true with the Type A. Iti important to distinguish TABP from the concept of stress. TABP is neither a stressor nor a distressed response. Rather, itis a style of behavior with which Type A persons confront situations, e.g., at work, whether pleasant or troubling, particularly when the situation provides an element of perceived challenge. The TABP is in essence a person’s response capabili- ty patterns (Matthews, 1982). For example, a Type A individual responds to a time deadtine in a hurried manner, racing against the clock at all costs. On the other hand, the Type B individual is aware of time but is not racing or attempting to beat time deadlines. Searching for Type A Themes ‘An approach to improving our understanding of Type A has been to look for themes underlying the various components (Margolis, McLeroy, Runyan, & Kaplan, 1983). After years of studying Type A, Friedman, Brown, and Rosenman (1969) suggested that the pattern taken as a whole represents a strugele against people, objects in the environment, and time. This propo- sition has received no direct empirical test Glass (1977b; 1978) has proposed that the Type A pattern represents fan attempt to gain and maintain control over a potentially uncontrollable environment. Glass’s work on the uncontrollability factor is based largely on the learned helplessness paradigm of human functioning by Seligman (1975). It is Glass’s contention that Type A is a characteristic style of responding to environmental stressors that threaten the individual's sense of control.“Type A-B Interaction o7 Rosenman and Friedman (1959) have described Type As as being time- ‘urgent, oF feeling that time is passing too quickly for the accomplishment of goals. Two studies (Bortner & Rosenman, 1967; Glass, 1977a,b) found that Type As underestimate and Type Bs overestimate the passage of time. Underestimation may explain some of the time urgency experienced by Type ‘As, who constantly struggle with the clock ‘Type As also show more physiological arousal than Type Bs. Studies have shown that Type A subjects (primarily male and female college stu- dents) show higher increases in blood pressure and heart rate than Type Bs when challenged to perform well on perceptual motor and cognitive tasks (embroski, MacDougall, & Shields, 1977; Goldband, 1978). For example, Dembroski et al. (1977) found that Type A subjects showed higher levels of physiological reactivity (blood pressure and heart rate) in response to choice-reaction and cold pressor tasks than Type Bs when high challenge in- structions emphasizing the difficulty of the tasks and the importance of do- ing well had been given. These differences between Type As and Bs in physiological reactivity are not found in neutral or nonchallenge instruction situations (Lott & Gatchel, 1978) To deepen and broaden our understanding of Type A behavior, as well, as Type B behavior, we need to ground our research in a theoretical frame- work. In the absence of such a framework, there isa lack of focus on what is being observed. Some means of ordering the vast amount of research be- ing collected on Type A is needed. A theoretical model can provide a frame- work for integrating empirical data in a systematic manner. A theoretical ‘model will also allow researchers to make predictions about Type A and Type B patterns in work settings. Without a theoretical perspective, we are unable to predict what the Type A pattern or Type B pattern might look like in var- ious organizational settings—fast paced/slow paced, challenging/routine, structured/unstructured. THE WORK ENVIRONMENT A crucial objective in working with a person-environment framework is the formulation of an analytically useful conceptualization of the environ- ment. Like the concept of “the person,” that of “the environment” represents an abstraction that frequently is too broad and unfocused to be particularly useful. Despite the common appeal of the French et al. (1974) person- environment fit model, there is at least one questionable assertion made by its advocates. The model implies that a single environment esists. However, as employees know, there are in the workplace multiple environments with8 ‘vancevich and Matteson which they interact and to which they respond (Jessor & Jessor, 1973; Woh- will & Kohn, 1976). ‘Type A-B Work Environment: A Definition The Type A-B work environment refers to individuals’ cognitive representations of relatively proximal work-related events, expressed in terms that have meaning and are important to the individual. The model is based ‘on the assumption that it is useful to identify what contextual qualities con- stitute the work environment. It is proposed that the work environment can bbe described by using three categories: substance, quality, and relation (Nys- tedt, 1981). Substance is concerned with the questions of what a work en- vironment is and which environment itis. In the present model, itis proposed that the work environment consists of people, events, processes, norms, and so on. The focus of measurement of the Type A-B work environment can be directed toward assessments of interpretative, generalized, and inferen- tial constructs, such as degree of control, pace of work flow, and challenge. These constructs have names as well as qualities. These qualities are some- times specific and observable (Brunswik, 1956), but sometimes they are not directly observable. This creates a problem when attempting to describe a work environment in specific terms. In general, one can gather knowledge about the work environment only by making successive estimates of it (Nystedt, 1981). Work environments ‘only manifest themselves in a person’s experience as having qualities and be- ing related to each other in some way. Thus, knowledge is rational rather than absolute. The facets of a work environment do not only have qualities, but they are also related to each other. This means that the work environ. ment can be considered as an integrated system. Theorists studying psychological climate, perception, and cognition offer various attempts to examine and integrate the importance of individu- al interpretations of work environments (Ekehammar, 1974; James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni, 1978; Mischel, 1977; Sonnenfeld, 1972). They have not as yet succeeded in deciding what are the most relevant and related work environ- ment variables. Each theorist and researcher offers his/her set of important work environment variables. Initial tests of the proposed person-environment framework would be more meaningful and focused if only a limited number of variables are considered. This will permit researchers to formulate and test a manageable number of propositions. Thus, attempts to clarify, operational- ize, and test person-work environment variables and interaction will require theorists and researchers to carefully consider the following: 1, Work environment perceptions have historical antecedents. That is, individuals in interpreting the work environment use not only per- ception, but also learning, memory, and recallType A-B Interaction ° 2. Quantitative information on work environment perceptions must be obtained by several measurement strategies such as self-reports on questionnaires, interview questions, or inferences from ratings by observers. The development of any work environment instrumentations should be comprehensive, but it should build on the work already available on work environment variables which contribute to in- creased stress levels. A review of the literature indicates numerous work environment factors which might be sources of stress (Cooper & Payne, 1980; Davidson & Cooper, 1981; Holt, 1982; Sells, 1963). ‘Two observations need to be made. First, the term “work environment” as used here refers to the individual’s cognitive representation of relatively proximal work-related envents. It is the psychological, not the physical, description of the work environment that will first be addressed in examin- ing the proposed Type A-B person-environment interaction and consequence model. Second, instead of charting a new course of teasing out new con- structs we propose to examine work environment variables that have already been studied in relation to Type A behavior patterns. Three such variables are controllability, time pressure, and job (task) challenge. A Review of Potential Work Environment Variables A large array of theoretical perspectives and experimental research sug- ‘est that aversive events are perceived as less stressful when they are con- sidered to be controllable. Controllability involves the perception that individual responses do, in fact, determine outcomes. The concept of un- controllability may be defined as the perception of a noncontingency between responding and reinforcement (Seligman, 1975). Perceptions of uncontrol- lability may lead to inactivity and, in some cases, to physical or mental ill- ness. Researchers have found that an accumulation of recent events, e.8., argument with a boss, pressure to produce faster, or an argument with ‘co-worker, perceived as both undesirable and uncontrollable was most like- ly to predispose the individual to subsequent illness (Husaini & Neff, 1978; MacFarlane, Norman, Streiner, Roy, & Scott, 1980; Muller, 1980). Relationships of coronary heart disease risk factors of work environ- ‘ment variables, of the TABP, and of their interaction were studied in 384 male salaried workers (Chesney, Sevelius, Black, Ward, Swan, & Rosenman, 1981b). Type A workers who described their work environments as encourag- {ng autonomy or being high in peer cohesion had lower blood pressures than those who did not. The reverse was found for Type Bs. That is, Type Bs had higher blood pressures in environments that encourage autonomy and ower blood pressures in environments that encourage dependence on others and on established routines. This result is consistent with previous researchyy ancevich and Matteson findings showing Type Bs to be deferent and submissive (Chesney, Black, Chadwick, & Rosenman, 1981a). Type Bs in the study of salaried male work- ers who described their environment as low in physical comfort had higher systolic blood pressure than those who did not. These findings led Chesney et al. (1981b) t0 conclude that Type As are more autonomous, dominant, and self-confident. Laboratory research on stress has demonstrated that aversive events that are uncontrollable elicit greater physiological reactivity than aversive events that are controllable. However, it has been demonstrated by Gatch- el and Proctor (1976) that aversive events about which the individual is uncertain of control, e.g., the person does not know if a controlling response exists or what the controlling response is, elicit even greater phys- iological reactivity than aversive events that are clearly uncontrollable. These findings suggest that certainty of control reduces, and uncertainty about con- trol augments, the autonomic impact of an aversive event. An interesting conceptual model that discusses the associations between stressors and control in the work environment and endocrine, metabolic, and cardiovascular activity was proposed by Karasek, Russell, and Theorell (1982). The model predicts that exposure to work environment stressors may lead to two outcomes: either pathology or growth and regeneration. The degree of control the individual has in coping with the stressors, along with the degree of the stressor itself, simultaneously determine the outcome. The authors hope that their two-dimensional model (stressors and control) can be a useful vehicle for conceptually linking together environment and phys- iological functions. The primary question that can be illuminated by future research is the extent to which individual control in the work environment models potentially pathologic environmental/occupational circumstances, Chesney, Nard, Black, Swan, Chadwick, and Rosenman (1979) report- ed that Type As and Bs indicated different levels of stress in environments which make different performance demands or provide various challenge op- portunities. The researchers administered Speilberger, Gursuch, and Lushene’s (1970) state anxiety inventory and Insel and Moss’ (1974) Work Environment Scale to individuals in different occupational settings. High levels of stress were reported by Type As in environments which were heavily structured and placed strict controls over the rate of work activity. Type Bs, on the other hand, experienced little distress in this setting. Glass and his associates (1977b) reported experimental evidence that ‘Type As work hard to succeed, suppress subjective states (such as fatigue) that might interfere with task performance, and conduct their activities at a rapid pace. Glass suggests that these behaviors represent an attempt by Type A persons to assert and maintain control of their environment. Snow and Glass (1981), in a laboratory study, examined Type As and Bs in three time-based environmental conditions: slow, fast, and very fast.Type A Interaction 01 They were asked to solve problems on each page of a stack of papers until a signal light flashed on. Task deadlines were varied according to the ex- perimental conditions. Throughout the experimental session, blood pressure and heart rate were increased. After the session, each subject completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. In the conditions that were slow and very fast, Type As displayed elevated patterns of cardiovascular activity. However, the Type Bs also reacted with heightened cardiovascular responses in the slow and very fast conditions. Snow and Glass (1981) offer one possible explanation for the often reported Type A and B differences in cardiovascular reactivity found in slow- paced environments. They suggest that Type As and Bs do not differ in their responses to challenge or stress per se. Rather, they react differently when required to wait while confronting a task challenge. Many laboratory research- ers have required subjects to wait a fixed period of time either immediately after or just before emitting a behavioral response. The Snow and Glass (1981) study suggests that the heightened response of the Type As may be due to their being especially reactive to this demand. ‘The optimal Type A work environment is proposed as one that is con- trollable, fast-paced, and extremely challenging. On the other hand, the op- timal Type B work environment is considered to be routine, moderately paced, and moderately challenging. Available research indicated that for Type Bs, ‘a work environment that is too slow, offers little challenge, and requires au- tonomy on the job is not optimal (Chesney et al., 1981b; Snow & Glass, 1981). Thus, it is proposed that the optimal Type B environment is one which pro- vvides routine that is comfortable for the person, is moderately paced (not 100 fast or too slow), and is moderately challenging. ‘Type A or B work contextual qualities, if present in optimal amounts for each type of person (A or B), will result in what is referred to as con- ‘eruence between the person and the work environment which generates op- timal stress. Thus, we are proposing in this perspective of work environments that there are optimal Type A (TAWE)-Type B (TBWE) work environments. Distinctions between TAWE and TBWE are not continua but are typologies that must be developed further as empirical research results are accumulated from additional field studies of diverse occupational samples. A PROPOSED INTERACTION MODEL OF TYPE A-B PERSON-WORK ENVIRONMENT In Fig. 2, a two-dimensional Type A-B (person) and Type A-B (work environment) model is presented. The model contains four quadrants. In quadrant 1, the person is depicted as having a TABP while operating in a ‘TAWE. There is a fit between the person and the work environment. Ches- ney’s etal. (1981b) research results indicate that work environments that en-502 ‘Wancevich and Matteson x Fig. 2. Type A-B person-environment congruence model couraged Type A workers to make their own decisions, take intiative, and carry more responsibility are associated with positive physiological outcomes such as lowered blood pressure. It is this set of work environment qualities that would be beneficial for Type A employees but not necessarily for Type B employees. ‘There is some point at which the work environment would be perceived as making excessive work demands, presenting unattainable job goals, in re- 4uiring that individuals work at a frenetic and unending pace. The air traffic controllers study (Rose, Jenkins, & Hurst, 1978) and laboratory research (Dembroski et al., 1977; Snow & Glass, 1981) support the contention that the interaction of the Type A person with this type of work environment resulted in excessive work load, a sense of time urgency, and failure to con- trol environmental events. That is, the work environment was too frenetic, fast paced, and challenging. It was not optimal for either Type A or Type B air traffic controllers. Recall that Snow and Glass (1981) found that work ‘environmental which were either too fast (excessively Type A) or too slow induced an elevated pattern of cardiovascular and behavioral reactivity. On the other hand, Type As in situations of optimum fit did not show this pat- tem of response. In quadrant II (Fig. 2), a person with a TBBP is assumed to be work- ing in a Type A work environment. When this happens, there is ineongruence ora lack of fit. The more easy-going, relaxed, thorough, and less aggressive person is not compatible with the contextual conditions of the TAWE. This suggests an incongruence or lack of person-environment fit which could result physiological, psychological, and organizational problems for the in- dividual.‘Type A-B Interaction 503 Another condition of incongruence is found in quadrant IV. In this quadrant, a person with a TABP is working in a TBWE. The TABP person usually prefers a controllable, fast-paced, and challenging work environment that permits and even rewards completing multiple jobs or work activities. However, in quadrant IV, he or she finds that a more routine, moderately- paced, and moderately challenging job situation exists. That is, a TBWE is present. This results in an incongruent conditon between the person and the work environment, which again raises the potential of physiological, psy- chological, and organizational problems. ‘The individual in quadrant III would be in a congruent situation. His/Her TBBP would be congruent with the TBWE. The easy-going and relaxed personal style is well suited for the routine, moderately-paced, and ‘moderately challenging work environment. There is a fit or a match between the person’s behavior patterns and the work environment context. Recall that the research findings of Chesney et al. (1981b) pointed out that Type Bs had her blood pressure in work environments that encourage autonomy and lower blood pressure in work environments that encourage dependence on others and on established routines. Currently, only two empirical studies are available that directly exam- ine portions of the person-work perspective offered in this paper. In one study, 315 medical technologists were classified based on self-reports as be- ing Type As or Type Bs and as working in either Type A or Type B work environments (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1982). It was determined that Type B individuals who perceived their work environments as Type B reported the fewest health and psychiatric complaints, lowest degree of stress, and lowest degree of dissatisfaction. In the other study, 57 registered nurses were classified on the basis of self-reports in Type A or Type B work environ- ments (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980a). The Type B nurses working in a Type ‘A work environment reported significantly higher stress than did the Type ‘A nurses working in the Type A work environment. ‘These two studies that used primarily self-report are not offered as un- ‘equivocal support for the person-work environment model. Certainly, much more elegant research methodologies and designs will be needed to more rigorously test the model. The studies do, however, offer some preliminary evidence that differences may exist in the effects of congruence and incon- gruence on Type A and Type B individuals. ‘The Type A-B person-work environment interaction model at this stage of conceptualization and empirical testing fails to incorporate a distinction between objective-subjective work environment and Type A-B behavior pat- tern. In order to test the model in an exploratory way, it seems more practi- cal that researchers first assess perceived work environment, e.g., degree of control, time pace of work, and level of challenge, rather than the objective work environment, e-g., the number of control points, the amount of time504 Wancevich and Matteson allocated to complete each job, and the quantitative degree of goal difficulty. This is admittedly a recommendation based upon expediency since sole rei- ance on subjective data is risky when attempting to uncover linkages and predict such ailments as coronary heart disease. Eventually, the difficult and currently unresolved problem of objectively assessing work environments must ’be confronted. Propositions In order to examine the effects implied in Fig. 2, a number of proposi- tions are offered. These propositions are based on the occupational stress, ‘Type A, and work environment literature reviewed in this paper. Further conceptualization and empirical testing will eventually result in the genera- tion of hypotheses. However, at ths initial stage of development since only three field research studies are available (Chesney et al., 1981b; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980a; and Matteson & Ivancevich, 1982), only propositions are offered for further refinement and examination. Proposition I: TABP-TAWE vs, TBBP-TBWE Individuals in quadrant I (controllable, fast paced, and high challenge) will have similar levels of job satisfaction, physiological strains, e.g., blood pressure and cholesterol, behavioral symptoms of strain, e.g., smoking and alcohol consumption, incidences of psychological disorders, e-g., depression, and health problems, e.g., peptic ulcer and coronary heart disease, to their counterparts in quadrant III (routine, moderately paced, and moderately challenging). Proposition I: TBBP-TBWE and TABP-TAWE. Individuals in the quadrants I and I1I condition will have higher levels Of job satisfaction, better physiological indicators, fewer behavioral symp- toms of strain, and better psychological and physical health than counter- parts in the other quadrants Il or IV. The individuals in quadrants I and U1 are in congruent circumstances whereas individuals in quadrants Il and 1V are in incongruent circumstances. Proposition III: TABP-TAWE and TBBP-TBWE Optimality Although individuals in quadrants { and [lI are in optimum fit situa- tions, there is a point at which optimality will cease to exist. That is, whenType A-B Interaction 505 quadrant { becomes uncontrollable, too fast paced, and excessively challeng- ing, the Type A person will suffer negative physiological, psychological, and organizational consequences. Likewise, when quadrant III becomes extremely routine, slow paced, and not very challenging, the Type B person will suffer negative physiological, psychological, and organizational consequences. ‘These three general propositions will serve to clarify the underlying as- sumptions behind the model and can lead to the development of specific and testable hypotheses. Additional theoretical clarification, operationalization of key work environment qualities, and consideration of examining various hypothesized conditions in each quadrant of the model are steps that can be taken once these three propositions are tested in various settings and with se occupational groups. These steps should inevitably lead to the de- velopment of a more refined model that improves the understanding of per- son-environment interaction and consequences. IMPLICATIONS OF TYPE A-B PERSON-WORK VIRONMENT INTERACTION MODEL ‘The model displayed in Fig. 2 and eventual research conducted on such 4 model could provide managers in organizations with a number of impor- tant guidelines for addressing employee dissatisfaction, stress, and ill-health. The model and propositions suggest tht stress, strain, and ill-health can be more completely understood if knowledge about Type A or B (person)-Type Aor B (envi eraction and consequences exists. However, the earl er discussions of differential response to environment indicate that a managerial-initiated program of stress reduction will not be received iden- tically by all individuals. A number of implications point out thelimitations and problems of achieving ideal fit or congruence. ‘Type A-B Congruence: Selection Ideally, the congruence between Type A-B people and Type A-B work environments should be considered at the time of selection. The job candi- date’s TABP-TBBP tendencies and work environment preferences could be assessed at the job entry point. These assessments could be matched with ‘measures of the work environment as it exists. Matching person with work environment would be important to recruitment and selection decision mak- ers. It is also important to the individual who must decide which organiza- tion he or she should join. Of course, equal opportunity discrimination laws would have to be con- sulted if person-environment interaction and consequences was used as a506 ancevich and Matteson selection consideration (Arvey, 1979). It would be extremely important to have available valid and reliable measures of Type A-B person-environment factors. It would also be necessary to periodically review the work environ- rent and current employees who have been identified as being in incongruent (quadrants II and 1¥) situations. If the incongruent (quadrants II and IV) situations are caused by the person's behavior patterns or the work environ- ments, corrective interventions would need to be taken by management. Possi- bie alternatives available to managers would include changing the flow of work ‘and restructuring the organizational design, training, career counseling, or job transfer. ‘The Person's Career Progression In discussing the French et al. (1974) person-environment fit model dis- played in Fig. 1, Harrison (1978) emphasized the person’s working career. He states that itis important to examine fit over an individual's entire work- ing career. He also emphasizes the importance of making a distinction be- tween the individuals's current fit with the job, the fit expected in the future, and the fit actually experienced in the future. ‘These same concerns are extremely important in using the Type A-B person-environment interaction model. An individual that has as a goal rapid career progression may be willing to tolerate a more incongruent situation. ‘That is, the individuals in quadrants 11 and IV may tolerate incongruence it can eventually lead to a desired future goal such as promotion, salary increase, more challenging work, and so forth. This type of career perspective emphasizes the need for management to regularly monitor individuals’ career goals. The monitoring of such goals could provide information that is then used to counsel with employees and to improve managerial understanding of the strains of working at a particu- lar career point. Managers in counseling roles would be able to separate the issues of present and future congruence-incongruence. They would also be made aware of the fact that Type A individuals and Type B individuals have specific career goals that need to be addressed in terms of the present and expected work environment. Intervention ‘A long-range goal for Type A-B theory and research is to generate ‘managerial programs of intervention that will reduce stress and illness and improve performance and attitudes. Efforts in the intervention area have so far been sketchily presented, not rigorously subjected to scientific evalua-Type A-B Interaction on tion, and have typically suggested approaches which warrant future study (Coyne & Lazarus, 1980; Frankenhaeuser & Gardell, 1976; Ivancevich & Mat- teson, 1980b; Jenni_& Wollersheim, 1979; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1982; Roskies, Kearney, & Spevack et al., 1979; Suinn, 1979; Suinn & Bloom, 1978). ‘Three considerations must be made by managers in the development of interventions designed to improve performance, psychological, and phys- iological outcomes. The first factor is determining the choice of interven- jon, That is, interventions can be aimed at changing the environment the Person, or both. The decision choices implied by our model require managerial awareness and understanding of environmental factors that promote Type A behavior, cognitive processes that interact with work environment factors in eliciting potentially pathogenic behaviors, and the Type A behavior pat- tern itself. There i also the issue of whether management has a right to alter an individual's preferred behavior pattern that must be considered when evalu- ating intervention strategies. ‘A second consideration is the nature of the intervention. At the work environment level, it may be necessary to alter the conditions that create an extremely fast-paced job that creates a condition of a lack of control and unrealistic challenge. An array of intervention technologies, their strengths, ‘weaknesses, and their suitability for the particular individuals and environ- ‘ment need to be investigated. For example, practicing time management procedures might improve the pace of work, a person's control of the work pace, and the goals achieved. The manager considering time management procedures and training would have to weigh the cost/benefits of such a tech- nology in his or her present dilemma. ‘A third consideration in designing intervention programs is selecting proper criterion measures. The reduction in CHD is perhaps the most sis- nificant criterion to evaluate intervention programs. Thus, itis necessary to identify the components of TABP and TAWE that lead to physiological processes that may lead to disease, symptoms, dissatisfaction, physiologi- cal problems, and performance decrements. Once these components are iden- tified, intervention programs can be designed to focus on them or to reduce their impact. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TYPE A-B PERSON-ENVIRONMENT MODEL The degree of usefulness of the Type A-B person-environment inter- action model to predict, explain, and understand attitudinal, behavioral, or- ganizational, and physical/illness outcomes is not known at this time. However, theory and research evidence already derived from the study of508 ancevich and Matteson ‘Type A behavior patterns and illness suggest that additional efforts should be made to refine such a model, develop proper measures to examine com- ponents in the model, and test hypotheses that emerge from propositions. The development of psychometrically acceptable measures of Type A- B person and work environment components is essential. Presently, although the structured interview (Rosenman, 1978; Rosenman & Chesney, 1982; Sparacino, 1979) and Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins, 1978; Jenkins, Zyzan- ski, & Rosenman, 1979) have been used in over a hundred studies, the meaning. of the Type A-B person behavior pattern is still somewhat unclear. The A-B distinction was offered originally by Friedman and Rosenman as the end- points of a normal distribution. Many researchers have observed mixed aspects of TABP. In fact, as Glass (1977b) notes, Type Bs will often display ‘Type A characteristics, “but rarely in such exaggerated forms.” Thus, the pure ‘Type A or Type B person is probably nonexistent. Likewise, the purely Type A work environment is also probably nonexistent. Work environments are mixed and are constantly changing. Any measure of either Type A-B person or Type A-B work environment qualities is almost certain to be rather crude. What exactly are the components of Type A-B person or work environment will likely continue to be debated. However, careful psychometric research standards must be followed to develop a reasonable measure of Type A-B ‘work environment. At this stage, the conceptualization and measurement of the Type A-B work environment lags behind similar work on the Type ‘AB person dimension. Although Type A-B person measures already exist, they, like most measures in the behavioral sciences, need further refinement. Once specific Type A-B person-environment components are specified, research can proceed to test specific hypotheses generated from the model. These hypotheses can be tested in both field and laboratory settings. The natural work environment would be used in field studies, while simulated experimenter-initiated work environments would be created in laboratory settings. Although illness could not be examined in the laboratory studies, behavior, physiological reactivity, performance, and attitudes could be closely scrutinized (Dembroski, MacDougall, Slaat, Eliot, & Bvell, 1981). ‘Additional research is also needed to examine the impact of various intervention programs on person-environment interaction. Comparative studies of different interventions, e.g., behavioral and cognitive therapy, could indicate the superiority of one type of intervention over another in a particular situation or with certain individuals. Cost-benefit and cost- effectiveness analysis of programs could provide additional insight into in- tervention programs. Longitudinal comparative and cost-benefit analy studies are vitally needed. Tracking individuals over an extended period of time using research designs similar to those found in the famous Framing- ham and Western Collaborative Group studies could help determine if anyType A-B Interaction 509 _post-intervention improvements in congruence, strain, performance, and ill- ness frequency are sustained or dissipated. Further research will be needed to examine hypotheses eventually gener- ated from the Type A-B person-environment interaction model with female samples in field and laboratory settings. Initial research suggests that TABP. is more prevalent among career women (women in the work force for over half their adult years) than among homemakers (Haynes & Feinleib, 1980). However, how do Type A females compare to Type A males across the four quadrants? Do they manifest the same stress, strains, illnesses, symptoms, and attitudes? Well-designed longitudinal research following male and fe- male samples in their carcers would be very valuable. Another important research area involves the job performance of in- dividuals in the four quadrants. Studies are needed to assess the performance of individuals in the four quadrants. Is the Type A person in the Type A work environment more productive, efficient, and involved than the Type ‘A person in the Type B work environment? On the other hand, how produc- tive is the Type B person in the Type B environment or the Type A environ- ‘ment? These kinds of questions are in need of analysis especially since United States organizations are suffering lagging productivity. It has been the major intent of this paper to construct a theoretical model of Type A-B person-environment interaction and consequences that possesses some practical value for managerial practitioners and researchers concerned about human resources in organizational settings. A clearly stated, parsimoni- ‘ous, and testable Type A-B person and environment model can possibly demonstrate considerable predictive and explanatory power. Certainly much work remains, but such a model is a rich source of testable hypotheses and. possible predictions and explanations of individual reactions to occupation- al stress. REFERENCES, ARVEY, R.D. Fairness in selecting employees. Reading, Massachusets: Addison Wesley, 1979, BAUM,’A., SINGER, J. E., & BAUM, C. S. Suess and the environment. Journal of Social Tsues, 1981, 37, 438, BEM, D. J, & FUNDER, D. C. Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 485-501 BLAU, G. An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, servic length, and job strain. ‘Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 198i, 27, 279302 BORTNER, R-W., & ROSENMAN, R.H. The measurement of pattern A behavior. Journal ‘of Chronic Diseases, 1967, 20, 525-533, [BRUNSWIK, E. Perception andthe represenative design of psycholopcal experiments Berkeley Univesity of California Press, 1956 BURKE, R. J. Are you fed up with work? Personnel Administration, 1971, 16, 18-22. CHAN, K. B. Individual differences in reactions (o stress and thee personality and situation “eterminans: Some implications for community mental health. Social Science and Med. cine, 1977, 11, $9-103.S10 Iancevich and Matteson (CHESNEY, M. A.,.& ROSENMAN, R. H. Type A behavior inthe work sting. In C. L. Cooper ‘and R. Payie (Eds.), Current concerns in occupational stress. New York: John Wiley 4 Sons, 1980, pp. 187-212. (CHESNEY, M. A., WARD, M. M., BLACK, G. W., SWAN, G. G., CHANDWICK, J. H., ‘& ROSENMAN, R. H. Type A-B and environmental control: Too much or too litle? Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting ofthe American Psychological Assocation, New York, 1979. (CHESNEY, M. A., BLACK, G. W., CHADWICK, J. H., & ROSENMAN, R. H. Psycholog- ical correlates of the coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1981, 4, 217-230. (@), (CHESNEY, M.A., SEVELIUS, G., BLACK, G. W., WARD, M. M., SWAN, G.E., & ROSEN- MAN, R. H. Work environment, Type A behavior, and coronary heart disease risk fa: tors. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1981, 23, 581-555. (6) COOPER, C.L., & PAYNE, R. (Eds.) Current concerns i occupational stress. New York: Jobin Wiley & Sons, 1980. COYNE, J. C., & LAZARUS, R. S. Cognitive style, stress perspective, and coping, In I. L. Kiatesh and L. B. Sehlesinge (Eds.), Handbook on sess and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980, pp. 144-158 DAVIDSON, M. J., & COOPER, C. L. A mode! of occupational tess. Journal of Occupa- tional Medicine, 1981, 23, 364.574. DEMBROSKI, T. M., MacDOUGALL, J. M., & SHIELDS, J. L. Peychologic reactions to social challenge in persons evidencing the Type A coronary prone behavior pater. Journal of Human Stress, 1977, 7, 2-10 DEMBROSKI, T. M., MacDOUGALL, J. M., SLATS, S., ELIOT, R. S., & BUELL, J. C ‘Challenge induced cardiovascular response as a predictor of minor illness. Journal of Human Siress, 1981, 7,25. EKEHAMMAR, B. Interactionism in personality from ahistorical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 1026-1048, ENDLER, N. 8., & MAGNUSON, D. Toward an interactional psychology of personality Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 956974 FRANKENHAFUSER, M., & GARDELL, B. Underload and overload in working life: Out- Tine of a multdseplinary approach. Journal of Human Siress, 976, 2, 38-46, FRENCH, J. R. P., ROGERS, W., & COBB, S. Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G.V. Coelko, D. A. Hamburg, and J. E. Adams (Eds), Coping and adapration. New York: Basie Hooks, 1974 FRIEDMAN, M,, & ROSENMAN, R. H. Association of specific overt behavior pattern with ‘blood and’ cardiovascular findings. Joumal of American Mental Assocation, 1959, 188, 1286-1296, FRIEDMAN, M., BROWN, A. E., & ROSENMAN, R. H. Voice anal of behavior pattern. Journal ofthe American Medical Associaion, 1969, 208, 828-36, GATCHEL, R.J., & PROCTOR, J.D. Psychological correlates of learned helplessness in man, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 88, 2-34, GLASS, D.C. Sires, behavior patterns, and coronary disease. American Scientist, 1977, 65, 177-187. (a) ‘GLASS, D.C. Betovior ates sires and coronary disease. New York: Enbaum, 197 0) GLASS, D.C. Pattern A behavior and uncontrollable stres. In T. M. Dembrosk, S. M. Weis, JL Shields, 8. G, Haynes, and M. Feileb (Eds), Coronary-prone behavior. New York Springer-Vetiag, 1978, pp. 147-184 GOLDBAND, S. Environmental specificity of physiological response to sees in coronary-prone subjets, Unpublished doctoral dsertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, 1978 HARRISON, VR. Person-envizonment it and jb stress In. L. Cooper and R. Payne (Eds), Sires at work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978 HAYNES, S.G., & FEINLEIB, M. Women, work, and coronary heart disease: Prospective digs rom he Framingham hea sy. dmercon Jounal o Pubic Heth 190, HINKLE, LE. The concept of “tres” in the biological and socialsciences. Ethics in Scent fe Medicine, 1973, 1, 3-48‘Type A-B Interaction su HOLT, R. R. Occupational stres, In L. Goldberger & S. Brezitz(Eds., Handbook of sires. New York: Free Pres, 1982, pp. 419-444, HOUSE, J. 5. Occupational stress and coronary heart disease: A review and theoretical it tegration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1914, 15, 12-27. HOWARD, J. H., CUNNINGHAM, D. A., & RECHNITZER, P. A. Health patterns associ- sed with Type A behavior: A managerial population. Journal of Human Sires, 1976, 2.2431 HUSAIN, B. A., & NEFF, 1, A. Characteristis of life events and psychiatric impairment in rural communities. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 1978, 87, 47-7 INSEL, P. M., & MOSS, R. H. Work environment scale, Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists, 1974 IVANCEVICH, J. M., & MATTESON, M. T. Nuss and stress: Time to examine the poten- tial probiem. Supervisor Nurse, 1980, 11, 17-22. (@) IVANCEVICH, J. M., & MATTESON, M. 7. Sirs af work. Glenview, Iino: Scot, Fores- JAMES, L: R., HATER, J. J., GENT, M.5.,& BRUNI, J.R. Psychological climate: Implica- ‘tons from cognitive socal learing theory and international psychology. Personnel Px). chology, 1978, 31, 78-813. JENKINS, C.D. A comparative review of the interview and questionnaire methods inthe as sessment ofthe coronary-prone behavior pattern. In T. Dembroskl, SM. Weiss, J. 1. Shiels, S. G. Haynes, and M. Feinleb (Eds), Coronaryprone behavior. New York Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 71-88. JENKINS, C. D., ZYZANSKI, S.J. & ROSENMAN, R. G. Jenkins aeivity survey. New York: ‘The Psychological Corporation, 1979, pp. JENNI, M.A., & WOLLERSHEIM, J.P. Cogniive therapy, stress management training, and the Type A behavior pattern. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979, 3, 61-13. JESSOR, R., & JESSOR, 8, The perceived envionment in behavioral science. American Be: ‘havioral Scents, 1973, 16, 801-828. KARASEK, R. A., RUSSELL, R.'S., & THEORELL, T. Physiology of stress and regenera- tion in job related cardiovascular illness. Journal of Human Stress, 1982, 8, 29-12. LEWIN. K. Feld theory, In D. Cartwright (Ed), Sacil science. New York: Harper & Rov, 1951 LOTT, C.C., & GATCHEL, R. J. A multé-response analysis of learned heart rate contol ‘Paychophysiology, 1978, 18, $7658 MacFARLANE, A. H., NORMAN, G. R, STREINER, D. L., ROY, R.,& SCOTT, D. J. Alon. situdinal stady ofthe influence ofthe psychosocial environment on health status: A breliminary report. Journal of Health and Social Behaviors, 1980, 21, 124133. MAGNUSON, D. (Es). Toward a chology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hil dale, New Jersey: Erloaum, 1981, MARGOLIS, L. H., MeLEROY, K.R., RUNYAN, C. W., & DAPLAN, B. H. Type A behavior: ‘An ecological approach. Journal of Behovioral Medicine, 1983, 6, 45-257. MATTESON, M. T., & IVANCEVICH, J. M. Type A and B behavior patterns and health Symptoms: Examining individual and organizational it, Journal of Occupational Medi- cine, 1982, 24, 385589, MATTHEWS, K: A. Psychological perspectives inthe Type A behavior pattern. Prychological Bulletin, 1982, 91, 298-323 MeMICHAEL, A. J. Personality, behavioral, and stuatonal modifies of work stressors In C. 1L. Cooper and R. Payne (Eds), Siress ot work. New York: Soha Wiley & Sons, 1978, pp. 127-147 METTLIN, C. Occupational carers and the prevention of coronary-prone behavior. Social Science and Medicine, 1996, 10, 367-372 MISCHEL, W, The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnuson and N.S. Endler (E48), Personality atthe crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hil dale, New Jersery: Erlbaum, 197, pp. 333:382 MULLEN, B. Undesirable, uncontrollable life changes and ilness: A prospective study. Ameri «an Psychological Association Meeting, Monireal, Canada, September 2, 198 MURRAY, H. A. Preparation for the scaffold of a comprehensive system. In S. Koch (Ed), Psychology: A study of a science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959sn ancevich and Matteson [NYSTEDT, L. A mode! for studying the interaction between the objective situation and a per ‘son's construction ofthe situation. In D. Magnusson (E4,), Toward a psychology of Situations: An interactional approach. Hilsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1981, pp. 375-412, ROSE, RM. JENKINS, C.D, & HURST, M, W. Air traffic controller health change study: 'A prospective investigation of physical, psychological, and work-related changes. Univer sity of Texas, Galveston, published by the authors, 1978. ROSENMAN, R. H. The interview method of assessment of the coronary prone behavior pat tern, In T. M. Dembroski, 8. M. Weis, J. L. Shields, SG. Haynes, and M. Fealelb (Eds), Coronary prone. behavior. New York: ‘Springsr-Verlag, 1978, pp- 55-70. ROSENMAN, R.H., & CHESNEY, M. A. Type A behavior, and coronary disease. In L. Gol berger &'[Link] (Es), Handbook of sires. New Vork: Free Pres, 1982, pp. 547-65. ROSENMAN, R. H., & FRIEDMAN, M. The possible lationship of the emotions to clinical coronary heart disease. In Hormones and atheroscleross. New York: Academic Press, 1939 ROSENMAN, R. H., & FRIEDMAN, M. The relationship of Type A behavior pattern to coro rary heart disease, Paper from Stanford Research Insitute, 1980, pp. I-98 ROSKIES, E., KEARNEY, H., SPEVACK. M., SURKIS, A., COHEN, C., & GILMAN, S. Generalzabilty and durability of treatment effects in’an intervention program for ‘coronary prone (Type A) managers. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1979, 2,195 208. SARASON, 1.G., & SARASON, B. R. The importance of cognition and moderator variables in sfess. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981, pp. 195-210 SCHULER, R.S. Definition and conceptualization of sess in organizations. Organizational ‘Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 25, 184-215, SELIGMAN, M. E. P. Helpessnes. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975 SELLS, S, B, An interactionist looks atthe environment. american Peychologist, 1963, 18, 696-702, SELYE, H. The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation, Clinical Endocrin: ‘ology, 1946, 6, 117-230. SELYE, H. Sires wishout disiress. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1974 SELYE, H. The sires of life. New York: MeGrow-Hil, 1976 SNOW, B. R., & GLASS, D.C. Differential reactivity of Type A and B individuals to con- {ruent and incongruent environments. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Associ ation, New York, 1981, SONNENFELD, J, Geography, perception, and the behavioral environment. In P. W. English and R. C. Mayfield (Eds), Man space, and environment. New York: Oxford Univers ty Press, 1972 ‘SPARACINO, J. The Type A behavior pater: A crtcl assessment. Journal of Human Sires, 1979, 5, 37-51 SPEILBERGER, C. D., GURSUCH, R. L., & LUSHENE, R. Statesrait anxiety inventory Palo Ato, California: Consulting Psychologists, 1970. SUINN, R. M. Type A behavior pater. In R.B. Willams and W. D. Gentry (Eds), Behavioral ‘approaches 10 medical veatment. Cambridge, Massachusetts; Baling, 1979. SUINN, R.M., & BLOOM, L. J. Ansiety managemeat training for pattern A Behavior. Jour nal of Behavioral Medicine, 1978, 1,233. ‘TERBORG, J Inteactonal psychology and research in human behavior in organizations. Acade- ‘my of Management Review, 1981, 8, 569-576. WOHLWILL, J. F., & KOHN, | Dimensionalzing the environmental manifold. In S. Wap- ‘et, S.'B, Coen, & B. Kaplan (Eds), Experiencing the environment. New York: Pleh- tum Pres, 1976, pp. 1953. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES JOHN M. IVANCEVICH is currently Cullen Chair and Professor of Organizational Behavior and Management at the University of Houston. He has worked for General Mills, RepublicType AB Interaction su ‘Steel Corporation, Inland Steel Corporation and Midwest Stores, Inc. He has been involved ‘with research and consulting in over 80 businesses, government, and health care organizations. His current activities are focused in the area of goal setting, performance appraisal, oecups ‘onal stress, and preventive health, motivation, and producavcy. He recived his undersraduate BSS. degree at Purdue Universiy and his M.B.A. and a doctorate in organizational behavior from the University of Maryland. He has published 17 books and over 100 professional papers. Professor Ivanevih is a member of the Academy of Management. American Psychological AS- sociation, American Society of Pesonnel Adminisation, Amercan Management Association, and the Society of Behavioral Medicine. MICHAEL T. MATTESON isa Professor of Organizational Behavior and Management, Col lege of Business Administration, the Univesity of Houston, and is the immediate past director of the Centr for Health Management at the University. His indistial experience includes ac: tivity inthe area of management assessment, performance evaluation, organizational commu: nications, atitude surveying, stress management, and preventive health. Profesor Matteson has worked with and provided traning fora numberof organizations including Exxon Corpo- ration, US. Home, Shell Chemical Company, the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis. tration, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Prudential Insurance Company, and Brown & Root Construction Company. He received his B.A. degree from Baylor University and is M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Houston. He has published five books and over 40 Articles and papers. Professional memberships include the Academy of Management, Ameri- ‘in Psychological Association, and the Society of Behavioral Medicine. eis also listed in Amer ‘an Men and Women of Science and Who's Who in the South and Southwest.