Research carried out by (cardiologists) Friedman and Rosenman in the 1950s on males suffering from cardiac conditions, observed differences in patterns of behaviour of their cardiac patients and differences on how they related to types of cardiac problems. Those patients that were highly competitive, hard driven, ambitious, impatient and aggressive were called type A, those that were more laid back and less driven were called type B and the hard working, conventional, sociable and confrontation avoiding individual was type C. Early research in this model of personality led it to being accepted as a major independent factor in males with heart disease. The behaviour patterns of Type A patients such as yelling, being impatient and never relaxing increased pressure on the heart, causing peripheral vessels to narrow whilst heart rate increased and as result would put excessive pressure on the coronary arteries. Those individuals with such specific personality (type A) take a bigger risk with their health as their responses to everyday situations such as waiting in queues or traffic jams are to treat them like emergencies and as a result the hormonal reactions linked with ‘fight or flight’ are frequently aroused rather than rarely.
Not all research has found a link between type A behaviour and coronary heart disease, a follow up study by Johnson et al (1987) on nearly 6000 British males over an average period of just over six years concluded that there was no correlation between Type A behaviour and heart disease. Early research was also criticized in relation to the gender of the participants as they were all male and that certain factors such as diet were not taken into account when looking at the causes of heart problems.
In the past, research suggested that people who display the type A behaviour were at much greater risk of developing high blood pressure and coronary heart disease (CHD) compared with those displaying the type B behaviour. Recent research is increasingly pointing towards hostility as the best single predictor of coronary heart disease and Dembrowski & Costa (1987) argue that potential for hostility is a reasonably stable personality trait. According to Temoshok (1987) type C personalities are cancer-prone. Temoshok et la (1984) conducted a 15 year follow up study of women with breast cancer and determined that there was high probability of the disease returning in those women who had a passive or helpless coping approach. The type C personality has difficulty expressing emotion and tends to suppress or inhibit emotions, particularly negative ones such as anger. While there is no undisputed evidence that these personality characteristics can actually cause cancer, it does seem likely that they influence the progression of cancer and hence, the survival time of cancer patients (Weinman, 1995). Greer & Morris (1975) found that women diagnosed with breast cancer showed significantly more emotional suppression than those with benign breast disease especially among those under 50 and this had been a characteristic for most of their lives. Cooper & Faragher (1993) reported that experiencing a major stressful event is a significant predictor of breast cancer. This was particularly so in women who did not express anger, but used denial as a form of coping. Studies done also show women report more stress than men in response to life changing events such as major illness, loss of a job or losing a sibling (Miller & Rahe, 1997). Other gender differences in bodily responses to stress such as women recording lower increases in blood pressure than men when performing stressful tasks (Stone e tal.1990) which may explain why men are more prone to develop particular stress related disorders such as hypertension.
Other personality variables can be protective, Kobasa (1979) describes the concept of hardiness, where some individuals show commitment and involve themselves fully in what they are doing, they perceive themselves as having control over their lives and view change as a challenge rather than a threat. Kobasa et al (1982) found in a large scale study of highly stressed managers that those who scored highly on optimism were least likely to suffer illness. Follow up studies showed that as well as hardiness, exercise and social support were also negatively related to illness, with hardiness being the most important of the three factors.
According to Funk (1992), hardiness seems to moderate the stress–illness relationship by reducing cognitive evaluation of a threat and reducing the use of regressive coping strategies. Stress is therefore a bodily response to what is often a long-term psychological threat. Funk also questioned the accuracy with which hardiness can be measured and noted that previous research had only looked at middle class white males. Furthermore studies done in the relationship between hardiness and illness are correlational and we cannot draw any decisive conclusions about cause and effect. Nevertheless many studies establish a reliable negative correlation between personality characteristics and stress, and have made significant influence in our understanding of aspects affecting the effect stress has on health with a positive quantity of data from which to conduct further research.
Because our stress response evolved as an adaptive mechanism for our ancestors who faced short term physical dangers, the way in which it is prolonged is due to our modern lifestyle means that it influences the development or progression of life threatening illnesses including heart disease, high blood pressure and cancer. However personality is a moderating variable that interacts with exposure to stress to such an extent that health outcome is affected significantly.
More recently, some psychologists have said we actually may “think or imagine ourselves into almost any emotional state.” We are not conditioned by our experiences in life to react a certain way, rather our inner thoughts determine our feelings and generate a sense of stress or calm. Those who catastrophize events or ask “what if” with an expectation of negative outcomes, without the data to determine whether their worries are true, add stress to their lives in situations that may or may not deserve a high level of emotional, cognitive or physiological responses.
Looking at the positive links between stress and personality, study’s done provide various preliminary scientific evidence that illness such as heart disease may depend on individual differences within ones personality. Whilst the relationship between stress and coronary heart disease is not as straight forward as some of the research shows, it is important to note that stress itself cannot cause coronary heart disease or any illness by itself, there are other factors involved which along with prolonged periods of stress that weaken the body’s defences and ultimately led to illness such as coronary heart disease. Personality factors do play apart in how we perceive stress and deal with it but again research has been mixed as some researchers found a link between the two and others suggest other factors like daily hassles or workplace stressors are at play and previous research was weak or target specific and did not account for all personality types.
by
davaders (student)
