You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
A puzzle runs through the whole of this option. Two people can face the same stressor — the same redundancy, the same deadline, the same diagnosis — and respond in utterly different ways. One is overwhelmed; the other takes it in their stride. One develops coronary heart disease; the other stays well. If stress were simply a matter of the stressor's objective severity, this would be impossible. The explanation must lie in individual differences: stable characteristics of the person that shape how stressors are appraised and how the body responds to them. This lesson examines the most influential of these characteristics — personality. We consider the Type A behaviour pattern (competitive, hostile, time-pressured) and its link to coronary heart disease, the more relaxed Type B pattern, the emotionally suppressing Type C pattern, and — crucially — the hardy personality, a cluster of attitudes (commitment, challenge, control) that appears to protect people from the harmful effects of stress. The recurring theme is that personality acts as a moderator: it does not create stressors, but it powerfully changes their impact on health.
Key Definition: Personality refers to the stable, enduring patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that distinguish one individual from another. In the study of stress, certain personality types are associated with greater vulnerability to stress-related illness (Type A, Type C), while others — notably the hardy personality — are associated with resilience.
The central insight is that vulnerability to stress is not distributed evenly. Some personalities amplify the physiological cost of stress and raise the risk of illness; others buffer it. Understanding which characteristics matter, and why, is the first step toward explaining individual differences in stress outcomes — and toward the management techniques studied later in this option.
This lesson addresses the following point in AQA A-Level Psychology (7182), Paper 3, Section C (Stress):
Assessment objectives engaged: AO1 (knowledge of the Type A, B and C behaviour patterns and the concept of hardiness, including the three Cs and the supporting research), AO3 (evaluation of the strength of the evidence linking personality to stress and illness — correlational problems, the role of hostility, reductionism, cultural and gender bias, and practical applications), and — where a question includes a scenario — AO2 (identifying a personality type from described behaviour or applying the concept of hardiness to a case). This lesson is strongly synoptic with biopsychology and with the issues-and-debates material on the nature–nurture debate.
The study of personality and stress began not with psychologists but with two cardiologists, Friedman and Rosenman, in the 1950s. They noticed that the upholstery on their waiting-room chairs was wearing out unusually fast — and only on the front edges, as though patients were perpetually on the edge of their seats. This observation, anecdotal but suggestive, led them to propose that a particular behaviour pattern might be linked to heart disease.
The Type A behaviour pattern is characterised by three broad clusters of behaviour:
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| Competitiveness / achievement-striving | Strong drive to succeed, ambition, a focus on goals and status, and a tendency to measure self-worth by achievement. |
| Time urgency / impatience | A chronic sense of time pressure, doing several things at once, finishing others' sentences, irritation at delays, fast pace of speech and movement. |
| Hostility / aggressiveness | Free-floating hostility, a short fuse, cynicism and antagonism, and a tendency to react to frustration with anger. |
The Type A individual, in short, is hard-driving, impatient, easily angered, and constantly racing the clock. Crucially, Friedman and Rosenman hypothesised that this pattern is not merely unpleasant but pathogenic — that it raises the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).
The key evidence comes from the Western Collaborative Group Study (WCGS), a large prospective (longitudinal) study begun by Friedman and Rosenman in 1960.
The proposed mechanism connects personality to physiology. The Type A individual lives in a state of near-constant stress arousal: their competitiveness, time urgency, and hostility mean that ordinary situations are repeatedly appraised as challenges or threats, keeping the sympathomedullary (SAM) pathway and the HPA axis chronically activated. The result is frequent surges of adrenaline and persistently raised cortisol, which (as established earlier in this option) raise blood pressure, promote the build-up of fatty plaques in the arteries (atherosclerosis), and damage the heart — the physiological route from a behaviour pattern to a disease.
It is worth pausing on how the Type A pattern is assessed, because the method shapes both the findings and their evaluation. Friedman and Rosenman used a Structured Interview in which the interviewer not only asked about behaviour (Do you eat quickly? Do you get impatient waiting in queues?) but deliberately behaved in ways designed to provoke a Type A reaction — speaking very slowly, hesitating, or interrupting — and then rated the participant's response. A genuinely Type A individual would become visibly impatient, finish the interviewer's sentences, or show irritation, whereas a Type B individual would remain relaxed. The classification therefore rested partly on observed behaviour in the moment, not only on self-report, which is a methodological strength because it sidesteps the limitations of asking people to describe their own personality. A widely used alternative is the self-report Jenkins Activity Survey, a questionnaire measure of Type A. The two methods do not always agree, and the choice of measure is one reason different studies have reached different conclusions about the strength of the Type A–CHD link — a point that becomes important in evaluation.
The Type A pattern is defined partly by contrast with two other patterns.
The Type B behaviour pattern is essentially the opposite of Type A: relaxed, patient, easy-going, and not driven by competitiveness, time urgency, or hostility. Type B individuals still work and achieve, but without the chronic sense of pressure and antagonism. Because they experience less frequent and less intense stress arousal, they were the lower-risk comparison group in the WCGS and are associated with better cardiovascular health.
The Type C behaviour pattern, proposed later by Temoshok and others, describes a different vulnerability. Type C individuals are typically cooperative, patient, and unassertive, but their defining feature is the suppression of emotion, particularly negative emotions such as anger, which they tend to inhibit rather than express. They are often described as "pathologically nice" — pleasing others at the expense of their own feelings. The Type C pattern has been linked not to heart disease but to cancer: the suggestion is that chronic emotional suppression is itself a form of stress that may, via effects on the immune system, influence the progression of illness. The evidence here is weaker and more controversial than for Type A, but the Type C concept is important because it shows that the suppression of emotion, not only the expression of hostility, may carry a health cost.
The three patterns are summarised below.
| Type | Core behaviour | Associated illness | Proposed reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type A | Competitive, time-urgent, hostile | Coronary heart disease | Chronic SAM/HPA arousal damages the cardiovascular system |
| Type B | Relaxed, patient, easy-going | Lower risk (comparison group) | Less frequent/intense stress arousal |
| Type C | Cooperative but emotionally suppressed | Cancer (proposed, weaker evidence) | Emotional suppression as chronic stress affecting immunity |
The personality types above explain vulnerability to stress. But individual differences cut both ways: some people are remarkably resilient, thriving under pressures that would crush others. To explain this, Kobasa (1979) introduced the concept of the hardy personality — a cluster of attitudes that buffers the individual against the harmful effects of stress.
Hardiness consists of three components, conventionally called the three Cs:
| The three Cs | Meaning | How it buffers stress |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment | A sense of involvement and purpose in life — in work, relationships, and activities — rather than alienation. | The committed person engages with stressors as a meaningful part of life rather than withdrawing from them. |
| Challenge | Viewing change and difficulty as a normal challenge and an opportunity for growth, rather than as a threat to be avoided. | Reappraising stressors as challenges reduces the threat appraisal and the physiological stress response. |
| Control | The belief that one can influence events and outcomes through one's own actions (an internal locus of control), rather than being a helpless victim of circumstance. | Perceived control reduces the stressfulness of a situation and encourages active, problem-focused coping. |
Kobasa's original research studied American business executives undergoing high levels of stress. She found that, among executives experiencing comparable amounts of stress, those who stayed healthy scored higher on the three Cs than those who became ill. Hardiness, in other words, appeared to moderate the relationship between stress and illness: high stress led to illness much more readily in people low in hardiness than in people high in it. Maddi developed this work further, showing that hardiness can be trained through "hardiness training" programmes that help people reframe stressors, recommit to valued goals, and take active control — a finding that turns hardiness from a fixed trait into a target for intervention.
The logic of hardiness is best understood as a protective or buffering factor. Stress researchers distinguish between variables that increase the impact of a stressor (risk factors, such as the hostility of the Type A pattern) and variables that reduce it (protective factors). Hardiness is the clearest dispositional protective factor in this option. It does not stop stressors occurring; rather, it changes how they are appraised and coped with. A hardy person facing redundancy is more likely to stay committed to finding a solution rather than withdrawing, to frame the upheaval as a challenge from which something can be learned rather than a catastrophe, and to focus on the aspects they can control (updating a CV, networking) rather than ruminating on those they cannot. Each of these shifts lowers the threat appraisal and therefore the physiological stress response — which is why hardiness predicts who stays well. The same three-Cs logic explains why hardiness training works: by teaching commitment, challenge-reappraisal, and a focus on controllable elements, the trainer is effectively installing the appraisal style that hardy people already use.
The relationship between hardiness and the stress process can be visualised as a buffering or moderating model.
graph TD
A[Stressor encountered] --> B{Level of hardiness?}
B -->|High hardiness<br/>commitment, challenge, control| C[Stressor appraised as a meaningful, controllable challenge]
B -->|Low hardiness| D[Stressor appraised as a threatening, uncontrollable problem]
C --> E[Active problem-focused coping<br/>lower physiological stress response]
D --> F[Avoidant coping<br/>sustained stress arousal]
E --> G[Stays healthy]
F --> H[Greater risk of stress-related illness]
The hardiness model connects directly to ideas met earlier. The control component overlaps with the concept of perceived control that ran through the workplace-stress lesson (the Whitehall and sawmill findings that low control damages health), and with the broader idea of locus of control. The challenge component is essentially a favourable cognitive appraisal in Lazarus's sense — reinterpreting a potential threat as a challenge lowers the stress response. Hardiness, then, is not a wholly new idea but a coherent packaging of several protective factors into a single personality construct.
A major strength of the Type A research is that it is supported by a large, prospective, longitudinal study, which allows a stronger causal inference than a snapshot survey. The Western Collaborative Group Study assessed roughly 3,000 healthy men before any of them had developed coronary heart disease, and then followed them for over eight years, so the personality measure clearly preceded the illness in time. The implication is that the design rules out the reverse explanation that having heart disease makes people Type A, and the doubling of risk in Type A men — even after controlling for smoking and blood pressure — gives the personality–illness link a firmer evidential basis than most individual-difference claims in psychology.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.