Effect of Level of Challenge on Pressor and Heart Rate Responses in Type A and B Subjects1
Effect of Level of Challenge on Pressor and Heart Rate Responses in Type A and B Subjects1
复制标题
挑战水平对 A 型和 B 型受试者的升压和心率反应的影响 1
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1979
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. L. Shields
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Dembroski;J. Macdougall;J. Herd;J. L. Shields
本研究探讨了 A 型冠状动脉倾向行为模式与不同水平的环境挑战引起的心血管反应程度之间的关系。在 2 × 2 实验设计中，A 型和 B 型（非冠状动脉倾向）受试者 (n = 80) 被随机分配到冷加压 (CP) 和选择反应时间任务 (RT) 的高或低挑战教学条件。总体而言，在这两项任务中，A 型受试者的收缩压 (SBP) 和心率 (HR) 升高程度高于 B 型受试者。虽然这些类型之间的差异在高挑战条件下往往更大，但在低挑战条件下也观察到了一些差异。该模式的成分分析表明，高度敌对/竞争性的 A 型人对 CP 和 RT 任务中的低挑战指令和高挑战指令都有反应，其生理升高程度与全球定义的 A 型人接受高挑战指令时所显示的生理水平相当。目前的研究结果初步表明，(a) 高度敌意/竞争性的 A 型人即使对轻微的挑战也能做出增强的生理反应； (b) 全局定义的 A 倾向于证明在受到特定挑战时的生理升高； (c) B 型人对此类挑战的生理反应要小得多。与之前的研究一致，A 类评估技术的比较表明，罗森曼诊断访谈比其他问卷方法能更好地预测生理反应。关于环境、行为、生理和疾病之间可能的关系，提出了两个假设，并建议未来进行研究。
The present study examined the relationship between the Type A coronaryprone behavior pattern and the magnitude of cardiovascular response induced by varying levels of environmental challenge. In a 2 × 2 experimental design, Type A and B (noncoronary-prone) subjects (n= 80) were randomly assigned to either high or low challenge instructional conditions for both the cold pressor (CP) and a choice reaction time task (RT). Overall, across both tasks, Type A subjects responded with greater systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) elevation than Type B subjects. While these differences between the Types tended to be larger in the high challenge condition, some differences were also observed under low challenge. Component analyses of the Pattern revealed that high hostile/competitive Type A's responded to both low and high challenge instructions in the CP and RT tasks with physiologic elevations comparable to that displayed by globally defined Type A's receiving high challenge instructions. The present findings tentatively suggest that (a) high hostile/competitive Type A's respond to even mild challenge with enhanced physiologic response; (b) globally defined A's tend to evidence the physiologic elevations when specifically challenged; and (c) Type B's show much smaller physiologic reactions to such challenges. Consistent with previous research, comparison of Type A assessment techniques revealed that the Rosenman diagnostic interview was a better predictor of physiologic response than other questionnaire methods. Two hypotheses are advanced and future research recommended regarding possible relationships between environment, behavior, physiology, and disease.