M Myrtek1. 1. Forschungsgruppe Psychophysiologie, Psychologisches Institut, Universität Freiburg, Belfortstr. 20, 79085 Freiburg, Federal Republic of Germany. myrtek@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several large-scale prospective studies have failed to find an association between Type A personality (TAP) or hostility and coronary heart disease (CHD). The existing meta-analyses on this topic have several shortcomings, such as a selective search of the literature, the failed use of effect sizes, and methodological flaws. METHODS: The present meta-analyses cover all prospective studies until the end of 1998. The correlation coefficient r is used as effect size to yield information on the population effect size R and variance. Several analyses have been carried out to stratify for disease endpoints, samples (healthy population, CHD patients), and methods used to determine TAP or hostility. RESULTS: The population effect size (weighted average of all correlation coefficients) for TAP and CHD is R=0.003 (n=74,326, P=0.213), and for hostility and CHD R=0.022 (n=15,038, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The population effect size for TAP and CHD is not significant. Hostility yields a significant association with CHD; however, the effect size is so low that it has as yet no practical meaning for prediction and prevention.
BACKGROUND: Several large-scale prospective studies have failed to find an association between Type A personality (TAP) or hostility and coronary heart disease (CHD). The existing meta-analyses on this topic have several shortcomings, such as a selective search of the literature, the failed use of effect sizes, and methodological flaws. METHODS: The present meta-analyses cover all prospective studies until the end of 1998. The correlation coefficient r is used as effect size to yield information on the population effect size R and variance. Several analyses have been carried out to stratify for disease endpoints, samples (healthy population, CHD patients), and methods used to determine TAP or hostility. RESULTS: The population effect size (weighted average of all correlation coefficients) for TAP and CHD is R=0.003 (n=74,326, P=0.213), and for hostility and CHD R=0.022 (n=15,038, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The population effect size for TAP and CHD is not significant. Hostility yields a significant association with CHD; however, the effect size is so low that it has as yet no practical meaning for prediction and prevention.
Authors: Nicholas A Turiano; Lindsay Pitzer; Cherie Armour; Arun Karlamangla; Carol D Ryff; Daniel K Mroczek Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Nicholas J Kelley; Amanda M Kramer; Katherine S Young; Aileen M Echiverri-Cohen; Iris Ka-Yi Chat; Susan Y Bookheimer; Robin Nusslock; Michelle G Craske; Richard E Zinbarg Journal: J Res Pers Date: 2019-01-30
Authors: Cédric Lemogne; Hermann Nabi; Marie Zins; Sylvaine Cordier; Pierre Ducimetière; Marcel Goldberg; Silla M Consoli Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2010-02-20 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Hochang Benjamin Lee; O Joseph Bienvenu; Seong-Jin Cho; Christine M Ramsey; Karen Bandeen-Roche; William W Eaton; Gerald Nestadt Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.386