Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-86/4 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cotolog No. 

4. Tltle and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

COMPLEX MONITORING PERFORMANCE AND THE CORONARY-PRONE MARCH 1986 

TYPE A BEHAVIOR PATTERN 6. Performing Orgonizatlon Code 

7. Author's) 

0. Perfarmtng Organlzation Report N O 

Richard I. Thackray and R. Mark Touchstone 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute 

P. 0. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

9. Performing Organizotion Name and Address 10. Work Unlt No. (TRAIS) 

13. Type of Report and Perjod Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 3 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 t- 14. Sponsorjng Agency Code 

~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 

15. Supplementory Notes 

Work was performed under tasks AM-C-83/84/85-PSY-93 

The present study examined the possible relationship of the coronary-prone 

Type A behavior pattern to performance of a complex monitoring task. The 

task was designed to functionally simulate the general task characteristics 

of future, highly automated air traffic control systems in which passive 

monitoring is expected to be a principal job requirement. Thirty- six male 

subjects, half ciassified as Type A and half as Type B, monitored the 

simulated radar display over a 2-hour session for infrequent critical 

changes in alphanumeric targets. In addition to performance, physiological 

changes and subjective reactions were also assessed. Type A individuals 

were found not to differ from Type B individuals in elther task performance 

or in subjective reaction to the task. Task-related changes in heart rate, 

blood pressure, and general restlessness failed also to provide any 

evidence of greater arousal in Type A's than in Type B's. The findings are 

dlscussed relatlve to other studies of Type A behavior ana performance and 

to the specific problem of finding useful predictors of performance in 

operational monitoring situations. 

Air Traffic Control Type A 

Monitoring 22161. 

Automation tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 

Attention Vigilance through the National Technical InformaDocument is available to the public 

Performance 

Unc lass if ied Unclassified 

4 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of thls page) 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

COMPLEX MONITORING PERFORMANCE AND THE CORONARY-PRONE 

TYPE A BEHAVIOR PATTERN 

INTRODUCTION 

Increasingly sophisticated levels of air traffic control (ATC) automation 

that are planned to be implemented over the next 20 years will result in a 

gradual shift in the role of the controller from that of an active 

participant in control decisions to that of a rather passive monitor of a 

computer- controlled process. Such a shift in role suggests the possibility 

that those controllers able to tolerate and perform successfully in future, 

highly automated systems may differ considerably in personality type from 

successful controllers in today's systems. Although it is known that some 

individuals are better able than others to both tolerate and effectively 

perform monitoring tasks, attempts to define the personality profile of 

effective monitors have proven to be extremely difficult (Berch and Kanter, 

1984). 

Within recent years, there has been increased interest in the relationship 

of a particular type of behavior pattern, commonly referred to as the 

coronary-prone Type A pattern, to adjustment in the work setting (Chesney 

and Rosenman, 1980). This pattern, as originally formulated by Friedman 

and Rosenman (19741, consists of "an action- emotion complex that can be 

observed in any person who is aggressively involved in a chronic, incessant 

struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to 

do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or other persons" (p. 

67). Behaviors that characterize the Type A pattern include 

aggressiveness, hostility, lack of tolerance for inactivity, an exaggerated 

sense of tlme urgency, impatience, and a competitive drive for achievement 

(Matthews, 1982). Inaivlduals displaying relatively few of these behaviors 

are considered to be Type B. A number of these behaviors, e.g., time 

urgency, impatience, intolerance for inactivity, and a need to work in a 

competltive environment, would appear to be at variance with behaviors that 

one might expect to be associated with individuals able to tolerate 

monitoring or vigilance -type tasks. Consequently, a relationship between 

the Type A behavior pattern and an inability to tolerate such tasks might 

be expected. 

The few studies that have compared Type A and B individuals with respect to 

monitoring tasks, however, have not supported this expectation. For 

example, Lundberg and Forsman (1979) failed to find any aifferences between 

Type A and B individuals in their performance of a simple visual vigilance 

task, with both Types showing comparable declines in correct detections 

over the l-hour session. In addition to performance, subjective measures 

of boredom, concentration, effort, impatience, interest, irritation, 

relaxation, tenseness, and tiredness were also obtained. While most of 

these changed significantly during the session, again there were no Type 

A/B differences on any measure. Finally, although there was a tendency for 

cortisol excretion of Type A's to exceed that of Type B's during the 

vigilance task, there were no Type A/B differences in either heart rate 

change or in adrenaline excretion. 

1 
To our knowledge, the only other study of Type A behavior and monitoring 

performance was conducted by Lundberg, Warm, Seeman, and Porter (1980). 

This study also employed a visual vigilance task with performance measured 

over a 1-hour session. It was predicted that the group classified as Type 

A would be less able to sustain attention to the task and would experience 

it as more stressful than would the Type B group. The results revealed an 

equivalent performance decline in both groups, and there was no evidence 

that the groups differed in experienced boredom, fatigue, or irritation. 

Surprisingly, however, Type A's consistently detected more signals during 

the task, and thus appeared to be generally more alert during performance 

than Type B's. While this finding was contrary to their initial 

expectations, the authors interpreted the finding as being consistent with 

descriptions of Type A's as being more hyperalert than Type B's. 

Neither of the studies just considered found any evidence that would 

suggest Type A's to be less able than Type B's either to tolerate 

monitoring tasks or to sustain attention during the performance of such 

tasks. On the contrary, there is evidence to suggest that Type A's may 

actually be more alert during monitoring performance than Type B's. As we 

noted initlally, increases in ATC automation will result ultimately in 

increased monitoring responsibilities. As these job requirements assume 

greater importance, the desirability of identifying those characteristics 

of Individuals who are able to both tolerate and perform effectively on 

monitoring tasks increases in significance. The possibility that 

individuals possessing the Type A behavior pattern might actually be 

superior to Type B's in monitoring performance deserves further 

investigation. 

The task employed in the present study was an updated version of the radar 

monitoring task used in many of our previous studies (e.g., Thackray and 

Touchstone, 1980) and represents an on-going attempt to devise a task that 

more closely approaches real-life monitoring requirements. As 

investigators are beginning to recognize, modern operational vigilance 

tasks, such as those involving the monitoring of automated processes, 

involve more than simply detecting and responding to infrequent changes in 

unidimensional stimuli. They frequently involve complex multidimensional 

discriminations (Mackie 1984) in which stimulus detection or identification 

may be followed by interpretation of significance, declsions as to 

appropriate action, implementation of actions, and evaluation of 

consequences (Craig 1984). The present task, although still in the 

development phase, represents an attempt to incorporate these additional 

elements. Only data pertaining to the detection of critical events are 

reported in this study. Those data relevant to other subtask elements are 

being analyzed in the context of the development process and will form the 

basis of a subsequent study. For purposes of providing the reader with 

details regarding the total task performed by the subjects, all aspects of 

the task are described in the procedure. 

METHOD 

Subjects. Type A/B classification of individuals was based on Jenkins 

Activity Survey (JAS) scores (Jenkins, Rosenman, and Zyzanski, 1974) 

2 
using the Form T version developed for use with college students (Glass, 

1977). Eighty-five male introductory psychology students from classes at 

the University of Oklahoma were administered the JAS. A median split was 

used, with those falling above and below the median score (medianz8) 

classified as Type A and Type B respectively. The median score of 8 

corresponds closely to values reported for college populations (Glass, 

1977). Eighteen Type A and an equal number of Type B individuals 

volunteered to participate in the study. Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 

29 years, were nonsmokers, and had no prior experience with the task used 

or previous ATC training. All had corrected or uncorrected 20/20 vision. 

Apparatus and Task Design. The basic experimental equipment consisted of a 

Digital Equipment Corportion (DEC) VS11 19-in (49-cm) graphics display, 

keyboard, and joystick, all of which were interfaced with a VAX 11/730 

computer (DEC). The computer was used both to generate input to the 

display and to process subject responses. The VS11 was incorporated into a 

console designed to closely resemble an ATC radar unit. Two dlagonal, 

nonintersecting fllght paths were located on the display, along which 

aircraft targets could move in either direction. A given aircraft's 

location was displayed as a small sblipll on the flight path, and an 

adjacent alphanumeric data block identified the aircraft and gave its 

altitude and groundspeed. Aircraft were updated in position and any change 

in alphanumerics every 6 s. Figure 1 shows a typical target pattern as 

displayed to the subject, with the total console- display configuration 

shown in Figure 2. 

-- 

Tne subject's task was to continually monitor the display for one of two 

types of change in the alphanumeric data blocks. The duration of each type 

of change (referred to as a critical event) was 90 s; if a subject failed 

to detect a critical event within this 90-s period, the data block 

containing the change reverted to its previous state. 

The first type of critical event was readily detectable and consisted of 

three X's in place of the three altitude numbers in a given data block. 

Subjects were told that this replacement of an altitude value signified 

that a malfunction had occurred resulting in a loss of altitude 

information. Upon detection of such an event, subjects were told to press 

a button on the console labeled "XXX malfunction,'' move a 

joystick - controlled cursor over the data block containing the critical 

event, and to press another button on the joystick control unit. This last 

response "correctedn the malfunction by replacing the three X's with the 

previous altitude value. The second type of critical event was more 

difficult to detect, since it was not immediately apparent. This event was 

the occurrence of two aircraft at the same altitude on the same flight 

path. As soon as such an event was noted, subjects pressed a second 

console button labeled "Altitude Check." Subjects next determined whether 

the two aircraft were moving towards each other, away from each other, or 

in the same direction. On the basis of this determination, subjects then 

pressed either a llConflictll button (indicating that the aircraft were 

moving towards each other) or a "No Conflict " button (indicating that the 

aircraft were either moving away from each other or were moving in the same 

direction). All aircraft in this slmulation were assigned a speed of 450 

3 
mph. Thus, aircraft could not overtake one another, and only targets 

moving towards each other would constitute a potential conflict situation. 

Following a " conflict " decision, the cursor was positioned over one of the 

two conflicting aircraft and the joystick control button was pressed. This 

caused a new altitude value to appear in the lower left of the screen that, 

subjects were told, represented a value selected by the computer to resolve 

the conflict. Subjects then verified that the computer-assigned altitude 

did not result in a conflict with some other aircraft on the flight path. 

If no new conflict was created, a keyboard entry was made that assigned the 

new altitude value to one of the two previously conflicting aircraft. 

(Under the simulation used, a computer-assigned altitude never conflicted 

with the altitude of any other aircraft.) 

Whenever a "no conflict " response was made, no further action ensued, since 

no change in altitude was required. Subjects were told that the altitude 

of one of the two nonconflicting aircraft would eventually change to some 

other value (this time interval was variable, but always less than the 90-s 

stimulus duration period) and that they had to remember that they had 

responded to this particular pair of aircraft. If they failed to remember 

and responded a second time, an error was recorded. 

The number of targets on each flight path was kept equal at all times; as 

one left the screen, another appeared. To prevent data block overlaps, two 

constraints were necessary: (a) speed was held constant at 450 miles per 

hour for all aircraft, and (b) all data blocks for targets moving from left 

to right were positioned above the flight path, while those moving right to 

left were located below. Nine critical events occurred in each 30-min 

period, with no more than one event present at any given time. Of these 

nine events, three xere XXX's, three were conflicting altitude changes, and 

three were nonconflicting changes. These events were arranged in a 

quasi-random order with the restriction that each of the three types of 

events had to occur at least once in both the first and second 15 min of 

each 30-min period. Subjects were given no information regarding the 

frequency of events or their order of occurrence. The times between events 

(interstimulus intervals) ranged from 126 to 302 s with a mean of 200 S. 

The subject was observed from an adjacent room via closed - circuit TV. 

Indirect lighting was used in the subject's room, and the level of 

illumination at the display was 5.6 lux. 

Physiological Instrumentation Measurement. Measurements of systolic 

blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were made using a 

Narco Bio-Systems Model PE-300 Electro-Sphygmomanometer, the output of 

which was connected to one of the channels of a Beckman Type R611 recorder. 

SBP was determined from the first Korotkoff sound to be recorded in the 

descending pressure cycle, with DBP taken to be the first Korotkoff sound 

having an a,iplitude less than one -third the amplitude of the maximum 

recorded sound. This technique has been used by Cartwrlght (1973) and 

correlates well with conventional clinical measurements. Heart rate (HR) 

was obtained from a photoelectric plethysmograph attached to the middle 

finger of the left hand. The output of this transducer led to a Beckman 

cardiotachometer and was recorded on a second channel. A measure of gross 

4 
Figure 1. A typical target configuration as displayed to the subject. 

Figure 2. The simulated ATC work station. Only the console on the left was 

used in this study. 

5 
body movement (restlessness) was derived from a modified crystal 

finger- pulse transducer that was attached beneath the seat of the subject's 

chair. The analog output of this transducer was pulse integrated and then 

led, along with the cardiotachometer output, to digital inputs of the 

computer. 

Heart rate was recorded continuously and blood pressure intermittently both 

during an initial baseline period and during the 2 hours of task 

performance. Blood pressure determinations were made every 2 min during 

the baseline period and every 10 min during the task session. The baseline 

period, which lasted at least 6 min for all subjects, was terminated when 6 

min had passed and 2 successive systolic readings within +- 5mmHg were 

obtained. For purposes of data analysis, baseline HR consisted of the mean 

of the final 5 min of this period, while baseline SBP and DBP were mean 

values derived from the last 2 measurements. During the 2-hour task 

session, mean HR values were obtained from 5-min measurement periods 

located at the beginning of the session and every 30 min thereafter. Blood 

pressure was obtained during times that corresponded to the HR periods. 

Body movement was recorded only during the task session and consisted of 

the sum of the integrator pulses within each successive half hour. 

Procedure. Upon arriving at the laboratory, each subject was given general 

information about the experiment. At the completion of this initial 

orientation, subjects received an informed consent statement to read and to 

sign if they wished to participate in the study. (None refused to sign.) 

The blood pressure cuff and finger pulse transducer were then attached and 

the baseline period ensued. Immediately following this period, subjects 

rated their feelings of fatigue, attentiveness, strain, boredom, 

drowsiness, irritation, impatience, and tension on line scales, the 

extremes of which were anchored at 0 (minimum) and 100 (maximum). 

After completion of the rating scales, subjects received task instructions 

and separate practice in responding to each of the three kinds of critical 

events. This was followed by an additional practice session in which the 

various kinds of critical events were presented in a random order. 

Twenty-one critical events (seven of each kind) occurred during the 21-min 

practice session. On rare occasions, additional practice was given if the 

subject appeared to have difficulty with any of the procedures. 

The experimental session lasted 2 hours. In order to add a greater element 

of realism to the task, a tape recording of background noises recorded in 

actual air traffic control radar rooms was played continuously during the 

2-hour task session. Sound level of this noise at the subject's head 

location was 62 dBA. It was not expected that this would affect 

performance, since an earlier study, using a previous version of our 

monitoring task, failed to find any significant performance effects of this 

noise at a considerably higher (80 dBA) level (Thackray 1982). 

At the completion of the 2-hour task period, a second form of the 

subjective scales was administered. This form was identical to the first, 

except that subjects were instructed to rate each item with respect to how 

they felt near the end of the task just completed, and an item was added 

6 
dealing with how much effort was required to continue performing the task 

as the session progressed. Following this, subjects were given a thorough 

debriefing with regard to the purpose of the experiment. 

RESULTS 

Performance Data. As described earlier, two levels of stimulus difficulty 

were employed in this study. In the first level, subjects were required to 

simDlv scan the displav for three X's that replaced a three-digit altitude 

value in one of the targets on the screen. The second, more difficult 

level required subjects to continually compare each target's altitude with 

the altitude values of all other targets on a given flight path to detect 

the occasional occurrence of two targets at the same altitude. These two 

levels of stimulus difficultv will henceforth be referred to as the low 

difficulty (LD) and nlgh drfficulty (HD) levels respectively. 

Figure 3 shows mean detection times across successive 30-min periods for 

TvDe A and B individuals for the two levels of stimulus difficulty. A 

repeated measures analysls of variance (ANOVA) applied to the LD data 

revealed no significant effects for group, for time period, or for the 

32 r 

cn 

0 

z 

0 

0 

w 

cn 

30 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

0--0 Type B 

14 

6t - Type A 

0--0 Type B 

I 2 3 4 

30 - MINUTE PERIODS 

FiKUre 3. Mean detectlon tlmes across 30-min perrods for Type A and B 

individuals for the two levels of stimulus difficulty. 

7 
group by period interaction (p>.lO in each case). For HD data, Figure 3 

shows a general increase in'detection time across periods for both groups, 

and an ANOVA performed on these data revealed this effect to be significant 

(F(3/102)=6.81, p<.O5). Once again, however, the group effect was not 

significant nor was the group by period interaction (p>.lO in both cases). 

With regard to errors of omission, the more readily detectable LD events 

were seldom missed by subjects in either group, In total, only 6 LD events 

were missed; four of these were missed by Type A individuals and 2 were 

missed by Type B's. For HD events, virtually all subjects, irrespective of 

group, missed at least 1 event during the 2-hour session. The mean number 

of HD events missed by individuals in both groups during the first and 

second hours of the session is shown'in Table 1. Examination of these data 

reveals that approximately 1 event was missed by subjects in both groups 

during the first hour with this increasing to approximately 2 during the 

second hour. Separate Wilcoxon tests revealed the increase from first to 

second hour to be significant (p<.05) for both groups, but a Mann-Whitney U 

test showed this increase in errors to be no greater for Type A's than for 

Type B's. 

Physiological Data . Mean baseline values for SBP, DBP, and HR are shown in Table 2. Separate 

tests conducted on each measure revealed the difference between groups to 

Type A 

8 
be significant for HR (t(221=2.55, p<.OS), but no TVDe A/B dlfferences 

existed for. elther SBP or UBP. (Note: The HR analysis was based on only 

24 sub.iects because of recording difficulties with the equipment employed.) 

Remaining analyses of the cardiovascular data were Performed on change 

scores obtained bv subtracting each sub.ject's baseline score from each of 

the scores obtained during the task period. Mean change scores are shown 

in FiKure 4. 

9, 

I 

c 

&-8 I I I I 

v) 

1 

h 

0 

I 

E 

E 

Y 

0 30 60 90 I20 

0 30 60 90 I20 

MINUTES 

Fi#ure 4. Plean cnange scores for HR, SBP, ana DBP obtalned at the beginning 

ot' the session and at 3O-mln intervals thereafter. 

9 
Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed a significant time periods effect for SBP 

(F(4/136)=25.95, p<.OOl), for DBP (F(4/136)=3.31, p<.Ol), and for HR 

(F(4/88)=35.44, p<.OOl). Of the remaining effects, only the group effect 

for HR was significant (F(1/22)=7.15, p<.Ol). Examination of Figure 4 

reveals that, relative to baseline, Type A's showed greater change in HR 

throughout the session than did Type B's. Interestingly enough, the Type A 

HR change consisted of a decrease in rate that was present even at the 

start of the session. 

Data for body movement (restlessness) obtained over successive 30-min 

periods of the task session are shown in Table 3. (As noted earlier, 

baseline recordings were not obtained for this measure.) The ANOVA 

conducted on these data revealed the increase in restlessness during the 

session to be significant (F(3/84)=7.84, p<.OOl), but there was no 

significant difference between groups and no significant interaction. 

Table 3. Mean number of body movements (integrator pulses) for Type A and B 

individuals over successive 30-minute periods of the task session. 

Type A 2692 302 3 31 07 31 37 

Type B 2905 3066 3273 3903 

Subjective Data. 

Table 4 shows mean scores for the subjective rating -scale data. The values 

shown represent measured distances in mm from the left or zero point of the 

line scale for each item. Values could range from 0 to 190, with a score 

of 95 representing the midpoint. Increased Fatigue (F(1/34)=29.74, 

p<.OOl), Strain (F(1/34)=38.55, p<.OOl), Boredom (F(1/34)=42.16, p<.OOl), 

Drowsiness (F(1/34)=26.87, p<.OOl), Irritation (F(1/34)=15.30, p<.OOl), and 

Impatience (F(1/34)=18.12, p<.OOl), as well as decreased Attentiveness 

(F(1/34)=39.05, p<.OOl) were reported by subjects in both groups (see Table 

4). Tension was the only variable failing to show a significant pre- to 

posttask change. None of the group or interaction effects was significant 

for any of the above variables. A one-way ANOVA performed on the Effort 

data obtained at the completion of the session revealed the group effect to 

be nonsignificant. 
Item Group Pretask Posttask 

Fatigue 34 

31 

75 

83 

Attentiveness 151 

130 

86 

77 

Strain 23 69 

26 82 

Boredom 18 

40 

92 

99 

Drowsiness 40 

44 

93 

94 

Irritation 11 

21 

42 

59 

Impatience 19 

32 

67 

76 

Tension 37 

42 

35 

71 

Effort 

DISCUSSION 

Of the two previous studies of Tvoe A behavior and vigilance, one failed to 

flnd any evidence of differences in the performance of Type A and B 

indiviauals (Lundberp; and Forsman, 1979). while the other study founa that 

Type A's, although not differing from Type B's in the rate at which signal 

detectlon declined during the session, consistently detected signals at a 

higher overall level throughout the session than did Type B's (et al., 

1980). If confirmed, the finding that Type A individuals might actuaily be 

somewhat better monltors than Type B's could have rmportant lmpllcations 

for the selection of controllers In future, highly automated ATC systems. 

The results of the present stuay, however, failed to support the earlier 

Lundberg et a1 (1980) findlng. Type A lndivlduals were found not to differ 

from Type B's on any of the performance measures employed. Nor was there 

evidence from either the Dhysiological or subjective measures to indicate 

11 
that Type A's found the task to be any more stressful or arousing than did 

Type B's. If anything, the HR data suggests less reaction to the task by 

Type A's than by Type B's. The findings of the present study, then, are in 

general agreement with the results obtained by Lundberg and Forsman (1979), 

who likewise were unable to demonstrate significant differences between 

Type A and B individuals in performance, physiological response, or 

subjective reaction to the vigilance task that they employed. 

In attempting to account for the differences in findings of the Lundberg, 

et al. ( 1980) and the Lundberg and Forsman ( 1979) studies, Warm (1986) has 

suggested that task difficulty may have been a significant factor. The 

vigilance task used by Warm in the Lundberg, et al. (1980) study 

apparently involved rather difficult discrimination of stimulus motion. 

Mean detection rate on this task was initially 705, with this dropping to 

40% by the end of the session. In the spatial discrimination task used by 

Lundberg and Forsman (1979), however, initial and final detection rates 

were 80% and 70% respectively. The higher initial rate and lesser 

decrement over time suggested to Warm that the task used by these latter 

investigators may have been less difficult than the one that he and his 

colleagues employed. There is some evidence that differences between Type 

A and B individuals in both task performance and in physiological 

reactivity to task demands may become manifest only if the task is 

perceived to be sufficiently difficult (Matthews, 1982). To the extent 

that Type A's perceived the Lundberg, et al. task to be a challenging one, 

it is conceivable that they may have exerted more effort than did Type B's. 

Presumably, neither type found the Lundberg and Forsman (1979) task to be 

especially challenging. Possible support for this might be derived from 

the fact that Type A's in the Lundberg, et al. (1980) study expressed 

greater strain during the task session than did Type B's; the Lundberg and 

Forsman (1979) study failed to find any Type A/B differences in experienced 

stress or strain. 

If Warm's hypothesis is applied to the present study, it would suggest that 

the lack of Type A/B differences may have been due to the fact that the 

task used was not sufficiently difficult or challenging to evoke greater 

effort in Type A than in Type B individuals. On the surface, this 

suggestion might seem difficult to accept, since the radar simulation task 

used here is clearly more perceptually complex than the tasks used in 

either of the above two studies. Yet our task, while more varied and 

complex than these other two tasks, is not especially difficult in its 

cognitive and perceptual requirements. It clearly does not require 

continuous difficult discriminations as does the task employed by Warm and 

his colleagues. Nor was there any intention to incorporate . difficult 

discriminations into the design of our simulated radar task, since the 

requirement to make difficult judgements and discriminations is more likely 

to be reduced, than to be increased, in the more highly automated ATC 

systems of the future. 

12 
Two recent reviews of the literature dealing with individual difference 

correlates of vigilance, performance have concluded that no single 

personality trait, or combination of traits, has yet been found that will 

account for more than a small portion of the total variance in task 

performance (Berch and Kantor, 1984; Davis and Parasuraman, 1982). 

Although Lundberg, et al. (1980) did find Type A's to be somewhat superior 

to Type B's in overall signal detection, it must be remembered that Type 

A's did not differ from Type B's in the rate of decline in signals detected 

(sustained attention) nor did the two types show much difference in their 

subjective response to the task. These findings, taken in conjunction with 

the negative findings of both the present study and the earlier one by 

Lundberg and Forsman (1979), would suggest that the Type A behavior pattern 

likewise accounts for relatively little of the variance in vigilance 

performance. While this could also suggest that selecting individuals on 

the basis of the Type A behavior pattern might contribute little toward 

predicting performance on future, highly automated ATC monitoring tasks, 

some caution should be exercised in this regard. The monitoring task used 

in the present study, although a reasonable approximation of future ATC 

task characteristics, cannot totally simulate the work/stress levels of 

operational environments, nor can it reasonably be used to study 

performance over the long duty periods that characterize real life work 

situations. These limitations are not unique to the present study; they 

represent common problems in generalizing from laboratory research to 

operational settings. However, because such factors (higher stress levels 

and longer duty periods) could conceivably alter relationships of the Type 

A pattern to monitoring performance in ways that are presently unknown, 

applying the findings of the present study to future operational monitoring 

situations should be made with this caution in mind. 

13 
References 

(Ed.), Sustained attention -in - human performance. New York: Wiley. 

Cartwright, L. B. (1973). The effects of broadband noise on certain 

parameters of the cardiovascular system in normal resting adults. 

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma. 

Chesney M. A. and Rosenman, R. H. (1980). Type A behavior in the work setting. 

In C. L. Cooper and R. Payne (Eds.), Current concerns in occupational 

stress. New York: Wiley. 

- 

Craig, A. (1984). Human engineering: The control of vigilance. In J. S. Warm 

(Ed.), Sustained attention -in - human performance. New York: Wiley. 

Davis, D. R. and Parasuraman, R. (1982). - The psychology of vigilance. 

New York: Academic Press. 

- 

Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. 

New York: Knopf. 

-- --- 

Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. 

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

- 

Jenkins, C. D., Rosenman, R. H., and Zyzanski, S. J. (1974). Prediction of 

clinical coronary heart disease by a test for the coronary-prone behavior 

pattern. - New England Journal - of Medicine, - 23, 1271-1275. 

Lundberg, U. and Forsman, L. (1979). Adrenal-medullary and adrenal-cortical 

responses to understimulation and overstimulation: Comparison between 

Type A and Type B persons. Biological Psychology, - 9, 79-89. 

Lundberg, P. K., Warm, J. S., Seeman, W., and Porter, P. K. Vigilance and . 

the Type A individual: Attentive, aroused, and able. Paper presented 

at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Chicago, April 

1980. 

- --- -- 

Mackie, R. R. (1984). Research relevance and the information glut. In F. A. 

Muckler (Ed.), Human Factors Review. Santa Monica, CA: The Human 

Factors Society, Inc. 

Matthews, K. A. (1982). Psychological perspectives on the Type A behavior 

pattern. Psychological Bulletin, - 91, 293-323. 

Thackray, R. I. (1982). Some effects of noise on monitoring performance and 

physiological response. Academic Psychology Bulletin, - 4, 73-81. 

Thackray, R. I. and Touchstone, R. M. (1980). Visual search performance during 

simulated radar observation with and without a sweepline. Aviation, 

Spacet - and Environmental Medicine, - 51,361-366. 

Warm, J. S. (1986). Personal communication.