QUARTERLY HOMOEPATHIC DIGEST Year 1990, Vol.VII
© Centre For Excellence In Homeopathy 31
organizing ability. He is active and
aggressive but productivity is
inhibited by anxiety. Inner
creativity is extremely limited, the
inner life being dominated by
infantile instinctive drives. Strong
hostile aggressive impulses
associated particularly with sex
arouse feelings of guilt and of inner
tension as he attempts to repress
them. Emotional responses to the
outer world are limited and when
given are violent, uncontrolled and
diffuse. he lacks subtle adaptive
responses, and sensitivity to
nuances in his environment. Moods
and feelings are not stable,
however, He is highly reactive,
displaying infantile aggressiveness,
oral dependence, guilt, depression
and anxiety regarding his
adjustment… (He) strives
compulsively to achieve goals
incorporating power and prestige.
Limitation of the introversive
experiences of creative thought and
imaginative reflection increases the
dependence upon achievements in
the external world for satisfaction
and security… although they try to
keep their strong aggressive
impulses under control, they
manage to justify to themselves a
good deal of outwardly expressed
hostility.”
Kemple’s description influenced
Friedman in his description of the
aggressive, ambitious, and impatient
‘type A’. Friedman et al (1987)
speculated that persistent struggle
resulted in a chronic state of
hyperarousal, both physiological and
behavioural, which manifested itself in
the way in which individuals acted
(e.g. rapid, abrupt speech), what they
said (e.g. perceiving others as
challenging their control of situations),
Furthermore, he reasoned that
underlying such behaviours was a basic
profound feeling of insecurity, a
pervasive doubt about the level of their
value in certain contexts, such as at
home or at work. This insecurity
seemed to be linked to a fear that the
person was not genuinely respected
and admired by others, and heightened
arousal was associated with a constant
striving to seek the symbols of
recognition was reward as a way of
allaying what appeared to be basic
fears of inadequacy and insecurity.
Hence, the type-A behaviour pattern
served to diminish feelings of
insecurity or self-doubt and was
strongly reinforcing (Thoresen et al,
1985).
The type-A behaviour pattern has
been found to double the risk of
myocardial infarction, while attempts
to change this behaviour pattern have
resulted in a decreased risk of recurrent
myocardial infarction (Rosenman etal,
1976; Friedman et al, 1987). The
predictive power of the type-A
behaviour pattern was confirmed in the
Framingham study and in numerous
case-control studies (Haynes &
Feinleib, 1982; Matthews & Haynes,
1986). However a prospective study,
which used a structured interview to
assess type-A behaviour, could not
replicate the original findings (Shekelle
et al, 1985). Furthermore, Ragland &
Brand (1988) observed that type-A
behaviour is inversely related to
survival after myocardial infarction.
It is hard to integrate the old
findings with the recent ones. Any
attempt to do so would be beyond the
scope of this paper. Suffice it to say
that in recent years several scientists
have directed their attention to one of
the behavioural components leading to
susceptibility to coronary problems
mentioned by Kemple, namely
hostility. This factor was found to be
the strongest predictive component of
type-A behaviour in the Western
Collaboration Group Study and was
also found to be associated with future