Type A, B, C and D Personalities Compared: Traits and Evidence Behind Each

What these four labels actually are

Type A, B, C, and D personality sound like one system with four parts, largely because of the shared letters, but they come from three separate research traditions built decades apart, for different purposes, with very different amounts of supporting evidence. Grouping them here is a convenience for anyone comparing the labels, not a claim that they form a single, coherent model.

Type A and Type B come from the earliest and most famous of the four, cardiologist Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman's 1959 description of a hard-driving, hostile-prone behavior pattern they observed in heart patients, later popularized in their 1974 book Type A Behavior and Your Heart. Type A and Type B are opposite ends of one measured scale, not two unrelated categories.

Type C arrived later, in 1987, from a different field entirely, psycho-oncology, through psychologist Lydia Temoshok's hypothesis about a cancer-linked personality style. Type D developed in a separate line of research, with its DS14 measure published in 2005 by researcher Johan Denollet, and returned the letter system to cardiology with a more rigorously measured construct than either of its predecessors.

Consider each label alongside the specific claim being made about it: a description of behavior, a questionnaire score, or a proposed link with health. Those claims require different evidence. A questionnaire can describe tendencies without proving that they cause disease, and findings in cardiac patients cannot automatically be applied to everyone who recognizes a similar pattern in themselves.

How each pattern is defined

Type A and Type B are defined by three measured components: time urgency, the felt pressure of the clock; achievement striving, competitive drive and high standards; and hostility, a quick trigger for irritation and a cynical read on other people. Our Type A Personality Test summarizes answers about these tendencies, with higher overall results leaning toward Type A and lower results leaning toward Type B. These result bands belong to this self-assessment and should not be treated as clinical thresholds.

Type C is defined more loosely, as a cluster of traits observed in some cancer patients: cooperation to a fault, difficulty expressing anger or other negative emotion, and a tendency to appease and comply rather than assert. It has no standardized scoring scale in wide clinical use, which is one reason it remains a hypothesis rather than a measured construct.

Type D is defined precisely, as the combination of two traits measured by a specific instrument, the DS14: negative affectivity, a general tendency toward worry and gloom, and social inhibition, a reluctance to express that distress to others. A person is classified as Type D only when both traits cross a defined threshold together, not when either trait is high on its own.

Type A: the driven, time-urgent pattern

Type A describes a fast-moving, competitive way of relating to time and other people: clock-watching, multitasking, a need to win even casual competitions, and a short fuse that can tip into open hostility. It is the high band of our Type A Personality Test and the pattern most people mean when they use the phrase in everyday conversation.

The cited meta-analysis by Myrtek found little support for the overall Type A pattern as a predictor of coronary heart disease, with a small association for hostility. That difference matters: ambition, impatience, and hostility should not be treated as interchangeable health risks. The full Type A explainer discusses the pattern in more detail, including how to reflect on pressure and irritation in everyday situations.

Type B: the relaxed, even-paced pattern

Type B sits at the low end of the same scale that produces Type A: a relaxed relationship with time, a lighter approach to competition, and a slow fuse that rarely tips into hostility. It was originally defined by contrast, as the pattern shown by heart patients who did not display the Type A profile Friedman and Rosenman were studying.

The research is kinder to this pattern than the original theory implied it needed to be, since low hostility sits on the favorable side of the one component that meta-analyses consistently link to cardiovascular risk. The full page on Type B personality covers its strengths, its own blind spots around being underestimated, and where it fits at work and in relationships.

A relaxed pace also needs context. When thinking about Type B at work, ask whether you meet commitments, communicate delays, and make room for recovery after demanding tasks. Use those concrete examples to discuss work habits. The label alone cannot establish competence, motivation, or suitability for a job, and it should not replace evidence about how someone performs their responsibilities.

Type A B C D personalities compared: Type A vs Type B under the same deadline

Type A vs Type B becomes clearer when achievement and urgency are separated. Imagine two adults preparing equally carefully for a deadline. One feels constantly behind, becomes irritated by interruptions, and treats small delays as a contest. The other works steadily, checks progress, and can pause without feeling that the pause itself is a failure. The difference is the relationship to pressure, not whether the work matters.

Bortner’s 1969 paper proposed a short rating scale for Pattern A behavior, a specific measurement effort rather than a four-letter personality taxonomy. That history matters when comparing A and B with the later C and D labels. Use the A-B contrast to describe pace, competition, and irritation in the same situation; do not infer the presence of C or D from how quickly someone works.

Type C: the contested hypothesis

Type C describes a cooperative, unassertive, emotion-suppressing style that psychologist Lydia Temoshok proposed in 1987 as a possible cancer-prone pattern, almost the mirror image of Type A's outward hostility. Psychology.com provides an explainer rather than a Type C test result. A description of difficulty expressing emotion cannot establish a cancer-prone personality, and the proposed health link should never be presented as a fact about a reader.

This is the weakest evidence base of the four patterns on this page. Systematic reviews since, including a 2002 BMJ analysis and a 2004 Clinical Psychology Review, found no consistent evidence connecting coping style or personality to cancer survival, recurrence, or development. The full explainer on Type C personality lays out the history and the evidence honestly, without repeating the cancer claim as fact.

The cancer reviews also ask different questions. Petticrew and colleagues examined coping after a cancer diagnosis in relation to survival and recurrence. Garssen reviewed psychological factors in cancer development. Neither review gives a basis for telling a person that suppressing anger caused their cancer or that expressing emotions will control the disease. Emotional support can be sought for distress without making a claim about cancer outcomes.

Type D: the distressed personality pattern

Type D combines negative affectivity with social inhibition, holding chronic worry or gloom inside rather than sharing it with other people. Researcher Johan Denollet formalized the construct with the DS14 scale in a 2005 paper, giving it a level of measurement precision that neither Type A's original theory nor Type C ever had at their outset.

It sits in the middle of this page's evidence spectrum: a real, active, self-correcting research literature links it to worse outcomes in people who already have cardiovascular disease, though the size of that link has shrunk under scrutiny in the largest recent studies. The full explainer on Type D personality covers the construct, the debate, and how it differs from its neighbors.

Type A B C D personalities compared: Type C vs Type D when someone stays quiet

Silence in a disagreement does not distinguish Type C from Type D. A Type C description centers on suppressing negative emotion and accommodating others. Type D combines negative affectivity with social inhibition. The additional question is whether ongoing negative feelings and reluctance to express oneself occur together, rather than simply whether a person voiced anger on one occasion.

For example, someone may avoid stating a preference to keep a meeting pleasant without reporting the persistent worry described by Type D. Someone else may feel worried and hold back because speaking feels uncomfortable. Those examples illustrate different ideas, not categories that can be assigned from observation alone. The labels come from separate research traditions, so compare the described components directly. Neither quietness nor emotional restraint supplies an explanation for a person’s physical health.

How to find out where you land

Type A and Type B are the two patterns you can actually get a result for. Our free Type A Personality Test scores time urgency, achievement striving, and hostility separately, then gives an overall band from strong Type B lean through strong Type A pattern, along with an optional in-depth report for anyone who wants a more detailed breakdown to bring to a therapist or coach.

Psychology.com does not provide a Type C or Type D test result. Type C's proposed cancer link is not established, while Type D is assessed in research with a separate instrument, the DS14. The Stress Level Test and Mental Health Assessment concern broader distress; neither should be interpreted as a substitute Type C or Type D score.

A practical way to use all four pages together: take the Type A Personality Test first, since it is the only one with an actual score, then read whichever of the four full pages matches your result and curiosity, Type A, Type B, Type C, or Type D, for the deeper history, evidence, and, where one exists, growth guidance specific to that pattern.

Use the Psychology.com Type A Personality Test at /tests/type-a-personality as a self-assessment. Then try the stress diary tool at /tools/stress-diary to record a situation that brought out urgency or irritation, what you expected, and how you responded. A specific example, such as interrupting during a deadline discussion, offers a clearer starting point for reflection than simply calling yourself Type A.

Read the component scores alongside the overall label. For example, ask whether you enjoy demanding goals, feel rushed even when a deadline is distant, or become irritated when someone interrupts. These questions concern different aspects of the pattern. In your stress diary, describe what you actually did and what you would like to handle differently. A goal such as letting a colleague finish speaking is easier to act on than trying to become a different personality type.

What the research says, across all four

Taken together, these four labels are a useful case study in how personality-and-health science actually progresses: an early, compelling theory, Type A, generates decades of follow-up research that ultimately narrows the claim to a smaller, more defensible piece, hostility, rather than confirming the original broad idea. A related theory in a different field, Type C, generates its own follow-up research that does not confirm the original claim at all. A later, more carefully measured construct, Type D, arrives with better methodology from the start and produces a real, if still debated, research base.

All of these labels belong in education and self-reflection. They describe behavior patterns or research hypotheses, with different levels of supporting evidence. A quiz cannot turn an association observed across research participants into a personal medical forecast. If you have concerns about your physical health, discuss your symptoms and medical history with a qualified health professional rather than relying on a personality result.

Common misconceptions

The most common misconception is that all four letters form one validated system with mutually exclusive categories. They do not; they arose from separate research efforts that happen to share a letter-naming convention and a general interest in personality and physical health.

A second common misconception is that a high Type A score, or a Type C or Type D description, functions as a personal health risk calculation. None of these constructs works that way. Even where a real, replicated link exists, as with Type A's hostility component or Type D in cardiac patients, the finding describes a population-level pattern across many people, not a specific prediction about any one individual's health.

A third misconception, especially around Type C, is that a personality description can explain why someone became ill. Systematic review after systematic review has found no support for that specific claim, and treating illness as evidence of a personality flaw is neither accurate nor kind.

If pressure, anger, or difficulty sharing feelings is affecting your relationships or daily life, the Psychology.com therapist directory at /therapist/ can help you look for professional support. Describe the behavior you want help with and the situations in which it occurs. You do not need to prove that a personality label fits before asking for that support.