Type A or Type B Personality Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Not sure
- Agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Agree
- Strongly agree
- Strongly disagree
- Disagree
- Agree
- Strongly agree
Type A or Type B Personality Test - Description and methodology of the test
People reflecting on pace, competitiveness, and responses to pressure can use this type a vs type b quiz to organize everyday observations. It is intended for readers considering how they handle work habits, deadlines, interruptions, and changing plans, rather than seeking a fixed identity label. This assessment is a Type A or Type B personality test, presenting tendencies across several situations and highlighting patterns worth examining further.
What This Assessment Explores
Questions cover deadlines, delays, achievement, conflict, and priorities. This Type A-Type B personality test contrasts urgency with adaptability. Scores reveal mixed patterns.
The dimensions are:
- Time-Urgency & Stress Reactivity (0-20) shows how pressured you feel by time and how strongly you react to deadlines, interruptions, delays, and similar stressors; higher scores mean greater time urgency and stress reactivity, lower scores mean a more unhurried, steady response; Low 0-6, Moderate 7-13, High 14-20.
- Type A Tendency (0-40) measures drive, competitiveness, time urgency, impatience, and intensity; higher scores mean more Type A traits; lower scores, fewer; Lower Type A 0-13, Moderate Type A 14-26, Higher Type A 27-40.
- Type B Tendency (0-40) measures calmness, patience, flexibility, a laid-back approach, and low time pressure; higher scores mean more Type B traits; lower scores, fewer; Low Type B 0-13, Moderate Type B 14-26, High Type B 27-40.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Questions use self-report agreement responses, from strong disagreement to strong agreement, sometimes with "Not sure." Items cover pace, deadlines, interruptions, achievement, flexibility, and conflict. Results depend on reporting usual reactions rather than an idealized self-image.
Responses are combined into three displayed scores, but no standardized point-conversion rule is stated for each answer. The ranges and bands are the instrument’s reporting framework, not population norms; interpret the dimensions together. This assessment produces Type A vs Type B personality test results that are most useful as a pattern.
Conceptually, the approach aligns with the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins et al., 1967), which assessed Type A activity and behavior patterns. Friedman and Rosenman described the pattern, Bortner and Rosenman offered another measure, and Thoresen and Powell reviewed later theory and assessment. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with these works; its profile is not interchangeable with scores from their published measures.
Workload, mood, self-awareness, and socially desirable responding can shape answers. Its score pattern shows that this Type A vs Type B test captures relative tendencies, not a clinical conclusion.
- Jenkins, C. David, Ray H. Rosenman, and Meyer Friedman. "Development of an objective psychological test for the determination of the coronary-prone behavior pattern in employed men." Journal of Chronic Diseases 20, no. 6 (1967): 371-379. DOI 10.1016/0021-9681(67)90010-0
- Friedman, Meyer, and Ray H. Rosenman. "Association of specific overt behavior pattern with blood and cardiovascular findings; blood cholesterol level, blood clotting time, incidence of arcus senilis, and clinical coronary artery disease." Journal of the American Medical Association 169, no. 12 (1959): 1286-1296. DOI 10.1001/jama.1959.03000290012005
- Bortner, Robert W., and Ray H. Rosenman. "The measurement of pattern A behavior." Journal of Chronic Diseases 20, no. 7 (1967): 525-533. DOI 10.1016/0021-9681(67)90083-5
- Thoresen, Carl E., and Lynda H. Powell. "Type A behavior pattern: New perspectives on theory, assessment, and intervention." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60, no. 4 (1992): 595-604. DOI 10.1037/0022-006X.60.4.595
Updated: