{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015902712815715623, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.149425287356322, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Influence of personal and universal failure on the subsequent performance of persons with type A and type B behavior patterns.

We conducted this experiment to compare the task performance of Type A and Type B persons following failure on a task in which no one succeeded (universal failure) versus failure on a task in which others had succeeded (personal failure). Postfailure performance was measured in terms of speed of completion of anagrams. Initial analyses indicated that the failure manipulation was effective in influencing the subjects' perceived cause of their failures, and that subjects were more anxious and depressed following personal failure than universal failure. More important, we found that Type A subjects performed better following personal rather than universal failure, whereas type of failure had no effect on the performance of Type B subjects. The results suggest that contrary to what is usually thought, Type A persons do not struggle for success indiscriminately. The results are discussed in terms of need for control and self-esteem.