Icosa vs Type A/B/C/D
Type A/B/C/D captures 75% of Icosa's capacity structure with a focus on stress physiology and health correlates — uniquely among all frameworks compared here, it explicitly maps health states and is clinically useful for somatic and stress-related presentations.
Overview
The Type A/B distinction originated in cardiology, not psychology. Cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman identified in the 1950s that their patients’ chairs were worn at the front edges — a sign of forward-leaning, impatient posture — and subsequently developed the Type A construct as a cardiovascular risk factor. Their 1974 book Type A Behavior and Your Heart formalized the model. Type A (competitive, time-urgent, hostile) and Type B (relaxed, non-competitive) were followed by Type C (conflict-avoidant, emotionally suppressed — proposed by Lydia Temoshok in the 1980s in cancer psychology) and Type D (Distressed — proposed by Johan Denollet in the 1990s, combining negative affect with social inhibition, associated with poor cardiac outcomes).
This comparison is the only one in Icosa’s comparison family where all four types explicitly address health states and medical risk. The clinical value for Icosa users is bidirectional: ABCD type provides a health-risk anchor that Icosa’s standard profile does not emphasize, while Icosa’s structural precision clarifies the mechanism behind ABCD’s health correlations.
What This Framework Captures
Type A/B/C/D captures approximately 75% of Icosa’s capacity structure. Coverage weights:
- Capacities: 70% — Complete mapping for all four types. Type A = V+F+ (high drive, urgency, aggression), Type B = centered capacities (balanced activation), Type C = V-B- (suppressed expression), Type D = O-B-V- (generalized withdrawal and social inhibition). The mapping is complete but capacity states are inferred from health descriptions rather than directly measured.
- Domains: 35% — Limited but improved domain coverage. Type A’s coronary-prone pattern maps to Physical domain (somatic arousal, cardiac activation). Type D includes Physical domain somatization. Types C and D have Emotional domain suppression signatures. Relational, Mental, and Spiritual domains are largely not addressed by ABCD theory.
- Coherence: 50% — Type B’s health profile corresponds to higher coherence (centered, integrated, lower physiological arousal). Types A, C, and D correspond to lower coherence in Icosa’s model: Type A through V+F+ over-activation (fragile integration under pressure), Type C through suppression (coherence without authentic expression), Type D through global withdrawal (collapsed capacity profile).
- Traps: 20% — Types C and D have partial trap correspondence. Type C’s emotional suppression pattern maps to Icosa’s withdrawal trap family. Type D’s combination of negative affect and social inhibition maps to a systemic trap state across multiple capacity clusters. Trap specificity is limited.
- Gateways: 10% — Not directly represented.
What This Framework Misses
Domain specificity beyond stress response. ABCD types describe how a person responds to stress but do not provide information about where in Icosa’s domain space (Mental, Relational, Spiritual, Physical, Emotional) this stress response originates or concentrates. A Type A person’s V+F+ over-activation may be driven primarily by Mental domain pressure (competitive academic), Relational domain pressure (status-driven social competition), or Physical domain pressure (athletic perfectionism) — ABCD theory treats these identically.
Spiritual meaning and purpose. None of the four ABCD types address meaning-making, transcendence, or spiritual engagement. These are clinically relevant for all four health profiles (lack of meaning contributes to Type D’s dysphoria; existential urgency can underlie Type A’s time pressure) but are outside ABCD theory’s scope.
Trap patterns with structural precision. While Type C and D presentations approach Icosa’s trap territory, ABCD theory describes behavioral and physiological outcomes rather than the geometric attractor structure, oscillation signature, and gateway blockage that define Icosa’s trap model.
Relational depth. ABCD theory addresses social behavior (Type D’s social inhibition, Type A’s hostility in conflict) but does not model relational dynamics at the depth Icosa’s Bond capacity and Relational domain provide.
Confidence Methodology
Base confidence: 0.75. The moderate confidence reflects the ABCD framework’s coarser granularity and its origins in medical rather than psychological measurement. The four types represent extreme-state descriptions rather than a continuous trait model, which introduces additional uncertainty in translation to Icosa’s continuous state space.
Per-type confidence range: 0.73–0.80. Types vary significantly:
- Type B: 0.80 — Clearest mapping (centered capacities, high coherence expectation, direct analog to Icosa’s centered state)
- Type A: 0.78 — V+F+ over with stress-driven activation; well-defined mapping
- Type D: 0.76 — O-B-V- withdrawal cluster; well-defined mapping but complex multi-capacity suppression
- Type C: 0.73 — Weakest mapping; V- and B- suppression is defined, but the passive/compliant behavioral profile makes capacity direction ambiguous
Health-coherence correspondence. Type B’s lower disease risk and higher wellbeing outcomes align with Icosa’s prediction that centered, high-coherence profiles have better stress resilience and recovery capacity. This provides health-validated grounding for Icosa’s coherence construct.
Coverage Matrix
| Icosa Dimension | ABCD Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Open capacity | 60% | B (centered), C (under), D (under) |
| Move capacity | 75% | A (over), B (centered), C (under), D (under) |
| Focus capacity | 65% | A (over), B (centered), C (centered), D (under) |
| Bond capacity | 65% | B (centered), C (under), D (under) |
| Physical domain | 45% | A (cardiovascular), B (regulated) |
| Emotional domain | 55% | C (suppressed), D (negative affect), A (over-reactive) |
| Mental domain | 20% | A (time urgency) partial |
| Relational domain | 30% | D (social inhibition) only |
| Spiritual domain | 5% | Not addressed |
| Coherence | 50% | B analog, A/C/D as low-coherence markers |
| Traps | 20% | C and D withdrawal patterns |
| Gateways | 10% | Not represented |
Type-by-Type Mapping
| ABCD Type | Primary Icosa Mapping | Confidence | Coherence Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type A | V+ over (0.90), F+ over (0.80), O+ under (0.50), B+ under (0.55) | 0.78 | 40–70 |
| Type B | O+ centered (0.70), F+ centered (0.70), B+ centered (0.65), V+ centered (0.65) | 0.80 | 60–90 |
| Type C | V+ under (0.85), B+ under (0.60), O+ under (0.55), F+ centered; E+ under (0.80) | 0.73 | 35–65 |
| Type D (Distressed) | O+ under (0.85), B+ under (0.80), V+ under (0.70), F+ under (0.50); E+ over (0.70), R+ under (0.75) | 0.76 | 25–55 |
Capacity key: O=Open, V=Move, F=Focus, B=Bond. Domain key: P=Physical, E=Emotional, M=Mental, R=Relational, S=Spiritual.
Bidirectional Translation
ABCD → Icosa is most useful as a health-risk anchor. A known Type A presentation translates to: V+ elevated, F+ elevated, likely O+ under, B+ under; Emotional domain over-reactive probable; coherence expectation 40–70. This starting point flags stress-vulnerability and capacity over-extension patterns that warrant direct Icosa assessment.
Type C or D presentations translate to withdrawal-trap-risk starting points. Type D (O-B-V- combined with negative affect) is among the clearest single-type predictors of active trap state in Icosa’s comparison family. Clinical priority: assess gateway states and coherence directly.
The 30% reverse discount applies. ABCD types provide capacity cluster anchoring but leave domain specificity (particularly Spiritual and Mental), trap structural detail, and center oscillations unresolved.
Icosa → ABCD is useful for communicating Icosa findings to medical providers unfamiliar with the Icosa model. An Icosa profile with V+F+ over and coherence below 50 translates to Type A risk language. An Icosa profile with global under-expression and low coherence translates to Type D risk language. This translation direction has clinical communication value in integrated care settings.
State-vs-Type Divergence: Clinical Utility
A critical clinical observation: ABCD types describe habitual patterns, but Icosa measures current state. A person with Type A behavioral history who presents with a centered, high-coherence Icosa profile is not inconsistent — it indicates that this person has either developed stress regulation resources or is currently in a lower-demand environment. This divergence is clinically informative: it can reveal growth (genuine capacity development) or masking (surface-level behavioral change without structural integration).
Similarly, a Type B person (appearing relaxed, non-competitive) may carry significant incoherence in Spiritual or Emotional domains that ABCD theory’s behavioral focus cannot detect. Icosa’s coherence measure provides clinical information beyond what behavioral self-report instruments access.
Research Basis
- Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1974). Type A Behavior and Your Heart. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Temoshok, L. (1987). Personality, coping style, emotion and cancer. Cancer Surveys, 6(3), 545–567.
- Denollet, J. (2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(1), 89–97.
- Denollet, J., & Conraads, V.M. (2011). Type D personality and vulnerability to adverse outcomes in heart disease. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 78(Suppl 1), S13–19.
- Icosa Validation Study (2026). ABCD-to-Icosa structural mapping: health-coherence correspondence analysis. Type B → Icosa centered state r=0.75. Type D → Icosa low coherence r=0.71.
Interactive Explorer
Select a Type A/B/C/D type below to see which Icosa centers it maps to. Switch between views to explore capacity targets, domain emphasis, and structural blind spots.
Type A
Competitive, ambitious, time-urgent, hostile when frustrated. Associated with higher stress and cardiovascular risk.
- Spiritual meaning (not addressed)
- Trap patterns (not modeled)
- Relational depth (limited)
See how your profile translates
Take the Assessment →