- Email: [email protected]
Development of a short form of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire: its use in measuring personality and adjustment among Russian adolescents
Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Development of a short form of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire: its use in measuring personality and adjustment among Russian adolescents Helena R. Slobodskayaa, Gennadij G. Knyazeva, Margarita V. Safronovaa, Glenn D. Wilsonb,* a
State Research Institute of Physiology, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Timakova Str., 4, Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia b Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK Received 7 February 2002; received in revised form 17 September 2002; accepted 16 October 2002
Abstract The development of a short form of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire (GWPQ-S) is described. On the basis of earlier, cross-cultural factor analyses of the original 120 items and 6 subscales it was decided to reduce the test to two major scales, the behavioural activation system (BAS) and the behavioural inhibition system (BIS). Although these bear similarity to the familiar factors of impulsiveness and anxiety, they differ in being derived from a pool of items specifically designed to tap human equivalents of the animal learning paradigms central to Gray’s personality theory (approach, active avoidance, passive avoidance, extinction, fight and flight). Item reduction was based on factor loadings from a new sample of 454 Russian adolescents and correlations with previously validated criteria—teacher, parent and self-ratings of conduct and emotional problems. Despite the additional constraint of balanced direction of scoring (an advantage over previous BAS/BIS Scales), satisfactory internal consistency was achieved with a 28 item test (alphas of 0.67 and 0.64). # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Behavioural activation; Behavioural inhibition; Personality; Gray’s theory; Adolescent adjustment
1. Introduction The Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire (GWPQ; Wilson, Barrett, & Gray, 1989) was designed to measure human equivalents of six animal learning and behaviour paradigms basic to * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-20-7848-0254; fax: +44-20-7708-3497. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.D. Wilson). 0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00317-3
1050
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
Gray’s theory of personality. The six traits measured are Approach and Active Avoidance (together said to comprise an Activation system), Passive Avoidance and Extinction (comprising an Inhibition system) and Fight and Flight (two components of a general emergency Fight/Flight system). Activation was conceived as relating to conditioned signals of impending reward (i.e. incentives), Inhibition to conditioned signals of threatened punishment (or frustrative nonreward) while Fight–Flight has recently been added by Gray as a third major system concerned with responses to unconditioned aversive events. These three behavioural systems were conceived as fairly independent, having separate neurological underpinnings that vary in reactivity from one individual to another, thus producing observable personality differences that are comparable across species, including humans. Given the difficulty in devising scales that were both balanced for direction of scoring and that did not impinge conceptually on more than one learning paradigm, it is perhaps not surprising that factor analyses in Britain (Wilson, Gray, & Barrett, 1990), Japan (Wilson, Barrett, & Iwawaki, 1995) and Russia (Slobodskaya, Safronova, Knyazev, & Wilson, 2001) only partly matched the six trait a priori structure of the GWPQ. More importantly, the hypothesized pairings of the six traits into three major systems was not supported. Approach was associated with Fight rather than Active Avoidance (indeed Approach was negatively related to Active Avoidance). Passive Avoidance was associated with Extinction but equally so with Flight. Factor analysis of scale scores (Knyazev, Slobodskaya, & Wilson, 2002; Slobodskaya et al., 2001) confirmed Gray’s earlier (1973) two-factor theory of personality, which posited only two primary independent systems that are increasingly coming to be called the Behavioural Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). The first refers to sensitivity to signals of reward and relief from punishment and goes with approach behaviour, impulsive reward-seeking and hedonism. The second refers to sensitivity to signals of punishment and frustrative non-reward, promoting dislike of novelty, rapid withdrawal from danger and strong feelings of anxiety. As conceptualization of Gray’s personality dimensions develops, so the instruments used to measure them need to be reconsidered. The weak features of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire are the unsatisfactory internal consistency of scales and lack of factor analytical support for the hypothesized three-factor structure. On the positive side, are cross-cultural stability of the constructs measured by the GWPQ and gender differences (Corr, Kumari, & Wilson, 1997; Wilson et al., 1995) and their predictive validity (Slobodskaya et al., 2001). It is generally recognized that psychometric properties, such as reliability are enhanced by increasing the number of items. Nevertheless, some of the short scales developed for practical purposes have been shown to function reliably (Francis, 1996; Francis & Pearson, 1988). A short questionnaire has considerable advantages in large projects with many pencil and paper tests, and may be particularly helpful for use among adolescents. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to develop and explore the properties of a short form of the GWPQ and to do so within the theoretical and empirical context of the relationship between adolescent personality and adjustment.
2. Method A sample of 454 Russian adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17 years attending state maintained secondary schools in Novosibirsk completed the 96 items of the Russian version of
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
1051
the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire (Slobodskaya et al, 2001). The questionnaires were administered in school time by teachers as part of the regular curriculum. The sample comprised 204 boys and 250 girls. Adolescent adjustment was measured by a Russian translation of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire completed by teachers, parents and adolescents (SDQ, Goodman, 1997; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998). The SDQ is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire that asks about 25 attributes, some positive and others negative. The 25 items are divided between five scales of five items each, generating scores for Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity–Inattention, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems and Prosocial Behaviour; all but the last are summed to generate a Total Difficulties score. Teachers provided SDQs for 279 children within our sample (117 boys and 162 girls), self report versions were obtained for 196 children (86 boys and 110 girls), and parents provided SDQs for 53 children (17 boys and 36 girls). A sample of 108 adolescents between the ages of 11 and 16 years attending the sixth to tenth year classes of state-maintained secondary schools in Novosibirsk completed the short form of the GWPQ (GWPQ-S) developed at the first phase of the present study. This sample comprised 57 boys and 51 girls.
3. Results The 96 items of the GWPQ were subjected to principal components analysis and 35 factors were extracted with eigenvalues over 1, accounting for 62% of variance. These were rotated using Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. The first two factors accounted for 6.56 and 5.43% of variance, respectively and the third factor accounted for 2.85% with a smooth decrease thereafter. Hence there seems to be an ‘‘elbow’’ after the first two factors, indicating that a two-factor solution is reasonable (Everitt & Dunn, 2001). At the next step, therefore, the number of factors was restricted to two, these representing the BAS and BIS, respectively. The highest loadings on these two rotated factors are shown in Table 1. Items in the BAS pool were derived mostly from the original scales of Fight, Active Avoidance and Approach, while BIS items came mainly from the Flight, Passive Avoidance and Extinction scales of the six-factor scoring system. This pool of 50 items was used as the basis of further selection. Since it has previously been established that an over-active BIS is associated with anxiety and emotional problems while an over-active BAS predicts conduct disorders, it may be expected that psychometric measures of BIS and BAS will be related to measures of adolescent adjustment. On this logic, we used the correlations of GWPQ items with SDQ scale scores as a second criterion for the selection of items. For the BAS Scale we selected items which showed highest correlations with SDQ Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity Scales, while for the BIS Scale those that correlated most highly with SDQ Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems Scales were selected. Because there is evidence that teachers’ ratings of conduct problems are fairly reliable, while emotional problems are better evaluated by parents (Goodman, Ford, Simmons, Gatward, & Meltzer, 2000), we used teacher ratings of Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity and parent ratings of Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems. Self-ratings were used in addition for all problem scales. Table 2 shows significant correlations between the 50 GWPQ items selected at the first stage and SDQ measures of adolescent adjustment.
1052
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
Table 1 Loadings higher than 0.3 on two Oblimin rotated factors from the GWPQa Loading
Summary of item content
Item no.
A priori scale
I. Behavioural Activation System (6.56% of variance) 0.53 Curse audibly under duress 0.50 Felt like killing someone 0.49 Redouble efforts if teacher displeased 0.48 Careful to complete homework at school 0.46 Stay out of fights at school 0.45 Physical fights with other children 0.44 Carry coat/umbrella when rain threatens 0.43 Murder never contemplated 0.43 Buy clothes without trying on 0.42 Would tell lies to avoid trouble 0.41 Often unprepared for bad weather 0.40 Think carefully before buying 0.38 Blame somebody nearby if hurt accidentally 0.37 Would watch a fight at personal risk 0.37 Careful in buying clothes 0.37 Try, try again 0.36 Incur debts if credits available 0.36 Unable to bluff successfully 0.34 Avoid talking with throat infection 0.34 Kick yapping dog 0.33 Wait patiently for latecomer 0.32 Save present for opening on birthday 0.31 Easily resist bad habits 0.30 Carry on playing if losing money in game 0.30 Call police when burglars in the house
5 113 80 32 71 65 20 119 61 56 26 79 77 114 67 76 73 62 23 41 18 91 31 64 95
Fight+ Fight+ Actavoid+ Actavoid+ Fight Fight+ Actavoid+ Fight Approach+ Actavoid+ Actavoid Approach Fight+ Flight Approach Extinction Approach+ Actavoid Fight Fight+ Flight– Approach Approach Extinction Fight
II. Behavioural Inhibition System (5.43% of variance) 0.56 Panic in earthquake 0.53 Turn away at sight of blood 0.53 Easily embarrassed 0.51 Yelp with pain with twisted ankle 0.49 Take criticism to heart and ‘fall to pieces’ 0.47 Run if accosted by muggers 0.46 Remain still and calm faced with wild animal 0.44 ‘Lost for words’ in public speech 0.42 Remain calm and silent when hit with hammer 0.42 Stalwart and courageous in medical procedures 0.41 Avoid competition if likely to lose 0.40 Pull away when dentist hurts 0.40 Give up driving tests if failed twice 0.39 Enjoy challenging games 0.37 Able to attend severe wounds 0.37 Jump if car horn sounds close by 0.36 Brave when hurt at school 0.35 Flinch badly with injection
24 63 111 84 75 36 6 51 90 78 82 60 70 88 69 48 102 72
Flight+ Passavoid+ Passavoid+ Flight+ Passavoid+ Flight+ Flight Passavoid+ Flight Flight Extinction+ Flight+ Extinction+ Extinction Passavoid Flight+ Flight Flight+ (continued on next page)
1053
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059 Table 1 (continued) Loading 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 a
Summary of item content
Item no.
Placid and calm when events unpleasant Remain relaxed on hearing siren Hand over valuables if threatened Calm if nearly hit by car Blank mind in exams Easily resist food when dieting Would run from ferocious dog
11 105 42 54 27 19 120
A priori scale Fight Passavoid Flight Flight Passavoid+ Approach Flight+
Item numbers correspond to the original GWPQ (Wilson et al., 1989). N=454.
Items with the highest factor loadings and the highest correlations with psychopathology measures were considered for inclusion in the GWPQ-S. The third criterion for item selection was that of maintaining the original requirement that each scale be balanced for direction of scoring. (In the original construction of the GWPQ each item was matched with a near-equivalent reversal in order to eliminate endorsement response biases.) After consideration of all three selection criteria, 14 items were selected from the original GWPQ to represent each of the two major scales: BAS: 5+, 18 , 113+, 20 , 56+, 23 , 61+, 32 , 65+, 119 , 73+, 79 , 77+, 80 . BIS: 6 , 36+, 102 , 51+, 90 , 63+, 69 , 75+, 78 , 82+, 88 , 84+, 105 , 111+. In the final form of the GWPQ-S the order of items alternates between the two scales and the direction of scoring (for + items Yes=2, ?=1, No=0; for items No=2, ?=1, Yes=0). Table 3 shows means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients for the BAS and BIS scales. Their correlations with factor scores from the principal component analysis of the six GWPQ scales were 0.86 and 0.83, respectively (P<0.001). Comparisons between mates and females, using t tests, show that girls were significantly higher on the BIS Scale (t=8.63, P<0.001). There were no significant sex differences on the BAS Scale. Table 4 shows correlations between GWPQ-S Scales and SDQ measures of adolescent adjustment for boys and girls separately. As expected, BAS was positively correlated with Conduct Problems (teacher and self ratings in both sexes and parent ratings in boys). BAS was also positively associated with Hyperactivity (self ratings in both sexes and teacher ratings in girls). It was negatively related to Prosocial Behaviour (teacher and self-ratings in both sexes) and self-ratings for Peer Problems in girls. Consistent with expectations, and the logic of its construction, BIS was positively related to Emotional Symptoms (parent and self ratings in both sexes), the correlation with parent ratings in girls, although reasonably high, did not reach significance because of the small sample size. BIS was also positively correlated with some indices of Peer Problems (self-ratings in boys and parentratings in girls) and with self-ratings for Hyperactivity in boys. BIS was negatively related to teacher ratings for Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity in girls and to self-ratings for Prosocial Behaviour in boys. Overall, 22 correlations were significant at the 0.05 level, 21 of them in the expected direction. BAS predisposed to undercontrolled behaviour (conduct problems and hyperactivity) while BIS
1054
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
Table 2 Significant (P< 0.05) correlations between GWPQ item and SDQ scoresa Item no. I. BAS 5 113 80 32 71 65 20 119 61 56 26 77 114 67 76 73 62 23 41 18 91 31 64 95 II. BIS 63 111 84 75 36 6 51 90 78 82 60 88 69 48 72 105 42 27 19 120 a
Conduct problems
T
S
0.33 , 0.33
0.23T, 0.22S 0.23T, 0.24S 0.24T 0.17S 0.20T, 0.19S 0.18T, 0.23S 0.15T 0.27S 0.23S 0.20T 0.16S 0.18T, 0.26S 0.16T, 0.17S 0.16T, 0.17S 0.22T 0.16S 0.14S 0.12T 0.18T 0.23T
0.12T 0.14T 0.13T 0.17T
0.16S
Hyperactivity
Emotional symptoms
0.13T, 0.29S 0.24T, 0.17S 0.21S 0.16T, 0.18S 0.19T 0.25T 0.28S 0.22T 0.20T, 0.15S
Peer problems 0.19S
0.30S 0.22S 0.13T 0.23S 0.19S 0.12T, 0.22S
0.32P, 0.19S 0.16S
0.42P
0.23T 0.25S 0.15S 0.17S 0.16T 0.13T
0.16S
0.22T 0.17T, 0.31S 0.15T, 0.20S 0.18T, 0.14S 0.14T 0.14T, 0.19S 0.18T
0.28P, 0.34S 0.38S 0.21S 0.22S 0.16S
0.31P, 0.22S
0.28P, 0.31S 0.22S 0.25S 0.15S 0.21S 0.17S 0.18S
0.18S
0.15S
0.19S
0.12T, 0.12S 0.16S 0.15T
0.18S 0.17S
0.14S 0.18S
0.16S
0.27P
0.30P
0.30P,
0.15S
0.17T 0.18S 0.17S 0.19S 0.26S 0.12T
0.18S 0.22S
0.26P 0.18S 0.30P, 0.21S
GWPQ item numbers correspond to the original GWPQ (Wilson et al., 1989), SDQ—the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997; Goodman et al., 1998), T—Teacher version (N=279), P—Parent version (N=53), S—Self-report version (N=196).
1055
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059 Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and alphas for GWPQ-S Scales Scale
BAS BIS
Total sample (N=454)
Boys (N=204)
Girls (N=250)
M
S.D.
M
S.D.
M
S.D.
0.72 0.74
12.15 10.72
5.70 5.63
0.72 0.66
12.18 8.42
5.62 4.74
0.73 0.73
12.13 12.60
5.79 5.60
Table 4 Correlations between GWPQ-S scales and SDQ scores for females (males in parentheses) SDQ scores
GWPQ-S Scales BAS
BIS
Teacher report, N=162(117) Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviour
0.37** (0.27**) 0.33** (0.17) 0.03 (0.10) 0.04 ( 0.01) 0.23** ( 0.18*)
0.19* (0.04) 0.25** ( 0.05) 0.06 (0.11) 0.02 (0.07) 0.08 ( 0.07)
Parent report, N=36(17) Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviour
0.04 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.21
0.18 (0.09) 0.06 (0.06) 0.28 (0.54*) 0.47** (0.26) 0.18 (0.19)
Self-report, N=110(86) Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviour
0.37** (0.44**) 0.45** (0.30**) 0.03 (0.12) 0.19* (0.00) 0.29** ( 0.27**)
(0.56*) (0.12) (0.47) (0.42) ( 0.09)
0.00 (0.09) 0.17 (0.38**) 0.39** (0.35**) 0.16 (0.28**) 0.09 ( 0.25*)
SDQ—The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. * P< 0.05, two-tailed. ** P< 0.01, two-tailed.
predisposed to overcontrol and empathy (emotional and peer problems and prosocial behaviour). The positive association between BIS and self-ratings for hyperactivity could be an artifact arising from an overcritical view of themselves in high BIS individuals rather than a substantial contradiction. It has recently been shown in Britain that teenagers’ self-reports for hyperactivity and attention problems are the least useful of the SDQ measures (Goodman et al., 2000). At the second phase of development of the GWPQ-S, 108 adolescents, aged 11–16 years (57 boys and 51 girls) completed the new scales. The alpha coefficients for the BAS and BIS scales in
1056
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
this sample were 0.67 and 0.64, respectively. The 28 items of the GWPQ-S were subjected to principal components analysis and two factors were extracted, accounting for 22.05% of variance. These were rotated using Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. Table 5 shows the resulting factor loadings on the two factors together with GWPQ-S item number and content and the corresponding item number of the original GWPQ. These two factors had a negligible intercorrelation of 0.002. Inspection of these factor loadings reveals 21 items out of 28 to have been appropriate. Three items on the BIS scale (Nos. 4, 12 and 26) gave sizeable loadings on BAS, and two items on the BAS Scale (Nos. 3 and 25) produced sizeable BIS loadings. Two items (Nos. 11 and 13) loaded lower than 0.3 on both scales.
Table 5 Loadings on two Oblimin rotated factors from the GWPQ-S (N=108) Summary of item content
I. BIS
II. BAS
GWPQ item no.
BIS Scale 2. Remain still and calm faced with wild animal 4. Run if accosted by muggers 6. Brave when hurt at school 8. ‘Lost for words’ in public speech 10. Remain calm and silent when hit with hammer 12. Turn away at the sight of blood 14. Able to attend severe wounds 16. Take criticism to heart and ‘fall to pieces’ 18. Stalwart and courageous in medical procedures 20. Avoid competition if likely to lose 22. Enjoy challenging games 24. Yelp with pain with twisted ankle 26. Remain relaxed on hearing siren 28. Easily embarrassed
0.42 0.14 0.39 0.49 0.42 0.08 0.36 0.41 0.49 0.57 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.49
0.07 0.38 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.31 0.08 0.01 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.31 0.18
6 36 102 51 90 63 69 75 78 82 88 84 105 111
BAS Scale 1. Curse audibly under duress 3. Wait patiently for latecomer 5. Felt like killing someone 7. Carry coat/umbrella when rain threatens 9. Would tell lies to avoid trouble 11. Avoid talking with throat infection 13. Buy clothes without trying on 15. Careful to complete homework at school 17. Physical fights with other children 19. Murder never contemplated 21. Incur debts if credits available 23. Think carefully before buying 25. Blame somebody nearby if hurt accidentally 27. Redouble efforts if teacher displeased
0.26 0.38 0.11 0.05 0.29 0.02 0.26 0.06 0.18 0.13 0.22 0.08 0.38 0.18
0.60 0.03 0.57 0.33 0.57 0.18 0.14 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.37 0.40 0.14 0.64
5 18 113 20 56 23 61 32 65 119 73 79 77 80
11.63
10.42
% Of variance
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
1057
4. Discussion We have described the development of a short form of the GWPQ, yielding scores on the two main factors which consistently emerge from studies of personality within the framework of Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST; Pickering, Corr, Powell, Kumari, Thornton, & Gray, 1997). These two factors are usually described as the Behavioural Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). The 28-item scale was based on loadings on the two-factor solution that emerged naturally from a principal components analysis of the Russian 96-item version of the GWPQ. As an additional selection criterion, items were preferred that showed expected correlations with theoretical criterion measures of conduct and emotional difficulties, as assessed by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Conduct and emotional difficulties have previously been established as relating to BAS and BIS respectively (Slobodskaya et al., 2001). This short form shows satisfactory alphas with an independent sample (0.67 and 0.64), in fact, higher than all the alphas for the Russian version of the original GWPQ Scales. Several BIS and BAS Scales have previously been put forward (e.g. Carver & White, 1994; MacAndrew & Steele, 1991; Torrubia & Tobena, 1984). In addition, it has frequently been assumed that standard scales of impulsiveness and anxiety (or even EPQ quadrants of neuroticextraversion and neurotic-introversion) would serve as proxies (Jackson, 2001, 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to ask what advantage the current instrument may have over its predecessors. We suggest that the GWPQ-S is unique in deriving scales from a broad pool of items specially devised as human parallels of the animal learning paradigms pertinent to RST. MacAndrew and Steele use the MMPI as an item pool (a totally atheoretical source), while Torrubia and Tobena give little information as to how they constructed their ‘‘sensitivity to punishment’’ items, saying only that they chose ‘‘situations and behavioural habits that would allow differentiation between SP and non-SP individuals.’’ Carver and White began with an analysis of Gray’s theory but were uncertain as to what constituted the BAS and ended up with a split among three correlated subfactors, named ‘‘reward responsiveness’’, ‘‘drive’’ and ‘‘fun-seeking’’; as with Torrubia and Tobena, the BIS remained focused around sensitivity to punishment. The GWPQ-S (like its parent, the GWPQ) is also unique in balancing for endorsement response sets. We have previously argued that this is an excellent discipline in that there is a conceptual difficulty in producing scales that measure approach and avoidance that are not direct reversals of each other (Slobodskaya et al., 2001; Wilson, 1975). Unconstrained factor analysis has a tendency to group items that are scored in the same direction, thus confounding item content with response style and giving a spurious sense of independence between dimensions that are logical opposites. At the same time, internal consistency measures are artificially inflated. Torrubia and Tobena’s (1984) ‘‘sensitivity to punishment’’ scale, for example, has 35 positively scored items and only one negatively scored. In this instance, it is likely that ‘‘sensitivity to punishment’’ is to some extent confounded with a tendency to say ‘‘yes’’ rather than ‘‘no’’. MacAndrew and Steele’s BIS Scale, developed by empirical keying out of MMPI items, comes closer to being balanced but still has 22 out of 30 items that are scored for a ‘‘true’’ response (8 being scored for ‘‘false’’). Carver and White’s four scales are split (yes/no) as follows: 5/2, 4/0, 5/0, 4/0. Although reasonably high alphas are reported for these brief scales, it is clear that the items in each group tend to be close in content (besides being unbalanced with respect to scoring direction). Considering all, there appears to be a place for the BAS/BIS Scales described here, though it remains to apply them to
1058
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
larger community samples and in other cultural contexts, especially English-speaking countries where the GWPQ originated. Examining Table 5, it appears that further refinements could be made by reducing each scale to 10 items (yielding a test with a 20-item total). This could be achieved by removing four items from each scale which fail to show ‘‘correct’’ loadings on the second (independent) factor analysis. The items that might be eliminated would be 4, 6, 12, and 26 from the BAS Scale, and 3, 11, 13, 25 from the BIS. This would not affect the balance in terms of scoring direction. However, it may be premature to do this, since another factor analysis (with larger and more diverse samples) might spotlight different items as weak or inappropriate. We therefore propose to work further with the 28 item version given here before making any decisions about further editing. Finally, our results also bear on the validity and functioning of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. In accord with Goodman et al. (2000), a detailed study of Table 2 confirms that teacher reports are the least sensitive to ‘‘internalizing’’ (BIS) problems but the most useful in detecting ‘‘externalizing’’ (BAS) problems. There were no relationships between adolescent personality measures and teacher ratings of their emotional and peer problems, but six significant correlations between personality and behavioural manifestations (negative and positive). Although the parent reports were obtained with small sample sizes, they appear to be more sensitive in assessing teenagers’ emotional adjustment and peer problems (BIS-related difficulties) than conduct problems and hyperactivity (BAS areas). Self-ratings show some degree of validity across all areas. Such variations support the practice of using all three sources of information simultaneously.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Professor Robert Goodman for help with the translation and use of the SDQ. We also wish to thank the children, parents and teachers for their cooperation. References Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioural inhibition, behavioural activation and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. Corr, P. J., Kumari, V., & Wilson, G. D. (1997). Hindi translation of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire: a cross-cultural replication of sex differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(5), 638–646. Everitt, B. S., & Dunn, G. (2001). Applied multivariate data analysis. London: Arnold. Francis, L. J. (1996). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (JEPQR-A) among 13–15 year olds. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 835–844. Francis, L. J., & Pearson, P. R. (1988). The development of a short form of the JEPQ (JEPQ-S): its use in measuring personality and religion. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 911–916. Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125–130. Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R., & Meltzer, H. (2000). Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 534–539.
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
1059
Gray, J. A. (1973). Causal theories of personality and how to test them. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Multivariate analysis and psychological theory. New York: Academic Press. Jackson, C. J. (2001). Comparison between Eysenck’s and Gray’s models of personality in the prediction of motivational work criteria. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 129–144. Jackson, C. J. (2002). Mapping Gray’s model of personality onto the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP). Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 495–507. Knyazev, G. G., Slobodskaya, H. R., & Wilson, G. D. (2002). Psychophysiological correlates of behavioural inhibition and activation. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 647–660. MacAndrew, C., & Steele, T. (1991). Gray’s behavioural inhibition system: a psychometric examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 157–171. Pickering, A. D., Corr, P. J., Powell, J. H., Kumari, V., Thornton, J. C., & Gray, J. A. (1997). Individual differences in reactions to reinforcing stimuli are neither black nor white: to what extent are they Gray? In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: tribute to Hans J Eysenck at 80. Oxford, Pergamon. Slobodskaya, H. R., Safronova, M. V., Knyazev, G. G., & Wilson, G. D. (2001). Reactions of Russian adolescents to reward and punishment: a cross-cultural study of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (7), 1211–1224. Torrubia, R., & Tobena (1984). A scale for the assessment of ‘‘susceptibility to punishment’’ as a measure of anxiety: preliminary results. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 371–375. Wilson, G. D. (1975). The ‘‘catchphrase’’ approach to attitude measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 31–37. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Gray, J. A. (1989). Human reactions to reward and punishment: a questionnaire examination of Gray’s personality theory. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 509–515. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Iwawaki, S. (1995). Japanese reactions to reward and punishment: a cross-cultural personality study. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 198–1112. Wilson, G. D., Gray, J. A., & Barrett, P. T. (1990). A factor analysis of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1037–1045.
Development of a short form of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire: its use in measuring personality and adjustment among Russian adolescents Helena R. Slobodskayaa, Gennadij G. Knyazeva, Margarita V. Safronovaa, Glenn D. Wilsonb,* a
State Research Institute of Physiology, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Timakova Str., 4, Novosibirsk, 630117, Russia b Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK Received 7 February 2002; received in revised form 17 September 2002; accepted 16 October 2002
Abstract The development of a short form of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire (GWPQ-S) is described. On the basis of earlier, cross-cultural factor analyses of the original 120 items and 6 subscales it was decided to reduce the test to two major scales, the behavioural activation system (BAS) and the behavioural inhibition system (BIS). Although these bear similarity to the familiar factors of impulsiveness and anxiety, they differ in being derived from a pool of items specifically designed to tap human equivalents of the animal learning paradigms central to Gray’s personality theory (approach, active avoidance, passive avoidance, extinction, fight and flight). Item reduction was based on factor loadings from a new sample of 454 Russian adolescents and correlations with previously validated criteria—teacher, parent and self-ratings of conduct and emotional problems. Despite the additional constraint of balanced direction of scoring (an advantage over previous BAS/BIS Scales), satisfactory internal consistency was achieved with a 28 item test (alphas of 0.67 and 0.64). # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Behavioural activation; Behavioural inhibition; Personality; Gray’s theory; Adolescent adjustment
1. Introduction The Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire (GWPQ; Wilson, Barrett, & Gray, 1989) was designed to measure human equivalents of six animal learning and behaviour paradigms basic to * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-20-7848-0254; fax: +44-20-7708-3497. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.D. Wilson). 0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00317-3
1050
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
Gray’s theory of personality. The six traits measured are Approach and Active Avoidance (together said to comprise an Activation system), Passive Avoidance and Extinction (comprising an Inhibition system) and Fight and Flight (two components of a general emergency Fight/Flight system). Activation was conceived as relating to conditioned signals of impending reward (i.e. incentives), Inhibition to conditioned signals of threatened punishment (or frustrative nonreward) while Fight–Flight has recently been added by Gray as a third major system concerned with responses to unconditioned aversive events. These three behavioural systems were conceived as fairly independent, having separate neurological underpinnings that vary in reactivity from one individual to another, thus producing observable personality differences that are comparable across species, including humans. Given the difficulty in devising scales that were both balanced for direction of scoring and that did not impinge conceptually on more than one learning paradigm, it is perhaps not surprising that factor analyses in Britain (Wilson, Gray, & Barrett, 1990), Japan (Wilson, Barrett, & Iwawaki, 1995) and Russia (Slobodskaya, Safronova, Knyazev, & Wilson, 2001) only partly matched the six trait a priori structure of the GWPQ. More importantly, the hypothesized pairings of the six traits into three major systems was not supported. Approach was associated with Fight rather than Active Avoidance (indeed Approach was negatively related to Active Avoidance). Passive Avoidance was associated with Extinction but equally so with Flight. Factor analysis of scale scores (Knyazev, Slobodskaya, & Wilson, 2002; Slobodskaya et al., 2001) confirmed Gray’s earlier (1973) two-factor theory of personality, which posited only two primary independent systems that are increasingly coming to be called the Behavioural Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). The first refers to sensitivity to signals of reward and relief from punishment and goes with approach behaviour, impulsive reward-seeking and hedonism. The second refers to sensitivity to signals of punishment and frustrative non-reward, promoting dislike of novelty, rapid withdrawal from danger and strong feelings of anxiety. As conceptualization of Gray’s personality dimensions develops, so the instruments used to measure them need to be reconsidered. The weak features of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire are the unsatisfactory internal consistency of scales and lack of factor analytical support for the hypothesized three-factor structure. On the positive side, are cross-cultural stability of the constructs measured by the GWPQ and gender differences (Corr, Kumari, & Wilson, 1997; Wilson et al., 1995) and their predictive validity (Slobodskaya et al., 2001). It is generally recognized that psychometric properties, such as reliability are enhanced by increasing the number of items. Nevertheless, some of the short scales developed for practical purposes have been shown to function reliably (Francis, 1996; Francis & Pearson, 1988). A short questionnaire has considerable advantages in large projects with many pencil and paper tests, and may be particularly helpful for use among adolescents. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to develop and explore the properties of a short form of the GWPQ and to do so within the theoretical and empirical context of the relationship between adolescent personality and adjustment.
2. Method A sample of 454 Russian adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17 years attending state maintained secondary schools in Novosibirsk completed the 96 items of the Russian version of
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
1051
the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire (Slobodskaya et al, 2001). The questionnaires were administered in school time by teachers as part of the regular curriculum. The sample comprised 204 boys and 250 girls. Adolescent adjustment was measured by a Russian translation of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire completed by teachers, parents and adolescents (SDQ, Goodman, 1997; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998). The SDQ is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire that asks about 25 attributes, some positive and others negative. The 25 items are divided between five scales of five items each, generating scores for Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity–Inattention, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems and Prosocial Behaviour; all but the last are summed to generate a Total Difficulties score. Teachers provided SDQs for 279 children within our sample (117 boys and 162 girls), self report versions were obtained for 196 children (86 boys and 110 girls), and parents provided SDQs for 53 children (17 boys and 36 girls). A sample of 108 adolescents between the ages of 11 and 16 years attending the sixth to tenth year classes of state-maintained secondary schools in Novosibirsk completed the short form of the GWPQ (GWPQ-S) developed at the first phase of the present study. This sample comprised 57 boys and 51 girls.
3. Results The 96 items of the GWPQ were subjected to principal components analysis and 35 factors were extracted with eigenvalues over 1, accounting for 62% of variance. These were rotated using Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. The first two factors accounted for 6.56 and 5.43% of variance, respectively and the third factor accounted for 2.85% with a smooth decrease thereafter. Hence there seems to be an ‘‘elbow’’ after the first two factors, indicating that a two-factor solution is reasonable (Everitt & Dunn, 2001). At the next step, therefore, the number of factors was restricted to two, these representing the BAS and BIS, respectively. The highest loadings on these two rotated factors are shown in Table 1. Items in the BAS pool were derived mostly from the original scales of Fight, Active Avoidance and Approach, while BIS items came mainly from the Flight, Passive Avoidance and Extinction scales of the six-factor scoring system. This pool of 50 items was used as the basis of further selection. Since it has previously been established that an over-active BIS is associated with anxiety and emotional problems while an over-active BAS predicts conduct disorders, it may be expected that psychometric measures of BIS and BAS will be related to measures of adolescent adjustment. On this logic, we used the correlations of GWPQ items with SDQ scale scores as a second criterion for the selection of items. For the BAS Scale we selected items which showed highest correlations with SDQ Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity Scales, while for the BIS Scale those that correlated most highly with SDQ Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems Scales were selected. Because there is evidence that teachers’ ratings of conduct problems are fairly reliable, while emotional problems are better evaluated by parents (Goodman, Ford, Simmons, Gatward, & Meltzer, 2000), we used teacher ratings of Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity and parent ratings of Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems. Self-ratings were used in addition for all problem scales. Table 2 shows significant correlations between the 50 GWPQ items selected at the first stage and SDQ measures of adolescent adjustment.
1052
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
Table 1 Loadings higher than 0.3 on two Oblimin rotated factors from the GWPQa Loading
Summary of item content
Item no.
A priori scale
I. Behavioural Activation System (6.56% of variance) 0.53 Curse audibly under duress 0.50 Felt like killing someone 0.49 Redouble efforts if teacher displeased 0.48 Careful to complete homework at school 0.46 Stay out of fights at school 0.45 Physical fights with other children 0.44 Carry coat/umbrella when rain threatens 0.43 Murder never contemplated 0.43 Buy clothes without trying on 0.42 Would tell lies to avoid trouble 0.41 Often unprepared for bad weather 0.40 Think carefully before buying 0.38 Blame somebody nearby if hurt accidentally 0.37 Would watch a fight at personal risk 0.37 Careful in buying clothes 0.37 Try, try again 0.36 Incur debts if credits available 0.36 Unable to bluff successfully 0.34 Avoid talking with throat infection 0.34 Kick yapping dog 0.33 Wait patiently for latecomer 0.32 Save present for opening on birthday 0.31 Easily resist bad habits 0.30 Carry on playing if losing money in game 0.30 Call police when burglars in the house
5 113 80 32 71 65 20 119 61 56 26 79 77 114 67 76 73 62 23 41 18 91 31 64 95
Fight+ Fight+ Actavoid+ Actavoid+ Fight Fight+ Actavoid+ Fight Approach+ Actavoid+ Actavoid Approach Fight+ Flight Approach Extinction Approach+ Actavoid Fight Fight+ Flight– Approach Approach Extinction Fight
II. Behavioural Inhibition System (5.43% of variance) 0.56 Panic in earthquake 0.53 Turn away at sight of blood 0.53 Easily embarrassed 0.51 Yelp with pain with twisted ankle 0.49 Take criticism to heart and ‘fall to pieces’ 0.47 Run if accosted by muggers 0.46 Remain still and calm faced with wild animal 0.44 ‘Lost for words’ in public speech 0.42 Remain calm and silent when hit with hammer 0.42 Stalwart and courageous in medical procedures 0.41 Avoid competition if likely to lose 0.40 Pull away when dentist hurts 0.40 Give up driving tests if failed twice 0.39 Enjoy challenging games 0.37 Able to attend severe wounds 0.37 Jump if car horn sounds close by 0.36 Brave when hurt at school 0.35 Flinch badly with injection
24 63 111 84 75 36 6 51 90 78 82 60 70 88 69 48 102 72
Flight+ Passavoid+ Passavoid+ Flight+ Passavoid+ Flight+ Flight Passavoid+ Flight Flight Extinction+ Flight+ Extinction+ Extinction Passavoid Flight+ Flight Flight+ (continued on next page)
1053
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059 Table 1 (continued) Loading 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 a
Summary of item content
Item no.
Placid and calm when events unpleasant Remain relaxed on hearing siren Hand over valuables if threatened Calm if nearly hit by car Blank mind in exams Easily resist food when dieting Would run from ferocious dog
11 105 42 54 27 19 120
A priori scale Fight Passavoid Flight Flight Passavoid+ Approach Flight+
Item numbers correspond to the original GWPQ (Wilson et al., 1989). N=454.
Items with the highest factor loadings and the highest correlations with psychopathology measures were considered for inclusion in the GWPQ-S. The third criterion for item selection was that of maintaining the original requirement that each scale be balanced for direction of scoring. (In the original construction of the GWPQ each item was matched with a near-equivalent reversal in order to eliminate endorsement response biases.) After consideration of all three selection criteria, 14 items were selected from the original GWPQ to represent each of the two major scales: BAS: 5+, 18 , 113+, 20 , 56+, 23 , 61+, 32 , 65+, 119 , 73+, 79 , 77+, 80 . BIS: 6 , 36+, 102 , 51+, 90 , 63+, 69 , 75+, 78 , 82+, 88 , 84+, 105 , 111+. In the final form of the GWPQ-S the order of items alternates between the two scales and the direction of scoring (for + items Yes=2, ?=1, No=0; for items No=2, ?=1, Yes=0). Table 3 shows means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients for the BAS and BIS scales. Their correlations with factor scores from the principal component analysis of the six GWPQ scales were 0.86 and 0.83, respectively (P<0.001). Comparisons between mates and females, using t tests, show that girls were significantly higher on the BIS Scale (t=8.63, P<0.001). There were no significant sex differences on the BAS Scale. Table 4 shows correlations between GWPQ-S Scales and SDQ measures of adolescent adjustment for boys and girls separately. As expected, BAS was positively correlated with Conduct Problems (teacher and self ratings in both sexes and parent ratings in boys). BAS was also positively associated with Hyperactivity (self ratings in both sexes and teacher ratings in girls). It was negatively related to Prosocial Behaviour (teacher and self-ratings in both sexes) and self-ratings for Peer Problems in girls. Consistent with expectations, and the logic of its construction, BIS was positively related to Emotional Symptoms (parent and self ratings in both sexes), the correlation with parent ratings in girls, although reasonably high, did not reach significance because of the small sample size. BIS was also positively correlated with some indices of Peer Problems (self-ratings in boys and parentratings in girls) and with self-ratings for Hyperactivity in boys. BIS was negatively related to teacher ratings for Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity in girls and to self-ratings for Prosocial Behaviour in boys. Overall, 22 correlations were significant at the 0.05 level, 21 of them in the expected direction. BAS predisposed to undercontrolled behaviour (conduct problems and hyperactivity) while BIS
1054
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
Table 2 Significant (P< 0.05) correlations between GWPQ item and SDQ scoresa Item no. I. BAS 5 113 80 32 71 65 20 119 61 56 26 77 114 67 76 73 62 23 41 18 91 31 64 95 II. BIS 63 111 84 75 36 6 51 90 78 82 60 88 69 48 72 105 42 27 19 120 a
Conduct problems
T
S
0.33 , 0.33
0.23T, 0.22S 0.23T, 0.24S 0.24T 0.17S 0.20T, 0.19S 0.18T, 0.23S 0.15T 0.27S 0.23S 0.20T 0.16S 0.18T, 0.26S 0.16T, 0.17S 0.16T, 0.17S 0.22T 0.16S 0.14S 0.12T 0.18T 0.23T
0.12T 0.14T 0.13T 0.17T
0.16S
Hyperactivity
Emotional symptoms
0.13T, 0.29S 0.24T, 0.17S 0.21S 0.16T, 0.18S 0.19T 0.25T 0.28S 0.22T 0.20T, 0.15S
Peer problems 0.19S
0.30S 0.22S 0.13T 0.23S 0.19S 0.12T, 0.22S
0.32P, 0.19S 0.16S
0.42P
0.23T 0.25S 0.15S 0.17S 0.16T 0.13T
0.16S
0.22T 0.17T, 0.31S 0.15T, 0.20S 0.18T, 0.14S 0.14T 0.14T, 0.19S 0.18T
0.28P, 0.34S 0.38S 0.21S 0.22S 0.16S
0.31P, 0.22S
0.28P, 0.31S 0.22S 0.25S 0.15S 0.21S 0.17S 0.18S
0.18S
0.15S
0.19S
0.12T, 0.12S 0.16S 0.15T
0.18S 0.17S
0.14S 0.18S
0.16S
0.27P
0.30P
0.30P,
0.15S
0.17T 0.18S 0.17S 0.19S 0.26S 0.12T
0.18S 0.22S
0.26P 0.18S 0.30P, 0.21S
GWPQ item numbers correspond to the original GWPQ (Wilson et al., 1989), SDQ—the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997; Goodman et al., 1998), T—Teacher version (N=279), P—Parent version (N=53), S—Self-report version (N=196).
1055
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059 Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and alphas for GWPQ-S Scales Scale
BAS BIS
Total sample (N=454)
Boys (N=204)
Girls (N=250)
M
S.D.
M
S.D.
M
S.D.
0.72 0.74
12.15 10.72
5.70 5.63
0.72 0.66
12.18 8.42
5.62 4.74
0.73 0.73
12.13 12.60
5.79 5.60
Table 4 Correlations between GWPQ-S scales and SDQ scores for females (males in parentheses) SDQ scores
GWPQ-S Scales BAS
BIS
Teacher report, N=162(117) Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviour
0.37** (0.27**) 0.33** (0.17) 0.03 (0.10) 0.04 ( 0.01) 0.23** ( 0.18*)
0.19* (0.04) 0.25** ( 0.05) 0.06 (0.11) 0.02 (0.07) 0.08 ( 0.07)
Parent report, N=36(17) Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviour
0.04 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.21
0.18 (0.09) 0.06 (0.06) 0.28 (0.54*) 0.47** (0.26) 0.18 (0.19)
Self-report, N=110(86) Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Emotional Symptoms Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviour
0.37** (0.44**) 0.45** (0.30**) 0.03 (0.12) 0.19* (0.00) 0.29** ( 0.27**)
(0.56*) (0.12) (0.47) (0.42) ( 0.09)
0.00 (0.09) 0.17 (0.38**) 0.39** (0.35**) 0.16 (0.28**) 0.09 ( 0.25*)
SDQ—The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. * P< 0.05, two-tailed. ** P< 0.01, two-tailed.
predisposed to overcontrol and empathy (emotional and peer problems and prosocial behaviour). The positive association between BIS and self-ratings for hyperactivity could be an artifact arising from an overcritical view of themselves in high BIS individuals rather than a substantial contradiction. It has recently been shown in Britain that teenagers’ self-reports for hyperactivity and attention problems are the least useful of the SDQ measures (Goodman et al., 2000). At the second phase of development of the GWPQ-S, 108 adolescents, aged 11–16 years (57 boys and 51 girls) completed the new scales. The alpha coefficients for the BAS and BIS scales in
1056
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
this sample were 0.67 and 0.64, respectively. The 28 items of the GWPQ-S were subjected to principal components analysis and two factors were extracted, accounting for 22.05% of variance. These were rotated using Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. Table 5 shows the resulting factor loadings on the two factors together with GWPQ-S item number and content and the corresponding item number of the original GWPQ. These two factors had a negligible intercorrelation of 0.002. Inspection of these factor loadings reveals 21 items out of 28 to have been appropriate. Three items on the BIS scale (Nos. 4, 12 and 26) gave sizeable loadings on BAS, and two items on the BAS Scale (Nos. 3 and 25) produced sizeable BIS loadings. Two items (Nos. 11 and 13) loaded lower than 0.3 on both scales.
Table 5 Loadings on two Oblimin rotated factors from the GWPQ-S (N=108) Summary of item content
I. BIS
II. BAS
GWPQ item no.
BIS Scale 2. Remain still and calm faced with wild animal 4. Run if accosted by muggers 6. Brave when hurt at school 8. ‘Lost for words’ in public speech 10. Remain calm and silent when hit with hammer 12. Turn away at the sight of blood 14. Able to attend severe wounds 16. Take criticism to heart and ‘fall to pieces’ 18. Stalwart and courageous in medical procedures 20. Avoid competition if likely to lose 22. Enjoy challenging games 24. Yelp with pain with twisted ankle 26. Remain relaxed on hearing siren 28. Easily embarrassed
0.42 0.14 0.39 0.49 0.42 0.08 0.36 0.41 0.49 0.57 0.70 0.32 0.00 0.49
0.07 0.38 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.31 0.08 0.01 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.31 0.18
6 36 102 51 90 63 69 75 78 82 88 84 105 111
BAS Scale 1. Curse audibly under duress 3. Wait patiently for latecomer 5. Felt like killing someone 7. Carry coat/umbrella when rain threatens 9. Would tell lies to avoid trouble 11. Avoid talking with throat infection 13. Buy clothes without trying on 15. Careful to complete homework at school 17. Physical fights with other children 19. Murder never contemplated 21. Incur debts if credits available 23. Think carefully before buying 25. Blame somebody nearby if hurt accidentally 27. Redouble efforts if teacher displeased
0.26 0.38 0.11 0.05 0.29 0.02 0.26 0.06 0.18 0.13 0.22 0.08 0.38 0.18
0.60 0.03 0.57 0.33 0.57 0.18 0.14 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.37 0.40 0.14 0.64
5 18 113 20 56 23 61 32 65 119 73 79 77 80
11.63
10.42
% Of variance
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
1057
4. Discussion We have described the development of a short form of the GWPQ, yielding scores on the two main factors which consistently emerge from studies of personality within the framework of Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST; Pickering, Corr, Powell, Kumari, Thornton, & Gray, 1997). These two factors are usually described as the Behavioural Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). The 28-item scale was based on loadings on the two-factor solution that emerged naturally from a principal components analysis of the Russian 96-item version of the GWPQ. As an additional selection criterion, items were preferred that showed expected correlations with theoretical criterion measures of conduct and emotional difficulties, as assessed by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Conduct and emotional difficulties have previously been established as relating to BAS and BIS respectively (Slobodskaya et al., 2001). This short form shows satisfactory alphas with an independent sample (0.67 and 0.64), in fact, higher than all the alphas for the Russian version of the original GWPQ Scales. Several BIS and BAS Scales have previously been put forward (e.g. Carver & White, 1994; MacAndrew & Steele, 1991; Torrubia & Tobena, 1984). In addition, it has frequently been assumed that standard scales of impulsiveness and anxiety (or even EPQ quadrants of neuroticextraversion and neurotic-introversion) would serve as proxies (Jackson, 2001, 2002). Therefore, it is reasonable to ask what advantage the current instrument may have over its predecessors. We suggest that the GWPQ-S is unique in deriving scales from a broad pool of items specially devised as human parallels of the animal learning paradigms pertinent to RST. MacAndrew and Steele use the MMPI as an item pool (a totally atheoretical source), while Torrubia and Tobena give little information as to how they constructed their ‘‘sensitivity to punishment’’ items, saying only that they chose ‘‘situations and behavioural habits that would allow differentiation between SP and non-SP individuals.’’ Carver and White began with an analysis of Gray’s theory but were uncertain as to what constituted the BAS and ended up with a split among three correlated subfactors, named ‘‘reward responsiveness’’, ‘‘drive’’ and ‘‘fun-seeking’’; as with Torrubia and Tobena, the BIS remained focused around sensitivity to punishment. The GWPQ-S (like its parent, the GWPQ) is also unique in balancing for endorsement response sets. We have previously argued that this is an excellent discipline in that there is a conceptual difficulty in producing scales that measure approach and avoidance that are not direct reversals of each other (Slobodskaya et al., 2001; Wilson, 1975). Unconstrained factor analysis has a tendency to group items that are scored in the same direction, thus confounding item content with response style and giving a spurious sense of independence between dimensions that are logical opposites. At the same time, internal consistency measures are artificially inflated. Torrubia and Tobena’s (1984) ‘‘sensitivity to punishment’’ scale, for example, has 35 positively scored items and only one negatively scored. In this instance, it is likely that ‘‘sensitivity to punishment’’ is to some extent confounded with a tendency to say ‘‘yes’’ rather than ‘‘no’’. MacAndrew and Steele’s BIS Scale, developed by empirical keying out of MMPI items, comes closer to being balanced but still has 22 out of 30 items that are scored for a ‘‘true’’ response (8 being scored for ‘‘false’’). Carver and White’s four scales are split (yes/no) as follows: 5/2, 4/0, 5/0, 4/0. Although reasonably high alphas are reported for these brief scales, it is clear that the items in each group tend to be close in content (besides being unbalanced with respect to scoring direction). Considering all, there appears to be a place for the BAS/BIS Scales described here, though it remains to apply them to
1058
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
larger community samples and in other cultural contexts, especially English-speaking countries where the GWPQ originated. Examining Table 5, it appears that further refinements could be made by reducing each scale to 10 items (yielding a test with a 20-item total). This could be achieved by removing four items from each scale which fail to show ‘‘correct’’ loadings on the second (independent) factor analysis. The items that might be eliminated would be 4, 6, 12, and 26 from the BAS Scale, and 3, 11, 13, 25 from the BIS. This would not affect the balance in terms of scoring direction. However, it may be premature to do this, since another factor analysis (with larger and more diverse samples) might spotlight different items as weak or inappropriate. We therefore propose to work further with the 28 item version given here before making any decisions about further editing. Finally, our results also bear on the validity and functioning of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. In accord with Goodman et al. (2000), a detailed study of Table 2 confirms that teacher reports are the least sensitive to ‘‘internalizing’’ (BIS) problems but the most useful in detecting ‘‘externalizing’’ (BAS) problems. There were no relationships between adolescent personality measures and teacher ratings of their emotional and peer problems, but six significant correlations between personality and behavioural manifestations (negative and positive). Although the parent reports were obtained with small sample sizes, they appear to be more sensitive in assessing teenagers’ emotional adjustment and peer problems (BIS-related difficulties) than conduct problems and hyperactivity (BAS areas). Self-ratings show some degree of validity across all areas. Such variations support the practice of using all three sources of information simultaneously.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Professor Robert Goodman for help with the translation and use of the SDQ. We also wish to thank the children, parents and teachers for their cooperation. References Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioural inhibition, behavioural activation and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. Corr, P. J., Kumari, V., & Wilson, G. D. (1997). Hindi translation of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire: a cross-cultural replication of sex differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(5), 638–646. Everitt, B. S., & Dunn, G. (2001). Applied multivariate data analysis. London: Arnold. Francis, L. J. (1996). The development of an abbreviated form of the Revised Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (JEPQR-A) among 13–15 year olds. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 835–844. Francis, L. J., & Pearson, P. R. (1988). The development of a short form of the JEPQ (JEPQ-S): its use in measuring personality and religion. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 911–916. Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125–130. Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R., & Meltzer, H. (2000). Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 534–539.
H.R. Slobodskaya et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1049–1059
1059
Gray, J. A. (1973). Causal theories of personality and how to test them. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Multivariate analysis and psychological theory. New York: Academic Press. Jackson, C. J. (2001). Comparison between Eysenck’s and Gray’s models of personality in the prediction of motivational work criteria. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 129–144. Jackson, C. J. (2002). Mapping Gray’s model of personality onto the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP). Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 495–507. Knyazev, G. G., Slobodskaya, H. R., & Wilson, G. D. (2002). Psychophysiological correlates of behavioural inhibition and activation. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 647–660. MacAndrew, C., & Steele, T. (1991). Gray’s behavioural inhibition system: a psychometric examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 157–171. Pickering, A. D., Corr, P. J., Powell, J. H., Kumari, V., Thornton, J. C., & Gray, J. A. (1997). Individual differences in reactions to reinforcing stimuli are neither black nor white: to what extent are they Gray? In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: tribute to Hans J Eysenck at 80. Oxford, Pergamon. Slobodskaya, H. R., Safronova, M. V., Knyazev, G. G., & Wilson, G. D. (2001). Reactions of Russian adolescents to reward and punishment: a cross-cultural study of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (7), 1211–1224. Torrubia, R., & Tobena (1984). A scale for the assessment of ‘‘susceptibility to punishment’’ as a measure of anxiety: preliminary results. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 371–375. Wilson, G. D. (1975). The ‘‘catchphrase’’ approach to attitude measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 31–37. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Gray, J. A. (1989). Human reactions to reward and punishment: a questionnaire examination of Gray’s personality theory. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 509–515. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Iwawaki, S. (1995). Japanese reactions to reward and punishment: a cross-cultural personality study. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 198–1112. Wilson, G. D., Gray, J. A., & Barrett, P. T. (1990). A factor analysis of the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1037–1045.