A scale for the assessment of ‘susceptibility to punishment’ as a measure of anxiety: preliminary results

Person.

indicid.

D@

Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 371-375,

0191-8869/84 $3.00 + 0.00 Copyright K> 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd

1984

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

A scale for the assessment of ‘susceptibility to punishment’ as a measure of anxiety: preliminary resuits R. TORRUBIA* Departament

de Psicologia

and A. TOBE~A

Midica, Facultat de Medicina, Unirersitat Bellaterra (Barcelona), Espan‘a 3 1 August

(Received

Autdnoma

de Barcelona,

1983)

INTRODUCTION Gray’s (1970, 1976, 1982) theory on the neuropsychological basis of anxiet). has collected a good quantity of data that supports its utility in animals. However, in the human field few experimental efforts have been made in order to improve the theory’s predictions. One basic requirement would be the development of reliable and valid measures applicable to humans for the theoretical constructs proposed by Gray. Our goal has been the development of a scale for the assessment of ‘susceptibility to punishment’ (SP scale), and the study of the relationships between that scale and other well-known personality measures. Taking Gray’s modification of Eysenck’s theory as a starting point, the scores of our experimental scale should correlate positively with the N scales and negatively with the E scales. It can be predicted also that there would be a small or null correlation with Impulsivity measures.

METHOD A 36-item scale in the Catalan language was constructed, including situations and behavioral habits that would allow us to differentiate between SP individuals and non-SP individuals. (The complete and translated form of the scale is presented in the Appendix.) The scale was administered to a sample of 96 males (age: R = 19.77 yrs, SD = 1.93) and 103 females (age: X = 19.54 yrs, SD = 1.62), second-year students in our School of Medicine. Several other scales were also administered to the same sample: Impulsiveness (Imp) and Venturesomeness (Vent; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978); 21 items from the Mehrabian and Epstein (I 972) Empathy (Emp) scale, as used by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978); MAS (Taylor, 1953); and a Spanish version of the EPI Extraversion (E) scale (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964). The results of a previous (2 months ago) administration of the EPQ (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975) in a Catalan version, to the same sample, were also incorporated. RESULTS Table 1 shows mean scores, standard deviations and a reliabilities for each scale, for males and females. It also includes the degree of statistical significance obtained with Student t-tests in the comparisons between the two sexes. Alpha reliabilities obtained for the SP scale were high, as were the reliabilities obtained for the other scales-with the exception of the P and L scales for both sexes with the EPQ and the Emp scale in the female sample. We also found significant differences between the sexes on the Vent scale (P < O.Ol), on the Emp and N scales and with the MAS (P -C O.OOl), and a tendency (almost statistically significant) in the experimental SP scale (P = 0.053). Table

Male (n = 96;

I

mean age = 19.77 yrs, SD = 1.93)

Female (n = 103: mean age = 19.54 yrs, SD = 1.62)

R

SD

K

SD

SP Imp Vent E~P MAS

17.93 8.51 9.87 12.80 13.34

6.80 4.63 3.95 3.54 9.95

0.85 0.8 I 0.83 0.73 0.91

19.71 9.20 8.42 IS.09 19.56

6.03 188 3 89 3 II S.86

0.80 0.82 0 78 0 57 0 86

** *** l **

E(EPI) N

9.39 12.37 10.03

5.22 5.07 5.20

0.82 0.86 0.86

10.01 12.29 12.53

541 5.10 1.37

0 83 0 87 0.80

***

P L

4.20 8.59

2.64 3.7 I

0.58 0.50

4.25 8.80

1.62 3 34

0.61 0.57

E(EPQ)

*P < 0.05;

**P

<

0.01; ***p

<

? R&ability

OLReliability

.~

Signif. of l-test

0.001.

Table 2 shows the correlation matrix for males and females between all the measures used. It is important to note the high negative correlation between the E and SP scales, as well as the high posmve correlation between N and MAS measures, and the SP scale. It is also noticeable that there is almost perfect orthogonality between the SP and Imp scales: both in males and females. *To whom

all reprint

requests

should

be addressed. 371

(n = 103)

-0.105 -0.383”’ 0.338*** 0.306;’ -0.398*** -0.445*** 0.382*** -0.227’ 0.297”

SP 0.001 0.468**’ 0.172 0.311** 0.695*** 0.462*** 0.242; 0.557*** -0.183

2

Vent

0.135 0.018 0.476*** 0.393*** -0.127 0.272;’ -0.166

-0.387*** 0.448”’

I

0.80 0.55 0.73 -0.25 -0.50 0.18 -0.34 -0.10 -0.13 0.11 0.37

32

Scale

% of total variance 22

-0.27 0.09 -0.15 0.72 0.74 0.58 0.67 -0.11 -0.06 0.14 -0.23

II

I2

0.1 I 0.5 I 0.10 0.22 -0.12 -0.23 0.25 0.70 -0.39 0.73 0.52

III

of scores on

0.147 0.042 -0.076 0.201’ -0.094 0.125

0.386*** -0.030 -0.151

0.73 0.5x 0.57 0.64 0.82 0.43 0.64 0.52 0.17 0.58 0.46

Communellty

loadmgs in a principal factoring analysis (Varimax rotation) personality inventory scales (males, n = 96)

E(EPQ) Imp(EPI) So( EPI) N SP Emp MAS P L Imp Vent

Table 3. Factor

*P < 0.05; **f < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

N P L

EW’Q)

Imp Vent E~P MAS E(EP1)

SP

FEMALES

(n = 96)

% Of total variance

P Imp Vent Imp(EPI) So(EPI) N SP MAS L Emp

WPQ)

Scale

Table 4. Factor

0.168 0.037 0.518*** 0.136 -0.004

0.687.” 0.278*** -0.133 0.212’

MAS

MALES

Table 2

E(EPI)

EW’Q)

-0.031 0.288** -0.222’

-0.627*** 0.142 0.443’8’ -0.017 -0.419*** 0.662***

N

0.090 -0.101

0.251’ -0.209**’ 0.352*** 0.651”’ -0.156 -0.401***

0.582’7

P

-0.237;

-0.154 0.482”; 0.325’. -0.273” 0.124 0.158 0.043 0.161

34

0.72 0.48 0.80 0.62 0.81 0.71 0.00 -0.45 0.13 -0.25 0.05

I

19

~ 0.07 O.IX 0.35 -0.17 0.25 -0.10 0.73 0.51 0.63 -0.05 0.15

II

IO

-0.20 -0.17 0.12 0.12 -0.07 -0.18 0.04 0.48 0.08 0.29 0.60

111

L

of scores on

0.049 -0.258* -0.296” 0.041 -0.112 -0.229’ -0.154 -0.106 -0.329**

0.58 0.29 0.78 0.43 0.72 0.55 0.54 0.71 0.43 0.15 0.39

Communality

loadings in a principal factoring analysis (Varimax rotation) personality inventory scales (females. n = 103)

0.765*** 0.065 0.339*** -0.207’

-0.521*** 0.354*** 0.467*** -0.008 -0.234’

NOTES

Table

AND

5. Means and standard

SHORTER

373

COMMUNICATIONS

deviations

of SP scores for males in each octant

P-

P+

NEr SD n

Source

Ei

20.21 5.62 II

N-

Nf 13.40 4.93 25

E-

E+

24.58 4.33 17

20.00 6.12 5

E-

E+

13.57 3.69 7

12.44 6.98 9

62 I .24 683.58 191.12 16.59 13.27 8.20 85.11 2122.46 2279.16

E N P ExP

ExN NXP ExNxP Explained Residual Total

and standard

621.24 683.58 191.12 16.59 13.27 8.20 85.11 303.20 25.90 46.33

1

I I 1 1 1 1 7 88 95

4401.62

deviations

K

SD n

20.05 5.37 19

Source of variance E N P EXP ExN NxP ExNxP Explained Residual Total

F

Signif. of F

23.98 26.39 7.37 0.64 0.51 0.3 I 3.28 II.70

0.000 0.000 0.008 0.426 0.476 0.575 0.073 0.000

N-

N+

17.43 5.20 16

15.66 4.30 9

Pf

NE+

E+

22.92 5.07 13

of SP scores for females in each octant

P-

E-

N+ E-

Analysis of variance Sum of Mean square sauares df

of variance

Table 6. Means

-

E-

26.33 3.43 15

Ei

E-

15.00 7.57 7

17.62 3.54 8

N+ E-

E+

15.50 5.50 12

21.11 5.37 9

E+

20.76 5.21 17

Analysis of variance Sum of

Mean

squares

df

square

F

of F

319.58 393.53 41.32 162.11

I I I I

319.58 393.53 41.32 162.11

12.03 14.81 1.55 6.10

0.001 0.000 0.215 0.015

I

85.73 35.93 156.74 168.88 26.55 36.32

3.22 1.35 5.90 6.35

0.076 0.248 0.017 0.000

85.73 35.93 156.74 1182.22 2523.04 3705.26

I I 7 95 102

S&f.

A principal factoring analysis with Varimax rotation was performed for each sex including scores on Impulsivity (Imp EPI), Sociability (So EPI) and E (EPI) subscales, and excluding the E(EPI) total score. The number of factors extracted was equal to the number of eigenvalues z 1. The analysis for males resulted in three components, which explained 66% of the total variance (see Table 3). The first factor is an Extraversion factor, high loadings being found on E(EPQ). Imp(EPI) and So(EP1). The second factor is a Neuroticism factor, high loadings being found on N, SP, Emp and MAS. The third factor is a Psychoticism-Impulsivity factor, high loadings being found in P, L, Imp and Vent. Also noticeable are the high loading of the SP scale on Factor I and the high loading of Imp(EP1) on Factor III. The principal factoring analysis for females resulted in three components which explained 63% of the total variance (see Table 4). The first factor is an Extraversion-Impulsivity factor, high loadings being found on E(EPQ), P, Imp, Vent, Imp(EPI) and So(EP1). Factor II is a Neuroticism factor, high loadings being found on N, SP and MAS. Factor III is an Empathy factor, high loadings being found on the Emp and L scales. Noticeable too, as in males, is the high loading of the SP scale on Factors I and III. Table 5 shows the octant distribution of the SP scores using the P, E and N scales, for males, and the results of the ANOVA considering SP scores as a dependent variable. We found the highest scores in the P- N+ E- octant and the smallest in the P+ NEt-. It can be observed, that in the ANOVA, there are significant main effects for E. N and P, and a three-way interaction. Table 6 shows the octant distribution and ANOVA for females. We found the highest scores for the P - N + E - octant and the smallest for the P+ NE+ and P- N + Et- octants. The ANOVA yielded significant main effects for E and N, significant two-way interactions (E x N and E x P) and a three-way interaction.

DISCUSSION The results obtained are in agreement with our initial hypothesis-we found the expected intercorrelations between scales and a distribution of SP scores as predicted from Gray (1970, 1976, 1982). The orthogonality of SP and Imp scales suggests that the Imp scale could be a good measure of ‘susceptibility to reward’, but we would have to explain the high positive correlations between Imp and P.

374

NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNlCATlONS

High negative correlations were found between SP and Vent. It could be that high SP scorers and high venturesomeness in real life are the two extremes of only one dimension of ‘anxiety’. Far more research is needed in order to prove these hypotheses. Finally, according to these preliminary results, we can conclude that the experimental SP scale could be a good starting point in the development of a valid measure for Gray’s postulated anxiety axis in humans.

REFERENCES Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1964) Eysenck Personalify Incenfory. Univ. of London Press. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Ad& and Junior). Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck S.-B. G. and Eysenck H. J. (1978) Impulsiveness and Venturesomeness: their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychol. Rep. 43, 1247-1255. Gray J. A. (1970) The psychophysiological basis of introversion+xtraversion. B&au. Res. Ther. 8, 249-266. Gray J. A. (1976) The behavioral inhibition system: a possible substrate for anxiety. In Theorefical and Experimental Bases of the Eehauiour Therapies, Chap. 1 (Edited by Feldman M. P. and Broadhurst A.), pp. 341. Wiley, London, Gray J. A. (1982) The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: an Enquiry into the Functions sf rhe Sepro-hippocampal System. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Mehrabian A. and Epstein N. (1972) A measure of emotional empathy. J. Person. 40, 525-543. Taylor J. A. (1953) A personality scale of manifest anxiety. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 48, 285-290.

See Opposite Page for the Appendix

NOTES

AND

SHORTER

375

COMMUNICATIONS

APPENDIX SP SCALE Age: Sex: M . .._._ F ___.............. Name:.................................................................................,. Occupation: . Place of birth: Education: (elementary, high school, college, university)

.

lnstruchms: Please answer each question by circling the “YES” or “NO” answer. There are no right or wrong answers and no trick questions. Work quickly and do not think too long about the meaning of each question.

PLEASE

REMEMBER

TO ANSWER

EACH

QUESTION

1. Do you generally avoid giving your opinion about topics you know nothing about?. ........ 2. In general, do you take exams in professional selection tests only when you have high possibilities of success? ......................................................................... 3. Do you often refrain from doing something because you are afraid of it being illegal?. 4. Is it more difficult for you to approach and talk with unknown persons of the opposite sex, than with unknown persons of your same sex? .............................................. 5. Do you generally stop at a traffic signal, going by car or walking, when it is yellow?. ....... 6. Do you prefer not to ask for something when you are not sure you will obtain it?. ......... 7. When you are invited to someone’s home, do you often feel that your habits or behavior bother others? ............................................................................ 8. Do you worry a lot about little mistakes in your work or studies? ........................ 9. Can you easily leave goals that are too difficult to obtain?. .............................. 10. Usually, do you try to keep promises even if they consider quite a loss of time?. ........... Il. Do you prefer to practice non-dangerous sports more than dangerous sports? .............. 12. Would you prefer a routine job without worries to another job more difficult and with possibility of promotion? ...................................................................... 13. Is it difficult for you to telephone someone you do not know?. ........................... 14. Do you often renounce your rights when you know you can avoid a quarrel with a person or an organization? ....................................................................... 15. As a child, were you troubled by punishments at home or in school?. ..................... 16. Do you like to take part in interesting jobs or activities without being prepared? ........... 17. Is it difficult for you to confront someone who has played a bad trick on you?. ............ 18. Are you easily discouraged in difficult situations? ....................................... 19. Do you frequently avoid disturbing people around you? ................................. 20. Are you a shy person? ............................................................... 21. Whenever possible, do you avoid demonstrating your skills for fear of being embarrassed? 22. When you are with a group, do you have difficulties selecting a good topic to talk about? 23. Are you afraid of having problems with the law? ....................................... 24. It is often difficult for you to fall asleep when you think about things you have done or must do? 25. Do you think a lot before complaining in a restaurant if your meal is not well prepared?. ... 26. Would you be bothered if you had to return to a store when you noticed you were given the wrong change? ............................................................................ 27. Do you like to show-off your physical skills even when there is some risk or danger? ....... 28. Whenever you can, do you avoid going to unknown places?. ............................. 29. Do you dislike entering a room where there are several people assembled?. ................ 30. Do you generally avoid high places or cliffs that are not well protected?. .................. 31. Are you often worried by things which you said or did?. ................................ 32. Would it be difficult for you to ask your boss for a raise (salary increase)?. ................ 33. Do you generally try to avoid speaking in public? ...................................... 34. Do you, on a regular basis, think that you could do more things if it was not for your insecurity or fear? ............................................................................ 35. Do you tend to keep in the background during fights? .................................. 36. Comparing yourself to people you know, are you afraid of many things? .................. Note:

SP total

score is obtained

by adding

all the “YES”

answers

and a “NO”

answer

YES YES

NO NO

YES YES

NO NO

YES YES YES

NO

YES YES YES YES YES

NO NO

YES YES

NO NO

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO NO

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

NO NO NO NO

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

NO NO NO NO NO NO

YES YES

NO NO

to Item 27.

NO

NO