- Email: [email protected]
Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales
Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Review
Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales Benjamin R. Walker ⁎, Chris J. Jackson School of Management, UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 October 2015 Received in revised form 5 October 2016 Accepted 19 October 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Cognition Biology Motivation
a b s t r a c t Several self-report scales are now available to measure Gray and McNaughton's revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST). To date, no research has evaluated all the studies used by these scales together in one article so researchers can assess their differential utility. This article attempts to address this issue with a summary of the studies used by the r-RST scales. We found that the Jackson 5 includes the most studies attesting to its validity, but recognize this as partly a function of it as the oldest scale. The Jackson 5 and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire have been used by researchers other than the original authors, which suggests acceptance by the r-RST research community. Our hope is that this article is useful to researchers as a succinct summary of the validity of measures and also a commentary on the studies. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents 1. 2. 3.
Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales . . . . . . Literature review inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Jackson 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Caregiver Report for Children 3.3. Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales Based on animal learning and neurobiology, original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST; Gray, 1982) was updated to become revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). A recent development in r-RST is that several self-report scales have become available. Thus far, the construct validity and differential utility of each of the scales has not been examined. This article summarizes ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.R. Walker), [email protected] (C.J. Jackson).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.035 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
90 91 91 91 92 92 92 93 93 93 93
the studies associated with each of the scales and provides an evaluation of their usefulness. It is hoped this review will be useful to r-RST researchers in their assessment of which scale to use in their research. Several self-report measures for r-RST have recently become available. These include the Jackson 5 (Jackson, 2009), the r-RST version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire caregiver report for children (SPSRQ-C; Colder et al., 2011), the Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Smederevac, Mitrović, Čolović, & Nikolašević, 2014), the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire (rRST-Q; Reuter, Cooper, Smillie, Markett, & Montag, 2015), the Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire (FFFQ; Maack, Buchanan, & Young, 2015), and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ; Corr & Cooper, 2016). While the
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
older studies are likely to have more studies than the more recent ones, an indication of the validity of the studies can still be provided by an examination of the studies. Gray first outlined o-RST as an improvement of Eysenck's theories (for a review see Corr, 2008). While most personality models begin with a descriptive model and then investigate the underlying causes of the descriptive traits, o-RST begins with conditioning paradigms in animal learning and from this basis a neuropsychology of motivation, learning, and emotion was outlined. The Behavioural Approach System (BAS), also called the Behavioural Activation System, controls responses to conditioned reward and pertains to impulsivity (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) controls responses to conditioned punishment and results in anxiety (Corr, 2004). The Fight/Flight System (FFS) controls responses to unconditioned stimuli. The FFS results in immediate responses of either rapid escape or defensive aggression (Corr, 2008). Because the FFS is a secondary punishment system, it was never clearly incorporated into the personality literature. The primary scales that assessed o-RST focused on the BIS and BAS without reference to the FFS (Carver & White, 1994; Torrubia, Avila, Moltó, & Caseras, 2001). Based on reviewed behavioural and neurobiological rodent data, Gray and McNaughton (2000) revised the theory and suggested the motivational system should be divided into three systems with a clearer separation between BIS and FFFS. In the new theory, the BAS is relatively unchanged except that it controls responses to all rewarding stimuli rather than just conditioned stimuli. Moreover, the BAS was argued to be more related to extraversion than impulsivity (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). The name BIS remains, but the function differs because it now acts as a conflict detection system. The BIS evaluates approachavoidance conflict as well as approach-approach conflict and avoidance-avoidance conflict. The BIS assesses and resolves the conflict, which results in defensive approach and greater sensitivity to threat (Corr, 2008). Instead of the BIS, the Fight/Flight/Freeze System (FFFS) is now the system that controls responses to all aversive stimuli, rather than just conditioned aversive stimuli outlined in o-BIS. Based on animal learning, Freeze has also been added to the FFS. Similar to o-RST, these revisions are based on developments in animal learning conditioning research and neuroscience (Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Smillie et al., 2006), which makes r-RST unique among the personality systems.
91
While the theory was originally based on rodent data, studies have also found separation of BIS and FFFS in humans (e.g., Perkins, Kemp, & Corr, 2007). The theory has been further refined, for example, by including positive evaluation and negative evaluation of the stimuli (Corr & McNaughton, 2012). 2. Literature review inclusion criteria We conducted a search of the Web of Science database from 2000, when r-RST was introduced (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), to the time of writing (September 2016) using the search term “reinforcement sensitivity theory”. This search term identifies both o-RST and rRST studies and within the search results we identified the r-RST studies. After identifying the various r-RST measures, we also examined citations of each measure within the Web of Science database. The RST-PQ (Corr & Cooper, 2016) was only recently published but the measure has been available so use is noted some studies. The purpose of the article was to examine published peer reviewed empirical studies; therefore, we excluded books, book chapters, conference proceedings, theses, and theoretical articles. See Table 1 for a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the measures according to the authors of this article. 3. Results of literature review 3.1. Jackson 5 Unsurprisingly, the scale with the most studies attesting to its construct validity was the oldest scale, the Jackson 5 (Jackson, 2009). Notably though, it has been used by researchers other than the original author, which suggests it has acceptance among the r-RST research community. The Jackson 5 includes a unitary BAS (consistent with r-RST theory; Jackson, 2009), and an FFFS that is constructed from its three sub-scales of fight, flight and freezing. The scale is short in length and has been used in many studies. The original article includes two studies: a study of confirmatory factor analysis in undergraduate students and a study comparing the measure with o-RST in the prediction of delinquency and psychopathy in undergraduate students (Jackson, 2009). A study of social drinkers found the
Table 1 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of each r-RST Measure According to the Authors of this Article. Measure
Author(s)
Strengths
Weaknesses
Jackson 5
Jackson (2009)
No biomarker correlations. Social comparison is used to measure anxiety which some researchers perceive to be inappropriate.
SPSRQ-C
Colder et al. (2011)
Short. Single r-BAS. FFFS designed to be either unidimensional or divisible into sub-scales. Two studies for validation. Used by much research including by researchers beyond the original author. Biomarker correlations in validation study.
RSQ
Smederevac et al. (2014)
Single r-BAS. Separate FFFS
rRST-Q
Reuter et al. (2015)
FFFQ
Maack et al. (2015)
Single r-BAS. Separate FFFS. Biomarker correlations in validation study. Two studies in initial validation including in different languages. Separate FFFS. Five studies for validation including threat scenarios
RST-PQ
Corr and Cooper (2016)
Five studies in initial validation. Available online for several years so has already become established in the literature, including in studies beyond the original authors.
Single study for validation. r-BAS subscales, which are not suggested by original theory. A scale specifically for caregiver reports of children, so not applicable broadly. No biomarker correlations. Single study for validation. High correlations between the r-BIS, Flight, and Freeze. Fight is negatively correlated with Flight and Freeze. Correlations between the domains somewhat high. So far unused by researchers, but it is a relatively new scale. Fight is negatively correlated with Flight and Freeze. No biomarker correlations. So far unused by researchers, but it is a relatively new scale. One word descriptors may be perceived as too simple to assess the constructs. Now that several r-RST measures are available a specific measure for FFFS may not be perceived as useful. No biomarker correlations. r-BAS subscales, which are not suggested by the original theory. Splitting defensive fight from FFFS and measuring remaining FFFS as a single component seems unconnected to theory.
Note. Studies ordered by publication date. SPSRQ-C = Sensitivity to Reward and Sensitivity to Punishment Questionnaire caregiver report for children; RSQ = Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire; rRST-Q = The revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire; FFFQ = Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire; RST-PQ = Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire; r-BAS = revised Behavioural Approach System; r-BIS = revised Behavioural Inhibition System; FFFS = Fight/Flight/Freeze System.
92
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
FFFS predicted alcohol use mediated by emotion-focused coping and avoidant-focused coping (Ivory & Kambouropoulos, 2012). A study of students who also worked casually, part-time, or full-time found FFFS rather than r-BIS predicted lower psychological acceptance and in turn lower work engagement, but only when the job was demanding (Clark & Loxton, 2012). In an online sample, the Jackson 5 has been used to determine the convergent validity of a scale of maverickism (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012). Young drivers completed either psychosocial stress or relaxation inductions then a driving simulation and it was found that FFFS predicted poorer driving under stress (Morton & White, 2013). Using a sample of undergraduate students, r-BIS and FFFS predicted anxiety and stress and r-BIS predicted depression when r-BAS was low; r-BAS, low r-Freeze predicted psychological well-being (Harnett, Loxton, & Jackson, 2013). In a sample of undergraduate students who had experienced one or more traumatic events, FFFS predicted posttraumatic stress systems partially mediated by emotion dysregulation (Hannan & Orcutt, 2013). In two studies of university women, r-BAS predicted external eating mediated by the beliefs of eating as pleasurable and rewarding; r-BIS and FFFS both predicted emotional eating and external eating mediated by expectancy of eating managing negative affect (Hennegan, Loxton, & Mattar, 2013). A study of full-time workers found flight predicted executive functioning negatively (Jackson, Loxton, Harnett, Ciarrochi, & Gullo, 2014). A study of business students found fear negatively predicted divergent thinking creativity and BAS predicted divergent thinking creativity through mastery (Walker & Jackson, 2014). In an online sample, FFFS predicted threat and FFFS predicted social anxiety mediated by escapability (Kambouropoulos, Egan, O'Connor, & Staiger, 2014). A study of undergraduates found participants with a history of chronic childhood maltreatment had higher FFFS and emotional dysregulation than participants with non-chronic childhood maltreatment, and no childhood maltreatment and chronic childhood maltreatment predicted emotional dysregulation mediated by FFFS (Thompson, Hannan, & Miron, 2014). In an online sample of United States participants, r-BAS positively predicted sociability, acceptance and communal orientation and negatively predicted loneliness and shyness, and FFFS positively predicted shyness and loneliness and negatively predicted acceptance, and r-BIS positively predicted communal orientation and negatively predicted acceptance, but not when FFFS was controlled; r-BAS and FFFS predicted loneliness mediated by communal orientation, sociability, acceptance, and shyness in the expected directions (Clark, Loxton, & Tobin, 2015). In an undergraduate sample examining the triarchic model of psychopathy, boldness included increased r-BAS and reduced FFFS, meanness included increased r-BIS and Fight and reduced r-BAS, Flight, and Freeze, and disinhibition included increased r-BAS, r-Fight, and r-Freeze and reduced r-Flight (Donahue & Caraballo, 2015). Using an online sample, participants were divided into high and low social anxiety and the high anxiety group compared to the low anxiety group exhibited higher BIS, Flight, and Freeze scores and lower BAS scores (Kramer, Rodriguez, & Kertz, 2015). In a two-study article, Study 1 of full-time workers found r-BIS predicted feeling driven to work r-BAS predicted enjoyment of work, and Flight negatively predicted enjoyment of work; Study 2 of managers similarly found r-BAS predicted enjoyment of work, but not the other relationships (Jackson, Fung, Moore, & Jackson, 2016). In an online survey using participants with a mean of 15 years of playing a musical instrument or singing, rBAS predicted involvement in music and response to music and r-BAS predicted music involvement mediated by music absorption (Loxton, Mitchell, Dingle, & Sharman, 2016). Two r-RST studies also incorporated the Jackson 5 for comparison of other r-RST scales (Krupić, Corr, Ručevic, Križanić, & Gračanin, 2016; Krupić, Križanić, & Corr, 2016). An issue raised is whether the r-BIS items in the Jackson 5 have potentially inappropriate content because they differ from other measures of the r-BIS. Jackson is influenced by White and Depue (1999) in understanding social comparison as distressful if they are perceived as important (hence items such as “want
to do well compared with others” and “aim better than peers”). Social evaluations trigger distress and negative anticipation and therefore the items have merit because they should be associated with anxiety. This theme is also present in Smillie et al. (2006) in their understanding of social comparison and uncertainty as good examples of goal conflict. The relatively narrow definition of r-BIS compared to other measures has helped Jackson (2009) better separate r-BIS from FFFS. 3.2. Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Caregiver Report for Children The r-RST version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire caregiver report for children (SPSRQ-C; Colder et al., 2011) was devised because of the absence of a children's caregiver version that incorporated the revision. The measures are fear/shyness, which corresponds to the FFFS, anxiety, which corresponds to r-BIS, and three BAS subscales that correspond to the BAS subscales in the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) of drive, reward responsiveness, and impulsivity fun seeking. A strength of this measure is that it was validated through two samples with physiological measures (a reaction time task while monitoring skin conductance). Several studies have reported validity for the scale. In a two-wave study of 10–12 year old children, BAS drive and FFFS predicted alcohol use through positive expectancies, and BAS drive unexpectedly also predicted low drinking probability through negative expectancies (Lopez-Vergara et al., 2012). In a two-wave study of 11–12 year old children, FFFS predicted depressive symptoms moderated by poor planning ability using a Tower of London task (Vergara-Lopez, Lopez-Vergara, & Colder, 2013). A study of 9–12 year old children found BAS impulsivity/fun seeking predicted attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and externalizing symptoms and fear/shyness predicted slow cognitive tempo and internalizing symptoms (Becker et al., 2013). A three-wave self-report and peer-report study of 10–12 year old children found alcohol use was a function of both peer selection and peer alcohol use controlling for several confounds including the SPSRQ-C (Scalco, Trucco, Coffman, & Colder, 2015). 3.3. Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire The Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (Smederevac et al., 2014) incorporates BAS, r-BIS, fight, flight, and freeze. The initial study of undergraduate students and general population members is a single study of confirmatory factor analysis (Smederevac et al., 2014) and some studies have found validity. A study compared male prisoners and a community sample of men and found the r-RST domains had similar predictions in the clusters of approaching, avoidant, and controlled violent attitudes and behaviour (Mitrović, Smederevac, Čolović, Kodžopeljić, & Dinić, 2014). A study of undergraduate students and the general population found that r-BIS, flight, and freeze predicted four different types of anxiety (physical, social, cognitive, inhibitory), and r-BIS and flight also predicted prospective anxiety (Mihić, Čolović, Ignjatović, Smederevac, & Novović, 2015). Two comparison studies of r-RST scales also incorporated the RSQ (Krupić, Corr, et al., 2016; Krupić, Križanić, et al., 2016). The measure has similar domains to the Jackson 5 and RSQ except some of the correlations between domains are less than adequate, including high correlations between r-BIS, flight, and freeze, and fight is negatively correlated with flight and freeze. Such correlations do not match theory. 3.4. Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire The revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire (rRST-Q; Reuter et al., 2015) used a two samples of undergraduate students in the initial validation: one in German and one in English. It has measures of BAS, r-BIS, fight, flight, and freeze. A strength of the scale is it uses a biomarker for r-BIS: Buccal swaps were used to
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
find the r-BIS differences associated with functional genetic polymorphism (rs11174811) on the AVPR1a gene. Thus far no studies have been published using the rRST-Q, but this is a relatively new measure. The domains are similar to those used in the Jackson 5 and RSQ. Similar to the RSQ, a problem is that fight is negatively correlated with flight and freeze. This is a problem since fight, flight, and freeze should all have in common a central major component of fear and therefore they could be expected to all be positively correlated. 3.5. Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire The Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire (Maack et al., 2015) is a measure that specifically assesses trait-like fear in these three domains. This validation study incorporates five studies of generating a pool of items from threat scenarios, factor analysis, and divergent and convergent validity. Similar to the r-RST-Q, thus far no studies have yet to use the FFFQ. Now that other scales are available, some may not perceive the utility of specifically examining just the FFFS unless they are particularly convinced by the methodology supporting it as superior to others and also particularly interested in the aspect of r-RST. Furthermore, the scale mostly comprises one-word descriptors which may be perceived as inadequate to assess the constructs. The scale may be useful as a state measure of FFFS. 3.6. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (Corr & Cooper, 2016) validation article is a comprehensive article critiquing other measures. It utilizes five studies of undergraduate students and university staff to devise a new RST measure (including development, factor analysis, validation with other personality measures, and specific examination of defensive fight). The measure differs from others that either have a unitary BAS or simply follow the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) by including four BAS subscales (reward interest, goal-drive persistence, reward reactivity, and impulsivity), BIS, a unitary FFFS (though it incorporates flight, freeze, and active avoidance), and a separate scale for defensive fight. While the scale has only recently become available, the measure has been available for researchers to use for some time. Therefore, its validity has been assessed by several studies (as noted in the validation article). The RST-PQ was used to validate the RSQ (Smederevac et al., 2014) in a sample of the general population. In an undergraduate sample, the BAS reward reactivity subscale negatively predicted attachment avoidance and BIS and BAS impulsivity positively predicted attachment anxiety (Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014). A community sample found right wing authoritarianism was related all BAS subscales, FFFS, and fight, BAS reward interest and fight predicted social dominance orientation, FFFS negatively predicted need for cognition, and BAS reward reactivity, BAS goal-drive persistence, FFFS, BIS predicted need for closure (Corr, HargreavesHeap, Tsutsui, Russell, & Seger, 2013). Using an undergraduate sample, all r-RST scales predicted self-oriented perfectionism, BIS predicted other-oriented perfectionism, BIS and BAS impulsiveness positively predicted socially prescribed perfectionism and BAS goal-drive persistence negatively predicted socially prescribed perfectionism; BIS and BAS but not FFFS explained differences in recent positive and negative affect in mediation analyses with all three forms of perfectionism (Stoeber & Corr, 2015). In an online sample, the RST-PQ was used in a comparison study with scales including the Jackson 5 and RSQ (Krupić, Corr, et al., 2016). The article found good factor structure for the RST-PQ, Jackson 5, and RSQ, which concurs with these studies' initial validations (Corr & Cooper, 2016; Jackson, 2009; Smederevac et al., 2014). The article found some issues regarding convergence. The article suggests inadequate fit indices were obtained for scales that incorporated a unidimensional BAS and suggested using measures that separate BAS into subscales. Another perspective however is that
93
some of the sub-scales of BAS are not wholly aligned to a unitary dimension of BAS. Jackson 5 BAS and RSQ BAS converge with reward interest in the RST-PQ so can be interpreted accordingly. The fight scale of the FFFS converges with BAS and not with flight and freeze, which suggests disconnect between data and theory. Another study that compared Jackson 5, RSQ, RST-PQ in threat scenario choices made some similar findings regarding the Jackson 5 (Krupić, Križanić, et al., 2016). Regarding the o-BAS, Carver (author of the BIS/BAS scales; Carver & White, 1994) now suggests that the subscales of the o-BAS in the BIS/ BAS scales were not theoretically motivated and were simply the result of the way in which BAS was measured. A diverse set of items were included in the initial validation studies for BAS and if the BIS included similar diversity then subscales would also have emerged (Carver, 2016). Resolving questions regarding the potential multidimensional nature of BAS, BIS and FFFS is not easy but methodology exists (for example, Edwards, 2001).
4. Conclusions The purpose of this article was to examine the validity of the r-RST scales. Unsurprisingly, the oldest scale has the most studies attesting to its validity, but it is notable that both the Jackson 5 (Jackson, 2009) and RST-PQ (Corr & Cooper, 2016) have studies completed by researchers other than the original authors. In our view, when a short measure of r-RST is required the Jackson 5 has considerable promise as it provides one of the best representations of theorised structure, although some researchers doubt the items comprising the r-BIS scale (but see White & Depue, 1999). When a longer measure of r-RST is required then the RST-PQ also has considerable promise although some researchers may doubt the capacity of the measure to fully and only represent r-RST (but see Corr, 2016). Many divergent opinions appear to exist regarding the best structure of the r-RST. For example, whether to include a unitary BAS or separate subscales or unitary FFFS or separate subscales (for more details see Corr, 2016). Some would say that new ways of measuring r-RST is an empirical progression of the theory based on the data, whereas others would say that measurement should tightly reflect the theory. It is hoped that this review will provide researchers with further information when deciding which r-RST scale to use. Given all the scales are available for researchers to use, we expect vibrant debate on these issues over the coming years.
References Becker, S. P., Fite, P. J., Garner, A. A., Greening, L., Stoppelbein, L., & Luebbe, A. M. (2013). Reward and punishment sensitivity are differentially associated with ADHD and sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms in children. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 719–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.07.001. Carver, C. S. (2016). BIS/BAS Scales. Retrieved from http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/ ccarver/sclBISBAS.html Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.67.2.319. Clark, D. M. T., & Loxton, N. J. (2012). Fear, psychological acceptance, job demands and employee work engagement: An integrative moderated meditation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 893–897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2012.01.022. Clark, D. M. T., Loxton, N. J., & Tobin, S. J. (2015). Multiple mediators of reward and punishment sensitivity on loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 101–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.016. Colder, C. R., Trucco, E. M., Lopez, H. I., Hawk, L. W., Read, J. P., Lengua, L. J., ... Eiden, R. D. (2011). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory and laboratory assessment of BIS and BAS in children. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 198–207. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.005. Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01. 005. Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
94
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of Personality Questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.045. Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. (2016, Feb. 4). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment (Online First Publication). Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two stage (valuation-motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 2339–2354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.013. Corr, P. J., Hargreaves-Heap, S., Tsutsui, K., Russell, A., & Seger, C. (2013). Personality and social attitudes: Evidence for positive-approach motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 846–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.012. Donahue, J. J., & Caraballo, L. J. (2015). Examining the triarchic model of psychopathy using revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 125–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.031. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810142004. Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (2012). Workplace mavericks: How personality and risk-taking propensity predicts maverickism. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 497–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02090.x. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septohippocampal system. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed ). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Hannan, S. M., & Orcutt, H. K. (2013). Emotion dysregulation as a partial mediator between reinforcement sensitivity and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 574–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2013.04.028. Harnett, P. H., Loxton, N. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2013). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for psychopathology and psychological health. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 432–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.019. Hennegan, J. M., Loxton, N. J., & Mattar, A. (2013). Great expectations. Eating expectancies as mediators of reinforcement sensitivity and eating. Appetite, 71, 81–88. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.013. Ivory, N. J., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2012). Coping mediates the relationship between revised reinforcement sensitivity and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 822–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.013. Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 scales of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 556–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.007. Jackson, S. S., Fung, M. C., Moore, M. A. C., & Jackson, C. J. (2016). Personality and workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 114–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2016.02.020. Jackson, C. J., Loxton, N. J., Harnett, P., Ciarrochi, J., & Gullo, M. J. (2014). Original and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory in the prediction of executive functioning: A test of relationships between dual systems. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 83–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.024. Jiang, Y. X., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2014). Individual differences in adult attachment and reinforcement sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 205–210. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.022. Kambouropoulos, N., Egan, S., O'Connor, E. J., & Staiger, P. K. (2014). Escaping threat: Understanding the importance of threat sensitivity in social anxiety. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 47–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000126. Kramer, S., Rodriguez, B. F., & Kertz, S. J. (2015). Predicting socially anxious group membership using reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 474–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.053. Krupić, D., Corr, P. J., Ručevic, S., Križanić, V., & Gračanin, A. (2016a). Five reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) of personality questionnaires: Comparison, validity and generalization. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2016.03.012.
Krupić, D., Križanić, V., & Corr, P. J. (2016b). Personality and defensive behaviour: A factor analytic approach to threat scenario choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 303–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.045. Lopez-Vergara, H. I., Colder, C. R., Hawk, L. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Eiden, R. D., Lengua, L. J., & Read, J. P. (2012). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and alcohol outcome expectancies in early adolescence. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38, 130–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2011.643973. Loxton, N. J., Mitchell, R., Dingle, G. A., & Sharman, L. S. (2016). How to tame your SAS: Reward sensitivity and music involvement. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 35–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.018. Maack, D. J., Buchanan, E., & Young, J. (2015). Development and psychometric investigation of an inventory to assess fight, flight, and freeze tendencies: The fight, flight, freeze questionnaire. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44, 117–127. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/16506073.2014.972443. Mihić, L., Čolović, P., Ignjatović, I., Smederevac, S., & Novović, Z. (2015). Anxiety between personality and cognition: The gray zone. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 19–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.013. Mitrović, D., Smederevac, S., Čolović, P., Kodžopeljić, J., & Dinić, B. (2014). Personality prototypes based on dimensions of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory among prisoners and non-prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 50–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.004. Morton, R. D., & White, M. J. (2013). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: The impact of FFFS and stress on driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 57–63. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.005. Perkins, A. M., Kemp, S. E., & Corr, P. J. (2007). Fear and anxiety as separable emotions: An investigation of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. Emotion, 7, 252–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.252. Reuter, M., Cooper, A. J., Smillie, L. D., Markett, S., & Montag, C. (2015). A new measure for the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: Psychometric criteria and genetic validation. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9, 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys. 2015.00038. Scalco, M. D., Trucco, E. M., Coffman, D. L., & Colder, C. R. (2015). Selection and socialization effects in early adolescent alcohol use: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1131–1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-0149969-3. Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., Čolović, P., & Nikolašević, Ž. (2014). Validation of the measure of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory constructs. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 12–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000121. Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_3. Stoeber, J., & Corr, P. J. (2015). Perfectionism, personality, and affective experiences: New insights from revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 354–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.045. Thompson, K. L., Hannan, S. M., & Miron, L. R. (2014). Fight, flight, and freeze: Threat sensitivity and emotion dysregulation in survivors of chronic childhood maltreatment. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 28–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.05.005. Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837–862. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5. Vergara-Lopez, C., Lopez-Vergara, H. I., & Colder, C. R. (2013). Executive functioning moderates the relationship between motivation and adolescent depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 18–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2012.07.034. Walker, B. R., & Jackson, C. J. (2014). How the five factor model and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory predict divergent thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 54–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.011. White, T. L., & Depue, R. A. (1999). Differential association of traits of fear and anxiety with norepinephrine- and dark-induced pupil reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 863–877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.863.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Review
Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales Benjamin R. Walker ⁎, Chris J. Jackson School of Management, UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 October 2015 Received in revised form 5 October 2016 Accepted 19 October 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Cognition Biology Motivation
a b s t r a c t Several self-report scales are now available to measure Gray and McNaughton's revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST). To date, no research has evaluated all the studies used by these scales together in one article so researchers can assess their differential utility. This article attempts to address this issue with a summary of the studies used by the r-RST scales. We found that the Jackson 5 includes the most studies attesting to its validity, but recognize this as partly a function of it as the oldest scale. The Jackson 5 and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire have been used by researchers other than the original authors, which suggests acceptance by the r-RST research community. Our hope is that this article is useful to researchers as a succinct summary of the validity of measures and also a commentary on the studies. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents 1. 2. 3.
Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales . . . . . . Literature review inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Jackson 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Caregiver Report for Children 3.3. Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Examining the validity of the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory scales Based on animal learning and neurobiology, original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST; Gray, 1982) was updated to become revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST; Gray & McNaughton, 2000). A recent development in r-RST is that several self-report scales have become available. Thus far, the construct validity and differential utility of each of the scales has not been examined. This article summarizes ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.R. Walker), [email protected] (C.J. Jackson).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.035 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
90 91 91 91 92 92 92 93 93 93 93
the studies associated with each of the scales and provides an evaluation of their usefulness. It is hoped this review will be useful to r-RST researchers in their assessment of which scale to use in their research. Several self-report measures for r-RST have recently become available. These include the Jackson 5 (Jackson, 2009), the r-RST version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire caregiver report for children (SPSRQ-C; Colder et al., 2011), the Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Smederevac, Mitrović, Čolović, & Nikolašević, 2014), the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire (rRST-Q; Reuter, Cooper, Smillie, Markett, & Montag, 2015), the Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire (FFFQ; Maack, Buchanan, & Young, 2015), and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ; Corr & Cooper, 2016). While the
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
older studies are likely to have more studies than the more recent ones, an indication of the validity of the studies can still be provided by an examination of the studies. Gray first outlined o-RST as an improvement of Eysenck's theories (for a review see Corr, 2008). While most personality models begin with a descriptive model and then investigate the underlying causes of the descriptive traits, o-RST begins with conditioning paradigms in animal learning and from this basis a neuropsychology of motivation, learning, and emotion was outlined. The Behavioural Approach System (BAS), also called the Behavioural Activation System, controls responses to conditioned reward and pertains to impulsivity (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). The Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) controls responses to conditioned punishment and results in anxiety (Corr, 2004). The Fight/Flight System (FFS) controls responses to unconditioned stimuli. The FFS results in immediate responses of either rapid escape or defensive aggression (Corr, 2008). Because the FFS is a secondary punishment system, it was never clearly incorporated into the personality literature. The primary scales that assessed o-RST focused on the BIS and BAS without reference to the FFS (Carver & White, 1994; Torrubia, Avila, Moltó, & Caseras, 2001). Based on reviewed behavioural and neurobiological rodent data, Gray and McNaughton (2000) revised the theory and suggested the motivational system should be divided into three systems with a clearer separation between BIS and FFFS. In the new theory, the BAS is relatively unchanged except that it controls responses to all rewarding stimuli rather than just conditioned stimuli. Moreover, the BAS was argued to be more related to extraversion than impulsivity (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). The name BIS remains, but the function differs because it now acts as a conflict detection system. The BIS evaluates approachavoidance conflict as well as approach-approach conflict and avoidance-avoidance conflict. The BIS assesses and resolves the conflict, which results in defensive approach and greater sensitivity to threat (Corr, 2008). Instead of the BIS, the Fight/Flight/Freeze System (FFFS) is now the system that controls responses to all aversive stimuli, rather than just conditioned aversive stimuli outlined in o-BIS. Based on animal learning, Freeze has also been added to the FFS. Similar to o-RST, these revisions are based on developments in animal learning conditioning research and neuroscience (Gray & McNaughton, 2000; Smillie et al., 2006), which makes r-RST unique among the personality systems.
91
While the theory was originally based on rodent data, studies have also found separation of BIS and FFFS in humans (e.g., Perkins, Kemp, & Corr, 2007). The theory has been further refined, for example, by including positive evaluation and negative evaluation of the stimuli (Corr & McNaughton, 2012). 2. Literature review inclusion criteria We conducted a search of the Web of Science database from 2000, when r-RST was introduced (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), to the time of writing (September 2016) using the search term “reinforcement sensitivity theory”. This search term identifies both o-RST and rRST studies and within the search results we identified the r-RST studies. After identifying the various r-RST measures, we also examined citations of each measure within the Web of Science database. The RST-PQ (Corr & Cooper, 2016) was only recently published but the measure has been available so use is noted some studies. The purpose of the article was to examine published peer reviewed empirical studies; therefore, we excluded books, book chapters, conference proceedings, theses, and theoretical articles. See Table 1 for a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the measures according to the authors of this article. 3. Results of literature review 3.1. Jackson 5 Unsurprisingly, the scale with the most studies attesting to its construct validity was the oldest scale, the Jackson 5 (Jackson, 2009). Notably though, it has been used by researchers other than the original author, which suggests it has acceptance among the r-RST research community. The Jackson 5 includes a unitary BAS (consistent with r-RST theory; Jackson, 2009), and an FFFS that is constructed from its three sub-scales of fight, flight and freezing. The scale is short in length and has been used in many studies. The original article includes two studies: a study of confirmatory factor analysis in undergraduate students and a study comparing the measure with o-RST in the prediction of delinquency and psychopathy in undergraduate students (Jackson, 2009). A study of social drinkers found the
Table 1 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of each r-RST Measure According to the Authors of this Article. Measure
Author(s)
Strengths
Weaknesses
Jackson 5
Jackson (2009)
No biomarker correlations. Social comparison is used to measure anxiety which some researchers perceive to be inappropriate.
SPSRQ-C
Colder et al. (2011)
Short. Single r-BAS. FFFS designed to be either unidimensional or divisible into sub-scales. Two studies for validation. Used by much research including by researchers beyond the original author. Biomarker correlations in validation study.
RSQ
Smederevac et al. (2014)
Single r-BAS. Separate FFFS
rRST-Q
Reuter et al. (2015)
FFFQ
Maack et al. (2015)
Single r-BAS. Separate FFFS. Biomarker correlations in validation study. Two studies in initial validation including in different languages. Separate FFFS. Five studies for validation including threat scenarios
RST-PQ
Corr and Cooper (2016)
Five studies in initial validation. Available online for several years so has already become established in the literature, including in studies beyond the original authors.
Single study for validation. r-BAS subscales, which are not suggested by original theory. A scale specifically for caregiver reports of children, so not applicable broadly. No biomarker correlations. Single study for validation. High correlations between the r-BIS, Flight, and Freeze. Fight is negatively correlated with Flight and Freeze. Correlations between the domains somewhat high. So far unused by researchers, but it is a relatively new scale. Fight is negatively correlated with Flight and Freeze. No biomarker correlations. So far unused by researchers, but it is a relatively new scale. One word descriptors may be perceived as too simple to assess the constructs. Now that several r-RST measures are available a specific measure for FFFS may not be perceived as useful. No biomarker correlations. r-BAS subscales, which are not suggested by the original theory. Splitting defensive fight from FFFS and measuring remaining FFFS as a single component seems unconnected to theory.
Note. Studies ordered by publication date. SPSRQ-C = Sensitivity to Reward and Sensitivity to Punishment Questionnaire caregiver report for children; RSQ = Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire; rRST-Q = The revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire; FFFQ = Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire; RST-PQ = Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire; r-BAS = revised Behavioural Approach System; r-BIS = revised Behavioural Inhibition System; FFFS = Fight/Flight/Freeze System.
92
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
FFFS predicted alcohol use mediated by emotion-focused coping and avoidant-focused coping (Ivory & Kambouropoulos, 2012). A study of students who also worked casually, part-time, or full-time found FFFS rather than r-BIS predicted lower psychological acceptance and in turn lower work engagement, but only when the job was demanding (Clark & Loxton, 2012). In an online sample, the Jackson 5 has been used to determine the convergent validity of a scale of maverickism (Gardiner & Jackson, 2012). Young drivers completed either psychosocial stress or relaxation inductions then a driving simulation and it was found that FFFS predicted poorer driving under stress (Morton & White, 2013). Using a sample of undergraduate students, r-BIS and FFFS predicted anxiety and stress and r-BIS predicted depression when r-BAS was low; r-BAS, low r-Freeze predicted psychological well-being (Harnett, Loxton, & Jackson, 2013). In a sample of undergraduate students who had experienced one or more traumatic events, FFFS predicted posttraumatic stress systems partially mediated by emotion dysregulation (Hannan & Orcutt, 2013). In two studies of university women, r-BAS predicted external eating mediated by the beliefs of eating as pleasurable and rewarding; r-BIS and FFFS both predicted emotional eating and external eating mediated by expectancy of eating managing negative affect (Hennegan, Loxton, & Mattar, 2013). A study of full-time workers found flight predicted executive functioning negatively (Jackson, Loxton, Harnett, Ciarrochi, & Gullo, 2014). A study of business students found fear negatively predicted divergent thinking creativity and BAS predicted divergent thinking creativity through mastery (Walker & Jackson, 2014). In an online sample, FFFS predicted threat and FFFS predicted social anxiety mediated by escapability (Kambouropoulos, Egan, O'Connor, & Staiger, 2014). A study of undergraduates found participants with a history of chronic childhood maltreatment had higher FFFS and emotional dysregulation than participants with non-chronic childhood maltreatment, and no childhood maltreatment and chronic childhood maltreatment predicted emotional dysregulation mediated by FFFS (Thompson, Hannan, & Miron, 2014). In an online sample of United States participants, r-BAS positively predicted sociability, acceptance and communal orientation and negatively predicted loneliness and shyness, and FFFS positively predicted shyness and loneliness and negatively predicted acceptance, and r-BIS positively predicted communal orientation and negatively predicted acceptance, but not when FFFS was controlled; r-BAS and FFFS predicted loneliness mediated by communal orientation, sociability, acceptance, and shyness in the expected directions (Clark, Loxton, & Tobin, 2015). In an undergraduate sample examining the triarchic model of psychopathy, boldness included increased r-BAS and reduced FFFS, meanness included increased r-BIS and Fight and reduced r-BAS, Flight, and Freeze, and disinhibition included increased r-BAS, r-Fight, and r-Freeze and reduced r-Flight (Donahue & Caraballo, 2015). Using an online sample, participants were divided into high and low social anxiety and the high anxiety group compared to the low anxiety group exhibited higher BIS, Flight, and Freeze scores and lower BAS scores (Kramer, Rodriguez, & Kertz, 2015). In a two-study article, Study 1 of full-time workers found r-BIS predicted feeling driven to work r-BAS predicted enjoyment of work, and Flight negatively predicted enjoyment of work; Study 2 of managers similarly found r-BAS predicted enjoyment of work, but not the other relationships (Jackson, Fung, Moore, & Jackson, 2016). In an online survey using participants with a mean of 15 years of playing a musical instrument or singing, rBAS predicted involvement in music and response to music and r-BAS predicted music involvement mediated by music absorption (Loxton, Mitchell, Dingle, & Sharman, 2016). Two r-RST studies also incorporated the Jackson 5 for comparison of other r-RST scales (Krupić, Corr, Ručevic, Križanić, & Gračanin, 2016; Krupić, Križanić, & Corr, 2016). An issue raised is whether the r-BIS items in the Jackson 5 have potentially inappropriate content because they differ from other measures of the r-BIS. Jackson is influenced by White and Depue (1999) in understanding social comparison as distressful if they are perceived as important (hence items such as “want
to do well compared with others” and “aim better than peers”). Social evaluations trigger distress and negative anticipation and therefore the items have merit because they should be associated with anxiety. This theme is also present in Smillie et al. (2006) in their understanding of social comparison and uncertainty as good examples of goal conflict. The relatively narrow definition of r-BIS compared to other measures has helped Jackson (2009) better separate r-BIS from FFFS. 3.2. Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Caregiver Report for Children The r-RST version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire caregiver report for children (SPSRQ-C; Colder et al., 2011) was devised because of the absence of a children's caregiver version that incorporated the revision. The measures are fear/shyness, which corresponds to the FFFS, anxiety, which corresponds to r-BIS, and three BAS subscales that correspond to the BAS subscales in the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) of drive, reward responsiveness, and impulsivity fun seeking. A strength of this measure is that it was validated through two samples with physiological measures (a reaction time task while monitoring skin conductance). Several studies have reported validity for the scale. In a two-wave study of 10–12 year old children, BAS drive and FFFS predicted alcohol use through positive expectancies, and BAS drive unexpectedly also predicted low drinking probability through negative expectancies (Lopez-Vergara et al., 2012). In a two-wave study of 11–12 year old children, FFFS predicted depressive symptoms moderated by poor planning ability using a Tower of London task (Vergara-Lopez, Lopez-Vergara, & Colder, 2013). A study of 9–12 year old children found BAS impulsivity/fun seeking predicted attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and externalizing symptoms and fear/shyness predicted slow cognitive tempo and internalizing symptoms (Becker et al., 2013). A three-wave self-report and peer-report study of 10–12 year old children found alcohol use was a function of both peer selection and peer alcohol use controlling for several confounds including the SPSRQ-C (Scalco, Trucco, Coffman, & Colder, 2015). 3.3. Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire The Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (Smederevac et al., 2014) incorporates BAS, r-BIS, fight, flight, and freeze. The initial study of undergraduate students and general population members is a single study of confirmatory factor analysis (Smederevac et al., 2014) and some studies have found validity. A study compared male prisoners and a community sample of men and found the r-RST domains had similar predictions in the clusters of approaching, avoidant, and controlled violent attitudes and behaviour (Mitrović, Smederevac, Čolović, Kodžopeljić, & Dinić, 2014). A study of undergraduate students and the general population found that r-BIS, flight, and freeze predicted four different types of anxiety (physical, social, cognitive, inhibitory), and r-BIS and flight also predicted prospective anxiety (Mihić, Čolović, Ignjatović, Smederevac, & Novović, 2015). Two comparison studies of r-RST scales also incorporated the RSQ (Krupić, Corr, et al., 2016; Krupić, Križanić, et al., 2016). The measure has similar domains to the Jackson 5 and RSQ except some of the correlations between domains are less than adequate, including high correlations between r-BIS, flight, and freeze, and fight is negatively correlated with flight and freeze. Such correlations do not match theory. 3.4. Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire The revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire (rRST-Q; Reuter et al., 2015) used a two samples of undergraduate students in the initial validation: one in German and one in English. It has measures of BAS, r-BIS, fight, flight, and freeze. A strength of the scale is it uses a biomarker for r-BIS: Buccal swaps were used to
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
find the r-BIS differences associated with functional genetic polymorphism (rs11174811) on the AVPR1a gene. Thus far no studies have been published using the rRST-Q, but this is a relatively new measure. The domains are similar to those used in the Jackson 5 and RSQ. Similar to the RSQ, a problem is that fight is negatively correlated with flight and freeze. This is a problem since fight, flight, and freeze should all have in common a central major component of fear and therefore they could be expected to all be positively correlated. 3.5. Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire The Fight, Flight, Freeze Questionnaire (Maack et al., 2015) is a measure that specifically assesses trait-like fear in these three domains. This validation study incorporates five studies of generating a pool of items from threat scenarios, factor analysis, and divergent and convergent validity. Similar to the r-RST-Q, thus far no studies have yet to use the FFFQ. Now that other scales are available, some may not perceive the utility of specifically examining just the FFFS unless they are particularly convinced by the methodology supporting it as superior to others and also particularly interested in the aspect of r-RST. Furthermore, the scale mostly comprises one-word descriptors which may be perceived as inadequate to assess the constructs. The scale may be useful as a state measure of FFFS. 3.6. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (Corr & Cooper, 2016) validation article is a comprehensive article critiquing other measures. It utilizes five studies of undergraduate students and university staff to devise a new RST measure (including development, factor analysis, validation with other personality measures, and specific examination of defensive fight). The measure differs from others that either have a unitary BAS or simply follow the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994) by including four BAS subscales (reward interest, goal-drive persistence, reward reactivity, and impulsivity), BIS, a unitary FFFS (though it incorporates flight, freeze, and active avoidance), and a separate scale for defensive fight. While the scale has only recently become available, the measure has been available for researchers to use for some time. Therefore, its validity has been assessed by several studies (as noted in the validation article). The RST-PQ was used to validate the RSQ (Smederevac et al., 2014) in a sample of the general population. In an undergraduate sample, the BAS reward reactivity subscale negatively predicted attachment avoidance and BIS and BAS impulsivity positively predicted attachment anxiety (Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014). A community sample found right wing authoritarianism was related all BAS subscales, FFFS, and fight, BAS reward interest and fight predicted social dominance orientation, FFFS negatively predicted need for cognition, and BAS reward reactivity, BAS goal-drive persistence, FFFS, BIS predicted need for closure (Corr, HargreavesHeap, Tsutsui, Russell, & Seger, 2013). Using an undergraduate sample, all r-RST scales predicted self-oriented perfectionism, BIS predicted other-oriented perfectionism, BIS and BAS impulsiveness positively predicted socially prescribed perfectionism and BAS goal-drive persistence negatively predicted socially prescribed perfectionism; BIS and BAS but not FFFS explained differences in recent positive and negative affect in mediation analyses with all three forms of perfectionism (Stoeber & Corr, 2015). In an online sample, the RST-PQ was used in a comparison study with scales including the Jackson 5 and RSQ (Krupić, Corr, et al., 2016). The article found good factor structure for the RST-PQ, Jackson 5, and RSQ, which concurs with these studies' initial validations (Corr & Cooper, 2016; Jackson, 2009; Smederevac et al., 2014). The article found some issues regarding convergence. The article suggests inadequate fit indices were obtained for scales that incorporated a unidimensional BAS and suggested using measures that separate BAS into subscales. Another perspective however is that
93
some of the sub-scales of BAS are not wholly aligned to a unitary dimension of BAS. Jackson 5 BAS and RSQ BAS converge with reward interest in the RST-PQ so can be interpreted accordingly. The fight scale of the FFFS converges with BAS and not with flight and freeze, which suggests disconnect between data and theory. Another study that compared Jackson 5, RSQ, RST-PQ in threat scenario choices made some similar findings regarding the Jackson 5 (Krupić, Križanić, et al., 2016). Regarding the o-BAS, Carver (author of the BIS/BAS scales; Carver & White, 1994) now suggests that the subscales of the o-BAS in the BIS/ BAS scales were not theoretically motivated and were simply the result of the way in which BAS was measured. A diverse set of items were included in the initial validation studies for BAS and if the BIS included similar diversity then subscales would also have emerged (Carver, 2016). Resolving questions regarding the potential multidimensional nature of BAS, BIS and FFFS is not easy but methodology exists (for example, Edwards, 2001).
4. Conclusions The purpose of this article was to examine the validity of the r-RST scales. Unsurprisingly, the oldest scale has the most studies attesting to its validity, but it is notable that both the Jackson 5 (Jackson, 2009) and RST-PQ (Corr & Cooper, 2016) have studies completed by researchers other than the original authors. In our view, when a short measure of r-RST is required the Jackson 5 has considerable promise as it provides one of the best representations of theorised structure, although some researchers doubt the items comprising the r-BIS scale (but see White & Depue, 1999). When a longer measure of r-RST is required then the RST-PQ also has considerable promise although some researchers may doubt the capacity of the measure to fully and only represent r-RST (but see Corr, 2016). Many divergent opinions appear to exist regarding the best structure of the r-RST. For example, whether to include a unitary BAS or separate subscales or unitary FFFS or separate subscales (for more details see Corr, 2016). Some would say that new ways of measuring r-RST is an empirical progression of the theory based on the data, whereas others would say that measurement should tightly reflect the theory. It is hoped that this review will provide researchers with further information when deciding which r-RST scale to use. Given all the scales are available for researchers to use, we expect vibrant debate on these issues over the coming years.
References Becker, S. P., Fite, P. J., Garner, A. A., Greening, L., Stoppelbein, L., & Luebbe, A. M. (2013). Reward and punishment sensitivity are differentially associated with ADHD and sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms in children. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 719–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.07.001. Carver, C. S. (2016). BIS/BAS Scales. Retrieved from http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/ ccarver/sclBISBAS.html Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.67.2.319. Clark, D. M. T., & Loxton, N. J. (2012). Fear, psychological acceptance, job demands and employee work engagement: An integrative moderated meditation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 893–897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2012.01.022. Clark, D. M. T., Loxton, N. J., & Tobin, S. J. (2015). Multiple mediators of reward and punishment sensitivity on loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 101–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.016. Colder, C. R., Trucco, E. M., Lopez, H. I., Hawk, L. W., Read, J. P., Lengua, L. J., ... Eiden, R. D. (2011). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory and laboratory assessment of BIS and BAS in children. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 198–207. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.005. Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01. 005. Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction. In P. J. Corr (Ed.), Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
94
B.R. Walker, C.J. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 106 (2017) 90–94
Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of Personality Questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 60–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.045. Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. (2016, Feb. 4). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment (Online First Publication). Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two stage (valuation-motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 2339–2354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.013. Corr, P. J., Hargreaves-Heap, S., Tsutsui, K., Russell, A., & Seger, C. (2013). Personality and social attitudes: Evidence for positive-approach motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 846–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.012. Donahue, J. J., & Caraballo, L. J. (2015). Examining the triarchic model of psychopathy using revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 125–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.031. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810142004. Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (2012). Workplace mavericks: How personality and risk-taking propensity predicts maverickism. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 497–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02090.x. Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septohippocampal system. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed ). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Hannan, S. M., & Orcutt, H. K. (2013). Emotion dysregulation as a partial mediator between reinforcement sensitivity and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 574–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2013.04.028. Harnett, P. H., Loxton, N. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2013). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for psychopathology and psychological health. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 432–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.019. Hennegan, J. M., Loxton, N. J., & Mattar, A. (2013). Great expectations. Eating expectancies as mediators of reinforcement sensitivity and eating. Appetite, 71, 81–88. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.013. Ivory, N. J., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2012). Coping mediates the relationship between revised reinforcement sensitivity and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 822–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.013. Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 scales of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 556–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.007. Jackson, S. S., Fung, M. C., Moore, M. A. C., & Jackson, C. J. (2016). Personality and workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 114–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2016.02.020. Jackson, C. J., Loxton, N. J., Harnett, P., Ciarrochi, J., & Gullo, M. J. (2014). Original and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory in the prediction of executive functioning: A test of relationships between dual systems. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 83–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.024. Jiang, Y. X., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2014). Individual differences in adult attachment and reinforcement sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 205–210. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.022. Kambouropoulos, N., Egan, S., O'Connor, E. J., & Staiger, P. K. (2014). Escaping threat: Understanding the importance of threat sensitivity in social anxiety. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 47–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000126. Kramer, S., Rodriguez, B. F., & Kertz, S. J. (2015). Predicting socially anxious group membership using reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 474–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.053. Krupić, D., Corr, P. J., Ručevic, S., Križanić, V., & Gračanin, A. (2016a). Five reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) of personality questionnaires: Comparison, validity and generalization. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2016.03.012.
Krupić, D., Križanić, V., & Corr, P. J. (2016b). Personality and defensive behaviour: A factor analytic approach to threat scenario choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 303–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.045. Lopez-Vergara, H. I., Colder, C. R., Hawk, L. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Eiden, R. D., Lengua, L. J., & Read, J. P. (2012). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and alcohol outcome expectancies in early adolescence. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38, 130–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2011.643973. Loxton, N. J., Mitchell, R., Dingle, G. A., & Sharman, L. S. (2016). How to tame your SAS: Reward sensitivity and music involvement. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 35–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.018. Maack, D. J., Buchanan, E., & Young, J. (2015). Development and psychometric investigation of an inventory to assess fight, flight, and freeze tendencies: The fight, flight, freeze questionnaire. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44, 117–127. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/16506073.2014.972443. Mihić, L., Čolović, P., Ignjatović, I., Smederevac, S., & Novović, Z. (2015). Anxiety between personality and cognition: The gray zone. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 19–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.013. Mitrović, D., Smederevac, S., Čolović, P., Kodžopeljić, J., & Dinić, B. (2014). Personality prototypes based on dimensions of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory among prisoners and non-prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 50–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.004. Morton, R. D., & White, M. J. (2013). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: The impact of FFFS and stress on driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 57–63. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.005. Perkins, A. M., Kemp, S. E., & Corr, P. J. (2007). Fear and anxiety as separable emotions: An investigation of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. Emotion, 7, 252–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.252. Reuter, M., Cooper, A. J., Smillie, L. D., Markett, S., & Montag, C. (2015). A new measure for the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: Psychometric criteria and genetic validation. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9, 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys. 2015.00038. Scalco, M. D., Trucco, E. M., Coffman, D. L., & Colder, C. R. (2015). Selection and socialization effects in early adolescent alcohol use: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1131–1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-0149969-3. Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., Čolović, P., & Nikolašević, Ž. (2014). Validation of the measure of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory constructs. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 12–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000121. Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_3. Stoeber, J., & Corr, P. J. (2015). Perfectionism, personality, and affective experiences: New insights from revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 354–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.045. Thompson, K. L., Hannan, S. M., & Miron, L. R. (2014). Fight, flight, and freeze: Threat sensitivity and emotion dysregulation in survivors of chronic childhood maltreatment. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 28–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.05.005. Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Moltó, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837–862. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5. Vergara-Lopez, C., Lopez-Vergara, H. I., & Colder, C. R. (2013). Executive functioning moderates the relationship between motivation and adolescent depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 18–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2012.07.034. Walker, B. R., & Jackson, C. J. (2014). How the five factor model and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory predict divergent thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 54–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.011. White, T. L., & Depue, R. A. (1999). Differential association of traits of fear and anxiety with norepinephrine- and dark-induced pupil reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 863–877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.863.