- Email: [email protected]
Sensitivity to punishment and resistance to extinction: a test of Gray's behavioral inhibition system
Pergamon 0191-8869(94)00117-O
NOTES AND SHORTER
Prrron. indkd. &ff: Vol. 17. No. 6. pp. X45-847. I994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Bntain. All rights reserved 0191-X869/94
$7.00
+ 0.00
COMMUNICATIONS
Sensitivity to punishment and resistance to extinction: a test of Gray’s Behavioral Inhibition System CBSAR AVILA
Aportado
de Correos,
Department of Psychology, Campus de la Carretera Universitat Jaume I, 12080 Caste&n, Spain
de Borriol,
(Received 27 May 1994) Summary-Resistance to extinction was investigated in two groups of undergraduates classified according to their scores on the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) Scale. Results showed that low SPs were slower to suppress responses previously rewarded than high SPs. Results were consistent with Gray’s description of the BIS and complement previous results showing passive avoidance deficits in low SPs.
INTRODUCTION
According to Gray’s theory, the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) is associated with individual differences in sensitivity to cues of punishment and frustrative non-reward. When activated by these signals, the BIS outputs are behavioral inhibition of ongoing approach behavior, increasing arousal and increasing attention toward environment (Gray, 1982, 1987). The BIS mediates the behavioral manifestations of passive avoidance (reducing risk of punishment by no response) and extinction (suppression of responses that are not rewarded). Gray’s theory has been applied to humans by studying individual differences in sensitivity to cues of punishment. Some studies have shown that non-anxious (stable extraverts) are less prone to passive avoidance behavior than anxious (neurotic introverts) (Avila, Molto, Segarra & Torrubia, submitted; Avila & Torrubia, in preparation; Geen, 1987; Newman, Wallace & Arnett, 1993). The proposed mechanism leading to these differences was a lower processing of punishing stimuli (Avila & Torrubia, in preparation). However, little evidence has been found for BIS-mediated differences in resistance to extinction. This paper aims to study individual difference in resistance to extinction. The Sensitivity to Punishment Scale [SP (Torrubia & Tobefia, 1984; Torrubia, Avila, Molto & Segarra, 1993) was designed to measure individual differences in BIS functioning. This scale has shown good reliability and validity properties. SP was correlated positively to Neuroticism and negatively to Extraversion. Laboratory and real-life evidence has found that high SPs showed more passive avoidance behavior when faced with punishment cues than low SPs (Avila, Molto, Parcet & Torrubia, 1993; Avila, Molto, Segarra & Torrubia, 1991). Our hypothesis was that low SPs would have more resistance to extinction than high SPs.
METHOD
Subjects The Ss were 92 undergraduates (I 4 males and 78 females) with ages ranging from I8 to 40 yr (M = 19.93; SD = 3.86). All Ss completed the Sensitivity to Punishment Scale-Revised version (Torrubia et al., 1993). Ss were divided into High and Low SP scorers according to whether their SP scores were above or below the median of 12.
Task and Procedure The task was controlled by a PC-computer and the ‘I ’ and ‘2’ keys on the computer keyboard were used for responding. The task consisted of two different phases with three identical blocks of 100 trials each in which Ss had to choose between two response alternatives. There was no interruption between the two phases. The task was similar in the two phases. At the beginning of the task, Ss were presented with two centrally located squares measuring 3 X 3 cm. Written inside each square there were the expressions ‘Button I ’ and ‘Button 2’. respectively. Two 5 X 2 cm rectangles appeared centrally located 4 and 7 cm below the other two, respectively. The expressions Points = with the points earned after such response and Total Score = with the total amount of earned points during the task appeared inside these rectangles, respectively. Points earned each response were displayed for 1500 msecll while total earnings were continuously displayed during the task. Ss had to choose in each trial between responding to Button I or Button 2. In Phase I, responses to the two buttons were partially rewarded. Responses to Button I were rewarded 70% of the time with a random amount of points ranging from 2 to IO. Responses to Button 2 were rewarded 30% of the time with a random amount of points ranging from 8 to 20. The two responses were programmed to give the same amount of reward. In Phase II, responses to one of the two buttons were never rewarded and responses to the other button were rewarded as in the Phase I. Before beginning the Phase II, the computer randomly selected which of the two buttons was never rewarded. All instructions were displayed on the monitor. Ss were encouraged to earn the maximum number of points. Responses to each button were recorded in each block. 845
846
NOTES
AND SHORTEK
Low
Phase I Trials I-100
43.71 IX.42 22.4 I 14.51 12.41 I I .96
33.08 IO.85 IX.54 12.78 I I.61 IO.31
78.88 I I .90 88.X4 9.7 I 91.20 8 .OJ
SD
lOl~200
Trials 20-300
81.87 5 22 9&7 6.54 94 7s 4.96
68.69 13.4x
63.64 I I .2s 65.08 13.58 68.24 14.47
SD
Trials
65.25 9.66 69.46 0.4x 70.37 X.66
7.92 69.06 X.86 61.65 13.74
M
Phase II Trials l-100
62.35 9.60 63.15
64.00
Trials 201-300
M SD M SD
M SD
SP\
Low SP\
SD
M
Hqh
High SPs
M
101-200
Trials
SPs
COMMUNICATIONS
I I.87
RESULTS AND DISCG’SSION
To evaluate performance we calculated the number of responses to Button I since all the Ss performed the same number of trials. This variable was calculated separately every 100 trials. A 3 X 2 X 2 ANOVA was conducted using Block as the within-S variable. Between&factors were Sensitivity to Punishment (Low vs High) and Extinction Group (70 vs 30% ). Means and standard deviations of these variables for each group appear in Table I. The analysis of variance for Phase I produced neither significant effect nor interaction involving SP or Extinction Group. The Block main effect was significant, F(2, 176) = 9.16, P < 0.001. indicating an increasing number of responses to the Button 1 rewarded 70% of the time. As expected, no differences were found between groups in the number of responses given to each button in Phase I. The analysis of variance for Phase II yielded a main effect for Extinction Group, F (I, 88) = 1231.80. P < 0.001, indicating an increasing number of responses to Button I for the 30% extinction condition, and a decreasing number of responses to Button I for the 70% extinction condition. The Block X Extinction Group interaction was also significant, F (2, 176) = 196.1 I, P < 0.001, indicating an increasing of tendency of the Extinction Group main effect over blocks. As expected, the SP X Extinction Group interaction was significant. F (I, 88) = 5. IS. P < 0.03. This interaction indicated that low SPs responded more to Button I in the 70% Extinction Condition and to the Button 2 in the 30% Extinction Condition than high SPs. As a consequence results have confirmed the hypothesis that low SPs are more resistant to extinction than high SPs. Additionally, the SP X Extinction Group X Block interaction was also significant, F ( 2, 176) = 3.90. P <0.02). To investigate this interaction, the SP X Extinction Group interaction was analyzed separately for each block. These analyses reflected that the observed differences between high and low SPs were significant for the first block, F( I, 88) = 10.85, P < 0.001, but were not for the second and the third blocks. These Block differences are important to explain the observed personality differences in resistance to extinction. Two explanations could be possible. First, low SPh were engaged in more risky-behavior than high SPs leading to consciously making more non-rewarded responses. Second, low SPs were slower to associate their response to non-reward. If the main differences were produced during the tirst block. the results could be explained to the lower association of responses to their negative consequences. This interpretation of results would be compatible with previous results indicating that an underactive BIS was related to a lesser processing of punishment cues and a lesser response modulation after negative feedback (Avila rt cl/., submitted: Avila & Torrubia. in preparation). In summary, results have obtained a higher resistance to extinction for the low SP group. The observed differences could be attributed to the functioning of the BIS: low SPs showed a lesser sensitivity to cues of non-reward. This study complements previous results showing passive avoidance differences between high and low SPs. and are also consistent with previous data showing a significant correlation between psychometric measures of passive avoidance and extinction (Wilson, Barrett & Gray, 1989). Ackrlo~ledRernenrs-This research was supported by grant PB9 I-05 I9-CO2 from the DGICYT. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Cesar Avila, Apartado de Correos 224, Department of Psychology, Campus de la Carretera de Borriol, Universitat Jaume I, 12080 CastelIon, Spain.
REFERENCES Avila, C., Molto, J., Parcet, M. A. & Torrubia, R. (I 993) Passive avoidance behavior in anxious and non-anxious subjects: the role of motivational context. Paper presented at the Meet& cf lnrenitrtiorrtrl Soc.irrx fiw t/w Study o/’ /ndi~~idu~r/ DiflerePrences,Baltimore. MD. Avila, C., Molto, J. Segana, P. & Torrubia, R. (1991). Personality and response to multiple choice question examinations in university students: a test of Gray’s hypotheses. Paper presented at the MeetinK (!r/,~trrr~trtior~cl/ Soc,irry fi~r tlic .Srirtl\ of Individual Dijferences, Oxford. Avila, C., Molto. J., Segarra, P. & Torrubia, R. (submitted) Sensitivity to conditioned or unconditioned stimuli. what is the mechanism underlying passive avoidance deficits in extraverts?. Avila. C. & Torrubia. R. (in preparation). Personality Differences in Suppression of Behavior as a Function of the Probability of Punishment. Geen. R. G. ( 1987). Text anxiety and behavioral avoidance. ./ounitt/ ofKrseclrc~/t in Per.vontr/it~. 2/. -1XI-tXX.
NOTESANDSHORTERCOMMUNICATIONS
847
Gray. J. A. ( 1982) The neuropsyhology of anxiety: an enquiry qf the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford: OUP. Gray, J. A. (I 987). The neuropsychology of personality and emotion. In Stahl, S. M., Iversen, S. D. & Goodman, E. C. (Eds). Cogtziti\xe rleuroche,nist~~. Oxford: OUP. Newman, J. P., Wallace, J. F. & Amen, P. A. (1993). Behavioral inhibition system functioning in anxious, impulsive and psychopathic personalities. Unpublished manuscript. Tormbia, R., Avila, C. Molto, J. & Segarra, P. (1993, July). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward scales: norms, reliability, and construct validity. Paper presented at the Meeting of international Societyfor the Stud.v ofindividual D@erences, Baltimore, MD. Torrubia, R. & Tobetia, A. (1984). A scale for the assessment of susceptibility to punishment as a measure of anxiety: preliminary results. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 37 I-375. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T. & Gray, J. A. (1989). Human reactions to reward and punishment: a questionnaire examination of Gray’s personality theory. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 509-5 16.
NOTES AND SHORTER
Prrron. indkd. &ff: Vol. 17. No. 6. pp. X45-847. I994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Bntain. All rights reserved 0191-X869/94
$7.00
+ 0.00
COMMUNICATIONS
Sensitivity to punishment and resistance to extinction: a test of Gray’s Behavioral Inhibition System CBSAR AVILA
Aportado
de Correos,
Department of Psychology, Campus de la Carretera Universitat Jaume I, 12080 Caste&n, Spain
de Borriol,
(Received 27 May 1994) Summary-Resistance to extinction was investigated in two groups of undergraduates classified according to their scores on the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) Scale. Results showed that low SPs were slower to suppress responses previously rewarded than high SPs. Results were consistent with Gray’s description of the BIS and complement previous results showing passive avoidance deficits in low SPs.
INTRODUCTION
According to Gray’s theory, the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) is associated with individual differences in sensitivity to cues of punishment and frustrative non-reward. When activated by these signals, the BIS outputs are behavioral inhibition of ongoing approach behavior, increasing arousal and increasing attention toward environment (Gray, 1982, 1987). The BIS mediates the behavioral manifestations of passive avoidance (reducing risk of punishment by no response) and extinction (suppression of responses that are not rewarded). Gray’s theory has been applied to humans by studying individual differences in sensitivity to cues of punishment. Some studies have shown that non-anxious (stable extraverts) are less prone to passive avoidance behavior than anxious (neurotic introverts) (Avila, Molto, Segarra & Torrubia, submitted; Avila & Torrubia, in preparation; Geen, 1987; Newman, Wallace & Arnett, 1993). The proposed mechanism leading to these differences was a lower processing of punishing stimuli (Avila & Torrubia, in preparation). However, little evidence has been found for BIS-mediated differences in resistance to extinction. This paper aims to study individual difference in resistance to extinction. The Sensitivity to Punishment Scale [SP (Torrubia & Tobefia, 1984; Torrubia, Avila, Molto & Segarra, 1993) was designed to measure individual differences in BIS functioning. This scale has shown good reliability and validity properties. SP was correlated positively to Neuroticism and negatively to Extraversion. Laboratory and real-life evidence has found that high SPs showed more passive avoidance behavior when faced with punishment cues than low SPs (Avila, Molto, Parcet & Torrubia, 1993; Avila, Molto, Segarra & Torrubia, 1991). Our hypothesis was that low SPs would have more resistance to extinction than high SPs.
METHOD
Subjects The Ss were 92 undergraduates (I 4 males and 78 females) with ages ranging from I8 to 40 yr (M = 19.93; SD = 3.86). All Ss completed the Sensitivity to Punishment Scale-Revised version (Torrubia et al., 1993). Ss were divided into High and Low SP scorers according to whether their SP scores were above or below the median of 12.
Task and Procedure The task was controlled by a PC-computer and the ‘I ’ and ‘2’ keys on the computer keyboard were used for responding. The task consisted of two different phases with three identical blocks of 100 trials each in which Ss had to choose between two response alternatives. There was no interruption between the two phases. The task was similar in the two phases. At the beginning of the task, Ss were presented with two centrally located squares measuring 3 X 3 cm. Written inside each square there were the expressions ‘Button I ’ and ‘Button 2’. respectively. Two 5 X 2 cm rectangles appeared centrally located 4 and 7 cm below the other two, respectively. The expressions Points = with the points earned after such response and Total Score = with the total amount of earned points during the task appeared inside these rectangles, respectively. Points earned each response were displayed for 1500 msecll while total earnings were continuously displayed during the task. Ss had to choose in each trial between responding to Button I or Button 2. In Phase I, responses to the two buttons were partially rewarded. Responses to Button I were rewarded 70% of the time with a random amount of points ranging from 2 to IO. Responses to Button 2 were rewarded 30% of the time with a random amount of points ranging from 8 to 20. The two responses were programmed to give the same amount of reward. In Phase II, responses to one of the two buttons were never rewarded and responses to the other button were rewarded as in the Phase I. Before beginning the Phase II, the computer randomly selected which of the two buttons was never rewarded. All instructions were displayed on the monitor. Ss were encouraged to earn the maximum number of points. Responses to each button were recorded in each block. 845
846
NOTES
AND SHORTEK
Low
Phase I Trials I-100
43.71 IX.42 22.4 I 14.51 12.41 I I .96
33.08 IO.85 IX.54 12.78 I I.61 IO.31
78.88 I I .90 88.X4 9.7 I 91.20 8 .OJ
SD
lOl~200
Trials 20-300
81.87 5 22 9&7 6.54 94 7s 4.96
68.69 13.4x
63.64 I I .2s 65.08 13.58 68.24 14.47
SD
Trials
65.25 9.66 69.46 0.4x 70.37 X.66
7.92 69.06 X.86 61.65 13.74
M
Phase II Trials l-100
62.35 9.60 63.15
64.00
Trials 201-300
M SD M SD
M SD
SP\
Low SP\
SD
M
Hqh
High SPs
M
101-200
Trials
SPs
COMMUNICATIONS
I I.87
RESULTS AND DISCG’SSION
To evaluate performance we calculated the number of responses to Button I since all the Ss performed the same number of trials. This variable was calculated separately every 100 trials. A 3 X 2 X 2 ANOVA was conducted using Block as the within-S variable. Between&factors were Sensitivity to Punishment (Low vs High) and Extinction Group (70 vs 30% ). Means and standard deviations of these variables for each group appear in Table I. The analysis of variance for Phase I produced neither significant effect nor interaction involving SP or Extinction Group. The Block main effect was significant, F(2, 176) = 9.16, P < 0.001. indicating an increasing number of responses to the Button 1 rewarded 70% of the time. As expected, no differences were found between groups in the number of responses given to each button in Phase I. The analysis of variance for Phase II yielded a main effect for Extinction Group, F (I, 88) = 1231.80. P < 0.001, indicating an increasing number of responses to Button I for the 30% extinction condition, and a decreasing number of responses to Button I for the 70% extinction condition. The Block X Extinction Group interaction was also significant, F (2, 176) = 196.1 I, P < 0.001, indicating an increasing of tendency of the Extinction Group main effect over blocks. As expected, the SP X Extinction Group interaction was significant. F (I, 88) = 5. IS. P < 0.03. This interaction indicated that low SPs responded more to Button I in the 70% Extinction Condition and to the Button 2 in the 30% Extinction Condition than high SPs. As a consequence results have confirmed the hypothesis that low SPs are more resistant to extinction than high SPs. Additionally, the SP X Extinction Group X Block interaction was also significant, F ( 2, 176) = 3.90. P <0.02). To investigate this interaction, the SP X Extinction Group interaction was analyzed separately for each block. These analyses reflected that the observed differences between high and low SPs were significant for the first block, F( I, 88) = 10.85, P < 0.001, but were not for the second and the third blocks. These Block differences are important to explain the observed personality differences in resistance to extinction. Two explanations could be possible. First, low SPh were engaged in more risky-behavior than high SPs leading to consciously making more non-rewarded responses. Second, low SPs were slower to associate their response to non-reward. If the main differences were produced during the tirst block. the results could be explained to the lower association of responses to their negative consequences. This interpretation of results would be compatible with previous results indicating that an underactive BIS was related to a lesser processing of punishment cues and a lesser response modulation after negative feedback (Avila rt cl/., submitted: Avila & Torrubia. in preparation). In summary, results have obtained a higher resistance to extinction for the low SP group. The observed differences could be attributed to the functioning of the BIS: low SPs showed a lesser sensitivity to cues of non-reward. This study complements previous results showing passive avoidance differences between high and low SPs. and are also consistent with previous data showing a significant correlation between psychometric measures of passive avoidance and extinction (Wilson, Barrett & Gray, 1989). Ackrlo~ledRernenrs-This research was supported by grant PB9 I-05 I9-CO2 from the DGICYT. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Cesar Avila, Apartado de Correos 224, Department of Psychology, Campus de la Carretera de Borriol, Universitat Jaume I, 12080 CastelIon, Spain.
REFERENCES Avila, C., Molto, J., Parcet, M. A. & Torrubia, R. (I 993) Passive avoidance behavior in anxious and non-anxious subjects: the role of motivational context. Paper presented at the Meet& cf lnrenitrtiorrtrl Soc.irrx fiw t/w Study o/’ /ndi~~idu~r/ DiflerePrences,Baltimore. MD. Avila, C., Molto, J. Segana, P. & Torrubia, R. (1991). Personality and response to multiple choice question examinations in university students: a test of Gray’s hypotheses. Paper presented at the MeetinK (!r/,~trrr~trtior~cl/ Soc,irry fi~r tlic .Srirtl\ of Individual Dijferences, Oxford. Avila, C., Molto. J., Segarra, P. & Torrubia, R. (submitted) Sensitivity to conditioned or unconditioned stimuli. what is the mechanism underlying passive avoidance deficits in extraverts?. Avila. C. & Torrubia. R. (in preparation). Personality Differences in Suppression of Behavior as a Function of the Probability of Punishment. Geen. R. G. ( 1987). Text anxiety and behavioral avoidance. ./ounitt/ ofKrseclrc~/t in Per.vontr/it~. 2/. -1XI-tXX.
NOTESANDSHORTERCOMMUNICATIONS
847
Gray. J. A. ( 1982) The neuropsyhology of anxiety: an enquiry qf the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford: OUP. Gray, J. A. (I 987). The neuropsychology of personality and emotion. In Stahl, S. M., Iversen, S. D. & Goodman, E. C. (Eds). Cogtziti\xe rleuroche,nist~~. Oxford: OUP. Newman, J. P., Wallace, J. F. & Amen, P. A. (1993). Behavioral inhibition system functioning in anxious, impulsive and psychopathic personalities. Unpublished manuscript. Tormbia, R., Avila, C. Molto, J. & Segarra, P. (1993, July). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward scales: norms, reliability, and construct validity. Paper presented at the Meeting of international Societyfor the Stud.v ofindividual D@erences, Baltimore, MD. Torrubia, R. & Tobetia, A. (1984). A scale for the assessment of susceptibility to punishment as a measure of anxiety: preliminary results. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 37 I-375. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T. & Gray, J. A. (1989). Human reactions to reward and punishment: a questionnaire examination of Gray’s personality theory. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 509-5 16.