BIS/BAS individual differences and the verification of conditional ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

H. Marrero et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 296–301 2993.2. Results3.2.1. BIS/BAS prediction of the type of selectionWe carried out linear multiple regression analyses in each conditionwith BIS/BAS scales as predictive variables and type of selectionas the criterion. To enable this analysis, we assigned value 1 tothe gain card selection and 1 to the loss card selection. So positivebeta values indicate the relation of a given scale to verifying therule (selecting the gain card) and negative values indicate the relationof the scale to falsifying the rule (selecting the loss card). Participantswho did not select either of these cards were removedfrom the analysis (11%). In addition, we decomposed the BIS scale.As aforementioned, anxiety and fear are different emotions in therevised RST. There is some empirical evidence that supports thisfunctional distinction (see Perkins, Kemp, & Corr, 2007). The BISscale was differentiated by two subscales: BIS-fear composed ofthe two fear items of the original scale and BIS-anxiety scale bythe other BIS-items. We adopt this procedure following Corr andMcNaughton (2008).In order to carry out the regression analysis we firstly force theBIS and BAS scale (the result of adding the scores of the three BASsubscales),and subsequently we introduce the BAS and BIS subscalesstepwise.In the large gain/small loss condition, the BIS/BAS scales predict16% of the variance. The model of regression was significant, F(2,57) = 5.53, p = 0.006. The BAS scale was the only significant predictor(Table 1). In accordance with our predictions, individualswith high BAS tended to select the gain card (the reward) and soto verify the rule in this condition. By stepwise, only the BAS-rewardresponsiveness was significant and predicted 13% of thevariance. The model of regression was significant, F (1,58) = 8.49,p = 0.005. In a discriminative way, the BAS-RR was the strongestpredictor of the gain card (reward) selection.In the small gain/large loss condition, the BIS/BAS scales predicted8% of the variance. The model of regression was marginallysignificant, F (2,61) = 2.65, p = 0.07. Only the influence of BIS-scalewas significant (Table 1). In accordance with our predictions, highBIS individuals tended to select the loss card (the punishment). Bystepwise, only the BIS-fear subscale was significant (Table 1) andpredicted 22% of the variance. The model of regression wassignificant, F (1,62) = 17.21, p = 0.000. It is worthy of note thatBIS-fear predicted a lot more the conduct of selecting the loss card(punishment) than the whole BIS-scale (and so the BIS-anxiety).3.2.2. Joint or separable BIS/BAS subsystems?We carried out several analyses of variance with the type ofselection as dependent variable. One way ANOVA with (mediansplit)BIS (3.14) and BAS (3.07) as the between-subject factorswas carried out. The main effect of BAS was marginally significant,F (3,120) = 3.44, p = 0.06 while the main effect of BIS was significant,F (3,120) = 8.00, p = 0.005. The effect of BIS * BAS interactionwas not significant, p < .20.It is evident from Fig. 2 that appetitive responses towardsselecting the gain card were highest in individuals high in BASbut low in BIS (third column). Conversely, aversive responses towardsselecting the loss card were highest in individuals high inBIS but low in BAS (second column). This difference (0.765) wassignificant, t (52) = 3.19, p = 0.002.We now examine if influence of BIS/BAS personality traitschanges as a function of the values of reward and punishment involvedin the experimental conditions. It is evident from theFig. 2. Mean type of selection for (median-split) low ( ) and high (+) BIS and BASgroups (bars = standard error of the mean).Table 1Multiple linear regression values of the predictive variablesBIS/BAS scales b t p R 2 (%)Large gain/small lossBAS 0.366 2.96 0.004 16BIS 0.114 0.93 0.358By stepwise: 13BAS-reward responsiveness 0.358 2.91 0.005Excluded:BAS-drive 0.130 1.03 0.307BAS-fun 0.242 1.99 0.052BIS-fear 0.190 1.56 0.120BIS-anxiety 0.173 1.40 0.170Small gain/large lossBAS 0.108 0.680 0.499 08BIS 0.338 2.140 0.037By stepwise: 22BIS-fear 0.466 4.15 0.000Excluded:BAS-drive 0.140 1.24 0.157BAS-fun 0.054 0.477 0.635BAS-reward responsiveness 0.110 0.090 0.930BIS-anxiety 0.092 0.700 0.487Fig. 3. Mean type of selection for (median-split) low ( ) and high (+) BIS and BASgroups in large gain/small loss and the small gain/large loss conditions (bars = standarderror of the mean).
300 H. Marrero et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 296–301contrast in Fig. 3 that only the group BAS(+)/BIS(+) has visiblychanged among the two conditions.In this group there are more appetitive responses (gain cardselection) in the large gain/small loss condition (47%) than in smallgain/large loss condition (8%), although this difference did notreach significance, p = 0.26.4. General discussionIn accordance with RST predictions, our results have shown thatchanges in the values of reward and punishment in interactionwith individual variability in sensitivity to reward and punishmentinduced either verification or falsification in the game task. Alsorelevant, the greater percentage of appetitive (verifying) responses– selecting the gain – was given by individuals high in BAS but lowin BIS. Conversely, the greater percentage of aversive (falsifying)responses – selecting the loss – was given by individuals high inBIS but low in BAS. In addition, our results have indicated thatwhen the value of the loss (punishment) is high, BIS inhibits impulsivitytowards selecting the gain card (reward) in high BAS participants.This pattern of results supports the joint subsystemshypothesis (Corr, 2002).Our results also indicate that the functional distinction betweenanxiety and fear is appropriate to examine the role of individualdifferences in punishment sensitivity in selection behaviour. Inour game task there was an approach–avoidance conflict of attainingthe reward (the gain) and avoiding the punishment (the loss).In this context, participants high in fearfulness to potential punishmentwill experience the task in the small gain/large loss conditionas the origin of an approach–avoidance conflict, and motivated byBIS, will tend to inspect the loss card (the risk of loss). In contrast,participants low in fearfulness (in the pursuit of a reward) willtend to ignore punishment, and to minimize this conflict. As a result,BIS is not triggered and BAS would lead them to select the gaincard (reward).In this light, we consider that further research is necessary toexamine the role of fearfulness in individual differences in rewardand punishment sensitivities in the light of the revised RST. Moregenerally, a more precise definition and measurement of the psychologicalstructure of these sensitivities is needed (see Caseraset al., 2003).Overall, our results uphold the relevance of the revised RST(Gray & McNaughton, 2000) in the examination of individual differencesin reward/punishment sensitivities in reasoning, particularlyin the process of verification/falsification of hypotheticalaction ? result conditionals. Also relevant is the fact that our resultssupport in human behaviour several RST proposals that havebeen previously tested in animal research. In this context, theymake a contribution to the research program aimed at showingthe usefulness of BIS/BAS systems as organizing themes for theorydevelopment. Reward and punishment sensitivities could constitutea bridge between disparate psychological ambits such as motivationand personality on the one hand and reasoning anddecision-making about actions in social contexts, on the other.Our research has also combined experimental and correlationalmethodologies. The relevance of relating these for the progress ofscientific psychology was pointed out by Cronbach (1957) decadesago.AcknowledgementsWe are specially grateful for the advice of Margaret Gillon andPhilip Corr. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers who offeredvaluable criticisms and suggestions.Appendix ASuppose that you go to a casino. When you go in, you find a newcard game. The game is about turning up cards to check certainrules. The cards have letters on one side, and a result on the otherside: either 1 € [100 €] gain or 100 € [1 €] loss.Below, there are four cards the same as those displayed in thegame:CARD DISPLAYAs you can see, two cards show the letter side (and the resultside is hidden) and two cards show the result side (and the letterside is hidden). The rule that you have to check on this occasionis: Whenever a card has a letter A on one side, then the card has ‘‘1€ gain” [100 €] on the other side. As you can imagine, the card withthe letter A could have on the other side either ‘‘1 € [100 €] gain” or‘‘100 € [1 €] Loss”. Therefore, if the rule is true then you will gain 1 €[100 €], and if it is false you will lose 1 € [100 €]. Let us suppose thatbefore the game starts (and before you gain or lose money), you aregiven the opportunity to carry out a previous test. Logically, thistest has to evaluate whether this rule: Whenever a card has a letterA on one side then the card has ‘‘1 € gain” [100 €] on the other side isFALSE. The cards displayed above are to carry out this test. Oncethe test has been carried out, the game will start with the displayof similar cards. If you check that the rule is false, then you can‘‘pass” when it’s your turn and so avoid losing 100 € [1€].To do the test you have to indicate those two cards you definitelyneed to turn over to evaluate that the rule is false.I’ll turn over the cards:Explain briefly the reasons for your selection:A.1. Card displayA.1.1. Small gain/large loss versionA Y 1gain100loss1 2 3 4A.1.2. Large gain/small loss versionReferencesA Y 100gain1loss1 2 3 4Carver, Ch. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect andaction. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 105–110.Carver, Ch. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral activation and affective responses toimpending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333.Caseras, X., Ávila, C., & Torrubia, R. (2003). The measurement of individualdifferences in behavioural inhibition and behavioural activating systems: Acomparison of personality scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,999–1013.Corr, P. J. (2002). J.A. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory: Tests of the jointsubsystems hypothesis of anxiety and impulsivity. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 33, 511–532.Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience &Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 317–332.
Page 1 and 2: Personality and Individual Differen
Page 3: 298 H. Marrero et al. / Personality

BIS/BAS individual differences and the verification of conditional ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?