Carver and White (1994) Behavioural inhibi7on, behavioural ac7va7on and affec7ve responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Introduc7on to BIS/BAS • Gray’s theory of brain func7ons and behaviour. • 2 neurological systems that form dimensions of personality. • BIS = Behavioural Inhibi7on System • BAS = Behavioural Approach/Ac7va7on System • Sensi7vi7es said to be orthogonal BIS • Sensi7ve to signals of punishment, nonreward and novelty. • Inhibits behaviour • May lead to nega7ve outcomes and is responsible for nega7ve feelings. BAS • Sensi7ve to reward, nonpunishment and escape from punishment. • Begin/movement towards goals • Responsible for posi7ve feelings • Proneness to engage in goal directed efforts. Assessment • Problema7c due to conceptual content of other theories not fiQng theory. • Vulnerability vs. Typical experience • TPQ – 3 dimensions resembling Gray’s theory. • Present study aims to develop and ini7al validate a set of measures. Study 1: Scale development • Pool of items generated by conceptualisa7on of BIS and BAS func7oning • Developed 4 Subscales ‐BIS scale – 7 items ‐BAS drive scale – 5 items ‐BAS fun seeking scale – 4 items ‐BAS reward responsiveness scale – 4 items • BIS independent of BAS • BAS scales all loaded strongly to 2nd factor Study 2: Convergent and Discriminant Validity • Newly developed scale was administered alongside many other measures. • Strong Correla7ons found • Indica7on that scales are related but also dis7nguishable from alterna7ve measures. • Need to test if the scales predic7ve ability of behaviour Study 3: BIS sensi7vity and the experience of anxiety • Need to create a situa7on that engages BIS not BAS • Administered BIS/BAS, and other measures and a task to evoke nervousness • Punishment Cue Manipula7on • Found BIS scale to be significant predictor and contributed unique variance over and above other measures. • Construct validity for BIS scale Study 4: BAS sensi7vity and the experience of happiness • Need to create a situa7on that engages BAS not BIS • Administered BIS/BAS, and other measures and a task to evoke happiness • Found BAS scales to be significant predictor and contributed unique variance over and above other measures, par7cularly Drive and Reward Responsiveness. • Construct validity for BAS scales Discussion • Development of valid BIS/BAS scales that reflect individual differences in the sensi7vity of the presumed underlying neurophysiological regulatory systems • Superior predic7ons in comparisons among measures • Future direc7ons maybe in broader contexts Ac7on, Emo7on & Personality: Emerging Conceptual Integra7on. Carver, Subon & Scheier (2000) In short…. A paper looking at how personality (specifically Extraversion & Neuro7cism) can be associated with tendencies to chase goals (such as geQng a good job – MOTIVATION/ APPROACH) or tendencies to avoid threats (such as geQng the sack – WITHDRAWAL/ AVOID) and how these may be linked to our emo7onal state. Carver et al (2000): Ac#on, Emo#on & Personality: Emerging Conceptual Integra7on. • This paper looked at the idea that behaviour fundamentally consists of 2 regulatory systems which prompt our ac#ons: 1. APPROACH SYSTEM – this posi7ve affect and goal pursuit manages our 2. WITHDRAWAL SYSTEM – this manages our nega7ve affect and our avoidance of threats and punishments. • In the past it has been suggested that these 2 regulatory systems may underpin our personality (Dollard & Miller 1950) • It has also been considered that our emo#ons (e.g. posi7ve & nega7ve affect) can drive our ac#ons – i.e. our emo7onal state can prompt ac7ons which have different aims (ie. MOTIVATE us to pursue goals or encourage us to AVOID “an7‐goals”). • Carver et al abempted to integrate ac#on, personality and emo#on Approach & Avoidance – Behaviours & feeling quali7es • The main idea that approach and avoidance systems are the building blocks of our behaviour • The points this paper highlights have been made by several other theorists. They are abemp7ng to show how each of the other theories of behaviour may compliment each other. Appe77ve & Aversive – Mo7va7onal Behavioural Systems • The APPROACH & WITHDRAWAL systems are thought to have different neural substrates and dis7nct influences on behaviour. • Gray (1994): 1. APPROACH (“appe77ve”) system: ‐ responds to incen7ves and rewards and escape from punishment – this causes the individual to move toward goals. ‐ associated with release of dopamine & feelings of posi7ve affect. 2. WITHDRAWAL (“aversive”) system ‐ responds to threats and signals of punishment ‐ its engagement inhibits behaviour, thus s7fling movement. ‐ associated with feelings of nega7ve affect. Affec7ve States & Frontal Lobe Ac7va7on • Gray (1994) abempted to understand the regula7on of behaviour in response to incen7ves and threats; his focus was on ac#on with implica7ons for emo#ons arising as something of an amer thought. On the other hand however…. • Davidson et al focused more on emo7onal experiences & suggested that it is emo#ons which lead to mo7va7onal processes (ac#on). • Although Davidson et al’s start point was almost the opposite of Gray, both Gray & Davidson et al arrives at a similar conceptual posi7on • Davidson et al concluded that specialized neural substrates for APPROACH & WITHDRAWAL systems (& thus + & ‐ affect) are lateralized in the lem & right anterior regions of the cerebral cortex, respec7vely.  i.e. Approach & withdrawal and their concomitant affects (+ & ‐) are managed by 2 separate neural systems. Discrepancy‐Reducing & Discrepancy‐Enlarging Feedback Processes • Carver & Scheier – explored the view in which people are seen as organisa7ons of self‐regula7ng feed‐back systems ‐ they believed that most human behaviour consists of abempts to create & maintain conformity to desired goal values. • Discrepancy‐reducing feedback processes ‐ essen7ally APPROACH processes ‐ the reference points in this feedback correspond well ‐ home in on a target and are considered stable. to the goal construc
• Discrepancy‐enlarging feedback processes » Essen7ally AVIOD processes » Abempt to create distance from goals » Idea of “an7‐goals” (e.g. something we try to avoid such as parking 7ckets) » Involve distancing self from the an7‐goal & are therefore in a sense unstable. Discrepancy‐Reducing & Discrepancy‐Enlarging Feedback Processes cont… • Eventually the 2 loops begin to work in conjunc7on Pleasure as a sign you can abend to something else: Placing posi7ve feelings within a general model of affect Charles S. Carver (2003) Affect: ‘Experience of valence, a subjec7ve sense of posi7vity or nega7vity arising from an experience’ (not emo7on) Theore7cal model of affect proposed by Carver and Scheier (1990): • Posi7ve affects cons7tute important informa7on for the people who experience them • And plays an important regula7ng func7on in the flow of behaviour Behaviour and Affect • Behaviour is organised for moving toward or away from desired goals • It is ini7ated by the experience of affect Systems monitor not the approach and avoidance behaviours themselves but the effec7veness over 7me Rate of progress compared to the Reference rate = Error signal Error Signal Error signal is the affec.ve valence • If the rate of progress is above the criterion (you are doing beber than you need to)‐ posi7ve affect arises • If the rate of progress is below the criterion (you are doing worse than you need to)‐ nega7ve affect arises E.g: Performing badly in a work assignment compared to your peers you feel depressed The Results of Affect To change the error signal you have to make an adjustment in the rate of progress: E.g: Performing badly in a work assignment you decide to spend a weekend working rather than going out with friends Therefore this assumes explicit links between behaviour and affect Approach Process
Doing well
Avoidance Process
Elation,
+
Eagerness
Doing well Relief, Calmness + (Neutral)
(Neutral)
Doing poorly
Sadness,
Depression
Doing poorly
Fear,
Anxiety
Posi7ve Affect • Although posi7ve affect signals that we are doing beber than we need to there is s7ll a discrepancy which needs to be corrected • To correct this subsequent effort needs to be reduced and people are likely to Coast • This easing back means that the posi7ve feeling is not sustained for very long for that par7cular goal domain Why ‘Coast’? The adap7ve value for such a tendency lies in the fact people have mul7ple concerns. • People do not op7mise their performance on any one domain, they would rather sa7sfy all of them • Coas7ng therefore allows for resources to be transferred from a domain with posi7ve affect to another with nega7ve affect (or in the absence of that exploring new opportuni7es) Therefore it is the feeling of affect that inspires repriori7sa7on Extreme Goal SeQng and Vulnerability to Mania Among Undiagnosed Young Adults Johnson & Carver (2006) Background Bipolar Disorder • One or more manic episodes in the life7me. A depressive episode is not required for diagnosis but frequently occurs Why study ambi.ous goal se<ng in rela.on to mania? • Bipolar disorder linked to above average abainment e.g. those with affec7ve psychosis, more likely to be professionals than schizophrenic pa7ents (Stern, 1913) Many factors may reduce achievement in mania… … However Bipolar disorder is associated with periods of high accomplishment and above average life7me abainment. Possible reasons for the link? • Bipolar disorder may relate to traits that promote
achievement (Johnson, 2005)
• Anecdotal evidence and a handful of empirical studies
support this
• Seems to be linked to vulnerability to the disorder: neither
current manic symptoms nor positive affect correlate with
achievement striving.
Ra7onale for this present study 1. Previous studies have not assessed goals directly, rather looked at paberns of achievement 2. Episodes of mania are damaging… is elevated goal striving in those with bipolar disorder just compensa7on? 3. Depression is common to those vulnerable to mania; need to control for vulnerability to depression also Aim: To explore measured life goals and incen7ve sensi7vity in students AT RISK of bipolar disorder Study will account for life7me risk of mania and depression and also current manic and depressive symptoms Methods A series of self report ques7onnaires were administered during two sessions Session 1 a) Hypomanic Personality Scale (HPA) Iden7fies those at risk of a manic episode. 48 true/ false items b) Life7me depressive symptoms (IDD‐L) Iden7fies those vulnerable to depression. 45 items c) Incen7ve and threat sensi7vity (BIS/ BAS) Session 2 d) Self‐Ra7ng Mania Index (SRMI) Measures current manic symptoms e) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Measures current symptoms of depression f) High Goals: 20 life goals chosen to be highly ambi7ous‐ aggregated into 5 factors using FA: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Popular fame Medical and educa.onal pursuits Wealth (& a ‘broader’ sort of fame) Poli.cal power ‘Everyone you know will love you’ (one item) g) Self Reported Scholas.c Ap.tude (SAT scores) Results Risk of Mania – associated with all three scales of the BAS; fun seeking, drive & reward responsiveness – And 3 types of high goals; popular fame, poli7cal influence and financial success Popular fame and financial success remained robust amer controlling for current mania and depression symptoms and vulnerability to depression Associa7on with goals was largely independent of the link between risk of mania and incen7ve sensi7vity. Puzzle? • Manic Episodes typically associated with higher social ac7vity, but risk of mania was not found to be related to social goals… … Study 2 • Higher goals measure extended to 30 items; to include items related to close personal and family rela7onships. Revised factor structure: 1. Popular fame 2. Idealised rela7onships with partner/ family 3. Posi7ve impact on world wellbeing 4. Poli7cal Influence 5. Rela7ons with friends 6. Financial success 7. Crea7vity, personal fulfilment, self actualisa7on Results ‐ Study 2 Added value? • Risk of mania and interpersonal goals were not closely related, despite their ‘puzzle’  However, with inclusion of the new items; risk of mania was associated with seQng goals related to crea7ve accomplishment  Rela7on between risk of mania and goal seQng was strongest for goals that were endorsed more rarely by people lower in mania vulnerability Discussion • The link between risk of mania and ambi.ous goal se<ng appears to be robust • Risk of mania was more closely related with extrinsic goals • It was also associated with more seQng more ‘unusual’ goals… May not be just extrinsic goals …what are we missing? Limita.ons • Reliance on self‐report measures.. Alterna7ves are suggested • Undergrads, due to 7me in life may be more sensi7ve to thinking about goals and less experienced in ‘dismissing’ extreme life goals • Ques7onable factor structure of high goals measure? Negative Affects Deriving
From the Behavioural
Approach System
Charles S. Carver Background • Previously unipolar dimensions idea of BAS scale popular, ( Watson et al, 1999) • People can be more sensi7ve to a Behavioural Approach System or a Behavioural Inhibi7on System, (BAS/BIS – approach/avoidance process) • Carver and Scheier suggest human behaviour reflects feedback process, where feedback loops monitor the effec7veness of movement towards incen7ves. • Suggests either type of mo7ve (approach/avoidance) can give rise to either valence of affect, (posi7ve or nega7ve), depending on how well the ac7on serving the mo7ve is going. Approach and Sadness • Sugges7ve evidence that sadness is linked to approach – Depression relates to the experience of loss or failure to abain incen7ves, as opposed to – Avoidance orienta7on which tends to evoke calmness with success and elevated anxiety at failure, (Higgins) – Self – discrepancy theory, (Higgins) pursuing ideal as an approach process. • Approach and anger – – Link between anger and fear? (Fight or flight) OR – Anger as blockage of a desired goal – Anger symptom of mania, which is a phenomena believed to involve overreac7on of the approach system Present Research • Goal: to obtain more evidence that BAS is involved in the crea7on of certain nega7ve affects. • Methodology Used – – BAS/BIS individual differences in sensi7vity. – If the affect is either BIS or BAS driven, then it should relate to individual differences in either BIS or BAS. • Used Carver and White’s (1994) BIS and BAS scales. Study One: Frustra7ve Nonreward • Procedure • Ppts first completed BIS/BAS scales • Subsequently, they were led to believe they’d receive a reward if they performed well at a task; however, then failed to do so, (task was impossible, all feedback scores were iden7cal for each ppt). • Affect informa7on taken before, midway through the task, and amer they found they had failed. • Results • Factor analysis revealed two factors 1. “Frustra7on” – loadings .80+ from ‘annoyed’ ‘discouraged’ 2. “Sadness” – loadings .90+ from ‘depressed’ ‘sad’ Results contd and Discussion • Fun – seeking was a prospec7ve correlate of both: Sad (r= .34 p<.01) Frus (r= .29, p<.03) • Two hierarchical regression analysis revealed that fun – seeking was a far beber predictor for both factors than BIS. • Indicates failure to abain reward had desired effect on affec7ve experience • Intensity of feelings related to levels of fun – seeking but not BIS sensi7vity thus suppor7ng the idea that both posi7ve and nega7ve feelings can arise from the approach system. Study Two : Anger • Idea: If anger stems from thwarted approach it should relate to BAS sensi7vity. • Procedure: • Completed ZKPQ, scale that focuses explicitly on aggression and hos7lity as a personality trait. • Ppts exposed to anger elici7ng hypothe7cal situa7ons, told to “imagine the events are happening to you” then answered a set of ques7ons concerning nervousness and anger as responses to the situa7ons. Results and Discussion • Factor analysis of emo7onal reac7ons yielded two factors: anger and nervousness. • Higher levels of BIS related to reports of greater nervousness: BIS was a sig. stronger predictor of nervousness than any BAS scale. • Reward Responsiveness was a sig. stronger predictor of anger than BIS. • Results consistent with the idea that anger derives from the approach system‐ but BAS not the sole predictor. – Sugges7ve that anger involves a system beyond that concerning pursuit of incen7ves, possibly a system that regulates the extent to which others are taken into account in the course of such pursuit. Study 3: Terrorism and Anger • Rec7fy issues with hypothe7cal situa7ons not evoking realis7c responses, a study was conducted soon amer September 11th. (Ppts completed BIS/
BAS tests) • Ppts who had not lost anyone in the abacks completed a survey of reac7ons containing two ‘fear’ and two ‘anger’ items among fillers. • Results: – Factor analysis confirmed two factors anger and fear. – BIS was significant predictor of fear – Drive scale made a sig. contribu7on to the predic7on of anger, contribu7on of BIS was also marginally significant Drawbacks • All studies relied solely on self reports as dependent measures. • The individual differences approach cannot confirm cause and effect. • Effects were only moderately strong, a good deal on invariance lem unexplained. • BAS related scales related to the affect in each study, but it was not the same scale across studies. – Possible explana7on is that the three focus on different aspects of the approach process – E.g Fun – Seeking = eagerness for new incen7ves, so predicted more distress when the incen7ve never came. Discussion • Again, reiterates the no7on that anger derives, at least in part, from the approach system. • As in Study 2, two different nega7ve affects related most strongly to different dimensions of personality, one to incen7ve mo7va7on and the other to threat mo7va7on. General Discussion • All results indicate that feelings rela7ng to the approach system are not always posi7ve, contrary to the unipolar view that dominates discussions of affect dimensionality. • If anger and anxiety co‐occur, why do they relate to different behaviour regula7on systems? • Many situa7ons disrupt pursuit of an incen7ve whilst simultaneously crea7ng a threat of harm. • Both affects have adap7ve proper7es Adap7ve Proper7es • Situa7on: Inevitable impending failure, ‐ve affect one of sadness to encourage disengaging and not was7ng resources. • Situa7on: Reparable, anger could be hope that things could be set right, thus frustra7on etc feelings to prompt ac7on and struggle to overcome obstacles. • (See paper for graph – doing well above criterion, doing poorly below criterion, engagement along x axis, greater for anger/frustra7on, less intense for depression/dejec7on as feeling of hopelessness) Ul7mately the research indicates that the approach system is nega7ve as well as posi7ve feelings, meaning an adequate theory must accommodate a mechanism for the crea7on of affects of both valences. Adap7ve Self‐Regula7on of Unabainable Goals: Goal Disengagement, Goal Reengagement and Subjec7ve Well‐Being Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz and Carver (2003) Background • Op7mism, belief in competencies and persistence related to well‐being and health. • Beneficial if able to abandon unabainable goals + reengage in new goals → reduce distress, con7nued sense of purpose. • Adap7ve self‐regula7on of unabainable goals depends on existence of alterna7ves. Why are goals unabainable? • Ageing – opportuni7es for achieving goals constrained by socio‐structural and biological factors (e.g. re7rement age, menopause). • Nega7ve life‐events (e.g. death of spouse, divorce). • Limited resources – selec7ve investment required → may disengage from leisure goals to secure family or career goals (consider Maslow’s Hierarchy) Disengagement can… • Help avoid failure experiences. • Redefine the unabainable goal as not necessary for sa7sfac7on. • Free 7me and energy resources. Disengagement = high well‐being in: • People who have developed AIDS. Maintenance of • Parents of handicapped children. unrealis7c inten7ons and goals relates to • People who divorce in distress + depression. later life. • Post‐menopausal women without children. Reengagement is… • Iden7fying alterna7ve goals + ini7a7ng ac7vi7es to pursue these goals. • Unabainable goals may be problema7c if no alterna7ve goals exist to alleviate nega7ve consequences of failure. • Independent of disengagement: 1. 2. May disengage + reengage in new goal much later. Unabainable goal may overlap with engagement with new goal. The Present Study • Examined goal disengagement, reengagement + subjec7ve well‐being. • Study 1 = general associa7ons • Study 2 = age‐differen7al associa7ons • Study 3 = specific constraint on goals as opposed to more general constraint in 1 + 2 (parents of children with cancer). Study One • • • 115 UG students aged 17 – 23 years. 69% male 64% Caucasian. 1. Disengagement – ease of reducing effort + relinquishing commitment to unabainable goals (IV1). 2. Reengagement – tendency to iden7fy + begin ac7ve pursuit of new goals (IV2). 3. Subjec7ve well‐being – perceived stress; purpose in life; self‐mastery; intrusive thoughts about problems (DV). Study One • Socio‐demographics = 8‐15% variance in well‐being. • Women = more perceived stress + intrusive thoughts; less self‐
mastery. • Non‐Caucasians = more perceived stress; less self‐mastery + purpose in life. • Disengagement (DE) and Reengagement (RE) = 11‐23% variance in well‐being. • Both independently predict low perceived stress + intrusive thoughts; high self‐mastery. • RE addi7onally predicted purpose in life. Study One • RE especially relates to high self‐mastery + low perceived stress among students who found DE difficult. • Highest perceived stress + lowest self‐mastery in students poor at both DE + RE. • DE + RE are protec7ve factors for well‐being when faced with unabainable goals. • RE can compensate for some of distress if con7nue to pursue unabainable goal. Study Two – Age Differences • 62 young adults 19 – 35 years. • 58 older adults 55 – 89 years. • 56% female. 46% highly educated. 1. Disengagement – as Study 1. 2. Reengagement – as Study 1. 3. Subjec7ve well‐being – Posi7ve and Nega7ve Affect Schedule (focus on past year) Study Two – Age Differences
• Socio-demographics = 6% variance in well-being.
• Men + more educated = better well-being.
• Older adults = better well-being.
• RE especially associated with well-being among young
people who found DE difficult.
• Lower well-being in older adults who found DE easy but
RE hard.
• Overall = higher scores on RE than DE.
• Older adults = higher on DE + RE than young adults.
Study Two – Age Differences • Differen7al paberns between DE, RE + well‐being in young + older adults. • DE only beber for older adults if followed by RE – if no alterna7ve goals, maybe beber to con7nue to pursue unabainable goals. • DE + RE easier for older adults → goal management processes change across life‐span. Study Three – Cancer Pa7ents • 20 parents of kids with cancer – mean 36.9 yrs. • 25 parents of healthy kids – mean 37.6 yrs. • 68% female. 88% Caucasian. 1. Disengagement – as Study 2. 2. Reengagement – as Study 2. 3. Subjec7ve well‐being – Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (focus on past week) Study Three – Cancer Pa7ents • More educated Ps = less depression. • Parents of kids with cancer = more depressed. • Ps with beber RE = less depressed. • Parents who tended to be able to disengage from unabainable goals + reengage in new goals were less depressed – this was especially true for parents of kids with cancer. • DE + RE = important factors when facing unexpected life events requiring adjustment of important goals. Study Three – Cancer pa7ents • Parents of kids with cancer who find DE easy but RE difficult may benefit from interven7ons to: • Prevent low well‐being. • Help adap7vely manage life‐goals. Discussion • Varia7on exists in people’s general tendency to disengage + reengage… • …these differences are relevant to well‐being. • Capacity to RE in new goals is a protec7ve factor is con7nue to pursue unabainable goals. • Opportuni7es to pursue new goals decline with age – failure to reengage is detrimental to older people. Finally (part 1!) • Further study into alterna7ve goals: – Pursuit of mul7ple goals may make adapta7on to loss of one goal easier. – Mul7ple goals may make DE less threatening as back‐up goals exist. – BUT acquisi7on of new goals may be bad if resources are stretched too thin. Finally (part 2) • Personality was controlled for in these studies; certain personality profiles may help or hinder DE + RE. • Study 2 results could reflect cohort effect. • No causality inferred – well‐being could drive reports of DE + RE… THE END