Personality & mechanisms: Goals and Behavioural inhibition and

activation (BIS/BAS) Personality : Causes and

Consequences 2009

Overview

• Carver and White (1994)

• Carver (2004)

• Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz & Carver (2003)

• Carver, Sutton, & Scheier (2000)

Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, and Affective Responses toImpending Reward and Punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales

Carver, C.S. and White, T.L (1994)

Background

• Theory of Brain Functions and Behaviour (Gray, 1981)– Two fundamental personality variables representing

neurological sensitivity to environment cues

• Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS)– Anxiety proneness (sensitivity to punishment, etc).

Inhibits behaviour pertaining to negative outcomes

• Behavioural Activation System (BAS)– Impulsivity (sensitivity to reward, goals). Relates to

positive outcomes. Drive toward goals.

Background

• High BIS– Anxiety or depressive symptomology. – Overt sensitivity to conditioned punishment

• High BAS– Sociopathic (dissocial) personality (overly

impulsive, unable to tolerate boredom)– Extreme reward responses, conduct disorders

Background

• Eysenck (1967, cited in Heubeck et al, 1998)– Extraversion relates to ascending reticular

activating system– Neuroticism pertains to limbic system

• Bridges psychophysiological research to personality (Heubeck et al, 1998)

Background

• Sensitivity to anxiety/reward– Not experiences or general affect.

• Probable that people high in sensitivity actively avoid anxiety provoking situations

Background

• Often different measures are used – Combining N and E from Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire • E is more sociability than impulsivity.• A balance between imp. and anx.

– Similar but not specifically designed targets (general anxiety and impulsivity traits)

– Scales from other models with shared – but different – theoretical ground

Caseras et al, 2003

Introduction

• Previous BIS/BAS scales not “fully satisfactory”– MacAndrew and Steele (1991)

• BIS only focussed on ambient anxiety – not sensitivity

– Cloninger (1987) – TPQ• Punishment avoidance, novelty seeking and

reward dependence• But…low internal consistency

Aims

1. Construct BIS/BAS scales

2. Compare convergent/discriminant validities

3. Experimentally generate anxiety/reward to test predictive validity

Scale Construction

• Focus on reaction – not general existence– 4 scales

• BIS – Possibility/sensitivity of negative occurrence

• “Criticism hurts me quite a bit”

• BAS– Drive (pursuit of goals)– Fun Seeking (desire for new rewards/willingness to

approach potential reward on impulse)– Reward responsiveness

Factor Structure

• 732 American undergraduates (374 Male)– 4 factors accounted for 49% variance– Alpha reliabilities strong (.66 - .74)– Males; lower BIS and Reward

Responsiveness – BIS/BAS relatively independent– 113 assessed 8 weeks later

• BIS (.66), Drive (.66), RR (.59), FS (.69) all showed re-test reliability

Convergent/Discriminant validity

• Compared with– Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS)

• BIS alone (+)

– Extraversion Scale• BAS alone (+)

– Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)• Fun seeking (+).

– Hypomania/Socialisation from California Psychological Inventory (CPI)

• Hypomania; drive and fun seeking (-)., CPI; BIS (+), FS (-)

Convergent/Discriminant validity

• Compared with…– Life Orientation Test (opt./pess.) (LOT)

• BIS (-), Drive (+)

– Positive/Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)• BIS (-), Drive, RR, FS (+)

– General Temperament Scale (GTS)• Neg; BIS (-)., Pos: Drive, RR, FS (+)., Disinhibition;

BIS (-), Drive, FS (+).

Convergent/Discriminant validity

• Also compared with 3 similar constructs– BIS sensitivity (MacAndrew and Steele, 1991)

• BIS (+)

– Susceptibility to punishment (Torrubia and Tobena, 1984)

• BIS (+), FS (-)

– TPQ (Cloninger, 1987) • Novelty seeking; FS (+). Reward dependence; RR,

BIS (+)

Convergent/Discriminant validity

Overall…

• BIS similar but distinct from other measures/constructs– MacAndrew and Steele’s (1991) BIS scale correlated

with STP and TPQ harm avoidance more than current BIS

– Alternatives more similar to each other than BIS (which measures sensitivity)

• BAS differentiated into 3 factors

Two Experiments

• To determine if BAS/BIS predicted affective reaction to cues

BIS sensitivity

• Method– 69 undergraduates (U.S) completed BIS/BAS,

MAS and E scale– Mood (Nervousness, 1-9) taken, then

(ostensibly) pattern recognition• Digit/letter strings – is the last letter of each the

beginning of the next string? (No)

– 60 seconds of cold-pressor at intro (Pun.)• More mid-way (7 blocks) depending on

performance after further affect taking (6;“punishment”)

BIS sensitivity

• Results– No increases in nervousness– Correlation between initial nervousness and

BIS/MAS separately (+)– BIS alone related to later nervousness (+)

• Overall– BIS reliably predicted of nervousness change

as a function of punishment cue

BAS Sensitivity

• Method– 90 undergraduate (U.S)– Similar methodology ; good performance =

experimental credit. – BAS and E

BAS Sensitivity

• Results– Significant increases in

• Correlation ; initial and E (+). No BAS effect– All 4 predicted later .

• Controlled for initial levels, only Drive and RR within BAS predicted (+) susceptibility to reward (change).

– Regression showed no effect for BIS – Drive then RR most predictive of change.

• Overall– E a main effect, not a predictor of sensitivity– BAS predicts reaction to reward

Two Experiments

Overall...

• BIS/BAS predicted outcomes better than alternatives

• Gray’s predictions best tested with these measures

• Participants warned of cold pressor before experiment – probably under-represents BIS effects due to high initial levels

Follow-up studies

Have more recent findings supported use of the BIS/BAS

scales?

Heubeck et al., (1998)

• Little further investigation of 1994 findings; Aimed to

1. Replicate 1994 findings• Generalise beyond Americans

2. Contrast 4 factor model with alternatives

3. Examine concurrent/discriminant correlations between BIS/BAS and different approaches (Eysenck)

Heubeck et al., (1998)

• Method– 336 Australian undergrads; completed

• BIS/BAS• Eysenck Personality Quest.• PANAS (positive/negative affect)

Heubeck et al., (1998)

• Replication– 4 components : 51.5% variance– All items loaded substantially (>.48) on appropriate

factors – 3 BAS scales correlated in both, as did some light

BIS/BAS correlations

• Factor models– 2/3 factors showed little fit – 4 factor (correlated model) improved fit– Almost exact BIS/BAS internal scale intercorrelation

replication

Heubeck et al., (1998)

• BIS – Independent of Extraversion and Positive Affect (in

both)– Negative affect had moderate correlations (in both)

• BAS – Generally independent of Anxiety and Neuroticism

(very light (-) correlations). Related to E but positive affect only weakly (in both) (should be stronger!)

– Gray stated E should be predicted by high BAS/low BIS and N the converse. Not found

Heubeck et al., (1998)

• Two higher-order factors explained most variances (Positive/negative personality)– E, FS, drive (BAS) and

positive affectability– N, BIS and negative

affectability– E and N loaded

highest in each

Heubeck et al., (1998)

Overall…

• Mixed supportReplication of 4 factor model

E and N didn’t relate to BIS/BAS scales as Gray predicted

Tapped into same higher order constructs as, and were secondary to, E and N.

Caseras et al, 2003

• Looked at various BIS/BAS related scales (within different assessments) as well as personality measures

• BIS/BAS must fit in with Gray’s (1987) model– Anxiety and impulsivity must be unrelated– Anxiety should correlate (-) with E, (+) with N– Impulsivity should correlate (+) with E and N

Caseras et al, 2003Method

• 538 Spanish undergrads completed;– Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)– Susceptibility to Punishment Questionnaire (SPSRQ)– Reward Expectancy and Punishment Expectancy

(GRAPES)– BIS/BAS (BIS; C & W 94., / RR, Drive, FS &

Punishment expectancy ; GRAPES) – State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T)– Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and Empathy (IVE) – MS-BIS (MacAndrew and Steele, 1991)– Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ)

Caseras et al, 2003Method

Caseras et al, 2003Results

• All BIS related measures correlated (+)

• BAS more

heterogeneous– Only Novelty-Seeking

and Fun-seeking/Impulsivity were above .5 (+)

• Anxiety scales show little correlation with Impulsivity

Caseras et al, 2003Results

• BIS measures (anxiety) correlated

(-) with E and (+) with N

• High BAS heterogeneity– Only Sensitivity to

Reward and Reward Dependence were (+) with E and N

Caseras et al, 2003Results (PCA)

• 4 factors ; 65.1% of variance (all measures)– All anxiety measures and

RE, N and E (-) loaded on BIS

– Other 3 arose from different combinations of BAS

• BIS showed low correlations with BAS

• 2 factors accounted for only 48.3%– All anxiety and all BAS-

related

Caseras et al, 2003Overall

• BIS – Scales correlate strongly – most are effective

• BAS – Further suggestion of multiple underlying constructs

• Impulse-thrill seeking, Reward interest and Gregariousness

• Again, mixed support…Anxiety and impulsivity must be unrelatedAnxiety should correlate (-) with E, (+) with N

Impulsivity should correlate (+) with E and N

More about the BIS/BAS Systems

...with Christian Bale

Carver (2004)

• Is the original BAS/BIS system a false dichotomy?

• What if negative affect can be found stemming from both cognitive systems?

Bipolar BAS and BIS

Elation, Eagerness

Sadness, Depression

Relief, Calmness

Anxiety, Fear

(neutral) (neutral)

BAS BIS

Carver’s Experiments

• Carver (2004) focuses on the negative aspects of the BAS in a series of 3 experiments:

1. Frustrative Nonreward

2. Anger

3. Terrorism and Anger

BIS/BAS Sensitivity Measurement

• In all 3 experiments, participants rated on BIS/BAS scales using Carver & White’s (1994) 4-factor model:

1. BIS level

2. BAS Reward Responsiveness

3. BAS Drive

4. BAS Fun Seeking

I. Frustrative Nonreward

• Method: Participants use their ‘intuition’ to assess whether a letter fits in to a sequence

• Never get it right• After this frustrating experience, fill in affect

questionnaires

• Results: Increased negative affect did not correlate with BIS, but did with BAS:FS

II. Anger, III. Terrorism & Anger

• Method: Participants rated scenarios for how angry they made them feel

• Results: Remarkably, BAS:RR predicted anger more than BIS sensitivity (BIS was a better predictor for anxiety).

• BIS was also a good predictor of fear in study III.

Conclusions

• The bipolar model appears vindicated by these (and other related) results.

• Anger seems to be related to negative stimulation of the approach system as opposed to the inhibition system.

• Carver’s Theory: In situations with an incentive, falling behind on them will create anger as the reward slips out of reach…

• …conversely, in situations where there is no incentive, and failure is assured, the BIS takes over and negative affect will take the form of sadness & depression.

• Does anger inherently involve ‘the sense that things can still be put right’?

BAS-man?

Criticisms (I)

• The self-report measures used by Carver may be rather dodgy:

– Cogswell et al. (2006): factor analysis. There is more evidence for 4 factors vs. 2 factors, but not much evidence.

– ‘It is crucial that we entertain the possibility that these scales should be modified…’

Criticisms (II)

• The experiments use a measure of ‘fear’, but what exactly is fear?

• A unitary cognitive construct?• Familiar ideas of ‘fight or flight’, but is this an

oversimplification?• Blair et al. (2005) – ‘empirical literature

strongly suggests there is no single fear system’

• Maybe fear is an umbrella term covering several systems...

Fear (incl. loathing)

• Not only are there different types of fear behaviour...– E.g. Aversive conditioning (there’s a noise associated with a shock) vs.

instrumental learning (something can be done to avoid punishment)

• ...but they have been doubly dissociated in a neuropsychological study of the amygdala in rats (Killcross et al., 2006).

– Central nucleus involved with aversive conditioning– Basolateral nucleus involved with instrumental learning

• If there are separate fear systems, where does this leave the BIS part of the theory?

• Perhaps Carver’s theory is underspecified?

Action, Emotion, and Personality: Emerging Conceptual Integration

Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000.

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)From the Abstract

• “[T]he authors…map individual differences in the responsivity of the approach system onto the personality dimension of extraversion and map individual differences in the responsivity of the withdrawal system onto the dimension of neuroticism.”

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Overview

• The authors present no new data in this study; it is a review.

• CS&S look at several distinct strands of literature (including their own) and argue that they all converge on the “E=approach, N=avoidance” perspective.

• They argue that “the vast majority of emotional experiences derive from these same two motive or action tendencies.”

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Convergent Research ProgrammesConcept (author) E-like N-like

Appetitive and Aversive Motivational-Behavioural Systems

BAS responds to signals of reward or non-punishment. BAS causes movement towards goals.

BIS responds to threats. The BIS acts to inhibit ongoing behaviour, reducing goal-seeking behaviours.

Affective States and Frontal Lobe Activation(Davidson)

Left anterior cortical activation observed among patients presented with incentives or positive emotional adjectives.

Right ACA associated with threats, unpleasant film clips, or time spent waiting to deliver a speech.

Discrepancy-Reducing and Dis.-Enlarging Feedback Processes (Carver & Scheier)

D-Reducing FP moves towards a reference point (a goal, eg career, happy marriage). Stable process. Ranges from elation → depression.

D-Enlarging FP moves away from a reference point (an anti-goal, eg, ridicule, getting fired). Unstable process. Ranges from fear → relief & serenity.

Self-Discrepancy Theory: Ideals and Oughts (Higgins)

Self-guides motivated by ideals—hopes, positive wishes. Living up to an ideal means attaining something desired.

Self-guides motivated by oughts—duty or obligation. Living up to an ought means avoiding a punishment.

Positive and Negative Emotionality (Thayer, Tellegen, Watson, etc.)

Positive affect exists as a broad factor distinct from negative affect.

Negative affect, like PA is bipolar. Low NA associates with: “calm”, “carefree”, “placid”.

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Loops/Polarity

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Connection to Personality

• “A number of people have noted that these two dimensions of positive and negative affectvity bear more than just a slight resemblance to the personality dimensions of E and N.”

• Correlations between BIS, N, & negative emotionality, as well as BAS, E, & positive emotionality.

• CS&S cite the already-mentioned 1994 paper which suggests that BIS/BAS are better predictors than N/E (eg for frontal lobe activity).

• CS&S say that the value added from this approach to personality is to clarify which qualities should belong to which traits

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Extraversion Redefined (slightly)

• “Consider the possibility that extraversion is, at its core, a dimension of individual differences in the tendency to approach incentives.” How does this change things?

• Engagement, energy, forcefulness, spontaneity, and happiness still fit nicely.

• Sociability and gregariousness could be based on incentives which are social.

• But depression (as a negative indicator) fits less well with current thinking.

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Neuroticism Redefined (slightly)

• “Consider the possibility that neuroticism is, at its core, a dimension of individual differences in reactivity to threats.”

• This fits well with current conceptions of N, which largely centre around anxiety, self-consciousness, and vulnerability.

• But this approach suggests that hostility, depression, and impulsiveness are not central to N (eg depression should be a negative indicator of E).

(Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000)Summary

• This paper only considers two of the big five in the context of reward & avoidance.

• But it seems that the other three personality traits should be motivated by differential incentives or punishments of some kind.

• Brief look at Denissen & Penke (2008), which considers the whole FFM.

Motivational Individual reaction Norms Underlying the Five-

Factor Model of Personality: First Steps Towards a Theory-Based

Conceptual Framework.

Denissen & Penke 2008.

(Denissen & Penke 2008)Overview

• Notes criticisms of FFM that it is too descriptive, without sufficient theoretical underpinnings.

• Tries to remedy this by conceptualizing the FFM as “stable individual differences in people’s motivational reactions to circumscribed classes of environmental stimuli.”

• Tests this with a “rationally created” FFM instrument: the FIRNI (Five Individual Reaction Norms Inventory).

• D&P review several conceptualizations of the FFM, but settle on the following structure:

(Denissen & Penke 2008)Motivations Underlying the FFM

Trait Represents individual differences in…

Extraversion …the activation of reward systems in social situations.

Agreeableness ..the motivation to cooperate (vs. act selfishly) in resource conflicts.

Conscientiousness …the tenacity of goal pursuit under distracting circumstances.

Neuroticism ..the activation of the punishment system when faced with cues of social exclusion.

Openness …the activation of reward systems when engaging in cognitive activity.

(Denissen & Penke 2008)The FIRNI

• D&P test their conception with the Five Individual Reaction Norms Inventory, whose items were written to tap the motivations just described (eg “When I have set myself a goal I pursue it very persistently” vs “Sometimes I cheat when I play solitaire” from the NEO-PI-R).

• D&P replicate the five factor structure in their factor analysis, and find that the FIRNI correlates highly with other FFM measures (eg Oliver’s Big Five Inventory).

Adaptive Self-Regulation of Unattainable Goals:

Goal Disengagement, Goal Reengagement,

and Subjective Well-Being

Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz & Carver (2003)

Introduction

• Persistent pursuit of goal attainment has been found to play an important role in adaptive self-regulation

• However, the processes that lead to disengagement from unattainable goals are just as important

• Disengaging from unattainable goals and reengaging in valued alternative goals can be very beneficial

• If new alternatives available, distress arising from unattainable goals can be reduced

Why are some goals unattainable?

Transitions in life – retirement, leaving home Negative life events – death of a loved one,

divorce Personal resources – using time and energy

in pursuit of most important goals may lead to abandonment of others

Benefits of disengaging from an unattainable goal

• The ability to withdraw effort and commitment from an unattainable goal leads to efficient self-regulation

• Helps avoid continuous failed experiences• Helps individual recognise goal as

unnecessary for satisfaction in life• Frees up personal resources that may then

be put into other beneficial areas of individual’s life

• Research has shown it leads to ratings of higher subjective well-being in people with AIDS and parents of handicapped children

Reengagement• Involves identifying new goals, giving them value

and then directing activities towards attaining them• If an individual is faced with an unattainable goal

and there are no alternatives then they may experience high distress

• Benefits of reengaging with new goals may compensate for distress of continued pursuit of unattainable goals

• Goal disengagement and reengagement are independent – individual can disengage and only then look for an alternative or can pursue an alternative whilst still holding onto the unattainable goal

Present Study• Aim:

– Investigate associations between goal disengagement, goal reengagement and subjective well-being

• Hypotheses:• Individuals with a general tendency to disengage

from unattainable goals will report higher levels of subjective well-being

• Reengagement will be beneficial to the well-being of those able to disengage from unattainable goals

• Reengagement will also be related to the reduction of distress in those who persist in pursuing unattainable goals

Study 1 – Associations in college students

• 115 undergraduates• Disengagement – measured reported ability to reduce

effort and relinquish commitment to goals• Reengagement – tendency to identify new goals,

commit to them and actively begin pursuing them– General goal disengagement and reengagement both

positively correlated with ease of disengagement from specific goals and availability of alternative goals at that time respectively

• Subjective well-being - perceived stress, purpose in life, self mastery and intrusive thoughts of problems

Study 1 - Results• Socio-demographic:

– women higher on perceived stress and intrusive thoughts, lower on self mastery

– Non-Caucasians higher on perceived stress, lower on purpose in life and self mastery

• Disengagement and Reengagement:– Related independently to lower perceived stress

and intrusive thoughts; higher to self mastery– RE related to higher purpose of life– RE related to low perceived stress and high self

mastery in those who find DE difficult– Highest stress and lowest self mastery in those

who find both difficult

Study 2 – Age differences in associations

• 62 young adults (19-35 yrs) • 58 older adults (55-89 yrs)• Older adults had received more education• Disengagement – measured slightly

differently to make completion easier and faster

• Reengagement – same as study 1• Emotional well-being – calculated affect

balance score

Study 2 - Results• Higher levels of emotional well-being in higher

educated people and men• Older adults reported higher levels of emotional

well-being• Young adults – like Study 1, RE associated with

emotional well-being when DE is difficult• Older adults – DE related to higher emotional

well-being only if it is accompanied by the tendency to RE.– DE may have a negative effect on their well-

being if there are no alternative goals to pursue

– However, they report finding it easier to DE and RE than the young - adjustment in goal management processes with increase of age

Study 3 – Specific constraints on goals

• 45 adults – 20 parents of children undergoing treatment for cancer; 25 parents of medically healthy children

• Disengagement and Reengagement – same as Study 2

• Depressive symptomatology – measure this with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) – symptoms from past week

Study 3 - Results• Higher education in parents => less depression• High levels of RE => low levels of depression• Higher levels of depression in parents of

children with cancer• Parents who tended to DE and RE had lower

levels of depression - particularly more pronounced in parents of children with cancer

• Highest levels of depression reported in parents of children with cancer who had difficulties in both DE and RE.

• However, parents of children with cancer do not find it any easier to disengage and reengage – they are at a high risk of low subjective well-being

Strengths• Results demonstrated that individual

differences in ability to DE and RE are related to subjective well-being– Study 3 showed that DE and RE are important for

those who face challenging circumstances that may require adjustment to life goals

• RE is a protective factor as it helps an individual engage in pursuit of more manageable goals whilst alleviating distress caused from pursuit of unattainable goals.

• Personality controlled for – authors believe that this demonstrates that individual differences in goal adjustment play a unique role in quality of life

Limitations

• Need to study different populations– Chronic pain vs. acute pain; early stages of

illness vs. later stages of illness– RE and DE may be stronger predictors of

well-being in some populations• Could there be a point at which the acquisition of

new goals actually becomes detrimental?• Causality – does tendency to DE and RE

actually predict well-being or is it the other way round?

• Although personality controlled for, associations between DE, RE and personality constructs need to be explored further.

Further research• Shroevers, Kraaij & Garnefski (2008) – In cancer patients, less DE

and RE associated with continuous thoughts about the cancer and negative aspects of it. More DE and RE related to more positive and less negative affect.– Goal adjustment and cognitive emotion-regulation strategies

(e.g. rumination) only account for about quarter of variance in positive and negative affect. What other factors are involved?

– Could not establish causality – longitudinal studies may be more beneficial

– Cognitive strategies used – stimulating an experiential form of self focus can improve mood and quality of life in patients (Carlson & Garland, 2005) – possible link to openness?

– Need to distinguish between those who let go of goals at most appropriate time and those who withdraw too easily - possibly linked to conscientiousness?

Goal-Setting and Mania

Early Links Between Mania and Goal Setting

Up to 85% heritability of the risk of a first manic episode but great deal of unexplained variance in the expression of the risk.

Above average educational and occupational attainment in those diagnosed with mania, those with a high risk of manic symptoms, and in family members of those with manic symptoms.

9 out of 10 epidemiological studies have linked mania with higher SES, the opposite pattern to most psychiatric conditions including major depression.

(Johnson, 2005)

Hypomanic symptoms associated with higher occupational positions.May be due to the socially and occupationally debilitating symptoms the higher levels of the condition.

Rates of bipolar disorder were found to be 20% higher in individuals nationally recognised for creativity than in less creative individuals. Rates of bipolar disorder in biological parents, also about 20% higher but no link with mental illness in adoptive parents.

The Missing Link:

Risk of Mania is not associated with higher IQ

Some other measurable trait may be identifiable as the expression of the Mania risk genetics

Mania, even in euthymia and remission is associated with self-reported high achievement striving and emphasis on goals and perfectionism

High achievement may be due to higher goal setting and to greater achievement motivation.

Questions:

Is heightened achievement striving and goal setting state-dependant?

Is higher goal setting compensation for the debilitation incurred during a manic episode?

(Johnson & Carver, 2006)

Goals and Mania Study 1: (Johnson & Carver 2006):

Goals set rather than achievements made-Family situation / individual-Ability/ motivation

'Lifetime risk' of mania rather than clinical diagnosis or current symptoms

-To avoid diagnosis bias-State-dependant symptom / stable trait

Control for depression

Measure traits of 'incentive sensitivity', 'drive', 'reward responsiveness', and 'threat sensitivity'.

-Test achievement motivation-Physiological associations

Measures:

Lifetime mania risk: Hypomanic Personality Scale (HPS)

Lifetime Depression risk: Inventory to Diagnose Depression – Lifetime (IDD-L)

Current Manic Symptoms: Self-Rating Mania Index (SRMI)

Current Depression Symptoms: Short-form Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)

BIS/BAS sensitivity:

Carver's BIS/BAS index. Four factors- Threat sensitivity (BIS) Fun seeking (BAS) Drive (BAS) Reward responsiveness (BAS)

High Goal Setting:

Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits (WASSUP)

20 goals, asked to rate 1 'definitely won't occur' to 5 'definitely will occur'

Five factors (68% of variance): 1. Popular Fame 2. Educational/ occupational success 3. Financial success and 'broad fame' 4. Political power 5. Only 1 item - 'everyone you know will love you'

IQ: SAT scores

Correlations of Mood Measures:

Lifetime Depression * Current Depression (r= .38 p< .001) Current Mania * Current Depression (r= -.30 p,.001)

Lifetime Mania * Lifetime Depression (r=.31 p<.001)

Lifetime Mania* Current Mania (r=.17 p=.05) not expected.

Mood and BIS/BAS Sensitivity:

Mood and Goal Setting Factors:

Mania Risk, Other mood Measures Controlled:

Multiple Regression Analysis:

BIS/BAS Sensitivity and Goal Setting Factors accounted for 38% of the variance in Mania Risk score.

Largely independent contributions to variance.

Study 2:

Improved WASSAP:

Removed ambiguity 'will occur' replaced by 'will set as a goal'

Added 10 extra items including more social/interpersonal items.

7 factors found: Popular Fame Idealised family/partner relationships Positive world impact Political Power Popularity Financial success + 'Will have 50 partners in lifetime' Mix of Creativity, self-actualisation, personal fullfillment

Most of Study 1's results replicated

Lifetime mania risk correlated with current manic symptoms (r=.33 p<.001)

WASSAP factor 7 correlated with lifetime mania risk, due mostly to 'creative' items

High mania risk participants tested separately from rest of the sample on goal factors:

Higher endorsements of popular fame, political power and creativity p<.001.

Goal Dysregulation and Psychopathology:

Socially prescribed perfectionism associated with suicidal thinking (O'Connor & Forgan, 2007)

GOALS program focusing on goals setting and reward response as a treatment for mania (Johnson & Fulford, 2008)

References

• Carver, C.S. and White, T.L. (1994). Behavioural Inhibition, Behavioural Activation and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and Punishment : The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 67 (2), p. 319 – 333. – Caseras, X., Avila, C. and Torrubia, R. (2003) The Measurement

of Individual Differences in Behavioural Inhibition and Behavioural Activation Systems : A Comparison of Personality Scales. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 34, p. 999 – 1013.

– Heubeck, B.G., Wilkinson, R.B. and Cologon, J. (1998). A Second Look at Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS Scales. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 25, p. 785 – 800.

References

• Blair, J., Mitchell, D., & Blair, K. (2005) The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain. London: Blackwell

• Carver, C. S. (2004) Negative affects deriving from the Behavioural Approach System. Emotion, 4 (1), 3-22.

• Cogswell, A., Alloy, L. B., van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Fresco, D. M. (2006) A psychometric evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self-report measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (8), 1649-1658.

• Killcross, S., Robbins, T. R., & Everitt, B. J. (1997). Different types of fear-conditioned behaviour mediated by separate nuclei within amygdala. Nature 388 (6640), 377-380.