Laboratory and Questionnaire Assessment of the BAS and BIS Craig R. aUniversity
a Colder ,
William F.
b Wieczorek ,
Jennifer P.
a Read ,
Larry W. Hawk,
a Jr. ,
Liliana J.
c Lengua ,
& Rina D.
d Eiden
at Buffalo, The State University of New York, bBuffalo State University, cUniversity of Washington, dResearch Institute on Addictions
ABSTRACT
RESULTS
There are a limited number of measures that assess children’s individual differences in sensitivity of the behavioral approach (BAS) and inhibition systems (BIS) from Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity model. We revised a questionnaire and laboratory assessment (Colder & O’Connor, 2004) of the BAS and BIS. Factor analysis supported a two factor model with a reduced number of items relative to the original questionnaire. Performance of the laboratory task was consistent with expectation. BAS activation reduced reaction times and BIS activation slowed responding. Relatively weak relations were observed between our questionnaire assessments and the performance on the laboratory task. Associations with the EATQ-R scales supported the validity of our questionnaire assessment of the BIS/BAS. Overall, the revised questionnaire and laboratory task improved measurement of individual differences in the BAS and BIS in children, but there continues to be limited cross-method convergent validity.
1. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the SPSRQ-C. A two-factor orthogonal solution was specified based on theory, and 27 items were deleted due to weak standardized factor loadings ( .05).
Table 2. Unstandardized coefficients (SE) from random effects regression models predicting reaction times (RTs) in milliseconds from the PSRTT-CRa Effect
Model testing SRb
Model testing SPc
Intercept Aged Gender (0=male, 1=female) Error rated Condition Contrast No reward (0) vs. reward (1) Appetitive (0) vs. aversive (1)
821.53* (29.85) -52.93* (10.93) 39.54* (18.54) -103.67* (80.17)
675.77* (35.98) -61.19* (12.85) 48.78* (22.37) -724.17* (152.00)
-100.84* (6.37) 75.21* (8.74)
Notes: aModels included a random intercept, and fixed effects estimates are based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation. bSR=sensitivity to reward. cSP=sensitivity to punishment. dVariable was centered at the sample mean to facilitate interpretation of the intercept. * p < .05.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and CONTACT INFORMATION This research was supported by a grant from the NIDA (R01 DA020171) awarded to Craig Colder. The content of this poster is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA. Correspondence should be addressed to: Craig R. Colder, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Park Hall, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260 Email:
[email protected]
Effect Age Gender (0=male, 1=female) SPa SRb Model R2
DV=Effortful Control -.04 .09* -.20* -.58*
DV=Surgency -.02 .09* -.67* .16* .41
DV=Negative Affect -.07 .08 .43* .25* .47
.26
Note: aSP=SPSRQ-C senstivity to punishment. bSR=SPSRQ-C sensitivity to reward. * p < .05. Examination of the 1st-order scales of negative affect suggested that SP predicted fear and frustration. High levels of SP were associated with high levels of fear and frustration. SR predicted only frustration. High levels of SR were associated with high levels of frustration.
Table 5. Standardized coefficients for regression models with EATQ-R scales predicting PSRTT-CR reaction times (RT) from reward block and aversive trials (red circle trials) of the post-punishment block Effect
DV=RT during Reward Block
Age Gender (0=male, 1=female) Error rate RT control variable No Reward RT Appetitive Trial RT Effortful control Surgency Negative Affect Model R2
-.06* .14* -.07*
DV=RT during post-punishment Aversive Trials -.11* -.03 -.19*
.77* .71* -.01 .03 .04
-.07* -.03 .02 .60
.62
Notes: * p < .05.
CONCLUSION The goal of this study was to revise our parent questionnaire (SPSRQ-C) and laboratory task (PSRTT-CR) assessment of individual differences in BAS and BIS. In our previous work (O’Connor & Colder, 2004), we found the BAS scale to have a multi-factorial structure, which had no theoretical basis. In our current analysis, we forced a two-factor solution and substantially reduced the item pool, resulting in two theoretically coherent scales that were internally consistent and orthogonal. Moreover, associations with the EATQ-R supported validity of the SPSRQ-C scales The original PSRTT-C did not include a no reward block, and thus potentially confounded BAS activation with BIS activation. The PSRTT-CR addressed this limitation, and results suggested speeded responding with the introduction of reward (BAS activation), and slowed responding with the presentation of punishment cues (BIS activation). As commonly found, there was limited evidence for cross-method association. This may be attributable to one method being a better measure of BAS/BIS. For example, parents may not be good reporters of behavior reflective of BAS/BIS functioning, or the laboratory task may provide too circumscribed an assessment of trait levels of BAS/BIS. It is also possible that each measure reflects different aspects of BAS/BIS functioning, yet need further refinement to demonstrate that they are assessing the same construct. Citations Colder, C. R., & O’Connor, R. M. (2004). Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity model and child psychopathology: laboratory and questionnaire assessment of the BAS and BIS. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 435-451. Fowles, D. C. (1994). A motivational theory of psychopathology . In W. D. Spaulding (Ed.) Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (pp. 181-205). NY: Plenum Press. Ellis, L. K. & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. A poster Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN, April 19-22.
