154x Filetype PDF File size 1.07 MB Source: irep.ntu.ac.uk
Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Personality and Individual Differences Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: PAID-D-08-00106R1 Title: An evaluation of the relationship between Gray's revised RST and Eysenck's PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales Article Type: Research Paper Section/Category: Regular Issue Keywords: Behavioural Inhibition System; Behavioural Activation System; Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory; Psychoticism; Confirmatory factor analysis; Path analysis Corresponding Author: Miss Nadja Heym, BSc, MSc Corresponding Author's Institution: University of Nottingham First Author: Nadja Heym, BSc, MSc Order of Authors: Nadja Heym, BSc, MSc; Eamonn Ferguson, BSc., PhD., CPsychol., AFBPsS., FRSH; Claire Lawrence, BSc., PhD. Manuscript Region of Origin: Abstract: Recent revisions of Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) have important implications for self-report measures of approach and avoidance behaviours and how Gray's model relates to other personality models. In this paper, we examine the revised RST by comparing Carver and White's (1994) original one-factor solution of the BIS scale with two alternative two-factor solutions separating BIS-Anxiety and FFFS-Fear. We also examine the relationships between Eysenck's PEN and revised RST factors. Two hundred and twelve participants completed Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales and Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire-Revised. Confirmatory factor analyses of the original BIS scale showed that the hypothesized two-factor model of BIS-Anxiety and FFFS-Fear was the best fit to these data. Associations between the revised RST and Eysenck's PEN were examined using path analysis. In line with theoretical predictions, Psychoticism was related to revised BIS-Anxiety and BAS, Neuroticism to revised BIS-Anxiety and FFFS- Fear, and Extraversion to BAS and FFFS-Fear. Distinctions between BAS subscales and their associations to BIS, N and P were made in terms of past, present and future focus. Possible explanations for mixed findings in the literature and implications for future research are discussed. Cover Letter and Word Count Revisions to: Ms. Ref. No.: PAID-D-08-00106 A re-evaluation of the relationship between Eysenck's PEN and Gray's revised RST: Psychoticism in the here and now - BIS in the yesterday and tomorrow! Dear Editor, Thank you for organizing the review process and for you email of April 9th 2008 giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the Manuscript. We would like to thank the three reviewers for the time and effort they put into their reviews. Their comments were very useful and allowed us to clarify the focus of the paper and strengthen the analyses. Detailed answers to the reviewers’ comments are presented below. We have addressed all of the reviewers’ concerns. First of all, we would like to thank you for your personal comments and reference for the recently released Corr & McNaughton chapter in Corr (2008). We have incorporated their invaluable discussion into our manuscript. For instance, you had pointed out that the first suggestion for the split of the BIS scale into specific anxiety and fear items was made by Corr & McNaughton (2008) and we have highlighted this in the paper (page 4, paragraph 3; page 5, paragraph 2). Moreover, a number of the reviewers’ changes called for additional information and we have tried to make all of these changes while keeping the manuscript within the 5000 word limit for Personality and Individual Differences. For example, we have now included one additional model for the confirmatory factor analysis and the appropriate figures showing the two CFA models (e.g. page 9 and 10, Figure 2) as well as a descriptive table for the RST and PEN variables (page 11, Table 2). Throughout the text we have also clarified some arguments. Word count: 4908 Reviewer 1 General Comment: ‘In this study the authors examine associations among Eysenck's PEN and indices relevant to Gray's RST, using Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales to index RST constructs. Noting important theoretical distinctions between Gray's early (1987) and revised (Gray & McNaughton,2000) theory (e.g., the reallocation of sensitivity to conditioned fear stimuli from the BIS to FFFS), the authors inspect the C&W BIS scale items and, on rational grounds, identify items more related to "fear" than to "anxiety" and demonstrate, using CFA, statistical support for separate BIS-anxiety and FFFS-fear scales. Associations among these scales generally conform to hypotheses and provide a useful contribution to the literature on relations between PEN and RST constructs. The manuscript is well-written, well-organized, and concise. Hypotheses are clearly stated, methods and analyses clearly described, and results are presented in a straightforward manner. Recognizing that there is some pressure on authors to limit introductory material in light of word or page limits for manuscripts, the few concerns I had about this manuscript relate mainly to issues in their literature review.’ Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the paper and for the extremely helpful and detailed comments on the MS. We agree with all of the points made by the reviewer and have addressed each as detailed below. Issue 1: ‘On p.3 the authors note, regarding the literature on relations between E and BIS, that "the negative relationship . is not always found", citing a single reference. Of course, even a single instance supports the descriptor "not always," but this characterization hardly describes what the bulk of the literature with which I am familiar seems to show. See, e.g., the following correlations and associated references: -.14 Carver & White (1994), Study 2 -.19 Jorm et al. (1999) -.20 Caseras et al. (2003) -.16 Heubeck et al. (1998) -.14 Franken et al. (2005) -.12 Muller & Wytykowska (2005), Study 4 -.11 Chi et al. (2005) Unless the authors have a number of other exceptional findings with which I am not familiar, wouldn't ". is usually found" (citing the above) be a fairer characterization of the literature than the one they have chosen?’ Response 1: We agree with this comment and have changed the wording on page 3 (paragraph 3) highlighting that the negative link between E and BIS is usually found, but is typically weaker. We refer to the recent review chapter by Torrubia, Avila and Caseras (2008) who quoted most of the references indicated above by the reviewer and came to the same conclusions. Issue 2: ‘Also on p. 3, the authors note that evidence for a positive relationship between N and BAS has not been consistently demonstrated. Again, in much of the literature with which I am familiar, except for an occasional positive relationship between N and Reward Responsivity, correlations between N and BAS (Total score or subscales) have pretty consistently been very low (i.e., < .10) and sometimes on the order of "0" if not negative. See, e.g., Jorm et al. (1999) except for RR = .25
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.