Transcript Carver and White (1994)

Carver and White (1994)
Behavioural inhibition, behavioural
activation and affective responses to
impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS Scales.
Introduction to BIS/BAS
• Gray’s theory of brain functions and
behaviour.
• 2 neurological systems that form dimensions
of personality.
• BIS = Behavioural Inhibition System
• BAS = Behavioural Approach/Activation
System
• Sensitivities said to be orthogonal
BIS
• Sensitive to signals of
punishment, nonreward
and novelty.
• Inhibits behaviour
• May lead to negative
outcomes and is
responsible for negative
feelings.
BAS
• Sensitive to reward,
nonpunishment and
escape from punishment.
• Begin/movement
towards goals
• Responsible for positive
feelings
• Proneness to engage in
goal directed efforts.
Assessment
• Problematic due to conceptual content of
other theories not fitting theory.
• Vulnerability vs. Typical experience
• TPQ – 3 dimensions resembling Gray’s theory.
• Present study aims to develop and initial
validate a set of measures.
Study 1: Scale development
• Pool of items generated by conceptualisation of BIS
and BAS functioning
• 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 Correlations found
• Indication that scales are related but also
distinguishable from alternative measures.
• Need to test if the scales predictive ability of
behaviour
Study 3: BIS sensitivity and the
experience of anxiety
• Need to create a situation that engages BIS not BAS
• Administered BIS/BAS, and other measures and a
task to evoke nervousness
• Punishment Cue Manipulation
• Found BIS scale to be significant predictor and
contributed unique variance over and above other
measures.
• Construct validity for BIS scale
Study 4: BAS sensitivity and the
experience of happiness
• Need to create a situation 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, particularly Drive and Reward
Responsiveness.
• Construct validity for BAS scales
Discussion
• Development of valid BIS/BAS scales that
reflect individual differences in the sensitivity
of the presumed underlying
neurophysiological regulatory systems
• Superior predictions in comparisons among
measures
• Future directions maybe in broader contexts
Action, Emotion & Personality:
Emerging Conceptual Integration.
Carver, Sutton & Scheier (2000)
In short…. A paper looking at how personality
(specifically Extraversion & Neuroticism) can be
associated with tendencies to chase goals (such as
getting a good job – MOTIVATION/ APPROACH) or
tendencies to avoid threats (such as getting the
sack – WITHDRAWAL/ AVOID) and how these may
be linked to our emotional state.
Carver et al (2000): Action, Emotion & Personality: Emerging
Conceptual Integration.
• This paper looked at the idea that behaviour fundamentally consists
of 2 regulatory systems which prompt our actions:
1. APPROACH SYSTEM – this
positive affect and goal pursuit
manages our
2. WITHDRAWAL SYSTEM – this
manages our
negative 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 emotions (e.g. positive &
negative affect) can drive our actions – i.e. our emotional state can
prompt actions which have different aims (ie. MOTIVATE us to
pursue goals or encourage us to AVOID “anti-goals”).
• Carver et al attempted to integrate action, personality and emotion
Approach & Avoidance – Behaviours &
feeling qualities
• 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
attempting to show how each of the other
theories of behaviour may compliment each
other.
Appetitive & Aversive – Motivational
Behavioural Systems
• The APPROACH & WITHDRAWAL systems are thought to have
different neural substrates and distinct influences on behaviour.
• Gray (1994):
1. APPROACH (“appetitive”) system:
- responds to incentives and rewards and
escape
from punishment – this causes the individual to move
toward goals.
- associated with release of dopamine & feelings of positive
affect.
2. WITHDRAWAL (“aversive”) system
- responds to threats and signals of punishment
- its engagement inhibits behaviour, thus stifling movement.
- associated with feelings of negative affect.
Affective States & Frontal Lobe
Activation
• Gray (1994) attempted to understand the regulation
of behaviour in response to incentives and threats;
his focus was on action with implications for
emotions arising as something of an after thought.
On the other hand however….
• Davidson et al focused more on emotional
experiences & suggested that it is emotions which
lead to motivational processes (action).
• Although Davidson et al’s start point was
almost the opposite of Gray, both Gray &
Davidson et al arrives at a similar
conceptual position
• Davidson et al concluded that specialized
neural substrates for APPROACH &
WITHDRAWAL systems (& thus + & affect) are lateralized in the left & right
anterior regions of the cerebral cortex,
respectively.
 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
organisations of self-regulating feed-back systems
- they believed that most human behaviour consists of attempts to
create & maintain conformity to desired goal values.
• Discrepancy-reducing feedback processes
- essentially APPROACH processes
- the reference points in this feedback correspond well
goal construct.
- home in on a target and are considered stable.
to the
• Discrepancy-enlarging feedback processes
» Essentially AVIOD processes
» Attempt to create distance from goals
» Idea of “anti-goals” (e.g. something we try to avoid such as
parking tickets)
» Involve distancing self from the anti-goal & are therefore
in a sense unstable.
Discrepancy-Reducing & Discrepancy-Enlarging
Feedback Processes cont…
• Eventually the 2 loops begin to work in
conjunction
Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing
positive feelings within a general model of affect
Charles S. Carver (2003)
Affect: ‘Experience of valence, a subjective sense of
positivity or negativity arising from an experience’
(not emotion)
Theoretical model of affect proposed by Carver and Scheier (1990):
• Positive affects constitute important information for the people who
experience them
• And plays an important regulating function in the flow of behaviour
Behaviour and Affect
• Behaviour is organised for moving toward or away from
desired goals
• It is initiated by the experience of affect
Systems monitor not the approach and avoidance
behaviours themselves but the effectiveness over time
Rate of progress compared to the Reference rate
= Error signal
Error Signal
Error signal is the affective valence
• If the rate of progress is above the criterion (you are doing
better than you need to)- positive affect arises
• If the rate of progress is below the criterion (you are doing
worse than you need to)- negative 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
Positive Affect
• Although positive affect signals that we are doing better than
we need to there is still 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 positive feeling is not
sustained for very long for that particular goal domain
Why ‘Coast’?
The adaptive value for such a tendency lies in the fact
people have multiple concerns.
• People do not optimise their performance on any one
domain, they would rather satisfy all of them
• Coasting therefore allows for resources to be transferred from
a domain with positive affect to another with negative affect
(or in the absence of that exploring new opportunities)
Therefore it is the feeling of affect that inspires
reprioritisation
Extreme Goal Setting and Vulnerability to
Mania Among Undiagnosed Young Adults
Johnson & Carver (2006)
Background
Bipolar Disorder
• One or more manic episodes in the lifetime. A depressive
episode is not required for diagnosis but frequently occurs
Why study ambitious goal setting in relation to mania?
• Bipolar disorder linked to above average attainment
e.g. those with affective psychosis, more likely to be
professionals than schizophrenic patients (Stern, 1913)
Many factors may reduce achievement in mania…
… However Bipolar disorder is associated with periods of high
accomplishment and above average lifetime attainment.
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.
Rationale for this present study
1.
2.
3.
Previous studies have not assessed goals directly, rather
looked at patterns of achievement
Episodes of mania are damaging… is elevated goal striving in
those with bipolar disorder just compensation?
Depression is common to those vulnerable to mania; need to
control for vulnerability to depression also
Aim:
To explore measured life goals and incentive sensitivity in students
AT RISK of bipolar disorder
Study will account for lifetime risk of mania and depression and
also current manic and depressive symptoms
Methods
A series of self report questionnaires were administered during two
sessions
Session 1
a) Hypomanic Personality Scale (HPA)
Identifies those at risk of a manic episode. 48 true/ false items
b) Lifetime depressive symptoms (IDD-L)
Identifies those vulnerable to depression. 45 items
c) Incentive and threat sensitivity (BIS/ BAS)
Session 2
d) Self-Rating 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 ambitious- aggregated
into 5 factors using FA:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Popular fame
Medical and educational pursuits
Wealth (& a ‘broader’ sort of fame)
Political power
‘Everyone you know will love you’ (one item)
g) Self Reported Scholastic Aptitude (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, political influence
and financial success
Popular fame and financial success remained robust after
controlling for current mania and depression symptoms and
vulnerability to depression
Association with goals was largely independent of the link
between risk of mania and incentive sensitivity.
Puzzle?
•
Manic Episodes typically associated with higher social activity, 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 relationships.
Revised factor structure:
1.
Popular fame
2.
Idealised relationships with partner/ family
3.
Positive impact on world wellbeing
4.
Political Influence
5.
Relations with friends
6.
Financial success
7.
Creativity, personal fulfilment, self actualisation
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 setting goals related to creative accomplishment
 Relation between risk of mania and goal setting was strongest for
goals that were endorsed more rarely by people lower in mania
vulnerability
Discussion
• The link between risk of mania and ambitious goal setting appears
to be robust
• Risk of mania was more closely related with extrinsic goals
• It was also associated with more setting more ‘unusual’ goals… May
not be just extrinsic goals
…what are we missing?
Limitations
• Reliance on self-report measures.. Alternatives are suggested
• Undergrads, due to time in life may be more sensitive to thinking
about goals and less experienced in ‘dismissing’ extreme life goals
• Questionable 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 sensitive to a Behavioural Approach
System or a Behavioural Inhibition System, (BAS/BIS –
approach/avoidance process)
• Carver and Scheier suggest human behaviour reflects
feedback process, where feedback loops monitor the
effectiveness of movement towards incentives.
• Suggests either type of motive (approach/avoidance) can give
rise to either valence of affect, (positive or negative),
depending on how well the action serving the motive is going.
Approach and Sadness
• Suggestive evidence that sadness is linked to approach
– Depression relates to the experience of loss or failure to attain
incentives, as opposed to
– Avoidance orientation 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
overreaction of the approach system
Present Research
• Goal: to obtain more evidence that BAS is involved in the
creation of certain negative affects.
• Methodology Used –
– BAS/BIS individual differences in sensitivity.
– 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: Frustrative 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 identical for each ppt).
•
•
Affect information taken before, midway through the task, and
after they found they had failed.
Results
•
Factor analysis revealed two factors
1. “Frustration” – loadings .80+ from ‘annoyed’ ‘discouraged’
2. “Sadness” – loadings .90+ from ‘depressed’ ‘sad’
Results contd and Discussion
• Fun – seeking was a prospective correlate of both: Sad (r= .34 p<.01) Frus
(r= .29, p<.03)
• Two hierarchical regression analysis revealed that fun – seeking was a far
better predictor for both factors than BIS.
• Indicates failure to attain reward had desired effect
on affective experience
• Intensity of feelings related to levels of fun – seeking
but not BIS sensitivity thus supporting the idea that
both positive and negative feelings can arise from
the approach system.
Study Two : Anger
• Idea: If anger stems from thwarted approach it
should relate to BAS sensitivity.
• Procedure:
• Completed ZKPQ, scale that focuses explicitly on aggression
and hostility as a personality trait.
• Ppts exposed to anger eliciting hypothetical situations, told to
“imagine the events are happening to you” then answered a
set of questions concerning nervousness and anger as
responses to the situations.
Results and Discussion
• Factor analysis of emotional reactions 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.
– Suggestive that anger involves a system beyond that concerning
pursuit of incentives, 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
• Rectify issues with hypothetical situations not evoking realistic responses,
a study was conducted soon after September 11th. (Ppts completed
BIS/BAS tests)
• Ppts who had not lost anyone in the attacks completed a
survey of reactions 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. contribution to the prediction of anger,
contribution 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 left
unexplained.
• BAS related scales related to the affect in each study, but it was not the
same scale across studies.
– Possible explanation is that the three focus on different aspects of the
approach process
– E.g Fun – Seeking = eagerness for new incentives, so predicted more distress when the
incentive never came.
Discussion
• Again, reiterates the notion that anger
derives, at least in part, from the approach
system.
• As in Study 2, two different negative affects
related most strongly to different dimensions
of personality, one to incentive motivation
and the other to threat motivation.
General Discussion
• All results indicate that feelings relating to the
approach system are not always positive, contrary to
the unipolar view that dominates discussions of
affect dimensionality.
• If anger and anxiety co-occur, why do they relate to
different behaviour regulation systems?
• Many situations disrupt pursuit of an incentive whilst
simultaneously creating a threat of harm.
• Both affects have adaptive properties
Adaptive Properties
• Situation: Inevitable impending failure, -ve affect one of
sadness to encourage disengaging and not wasting resources.
• Situation: Reparable, anger could be hope that things could
be set right, thus frustration etc feelings to prompt action and
struggle to overcome obstacles.
• (See paper for graph – doing well above criterion, doing
poorly below criterion, engagement along x axis, greater for
anger/frustration, less intense for depression/dejection as
feeling of hopelessness)
Ultimately the research indicates that the approach
system is negative as well as positive feelings,
meaning an adequate theory must accommodate a
mechanism for the creation of affects of both
valences.
Adaptive Self-Regulation of
Unattainable Goals: Goal
Disengagement, Goal
Reengagement and Subjective
Well-Being
Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz and
Carver (2003)
Background
• Optimism, belief in competencies and
persistence related to well-being and health.
• Beneficial if able to abandon unattainable goals
+ reengage in new goals → reduce distress,
continued sense of purpose.
• Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals
depends on existence of alternatives.
Why are goals unattainable?
• Ageing – opportunities for achieving goals constrained
by socio-structural and biological factors (e.g. retirement
age, menopause).
• Negative life-events (e.g. death of spouse, divorce).
• Limited resources – selective 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 unattainable goal as not
necessary for satisfaction.
• Free time and energy resources.
Disengagement = high well-being in:
• People who have
developed AIDS.
Maintenance of
• Parents of
handicapped children. unrealistic intentions
and goals relates to
• People who divorce in
distress + depression.
later life.
• Post-menopausal
women without
children.
Reengagement is…
•
Identifying alternative goals + initiating activities to
pursue these goals.
•
Unattainable goals may be problematic if no
alternative goals exist to alleviate negative
consequences of failure.
•
Independent of disengagement:
1.
2.
May disengage + reengage in new goal much later.
Unattainable goal may overlap with engagement with new
goal.
The Present Study
• Examined goal disengagement, reengagement
+ subjective well-being.
• Study 1 = general associations
• Study 2 = age-differential associations
• 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 unattainable goals (IV1).
2. Reengagement – tendency to identify + begin active pursuit
of new goals (IV2).
3. Subjective 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 selfmastery.
• 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 additionally 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 protective factors for well-being when faced with
unattainable goals.
• RE can compensate for some of distress if continue to pursue
unattainable 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. Subjective well-being – Positive and Negative 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
• Differential patterns between DE, RE + well-being
in young + older adults.
• DE only better for older adults if followed by RE –
if no alternative goals, maybe better to continue
to pursue unattainable goals.
• DE + RE easier for older adults → goal
management processes change across life-span.
Study Three – Cancer Patients
• 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. Subjective well-being – Centre for Epidemiological Studies
Depression Scale (focus on past week)
Study Three – Cancer Patients
• More educated Ps = less depression.
• Parents of kids with cancer = more depressed.
• Ps with better RE = less depressed.
• Parents who tended to be able to disengage from
unattainable 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 patients
• Parents of kids with cancer who find DE
easy but RE difficult may benefit from
interventions to:
• Prevent low well-being.
• Help adaptively manage life-goals.
Discussion
• Variation exists in people’s general tendency to
disengage + reengage…
• …these differences are relevant to well-being.
• Capacity to RE in new goals is a protective factor is
continue to pursue unattainable goals.
• Opportunities to pursue new goals decline with age –
failure to reengage is detrimental to older people.
Finally (part 1!)
• Further study into alternative goals:
– Pursuit of multiple goals may make adaptation
to loss of one goal easier.
– Multiple goals may make DE less threatening
as back-up goals exist.
– BUT acquisition 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