scholarly journals Moving Forward with the BAS

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dino Krupić ◽  
Philip J. Corr
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Reward System ◽  
Incentive Motivation ◽  
Endogenous Opioids ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Neural Structure ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Behavioural Effects ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity ◽  
Neuropsychological Theory

One of the hottest topics in neuroscience is the study of brain-behavioural circuits underlying the processing of reward-related stimuli. A growing body of studies has shed new light on the neural structure of this reward system. In this paper, we discuss the significance of these studies from the perspective of a neuropsychological theory of personality, namely the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST). RST assumes that variation in sensitivity/reactivity of the reward system is the cause of individual differences in approach motivation (e.g. desire or need for achievement, persistence, and positive emotionality). Within RST, these individual differences are contained in the construct of the Behavioural Approach System (BAS). However, there is an ongoing debate as regards the nature of the BAS. This fact motivated us to review the latest refinements in the neuroscience of the BAS in the context of the reward system. In this review, we identity four distinctive aspects of the BAS: wanting, incentive motivation, striving and liking. Their behavioural effects are compared with the behavioural manifestations of testosterone, dopamine, serotonin and endogenous opioids, respectively. We conclude that the unidimensional view of the BAS is overly oversimplified; and we suggest that it should be studied as a multidimensional construct and, by implication, so too should the reward system.

Individual Differences and Mindfulness

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Alfons Karl ◽  
Ronald Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Dispositional Mindfulness ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
External Stimuli

What makes some people more mindful than others? Previous research has indicated that dispositional mindfulness is related to both the five factor model (FFM) and the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST). However, previous research has examined those associations in isolation. We examined the unique effects of RST and the FFM on mindfulness in a sample 399 participants. Overall, we found the individual facets of mindfulness were differentially correlated with RST and FFM dimensions. Specifically, RST (BIS) and FFM (Neuroticism) dimensions that draw attention to external stimuli negatively correlated with mindfulness except for Observing. In contrast, FFM dimensions Openness and Conscientiousness correlated positively with mindfulness, suggesting a pattern where individuals routinely allocate attention to internal stimuli (being mindful) in order to explore (Openness) or to regulate these experiences (Conscientiousness). Our findings provide new insights into the underlying individual difference structure of being mindfulness and implies that mindfulness may not be a unitary construct. We suggest that future research should investigate mindfulness correlates at the facet level instead of the higher level of overall mindfulness.

scholarly journals Impulsivity and Behaviour Problems in Dogs: A Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Perspective

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Piotti ◽  
Liam Satchell ◽  
Tom Lockhart
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Problems ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Approach And Avoidance ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity ◽  
Trait Impulsivity ◽  
Relevant Topic ◽  
Personality Models ◽  
Neuropsychological Theory

Trait impulsivity is an increasingly relevant topic for human and non-human animal personality research. There are similarities in dog and human manifestations of trait impulsivity at the behavioural, genetic, and neurobiological level. We investigated a well-validated measure of dog impulsivity and responsivity (the Dog Impulsivity Assessment Scale, DIAS) and a neuropsychological theory of human trait approach and avoidance (the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of personality, RST). Owners reported their dogs’ dispositional behaviour on the DIAS, an RST scale modified to describe dogs’ behaviour, and a list of common dog behaviour problems. In a sample of 730 dogs, we observed convergence between the RST and the DIAS. There was a negative correlation between RST ‘Behaviour Inhibition System’ and DIAS impulsivity factor (‘Behavioural Regulation’). RST ‘Behavioural Approach System’ correlated positively with DIAS ‘Responsiveness’. The RST ‘Fight-Flight-Freeze System’ (FFFS) and the DIAS ‘Aggression and response to novelty factor were both distinct from other factors. However, the DIAS ‘Aggression and response to novelty’ factor and the RST FFFS explained different aspects of dog behaviour problems. Importantly, whilst the DIAS factors indicated tendencies towards avoidant behaviours, the FFFS discriminated between active and passive avoidance. The findings suggest a partial overlapping between the DIAS and RST scales, and highlights the utility of personality models in investigating behaviour problems in dogs.

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire--Dutch Version

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serafine Dierickx ◽  
Dirk Smits ◽  
Philip J. Corr ◽  
Penelope Hasking ◽  
Laurence Claes
Keyword(s):  
Personality Questionnaire ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Dutch Version ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity

The Effects of Profit-Sharing Plans, Client Importance, and Reinforcement Sensitivity on Audit Quality

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herman van Brenk ◽  
Barbara Majoor ◽  
Arnold M. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Agency Theory ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Profit Sharing ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity ◽  
Reporting Decisions ◽  
Auditor Reporting

Despite concerns that profit-sharing plans might have a detrimental effect on audit quality, there is little empirical evidence on this issue. We examine the effects of the type of profit-sharing plan, level of client importance, and auditor reinforcement sensitivity (joint sensitivity to rewards and punishments) on auditor reporting decisions. By relying on agency theory and reinforcement sensitivity theory, we posit that the joint effects of profit sharing and client importance on auditors' decisions are contingent on reinforcement sensitivity. In an experiment with 450 audit partners and managers, we manipulate type of profit-sharing plan and client importance, and measure extroversion and neuroticism. We find the highest audit quality when profit sharing is based on firm performance, client importance is low, and reinforcement sensitivity is high. Thus, instead of just modifying the type of profit-sharing plans, it is the mix of economic incentives and personality traits that affect audit quality.

The New Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory: Implications for Personality Measurement

2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke D. Smillie ◽  
Alan D. Pickering ◽  
Chris J. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Formal Models ◽  
Personality Measurement ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Interdependent System ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity ◽  
Psychometric Measures ◽  
Trait Impulsivity ◽  
Psychometric Measurement ◽  
Future Work

In this article, we review recent modifications to Jeffrey Gray's (1973, 1991) reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST), and attempt to draw implications for psychometric measurement of personality traits. First, we consider Gray and McNaughton's (2000) functional revisions to the biobehavioral systems of RST. Second, we evaluate recent clarifications relating to interdependent effects that these systems may have on behavior, in addition to or in place of separable effects (e.g., Corr, 2001; Pickering, 1997). Finally, we consider ambiguities regarding the exact trait dimension to which Gray's “reward system” corresponds. From this review, we suggest that future work is needed to distinguish psychometric measures of (a) fear from anxiety and (b) reward-reactivity from trait impulsivity. We also suggest, on the basis of interdependent system views of RST and associated exploration using formal models, that traits that are based upon RST are likely to have substantial intercorrelations. Finally, we advise that more substantive work is required to define relevant constructs and behaviors in RST before we can be confident in our psychometric measures of them.

scholarly journals The conceptualisation, measurement and scope of reinforcement sensitivity in the context of a neuroscience of personality

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 411-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke D. Smillie
Keyword(s):  
Differential Sensitivity ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Sensitivity Theory ◽  
Process Theories ◽  
Reinforcement Sensitivity ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Target Paper ◽  
Approach Avoidance ◽  
Reinforcing Stimuli

Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) is complex, and there are subtle differences between RST and other approach‐avoidance process theories of personality. However, most such theories posit a common biobehavioural mechanism underlying personality which we must therefore strive to understand: differential sensitivity to reinforcing stimuli. Reinforcement sensitivity is widely assessed using questionnaires, but should we treat such measures as (a) a proxy for reinforcement sensitivity itself (i.e. the underlying causes of personality) or (b) trait constructs potentially manifesting out of reinforcement sensitivity (i.e. the ‘surface’ of personality)? Might neuroscience paradigms, such as those I have reviewed in my target paper, provide an advantage over questionnaires in allowing us to move closer to (a), thereby improving both the measurement and our understanding of reinforcement sensitivity? Assuming we can achieve this, how useful is reinforcement sensitivity—and biological perspectives more generally—for explaining personality? These are the major questions raised in the discussion of my target paper, and among the most pertinent issues in this field today. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document