See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257045264

Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales and their relationship to risky
health behaviours

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · July 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.003

CITATIONS READS

91 2,556

6 authors, including:

James Price Dillard Kurt Braddock

Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University
138 PUBLICATIONS   6,479 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   588 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pradeep Sopory
Wayne State University
21 PUBLICATIONS   662 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mean Validity View project

HPV Vaccination View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Price Dillard on 01 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 89–93

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales and their relationship to risky
health behaviours
Danielle C. Voigt a, James P. Dillard a,*, Kurt H. Braddock a, Jason W. Anderson b, Pradeep Sopory c,
Michael T. Stephenson d
a
Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, 234 Sparks Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States
b
Minnesota State University-Moorhead, 116F CA Moorhead, MN 56563, United States
c
Wayne State University, 523 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48202, United States
d
Texas A&M University, 102 Bolton Hall TX 77843, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The BIS (behavioural inhibition) and BAS (behavioural approach) motivational systems are thought to
Received 5 August 2008 influence an individual’s proclivity to engage in risky health behaviours. Using a sample of college under-
Received in revised form 14 January 2009 graduates from four universities (N = 1014), Carver and White’s (1994) BIS and BAS subscales (Reward
Accepted 4 February 2009
Responsiveness, Drive, and Fun Seeking) were tested against seven health composites including sex, alco-
Available online 14 March 2009
hol, drug, and tobacco use, safety, inactivity, and poor diet. Contrary to expectations, Reward Responsive-
ness (rather than BIS) served as a protective force against engagement in the risky health behaviours. In
Keywords:
comparison, the Fun Seeking subscale performed as anticipated, generating strong, positive associations
BIS
BAS
with all but two of the behaviours. The results are discussed in the context of recent theorizing as well as
Sex the factor structure of BIS and BAS, given concerns about the latter’s dimensionality.
Alcohol Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Drugs
Tobacco
Inactivity
Diet

1. Introduction system is sensitive to cues of reward and motivates action toward

those rewards when they are present. In contrast, the aversive sys-
Nearly 50% of all deaths in the United States are caused by a tem is responsive to punishing stimuli and serves to inhibit behav-
‘‘limited number of largely preventable behaviours,” including iour that may result in that end. One incarnation of the dual
smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity, alcohol use, motor vehi- motivation perspective is (e.g., Gray’s, 1993) reinforcement sensi-
cle crashes, risky sexual behaviour, and drug abuse (Mokdad, tivity theory (RST). Central to the current discussion, this theory
Marks, Stroup, & Gerberding, 2004, p. 1242). One explanation for posits the existence of the behavioural approach system (BAS) and
why some individuals engage in risky health behaviours while oth- the behavioural inhibition system (BIS). (Recent changes to the the-
ers forgo them lies with individual differences in sensitivity to cues ory are examined later in this article.)
of reward and punishment (e.g., Franken & Muris, 2006a). That is
the focus of this paper. 1.2. Operationalizing BIS/BAS

1.1. Appetitive and aversive motivational systems Several attempts have been made to devise a self-report index
of BIS and BAS activation (e.g., Wilson, Barrett, & Gray, 1989). Argu-
Over the past several decades, researchers in diverse areas of ably the most successful of these is Carver and White (1994), who
social science have proposed the existence of two separate systems developed items based on their ‘‘overall conceptualization of BIS
that provide the basis for human action (Carver, 2006; Davidson, and BAS functioning – particularly the postulated role of the sys-
1992; Fowles, 1994; Gray, 1990; Higgins, 1998; Schneirla, 1959). tems in generating emotional reactions. . .” (p. 322). Accordingly,
Although, these approaches inevitably demonstrate variation in BIS items were written to reflect the experience of anxiety in cir-
terminology, the core ideas are remarkably similar. The appetitive cumstances that include signs of possible punishment. However,
due to a lack of specificity in the theory regarding how chronic lev-
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 814 863 7986. els of BAS might manifest, items were penned so as to tap strong
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.P. Dillard). and quick goal pursuit (Drive), receptivity to reward (Reward

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.003
 Author's personal copy

90 D.C. Voigt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 89–93

Responsiveness), and the desire for new and potentially rewarding 2.2. Missing data
experiences (Fun Seeking).
The amount of missing data on any given variable ranged from
1.3. BIS/BAS and risky health behaviours 0% to 3.4%. We performed a missing value analysis (MVA) using the
expectation maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS Version 16.0.
As predicted by the BIS/BAS literature (e.g., Gray, 1993), positive Little’s (1988) MCAR chi-square test was nonsignificant
associations have been found between BAS and addictive behav- (v2 = 6899.95, df = 7141, p < 0.979) indicating that the data were
iours such as alcohol and drug use. Nearly all of these associations, missing completely at random. Consequently, we allowed the pro-
however, have been among BAS-Drive and BAS-Fun Seeking, with gram to impute values for missing data on the BIS/BAS and health
less support generated for BAS-Reward Responsiveness (when it behaviour measures, but not the categorical demographic
has been tested). For example, Loxton and Dawe (2001) reported variables.
a strong association between Drive, Fun Seeking and alcohol use
among teenage girls, while Johnson, Turner, and Iwata (2003) dem- 2.3. Measures
onstrated a significant link between Fun Seeking and long-time
alcohol abuse (see also Franken, 2002; Kambouropoulos & Staiger, Participants completed Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS
2001; Zisserson & Palfai, 2007). Similar trends appear for drug questionnaire using a 5-point Likert-type response scale, with
use. Franken and Muris (2006a) reported an association between 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and
Fun Seeking and drug use (in addition to alcohol use). Franken, 5 = Strongly Agree. One BIS item reads ‘‘Criticism or scolding hurts
Muris, and Georgieva (2006) documented a relationship between me quite a bit” (a = .77 for the scale). The BAS scale consists of
Fun Seeking and Drive with drug use and dependence among ad- three subscales: Reward Responsiveness (a = .73; e.g., ‘‘It would
dicts. Johnson et al. (2003) focused on a similar audience, but only excite me to win a contest”), Drive (a = .76; e.g., ‘‘I go out of my
found a significant relationship for Fun Seeking. way to get things I want”), and Fun Seeking (a = .71; e.g., ‘‘I crave
Other research has focused on obesity and the factors that can excitement and new sensations”) (Carver & White, 1994).
lead to this condition. Davis et al. (2007) found a positive relation- Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the struc-
ship between the collapsed BAS subscales and overeating. They ture of the BIS/BAS scales. Following several iterations, the best fit-
also found a positive relationship with food preferences; people ting model treated BIS and BAS as four separate but correlated
who prefer foods that are sweet and high in fat content tend to- latent variables. The fit statistics for the model, which allowed
wards higher BAS scores. In a similar vein, sensitivity to reward for correlated errors between the negatively worded BIS items,
has been found to induce noticeable physiological responses in were as follows: v2 = 219.2, df = 163, p < .01, RMR = .054,
the brain when respondents are exposed to images of such appeal- TLI = .96, RMSEA = .030. Although, the v2 result was significant,
ing foods as chocolate cake and ice cream (Beaver et al., 2006). which was not surprising given our sample size, the remaining
Using fMRI technology, the Drive subscale produced the most dra- indices caused us to conclude that the model exhibited satisfactory
matic results, being the clearest predictor of ‘‘blood oxygen level- fit.
dependent response to appetizing foods” (p. 5162). To determine which risky health behaviours posed the greatest
Although, work has been done to explore the link between the risk to the general population, we investigated the leading causes
BIS and BAS motivational systems and risky health behaviours, the of death. Items were taken from the 2007 State and Local Youth
scope has been primarily limited to alcohol and drug use, with Risk Behaviour Survey, an instrument developed by the Centers
some attention paid to food-related issues such as obesity. The cur- for Disease Control and Prevention (see Brener et al., 2002 for a dis-
rent study broadens this view by examining an array of risky cussion about the reliability of the measures). These items spanned
health behaviours including sexual activity, alcohol, drug, and to- seven general categories, including: safety (four items; e.g., ‘‘How
bacco use, lack of safety precautions, physical inactivity, and poor often do you wear a seat belt when driving or riding in a car driven
diet. In doing so, the research not only tests the motivational sys- by someone else?), tobacco use (three items; e.g., ‘‘During the past
tems in new domains, but allows us to simultaneously compare 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?”), drug use
the effects these systems have on different risk behaviours. (seven items; e.g., ‘‘During your life, how many times have you
In light of the existing literature, we expected that individual used marijuana?”), alcohol consumption (one item; e.g., ‘‘During
differences in sensitivity to reward (i.e., BAS) would show positive the past 30 days, on how many days did you have five or more
correspondence with risky health behaviours. However, based on drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a couple hours?”), sexual
the research reviewed, we anticipated some degree of variation practices (two items; e.g., ‘‘Of the sexual experiences that you have
among the BAS subscales. Conversely, we thought that BIS sensitiv- had in the past 3 months, in what percentage of them was a con-
ity would produce negative associations with these outcomes gi- dom used?”), eating habits (eight items; e.g., ‘‘During the past
ven heightened receptivity to cues of punishment. 7 days, how many times did you eat French fries, fried potatoes,
or potato chips?”), and physical activity (three items; e.g., ‘‘During
the past 7 days, on how many days were you physically active for a
2. Method total of at least 60 minutes per day?”). Many of the response cate-
gories revolved around frequency per week (e.g., ‘‘1–3 times during
2.1. Participants and procedures the past 7 days”) though some variation did exist from one health
behaviour to the next.
Participants were 1014 undergraduate students who received
extra credit toward communication courses at one of four univer-
sities: Pennsylvania State University (N = 288), Minnesota State 3. Results
University at Moorhead (N = 338), University of Memphis
(N = 203), Texas A&M (N = 161) (24 students did not indicate their 3.1. Constructing the risky health behaviour variables
affiliation). Their ages ranged from 17 to 69 (M = 20.85; SD = 4.71),
and a little more than half (58.4%) were female. Due to missing The risk behaviour items were such that the assumption of a la-
data, this overall N was reduced to 976. All participants responded tent variable for each set of items was implausible. Consider, for
to a survey administered via the Internet. example, the tobacco items which asked about the frequency with
 Author's personal copy

D.C. Voigt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 89–93 91

which individuals smoke cigarettes, smoke cigars, or use chewing Table 2

tobacco. Although, it is meaningful to group these responses for Standardized path coefficients for BIS/BAS as predictors of risky health behaviours.

purposes of research, they should not be construed as indicators Health behaviours BIS Reward Responsiveness Drive Fun Seeking
of a latent construct because they are (typically) behaviourally Sex .07 .18 *
.10 .29***
independent of one another. Individuals smoke cigarettes or they Alcohol .02 .24** .05 .45***
smoke cigars or they chew. Consequently, we treated the individ- Drugs .10* .20** .04 .35***
ual items as causal, as opposed to effects, indicators (Bollen & Len- Safety .14** .32*** .03 .33***
Tobacco .06 .18* .01 .26***
nox, 1991). Inactivity .13* .00 .23*** .08
Composite scores for each category of risky health behaviours Diet .12* .05 .05 .05
were developed by computing z-scores for each of the individual
Note: The health behaviour variables are constructed such that higher values reflect
items relating to that construct and summing them. For example:
greater risk.
to create the composite variable sex, we standardized, summed, *
p < .05.
and averaged the data associated with the two items in the com- **
p < .01.
***
posite (i.e., the number of sexual partners and percentage of time p < .001.
a condom was used). Natural log transformations were done to ad-
dress non-normality in the tobacco and drug composites. They
were successful in reducing skewness from 2.77 to 1.43 in the to-
bacco measure and 5.79–2.95 in the drug measure. Skewness did inactivity, which showed a negative association. Finally, contrary
not exceed .85 for the other composites. In all cases, composites to expectations, the Reward Responsiveness factor showed signifi-
were scored such that higher values were indicative of greater risk. cant negative associations with sex, alcohol, drugs, safety, and
No reliability estimate was computed because the concept of reli- tobacco.
ability is inapplicable to causal indicators (Bollen & Lennox, 1991).
4. Discussion
3.2. BIS/BAS and risky health behaviours
4.1. Risky health behaviours
To control for the effects of other variables that might obscure
the associations of interest, we created a matrix of partial correla- 4.1.1. BIS
tions among the BIS/BAS scales and the health behaviours that was Based on extant theory and the research available, we expected
conditioned on age, gender, involvement in a fraternity or sorority, that BIS would serve a protective function as regards risky health
and location of the school from which the sample was drawn. This behaviours. Instead, we found that BIS was positively associated
matrix was used as input for the substantive analyses, and is with poor diet, lack of physical activity, unsafe acts, and drug
shown in Table 1. Next, we specified seven structural equation use. One account of our BIS-diet finding emphasizes anxiety. Ca-
models in which BIS and the BAS subscales were latent, exogenous netti, Bachar, and Berry (2002) noted that negative emotions have
variables comprised of three parcels each. All seven risky health been empirically linked to increased food intake, particularly
behaviours appeared as manifest, endogenous variables. The asso- among the obese and individuals who are dieting. Herman, Polivy,
ciations were estimated using the maximum likelihood routine of Lank, and Heatherton (1987) found that anxiety led hungry dieters
AMOS 16.0. to consume more food during test trials. Because BIS is substan-
The results appear in Table 2. There was no support for our pre- tially correlated with anxiety, the BIS-diet correlation may reflect
diction that BIS would offer some prophylactic motivation against efforts to reduce negative affect by distracting oneself with food.
risky health behaviours. In fact, BIS was significantly positively Similarly, highly anxious persons may self-medicate with drugs
associated with the frequency of self-reported drug use, unsafe to relieve their negative affect or overcome their inhibitions.
behaviours, physical inactivity, and poor diet. BIS also showed a positive association with the inactivity com-
The findings for the Fun Seeking subscale aligned well with posite, which was based on weekly physical activity and the
expectations. They showed significant positive associations for five amount of time spent watching television and playing video and
of the seven behaviours: sex, alcohol, drugs, safety, and tobacco. computer games. Insofar as these behaviours can be contrasted
The results for Drive were nonsignificant with the exception of with more energetic pursuits such as soccer or social interaction,

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and partial correlationsa among the BIS/BAS subscales and risky health behaviour composites.

Subscales and composites Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. BIS 3.58 .64 – .28 .01 .01 .01 .08 .01 .01 .02 .10 .08
2. Reward responsiveness 4.17 .49 – .40 .41 .07 .01 .02 .05 .01 .03 .00
3. Drive 3.37 .69 – .48 .17 .10 .07 .06 .06 .16 .04
4. Fun Seeking 3.64 .69 – .21 .24 .17 .14 .13 .06 .01
5. Sexb .00 .86 – .38 .36 .36 .32 .06 .04
6. Alcoholc .00 1.00 – .31 .46 .44 .02 .04
7. Drugsb,d .09 .35 – .33 .43 .04 .04
8. Safetyb .00 .62 – .37 .10 .08
9. Tobaccob,d .15 .70 – .01 .00
10. Inactivityb .00 .62 – .25
11. Dietb .00 .46 –

Note: Correlations of .07 are significant at p < .05.

a
The following variables were partialled: age, gender, involvement in a fraternity or sorority, and location of the school from which the sample was drawn.
b
These multi-item measures are the sums of z-scores for the individual items.
c
The single-item measure appears as a z-score.
d
A natural log transformation was applied to these composites to reduce skewness.
 Author's personal copy

92 D.C. Voigt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 89–93

they may be viewed as an outgrowth of a system that is designed (1994) results, several subsequent studies have concluded that
to deter, rather than invigorate behaviour. the BAS subscales cannot be meaningfully reduced to a single sec-
The observed association between BIS and unsafe behaviours ond-order factor (e.g., Jorm et al., 1999). However, they have done
(e.g., not wearing a seat belt or bike helmet and driving after drink- so primarily on the basis of factor analyses of the BIS and BAS items
ing) appears to be a novel contribution to the literature on risk and alone. Such analyses, while valuable, overlook the stronger test of
motivational systems. But, whereas we have proposed anxiety and dimensionality known as parallelism (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982).
inhibition as explanations for other risk behaviours (i.e., diet, This simple, but powerful, principle holds that any claim of sec-
drugs, and inactivity), neither appear quite suitable to account ond-order unidimensionality must be buttressed by coefficients
for the BIS-safety association. Further research and theorizing is of association with variables external to the scale that are similar
needed to fill this conceptual void. in magnitude and in sign. Clearly, this condition was not met in
our data. The Reward Responsiveness subscale produced negative
4.1.2. BAS coefficients with the risky health behaviours, the Drive subscale
The results for the Fun Seeking subscale were in line with the- generated near-zero results, and the Fun Seeking subscale yielded
oretical expectations for BAS. Positive associations for this scale positive coefficients. Thus, from a purely psychometric standpoint,
with alcohol and drug use replicate previous research (Franken & a single second-order factor model is untenable. However, recent
Muris, 2006a; Franken et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2003; Loxton & theoretical developments suggest concerns regarding scale inter-
Dawe, 2001), while the coefficients for sex, safety, and tobacco pretation as well as structure (Gray & McNaughton, 2000).
use provide evidence of the influence of Fun Seeking in other Recall that our theorizing was grounded in general conceptions
health domains. of BIS and BAS as aversive and appetitive systems respectively, not
Unexpectedly, the data showed that Reward Responsiveness the most recent explication of RST. As summarized by Corr (2008),
seems to buffer individuals against risk. Although, one might be the BAS system in the refined RST continues to be defined in terms
tempted to dismiss the relationship as something unique to a spe- of appetition. But, the source of inhibitory motivation is now the
cific domain, the path coefficients were negative for six of the se- Fight, Flight, Freezing System (FFFS). When the BAS and FFFS pro-
ven behaviours and significantly so in five of the seven. Of duce conflicting motivations, it is the BIS that resolves the inconsis-
course, we cannot discount the possibility that there was some- tency by generating excitatory activation directed to one or the
thing distinctive about our sample, but the consistency of the find- other system. This conception suggests that Carver and White’s
ings across behaviours suggests a robust result. (1994) BIS questionnaire might now be viewed as assessing the
The opposing signs of the relationships for Reward Responsive- FFFS rather than the redefined BIS. But, this reinterpretation is
ness and Fun Seeking are among the most interesting of the results. troubled by the fact that the BIS scale: (a) intermingles items con-
One means of accounting for this difference is to conceive of Re- cerned with fear and anxiety, which are thought to reflect opera-
ward Responsiveness as a construct linked to long term conse- tion of FFFS and BIS respectively and (b) it contains no items that
quences, while Fun Seeking focuses on more immediate capture the notion of system conflict as expressed in the revision
gratifications (Corr, 2008; Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008). of RST (Heym et al., 2008; Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006b).
From this perspective, the findings are not at all surprising. Further psychometric work will be needed to develop self-report
In the case of Drive, the inactivity composite produced the only indices of BIS and FFFS that are compatible with the revised RST
significant result: High Drive persons reported higher levels of (Smillie et al., 2006b).
physical activity. This result is compatible with research reported As noted above, the conception of BAS is largely unchanged in
by Ekkekakis, Hall, and Petruzzello (2005). In testing the concur- Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised RST. However, other
rent validity of their Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity researchers have argued for cleaving BIS into two components,
of Exercise Questionnaire (PRETIE-Q) they found significant posi- which have been labeled reward reactivity and rash impulsive-
tive correlations with the Drive subscale, but not the others. ness (Dawe, Gullo, & Loxton, 2004; Smillie et al., 2006a). And,
It is also informative to consider the patterns in Table 2 looking there is empirical evidence that Carver and White’s (1994) sub-
down the rows. While all of the behaviours may be described as scales can be distinguished along these lines. For example, Fran-
‘‘largely preventable” (Mokdad et al., 2004, p. 1242), the first five ken and Muris (2006b) report that Fun Seeking loads most highly
– sex, alcohol, drugs, safety, and tobacco – are relatively distinct on a second-order impulsiveness factor, whereas the Reward
from inactivity and diet in terms of their relationships with BIS Responsiveness and Drive both have their primary loadings on
and BAS. Common themes running through these five behavioural a second-order reward sensitivity factor (see also Smillie et al.,
domains include a focus on activities that are done socially, rather 2006a). The question left unanswered in these papers is that of
than individually, and that are rebellious or illegal, at least to a cer- how the relationship between reward reactivity and rash impul-
tain age. This may be driven by the positive associations docu- siveness should be conceived. Are they two distinct aspects of
mented between Fun Seeking and such traits as impulsivity in approach motivation that both result from some overarching sys-
the context of sensation seeking (as distinct from Reward Respon- tem? Or, in line with Gray’s earlier thinking, might not reward
siveness) (Pickering et al., 1997; Smillie, Jackson, & Dalgleish, reactivity stand as a proximal, causal antecedent of rash impul-
2006a) and psychoticism (Heym et al., 2008), which has strong ties siveness? Research directed toward the resolution of these ques-
to substance abuse and a range of antisocial behaviours. Engaging tions would help to refine RST specifically as well as our
in these activities, and to some degree breaking established rules, understanding of appetitive and aversive motivation systems
may be an expression of independence and an attempt to assert more generally.
adulthood. These activities are also set apart from behaviours
linked to physical activity and diet, which are not typically viewed
as means to establish one’s identity and can be done at any age. 6. Limitations

Complementing previous research, this study not only exam-

5. The structure and interpretation of BAS ined the effects of the BIS and BAS motivational systems on con-
sumption behaviours (alcohol, drugs, and food), but also on other
Our data contribute to the body of research concerned with the risky behaviours including sex, safety, tobacco use, and inactivity.
dimensionality of the BAS subscales. Despite Carver and White’s While this approach expands the theoretical reach of BIS/BAS, it
 Author's personal copy

D.C. Voigt et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 89–93 93

unavoidably sacrifices a detailed look at behaviours within symposium on motivation (pp. 181–238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
categories.
Franken, I. H. A. (2002). Behavioural approach system (BAS) sensitivity predicts
The decision to utilize a web-based survey allowed us to gather alcohol craving. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 349–355.
a relatively large sample. But, because participants could respond Franken, I. H. A., & Muris, P. (2006a). BIS/BAS personality characteristics and college
to the survey in the environment of their choice, the data may con- students’ substance use. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1497–
1503.
tain more error than if the questionnaire had been administered in Franken, I. H. A., & Muris, P. (2006b). Gray’s impulsivity dimension: A distinction
a controlled setting. Further, although we sampled from four dif- between reward sensitivity and rash impulsiveness. Personality and Individual
ferent universities, the participants were all of similar age and al- Differences, 40, 1337–1347.
Franken, I. H. A., Muris, P., & Georgieva, I. (2006). Gray’s model of personality and
most exclusively socialized into the culture of the United States. addiction. Addictive Behaviours, 31, 399–403.
Given the results of research on BIS/BAS in other countries (e.g., Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition
Franken & Muris, 2006a), it seems unlikely that culture poses a and Emotion, 4, 269–288.
Gray, J. A. (1993). Framework for a taxonomy of psychiatric disorder. In S. van
serious threat to the interpretation of our data. While the sample Gozen, N. van de Poll, & J. A. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory
was limited in terms of age, risky behaviours are disproportionally (pp. 29–59). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
concentrated in persons of college age and younger. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into
the functions of the Septo-Hippocampal system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
7. Conclusions Herman, C. P., Polivy, J., Lank, C. N., & Heatherton, T. F. (1987). Anxiety, hunger, and
eating behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 264–269.
Heym, N., Ferguson, E., & Lawrence, C. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship
This study was motivated by the desire to better understand the between Gray’s revised RST and Eysenck’s PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in
relationship between basic motivational systems and the cluster of Carver and White’s BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
health-related behaviours that account for almost half of all deaths. 709–715.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
It was successful in illuminating those relationships, though some principle. In M. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30,
unanticipated findings were obtained. Although, all four of Carver pp. 1–46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales were significantly related to at Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second-order
factor analysis, and causal models. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.).
least one of the behaviours under study, Reward Responsiveness Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 267–320). Greenwich, CT: JAI
and Fun Seeking showed associations with five of the seven behav- Press.
iours. The data were consistent with the notion that Fun Seeking Johnson, S. L., Turner, R. J., & Iwata, N. (2003). BIS/BAS levels and psychiatric
disorder: An epidemiological study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural
predisposes individuals to engage in risk taking. Reward Respon-
Assessment, 25, 25–36.
siveness, in contrast, was negatively associated with risky health Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten, A. E., & Rodgers, B.
behaviours, which suggests a prophylactic role for this aspect of (1999). Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and
behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity, and norms in a large
personality.
community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 49–58.
Kambouropoulos, N., & Staiger, P. K. (2001). The influence of sensitivity to reward
References on reactivity to alcohol-related cues. Addiction, 96, 1175–1185.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data
Beaver, J. D., Lawrence, A. D., van Ditzhuijzen, J., Davis, M. H., Woods, A., & Calder, A. with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83,
J. (2006). Individual differences in reward drive predict neural responses to 1198–1202.
images of food. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 5160–5166. Loxton, N. J., & Dawe, S. (2001). Alcohol abuse and dysfunctional eating in
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural adolescent girls: The influence of individual differences in sensitivity to reward
equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314. and punishment. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 455–
Brener, N. D., Kann, L., McManus, T., Kinchen, S. A., Sundberg, E. C., & Ross, J. G. 462.
(2002). Reliability of the 1999 youth risk behaviour survey questionnaire. Mokdad, A. H., Marks, J. S., Stroup, D. F., & Gerberding, J. L. (2004). Actual causes of
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 336–342. death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291,
Canetti, L., Bachar, E., & Berry, E. M. (2002). Food and emotion. Behavioural Processes, 1238–1245.
60, 157–164. Pickering, A. D., Corr, P. J., Powell, J. H., Kumari, V., Thornton, J. C., & Gray, J. A. (1997).
Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and Individual differences in reactions to reinforcing stimuli are neither black nor
action. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 105–110. white: To what extent are they Gray? In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of
Carver, C., & White, T. (1994). Behavioural inhibition, behavioural activation, and human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 36–67). Oxford, UK:
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Pergamon.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. Schneirla, T. C. (1959). An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic
Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction. In P. J. Corr processes underlying approach and withdrawal. In M. Jones (Ed.). Nebraska
(Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, symposium on motivation (Vol. 7, pp. 1–42). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
UK: Cambridge University Press. Press.
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style: Hemispheric substrates. Smillie, L. D., Jackson, C. J., & Dalgleish, L. I. (2006a). Conceptual distinctions among
Psychological Science, 3, 39–43. Carver and White’s (1994) BAS scales: A reward-reactivity versus trait
Davis, C., Patte, K., Levitan, R., Reid, C., Tweed, S., & Curtis, C. (2007). From impulsiveness perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,
motivation to behaviour: A model of reward sensitivity, overeating, and food 1039–1050.
preferences in the risk profile for obesity. Appetite, 48, 12–19. Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006b). The new reinforcement
Dawe, S., Gullo, M. J., & Loxton, N. J. (2004). Reward drive and rash impulsiveness as sensitivity theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and
dimensions of impulsivity: Implications for substance misuse. Addictive Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335.
Behaviors, 29, 1389–1405. Wilson, G. D., Barrett, P. T., & Gray, J. A. (1989). Human reactions to reward and
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2005). Some like it vigorous: Measuring punishment: A questionnaire examination of Gray’s personality theory. British
individual differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. Journal of Psychology, 80, 509–515.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, 350–374. Zisserson, R. N., & Palfai, T. P. (2007). Behavioural activation system (BAS) sensitivity
Fowles, D. C. (1994). A motivational theory of psychopathology. In W. D. Spaulding and reactivity to alcohol cues among hazardous drinkers. Addictive Behaviours,
(Ed.), Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion: Nebraska 32, 2178–2186.

View publication stats