Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Validation of the Measure of Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Constructs

Published Online:January 01, 2014https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000121

Abstract

The paper presents validation of the Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ), measuring the constructs of the Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity theory (RST). The research was conducted on a sample of 565 participants, using three measures of the constructs of the Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory – the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Approach System (BIS/BAS) scale, Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ), and Reinforcement Sensitivity Questionnaire. The results of confirmatory factor analysis suggest good internal validity of the RSQ, while the results of principal components analysis show that the RSQ scales are significantly related to other RST measures.

References

  • American Psychiatric Association . (2003). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Carver, C. S., White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Corr, P. J. (2002). J. A. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory and frustrative nonreward: A theoretical note on expectancies in reactions to rewarding stimuli. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1247–1253. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 317–332. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Corr, P. J. , Cooper, A. The reinforcement sensitivity theory personality questionnaire (RST – PQ) 2010 Retrieved from www.ueapsychology.net/uploads/downloads/153.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • De Young, C. G. (2010). Mapping personality traits onto brain systems: BIS, BAS, FFFS, and beyond. European Journal of Personality, 24, 404–407. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Finney, S. J., DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock R. O. MuellerEds., Structural equation modeling – a second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gray, J. A., McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gray, J. A., Smith, P. T. (1969). An arousal decision model for partial reinforcement and discrimination learning. In R. M. Gilbert N. S. SutherlandEds., Animal discrimination learning (pp. 243–272). London, UK: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Harmon-Jones, E. , Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and frontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 797–803. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Heym, N. , Ferguson, E. , Lawrence, C. (2008). 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. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 709–715. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 556–569. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Keiser, H. , & Ross, S. R. (2011). Carver and Whites’ BIS/FFFS/BAS scales and domains and facets of the Five Factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 39–44. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McNaughton, N. (2011). Trait anxiety, trait fear and emotionality: The perspective from non-human studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 898–906. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McNaughton, N., Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 285–305. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mitchell, J. T., Kimbrel, N. A., Hundt, N. E. , Cobb, A. R. , Nelson-Gray, R. O., Lootens, C. M. (2007). An analysis of reinforcement sensitivity theory and the five-factor model. European Journal of Personality, 21, 869–887. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pickering, A. D., Gray, J. A. (2001). Dopamine, appetitive reinforcement, and the neuropsychology of human learning: An individual differences approach. In A. Eliasz A. AngleitnerEds., Advances in research on temperament (pp. 113–149). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Quilty, L. C., Oakman, J. M. (2004). The assessment of behavioural activation – the relationship between positive emotionality and the behavioural activation system. European Journal of Personality, 18, 557–571. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Revelle, W. An overview of the psych package 2012 Retrieved from cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/vignettes/overview.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A. , Richards, J. B., de Witt, H. (2006). Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 305–315. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Satorra, A., Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smederevac, S. , Čolović, P. , Mitrović, D. (2010). Procena osetljivosti na potkrepljenje. In M. Biro S. Smederevac Z. NovovićEds., Procena psiholoških i psihopatoloških fenomena (pp. 89–100). Beograd: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Smillie, L. D., Jackson, C. J., Dalgleish, L. I. (2006). Conceptual distinctions among Carver and White’s (1994) BAS scales: A reward-reactivity versus trait impulsivity perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1039–1050. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D. , Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Molto, J. , Caseras, X. (2001). The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 837–862. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin E. HelmesEds., Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Boston, US: Kluwer. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar