Psychometric Properties of the Hindi Version of the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System Scale
Validation of the Five-Factor Structure
Abstract
Abstract:Aim: The Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Scale is a popular instrument that assesses an individual's responsiveness to reward and punishment. It is widely translated and validated in different languages. However, the Hindi version of this scale is not yet available. The present study aimed to adapt the BIS/BAS scale into Hindi and examine its psychometric properties and factor structure. Method: The original BIS/BAS scale was translated into Hindi using the translation and back-translation method. The translated Hindi version along with the NEO-FFI and HADS was administered on 200 participants. Psychometric properties, i.e., reliability, validity, and factor structure, were estimated. Result: Cronbach’s α coefficient ranged between .68 and .80, while test–retest reliability ranges between .85 and .92. The validity is also adequate. The findings support the five-factor structure of the BIS/BAS scale. Limitations: The present study has a relatively small sample, which is drawn from only one Hindi-speaking region of India. Conclusion: It was found that the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale is a reliable and valid tool with good psychometric properties.
Gray (1982) postulated the reinforcement sensitivity theory, which posits that fundamental human behaviors are regulated by two underlying biological systems referred to as the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and Behavioral Activation System (BAS). BIS controls behavior during potential threats or danger and activates in response to punishment, threat, anxiety, or uncertainty, thereby inhibiting behavior that may lead to adverse consequences (Fuentes et al., 2012; Ito et al., 2019). Conversely, BAS regulates behavior in situations that may be rewarding (Ganesh et al., 2018) and is activated by cues that indicate reward (Xie et al., 2021). These two systems determine how an individual responds to both rewarding and dangerous situations, and variations in these systems underlie dispositional personality traits (Fuentes et al., 2012). Researchers suggest that BIS is associated with neuroticism traits while BAS corresponds to extraversion (Scholten et al., 2006). Both systems are crucial for an individual's survival, and an imbalance in these systems is linked with various psychopathologies (Reddy et al., 2014; Scholten et al., 2006).
Hypersensitivity of the Behavioral Activation System has been recognized as a potential risk factor for various psychiatric disorders, including substance abuse, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and other health conditions (Scholten et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2021). Conversely, over-activation of Behavioral Inhibition System is associated with several mental health conditions, such as anxiety, worry, depression, and schizophrenia (Espinoza Oyarce et al., 2021).
Moreover, BIS/BAS significantly influences human motives and behavior (Gray, 1970; 1982; Smillie et al., 2011). Over the years, researchers have conducted several studies to gain a better understanding of clinical implications of BIS/BAS (Colder et al., 2011; Reuter et al., 2015; Serrano-Ibanez et al., 2019; Subramanian et al., 2020). For instance, Subramanian et al. (2020) investigated the relationship between narcissism (agentic, communal, and antagonistic) and BIS/BAS and reported that agentic narcissism and communal narcissism were positively associated with BAS, while antagonistic narcissism was positively related to BIS. Serrano-Ibanez et al. (2019) and Maack et al. (2012) investigated the association between the BIS and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and reported that BIS is associated with withdrawal and avoidance behaviors in patients with PTSD. Reuter et al. (2015) reported a genetic validation result of the new Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire. The study aimed to examine the potential relationship between BIS sensitivity and the AVPR1a gene. The AVPR1a gene was found to be linked with individual difference in both the revised BIS and classic BIS sensitivity.
Consequently, a range of tools and tasks have been developed to measure BIS and BAS sensitivity, such as BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994), Sensitivity to Punishment/Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (Torrubia et al., 2001), and Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Questionnaire (Smederevac et al., 2014). Apart from these, certain tools such as go/no-go task (Gomez et al., 2007) and stop-signal task (Logan et al., 1984) are sometimes used to measure BIS/BAS sensitivity. Among all these tools, the BIS/BAS scale is the most popular one. BIS/BAS scales are extensively used by researchers and clinicians, and several researchers have adapted this scale in different languages such as Polish (J. M. Muller & Wytykowska, 2005), French (Caci et al., 2007), Dutch (Franken et al., 2005), and German (A. Muller et al., 2013) and investigated its psychometric properties.
However, the Hindi adaptation of this scale is not available yet. Hence, it is difficult to administer and use this scale among the Hindi-speaking population, specifically in countries such as India and Nepal where a sizable percentage of the population speak Hindi.
The factor structure of the BIS/BAS scale has been a subject of inconsistency in the literature (Caci et al., 2007; Che et al., 2020; A. Muller et al., 2013). Carver and White (1994) proposed a four-factor structure that includes BIS, BAS-reward responsiveness, fun-seeking, and drive, which has been supported by many researchers (Jorm et al., 1998; Ross et al., 2002; Yu et al., 2011). However, Campbell-Sills et al. (2004) reported a four-factor structure, but some items did not load on the same factors as proposed by the original authors. In contrast, some authors have suggested a simple two-factor structure consisting of BIS and BAS (Jorm et al., 1998; Ross et al., 2002). Pagliaccio et al. (2016) proposed a three-factor solution, which includes BIS, rewards responsiveness, and drive, and removed the fun subscale. Nevertheless, several researchers have recommended that the scale should have a five-factor structure (Cogswell et al., 2006; Heym et al., 2008; A. Muller et al., 2013). Heym et al. (2008) and Johnson et al. (2003) reported three BAS subscales (reward responsiveness, drive, and fun-seeking) and divided the BIS items into two different subscales: anxiety and fear. However, there are still inconsistencies regarding the five-factor structure, as Heym et al. (2008) suggested that the fear subscale consists of three items, whereas Johnson et al. (2003) proposed that only two items significantly load on the fear subscale, and the remaining five items load on the anxiety factor. Thus, it is evident that there is still no consensus on the factor structure of the BIS/BAS scale. Therefore, the present study aimed to adapt the BIS/BAS scales into the Hindi language as well as to assess its psychometric properties and factor structure.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Sample
For this study, a total number of 200 participants (men = 120, women = 80) were recruited as the study sample using the purposive sampling method. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 60 years. Participants with an educational level of 8th grade and above were recruited for the sample. Only those participants who could read and comprehend the Hindi language were recruited for the study. Those who had a history of psychosis, intellectual disability, epilepsy, or any other neurological illnesses were excluded from the study.
Tools
Behavioral Inhibition/Activation Scale (Carver & White, 1994)
The BIS/BAS scale was developed by Carver and White (1994). This scale measures the sensitivity of behavioral inhibition and activation system. It is a four-point Likert scale with response options ranging from very false for me (1) to very true for me (4). It consists of two subscales: behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS). The BIS scale comprises seven items, and the BAS subscale consists of 13 items. BAS has three subscales: drive, fun-seeking, and reward responsiveness. The reliability of the scale ranges from .59 to .76, and validity is found to be satisfactory.
NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992)
NEO-FFI is a sixty-item scale developed to measure the five basic personality dimensions such as extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. This scale was developed by Costa and McCrae (1992). It is a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. This scale shows substantial internal consistency, temporal stability, and validity. Reliability of the scale ranges from .68 to .89. Validation of the scale is also satisfactory.
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Rishi et al., 2017)
The original Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was developed by Zigmond and Snaith (1983) as a tool for evaluating an individual's level of anxiety and depression. This assessment tool consists of two subscales, one for anxiety and one for depression, and each of which includes seven items. The 14 items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale, with a score of 0–3 assigned to each item. A score of 0 indicates a lower level of psychological distress, while a score of 3 represents a higher level of distress. The internal consistency of both the anxiety (α = .80) and depression (α = .76) subscales in the Hindi version of the scale is high.
Procedure
In this study, standard procedures (Brislin, 1970) were followed to adapt and validate the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale. First, three bilingual psychology professors who were proficient in English translated the original English version of the BIS/BAS scale into Hindi. Then, each item of all three translations was reviewed, and the most appropriate items were selected. In the next step, the Hindi translations were back-translated by three experts who had no prior knowledge of the BIS/BAS scale. The translations and back-translations were reviewed, and inconsistencies were resolved to create a final precise and comprehensible version of the scale. The final back-translated version was similar to the original scale, and no cultural adaptation was required as the scale did not contain any culturally sensitive items.
After the completion of adaptation process, the psychometric validation of the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale was conducted (see Table A1 in the appendix). The Hindi-translated version of BIS/BAS scale was administered on the study participants along with the NEO-FFI and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The participants were asked for feedback if they faced any difficulty understanding any terms. To test the temporal stability of the scale, it was readministered on the participants after a gap of 1 month. Overall, these steps ensured that the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale was adapted and validated accurately and appropriately.
Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses in this study were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)-20 and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS 16.0) software. The reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach's α test and the test–retest reliability value. The convergent validity of the scale was examined by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficients of BIS/BAS scale with the obtained scores of HADS and NEO-FFI. In addition, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the factor structure of the scale, while confirmatory factor analysis was performed to identify the best model fit.
Results
Sample Characteristics
The participants had a Mage of 30.95 years (±8.08 SD). A majority of the participants were married (45%) and had a graduation-level education (50%). The participants had a mean BIS score of 20.81 (±3.50 SD). Additionally, the mean scores (±SD) for the total BAS, reward responsiveness, drive, and fun-seeking were found to be 37.30 (±4.81), 16.30 (±1.51), 10.22 (±2.50), and 11.80 (±2.35), respectively (Table 1).
Reliability
The reliability of the BIS/BAS scale was assessed by computing Cronbach’s α coefficient and test–retest reliability. The results are provided in Table 2.
Internal Consistency
To evaluate the internal consistency of the Hindi version of the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) scale, Cronbach's α coefficient (α) was estimated for each subscale. The results showed that the internal consistency of the BIS subscale score was acceptable, with a Cronbach's α coefficient of .68. For the BAS subscale score, Cronbach's α coefficient was .80, indicating good internal consistency. Similarly, the internal consistency of the drive, fun-seeking, and reward subscale scores were found to be acceptable, with Cronbach's α coefficients of .77, .73, and .80, respectively. These findings indicate that the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale has satisfactory internal consistency (Table 2).
Test–Retest Reliability
The test–retest reliability coefficients for the BIS and BAS dimensions were .87 and .92, respectively. Moreover, the test–retest reliability coefficients for the reward responsiveness, fun-seeking, and drive subscales were .87, .85, and .89, respectively. These results indicate that the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale and its dimensions exhibit good temporal stability and can be effectively used to evaluate the constructs of interest over time (Table 2).
Validity
The construct validity of the Hindi version of BIS/BAS scale was estimated by correlating its scores with related constructs such as extraversion, neuroticism, anxiety, and depression. Since behavioral inhibition and activation systems are known to be associated with personality traits, depression, and anxiety, it was speculated that a significant correlation will be observed.
The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the BIS score is significantly and positively correlated with depression (r = .30, p < .01), anxiety (r = .40, p < .01), and neuroticism (r = .38, p < .01) scores. Conversely, a significant and negative correlation was observed between BAS scores and depression (r = −.22, p < .01), anxiety (r = −.27, p < .01), and neuroticism (r = −.14, p < .05) scores. Moreover, extraversion scores were found to be positively correlated with total BAS (r = .46, p < .01), reward responsiveness (r = .35, p < .01), fun-seeking (r = .40, p < .01), and drive (r = .26, p < .01) subscales. Overall, these findings indicate that higher levels of BIS sensitivity are associated with increased tendencies toward anxiety, depression, and neuroticism, while greater sensitivity to BAS is linked to lower levels of anxiety and depression and higher levels of extraversion.
Factor Structure
Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to find out the factor structure of the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale in the Indian sample. All 20 items of the instrument, excluding the filler items (i.e., Items 1, 6, 11, and 17), were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis with Oblique rotation. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.81. Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2(190) = 2,657.98, p < .001, indicating that correlation structure is adequate for factor analyses. The maximum likelihood factor analysis with a cutoff point of .40 and the Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1 (Field, 2013; Stevens, 1992) produced a five-factor solution as the best fit for the data, accounting for 64.90% of the variance (Figure 1). The results of this factor analysis are presented in Table 4.
 |
Interestingly, three out of the five-factor structures were very similar to the original scale and as of those reported by many previous studies (Carver & White, 1994; Cogswell et al., 2006; Heym et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2002). These three factors were fun-seeking, reward responsiveness, and drive. Fun-seeking had eigenvalue 1.52, and it accounted for 7.63% variance. Reward responsiveness with eigenvalue 3.08 accounted for 15.44% variance, while drive explained 12.09% variance and the eigenvalue was 2.41. However, the original BIS factor was divided into two parts: items related to worry, stress, and anxiety loaded on one factor, so named as anxiety, while items related to fear loaded on another factor, hence labeled as fear. Anxiety had eigenvalue 4.54 and explained 22.74% variance; on the other hand, fear accounted for 6.99% variance with eigenvalue 1.39.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To find out the best fit model, researchers fitted two potentially viable models using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA): a four-factor structure model (i.e., BIS, BAS-drive, BAS-fun-seeking, and BAS-reward responsiveness) and a five-factor structure model (i.e., BIS-fear, BIS-anxiety, BAS-drive, BAS-fun-seeking, and BAS-reward responsiveness). Maximum likelihood extraction was used to estimate the model. To test whether the four or the five-factor structure fits the data best, these two solutions were compared using model fit indices. Model fit was evaluated using the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), normed fit index, and χ2/df value. Summary of the fit model indices for both the models is presented in Table 5.
From Table 5, it can be seen that the normed chi-squared (χ2/df) value for both the model is under the recommended value, which is below five. For CFI, values closer to 1.0 are indicative of good fit. The CFI value for four-factor model is not acceptable while for five-factor model the CFI value is slightly lower than the acceptable value. The goodness of fit index (GFI) and RMSEA values are under acceptable range for both the models. Moreover, for SRMR and TLI, only the five-factor model comes under acceptable range. Overall, it can be said that the five-factor model has more acceptable fit than the four-factor model.
Figures 2 and 3 depict observed variables denoted by boxes and latent variables indicated by ovals. The arrows connecting the boxes to the ovals signify the item loading on the corresponding latent factors. The four-factor model displays lower factor loadings compared to the five-factor model. Specifically, Items 2 and 22 show poor factor loadings in the four-factor model, implying that they may represent other factors. However, in the five-factor model, these two items exhibit higher loading, suggesting that the five-factor model provides a better fit than the original four-factor model.
Discussion
The behavioral inhibition and activation system has been extensively studied in relation to various psychological disorders and behavioral problems, with the BIS/BAS scale being one of the most commonly used tools for such research. However, the original factor structure of the BIS/BAS scale has been challenged by several studies (Caci et al., 2007; Che et al., 2020; A. Muller et al., 2013). The objective of the present study was to adapt the BIS/BAS scale into the Hindi language and evaluate its psychometric properties. The standardized procedure recommended by Brislin (1970) was used to draft an adequate Hindi version, which was made conceptually equivalent to the original version through the translation and back-translation method.
As per analysis, the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale was found to be a reliable and valid tool. The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency and temporal stability with homogeneous items. To assess the construct validity of the scale, BIS/BAS scores were correlated with scores of NEO-FFI and HADS. The results showed that the BIS dimension was positively associated with anxiety, depression, and neuroticism scores, while the BAS dimension was negatively associated with these scores and positively associated with extraversion scores. These findings indicate that the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale has good convergent and divergent validity. These results are consistent with previous research (Che et al., 2020; Dierickx et al., 2022; Franken et al., 2005; Genaro et al., 2021) and suggest that individuals with high BIS sensitivity may be more susceptible to stress and experience more symptoms of anxiety and depression. Conversely, those with high BAS sensitivity may be more extroverted and experience less stress, anxiety, and depression even in threatening situations (Smillie et al., 2012).
The factor structure of the Hindi version of the BIS/BAS scale was evaluated using principal component exploratory factor analysis. This analysis resulted in a five-factor structure of the scale. The three subscales of BAS were consistent with the original scale, i.e., Reward Responsiveness, Drive, and Fun-Seeking, while the BIS scale yielded two subdimensions. Two items in the BIS dimension pertained to fearful situations and were categorized under the factor of Fear, whereas the remaining five items were associated with anxiety situations and were categorized under the factor of Anxiety. While the original authors of the scale had reported a four-factor structure (Carver & White, 1994), later research studies have presented different factor structures (J. M. Muller & Wytykowska, 2005; Ross et al., 2002). Recently, several researchers have reported a five-factor structure (Dissabandara et al., 2012; Heym et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2003), but there is inconsistency even in the five-factor models; for example, many researchers (Che et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2003) reported only two items under the BIS-fear factor and five items in the BIS-anxiety factor. On the other hand, Heym et al. (2008) suggested that BIS-fear factor comprises three items and remaining four items come under BIS-anxiety factor. In this study, the four-factor and five-factor solutions were assessed and compared, and based on the obtained fit indices, it was found that the five-factor model, consisting of BIS-Fear, BIS-Anxiety, BAS-Reward Responsiveness, BAS-Fun-Seeking, and BAS-Drive, was more appropriate than the four-factor model. However, it is important to consider that the BIS-fear factor requires further validation by additional researchers. This BIS-fear factor has been a subject of controversy due to its two reversed scored items, which can introduce method bias when assessing its factor structure (Maack & Ebesutani, 2018). Acquiescent responding may also contribute to the emergence for a separate BIS-fear factor (Heffer et al., 2021; Weydmann et al., 2020). Additionally, some researchers have suggested that factors with fewer than three items are considered weak and less stable (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Saucier & Goldberg, 2002). Overall, more research is required to ascertain that how to deal with these two reversed scored items or whether these items should be removed from the scale (Maack & Ebesutani, 2018).
The findings of the present study are largely in line with previous research on the adaptation of the BIS/BAS scale. Consistent with the current study, BIS/BAS adaptations conducted in various languages, including Polish (J. M. Muller & Wytykowska, 2005), Chinese (Che et al., 2020), Dutch (Franken et al., 2005), German (A. Muller et al., 2013), and French (Caci et al., 2007), have demonstrated that the scale is a reliable and valid measure. Additionally, the factor structure obtained in the present study is similar to those found in the German and Chinese adaptations of the BIS/BAS scale.
Limitations
The present study made an effort to fill the gap by adapting a widely used BIS/BAS scale in the Hindi language. However, there are certain limitations of the present study that need to be addressed. Although the sample size of the study is adequate, future research should be conducted on larger sample. Also, the sample is not a very good representative of all the Hindi-speaking regions as the sample of the present study was selected from Chhattisgarh and nearby places; obtaining samples from different Hindi-speaking regions could potentially yield better results.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that the BIS/BAS scale in Hindi is a reliable and valid tool, with robust internal consistency and construct validity. The study found the adapted scale to be reliable and valid, exhibiting good internal consistency, temporal stability, and construct validity, and supports the use of a five-factor structure. Researchers and clinicians working with Hindi-speaking populations can use this tool to assess behavioral inhibition and activation sensitivity.
References
(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. 10.1177/135910457000100301
(1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 30(5), 555–574. 10.1177/0022022199030005001
(2007). Psychometric properties of the French versions of the BIS/BAS scales and the SPSRQ. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 987–998. 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.008
(2004). Psychometric evaluation of the behavioral inhibition/behavioral activation scales in a large sample of outpatients with anxiety and mood disorders. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 244–254. 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.244
(1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
(2020). Application of the Chinese version of the BIS/BAS scales in participants with a substance use disorder: An analysis of psychometric properties and comparison with community residents. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article
912 . 10.1080/10705510701301834(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834
(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
(2006). A psychometric evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self-report measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1649–1658. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.008
(2011). Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory and laboratory assessment of BIS and BAS in children. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(2), 198–207. 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.005
(1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor (NEO-FFI) inventory professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7–15. 10.7275/jyj1-4868
(2022). Measuring behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in older adults: Construct validity of the Dutch BIS/BAS Scales. Assessment, 29(5), 1061–1074. 10.1177/10731911211000123
(2012). Testing the fear and anxiety distinction in the BIS/BAS scales in community and heroin-dependent samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 888–892. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.023
(2021). Bridging classical and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory research: A longitudinal analysis of a large population study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article
737117 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.737117(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
(2005). Psychometric properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(1), 25–30. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.737117
(2012). Individual differences in the Behavioral Inhibition System are associated with orbitofrontal cortex and precuneus gray matter volume. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 491–498. 10.3758/s13415-012-0099-5
(2018). Behavioral activation and behavioral inhibition sensitivities in patients with substance use disorders: A study from India. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(3), 346–350. 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_323_18
(2021). Validation and psychometric properties of the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Systems motivational scale in the Brazilian population. Learning and Motivation, 75, Article
101743 . 10.1016/j.lmot.2021.101743(2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(3), 389–413. 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389
(1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249–266. 10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0
(1982). Precis of the neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(3), 469–484.
(2021). Investigating sensitivity to threat with the Behavioral Inhibition Scale (BIS) among children, adolescents and university students: The role of negatively-phrased questions. Personality and individual differences, 170, Article
110416 . 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110416(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(8), 709–715. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.013
(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118
(2019). Interaction effects of behavioral inhibition system/behavioral activation system and cost/probability biases on social anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article
2536 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02536(2003). BIS/BAS levels and psychiatric disorder: An Epidemiological Study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 25(1), 25–36. 10.1023/A:1022247919288
(1998). Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity and norms in a large community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 49–58. 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00143-3
(1984). On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: A model and a method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(2), 276–291. 10.1037/0096-1523.10.2.276
(2018). A re‐examination of the BIS/BAS scales: Evidence for BIS and BAS as unidimensional scales. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 27(2), Article
e1612 .(2012). Experiential avoidance mediates the association between behavioral inhibition and posttraumatic stress disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(4), 407–416. 10.1007/s10608-011-9362-2
(2013). Factor structure of the German version of the BIS/BAS Scales in a population-based sample. Fortschritte der Neurologie-psychiatrie, 81(2), 75–80. 10.1055/s-0032-1330482
(2005). Psychometric properties and validation of a Polish adaptation of Carver and White’s BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(4), 795–805. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.006
(2016). Revising the BIS/BAS Scale to study development: Measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood. Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 429–442. 10.1037/pas0000186
(2014). Behavioral approach and avoidance in schizophrenia: An evaluation of motivational profiles. Schizophrenia Research, 159(1), 164–170. 10.1016/j.schres.2014.07.047
(2015). A new measure for the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: Psychometric criteria and genetic validation. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9, Article
38 . 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00038(2017). Hospital anxiety and depression scale assessment of 100 patients before and after using low vision care: A prospective study in a tertiary eye-care setting. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 65(11), 1203–1208. 10.4103/ijo.IJO_436_17
(2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the behavioral inhibition and activation scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(6), 861–865. 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00196-9
(2002). Assessing the big five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. In B. de RaadM. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 30–54). Hogrefe.
(2006). Behavioral inhibition system (BIS), behavioral activation system (BAS) and schizophrenia: Relationship with psychopathology and physiology. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 40(7), 638–645. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.03.005
(2019). The behavioral inhibition and activation systems and function in patients with chronic pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 56–62. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.021
(2014). Validation of the measure of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory constructs. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(1), 12–21. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000121
(2012). Do extraverts get more bang for the buck? Refining the Affective-Reactivity Hypothesis of Extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 306–326. 10.1037/a0028372
(2011). Reinforcement sensitivity theory, research, applications, and future. In T. Chamorro-PremuzicS. von StummA. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 101–131). Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444343120.ch4
(1992). Applied statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(2020). Behavioral inhibition system (BIS), behavioral activation system (BAS), and grandiose facets of narcissism. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 41(6), 4125–4131. 10.1007/s12144-020-00927-6
(2021). Relationship between behavioral inhibition and approach motivation systems (BIS/BAS) and intrinsic brain network connectivity in adult cannabis users. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(9), 985–994. 10.1093/scan/nsab054
(2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 837–862. 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5
(2020). Acquiescent responding can distort the factor structure of the BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, Article
109563 . 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109563(1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136. 10.2307/270754
(2021). Behavioral inhibition/activation systems and depression among females with substance use disorder: The mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and anhedonia. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article
644882 . 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.644882(2011). Psychometric characteristics of Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales in Dutch adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(5), 500–507. 10.1080/00223891.2011.595745
(1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
Appendix
 |
