روابط بین BIS و BAS، خشم و واکنش به خشم
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33318||2008||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 44, Issue 2, January 2008, Pages 403–413
The aim of the current study was to examine the relations of the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) and the Behavioural Approach System (BAS) with anger and other responses in situations depicting anger provocation. In all, 36 male and 64 female pharmacy workers completed the BIS/BAS Scales, the Spielberger State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI), and the Anger Response Inventory (ARI). The BIS/BAS Scales have one scale for the BIS, and three subscales for the BAS (Reward Responsiveness, Drive, and Fun-Seeking). The ARI contains 23 anger scenarios. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in that scenario and then indicate how angry they would feel and how they would respond in that situation. It was found that the BIS and BAS-Drive related to STAXI trait anger, with the BIS relating to expressing anger inwardly and BAS-Drive negatively relating to the control of angry feelings. With the ARI scenarios, both BIS and BAS-Drive predicted Anger Arousal. When controlling for Anger Arousal, BAS-Fun Seeking significantly predicted aggressive responses to the anger scenarios, while BIS significantly predicted anger responses directed inwardly. The results are discussed in light of the relations between the BIS and BAS and anger.
In recent times there has been an increasing focus on the appetitive and aversive motivation systems believed to underlie behavioural and affective tendencies. These systems have been presumed to underlie stable personality traits (Cloninger, 1988, Depue and Collins, 1999 and Gray, 1990). One popular model in this regard is Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) (for a review of RST see Corr, 2004). In the original RST, the appetitive system was labeled the Behavioural Approach System (BAS) and one of the aversive systems was labeled the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). The BAS was presumed to be sensitive to conditioned signals of reward or non-punishment, while the BIS was presumed to be sensitive to conditioned signals of punishment or frustrative non-reward. A third system, labeled the Fight-Flight System (FFS), mediated responses to unconditioned aversive stimuli. It should be noted that there have been recent revisions to RST that entail changes to the proposed systems in RST (McNaughton & Corr, 2004). In the revised RST, the BIS now mediates goal conflict and risk assessment, while the renamed Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) mediates responses to both conditioned and unconditioned aversive stimuli. In the current study, we consider the BIS and BAS as conceptualized in the ‘old’ RST, as existing self-report measures have not currently been revised to incorporate the changes to RST (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). Beyond their role in motivation and learning, activation of the BIS and BAS has been linked with affective states (Carver and White, 1994, Gomez and Cooper, in press, Gomez et al., 2000, Gray, 1990 and Gray, 1994). The BAS has been linked with positive affective states and the BIS with negative affective states (Gray, 1994). A review of the RST and affect research largely supports these relationships (Gomez & Cooper, in press). Many of the studies attempting to link BIS and BAS activation with positive and negative affective states have, however, only examined positive and negative affect generally, rather than examine how specific emotion states might relate to the BIS and BAS. It should be noted that while postulating three fundamental brain systems related to emotion (i.e. the BIS, BAS and FFS), Gray (1994, p. 246) noted that ‘any real emotional experience reflects a blend of activity in all three fundamental emotion systems’. This implies that a particular positive or negative affective state may result from activation of a combination of some or all three systems. It is desirable that RST research moves beyond the simple relations between general positive and negative affective states and the BIS and BAS to the examination of specific emotion states. In the current study, we seek to assess how the BIS and BAS relate to trait anger and responses to anger inducing situations. Carver (2004) has suggested that affect is based on a subjective assessment of progress towards approaching or avoiding a goal. Good progress towards approaching or avoiding a goal will result in positive affect, while inadequate progress towards approaching or avoiding a goal results in negative affect. This implies that positive affect can be related to activation of the BIS and that negative affect can be related to activation of the BAS. In other words, there are two bipolar dimensions of affect in relation to approach and avoidance processes. Thus, the negative affects of sadness, anger and depression for example may relate to slow progress towards approach oriented goals. Carver suggests that variation amongst the approach related negative affects may be accounted for by different levels of engagement in the approach process. If a goal seems completely unattainable, then depression or sadness may result. If a goal seems attainable but progress is poor, anger or frustration may result. Carver (2004) indeed found across three studies that sadness and anger were more strongly related to individual differences in the BAS rather than the BIS. It should be noted, however, that in each of the three separate studies a different BAS related trait (i.e., Drive, Reward Responsiveness and Fun Seeking) was related to each of the negative affects of interest. Clearly, different BAS related traits may relate to anger produced in differing ways. For example, we might expect that BAS-Reward Responsiveness is related to anger induced via a sense of frustration that a rewarding stimulus is not as large or valuable as expected (Corr, 2002). BAS-Fun Seeking might be more likely to relate to anger induced via the blocking of attainment of new or actively sought appetitive goals. Carver’s (2004) findings in relation to anger supported the findings of earlier studies that had examined the BAS and anger. For example, it has been found that levels of BAS significantly and positively predicted measures of trait anger and physical aggression (Harmon-Jones, 2003). In a recent study, Smits and Kuppens (2005) initially examined the relations between the BIS and BAS and trait anger as assessed in a context driven (using scenarios and guided imagery) and context free (questionnaire assessment) mode. They found that both trait anger measures were predicted by BAS-Drive and BIS, but that BIS became a non-significant predictor when controlling for neuroticism. In terms of expressing anger, there has been a commonly utilised distinction made between anger-in (suppressing the expression of felt anger) and anger-out (expressing anger outwardly) (Averill, 1983 and Spielberger, 1999). In a second study, Smits and Kuppens (2005) went on to examine how the BIS and BAS relate to anger-in and anger-out, and physical and verbal aggression. They found that anger-in was related to high BIS and low BAS, and that anger-out was related to high BAS and low BIS. In a series of regression models, they found that initially anger-out and physical and verbal aggression were significantly and negatively predicted by BIS and positively by BAS (Drive and Fun Seeking), but that when controlling for trait anger only the BIS significantly and negatively predicted the dependent variables. It has been argued that anger responses need to be broadened beyond a simple anger-in/anger-out dichotomy (Kuppens et al., 2004 and Linden et al., 2003). The broader conceptualisation of anger responses may include direct verbal or physical aggression, indirect or distal aggression, social support seeking and the diffusion or cognitive reappraisal of angry feelings. The Anger Response Inventory (ARI) (Tangney, Wagner, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1991) is an example of a measure that allows the assessment of a range of anger responses, spanning direct and indirect aggressive behaviours, non-aggressive behaviours and behaviours designed to diffuse or reappraise the situation. It should be noted that previous studies that have used anger scenarios have not included measures of anger coping and aggression in relation to these scenarios (e.g. Study 2 of Carver, 2004). Similarly, the measures of anger coping and aggression used in the second study of Smits and Kuppens (2005) were not in response to specific anger scenarios. In the current study, we consider anger coping and aggression measures in relation to specific anger scenarios. In regard to the range of anger responses, Smits and Kuppens (2005) only examined anger-in and anger-out as anger coping mechanisms. It may be of interest to examine how the BIS and BAS relate to a wider set of anger coping behaviours. The first aim of this study is to examine relationships between the BIS and BAS and trait levels of anger. In this case, relations between the expression of anger in and out, as well as anger control in and out, will be further examined. It is hypothesized that both BIS and BAS measures will positively correlate with trait anger. It is further hypothesized that BIS will significantly correlate with the expression of anger inwardly and with enhanced control of anger, and that the BAS variables will positively correlate with expressing anger outwardly and negatively correlate with controlling anger. Based on previous research (e.g. Harmon-Jones, 2003), we expect BAS-Drive and BAS-Fun Seeking to have stronger relationships with the anger variables than BAS-Reward Responsiveness. A second aim is to examine relations between the BIS and BAS and anger responses elicited by the scenarios contained within the ARI. The ARI comprises a series of 23 commonly experienced situations designed to elicit anger. Participants are asked to visualize and imagine themselves in that scenario. Unlike many anger inventories commonly used, the ARI assesses a wide array of responses that are specific to the actual scenario. In line with recent previous research (e.g. Smits & De Boeck, 2007), it is hypothesized that both BIS and BAS Scales will positively relate to the anger elicited by the scenarios. As noted above, we expect BAS-Drive and BAS-Fun Seeking to show stronger relationships with anger than BAS-Reward Responsiveness. When the anger induced is controlled however, it is hypothesized that low BIS and high BAS will predict responses that are directly or indirectly aggressive towards a target and that high BIS and low BAS will predict responses that involve holding anger in, diffusing the angry situation or engaging in avoidant behaviour. Although somewhat speculative, we expect that BAS-Fun Seeking may relate more strongly to aggressive responses compared to the other BAS subscales, based on its closer relationship with measures of impulsivity (Smillie, Jackson, & Dalgleish, 2006).