تقویت حساسیت تئوری و دشواری های تنظیم احساسات: مطالعه چند مدلی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34920||2010||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 49, Issue 8, December 2010, Pages 989–994
This study examined associations between BIS–FFFS, BAS dimensions, and emotion regulation (ER) assessed across self-report and behavioral domains among 101 adults. Findings revealed significant associations among the various ER assessments, as well as between ER and BIS–FFFS and BAS dimensions. As expected, BIS–FFFS was positively associated with self-reported ER difficulties, and, among women, BIS–FFFS was negatively associated with a behavioral measure of ER assessing the willingness to experience distress in order to pursue goal-directed behavior. BAS had a more complex association with ER, with certain BAS dimensions (e.g., Drive among women, Fun-Seeking) demonstrating unique positive associations with adaptive ER and other dimensions demonstrating negative associations with adaptive ER. Findings suggest the relevance of individual variations in BIS–FFFS and BAS to ER difficulties, as well as potential pathways through which sensitivity to punishment and reward may contribute to psychopathology.
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST; Corr, 2004, Corr, 2008 and Gray and McNaughton, 2000) is a neurobiologically-based theory of personality that asserts that three major brain subsystems known as the Behavioral Approach System (BAS), Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), and Fight–Flight–Freeze System (FFFS) underlie many of the individual differences observed in personality, psychopathology, and reinforcement sensitivity. The BAS is theorized to be an appetitive system underlying approach behavior in response to conditioned and unconditioned cues of reward (Corr, 2008). Individuals high on BAS are proposed to be impulsive and extraverted (Gray, 1991). In contrast, the FFFS is proposed to be a defensive avoidance system that motivates avoidance and escape behaviors in response to conditioned and unconditioned aversive stimuli. The FFFS is thought to underlie fear and panic (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Finally, the BIS is considered to be the subsystem that resolves conflicts among competing goals (e.g., approach–avoidance conflicts) by inhibiting behavior, increasing arousal, and assessing for risk. The BIS is posited to underlie anxiety and the personality trait of Neuroticism (Corr, 2004 and Gray and McNaughton, 2000). Given that the most widely-used measures of RST (including the BIS/BAS Scales used here; Carver & White, 1994) are based on the original (and now outdated) version of RST, these self-report measures actually assess combined BIS–FFFS sensitivity within the revised RST (rRST) framework (Corr, 2004 and Smillie et al., 2006). In recognition of this, the present paper uses the term “BIS–FFFS sensitivity” throughout. That said, we recognize and value the important theoretical distinction made between BIS and FFFS within the rRST framework. Although we are also aware of attempts to distinguish BIS and FFFS sensitivity within the BIS/BAS Scales (Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008), there is only limited support for such revisions to date. For example, Heym et al.’s (2008) proposal to subdivide Carver and White’s (1994) BIS scale into a 4-item BIS and 3-item FFFS scale is based on a single factor analysis of a small sample of undergraduates. One of the only other studies to examine the factor structure and reliability of these proposed revisions (Vervoort et al., 2010) reported minimally-acceptable factor structure and low internal consistency for the 3-item FFFS scale. Similarly, we found internal consistency to be quite low (.57) for the proposed 3-item FFFS scale in our sample. Thus, based on extant research and our own data, we focused exclusively on the role of combined BIS–FFFS sensitivity in ER. Available evidence suggests that Carver and White’s (1994) BIS scale is a reliable and valid measure of combined BIS–FFFS functioning (Corr, 2004 and Smillie et al., 2006).