رابطه بین حساسیت تشویق و تنبیه و رفتار ضداجتماعی در نوجوانان پسر
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|37317||2014||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 4772 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||8 روز بعد از پرداخت||429,480 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||4 روز بعد از پرداخت||858,960 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 63, June 2014, Pages 122–127
Abstract The study examined the relation between reward and punishment sensitivity and antisocial behavior (ASB) in male adolescents. We compared Behavioral Inhibition/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) Scale scores in adolescent male offenders (n = 85) and non-offenders (n = 50), and explored the relation between BIS/BAS and measures associated with ASB (psychopathy, conduct problems and alcohol use) within the whole group of adolescents, and offending frequency in the offenders. Between group analyses indicated heightened BAS (reward sensitivity; specifically the drive to seek rewards) and lowered BIS (punishment sensitivity) in the offenders compared to the non-offenders. Regression analyses indicated that traits associated with reward seeking (BAS Drive and/or Fun Seeking) positively predicted psychopathic traits, conduct problems and alcohol use. In contrast, response to reward (BAS Reward Responsiveness) was negatively associated with psychopathy and conduct problems. Reduced punishment sensitivity (BIS) was associated with psychopathy only. The findings suggest that BAS reward traits are useful in understanding ASB and emphasize the importance of examining dimensions of reward processing in relation to different aspects of ASB in adolescents.
Introduction Theories that emphasize the biological basis of personality, such as Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST; Gray, 1970), have contributed to a better understanding of the etiology of antisocial behavior (ASB). The RST proposes that reward and punishment systems underlie behavior and affect. Although increasing research has focused on the examination of RST in relation to aspects of ASB, there is a dearth of studies employing direct measures of RST in antisocial adolescents. Adolescence is an interesting time for investigating ASB and reward processing in particular; offending peaks during this period and heightened reward seeking has been implicated in the increased risk taking observed (see Moffitt, 1993 and Steinberg, 2008). In addition, it must be noted that ASB is a complex construct encompassing clinical (e.g., conduct disorder, psychopathic traits) and legal approaches (e.g., delinquency). The present research examines multiple approaches to ASB in order to appreciate the heterogeneity in the behavior and the risk factors involved during adolescence. 1.1. The reinforcement sensitivity theory The RST comprises three hypothetical motivational systems that respond to different reinforcing events; the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and the Fight–Flight–Freeze system (FFFS). The BAS is an appetitive system, it is considered to regulate responses to rewarding stimuli, and is associated with activation in dopaminergic pathways. High BAS sensitivity is thought to lead to increased approach behavior in the presence of reward. The BIS was considered to regulate response to aversive stimuli and associated with activation in the septo-hippocampal system. High BIS was thought to lead to inhibition of movement towards goals (Carver & White, 1994). Recent revisions to the RST suggest that the FFFS is now responsible for mediating reactions to aversive stimuli and the BIS is involved in resolution of goal conflict in general (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). In the absence of new measures to reflect this revision this paper refers to BIS/FFFS as BIS functioning (See Corr, 2004). 1.2. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and psychopathology The RST has provided a useful framework for understanding the relationship between personality and psychopathology; with those at the extreme on the BIS/BAS dimensions most at risk (Bijttebier, Beck, Claes, & Vandereycken, 2009). In general, elevated BAS has been associated with increased risk for externalising difficulties and elevated BIS with internalising problems (Bijttebier et al., 2009). In addition, it has been proposed that low BIS may underlie some externalising related disorders (e.g., Quay, 1997). Research specifically examining the relationship between RST and delinquency in adolescents is rare. In a notable exception, Hasking (2007) demonstrated that self-reported delinquency was positively correlated with the drive to seek out rewards but contrary to predictions there was a negative correlation between the response to reward and delinquency. BIS was not associated with delinquency in the sample. The authors explained the unexpected negative association in terms of mediation by coping variables. Nevertheless, the study was susceptible to floor effects as the young people were recruited from private schools and displayed a limited range of ASB. Further research is required to examine BIS/BAS in youths with increased levels of ASB. There has been relatively more research interest on the role of reward and punishment sensitivity in the personality disorder of psychopathy in adults. The BIS is thought to be low in psychopaths leading to deficits in the experience of anxiety and to impulsivity as cues for punishment fail to inhibit reward seeking behavior (e.g., Fowles, 1980 and Hart and Dempster, 1997). In addition, it has been suggested that psychopathy may result from an overactive BAS with hypersensitivity to reward leading to disinhibited behavior (Gorenstein and Newman, 1980 and Uzieblo et al., 2007). However, psychopathy is considered to encompass discrete subtypes that may differentially relate to reward and punishment (e.g., Lykken, 1995). The evidence in relation to this is mixed, but the results can tentatively be summarized by suggesting that BAS hypersensitivity is a risk factor for both primary (interpersonal and affective) and secondary (antisocial) psychopathy, whereas BIS underactivity is related to primary psychopathy only (Bijttebier et al., 2009, Newman et al., 2005, Ross et al., 2009 and Uzieblo et al., 2007). There have been few studies on BIS/BAS in youngsters potentially high in psychopathic traits. The RST and substance use has been extensively studied; alcohol and drugs have rewarding properties and given that individuals with elevated BAS are considered more reward sensitive it is hypothesized that increased BAS is associated with alcohol and drug use (Franken & Muris, 2006). Support for this comes from research using a range of clinical and non clinical samples (e.g., Franken et al., 2006, Johnson et al., 2003 and Willem et al., 2012). In one exception a study failed to find an association between alcohol use and BAS sensitivity in younger adolescents; the authors argued that the low levels of alcohol use and lack of variance may be the most likely explanation (Hasking, 2006). The implication is that an examination of alcohol use in an adolescent sample known to display increased alcohol use is likely to yield more meaningful results. In addition, findings on alcohol use and BIS are equivocal, although the evidence is suggestive of a negative relationship, and further research is required to examine this association (see Bijttebier et al., 2009). 1.3. The present study The present research examined the association between reward and punishment traits and ASB in adolescent males. Firstly, the Behavioural Inhibition System/Behavioural Activation System (BIS/BAS) scales (Carver & White, 1994; arguably the most well validated measure of BIS/BAS sensitivity) were assessed in young offenders (YOs) and non-offending normal controls (NCs). Reward seeking peaks in adolescence and this is thought to underlie the increased risk taking characteristic of this developmental period. It was interesting to assess whether the YOs who exhibit more extreme levels of ASB, were also more extreme on the reward dimension compared to NCs. Secondly, the study explored BAS and BIS sensitivity in relation to various dimensions related to ASB (psychopathy, conduct problems, and alcohol use) in the group as a whole (given the dimensional nature of the ASB measures this was deemed appropriate) as well as offence frequency in the offenders. It was hypothesized broadly that BAS levels would demonstrate a positive relationship with multiple aspects of ASB. In addition given theories linking low BIS to externalising disorders it was hypothesized that reduced BIS would be associated with ASB.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3. Results Table 1 presents the demographic descriptives; there were no differences between the groups in estimated IQ [t (56.46) = −1.65, p > .05] ethnicity [χ2 (1) = .88, p > .05] or in socioeconomic status [χ2 (2) = .95, p > .05]. However, the YOs were significantly older than the NCs [t(133) = 4.09, p < .01]. Table 1. Participant descriptive characteristics. Measures YO NC M SD M SD Age (years) 15.95 1.12 15.10 1.25 Estimated IQ 86.49 11.05 90.91 13.78 N % N % Ethnicity Caucasian 60 70.60 39 78.0 Non white 25 29.40 11 22.0 Socioeconomic status Low 48 56.5 31 62.0 Middle 27 31.8 12 24.0 High 10 11.8 7 14.0 Note: YO = young offender; NC = non offending Normal control. Table options One way ANCOVAs (age as a covariate) were used to explore between group differences on the measures. As can be seen in Table 2, the YO group scored significantly higher than the NC group on BAS Drive and significantly lower on BIS. Age was not a significant covariate (p > .05). An examination of between group differences on ASB measures indicates that the YO group scored higher than the NCs on a number of measures as would be expected. Table 2. BAS/BIS and ASB scores for young offenders and non–offenders. Measures [max score] YO NC F Sig M SD M SD BAS Drive  11.29 2.84 10.28 2.66 3.97 p < .05 BAS Fun  12.39 2.03 11.94 2.33 1.63 BAS Reward  15.69 2.89 16.42 2.48 1.49 BIS  16.68 3.86 18.72 3.25 9.36 p < .01 YPI Grandiose  39.00 11.77 39.36 8.63 0.18 YPI Callousness  35.40 7.75 32.86 6.25 5.83 p < .05 YPI Impulsive  43.65 7.92 38.02 6.35 18.19 p < .01 YSR Conduct Problemsa  64.12 10.01 57.18 7.98 20.86 p < .01 Hazardous Alcohol Useb  3.40 3.26 1.66 2.09 6.40 p < .05 Offence Frequencyc [na] 10.27 8.77 Na Na Na Na Note: YO = young offender; NC = non offending normal control; BAS = Behavioural Activation System; BIS = Behavioural Inhibition System; YPI = Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory; YSR = Youth Self Report. a Data on the YSR was missing for 7 young offenders and 5 non offenders. b Data on alcohol use was missing for 1 young offender. c Offence data was missing for 8 young offenders as a result of file error/missing data/inability to access data in the YOS databases. Table options Both groups were combined to explore the relationship between BAS subscales, BIS and ASB dimensions. Bivariate correlations are shown in Table 3 and multiple regression analyses in Table 4. Table 3. Pearson’s bivariate correlation matrix for all of the measures of interest in the whole group. BAS Drive BAS Fun BAS Reward BIS YPI Grandiose YPI Callousness YPI Impulsive YSR Conduct Offence Frequency Alcohol Use BASDrive 1 .621⁎⁎ .489⁎⁎ .043 .305⁎⁎ .320⁎⁎ .410⁎⁎ .362⁎⁎ .164 .316⁎⁎ BASFun 1 .513⁎⁎ .153 .177⁎ .143 .411⁎⁎ .162 .226⁎ .250⁎⁎ BASReward 1 .473⁎⁎ .172⁎ −.056 −.001 −.115 .032 .046 BIS 1 −.020 −.363⁎⁎ −.195⁎ −.195⁎ −.166 −.050 YPIGrandiose 1 .435⁎⁎ .432⁎⁎ .422⁎⁎ −.254⁎ .005 YPICallous 1 .478⁎⁎ .341⁎⁎ .009 .108 YPIImpulsive 1 .582⁎⁎ .243⁎ .336⁎⁎ YSRConduct 1 .020 .301⁎⁎ OffenceFrequency 1 .216 Alcohol Use 1 Note: BAS = Behavioral Activation System; BIS = Behavioral Inhibition System; YPI = Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory; YSR = Youth Self Report. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options Table 4. Regression analyses for each antisocial behavior measure. Regression YPI Grandiose YPI Callousness YPI Impulsive F ΔR2 B SE B β F ΔR2 B SE B β F ΔR2 B SE B β Step 1 3.08 .02 .75 −.00 .49 −.00 Age −1.30 0.74 −.15 −0.44 0.51 −.08 .38 .55 .06 Step 2 3.64⁎⁎ .09 9.15⁎⁎ .23 11.84⁎⁎ .29 BASdrive 1.18 0.43 .31⁎⁎ 0.99 0.27 .38⁎⁎ 0.90 .28 .32⁎⁎ BASfun −0.17 0.55 −.03 −0.02 0.35 .00 1.39 .36 .38⁎⁎ BASrew 0.21 0.45 .06 −0.25 0.28 −.09 −0.83 .29 −.29⁎⁎ BIS −0.18 0.27 −.06 −0.67 0.17 −.34⁎⁎ −0.27 .18 −.13 YSR Conduct Problems Offence Frequency Hazardous Alcohol Use Step 1 .14 −.01 0.95 −0.00 7.10⁎⁎ 0.04 Age −0.02 0.05 −.03 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.20 0.08 .23⁎⁎ Step 2 7.29⁎⁎ .21 1.58 0.04 5.32⁎⁎ 0.14 BASdrive 0.11 0.03 .49⁎⁎ 0.01 0.07 .02 0.11 0.04 .28⁎ BASfun 0.02 0.04 .06 0.16 0.10 .25 0.09 0.06 .18 BASrew −0.08 0.03 −.35⁎⁎ −0.01 0.07 −.01 −0.06 0.04 −.16 BIS −0.01 0.02 −.05 −0.07 0.04 −.21 −0.01 0.03 −.02 Note: BAS = Behavioral Activation System; BIS = Behavioral Inhibition System; YPI = Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory; YSR = Youth Self Report. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options Multiple regression analyses showed that age significantly contributed to the regression analyses for alcohol use (β = .23, p < .01), but did not contribute significantly to any of the other measures. BAS Drive was a significant predictor of each of the three psychopathy subscales; grandiose-manipulative (β = .31, p = .006), callous-unemotional (β = .38, p < .001) and impulsive-irresponsible (β = .32, p = .002). In addition, Drive was predictive of conduct problems (β = .49, p < .001) and hazardous alcohol use (β = .28, p = .012). BAS Fun was a significant predictor of the impulsive-irresponsible psychopathy subscale (β = .38, p < .001). Interestingly, BAS RR was a negative predictor of the impulsive-irresponsible psychopathy subscale; (β = −.30, p = .005) and conduct problems (β = −.35 p = .002). Finally, BIS was a negative predictor of the callous-unemotional psychopathy subscale (β = −.34, p < .001).