An analysis of reinforcement sensitivity theory and the five‐factor model

Abstract

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) and the Five‐Factor Model (FFM) are two prominent personality accounts that have emerged from different backgrounds. Although the two accounts are applied to similar research topics, there is limited empirical work examining the correspondence between them. The current study explored the relationship between RST‐based personality traits and the FFM domains and facets in an undergraduate sample (n = 668). Regression analyses indicated that Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) was positively associated with Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and negatively associated with Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness. In contrast, Sensitivity to Reward (SR) was positively associated with Extraversion and Neuroticism, and negatively associated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Exploratory analyses at the facet level specified the relationship between SP, SR, and each domain. A factor analysis was also conducted to explore the higher‐order factor structure of RST and the FFM domains. Three factors emerged, which we labelled SP, Stability‐Impulsivity, and Sensation Seeking. Taken together, these findings suggest that there is substantial overlap between these two accounts of personality. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An examination of the relationship between behavioral approach system (BAS) sensitivity and social interaction anxiety

“…Given previous indications that the BAS may underlie both PA and extraversion (e.g., Carver & White, 1994;Gray, 1991;Mitchell et al, 2007), the findings concerning the relationship between social anxiety and PA/extraversion provide indirect evidence that social anxiety may also be associated with low BAS sensitivity.…”

Neurobehavioural correlates of body mass index and eating behaviours in adults: A systematic review

“…Specific personality measures are quicker and maintain comparability but lose the detailed insight into potential mechanisms offered by a full personality assessment. For instance, the Sensitivity to Reward scale from the Sensitivity to Reward and Sensitivity to Punishment Questionnaire seems to tap quite well the personality subdimensions deemed important for obesity (Mitchell et al, 2007; Sutin et al, 2011). However, this questionnaire does not allow analysis of the potential modifying effects of differences in the personality domains captured in aggregate as sensitivity to reward.…”

“…In addition, this cue-induced neural response also correlates with an individual’s score on Carver and White’s (Carver and White, 1994) behavioural activation scale (Beaver et al, 2006), a measure of sensitivity to reward. Sensitivity to reward is related to both Neuroticism and Extraversion (Mitchell et al, 2007; Torrubia et al, 2001) and indeed, these traits have also been linked to the same reward-related areas. Extraversion correlates with greater functional connectivity of limbic reward areas at rest (Adelstein et al, 2011) and the trait has been related to the volume of the medial orbitofrontal cortex (DeYoung et al, 2010; Rauch et al, 2005).…”

Examining the incremental contribution of behavioral inhibition to generalized anxiety disorder relative to other Axis I disorders and cognitive-emotional vulnerabilities

“…1 The absence of research in this area notwithstanding, there is reason to expect that BIS sensitivity may be particularly relevant to GAD. First, BIS sensitivity is strongly associated with the personality trait of neuroticism (e.g., Jorm et al, 1998;Mitchell et al, 2007), a trait that has been found to be more strongly associated with GAD than any other anxiety disorder (Kotov, Watson, Robles, & Schmidt, 2007). In addition, BIS-rRST sensitivity is theorized to motivate avoidance behaviors, and BIS sensitivity has been found to be associated with heightened tendencies to avoid internal experiences (Maack et al, in press), consistent with the proposed emotionally avoidant function of worry (the central defining feature of GAD; Borkovec, Alcaine, & Behar, 2004;Roemer et al, 2005).…”