An Exploration of the Relationship Between Behavioral Approach and Emotion Perception James P. Loveless1, Alexandra J. Stephenson1, and D. Erik Everhart1 1Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC James P. Loveless Department of Psychology Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences East Carolina University Greenville, North Carolina 27858 lovelessj12@students.ecu.edu Abstract Previous research has shown that a tendency toward impulsive approach-related behavior is linked to difficulty with emotion regulation. The present study explored the relationship between behavioral approach and emotion perception. Findings were largely consistent with the literature. Implications for interpersonal functioning and health are discussed. Materials and Methods A sample of 91(Mage = 18.71 years, SD = 1.65, 56 Women) healthy undergraduate student participants were recruited from East Carolina University’s psychology department participant pool. All participants received course credit for participation. Participants were administered several self-report measures including the Twenty Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS 20; Bagby, Taylor, & Parker, 1994), and Behavioral Inhibition Scale and Behavioral Activation Scale (BIS/BAS Scales; Carver & White, 1994). Following administration of the TAS 20 and BIS/BAS scales, participants were administered the Perception of Affect Task (PAT; Lane et al., 1996; Lane et al., 2000). The PAT measures participants’ ability to identify emotions presented in faces and written narratives. The version used in the present study consisted of 70 items divided among two subtasks. The subtasks were counterbalanced to control for order effects. In the first subtask participants were shown pictures of faces (Ekman & Friesen, 1976) and they were asked to identify the expressed emotion from a list of choices (i.e. happy, sad, anger, surprise, disgust, fear, and neutral) and then rate the intensity of the presented emotion on a 6-point Likert Scale (i.e. 0 = no intensity, 6 = extremely intense). During the second subtask, they were shown sentences with emotion laden content. There was an underlined person in each sentence, and participants were asked to identify the emotion that the underlined person is likely experiencing using the same choices offered in the previous task, and then rate the intensity of the presented emotion using the same 6-point Likert scale. For both subtasks, participants were evaluated based on the percentage of responses which correctly identified the emotion presented in each stimulus. They were also evaluated on the intensity ratings they assigned to each stimulus. Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations and Simple Descritive Statitics (N=91)   Zero-Order r TAS-20 BAS FS BAS RR BAS D BIS % Sent Crt % Faces Crt Sent Intn Faces Intn .15 -.16 .10 -.15 .24* .39*** -.08 ,20 -.09 -.04 -.14 -,10 .09 .02 -.07 -.03 .23* -.29** -.13 .17 .11 -.004 -.20 -.30** .04 -.05 .16 .19 .26* .52**** Sex 0.08 0.07 -0.15 0.05 -.25* -.18 -.23* -.21* M 40.55 12.45 18.71 11.75 19.57 .92 .82 3.91 3.33 SD 8.82 2.36 1.31 2.28 3.34 .07 .67 .61 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ****p < .0001 Introduction Emotion regulation refers to one’s ability to manage one’s emotional states (Gross,1998; 2002). Individuals engage in many cognitive and behavioral strategies to modulate their emotional experience and response. Gratz and Roemer (2004) note that adaptive emotion regulation requires four main abilities: 1) awareness and understanding of emotions; 2) acceptance of emotional experiences; 3) the ability to control impulsive behaviors when faced with an emotional experience; and 4) the ability to use appropriate regulatory strategies to flexibly manage emotional states so that situational demands can be met. A deficit in any of these abilities results in poor emotion regulation. Previous research has shown that a tendency toward impulsive approach-related behavior is linked to difficulty with emotion regulation. Tull, Gratz, Latzman, Kimbrel, and Lejuz (2010) performed a study which explored the relationship between Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) and self-reported proficiency with emotion regulation. Specifically, they found that participants’ scores on BAS FS (Fun Seeking) were positively related to difficulties with emotional clarity. Tull and colleagues hypothesized that this relationship suggests, “that high levels of arousal stemming from the pursuit of intense, rewarding activities may interfere with the detection of discrete emotional states” (Tull, 2010, p. 903). The present study seeks to replicate and extend the findings from Tull et al. (2010) by examining the relationship between participants’ scores on BAS FS and their performance on an behavioral task designed to test emotion recognition. It was hypothesized that their BAS FS scores would be inversely related to their emotion recognition accuracy. Conclusions The results from Tull et al. (2010) were partially replicated in the present study. Participants’ BAS FS scores were not significantly related to their ability to accurately identify emotions from faces and written narratives; however, they were negatively related to participants intensity ratings of facial emotions. Thus, those who endorsed being motivated by thrill seeking appetitive behavior rated emotions as less intense when observing them in facial expressions. The difference in the relationship between BAS FS scores and intensity ratings across the PAT subtasks may point to differences in the required types cognitive processing needed to complete each task. Verbal and non-verbal emotion processing engage different systems in the neocortex (Kotz, Kalberlah, Bahlmannm, Friederici, & Haynes, 2012; Vuilleumier & Pourtois, 2007). If individuals who are highly motivated by thrill seeking behavior are less sensitive to the intensity of non-verbal emotional cues, then their ability to regulate emotion might be impaired. This might be especially true when trying to navigate unspoken internal feelings, or subtle emotion cues present in interpersonal interactions. Future research could focus whether or not this relationship is causal or reciprocal in nature. Does a motivation for thrill seeking interfere with perceptions of emotion intensity? Do deficits in the ability perceive emotion intensity contribute towards a tendency to engage in thrill seeking behavior? Do both of these suggested effects co-occur? Results Emotion recognition accuracy. Women (coded as “0”) outperformed men (coded as “1”) on the faces subtask, r = -.22, n = 91, p = .03, 95% CI [-.41, -.02], but there were no significant differences between men and women on the sentences task, r = -.18, n = 91, p = .06, 95% CI [-.37, .03]. Participants’ BAS FS scores were not significantly related to their emotion recognition accuracy on the faces subtask, r = .02, n = 91, p = .82, 95% CI [-.19, .23], or the sentences subtask, r = -.04, n = 91, p = .72, 95% CI [-.24, .17]. Intensity ratings. Women tended to rate emotions as more intense on the faces subtask, r = -.21, n = 91, p = .03, 95% CI [-.40, -.004], but there were no significant sex differences in intensity ratings on the sentences subtask r = -.20, n = 91, p = .03, 95% CI [-.39, .01] Participants’ BAS FS scores were negatively related to their emotion intensity ratings on the faces subtask, r = -.30, n = 91, p = .004, 95% CI [-.48, -.10], but not the sentences subtask, r = -.13, n = 91, p = .21, 95% CI [-.33, .08]. Figure 3. The relationship between participants’ BAS FS and intensity ratings across both subtasks of the PAT. References Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., & Parker, J. D. (1994). The Twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale--II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 33–40. Carver, C., & White, T. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Pictures of facial affect [slides]. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54. Gross, J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. Gross, J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291. Kotz, S. A., Kalberlah, C., Bahlmann, J., Friederici, A. D., & Haynes, J-D. (2013). Predicting vocal emotion expressions from the human brain. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1971-1981. Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., Reidel, R., Weldon, V., Kaszniak, A, & Schwartz, G. E. (1996). Impaired verbal and nonverbal emotion recognition in alexithymia. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58, 203–10. Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., Riedel, R., Shapiro, D. E., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2000). Pervasive emotion recognition deficit common to alexithymia and the repressive coping style. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, 492–501. Tull, M. T., Grazt, K. L., Latzman, R. D., Kimbrel, N. A., & Lejuez, C. W. (2014). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and emotion regulation difficulties: A multimodal investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 989-994. Vuilleumier, P., & Pourtois, G., (2007). Distributed and interactive brain mechanisms during emotion face perception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Neuropsychologia, 45, 174-194. Figure 1. Examples of stimuli from the first subtask of the PAT. A young girl wishes she was like her girlfriends and had a date for the high school dance. Figure 2. An example of a stimulus from the second subtask of the PAT.