1. Figure 3. Regression analysis with standardized beta weights. Panksepp (1998) identifies seven basic emotional systems found across mammalian species, including SEEKING, ANGER, FEAR, PANIC/LOSS/GRIEF, LUST, PLAY, and CARE and discusses their role as primary affective systems in humans. Davis and Panksepp (2003) developed the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS) as a measure to tap the presence and strength of these systems in individuals. The ANPS has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Davis & Panksepp, 2011), but does not include a measure of the LUST system out of a concern as to whether it is a primary system and the potential defensiveness individuals might have in responding to questions concerning sexuality. ANPS validation has primarily focused on convergence with other personality self report instruments (e.g., NEO-PI, Costa & McCrae). The present study contributes to the validation research and includes a scale that could tap the LUST system, the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI-2: Spector, Carey, & Steinberg, 1996). To determine whether the ANPS relates to a broad measure of affect, we administered the Need for Affect Scale (Maio & Esses, 2001). In order to address potential socially desirable responding, the present study included a measure of selective responding—the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) (Paulhus & Reid, 1991). Socially desirable responding in the context of self-report assessment measures of psychological constructs refers to attempts by participants to wittingly and unwittingly present themselves in a favorable light and to refrain from presenting themselves in an unfavorable light. The BIDR assesses respondents’ tendencies towards Impression Management, in which the subject intentionally responds in ways that might present themselves in a favorable light others, and Self- Deceptive Enhancement, in which the subject appears to be convinced they possess more positive qualities than is realistic (Paulhus, 1984). Method Conclusions What’s Love Got To Do With It? The Affect Neuroscience Personality Scales, Need for Affect, and Sexual Desire Inventory Maria Christoff, B.A., Hayley Lotter, B.A., and Barry Dauphin, Ph.D. University of Detroit Mercy Bibliography The present study administered the ANPS, NFA, SDI and BIDR to 166 individuals across the United States. Measures were collected via LimeSurvey, an online data collection format. 1.Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO PI- R) and NEO Five—Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 2.Davis, K., Panksepp, J., Normansell, L., 2003. The affective neuroscience personality scales: normative data and implications. Neuropsychoanalysis 5 (1), 57–69. 3.Davis, K.L. & Panskepp, J. (2011). The brain’s emotional foundations of human personality and the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 35, 1964-1958. 4.Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of personality, 69(4), 583- 614.Panskepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 5.Paulhus, D.L. & Reid, D.B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307-317. 6.Spector, I. P., Carey, M. P., & Steinberg, L. (1996). The Sexual Desire Inventory: Development, factor structure, and evidence of reliability. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 22(3), 175-190 Several ANPS scales significantly correlate with measures of Approach, Avoidance and Total Need for Affect (NFA) (see Figure 1). Stepwise Multiple Regression analyses were run with ANPS and BIDR as predictors to Approach, Avoidance, and Total Need for Affect, respectively. CARE and GRIEF/LOSS emerged as predictors of NFA: Approach. SEEK, CARE, Self Deceptive Enhancement, and RAGE emerged as predictors of NFA: Avoid. Self Deceptive Enhancement, RAGE, and SEEK emerged as predictors of NFA: Total Need for Affect (See Figure 2). The ANPS shows convergence with a measure of investment in affective experiences. Additionally, Multiple Regression Analyses revealed SEEK and RAGE to be significant predictors of SDI-2: Dyadic. SEEK, Spirituality, RAGE and FEAR were revealed to be significant predictors of SDI-2: Solitary. SEEK, RAGE, and FEAR emerged as significant predictors of SDI-2: Total (See Figure 3). The present study shows that the ANPS is meaningfully related to another measure of broad affective tendencies, providing further evidence for the utility of the measure. It is also shown that the sexual desire is meaningfully related to other affect systems in terms of the participants’ overall need for affect as well as to the other affect systems identified by Davis and Panskepp. Specifically, emotional orientation towards curiosity and inquisitiveness about the environment as well as an emotional orientation towards anger predicts sexual desire towards a partner. Emotional systems of seeking, care, spirituality, and anger, were shown to predict solitary sexual desire orientations. Finally, emotional systems oriented towards curiosity, anger, and fear appear to predict the overall sexual desire. It is recommended that Panksepp revise the ANPS to include a measure of the LUST system. The ANPS has obtained incremental validity as being related to broad measures of the need for affect. Limitations of the Study Gender distribution of current is uneven, which limits generalizability of findings. SDI was not theoretically designed to measure the LUST system, although it appears consistent with the conceptual understanding of this system. Online data collection process is different from the data collection process of Davis & Panksepp (2011). Introduction Results Figure 2. Regression analysis with standardized beta weights. Figure 1. Correlations between BIDR, SDI, NFA, and ANPS. *p<.05, **p<.001 ANPS & BIDR Need for Affect ANPS & BIDR Sexual Desire Inventory-2