1. Laboratory and Questionnaire Assessment of the BAS and BIS Craig R. Colder a, William F. Wieczorek b, Jennifer P. Read a, Larry W. Hawk, Jr. a, Liliana J. Lengua c, & Rina D. Eiden d a University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, b Buffalo State University, c University of Washington, d Research Institute on Addictions ABSTRACT METHODS This research was supported by a grant from the NIDA (R01 DA020171) awarded to Craig Colder. The content of this poster is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA. Correspondence should be addressed to: Craig R. Colder, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Park Hall, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260 Email: ccolder@buffalo.educcolder@buffalo.edu There are a limited number of measures that assess children’s individual differences in sensitivity of the behavioral approach (BAS) and inhibition systems (BIS) from Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity model. We revised a questionnaire and laboratory assessment (Colder & O’Connor, 2004) of the BAS and BIS. Factor analysis supported a two factor model with a reduced number of items relative to the original questionnaire. Performance of the laboratory task was consistent with expectation. BAS activation reduced reaction times and BIS activation slowed responding. Relatively weak relations were observed between our questionnaire assessments and the performance on the laboratory task. Associations with the EATQ-R scales supported the validity of our questionnaire assessment of the BIS/BAS. Overall, the revised questionnaire and laboratory task improved measurement of individual differences in the BAS and BIS in children, but there continues to be limited cross-method convergent validity. Background: Several models of psychopathology incorporate the behavioral approach (BAS) and behavioral Inhibition system (BIS) from Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity model (e.g., Fowles, 1994). The BIS inhibits behavior in response to punishment cues/frustrative non-reward. The BAS activates behavior in response to reward cues. Few measures assess these constructs in children. In an effort to develop multiple methods of assessing BAS and BIS functioning in children, Colder and O’Connor (2004) adapted a laboratory task (Point Scoring Reaction Time Task for Children, PSRTT-C) and a parent report questionnaire (Sensitivity to Punishment Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire for Children, SPSRQ-C). Our goal was to revise and improve our multi-method assessments in a large representative sample, and examine convergent and discriminant validity between the new SPSRQ-C, PSRTT-C, and the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire Revised (EATQ-R). Hypotheses: We expected correspondence between the SPSRQ-C and the PSRTT-C indices of BIS/BAS. Moreover, high levels of BIS were expected to be associated with high levels of EATQ-R negative affect and low levels of EATQ-R surgency, and high levels of BAS were expected to the associated with high levels of EATQ-R surgency. No hypotheses were made regarding EATQ-R effortful control. Sample: The sample was taken from a 3-year longitudinal study investigating problem behavior and substance use in adolescence, and included 10 to 13 year-olds (N = 378, mean age = 11) recruited in Erie County, New York using random-digit-dialing. Children were eligible for the study if they did not have any disabilities precluding them from understanding or completing the interviews, and were between the ages of 10-12 at the time of recruitment. The sample was evenly split on gender (52% female). The majority of the children were Caucasian (75%), 15% were Black/African-American, 3% were Hispanic, 2% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% reported another race/ethnicity. Family income ranged from 0 to $250,000 (median = $60,000). Most of the children were from two-parent families (72%). Procedures: Data collection took approximately 2½ hours and families were compensated $75. Adolescent and a caregiver (83% mothers) were interviewed in separate rooms by trained interviewers in our university offices. Measures for this poster were taken at the baseline assessment. Measures: Caregiver reports of child temperament. Caregivers completed the SPSRQ-C (Colder & O’Connor, 2004) and EATQ-R (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). The SPSRQ-C includes 48 items that assess sensitivity to punishment and reward. The EATQ-R includes 50 items that assess eight dimensions, including activation control, affiliation, attention, fear, frustration, inhibitory control, shyness, and surgency. In prior research (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001), factor analysis supported the reduction of the eight dimensions into 3 higher-order factors (effortful control, negative affect, and surgency). Point Scoring Reaction Time Task for Children Revised (PSRTT-CR). Children completed a revised version of the PSRTT-C (Colder & O’Connor, 2004). The PSRTT-CR involves 4 blocks of 50 3-s trials. The blocks are administered in a fixed order– No reward, reward, punishment, and post-punishment. In each trial, a colored circled is presented above a two-digit number, and the child’s task is to discriminate between odd/even numbers using a response box. Correct discriminations in the reward and subsequent blocks are rewarded by a variable number of points depending on reaction time (RT) (earned points = 935/RT). Incorrect discriminations result in a loss of 2 points. At the start of the task, children are told to ignore the circles. Before the punishment block, children are told that responding when a red circle appears will lead to a loss of 50% of total points. Thus, red circles are a cue for punishment. Of the 50 trials, 5 include a red circle (aversive trials). Prior to initiating the post-punishment block, children are told that a red circle will not result in point loss, and they should respond during these trials. Declines in RTs from the no reward to reward blocks indicate BAS activation. Slowing of RTs during aversive (red circle trials) relative to appetitive trials (trials that immediately precede the red circle trials) from the post-punishment block indicate BIS activation. BACKGROUND & Hypotheses CONCLUSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and CONTACT INFORMATION The goal of this study was to revise our parent questionnaire (SPSRQ-C) and laboratory task (PSRTT-CR) assessment of individual differences in BAS and BIS. In our previous work (O’Connor & Colder, 2004), we found the BAS scale to have a multi-factorial structure, which had no theoretical basis. In our current analysis, we forced a two-factor solution and substantially reduced the item pool, resulting in two theoretically coherent scales that were internally consistent and orthogonal. Moreover, associations with the EATQ-R supported validity of the SPSRQ-C scales The original PSRTT-C did not include a no reward block, and thus potentially confounded BAS activation with BIS activation. The PSRTT-CR addressed this limitation, and results suggested speeded responding with the introduction of reward (BAS activation), and slowed responding with the presentation of punishment cues (BIS activation). As commonly found, there was limited evidence for cross-method association. This may be attributable to one method being a better measure of BAS/BIS. For example, parents may not be good reporters of behavior reflective of BAS/BIS functioning, or the laboratory task may provide too circumscribed an assessment of trait levels of BAS/BIS. It is also possible that each measure reflects different aspects of BAS/BIS functioning, yet need further refinement to demonstrate that they are assessing the same construct. Citations Colder, C. R., & O’Connor, R. M. (2004). Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity model and child psychopathology: laboratory and questionnaire assessment of the BAS and BIS. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 435-451. Fowles, D. C. (1994). A motivational theory of psychopathology. In W. D. Spaulding (Ed.) Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (pp. 181-205). NY: Plenum Press. Ellis, L. K. & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. A poster Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN, April 19-22. 1.Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the SPSRQ-C. A two-factor orthogonal solution was specified based on theory, and 27 items were deleted due to weak standardized factor loadings (<.40). The final solution resulted in a 13 item sensitivity to punishment scale and an 8 item sensitivity to reward scale. (Table 1). 2.Random effects regressions were used to examine BAS activation (the impact of introducing reward on RTs) and BIS activation (slowed RTs in response to aversive compared to appetitive trials during the post-punishment block) during the PSRTT-CR (Table 2). 3.OLS regressions were used to examine the relationship between SPSRQ-C scales and BAS/BIS activation during the PSRTT-CR (Table 3). 4.OLS regressions were used to examine the relationship between the EATQ-R scales and BAS/BIS activation during the PSRTT-CR (Table 4). 5.OLS regressions were used to examine the relationship between the SPSRQ-C and EATQ-R (Table 5). RESULTS Table 1. Standardized factor loadings and communalities from principal factors exploratory factor analysis of the SPSRQ-C Item Sensitivity to Punishment Sensitivity to reward h2h2 Your child is often afraid of new or unexpected situations.67-.01.46 In unfamiliar tasks, your child worries about failure.41.12.18 Your child is a shy person.63-.19.43 Whenever possible, your child avoids demonstrating their skills for fear of being embarrassed.64.21.45 When in a group, your child has difficulty thinking of something to say.62.01.37 It bothers your child to tell a store clerk that he/she was given the wrong change.42-.03.18 Whenever he/she can, your child avoids going to unfamiliar places.45.05.20 It is difficult for your child to talk with someone they do not know.54-.09.30 Your child generally tries to avoid speaking in groups.70-.06.50 Your child could do more things if it were not for his/her fear.71.09.51 Your child is afraid of many things compared to other children their age.59.13.37 Your child often refrains from doing something he/she likes in order not to be rejected or disapproved of by others.41.12.48 Your child often refrains from doing something because of fear of being embarrassed.68.23.22 Your child enjoys being the center of attention -.32.44.30 When your child is in a group, they try to stand out as the smartest or the funniest -.28.48.31 The possibility of obtaining social status moves your child to action, even if this involves not playing fair.10.56.32 Your child generally prefers activities that involve immediate reward.12.60.37 Your child often has trouble resisting the temptation of doing forbidden things.17.50.28 Your child sometimes does things for quick reward -.02.54.29 Your child has difficulty staying focused on his/her school work in the presence of an attractive alternative.09.47.23 Your child engages in risky behavior to obtain a reward.06.55.31 Percent variance 63%31% Cronbach’s alpha.86.74 Notes: Highest loading for each item is bolded. Response options were 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree nor disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree. Solution based on varimax rotation. Items were averaged for subsequent analysis, and the scales were independent (r =.06, p >.05). Table 2. Unstandardized coefficients (SE) from random effects regression models predicting reaction times (RTs) in milliseconds from the PSRTT-CR a EffectModel testing SR b Model testing SP c Intercept 821.53* (29.85)675.77* (35.98) Age d -52.93* (10.93) -61.19* (12.85) Gender (0=male, 1=female) 39.54* (18.54) 48.78* (22.37) Error rate d -103.67* (80.17) -724.17* (152.00) Condition Contrast No reward (0) vs. reward (1) -100.84* (6.37) Appetitive (0) vs. aversive (1) 75.21* (8.74) Notes: a Models included a random intercept, and fixed effects estimates are based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation. b SR=sensitivity to reward. c SP=sensitivity to punishment. d Variable was centered at the sample mean to facilitate interpretation of the intercept. * p <.05. Table 3. Standardized coefficients for regression models with SPSRQ-C scales predicting PSRTT-CR reaction times (RT) from reward block and aversive trials (red circle trials) of the post-punishment block EffectDV=RT during Reward BlockDV=RT during post-punishment Aversive Trials Age-.06-.11* Gender.13*-.02* Error rate-.07*-.19* RT control variable No Reward RT.77* Appetitive Trial RT.71* SP a.06*.03 SR b.07*.01 Model R 2.66.62 Notes: a SP=SPSRQ-C sensitivity to punishment. b SR=SPSRQ-C sensitivity to reward. * p <.05. Table 4. Standardized coefficients for regression models predicting EATQ-R scales EffectDV=Effortful ControlDV=SurgencyDV=Negative Affect Age-.04-.02-.07 Gender (0=male, 1=female).09*.08 SP a -.20*-.67*.43* SR b -.58*.16*.25* Model R 2.41.47.26 Note: a SP=SPSRQ-C senstivity to punishment. b SR=SPSRQ-C sensitivity to reward. * p <.05. Examination of the 1 st -order scales of negative affect suggested that SP predicted fear and frustration. High levels of SP were associated with high levels of fear and frustration. SR predicted only frustration. High levels of SR were associated with high levels of frustration. Table 5. Standardized coefficients for regression models with EATQ-R scales predicting PSRTT-CR reaction times (RT) from reward block and aversive trials (red circle trials) of the post-punishment block EffectDV=RT during Reward Block DV=RT during post-punishment Aversive Trials Age-.06*-.11* Gender (0=male, 1=female).14*-.03 Error rate-.07*-.19* RT control variable No Reward RT.77* Appetitive Trial RT.71* Effortful control-.07*-.01 Surgency-.03.03 Negative Affect.02.04 Model R 2.60.62 Notes: * p <.05.