Behavioural inhibition and valuation of gain/loss are neurally distinct from approach/withdrawal

Gain or omission/termination of loss produces approach; while loss or omission/termination of gain produces withdrawal. Control of approach/withdrawal motivation is distinct from valuation of gain/loss and does not entail learning – making “reward” and “punishment” ambiguous. Approach-withdrawal goal conflict engages a neurally distinct Behavioural Inhibition System, which controls “anxiety” (conflict/passive avoidance) but not “fear” (withdrawal/active avoidance)

Survival circuits and risk assessment

Risk assessment (RA) behaviour is unusual in the context of survival circuits. An external object elicits eating, mating or fleeing; but conflict between internal approach and withdrawal tendencies elicits RA-specific behaviour that scans the environment for new information to bring closure. Recently rodent and human threat responses have been compared using ‘predators’ that can be real (e.g. a tarantula), robot, virtual, or symbolic (with the last three rendered predatory by the use of shock). ‘Quick and dirty’ survival circuits in the periaqueductal grey, hypothalamus, and amygdala control external RA behaviour. These subcortical circuits activate, and are partially inhibited by, higher-order internal RA processes (anxiety, memory scanning, evaluation and sometimes — maladaptive rumination) in the ventral hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex

Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United Kingdom: A personality-based perspective on concerns and intention to self-isolate

Objectives Public behaviour change is necessary to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID‐19). Based on the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) framework, this study presents an examination of individual differences in some relevant psychological factors. Design Cross‐sectional psychometric. Methods UK respondents (N = 202) completed a personality questionnaire (RST‐PQ), measures of illness attitudes, concerns about the impact of coronavirus on health services and socio‐economic infrastructures, personal safety, and likelihood of voluntary self‐isolation. Results Respondents most concerned were older, had negative illness attitudes, and scored higher on reward reactivity (RR), indicating the motivation to take positive approach action despite prevailing worry/anxiety. Personal safety concerns were highest in those with negative illness attitudes and higher fight–flight–freeze system (FFFS, reflecting fear/avoidance) scores. Results suggest people are experiencing psychological conflict: between the urge to stay safe (FFFF‐related) and the desire to maintain a normal, pleasurable (RR‐related) life. Ways of ameliorating conflict may include maladaptive behaviours (panic buying), reflecting reward‐related displacement activity. Intended self‐isolation related to FFFS, but also low behavioural inhibition system (related to anxiety) scores. Older people reported themselves less likely to self‐isolate. Conclusions Interventions need to consider individual differences in psychological factors in behaviour change, and we discuss relevant literature to inform policy makers and communicators

The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and Validation

We report the development and validation of a questionnaire measure of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (rRST) of personality. Starting with qualitative responses to defensive and approach scenarios modeled on typical rodent ethoexperimental situations, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) revealed a robust 6-factor structure: 2 unitary defensive factors, fight–flight–freeze system (FFFS; related to fear) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS; related to anxiety); and 4 behavioral approach system (BAS) factors (Reward Interest, Goal-Drive Persistence, Reward Reactivity, and Impulsivity). Theoretically motivated thematic facets were employed to sample the breadth of defensive space, comprising FFFS (Flight, Freeze, and Active Avoidance) and BIS (Motor Planning Interruption, Worry, Obsessive Thoughts, and Behavioral Disengagement). Based on theoretical considerations, and statistically confirmed, a separate scale for Defensive Fight was developed. Validation evidence for the 6-factor structure came from convergent and discriminant validity shown by correlations with existing personality scales. We offer the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire to facilitate future research specifically on rRST and, more broadly, on approach-avoidance theories of personality

Supplemental Material for The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and Validation

We report the development and validation of a questionnaire measure of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (rRST) of personality. Starting with qualitative responses to defensive and approach scenarios modeled on typical rodent ethoexperimental situations, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) revealed a robust 6-factor structure: 2 unitary defensive factors, fight–flight–freeze system (FFFS; related to fear) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS; related to anxiety); and 4 behavioral approach system (BAS) factors (Reward Interest, Goal-Drive Persistence, Reward Reactivity, and Impulsivity). Theoretically motivated thematic facets were employed to sample the breadth of defensive space, comprising FFFS (Flight, Freeze, and Active Avoidance) and BIS (Motor Planning Interruption, Worry, Obsessive Thoughts, and Behavioral Disengagement). Based on theoretical considerations, and statistically confirmed, a separate scale for Defensive Fight was developed. Validation evidence for the 6-factor structure came from convergent and discriminant validity shown by correlations with existing personality scales. We offer the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire to facilitate future research specifically on rRST and, more broadly, on approach-avoidance theories of personality