Overview. Background. Background. Background 2/9/09. Personality & mechanisms: Goals and Behavioural inhibition and activation (BIS/BAS)

Transcription

1 Overview Personality & mechanisms: Goals and Behavioural inhibition and activation (BIS/BAS) Personality : Causes and Consequences 2009 Carver and White (1994) Carver (2004) Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz & Carver (2003) Carver, Sutton, & Scheier (2000) Background Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and Punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales Carver, C.S. and White, T.L (1994) Theory of Brain Functions and Behaviour (Gray, 1981) Two fundamental personality variables representing neurological sensitivity to environment cues Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) Anxiety proneness (sensitivity to punishment, etc). Inhibits behaviour pertaining to negative outcomes Behavioural Activation System (BAS) Impulsivity (sensitivity to reward, goals). Relates to positive outcomes. Drive toward goals. Background High BIS Anxiety or depressive symptomology. Overt sensitivity to conditioned punishment High BAS Sociopathic (dissocial) personality (overly impulsive, unable to tolerate boredom) Extreme reward responses, conduct disorders Background Eysenck (1967, cited in Heubeck et al, 1998) Extraversion relates to ascending reticular activating system Neuroticism pertains to limbic system Bridges psychophysiological research to personality (Heubeck et al, 1998) 1

2 Background Sensitivity to anxiety/reward Not experiences or general affect. Probable that people high in sensitivity actively avoid anxiety provoking situations Background Often different measures are used Combining N and E from Eysenck Personality Questionnaire E is more sociability than impulsivity. A balance between imp. and anx. Similar but not specifically designed targets (general anxiety and impulsivity traits) Scales from other models with shared but different theoretical ground Caseras et al, 2003 Introduction Previous BIS/BAS scales not fully satisfactory MacAndrew and Steele (1991) BIS only focussed on ambient anxiety not sensitivity Cloninger (1987) TPQ Punishment avoidance, novelty seeking and reward dependence But low internal consistency Aims 1. Construct BIS/BAS scales 2. Compare convergent/discriminant validities 3. Experimentally generate anxiety/reward to test predictive validity Scale Construction Focus on reaction not general existence 4 scales BIS Possibility/sensitivity of negative occurrence Criticism hurts me quite a bit BAS Drive (pursuit of goals) Fun Seeking (desire for new rewards/willingness to approach potential reward on impulse) Reward responsiveness Factor Structure 732 American undergraduates (374 Male) 4 factors accounted for 49% variance Alpha reliabilities strong ( ) Males; lower BIS and Reward Responsiveness BIS/BAS relatively independent 113 assessed 8 weeks later BIS (.66), Drive (.66), RR (.59), FS (.69) all showed re-test reliability 2

3 Convergent/Discriminant validity Compared with Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) BIS alone (+) Extraversion Scale BAS alone (+) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Fun seeking (+). Hypomania/Socialisation from California Psychological Inventory (CPI) Hypomania; drive and fun seeking (-)., CPI; BIS (+), FS (-) Convergent/Discriminant validity Compared with Life Orientation Test (opt./pess.) (LOT) BIS (-), Drive (+) Positive/Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) BIS (-), Drive, RR, FS (+) General Temperament Scale (GTS) Neg; BIS (-)., Pos: Drive, RR, FS (+)., Disinhibition; BIS (-), Drive, FS (+). Convergent/Discriminant validity Also compared with 3 similar constructs BIS sensitivity (MacAndrew and Steele, 1991) BIS (+) Susceptibility to punishment (Torrubia and Tobena, 1984) BIS (+), FS (-) TPQ (Cloninger, 1987) Novelty seeking; FS (+). Reward dependence; RR, BIS (+) Convergent/Discriminant validity Overall BIS similar but distinct from other measures/ constructs MacAndrew and Steele s (1991) BIS scale correlated with STP and TPQ harm avoidance more than current BIS Alternatives more similar to each other than BIS (which measures sensitivity) BAS differentiated into 3 factors Two Experiments To determine if BAS/BIS predicted affective reaction to cues BIS sensitivity Method 69 undergraduates (U.S) completed BIS/BAS, MAS and E scale Mood (Nervousness, 1-9) taken, then (ostensibly) pattern recognition Digit/letter strings is the last letter of each the beginning of the next string? (No) 60 seconds of cold-pressor at intro (Pun.) More mid-way (7 blocks) depending on performance after further affect taking (6; punishment ) 3

4 BIS sensitivity Results No increases in nervousness Correlation between initial nervousness and BIS/MAS separately (+) BIS alone related to later nervousness (+) BAS Sensitivity Method 90 undergraduate (U.S) Similar methodology ; good performance = experimental credit. BAS and E Overall BIS reliably predicted of nervousness change as a function of punishment cue BAS Sensitivity Results Significant increases in Correlation ; initial and E (+). No BAS effect All 4 predicted later. Controlled for initial levels, only Drive and RR within BAS predicted (+) susceptibility to reward (change). Regression showed no effect for BIS Drive then RR most predictive of change. Overall E a main effect, not a predictor of sensitivity BAS predicts reaction to reward Overall... Two Experiments BIS/BAS predicted outcomes better than alternatives Gray s predictions best tested with these measures Participants warned of cold pressor before experiment probably under-represents BIS effects due to high initial levels Heubeck et al., (1998) Follow-up studies Have more recent findings supported use of the BIS/BAS scales? Little further investigation of 1994 findings; Aimed to 1. Replicate 1994 findings Generalise beyond Americans 2. Contrast 4 factor model with alternatives 3. Examine concurrent/discriminant correlations between BIS/BAS and different approaches (Eysenck) 4

5 Heubeck et al., (1998) Method 336 Australian undergrads; completed BIS/BAS Eysenck Personality Quest. PANAS (positive/negative affect) Heubeck et al., (1998) Replication 4 components : 51.5% variance All items loaded substantially (>.48) on appropriate factors 3 BAS scales correlated in both, as did some light BIS/BAS correlations Factor models 2/3 factors showed little fit 4 factor (correlated model) improved fit Almost exact BIS/BAS internal scale intercorrelation replication Heubeck et al., (1998) BIS Independent of Extraversion and Positive Affect (in both) Negative affect had moderate correlations (in both) BAS Generally independent of Anxiety and Neuroticism (very light (-) correlations). Related to E but positive affect only weakly (in both) (should be stronger!) Gray stated E should be predicted by high BAS/low BIS and N the converse. Not found Heubeck et al., (1998) Two higher-order factors explained most variances (Positive/negative personality) E, FS, drive (BAS) and positive affectability N, BIS and negative affectability E and N loaded highest in each Overall Heubeck et al., (1998) Mixed support Replication of 4 factor model E and N didn t relate to BIS/BAS scales as Gray predicted Tapped into same higher order constructs as, and were secondary to, E and N. Caseras et al, 2003 Looked at various BIS/BAS related scales (within different assessments) as well as personality measures BIS/BAS must fit in with Gray s (1987) model Anxiety and impulsivity must be unrelated Anxiety should correlate (-) with E, (+) with N Impulsivity should correlate (+) with E and N 5

6 Caseras et al, 2003 Method 538 Spanish undergrads completed; Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) Susceptibility to Punishment Questionnaire (SPSRQ) Reward Expectancy and Punishment Expectancy (GRAPES) BIS/BAS (BIS; C & W 94., / RR, Drive, FS & Punishment expectancy ; GRAPES) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T) Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and Empathy (IVE) MS-BIS (MacAndrew and Steele, 1991) Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) Caseras et al, 2003 Method Caseras et al, 2003 Results All BIS related measures correlated (+) BAS more heterogeneous Only Novelty-Seeking and Fun-seeking/ Impulsivity were above.5 (+) Anxiety scales show little correlation with Impulsivity Caseras et al, 2003 Results BIS measures (anxiety) correlated (-) with E and (+) with N High BAS heterogeneity Only Sensitivity to Reward and Reward Dependence were (+) with E and N Caseras et al, 2003 Results (PCA) 4 factors ; 65.1% of variance (all measures) All anxiety measures and RE, N and E (-) loaded on BIS Other 3 arose from different combinations of BAS BIS showed low correlations with BAS 2 factors accounted for only 48.3% All anxiety and all BASrelated Caseras et al, 2003 Overall BIS Scales correlate strongly most are effective BAS Further suggestion of multiple underlying constructs Impulse-thrill seeking, Reward interest and Gregariousness Again, mixed support Anxiety and impulsivity must be unrelated Anxiety should correlate (-) with E, (+) with N Impulsivity should correlate (+) with E and N 6

7 Carver (2004) More about the BIS/BAS Systems...with Christian Bale Is the original BAS/BIS system a false dichotomy? What if negative affect can be found stemming from both cognitive systems? Bipolar BAS and BIS Carver s Experiments BAS Elation, Eagerness BIS Relief, Calmness Carver (2004) focuses on the negative aspects of the BAS in a series of 3 experiments: (neutral) (neutral) 1. Frustrative Nonreward 2. Anger 3. Terrorism and Anger Sadness, Depression Anxiety, Fear BIS/BAS Sensitivity Measurement In all 3 experiments, participants rated on BIS/BAS scales using Carver & White s (1994) 4 factor model: 1. BIS level 2. BAS Reward Responsiveness 3. BAS Drive 4. BAS Fun Seeking I. Frustrative Nonreward Method: Participants use their intuition to assess whether a letter Yits in to a sequence Never get it right After this frustrating experience, Yill in affect questionnaires Results: Increased negative affect did not correlate with BIS, but did with BAS:FS 7

8 II. Anger, III. Terrorism & Anger Method: Participants rated scenarios for how angry they made them feel Results: Remarkably, BAS:RR predicted anger more than BIS sensitivity (BIS was a better predictor for anxiety). BIS was also a good predictor of fear in study III. Conclusions The bipolar model appears vindicated by these (and other related) results. Anger seems to be related to negative stimulation of the approach system as opposed to the inhibition system. Carver s Theory: In situations with an incentive, falling behind on them will create anger as the reward slips out of reach conversely, in situations where there is no incentive, and failure is assured, the BIS takes over and negative affect will take the form of sadness & depression. Does anger inherently involve the sense that things can still be put right? Criticisms (I) The self report measures used by Carver may be rather dodgy: Cogswell et al. (2006): factor analysis. There is more evidence for 4 factors vs. 2 factors, but not much evidence. It is crucial that we entertain the possibility that these scales should be modiyied BAS man? Criticisms (II) The experiments use a measure of fear, but what exactly is fear? A unitary cognitive construct? Familiar ideas of Yight or Ylight, but is this an oversimpliyication? Blair et al. (2005) empirical literature strongly suggests there is no single fear system Maybe fear is an umbrella term covering several systems... Fear (incl. loathing) Not only are there different types of fear behaviour... E.g. Aversive conditioning (there s a noise associated with a shock) vs. instrumental learning (something can be done to avoid punishment)...but they have been doubly dissociated in a neuropsychological study of the amygdala in rats (Killcross et al., 2006). Central nucleus involved with aversive conditioning Basolateral nucleus involved with instrumental learning If there are separate fear systems, where does this leave the BIS part of the theory? Perhaps Carver s theory is underspeciyied? 8

9 (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) From the Abstract Action, Emotion, and Personality: Emerging Conceptual Integration Carver, Sutton, & Scheier [T]he authors map individual differences in the responsivity of the approach system onto the personality dimension of extraversion and map individual differences in the responsivity of the withdrawal system onto the dimension of neuroticism. (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Overview The authors present no new data in this study; it is a review. CS&S look at several distinct strands of literature (including their own) and argue that they all converge on the E=approach, N=avoidance perspective. They argue that the vast majority of emotional experiences derive from these same two motive or action tendencies. (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Convergent Research Programmes Concept (author) E-like N-like Appetitive and Aversive Motivational- Behavioural Systems Affective States and Frontal Lobe Activation (Davidson) Discrepancy-Reducing and Dis.-Enlarging Feedback Processes (Carver & Scheier) Self-Discrepancy Theory: Ideals and Oughts (Higgins) Positive and Negative Emotionality (Thayer, Tellegen, Watson, etc.) BAS responds to signals of reward or non-punishment. BAS causes movement towards goals. Left anterior cortical activation observed among patients presented with incentives or positive emotional adjectives. D-Reducing FP moves towards a reference point (a goal, eg career, happy marriage). Stable process. Ranges from elation depression. Self-guides motivated by ideals hopes, positive wishes. Living up to an ideal means attaining something desired. Positive affect exists as a broad factor distinct from negative affect. BIS responds to threats. The BIS acts to inhibit ongoing behaviour, reducing goalseeking behaviours. Right ACA associated with threats, unpleasant film clips, or time spent waiting to deliver a speech. D-Enlarging FP moves away from a reference point (an antigoal, eg, ridicule, getting fired). Unstable process. Ranges from fear relief & serenity. Self-guides motivated by oughts duty or obligation. Living up to an ought means avoiding a punishment. Negative affect, like PA is bipolar. Low NA associates with: calm, carefree, placid. (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Loops/Polarity (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Connection to Personality A number of people have noted that these two dimensions of positive and negative affectvity bear more than just a slight resemblance to the personality dimensions of E and N. Correlations between BIS, N, & negative emotionality, as well as BAS, E, & positive emotionality. CS&S cite the already-mentioned 1994 paper which suggests that BIS/BAS are better predictors than N/E (eg for frontal lobe activity). CS&S say that the value added from this approach to personality is to clarify which qualities should belong to which traits 9

10 (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Extraversion Redefined (slightly) Consider the possibility that extraversion is, at its core, a dimension of individual differences in the tendency to approach incentives. How does this change things? Engagement, energy, forcefulness, spontaneity, and happiness still fit nicely. Sociability and gregariousness could be based on incentives which are social. But depression (as a negative indicator) fits less well with current thinking. (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Neuroticism Redefined (slightly) Consider the possibility that neuroticism is, at its core, a dimension of individual differences in reactivity to threats. This fits well with current conceptions of N, which largely centre around anxiety, selfconsciousness, and vulnerability. But this approach suggests that hostility, depression, and impulsiveness are not central to N (eg depression should be a negative indicator of E). (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier 2000) Summary This paper only considers two of the big five in the context of reward & avoidance. But it seems that the other three personality traits should be motivated by differential incentives or punishments of some kind. Brief look at Denissen & Penke (2008), which considers the whole FFM. Motivational Individual reaction Norms Underlying the Five- Factor Model of Personality: First Steps Towards a Theory-Based Conceptual Framework. Denissen & Penke (Denissen & Penke 2008) Overview Notes criticisms of FFM that it is too descriptive, without sufficient theoretical underpinnings. Tries to remedy this by conceptualizing the FFM as stable individual differences in people s motivational reactions to circumscribed classes of environmental stimuli. Tests this with a rationally created FFM instrument: the FIRNI (Five Individual Reaction Norms Inventory). D&P review several conceptualizations of the FFM, but settle on the following structure: (Denissen & Penke 2008) Motivations Underlying the FFM Trait Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Represents individual differences in the activation of reward systems in social situations...the motivation to cooperate (vs. act selfishly) in resource conflicts. the tenacity of goal pursuit under distracting circumstances...the activation of the punishment system when faced with cues of social exclusion. the activation of reward systems when engaging in cognitive activity. 10

11 (Denissen & Penke 2008) The FIRNI D&P test their conception with the Five Individual Reaction Norms Inventory, whose items were written to tap the motivations just described (eg When I have set myself a goal I pursue it very persistently vs Sometimes I cheat when I play solitaire from the NEO-PI-R). D&P replicate the five factor structure in their factor analysis, and find that the FIRNI correlates highly with other FFM measures (eg Oliver s Big Five Inventory). Adaptive Self-Regulation of Unattainable Goals: Goal Disengagement, Goal Reengagement, and Subjective Well-Being Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz & Carver (2003) Introduction Persistent pursuit of goal attainment has been found to play an important role in adaptive self-regulation However, the processes that lead to disengagement from unattainable goals are just as important Disengaging from unattainable goals and reengaging in valued alternative goals can be very beneficial If new alternatives available, distress arising from unattainable goals can be reduced Why are some goals unattainable? Transitions in life retirement, leaving home Negative life events death of a loved one, divorce Personal resources using time and energy in pursuit of most important goals may lead to abandonment of others Benefits of disengaging from an unattainable goal The ability to withdraw effort and commitment from an unattainable goal leads to efficient self-regulation Helps avoid continuous failed experiences Helps individual recognise goal as unnecessary for satisfaction in life Frees up personal resources that may then be put into other beneficial areas of individual s life Research has shown it leads to ratings of higher subjective well-being in people with AIDS and parents of handicapped children Reengagement Involves identifying new goals, giving them value and then directing activities towards attaining them If an individual is faced with an unattainable goal and there are no alternatives then they may experience high distress Benefits of reengaging with new goals may compensate for distress of continued pursuit of unattainable goals Goal disengagement and reengagement are independent individual can disengage and only then look for an alternative or can pursue an alternative whilst still holding onto the unattainable goal 11

12 Present Study Aim: Investigate associations between goal disengagement, goal reengagement and subjective well-being Hypotheses: Individuals with a general tendency to disengage from unattainable goals will report higher levels of subjective well-being Reengagement will be beneficial to the well-being of those able to disengage from unattainable goals Reengagement will also be related to the reduction of distress in those who persist in pursuing unattainable goals Study 1 Associations in college students 115 undergraduates Disengagement measured reported ability to reduce effort and relinquish commitment to goals Reengagement tendency to identify new goals, commit to them and actively begin pursuing them General goal disengagement and reengagement both positively correlated with ease of disengagement from specific goals and availability of alternative goals at that time respectively Subjective well-being - perceived stress, purpose in life, self mastery and intrusive thoughts of problems Study 1 - Results Socio-demographic: women higher on perceived stress and intrusive thoughts, lower on self mastery Non-Caucasians higher on perceived stress, lower on purpose in life and self mastery Disengagement and Reengagement: Related independently to lower perceived stress and intrusive thoughts; higher to self mastery RE related to higher purpose of life RE related to low perceived stress and high self mastery in those who find DE difficult Highest stress and lowest self mastery in those who find both difficult Study 2 Age differences in associations 62 young adults (19-35 yrs) 58 older adults (55-89 yrs) Older adults had received more education Disengagement measured slightly differently to make completion easier and faster Reengagement same as study 1 Emotional well-being calculated affect balance score Study 2 - Results Higher levels of emotional well-being in higher educated people and men Older adults reported higher levels of emotional well-being Young adults like Study 1, RE associated with emotional well-being when DE is difficult Older adults DE related to higher emotional well-being only if it is accompanied by the tendency to RE. DE may have a negative effect on their wellbeing if there are no alternative goals to pursue However, they report finding it easier to DE and RE than the young - adjustment in goal management processes with increase of age Study 3 Specific constraints on goals 45 adults 20 parents of children undergoing treatment for cancer; 25 parents of medically healthy children Disengagement and Reengagement same as Study 2 Depressive symptomatology measure this with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) symptoms from past week 12

13 Study 3 - Results Higher education in parents => less depression High levels of RE => low levels of depression Higher levels of depression in parents of children with cancer Parents who tended to DE and RE had lower levels of depression - particularly more pronounced in parents of children with cancer Highest levels of depression reported in parents of children with cancer who had difficulties in both DE and RE. However, parents of children with cancer do not find it any easier to disengage and reengage they are at a high risk of low subjective wellbeing Strengths Results demonstrated that individual differences in ability to DE and RE are related to subjective well-being Study 3 showed that DE and RE are important for those who face challenging circumstances that may require adjustment to life goals RE is a protective factor as it helps an individual engage in pursuit of more manageable goals whilst alleviating distress caused from pursuit of unattainable goals. Personality controlled for authors believe that this demonstrates that individual differences in goal adjustment play a unique role in quality of life Limitations Need to study different populations Chronic pain vs. acute pain; early stages of illness vs. later stages of illness RE and DE may be stronger predictors of well-being in some populations Could there be a point at which the acquisition of new goals actually becomes detrimental? Causality does tendency to DE and RE actually predict well-being or is it the other way round? Although personality controlled for, associations between DE, RE and personality constructs need to be explored further. Further research Shroevers, Kraaij & Garnefski (2008) In cancer patients, less DE and RE associated with continuous thoughts about the cancer and negative aspects of it. More DE and RE related to more positive and less negative affect. Goal adjustment and cognitive emotion-regulation strategies (e.g. rumination) only account for about quarter of variance in positive and negative affect. What other factors are involved? Could not establish causality longitudinal studies may be more beneficial Cognitive strategies used stimulating an experiential form of self focus can improve mood and quality of life in patients (Carlson & Garland, 2005) possible link to openness? Need to distinguish between those who let go of goals at most appropriate time and those who withdraw too easily - possibly linked to conscientiousness? Early Links Between Mania and Goal Setting Up to 85% heritability of the risk of a first manic episode but great deal of unexplained variance in the expression of the risk. Goal-Setting and Mania Above average educational and occupational attainment in those diagnosed with mania, those with a high risk of manic symptoms, and in family members of those with manic symptoms. 9 out of 10 epidemiological studies have linked mania with higher SES, the opposite pattern to most psychiatric conditions including major depression. (Johnson, 2005) 13

14 Hypomanic symptoms associated with higher occupational positions. May be due to the socially and occupationally debilitating symptoms the higher levels of the condition. Rates of bipolar disorder were found to be 20% higher in individuals nationally recognised for creativity than in less creative individuals. Rates of bipolar disorder in biological parents, also about 20% higher but no link with mental illness in adoptive parents. The Missing Link: Risk of Mania is not associated with higher IQ Some other measurable trait may be identifiable as the expression of the Mania risk genetics Mania, even in euthymia and remission is associated with self-reported high achievement striving and emphasis on goals and perfectionism High achievement may be due to higher goal setting and to greater achievement motivation. Questions: Is heightened achievement striving and goal setting statedependant? Is higher goal setting compensation for the debilitation incurred during a manic episode? (Johnson & Carver, 2006) Goals and Mania Study 1: (Johnson & Carver 2006): Goals set rather than achievements made -Family situation / individual -Ability/ motivation 'Lifetime risk' of mania rather than clinical diagnosis or current symptoms -To avoid diagnosis bias -State-dependant symptom / stable trait Control for depression Measure traits of 'incentive sensitivity', 'drive', 'reward responsiveness', and 'threat sensitivity'. -Test achievement motivation -Physiological associations Measures: Lifetime mania risk: Hypomanic Personality Scale (HPS) Lifetime Depression risk: Inventory to Diagnose Depression Lifetime (IDD-L) Current Manic Symptoms: Self-Rating Mania Index (SRMI) Current Depression Symptoms: Short-form Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) BIS/BAS sensitivity: High Goal Setting: (WASSUP) will occur' Carver's BIS/BAS index. Four factors- Threat sensitivity (BIS) Fun seeking (BAS) Drive (BAS) Reward responsiveness (BAS) Willingly Approached Set of Statistically Unlikely Pursuits 20 goals, asked to rate 1 'definitely won't occur' to 5 'definitely Five factors (68% of variance): 1. Popular Fame 2. Educational/ occupational success 3. Financial success and 'broad fame' 4. Political power 5. Only 1 item - 'everyone you know will love you' IQ: SAT scores 14

15 Correlations of Mood Measures: Mood and BIS/BAS Sensitivity: Lifetime Depression * Current Depression (r=.38 p<.001) Current Mania * Current Depression (r= -.30 p,.001) Lifetime Mania * Lifetime Depression (r=.31 p<.001) Lifetime Mania* Current Mania (r=.17 p=.05) not expected. Mood and Goal Setting Factors: Mania Risk, Other mood Measures Controlled: Multiple Regression Analysis: BIS/BAS Sensitivity and Goal Setting Factors accounted for 38% of the variance in Mania Risk score. Largely independent contributions to variance. Study 2: Improved WASSAP: Removed ambiguity 'will occur' replaced by 'will set as a goal' Added 10 extra items including more social/interpersonal items. 7 factors found: Popular Fame Idealised family/partner relationships Positive world impact Political Power Popularity Financial success + 'Will have 50 partners in lifetime' Mix of Creativity, self-actualisation, personal fullfillment 15

16 Most of Study 1's results replicated Lifetime mania risk correlated with current manic symptoms (r=.33 p<.001) WASSAP factor 7 correlated with lifetime mania risk, due mostly to 'creative' items High mania risk participants tested separately from rest of the sample on goal factors: Higher endorsements of popular fame, political power and creativity p<.001. Goal Dysregulation and Psychopathology: Socially prescribed perfectionism associated with suicidal thinking (O'Connor & Forgan, 2007) GOALS program focusing on goals setting and reward response as a treatment for mania (Johnson & Fulford, 2008) References Carver, C.S. and White, T.L. (1994). Behavioural Inhibition, Behavioural Activation and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and Punishment : The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 67 (2), p Caseras, X., Avila, C. and Torrubia, R. (2003) The Measurement of Individual Differences in Behavioural Inhibition and Behavioural Activation Systems : A Comparison of Personality Scales. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 34, p Heubeck, B.G., Wilkinson, R.B. and Cologon, J. (1998). A Second Look at Carver and White s (1994) BIS/BAS Scales. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 25, p References Blair, J., Mitchell, D., & Blair, K. (2005) The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain. London: Blackwell Carver, C. S. (2004) Negative affects deriving from the Behavioural Approach System. Emotion, 4 (1), Cogswell, A., Alloy, L. B., van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Fresco, D. M. (2006) A psychometric evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self report measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (8), Killcross, S., Robbins, T. R., & Everitt, B. J. (1997). Different types of fear conditioned behaviour mediated by separate nuclei within amygdala. Nature 388 (6640),