Psychometric properties of Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales in a large sample of offenders

Abstract

Contemporary motivational theories of psychopathy (Lykken, 1995) employ constructs from Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST; Gray, 1982), behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) functioning, to explain etiologic differences in psychopathy subtypes. Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales are the most widely used measures of these constructs, yet there is a dearth of research on how these measures perform with offenders. Using a sample of 1,515 offenders, we found evidence that five, rather than the usual four factors, underpin the BIS/BAS scales. Importantly, BIS items that tap into anxiety and fear sensitivity, respectively, split to form separate factors, yielding a structure that is more consistent with the revised (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) than with the earlier version of RST. Implications for the use of the BIS/BAS scales to study psychopathy in offenders are discussed.

Psychometric properties of three personality inventories translated to Sinhalese

“…The reversed-scored BIS item, "I have very few fears compared to my friends" was not significant and had poor factor loading. Similar findings for this item have been reported in other studies (36,37,38,39) which found this item (and the other reverse-scored BIS items) problematic in their studies involving adolescent, clinical and offender samples. Poythress and colleagues (39) suggested this item and the other reverse-scored BIS item "Even if something bad is about to happen to me, I rarely experience fear or nervousness" may explore a different aspect of behavioural inhibition.…”

The role of Gray’s revised RST in the P–psychopathy continuum: The relationships of Psychoticism with a lack of fear and anxiety, and increased impulsivity

“…This work will be published, and will draw upon the current MS. Indeed, the data presented in the current MS, in themselves, offer some support for the validity of the Heym et al (2008) Poythress et al, 2008, and a rebuttal by Newman & Malterer, 2008) We agree -the C&W scales are certainly not without their critics, and while we would certainly not hold the C&W scales up as a gold standard for the measurement of the revised RST, we hope that there is merit in using the Heym et al (2008) version of the existing C&W scales in order for comparability with other studies using the old conceptualisation of the scales. As a result, we now say (on page 5, para 2 of the revised MS), 'The Carver and White (1994) scales are the most commonly used instruments to measure RST constructs and as a result, the findings of the current study will be comparable across findings in the wider literature'.…”

“…These groups of items did appear to identify separate factors in the CFAs used by Heym et al, but the present authors present no evidence that this disaggregation of BIS items has been replicated elsewhere (and two other investigations -Johnson et al (2003) and Poythress et al (2008) …”

“…This structure was a better fit to the data than the unitary BIS scale or an alternative structure (e.g. Johnson, Turner & Iwata, 2003;Poythress, Skeem, Weir, Lilienfeld, Douglas, Edens & Kennealy, 2008) and demonstrated good internal reliability and discriminant validity with regards to Eysenck's PEN. The Carver and White (1994) scales are the most commonly used instruments to measure RST constructs and as a result, the findings of the current study will be comparable across findings in the wider literature.…”

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaires: Structural survey with recommendations

“…From the perspective of RST, the major problem with this questionnaire is the lack of separation of FFFS and BIS. Although the Carver and White (1994) BIS scale was developed with only one general avoidance system in mind, following a theoretical decomposition of the scale , recent studies report that two factors may be extracted, specifically relating to FFFS (fear) and BIS (anxiety) (e.g., Beck, Smits, Claes, Vandereychen, & Bijttebier, 2009;Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008;Poythress et al, 2008). However, a problem with this research is that the putative FFFS-fear subscale has only a few items (2 or 3, depending on the study), which are reverse-keyed ones, suggesting the possibility that, without further support, their differentiation from BIS items may be a measurement artefact unrelated to substantive content.…”