Personality traits of the behavioural approach and inhibition systems: associations with processing...

Personality traits of the behavioural approach and inhibitionsystems: associations with processing of emotional stimuli

Andre Gomez, Rapson Gomez*

School of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities University of Ballarat, University Drive,

Mount Helen, Ballarat, 3353, Victoria, Australia

Received 14 February 2001; received in revised form 8 May 2001

Abstract

This study examined the relationships of the traits associated with Gray’s behavioural approach system(BAS) and behavioural inhibition system (BIS) with cognitive processing of emotional information. Initi-ally, participants completed questionnaires covering trait impulsivity and anxiety, and BAS and BIS sen-sitivities. They were then tested individually. After completing a questionnaire of current positive andnegative moods, they completed three tasks measuring processing of pleasant, unpleasant and neutralinformation. Consistent with Gray’s theory, the results showed that impulsivity and BAS sensitivity wereassociated with the processing of pleasant information, while anxiety and BIS sensitivity were associatedwith the processing of unpleasant information. These findings imply that Gray’s BAS–BIS theory can beextended to cognitive processing of emotional information. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved.

Keywords: Gray’s theory; Trait anxiety; Trait impulsivity; BIS and BAS Sensitivities; Emotional stimuli processing

Gray (1970, 1981, 1987) has proposed a biological model of personality, involving a beha-vioural approach system (BAS) and a behavioural inhibition system (BIS). These systems have inturn been associated with positive and negative affect, respectively (Gray, 1970; Tellegen, 1985;Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). Numerous studies that have examined the factorsassociated with cognitive processing of emotional stimuli (or stimuli that have emotional content)have shown that individuals preferentially process emotional stimuli that are congruent in emo-tional tone with their current mood state (mood-congruency hypothesis; Bower, 1991). Morerecently, studies have shown that individuals also preferentially process emotional stimuli that are

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0191-8869(01 )00119-2

Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1299–1316

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-3-53279760; fax: +61-3-53279840.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Gomez).

congruent in emotional tone with their stable personality traits (trait-congruency hypothesis;Rusting, 1998). Viewed in the context of Gray’s theory, the mood-congruency and trait-con-gruency hypotheses raise the possibility that the personality ‘‘traits’’ thought to be associated withthe BAS and the BIS would be useful predictors of selective processing of pleasant and unplea-sant emotional information. At present, this area has received little empirical attention. A majoraim of this study was to examine how traits that have been linked to the BAS and the BIS predictselective processing of pleasant and unpleasant emotional stimuli.As already noted, one approach towards understanding cognitive processing of emotional

information has been the mood-congruency hypothesis (Bower, 1991; Rusting, 1998). The mood-congruency hypothesis suggests that a positive mood state will be associated with bias for morepleasant perception, attention, interpretation and judgment of emotional information, and alsorecall of more pleasant materials from memory. In contrast, a negative mood state will be asso-ciated with bias for more unpleasant perception, attention, interpretation and judgment of emo-tional information, and also recall of more unpleasant materials from memory. A major theorythat has influenced the mood-congruency hypothesis is Bower’s (1981, 1991) network theory ofaffect. According to this theory, an emotion is represented by a corresponding emotion node. Anemotion node is basically a cognitive network composed of memories and cognitions related tothat particular emotion. The theory suggests that activation of a particular emotion node, by therelevant emotion, will evoke emotion-related attention, perception, memory, interpretation, andjudgment.Existing data do indeed provide strong support for mood-congruency effects (Blacey, 1986;

Bower, 1991; Rusting, 1998). Many of the studies in this area have used memory tasks, involvingfree recall of previously presented stimuli (e.g. words) varying in emotional content. Consistentwith the mood-congruency hypothesis, such studies have generally shown that when positivemood was induced, individuals recalled more pleasant than unpleasant stimuli, and when nega-tive mood was induced, they recalled more unpleasant than pleasant stimuli (Bower, Gilligan, &Monteiro, 1981; Bower & Mayer, 1989; Clark & Teasdale, 1985; Laird, Wagener, Halal, &Szegda, 1982; Nasby, 1994). Mood-congruent effects have also been examined on the basis ofinterpretation of emotionally ambiguous stimuli (incomplete words, stories, and pictures). Suchstudies have generally shown that, with positive mood induction, individuals rated ambiguous(and also pleasant and unpleasant) stimuli as more pleasant. With negative mood induction,individuals rated ambiguous (and also pleasant and unpleasant) stimuli as more unpleasant(Rule, Taylor, & Dobbs, 1987; Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998; Weintraub, Segal, & Beck,1974). Similarly, when people were presented with a word or letter of a word and asked torespond with the first word that came to their mind, individuals in a positive mood providedmore positive valenced words, and those in a negative mood provided more negative valencedwords (Mayer & Hanson, 1995; Mayer, McCormick, & Strong, 1995; Mayer & Volanth, 1985).Also, individuals in a positive mood overestimated the probability of positive life events, whileindividuals in a negative mood overestimated the probability of negative life events (Johnson &Tversky, 1983; Wright & Bower, 1992).It has already been noted that another approach for understanding the cognitive processing of

emotional information is the trait-congruency hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that emo-tional processing is influenced by certain personality traits. Such traits are thought to predisposeindividuals to process information that is congruent with the traits (Bargh, Lombardi, & Higgins,

1300 A. Gomez, R. Gomez / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1299–1316

1988; King & Sorrentino, 1988; von Hippel, Hawkins, & Narayan, 1994). Rusting (1998) hasargued that Bower’s (1981, 1991) network theory of affect can also explain the trait-congruencyhypothesis, in that individuals could differentially develop different emotion nodes due to theirheightened susceptibility to different emotions, arising from different levels of different traits. Thetrait-congruency hypothesis implies that the personality dimensions associated with positive andnegative moods would be useful predictors of selective processing of emotional information.One major personality theory that has been linked to positive and negative moods is that pro-

posed by Gray (1970, 1981, 1987). In Gray’s theory, personality is thought to reflect individualdifferences in two biological systems, the BIS, and the BAS. In Gray’s theory, the BIS and theBAS are linked to different types of reinforcements. The BIS is thought to be sensitive to signalsof punishment, frustrative nonreward and novelty, and its activation is thought to decrease theindividual’s behaviours toward such stimuli. The BAS is believed to be sensitive to signals ofreward and nonpunishment, and its activation is thought to increase one’s approach behaviourstoward these stimuli. Gray (1970, 1981, 1987) and others (e.g. Carver & White, 1994; Tomarken& Keener, 1998; Tellegen, 1985; Watson et al., 1999) have proposed that the BIS and the BAS areassociated with negative and positive mood states, respectively.If, as proposed, the BIS and the BAS are associated with negative and positive mood states

respectively (Carver & White, 1994; Gray, 1970, 1981, 1987; Tomarken & Keener, 1998; Tellegen,1985; Watson et al., 1999), then, based on Rustings (1998) extension of Bower’s network theoryof affect, it can be expected that personality traits linked to these activation systems should alsobe associated with selective cognitive processing of emotional stimuli (trait-congruency hypoth-esis). More specifically, personality traits associated with the BIS should be associated with a biastowards processing unpleasurable or negative emotional information, while personality traitsassociated with the BAS should be biased towards processing pleasurable or positive emotionalinformation.Several related but different traits have been proposed for the BIS and the BAS. A number of

researchers have suggested that for mood-related studies, the BIS and BAS can be examinedusing neuroticism and extraversion, respectively (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989, 1991; Rogers &Revelle, 1998; Watson et al., 1999). Existing data show that neuroticism is associated positivelywith unpleasant emotional processing, while extraversion is associated positively with pleasantemotional processing (Bradley & Mogg, 1994; Campbell, Chew, & Scratchley, 1991; Darvill &Johnson, 1991; De Pascalis & Speranza, 2000; Derryberry & Reed, 1994; Desrosiers & Robin-son, 1992; Lishman, 1972; Martin, Ward, & Clark, 1983; Reed & Derryberry, 1995; Rogers &Revelle, 1998; Rusting, 1998, 1999; Rusting & Larsen, 1998). Rusting (1999) and Rusting andLarsen (1998) have interpreted their findings as supporting the view that the BIS and BAS areassociated with cognitive processing of pleasant and unpleasant emotional information proces-sing, respectively. However, as neither neuroticism nor extraversion are traits that are thought tobe directly and independently linked to Gray’s activation systems (Gray, 1970, 1981), theirargument is limited.According to Gray (1970, 1981, 1987), the trait reflecting the BIS is trait anxiety, and the trait

reflecting the BAS is trait impulsivity. Traditionally, trait anxiety and trait impulsivity have beengenerally viewed in terms of the levels of actual experienced anxiety and impulsivity, respectively.In Gray’s theory (1970, 1981, 1987), the BIS and the BAS are related to sensitivities rather thanactual behaviours. In view of this, Carver and White (1994) have argued that measurements of

A. Gomez, R. Gomez / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1299–1316 1301

actual experienced anxiety or impulsivity are not appropriate reflections of the BIS or BASactivities. This is because a person who is sensitive to anxiety might avoid anxiety provokingsituations and thereby show less experience of anxiety, or a person who is sensitive to impulsivitymight avoid impulsivity provoking situations and thereby show less experience of impulsivity.According to Carver and White (1994), the traits related to the BIS and the BAS need to tapsensitivities to anxiety and impulsivity, rather than actual experienced anxiety and impulsivity.With this in mind, Carver and White (1994) developed the BIS/BAS Scales. The BIS Scale mea-sures sensitivity regarding anxiety provoking events, while the BAS Scale (comprising the sub-scales of reward responsiveness, drive, and fun-seeking) measures sensitivity to events that couldpotentially induce impulsive responses.Consistent with predictions made from the trait-congruency hypothesis, there are data showing

that, when compared to individuals low in trait anxiety, individuals high in trait anxiety are fasterin responding to negative emotional cues (M. W. Eysenck & Byrne, 1994), and take longer toname colors of negative emotional words (MacLeod & Hagan, 1992; MacLeod & Rutherford,1992; Richards, French, Johnson, Naparstek, & Williams, 1992; Richards & Millwood, 1989).High anxiety individuals also respond faster to probes that appear above threatening wordscompared to non-threatening words when both threatening and non-threatening words are pre-sented together (Broadbent & Broadbent, 1988; MacLeod & Mathews, 1988; MacLeod, Math-ews, & Tata, 1986; Mogg, Mathews, & Eysenck, 1992). High trait anxiety individuals also judgepleasant, unpleasant and ambiguous stimuli as more negative (Kverno, 2000; MacLeod & Cohen,1993; Richards & French, 1992; Richards, Reynolds, & French, 1993), recall and recognise morenegative words than neutral words (Breck & Smith, 1983; Claeys, 1989; Cloitre & Liehowitz,1991; M. W. Eysenck & Byrne, 1994; O’Banion & Arkowitz, 1977), and estimate greater fre-quencies for threatening words than nonthreatening words (Kverno, 2000). Overall, therefore,there is evidence that the BIS related trait of anxiety is related to selective processing of emotionalinformation. This raises the possibility that the other traits that are associated with the BAS andthe BIS may also be related to selective processing of emotional information. However, apartfrom trait anxiety, there are no data on how impulsivity, and BAS and BIS sensitivities are relatedto cognitive processing of emotional information. Such studies would enable an extension ofGray’s theory to cognitive areas.As the BAS and the BIS related traits are thought to be associated with mood states, and as

mood states are also associated with selective processing of emotional information, it is possiblethat the proposed relationships between the BAS and the BIS related traits with selective pro-cessing of emotional information could actually be from the ‘‘hidden’’ influence of mood stateson selective processing of emotional information. Recent studies have shown that when naturalmood is involved (i.e. where a person’s mood is not manipulated or induced experimentally, but issimply measured prior to completing the cognitive tasks), personality dimensions and not moodstates predict emotional information processing (Rusting, 1999; Rusting & Larsen, 1998). Thesefindings raise the possibility that under natural mood (typical of a person’s daily experience), theBAS related traits (and not positive mood) predict pleasant processing of emotional cues, and theBIS related traits (and not negative mood) predict unpleasant processing of emotional cues. Thesefindings also suggest that experimental paradigms involving natural mood are more appropriatewhen examining how the BAS and the BIS related traits are associated with pleasant andunpleasant emotional information processing.


The aim of the current study was to examine how trait anxiety and impulsivity, and BIS andBAS sensitivities (each pair treated separately) predict the processing of pleasant, unpleasant andneutral emotional information. These relationships were examined under a natural mood condi-tion. Although there is evidence that natural mood may not predict selective emotional informa-tion processing, the participants’ current mood states were nevertheless controlled statistically toremove even the slightest possible influence of mood states on the trait-emotional informationprocessing relationships examined. It was hypothesized that for trait impulsivity and anxiety,only impulsivity would predict pleasant emotional information processing, while only anxietywould predict unpleasant emotional information processing. Also, impulsivity would not predictunpleasant and neutral emotional information processing, and anxiety would not predict pleasantand neutral emotional information processing. For BAS and BIS sensitivities, only BAS sensi-tivity would predict pleasant emotional information processing, while BIS sensitivity would pre-dict unpleasant emotional information. BAS sensitivity would not predict unpleasant and neutralemotional information processing, and BIS sensitivity would not predict pleasant and neutralemotional information processing.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

Participants were recruited from the University of Ballarat through leaflets, and notices placedon noticeboards of the University. The notice provided a plain language statement of the project,including information on what the participant would be asked to do. Individuals wishing toparticipate were asked to contact the researcher (A.G.). Only individuals who provided writtenconsent were included in the study.The participants comprised 163 individuals, of whom 83 were first year psychology students

seeking experimental participation credit points. Participants ranged from 18 to 42 years, with amean age of 23.20 (S.D.=5.95). There were 77 male and 86 female participants. The mean age forthe male participants was 23.87 years (S.D.=5.93), and 22.59 years (S.D.=5.94) for female par-ticipants. Males and females did not differ significantly for age, t (161)=1.31, ns.

1.2. Measures

The measures included a number of personality questionnaires, a mood questionnaire and threelaboratory tasks for measuring emotional information processing. The personality questionnairesincluded the impulsivity items of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; H. J. Eysenck &Eysenck, 1964; Revelle, Humphreys, Simons, & Gilliland, 1980), the State-Trait Anxiety Inven-tory Form Y-2 (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), and the BIS/BASScales (Carver & White, 1994). The Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS; Watson,Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to measure mood. The participants’ processing of emotionalinformation was assessed through three laboratory tasks, developed by Rusting and Larsen(1998). These were a word-fragmentation task, a word recognition task, and a free word recalltask.


1.2.1. Eysenck Personality InventoryThe Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) is a 57-item ‘‘yes’’

(scored 1)/ ‘‘no’’ (scored 0) questionnaire, and provides scores for extraversion and neuroticism.Higher scores indicate higher levels of the relevant personality dimension. The extraversion scaleof the EPI has a valid subscale for measuring trait impulsivity (Revelle et al., 1980), and has beenused in past studies to measure trait impulsivity (Revelle et al., 1980; Rogers & Revelle, 1998;Zinbarg & Mohlman, 1998). This impulsivity scale was used in the current study to measure traitimpulsivity. It has nine items, such as ‘‘Longs for excitement’’, and ‘‘Often does things on the spurof the moment’’. In terms of its validity, the EPI impulsivity scale correlates highly with otherestablished measures of trait impulsivity (Rocklin & Revelle, 1981). The internal consistency(Cronbach’s a) of this scale for the sample in this study was 0.67.

1.2.2. State-trait anxiety inventory form Y-2The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2 (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1983) has 20 items

measuring trait anxiety and 20 items measuring state anxiety (e.g. ‘‘I feel nervous and restless’’).This study used the trait scale as the measure of trait anxiety. Each item is rated on a Likert scale,ranging from 1 (‘‘almost never’’) to 4 (‘‘almost always’’), with higher scores indicating higheranxiety. Spielberger et al. (1983) have provided ample data supporting various forms of validityfor the STAI-Trait Scale (STAI-T). In terms of its validity as a dispositional measure of the BIS,Zinbarg and Mohlman (1998) showed that during performance of a standard approach-avoid-ance discrimination task, STAI-T scores correlated significantly and positively with self-report ofacquisition of punishment expectancy. In terms of its validity for testing the trait-congruencyhypothesis, Kverno (2000) found that for subjects grouped as high and low trait anxiety on thebasis of median split scores on the STAI-T, the high trait anxiety group estimated greater fre-quency and higher false recognition for threatening words. The STAI-T scale’s internal con-sistency for a group of participants somewhat similar to the participants in this study is 0.92(Gomez, Cooper, & Gomez, 2000).

1.2.3. The BIS/BAS ScaleThe BIS/BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994) consist of a total of 20 items. The BIS Scale (7

items) measures BIS sensitivity or the degree to which respondents expect to feel anxiety whenconfounded with cues for punishment (e.g. ‘‘I feel worried when I think I have done poorly atsomething’’). The BAS Scale (13 items) measures BAS sensitivity. It has subscales for rewardresponsiveness (five items), drive (four items), and fun seeking (four items). Reward responsive-ness measures the degree to which rewards lead to positive emotions (e.g. ‘‘When I get something Iwant I feel excited and energised’’), while drive measures a person’s tendency to actively pursueappetitive goals (e.g. ‘‘I go out of my way to get things I want’’). Fun seeking measures the ten-dency to seek out and impulsively engage in potentially rewarding activities (e.g. ‘‘I crave excite-ment and new sensations’’). The BAS score in this study was derived from the total scores of thereward responsiveness, drive, and fun seeking subscales. Each item of the BIS/BAS Scale is ratedon a four point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicates ‘‘very false for me’’ and 4 indicates ‘‘very truefor me’’, with higher scores indicating higher sensitivities. In terms of validity, the BIS scale pre-dicted negative mood in a situation where people anticipated punishment, and the drive andreward responsiveness scales predicted positive mood in a situation where people anticipated


rewards (Carver & White, 1994; Gomez & McLaren, 1997). The internal consistency of the BISscale has been reported to be 0.74 (Carver & White, 1994). The internal consistencies for BASreward responsiveness, drive and fun seeking subscales have been reported to be 0.73, 0.76 and0.66, respectively (Carver & White, 1994).

1.2.4. Positive and Negative Affective ScheduleThe Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) was used to

measure mood states. The PANAS, used widely in mood research, provides scores for the twoorthogonally related dimensions of positive (e.g. ‘‘aroused’’, ‘‘active’’, ‘‘excited’’) and negative(e.g. ‘‘scared’’, ‘‘nervous’’, ‘‘jittery’’) mood states. There are 10 adjectives covering positive affect,and 10 adjectives covering negative affect, and each affect is rated from 1 (‘‘very slightly or not atall’’) to 5 (‘‘extremely’’). Higher scores indicate higher mood levels. In relation to validity, Wat-son et al. (1999) have recently argued that the positive and negative mood dimensions of thePANAS represent the subjective components of the BAS and BIS, respectively. They havedemonstrated how these dimensions explain various phenomena, including circadian rhythms,sleep patterns, and mood disorders. The internal consistencies for the positive mood and negativemood scales have been reported to be 0.93 and 0.89, respectively, for a group of participants,similar to those used in this study (Gomez et al., 2000).

1.2.5. Emotional information processing taskParticipants’ processing of emotional information was assessed through three laboratory tasks,

developed by Rusting and Larsen (1998). These were a Word Fragmentation Task, a WordRecognition Task, and a Free Word Recall Task.The Word Fragmentation Task required participants to complete 30 ambiguous words, in

which some letters were missing. Missing letters were indicated with blanks, that is, ‘‘_’’. Thesubjects were asked to complete the missing words with only one letter in each blank provided. Ofthe 30 items, 15 words could be completed as either positive or neutral, and the remaining 15words could be completed as either negative or neutral. For example, ‘‘e _ a _ ed’’ could becompleted as ‘‘elated’’ (a positive word) or ‘‘erased’’ (a neutral word), or ‘‘ang_ _’’ could becompleted as either ‘‘anger’’ (a negative word) or ‘‘angle’’ (a neutral word). The 30 words werepresented on a single page, with potential positive and negative words presented in a randomorder. The number of words completed as positive, and the number of words completed asnegative were used in the analyses. They were taken as measures of pleasant and unpleasantemotional information processing, respectively.In the Word Recognition Task, participants were asked to respond to different words (pre-

sented via a computer) in terms of whether they were positive, negative, or neutral. These wordswere similar to that used by Rusting and Larsen (1998). Participants were told that they wouldsee words, presented one after the other, on the computer screen. For each word, they would needto decide whether it was positive, negative, or neutral, and then press the appropriate key. Inorder to control for position of the key effect, half the number of subjects were instructed topress, using their preferred index finger, the left-arrow key for positive words, and the right-arrowkey for negative words, while the other half were instructed to press the right-arrow key forpositive words, and the left-arrow key for negative words. All subjects were instructed to press theup-arrow key for neutral words, and to rest their index finger on the bottom-arrow key between


responses. ‘‘Positive’’, ‘‘negative’’ and ‘‘neutral’’ overlays were placed over the appropriate keys.Participants were told to respond as quickly as possible and to avoid making errors by pressingthe wrong key or responding before the word appeared on the screen. In all, 20 positive (e.g.‘‘calm’’, ‘‘cheerful’’, ‘‘elated’’), 20 negative (e.g. ‘‘afraid’’, ‘‘nervous’’, ‘‘sad’’), and 20 neutral (e.g.‘‘circle’’, ‘‘table’’, ‘‘house’’) words were presented. The order of presentation of the 60 words wasrandomized across participants. The presentation of each word was preceded by a ‘‘READY’’prompt. Prior to beginning the test trials, each participant completed 12 practice trials. For thetest trials, the computer recorded the numbers of positive, negative and neutral words correctlyidentified. They were taken as measures of pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral emotional informa-tion processing, respectively. These scores were used in the analyses.In the Free Word Recall Task, participants were asked to recall as many words as possible from

those presented earlier in the word recognition task. They were given a maximum of four minutesto recall these words. The number of correct positive, negative and neutral words recalled wererecorded, and used for analyses. They were taken as measures of pleasant, unpleasant, and neutralemotional information processing, respectively.

Table 1Descriptive scores of the variables in the study

Mean S.D. Skewness Kurtosis Alpha

Eysenck Personality InventoryTrait impulsivity 4.61 2.00 �0.05 �0.65 0.71

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-TTrait anxiety 38.92 10.20 0.77 0.36 0.93

BIS/BAS ScaleBAS sensitivity 39.90 6.00 0.19 0.28 0.83BIS sensitivity 19.51 4.21 �0.35 0.28 0.79

PANASPositive mood state 44.27 7.35 0.12 0.25 0.89

Negative mood state 32.42 4.57 2.16 6.64 0.85

Word Fragmentation TaskNumber of positive words 9.97 2.72 – – –

Number of negative words 8.71 2.63 – – –

Word Recognition Task

Correct number of positive words 16.19 6.27 – – –Correct number of negative words 16.71 5.37 – – –Correct number of neutral words 19.31 2.00 – – –

Word Recall TaskCorrect number of positive words 3.56 1.87 – – –Correct number of negative words 2.60 1.92 – – –

Correct number of neutral words 2.36 1.47 – – –


1.3. Procedure

Participants were tested individually. They were first told that the research aimed at examiningthe performance of individuals on cognitive tasks, and were briefed as to what they would beexpected to do during the test session. Following this, they were asked to complete the personalityquestionnaires. The sequence of completion of these questionnaires was randomized across par-ticipants. About 5 min after the personality questionnaires were completed, participants wereasked to complete the PANAS, in terms of their current mood. Immediately following this, theparticipants were asked to complete the three cognitive tasks. Half the number of subjects com-pleted the Word Fragmentation Task followed by the Word Recognition and Free Word RecallTasks, while the other half completed the Word Recognition and Free Word Recall Tasks beforethe Word Fragmentation Task. At the end of the cognitive tasks, participants were thanked anddebriefed.

2. Results

2.1. Descriptive data

Initially, all experimental measures were screened and cleared for outliers and missing data. Themean and S.D. scores for all the experimental measures in the study are displayed in Table 1. Thetable also shows the skewness, kurtosis and Cornbach’s alpha coefficients for all the predictors.Apart from negative mood state, the skewness and kurtosis values of all the other measures werewithin accepted range, suggesting that the scores for these other measures were somewhat nor-mally distributed. The alpha coefficients for all predictor variables were moderate to high, ran-ging from 0.71 to 0.93.

2.2. Relationships of personality measures with emotional information processing measures

Initially, the relationships of the personality measures with the emotional information proces-sing measures were examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis. Since mood statescould potentially influence processing of emotional stimuli, partial correlation coefficients for allthese relationships were examined, in which both positive and negative mood states were con-trolled. Table 2 shows the Pearson’s zero-order correlations of all the personality and moodmeasures with all the emotional information processing measures. It also shows the partial cor-relations of the personality measures with the emotional information processing measures, con-trolling for the mood measures.The results of the zero-order correlation analyses showed that both impulsivity and BAS sen-

sitivity correlated significantly and positively with the number of positive words provided in theWord Fragmentation Task, the number of words correctly identified as positive in the WordRecognition Task, and the number of positive words recalled in the Word Recall Task. Anxietyand BIS sensitivity correlated significantly and positively with the number of negative wordsprovided in the Word Fragmentation Task, the number of words correctly identified as negativein the Word Recognition Task, and the number of negative words recalled in the Word Recall


Task. Impulsivity also correlated significantly and negatively with the number of negative wordsprovided in the Word Fragmentation Task, while BAS sensitivity correlated significantly and nega-tively with the number of negative words provided in the Word Recall Task. Although not sig-nificant, most of the other negative emotional information measures were related negatively to bothimpulsivity and BAS sensitivity. Also, while not significant, most of positive emotional informationmeasures were related negatively to both anxiety and BIS sensitivity. Apart from a significant andpositive correlation between negative mood and the number of words correctly identified as negativein the Word Recognition Task, the other correlations between the mood measures and the emo-tional information processing measures were all not significant. All neutral emotional informa-tion processing measures did not correlate significantly with the personality or mood measures.In relation to the partial correlation analyses, impulsivity and BAS sensitivity correlated sig-

nificantly and positively with the number of positive words provided in the Word FragmentationTask, the number of words correctly identified as positive in the Word Recognition Task, and thenumber of positive words recalled in the Word Recall Task. Also, anxiety and BIS sensitivitycorrelated significantly and positively with the number of negative words provided in the WordFragmentation Task, the number of words correctly identified as negative in the Word Recogni-tion Task, and the number of negative words recalled in the Word Recall Task.Following the correlation and partial correlation analyses, a series of hierarchical regression

analyses were computed to examine how impulsivity and anxiety together, and BAS and BISsensitivities together predicted the emotional information processing measures. Each of theemotional information processing measures was regressed on impulsivity and anxiety together,and also separately on BAS and BIS sensitivities together. As mood states can potentially influ-ence the processing of emotional stimuli, the total positive mood and negative mood scores wereentered in a step prior to the personality measures.

Table 2Correlations and partial correlations of personality measures with the emotional information processing measuresa

Measure Fragmentation task Recognition task Recall task

Pos Neg Pos Neg Neu Pos Neg Neu

Zero-order correlationPositive mood (1) 0.13 �0.14 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.10 �0.06 0.08Negative mood (2) �0.04 0.04 �0.05 0.19* �0.13 0.14 0.05 0.10Difference (z) 1 and 2 1.55 1.64 1.36 0.64 1.55 0.36 1.00 0.18

Impulsivity (3) 0.29*** �0.18* 0.19* 0.10 0.08 0.27*** �0.10 �0.03Anxiety (4) �0.14 0.29*** �0.06 18* �0.09 0.06 0.20* 0.14BAS sensitivity (5) 0.24** �0.12 0.17* 0.03 0.01 0.21** �0.17* �0.11

BIS sensitivity (6) �0.10 0.33*** 0.00 0.25** 0.05 �0.02 0.20* 0.13

Partial correlation (controlling for positive and negative mood states)

Impulsivity (1) 0.27** �0.15 0.18* 0.07 0.08 0.25** �0.10 �0.06Anxiety (2) �0.09 0.26** �0.00 0.17* �0.03 0.04 0.18* 0.14BAS sensitivity (3) 0.20** �0.08 0.16* �0.01 0.01 0.19* �0.16* �0.14BIS sensitivity (4) �0.07 0.30*** 0.03 0.26** 0.08 �0.02 0.18* 0.15

*P<0.05. **P<0.01. ***P<0.001.a Pos, Positive; Neg, Negative; Neu, Neutral; W, Word.


Table 3 shows the standardized betas from the multiple regression analyses predicting each ofthe eight emotional information processing measures from impulsivity and anxiety. As shown inTable 3, all the positive information processing measures were predicted by impulsivity. Neitheranxiety, nor the mood measures predicted the positive information processing measures. All thenegative information processing measures were predicted by anxiety. Neither impulsivity, nor themood measures predicted the negative information processing measures.Table 4 shows the standardized betas from the multiple regression analyses predicting each of

the eight emotional information processing measures from BAS sensitivity and BIS sensitivity.Table 4 shows that all the positive information processing measures were predicted by BAS sen-sitivity. BIS sensitivity and mood measures did not predict the positive information processing

Table 3Standardized betas from multiple regression analyses predicting emotional information processing measures from

impulsivity and anxietya

Predictor W Fragmentation Task W Recognition Task W Recall Task

Pos Neg Pos Neg Neu Pos Neg Neu

Step 1Positive mood 0.05 �0.03 0.06 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.14

Negative mood �0.04 �0.05 �0.08 0.09 �0.13 0.11 �0.01 0.03

Step 2 (�R2) (0.07**) (0.08**) (0.03) (0.04*) (0.01) (0.07**) (0.04*) (0.03)Impulsivity 0.27** �0.11 0.19* 0.10 0.08 0.27** �0.06 �0.04

Anxiety �0.05 0.27** 0.04 0.22* �0.02 0.10 0.19* 0.16

R2 0.09** 0.10** 0.05 0.09** 0.03 0.10** 0.04 0.04

*P<0.05. **P<0.01.a Pos, Positive; Neg, Negative; Neu, Neutral; W, Word.

Table 4Standardized betas from multiple regression analyses predicting emotional information processing measures from bas

and bis sensitivitiesa

W Fragmentation Task W Recognition Task W Recall Task

Predictor Pos Neg Pos Neg Neu Pos Neg Neu

Step 1Positive mood 0.07 �.07 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.14

Negative mood �0.05 0.01 �0.08 0.14 �0.15 0.14 0.04 0.08

Step 2 (DR2) (0.04*) (0.09**) (0.03) (0.07**) (0.01) (0.03) (0.05*) (0.03)

BAS sensitivity 0.20* �0.03 0.17* 0.04 0.02 0.20* �0.14 �0.13BIS sensitivity �0.04 0.30*** 0.07 0.28** 0.09 0.01 0.16* 0.13

R2 0.06* 0.11** 0.04 0.11** 0.03 0.07* 0.06* 0.05

*P<0.05. **P<0.01. ***P<0.001a Pos, Positive; Neg, Negative; Neu, Neutral; W, Word.


measures. All the negative information processing measures were predicted by BIS sensitivity.Neither BAS sensitivity nor the mood measures predicted the negative information processingmeasures.

3. Discussion

The aim of the study was to examine the relationships of trait impulsivity and anxiety, and BASand BIS sensitivities with pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral emotional information processing.The results of this study showed that both impulsivity and BAS sensitivity were related positivelywith all the pleasant emotional information processing measures, that is, the number of positivewords provided in the Word Fragmentation Task, the number of words correctly identified aspositive in the Word Recognition Task, and the number of positive words recalled in the WordRecall Task. Anxiety and BIS sensitivity were related positively with all the unpleasant emotionalinformation processing measures, that is, the number of negative words provided in the WordFragmentation Task, the number of words correctly identified as negative in the Word Recogni-tion Task, and the number of negative words recalled in the Word Recall Task. These relation-ships existed whether or not variance contributed by mood was controlled. Also, impulsivity andBAS sensitivity were not related to all unpleasant emotional information processing measures,and anxiety and BIS sensitivity were not related to all pleasant emotional information processingmeasures. Neutral emotion information processing measures were not related to any personalitymeasure. All these findings were as hypothesized.Taken together, the findings of the current study support the argument that both impulsivity

and BAS sensitivity are associated with pleasant emotional information processing, while anxietyand BIS sensitivity are associated with unpleasant emotional information processing. Thesefindings support the trait-congruency hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that emotional pro-cessing is influenced by certain personality traits, and that such traits predispose individuals toprocess information that is congruent with the traits (Bargh et al., 1988; King & Sorrentino, 1988;von Hippel et al., 1994).The finding that anxiety was positively associated with unpleasant emotion processing is con-

sistent with existing data. To date there are data showing that high trait anxiety individuals alsojudge pleasant, unpleasant and ambiguous stimuli as more negative (Kverno, 2000; MacLeod &Cohen, 1993; Richards & French, 1992; Richards et al., 1992), and recall and recognize morenegative words than neutral words (Breck & Smith, 1983; Claeys, 1989; Cloitre & Liehowitz,1991; M. W. Eysenck & Byrne, 1994; O’Banion & Arkowitz, 1977). Also, individuals high in traitanxiety are faster in responding to negative emotional cues (M. W. Eysenck & Byrne, 1994), andtake longer to name colours of negative emotional words (MacLeod & Hagan, 1992; MacLeod etal., 1986; Richards & Millwood, 1989). They respond faster to probes that appeared abovethreatening words compared to non-threatening words when both threatening and non-threa-tening words are presented together (Broadbent & Broadbent, 1988; MacLeod & Mathews, 1988;MacLeod et al., 1986; Mogg et al., 1992), and also estimate greater frequencies for threateningwords than nonthreatening words (Kverno, 2000). To date there are no data on the relationshipsof impulsivity, and BAS and BIS sensitivities with emotional information processing. Thus theresults of this study on these relationships extend existing data.


In Gray’s (1970, 1981, 1987) theory, the BIS is thought to be sensitive to signals of punishment,frustrative nonreward and novelty, and its activation is thought to decrease the individual’sbehaviours toward such stimuli, and also increase negative mood. The BAS is believed to besensitive to signals of reward and nonpunishment, and its activation is thought to increase aperson’s approach behaviours toward these stimuli, and also positive mood. Given that impul-sivity and BAS sensitivity are BAS related traits, and anxiety and BIS sensitivity are BIS relatedtraits, the findings of the current study provide support for the view that the BAS and the BIS arealso related to cognitive processing of pleasant and unpleasant emotional information processing,respectively. These findings add a cognitive perspective to the concepts in Gray’s (1981) theory ofpersonality. They suggest that the activation of the BAS would not only result in approachbehaviours and positive mood (as suggested by Gray), but also cognitive elaboration and retrie-val of pleasant emotional material from memory. Also, the activation of the BIS would not onlyresult in avoidance behaviours and negative mood (as suggested by Gray), but also cognitiveelaboration and retrieval of unpleasant emotional material from memory (Rusting & Larsen,1998). These arguments suggest that the corresponding personality, affective and cognitivedomains are linked together in some way (Rusting, 1998, 1999; Rusting & Larsen, 1998). Rusting(1998) has proposed three possible models for this interrelationship: direct, moderation, andmediation. The direct approach suggests that traits and moods directly and independently predictemotional processing. The moderation model suggests that the interaction of personality traitsand mood states predict emotional processing, while the mediation approach suggests that therelationships between personality traits and emotional processing is mediated by mood states.This conclusion that Gray’s BAS and BIS can be extended to cognitive processing of emotional

information needs to be considered with some caution in view of Corr’s (2001) joint subsystemshypothesis of BIS/BAS effects. According to this hypothesis, appetitive motivation and positivemood are influenced positively by the BAS and negatively by the BIS, while aversive motivationand negative mood are influenced positively by the BIS and negatively by the BAS. When exten-ded to emotional information, the joint subsystems hypothesis would predict that processing ofpositive information would be influenced positively by the BAS and negatively by the BIS, whileprocessing of negative information would be influenced positively by the BIS and negatively bythe BAS. Indeed, this study found that impulsivity and BAS sensitivity correlated significantlyand negatively with the number of negative words in the Word Fragmentation Task and WordRecall Task, respectively. Also, although not significant, most of the other negative emotionalinformation measures were related negatively to both impulsivity and BAS sensitivity, and mostof the positive emotional information measures were related negatively to both anxiety and BISsensitivity. These findings may be taken as providing suggestive support for Corr’s (2001) jointsubsystems hypothesis of BIS/BAS effects.The findings in this study showed that, apart from a significant and positive correlation between

negative mood and the number of words correctly identified as negative in the Word RecognitionTask, the other correlations between the mood measures and the emotional information proces-sing measures were not significant. Thus although the study found support for the trait-con-gruency hypothesis, there was little support for the mood-congruency hypothesis. The latterhypothesis suggests that a positive mood state will be associated with a bias for pleasant emo-tional information processing, and a negative mood state will be associated with a bias forunpleasant emotional information processing (Bower, 1991; Rusting, 1998). The results in the


current study are consistent with existing data involving natural mood. Recent studies haveshown that when natural mood is involved, personality dimensions and not mood states predictemotional information processing (Rusting, 1999; Rusting & Larsen, 1998). These findings implythat in natural mood condition, the BAS and BIS traits directly influence processing of emotionalinformation, and mood states do not mediate these relationships. It is to be noted that as thenatural mood measured in the current study is close to a person’s typical daily experience, theresults found in the current study may reflect the personality–mood–cognition relationships asthey occur most of the time in everyday life.A major theory that has influenced both the mood-congruency hypothesis and the trait-con-

gruency hypothesis is Bower’s (1981) network theory of affect. This theory suggests that anemotion is represented by a corresponding emotion node, that is, a cognitive network composedof memories and cognitions related to that particular emotion. The theory suggests that activationof a particular emotion node, by the relevant emotion, will evoke emotion-related cognitiveprocesses. Rusting (1998) has argued that Bower’s (1981) network theory of affect can alsoexplain the trait-congruency hypothesis, in that individuals could differentially develop differentemotion nodes due to their heightened susceptibility to different emotions, arising from differentlevels of different traits. When these suggestions are viewed together with the findings of thecurrent study, they raise the possibility that the BAS, positive mood and the cognitive networkcomposed of pleasant memories and cognitions are linked together in one network, while the BIS,negative mood and the cognitive network composed of unpleasant memories and cognitionsare linked together in another network. When this proposal is seen together with the findingshere supporting the trait-congruency hypothesis, but not the mood-congruency hypothesis, theyraise the possibility that the activation systems may have direct links with cognitionsinvolved in emotional information processing. It may be that under natural mood conditions,these emotional components of the networks are not activated strongly enough to influencecognitive processing of emotional cues, resulting in the BAS and BIS directly influencing thecognitive processing of emotional cues.The results and conclusions drawn from this study can be summarized as follows. The study

found that the BAS and BIS traits were associated with the processing of pleasant and unpleasantemotional information, respectively. These findings add a cognitive perspective to Gray’s (1981)theory of personality, and they also link the corresponding personality, affective and cognitivedomains. As there was very little evidence in this study indicating that current mood mediates therelationship between personality and cognition, it would appear that within these proposed lin-kages, there would be direct associations between the activation systems and their correspondingcognitive areas, especially when natural mood is considered. However, the findings and conclu-sions made in this study need to be viewed cautiously for a number of reasons.Firstly, the correlations for all significant effects of the personality–cognition relationship were

small. Also, several significant and nonsignificant results were just above and below the P=0.05level, and this may have allowed an unusually clearer picture of the overall results. These implythat factors other than those associated with the BIS and the BAS traits are likely to be involvedin the processing of emotional information, and/or that the relationships between these con-structs are more complex than those suggested here. In addition to these problems, a number ofmethodological issues also raise concerns for the findings and conclusions drawn here. This studyused correlation and regression analyses on data collected concurrently. Thus the findings


reported here reflect associations and predictions, but not causal relationships between the vari-ables in question. The findings and the conclusions raised must be viewed with this in mind. Inview of the biased sample examined (that is, all university students), the extent to which thefindings in this study can be generalized is uncertain. Another limitation is that the emotionalprocessing tasks covered only a limited range of cognitive domains (i.e. attention, recall, andrecognition), and therefore it is uncertain whether the findings in this study can be extended toemotional cognitive processing in general, or to other cognitive areas, such as interpretation,judgement, and autobiographical memory. As the study was conducted under natural moodconditions, it is uncertain as to how the results would apply to situations where mood is inducedor in situations where the intensity of mood is relatively high. Also, several factors raise concernsabout the relevance of the findings for real-life experiences. As the current study was confined to alaboratory setting, the findings may not have captured real-life experiences. Also, the cognitivetasks used may have been devoid of any personal relevance for the participants.Clearly more studies, controlling for the limitations noted here, are needed. Future studies may

wish to examine from a longitudinal perspective, the interplay between different dimensions ofBAS and BIS personality traits, mood states and emotional information processing. It will also beuseful if these studies, using more randomized samples, examine emotional information proces-sing across a wide range of personally relevant cognitive domains, examine the relationshipsbetween these constructs in real-life situations, and also consider different levels of mood inten-sity. The results of this study show that such studies would be worthwhile. They would not onlyextend Gray’s (1981) theory to the cognitive domains, but also improve our understanding of theinterplay of personality, emotional and cognitive domains in our everyday encounters.

References

Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. I. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in Person XSituation effects on person perception: it’s just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,599–605.

Blancy, R. H. (1986). Affect and memory: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246.Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.Bower, G. H. (1991). How might emotions affect learning? In S. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and

memory (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Bower, G. H., Gilligan, S. G., & Monteiro, K. P. (1981). Selectivity learning caused by affective states. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, General, 110, 451–473.

Bower, G. H., & Mayer, J. D. (1989). In search of mood-dependent retrieval. Journal of Social Behavior and Person-

ality, 4, 121–156.Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (1994). Mood and personality in recall of positive and negative information. BehaviourResearch and Therapy, 32, 137–141.

Breck, B. E., & Smith, S. H. (1983). Selective recall of self-descriptive traits by socially anxious and nonanxiousfemales. Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 71–76.

Broadbent, D., & Broadbent, M. (1988). Anxiety and attentional bias: state and trait.Cognition and Emotion, 2, 165–183.

Campbell, J. D., Chew, B., & Scratchley, L. S. (1991). Cognitive and emotional reactions to daily events: the, effects, ofself-esteem and self-complexity. Journal of Personality, 59, 473–505.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending

reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.Claeys, W. (1989). Social anxiety, evaluative threat and incidental recall of trait words. Anxiety Research, 2, 27–43.


Clark, D. M., & Teasdale, J. D. (1985). Constraints on the effects of mood on memory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48, 1595–1608.Cloitre, M., & Liebowitz, M. R. (1991). Memory bias in panic disorder: an investigation of the cognitive avoidancehypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 15, 371–386.

Corr, P. J. (2001). Testing problems in J. A. Gray’s personality theory: a commentary on Matthews and Gilliland(1999). Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 333–352.

Darvill, T. J., & Johnson, R. C. (1991). Optimism and perceived control of life events as related to personality. Per-

sonality and Individual Differences, 12, 951–954.De Pascalis, V., & Speranza, O. (2000). Personality effects on attentional shifts to emotional charged cues: ERP,behavioural and HR data. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 217–238.

Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and attention: Orienting toward and away from positive and

negative signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1128–1139.Desrosiers, O., & Robinson, D. (1992). Memory and hedonic tone: ‘‘Personality’’ or ‘‘mood’’ congruence? Psycholo-gical Medicine, 22, 117–129.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of Lon-don Press.

Eysenck, M. W., & Byrne, A. (1994). Implicit memory bias, explicit memory bias, and anxiety. Cognition and Emotion,

8, 415–431.Gomez, R., Cooper, A., & Gomez, A. (2000). Susceptibility to positive and negative mood states: test of Eysenck’s,Gray’s and Newman’s models. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 351–365.

Gomez, R., & McLaren, S. (1997). The effects of reward and punishment on response inhibition, moods, heart rate andskin conductance level during instrumental learning. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 305–316.

Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8,249–266.

Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality(pp. 246–276). New York: Springer.

Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 45, 20–31.

King, G. A., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and the relation between individual accessible con-

structs and person memory. Social Cognition, 6, 128–149.Kverno, K. S. (2000). Trait anxiety influences on judgments of frequency and recall. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 29, 395–404.

Laird, J. D., Wagener, J. J., Halal, M., & Szegda, M. (1982). Remembering what you feel: effects of emotion onmemory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 646–657.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and negative moodinduction procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1221–1228.

Larsen, R. J. (1991). Ketelaar, T Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.

Lishman, W. A. (1972). Selective factors in memory. Psychological Medicine, 2, 248–253.

MacLeod, C., & Cohen, I. L. (1993). Anxiety and the interpretation of ambiguity: a text comprehension study. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 102, 238–247.

MacLeod, C., & Hagan, R. (1992). Individual differences in the selective processing of threatening information and

emotional responses to a stressful life event. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30, 151–161.MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1988). Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. Quarterly Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 40(A), 653–670.

MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-

ogy, 95, 15–20.MacLeod, C., & Rutherford, E. M. (1992). Anxiety and the selective processing of emotional information: mediatingroles of awareness, trait and state variables, and personality relevance of stimulus materials. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 30, 479–491.


Martin, M., Ward, J. C., & Clark, D. M. (1983). Neuroticism and the recall of positive and negative personality

information. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21, 495–503.Mayer, J. D., & Hanson, E. (1995). Mood-congruent judgment over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 237–244.

Mayer, J. D., McCormick, L. J., & Strong, S. E. (1995). Mood-congruent memory and natural mood: new evidence.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 736–746.

Mayer, J. D., & Volanth, A. J. (1985). Cognitive involvement in the mood response system.Motivation and Emotion, 9,

261–275.Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Attentional bias to threat in clinical anxiety states. Cognition andEmotion, 6, 149–159.

Nasby, W. (1994). Moderators of mood-congruent encoding: self/other reference and affirmative/nonaffirmative judg-

ment. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 259–278.O’Banion, Y., & Arkowitz, H. (1977). Social anxiety and selective memory for affective information about the self.Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 321–328.

Reed, M. A., & Derryberry, D. (1995). Temperament and attention to positive and negative trait information. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 18, 135–147.

Revelle, W., Humphreys, M., Simon, L., & Gilliland, K. (1980). The interactive effect of personality, time of day and

caffeine: a test of the arousal model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 1–31.Richards, A., & French, C. C. (1992). An anxiety-related bias in semantic activation when processing threat/neutralhomographs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 45 (A), 503–525.

Richards, A., French, C. C., Johnson, W., Naparstek, J., & Williams, J. (1992). Effects of mood manipulation andanxiety on performance of an emotional Stroop task. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 479–491.

Richards, A., & Millwood, B. (1989). Colour-identification of differentially-valenced words in anxiety. Cognition andEmotion, 3, 171–176.

Richards, A., Reynolds, A., & French, C. C. (1993). Anxiety and the spelling and use in sentences of threat/neutralhomophones. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, 12, 18–25.

Rocklin, T., & Revelle, W. (1981). The measurement of extraversion: a comparison of Eysenck Personality Inventory and

the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.Rogers, G. M., & Revelle, W. (1998). Personality, mood, and the evaluation of affective and neutral word pairs.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1592–1605.

Rule, B. G., Taylor, B. R., & Dobbs, A. R. (1987). Priming effects of heat on aggressive thoughts. Social Cognition, 5,131–143.

Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: three conceptual frame-

works. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165–196.Rusting, C. L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion-congruent memory and judgment. Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 77, 1073–1086.

Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1998). Personality and cognitive processing of affective information. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 200–213.Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Regulating responses to anger: effects of rumination and distraction onangry mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 790–803.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983).Manual for the State-Trait AnxietyInventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on

self-report. In A. H. Mima, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Tomarken, A. J., & Keener, A. D. (1998). Frontal brain asymmetry and depression: a self-regulatory perspective.Cognition and Emotion, 12, 387–420.

von Hippel, W., Hawkins, C., & Narayan, S. (1994). Personality and perceptual expertise: individual differences inperceptual identification. Psychological Science, 5, 401–406.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and nega-

tive affect: the PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.


Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: structural

findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 820–838.

Weintraub, M., Segal, R. M., & Beck, A. (1974). T An investigation of cognition and affect in the depressive experi-

ences of normal men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 911.Wright, W. F., & Bower, G. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessment. Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 52, 276–291.

Zinbarg, R. E., & Mohlman, J. (1998). Individual difference in the acquisition of affectively valenced associations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1024–1040.


Personality traits of the behavioural approach and inhibition systems: associations with processing...

Documents

Transcript of Personality traits of the behavioural approach and inhibition systems: associations with processing...