Validation of the factorial construct of the Goldberg personality scale (BIS BAS IPIP) in a Costa Rican population
Main Article Content
Keywords
personality scale
Abstract
Neurology-based models of human personality have a relevant proposal in the work of Jeffrey A. Gray. This author proposed the existence of neurological systems that regulate behavioral inhibition and activation (BIS and BAS), as well as flight-fight-freeze responses (FFFS). Based on their work, self-report measurements have been created to evaluate such traits, in this work the reliability and factorial construct validity of a free-use scale was tested to evaluate the behaviors associated with BIS and BAS. The results showed that the instrument scales have good reliability (Cronbach ᾳ = 0,85 for both BIS and BAS). An exploratory factor analysis established that the measurement items were effectively grouped into two dimensions according to expectations, such a bifactorial model reaching an explained variance of 54,21%. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded adequate fit indices (χ2^(8) = 10,02, p = 0,264; NFI = 0,987; TLI = 0,995; CFI = 0,997; SRMR = 0,038; RMSEA = 0,031). Methodological aspects are discussed as well as possible lines of work for further investigation.
References
1. Gray JAA critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. En H. J. Eysenck (Ed.) A Model for Personality. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1981 (pp. 246 – 276). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0
2. Gray JA. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 1982.
3. Corr, P. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
4. Eynsenck HJ. Types of personality: a factorial study of seven hundred neurotics. Jrnl. of Ment. Sci. 1944, 90 (381), 851 - 861. doi: 10.1192/bjp.90.381.851
5. Eynsenck HJ. Personality and experimental psychology: the unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Jrnl. of Pers. and Soc. Psyc., 1997, 73 (6), 1224 - 1237. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1224
6. Eysenck HJ. The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas; 1967.
7. Gray JA. The psychophysiological basis of introversion - extraversion. Behav. Res. and Ther., 1970, 8 (3), 249 - 266. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0
8. Gray JA. Pavlov’s Typology. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press; 1964.
9. Gray J A, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety. London, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2000.
10. Corr PJ. Testing problems in J.A. Gray’s personality theory: a commentary on Matthews and Gilliland (1999). Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2001, 30 (2), 333 - 352. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00028-3
11. Corr PJ.; DeYoung, CG, McNaughton N. Motivation and personality: a neuropsychological perspective. Soc. and Pers. Psych. Comp., 2013, 7 (3), 158 - 175. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12016
12. Walker BR, Jackson CJ, Frost RA. Comparison of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory with other contemporary personality models. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2017, 109, 232 - 236. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.053
13. Stoeber J, Corr PJ. Perfectionism, personality and future-directed thinking: further insights from revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2017, 105, 78-83. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.041
14. Farrell N, Walker BR. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and the 2x2 standpoints model of achievement goals. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2019, 139, 317 - 329. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.035
15. Bijttebier P, Beck, I, Claes L, Vandereycken W. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory as a framework for research on personality-psychopatology associations. Clin. Psych. Rev., 2009, 29 (5), 421 - 430. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.04.002
16. Bacon AM, Corr PJ, Satchell LPA. Reinforcement sensitivity theory explanation of antisocial behaviour. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2018, 123, 87 - 93. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.008
17. Fayazi M, Hasani J. Structural relations between brain-behavioral systems, social anxiety, depression and internet addiction: with regard to revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST). Comp. and Hum. Beh., 2017, 72, 441 - 448. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.068
18. Shahzadi K, Walker BR. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and relationship satisfaction via mastery. Pers. and Indiv. Diff., 2019, 139, 46 - 52. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.007
19. Krupi D, Corr PJ. How reinforcement sensitivity theory relates to self-determination theory. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2020, 155, 109705. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109705
20. Jensen MP, Ehde DM, Day MA. The behavioral activation and inhibition systems: implications for understanding and treating chronic pain. The Jornl. of Pain, 2016, 17 (5), 529.E1 - 529.E18. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.02.001
21. Wilson GD, Gray JA, Barrett PT. A factor analysis of the Gray-Wilson personality questionnaire. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 1990, 11 (10), 1037 - 1045. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90131-A
22. Ball SA, Zuckermann M. Sensation seeking, Eysenck’s personality dimensions and reinforcement sensitivity in concept formation. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 1990, 11, 343 - 353. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90216-E
23. Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Jrnl. of Pers. and Soc. Psych., 1994, 67 (2), 319 - 333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
24. Torrubia R, Ávila C, Moltó J, Caseras X. The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsive dimensions. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2001, 31 (6), 837 - 862. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5
25. Reuter M, Cooper AJ, Smillie LD, Markett S, Montag C. A new measure for the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: psychometric criteria and genetic validation. Front. in Syst. Neurosc., 2015, 9, 38. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00038
26. Goldberg LR. A broad-bandwith, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower level facets of several five-factor models. En I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, 1999 (pp. 7 - 28)
27. Martínez MV, Zalazar J, Federico M, Pilatti A, Cupani M. Adaptación del cuestionario de personalidad BIS BAS IPIP a una muestra de estudiantes universitarios argentinos y análisis de su relación con patrones de consumo de alcohol. Avan. en Psic. Lat., 2012, 30 (2), 304 - 316.
28. GNU PSPP Users’ Guide. Release 0.8.5. London, U.K.: GNU; 2014.
29. Ferrando PJ, Aguiano-Carrasco C. El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Pap. del Psic., 2010, 31, 18-33.
30. Shapiro A, ten Berge JMF. Statistical inference of minimum rank factor analysis. Psychomet., 2002, 67 (1), 79-94. doi: 10.1007/BF02294710
31. Lorenzo-Seva U. Why rotate my data using Promin? Technical Report. Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgil, Tarragona; 2013. Recurso electrónico disponible en http://psico.fcep.urv.es/ utilitats/factor. Accesado en Abril, 6, 2020.
32. Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psych. Meth., 16 (2), 2011, 209-220. doi: 10.1037/a0023353.
33. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav. Res. Meth., Instr. and Comp., 2006, 38 (1), 88-91.
34. Matsunaga M. Item Parceling in Structural Equation Modeling: A Primer. Comm. Meth. and Meas., 2008, 2 (4), 260 - 293. doi: 10.1080/19312450802458935
35. Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basics Concepts, Applications and Programming. New York, USA: Routledge; 2010.
36. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc. Equat. Mod., 1999, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
37. Browne TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, USA: Guilford Press; 2006.
38. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Jrnl. of Stat. Soft., 2012, 48 (2), 1-36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
39. Kline RB. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. Fourth Edition. New York, U.S.A.: The Guilford Press; 2016.
40. Hau KT., & Marsh, H. W. The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Nonnormal data and small sample sizes. Brit. Jrnl. of Math. and Stat. Psych., 2004, 57, 327–351. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x
41. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struc. Equat. Model., 2002, 9, 151–173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
42. Ossenkopp KP, Mazmanian, DS. The principle of aggregation in psychobiological correlational research: An example from the open field-test. Anim. Learn. & Behav., 1985, 13, 339 - 344. doi: 10.3758/BF03208007
43. Bandalos DL, Finney SJ. Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. En G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.) New Develop. and Tech. in Struc. Equat. Model. Mahwah, New Jersey, U.S.A.: LEA, 2001 (pp. 269–296).
44. McCrae RR, Costa PT. The five factor theory of personality. En O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.) Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, New York, U.S.A.: Guilford Press. 2008 (pp. 159 - 181).
45. Lee K, Ashton MC. The H Factor of Personality. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press; 2012.
46. Panksepp J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press; 1998.
47. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press/Bradford Books; 1995.
48. Baron-Cohen S. The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Penguin/Basic Books; 2003.
49. Heatherton TF. Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Ann. Rev. of Psych., 2011, 62, 363 - 390. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131616
50. Fiske ST. Social Beings. 4th Ed. New York, U.S.A.: Wiley; 2014.
51. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 2007, 316 (5827), 998–1002. doi: 10.1126/science.1137651
52. Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of esteem and cultural worldviews. En M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 24. San Diego, California, U.S.A.: Academic Press, 1991, 93-159.
2. Gray JA. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 1982.
3. Corr, P. The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
4. Eynsenck HJ. Types of personality: a factorial study of seven hundred neurotics. Jrnl. of Ment. Sci. 1944, 90 (381), 851 - 861. doi: 10.1192/bjp.90.381.851
5. Eynsenck HJ. Personality and experimental psychology: the unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Jrnl. of Pers. and Soc. Psyc., 1997, 73 (6), 1224 - 1237. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1224
6. Eysenck HJ. The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas; 1967.
7. Gray JA. The psychophysiological basis of introversion - extraversion. Behav. Res. and Ther., 1970, 8 (3), 249 - 266. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0
8. Gray JA. Pavlov’s Typology. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press; 1964.
9. Gray J A, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety. London, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2000.
10. Corr PJ. Testing problems in J.A. Gray’s personality theory: a commentary on Matthews and Gilliland (1999). Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2001, 30 (2), 333 - 352. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00028-3
11. Corr PJ.; DeYoung, CG, McNaughton N. Motivation and personality: a neuropsychological perspective. Soc. and Pers. Psych. Comp., 2013, 7 (3), 158 - 175. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12016
12. Walker BR, Jackson CJ, Frost RA. Comparison of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory with other contemporary personality models. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2017, 109, 232 - 236. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.053
13. Stoeber J, Corr PJ. Perfectionism, personality and future-directed thinking: further insights from revised reinforcement sensitivity theory. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2017, 105, 78-83. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.041
14. Farrell N, Walker BR. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and the 2x2 standpoints model of achievement goals. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2019, 139, 317 - 329. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.035
15. Bijttebier P, Beck, I, Claes L, Vandereycken W. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory as a framework for research on personality-psychopatology associations. Clin. Psych. Rev., 2009, 29 (5), 421 - 430. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.04.002
16. Bacon AM, Corr PJ, Satchell LPA. Reinforcement sensitivity theory explanation of antisocial behaviour. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2018, 123, 87 - 93. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.008
17. Fayazi M, Hasani J. Structural relations between brain-behavioral systems, social anxiety, depression and internet addiction: with regard to revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST). Comp. and Hum. Beh., 2017, 72, 441 - 448. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.068
18. Shahzadi K, Walker BR. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and relationship satisfaction via mastery. Pers. and Indiv. Diff., 2019, 139, 46 - 52. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.007
19. Krupi D, Corr PJ. How reinforcement sensitivity theory relates to self-determination theory. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2020, 155, 109705. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109705
20. Jensen MP, Ehde DM, Day MA. The behavioral activation and inhibition systems: implications for understanding and treating chronic pain. The Jornl. of Pain, 2016, 17 (5), 529.E1 - 529.E18. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.02.001
21. Wilson GD, Gray JA, Barrett PT. A factor analysis of the Gray-Wilson personality questionnaire. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 1990, 11 (10), 1037 - 1045. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90131-A
22. Ball SA, Zuckermann M. Sensation seeking, Eysenck’s personality dimensions and reinforcement sensitivity in concept formation. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 1990, 11, 343 - 353. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90216-E
23. Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Jrnl. of Pers. and Soc. Psych., 1994, 67 (2), 319 - 333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
24. Torrubia R, Ávila C, Moltó J, Caseras X. The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsive dimensions. Pers. and Ind. Diff., 2001, 31 (6), 837 - 862. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5
25. Reuter M, Cooper AJ, Smillie LD, Markett S, Montag C. A new measure for the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: psychometric criteria and genetic validation. Front. in Syst. Neurosc., 2015, 9, 38. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00038
26. Goldberg LR. A broad-bandwith, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower level facets of several five-factor models. En I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, 1999 (pp. 7 - 28)
27. Martínez MV, Zalazar J, Federico M, Pilatti A, Cupani M. Adaptación del cuestionario de personalidad BIS BAS IPIP a una muestra de estudiantes universitarios argentinos y análisis de su relación con patrones de consumo de alcohol. Avan. en Psic. Lat., 2012, 30 (2), 304 - 316.
28. GNU PSPP Users’ Guide. Release 0.8.5. London, U.K.: GNU; 2014.
29. Ferrando PJ, Aguiano-Carrasco C. El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Pap. del Psic., 2010, 31, 18-33.
30. Shapiro A, ten Berge JMF. Statistical inference of minimum rank factor analysis. Psychomet., 2002, 67 (1), 79-94. doi: 10.1007/BF02294710
31. Lorenzo-Seva U. Why rotate my data using Promin? Technical Report. Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgil, Tarragona; 2013. Recurso electrónico disponible en http://psico.fcep.urv.es/ utilitats/factor. Accesado en Abril, 6, 2020.
32. Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psych. Meth., 16 (2), 2011, 209-220. doi: 10.1037/a0023353.
33. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav. Res. Meth., Instr. and Comp., 2006, 38 (1), 88-91.
34. Matsunaga M. Item Parceling in Structural Equation Modeling: A Primer. Comm. Meth. and Meas., 2008, 2 (4), 260 - 293. doi: 10.1080/19312450802458935
35. Byrne B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basics Concepts, Applications and Programming. New York, USA: Routledge; 2010.
36. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc. Equat. Mod., 1999, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
37. Browne TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, USA: Guilford Press; 2006.
38. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Jrnl. of Stat. Soft., 2012, 48 (2), 1-36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
39. Kline RB. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. Fourth Edition. New York, U.S.A.: The Guilford Press; 2016.
40. Hau KT., & Marsh, H. W. The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Nonnormal data and small sample sizes. Brit. Jrnl. of Math. and Stat. Psych., 2004, 57, 327–351. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x
41. Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struc. Equat. Model., 2002, 9, 151–173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
42. Ossenkopp KP, Mazmanian, DS. The principle of aggregation in psychobiological correlational research: An example from the open field-test. Anim. Learn. & Behav., 1985, 13, 339 - 344. doi: 10.3758/BF03208007
43. Bandalos DL, Finney SJ. Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. En G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.) New Develop. and Tech. in Struc. Equat. Model. Mahwah, New Jersey, U.S.A.: LEA, 2001 (pp. 269–296).
44. McCrae RR, Costa PT. The five factor theory of personality. En O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.) Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, New York, U.S.A.: Guilford Press. 2008 (pp. 159 - 181).
45. Lee K, Ashton MC. The H Factor of Personality. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press; 2012.
46. Panksepp J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press; 1998.
47. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press/Bradford Books; 1995.
48. Baron-Cohen S. The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Penguin/Basic Books; 2003.
49. Heatherton TF. Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Ann. Rev. of Psych., 2011, 62, 363 - 390. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131616
50. Fiske ST. Social Beings. 4th Ed. New York, U.S.A.: Wiley; 2014.
51. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 2007, 316 (5827), 998–1002. doi: 10.1126/science.1137651
52. Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of esteem and cultural worldviews. En M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 24. San Diego, California, U.S.A.: Academic Press, 1991, 93-159.
Article Sidebar
Published
Sep 5, 2020
Article Details
How to Cite
Monge López, D. (2020). Validation of the factorial construct of the Goldberg personality scale (BIS BAS IPIP) in a Costa Rican population. Hispano-American Journal of Health Sciences, 6(3), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.56239/rhcs.2020.63.433
Section
Artículos Originales
Copyright (c) 2020 Universidad Hispanoamericana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
RHCS uses the Creative Commons License 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). For more information, please visit