the relationships between the bis and bas, anger and responses to anger

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 403–413

The relationships between the BIS and BAS, angerand responses to anger

Andrew Cooper a,*, Rapson Gomez b, Emily Buck b

a Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW London, UKb School of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Ballarat, Australia

Received 20 April 2007; received in revised form 7 August 2007; accepted 3 September 2007Available online 30 October 2007

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to examine the relations of the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS)and the Behavioural Approach System (BAS) with anger and other responses in situations depicting angerprovocation. In all, 36 male and 64 female pharmacy workers completed the BIS/BAS Scales, the Spielber-ger State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI), and the Anger Response Inventory (ARI). TheBIS/BAS Scales have one scale for the BIS, and three subscales for the BAS (Reward Responsiveness,Drive, and Fun-Seeking). The ARI contains 23 anger scenarios. Participants were asked to imagine them-selves in that scenario and then indicate how angry they would feel and how they would respond in thatsituation. It was found that the BIS and BAS-Drive related to STAXI trait anger, with the BIS relatingto expressing anger inwardly and BAS-Drive negatively relating to the control of angry feelings. Withthe ARI scenarios, both BIS and BAS-Drive predicted Anger Arousal. When controlling for Anger Arou-sal, BAS-Fun Seeking significantly predicted aggressive responses to the anger scenarios, while BIS signif-icantly predicted anger responses directed inwardly. The results are discussed in light of the relationsbetween the BIS and BAS and anger.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforcement sensitivity theory; Behavioural inhibition system; Behavioural approach system; Trait anger;Aggression

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.005

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0 20 7078 5130.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Cooper).

mailto:[email protected]

404 A. Cooper et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 403–413

In recent times there has been an increasing focus on the appetitive and aversive motivationsystems believed to underlie behavioural and affective tendencies. These systems have been pre-sumed to underlie stable personality traits (Cloninger, 1988; Depue & Collins, 1999; Gray,1990). One popular model in this regard is Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) (for a reviewof RST see Corr, 2004). In the original RST, the appetitive system was labeled the BehaviouralApproach System (BAS) and one of the aversive systems was labeled the Behavioural InhibitionSystem (BIS). The BAS was presumed to be sensitive to conditioned signals of reward or non-pun-ishment, while the BIS was presumed to be sensitive to conditioned signals of punishment or fru-strative non-reward. A third system, labeled the Fight-Flight System (FFS), mediated responses tounconditioned aversive stimuli. It should be noted that there have been recent revisions to RSTthat entail changes to the proposed systems in RST (McNaughton & Corr, 2004). In the revisedRST, the BIS now mediates goal conflict and risk assessment, while the renamed Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) mediates responses to both conditioned and unconditioned aversivestimuli. In the current study, we consider the BIS and BAS as conceptualized in the ‘old’ RST,as existing self-report measures have not currently been revised to incorporate the changes toRST (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006).

Beyond their role in motivation and learning, activation of the BIS and BAS has been linkedwith affective states (Carver & White, 1994; Gomez & Cooper, in press; Gomez, Cooper, & Go-mez, 2000; Gray, 1990, 1994). The BAS has been linked with positive affective states and the BISwith negative affective states (Gray, 1994). A review of the RST and affect research largely sup-ports these relationships (Gomez & Cooper, in press). Many of the studies attempting to linkBIS and BAS activation with positive and negative affective states have, however, only examinedpositive and negative affect generally, rather than examine how specific emotion states might re-late to the BIS and BAS. It should be noted that while postulating three fundamental brain sys-tems related to emotion (i.e. the BIS, BAS and FFS), Gray (1994, p. 246) noted that ‘any realemotional experience reflects a blend of activity in all three fundamental emotion systems’. Thisimplies that a particular positive or negative affective state may result from activation of a com-bination of some or all three systems. It is desirable that RST research moves beyond the simplerelations between general positive and negative affective states and the BIS and BAS to the exam-ination of specific emotion states. In the current study, we seek to assess how the BIS and BASrelate to trait anger and responses to anger inducing situations.

Carver (2004) has suggested that affect is based on a subjective assessment of progress towardsapproaching or avoiding a goal. Good progress towards approaching or avoiding a goal will re-sult in positive affect, while inadequate progress towards approaching or avoiding a goal results innegative affect. This implies that positive affect can be related to activation of the BIS and thatnegative affect can be related to activation of the BAS. In other words, there are two bipolardimensions of affect in relation to approach and avoidance processes. Thus, the negative affectsof sadness, anger and depression for example may relate to slow progress towards approach ori-ented goals. Carver suggests that variation amongst the approach related negative affects may beaccounted for by different levels of engagement in the approach process. If a goal seems com-pletely unattainable, then depression or sadness may result. If a goal seems attainable but progressis poor, anger or frustration may result.

Carver (2004) indeed found across three studies that sadness and anger were more strongly re-lated to individual differences in the BAS rather than the BIS. It should be noted, however, that in

A. Cooper et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 403–413 405

each of the three separate studies a different BAS related trait (i.e., Drive, Reward Responsivenessand Fun Seeking) was related to each of the negative affects of interest. Clearly, different BAS re-lated traits may relate to anger produced in differing ways. For example, we might expect thatBAS-Reward Responsiveness is related to anger induced via a sense of frustration that a reward-ing stimulus is not as large or valuable as expected (Corr, 2002). BAS-Fun Seeking might be morelikely to relate to anger induced via the blocking of attainment of new or actively sought appeti-tive goals.

Carver’s (2004) findings in relation to anger supported the findings of earlier studies that hadexamined the BAS and anger. For example, it has been found that levels of BAS significantly andpositively predicted measures of trait anger and physical aggression (Harmon-Jones, 2003). In arecent study, Smits and Kuppens (2005) initially examined the relations between the BIS and BASand trait anger as assessed in a context driven (using scenarios and guided imagery) and contextfree (questionnaire assessment) mode. They found that both trait anger measures were predictedby BAS-Drive and BIS, but that BIS became a non-significant predictor when controlling for neu-roticism. In terms of expressing anger, there has been a commonly utilised distinction made be-tween anger-in (suppressing the expression of felt anger) and anger-out (expressing angeroutwardly) (Averill, 1983; Spielberger, 1999). In a second study, Smits and Kuppens (2005) wenton to examine how the BIS and BAS relate to anger-in and anger-out, and physical and verbalaggression. They found that anger-in was related to high BIS and low BAS, and that anger-outwas related to high BAS and low BIS. In a series of regression models, they found that initiallyanger-out and physical and verbal aggression were significantly and negatively predicted byBIS and positively by BAS (Drive and Fun Seeking), but that when controlling for trait angeronly the BIS significantly and negatively predicted the dependent variables.

It has been argued that anger responses need to be broadened beyond a simple anger-in/anger-out dichotomy (Kuppens, Van Mechelen, & Meulders, 2004; Linden et al., 2003). The broaderconceptualisation of anger responses may include direct verbal or physical aggression, indirector distal aggression, social support seeking and the diffusion or cognitive reappraisal of angry feel-ings. The Anger Response Inventory (ARI) (Tangney, Wagner, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1991) isan example of a measure that allows the assessment of a range of anger responses, spanning directand indirect aggressive behaviours, non-aggressive behaviours and behaviours designed to diffuseor reappraise the situation. It should be noted that previous studies that have used anger scenarioshave not included measures of anger coping and aggression in relation to these scenarios (e.g.Study 2 of Carver, 2004). Similarly, the measures of anger coping and aggression used in the sec-ond study of Smits and Kuppens (2005) were not in response to specific anger scenarios. In thecurrent study, we consider anger coping and aggression measures in relation to specific anger sce-narios. In regard to the range of anger responses, Smits and Kuppens (2005) only examined anger-in and anger-out as anger coping mechanisms. It may be of interest to examine how the BIS andBAS relate to a wider set of anger coping behaviours.

The first aim of this study is to examine relationships between the BIS and BAS and trait levels ofanger. In this case, relations between the expression of anger in and out, as well as anger control inand out, will be further examined. It is hypothesized that both BIS and BAS measures will posi-tively correlate with trait anger. It is further hypothesized that BIS will significantly correlate withthe expression of anger inwardly and with enhanced control of anger, and that the BAS variableswill positively correlate with expressing anger outwardly and negatively correlate with controlling


anger. Based on previous research (e.g. Harmon-Jones, 2003), we expect BAS-Drive and BAS-FunSeeking to have stronger relationships with the anger variables than BAS-Reward Responsiveness.

A second aim is to examine relations between the BIS and BAS and anger responses elicited bythe scenarios contained within the ARI. The ARI comprises a series of 23 commonly experiencedsituations designed to elicit anger. Participants are asked to visualize and imagine themselves inthat scenario. Unlike many anger inventories commonly used, the ARI assesses a wide array ofresponses that are specific to the actual scenario. In line with recent previous research (e.g. Smits &De Boeck, 2007), it is hypothesized that both BIS and BAS Scales will positively relate to theanger elicited by the scenarios. As noted above, we expect BAS-Drive and BAS-Fun Seeking toshow stronger relationships with anger than BAS-Reward Responsiveness. When the anger in-duced is controlled however, it is hypothesized that low BIS and high BAS will predict responsesthat are directly or indirectly aggressive towards a target and that high BIS and low BAS will pre-dict responses that involve holding anger in, diffusing the angry situation or engaging in avoidantbehaviour. Although somewhat speculative, we expect that BAS-Fun Seeking may relate morestrongly to aggressive responses compared to the other BAS subscales, based on its closer relation-ship with measures of impulsivity (Smillie, Jackson, & Dalgleish, 2006).

1. Method

1.1. Participants

The participants comprised 100 individuals. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 70 years, with amean age of 34.46 (SD = 11.97). There were 36 male and 64 female participants. The mean age forthe male participants was 36.97 years (SD = 11.77), and was 33.05 years (SD = 11.94) for femaleparticipants. Participants were recruited from among workers at two pharmacies in metropolitanMelbourne, Australia. Participants were recruited through advertisements and leaflets placed onnotice boards around the workplace. Only individuals who provided informed written consentparticipated in the study.

2. Measures

2.1. The BIS/BAS Scales

The Carver and White (1994) BIS/BAS Scales are a widely used measure of trait individual dif-ferences in BIS and BAS levels. The CW BIS/BAS Scales consist of a total of 20 items, with eachitem rated on a four point Likert-type scale. The CW BIS/BAS Scales have a single scale for theBIS and three BAS scales: Reward Responsiveness, Drive, and Fun Seeking. Reward Responsive-ness comprises items reflecting the degree to which rewards lead to positive emotions, Drive com-prises items reflecting a person’s tendency to actively pursue appetitive goals and Fun Seekingcomprises items measuring the tendency to seek out and impulsively engage in potentially reward-ing activities. In the current study the Cronbach alphas were .79 for the BIS, .81 for RewardResponsiveness, .89 for Drive and .85 for Fun Seeking.


2.2. The Spielberger State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2

The Spielberger State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2) (Spielberger, 1999) is awidely used 57 item self report measure of state and trait anger. The STAXI-2 has a numberof subscales. Trait anger measures a trait disposition to experience angry feelings. Anger Expres-sion-Out measures the degree to which an individual expresses anger outwardly at other individ-uals or objects, while Anger Expression-In measures the suppression of angry feelings. AngerControl-Out measures the prevention of the expression of anger outwardly towards others, whileAnger Control-In measures the degree to which angry feelings are suppressed internally. In thecurrent study the State Anger scale was not used. Cronbach alphas for the STAXI-2 scales usedin the current study were .81 for Trait Anger, .69 for Anger Expression-Out, .67 for Anger Expres-sion-In, .73 for Anger Control-Out and .76 for Anger Control-In.

2.3. The Anger Response Inventory

The Anger Response Inventory (ARI) (Tangney et al., 1991) comprises 23 scenarios designed toreflect common situations that may induce anger in individuals. An example of a scenario is ‘Youare waiting in line for a movie, and someone cuts in front of you’. Participants are asked to read andimagine themselves in each scenario, and then rate how they would be likely to react in that sit-uation. The ARI measures a number of distinct responses to each scenario. Firstly, participantsare asked to rate their anger arousal for that scenario. They are further asked to indicate theirintentions, and then indicate their actual behavioural and cognitive responses. Intentions are as-sessed by asking participants what they would feel like doing, while actual responses are assessedby asking what they would do. Angry responses comprise a number of subscales, namely: mea-sures of direct aggression (physical aggression, verbal aggression and symbolic aggression towardstarget); indirect aggression (bad mouthing the target or harming something important to them);displaced aggression (harming another person or object not directly involved); self directedaggression (berating the self); anger-in (seething anger held in); non-aggressive responses (talkingover the situation in non-hostile way, diffusing the situation, removing oneself from the situation,or doing nothing at all); and cognitive reappraisals (reinterpreting the target’s motives, self mo-tives and minimising the importance of the situation). Finally, the ARI also assesses the perceivedlong term consequences for the self, target and their relationship. The ARI thus provides a com-prehensive framework in which to view anger responses. In the current study, only anger arousaland the anger behavioural and cognitive response scales were used.

The ARI has acceptable reported internal consistency, with previously reported Cronbach al-phas ranging from .48 to .88 for the various subscales. In the current study, the anger arousal scalehad an alpha of .86. The alphas for the anger behavioural and cognitive response subscales rangedfrom .55 to .82, with nearly all subscales above .65.

2.4. Procedure

Participants were tested in groups of 5–10 in a private room in the workplace. After first pro-viding their informed consent to participate, they were told that the research was aimed at exam-ining the relations between personality traits and mood levels. Following this, they were asked to


complete the questionnaire package. The package consisted of the STAXI-2, the BIS/BAS Scalesand the ARI. When all participants in the session completed the questionnaires, they returned thepackage to the supervising researcher and were debriefed.

3. Results

3.1. Relations between the BIS/BAS Scales and the STAXI-2

The means and standard deviations for the BIS/BAS and STAXI-2 measures are provided formales and females in Table 1. According to Curran, West, and Finch (1996), for univariate nor-mality, skewness and kurtosis values of 0–2, and 0–7, respectively, can be taken as demonstratingsufficient normality. On this basis, the BIS/BAS and STAXI-2 measures showed sufficient normal-ity. Independent samples t-tests indicated no significant differences between males and females foreach of these variables. Inter-correlations between the BIS/BAS Scales were very similar to pre-vious research. Table 2 presents the correlations between the four BIS/BAS Scales and theSTAXI-2 scales. It can be seen in Table 2 that both the BIS and BAS-Drive scales correlated sig-nificantly and positively with Trait Anger. In addition, the BIS Scale correlated significantly andpositively with Anger Expression-In but with neither of the Anger Control variables. The BAS-Drive scale significantly and negatively correlated with both Anger Control-In and Anger Con-trol-Out. None of the BAS scales correlated significantly with Anger Expression-Out.

3.2. Relations between the BIS/BAS Scales and the ARI

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for the Anger Arousal and Anger Behav-ioural and Cognitive Response scales. The ARI scales appeared to show sufficient univariate nor-mality. Independent samples t-tests were used to assess differences in ARI scale scores for malesand females. The only significant difference was for the non-aggressive response scale, with fe-males scoring higher than males (t =� 3.95, p < .001). The mean response across all participants

Table 1Descriptive statistics for the BIS/BAS and STAXI-2 measures

Males FemalesMean (SD) Mean (SD)

CW BIS 20.06 (3.17) 19.59 (3.53)CW BAS-RR 17.52 (1.90) 17.04 (2.50)CW BAS-D 10.83 (2.48) 10.34 (2.93)CW BAS-FS 10.94 (2.23) 10.95 (2.71)Trait Anger 22.42 (4.84) 22.78 (5.64)Anger Expression-Out 18.11 (3.44) 18.89 (4.29)Anger Expression-In 19.72 (3.50) 19.34 (3.86)Anger Control-Out 23.06 (2.99) 23.38 (2.84)Anger Control-In 23.50 (2.90) 23.38 (3.33)

Table 2Correlations between the BIS/BAS and STAXI-2 measures

Measure CW BIS CW BAS-RR CW BAS-D CW BAS-FS

Trait Anger .21* .08 .31** .10Anger Expression-Out .01 �.10 .12 .17Anger Expression-In .38** .04 �.05 �.16Anger Control-Out �.01 .07 �.23* �.08Anger Control-In .10 .15 �.20* �.14

* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 3Descriptive statistics for the ARI scales

Males FemalesMean (SD) Mean (SD)

Anger Arousal 82.47 (10.89) 84.67 (11.05)Direct Aggression 37.44 (13.98) 38.66 (12.75)Indirect Aggression 41.37 (11.28) 45.09 (11.71)Displaced Aggression 19.58 (5.37) 19.39 (5.08)Self Aggression 23.31 (5.06) 23.72 (5.82)Anger In 23.25 (6.73) 24.25 (6.34)Non Aggression 135.28 (12.27) 145.62 (12.69)Cognitive Reappraisal 87.78 (10.74) 89.77 (12.55)


for Anger Arousal was 3.65 on a scale of 5 (with 5 indicating extreme anger), indicating that thescenarios were relatively successful in inducing anger.

Table 4 shows the correlations between the ARI scales and the BIS/BAS scales. Anger Arousalshowed significant and positive correlations with the BIS and BAS-Drive scales. The BIS scalealso significantly and positively correlated with Self Aggression and Anger In, while BAS-Drivecorrelated significantly and positively with Displaced Aggression. The BAS-Reward Responsive-ness scale also correlated significantly and positively with Self Aggression, Cognitive Reappraisaland Non Aggression. The BAS-Fun Seeking scale correlated significantly and positively with thethree aggression responses, Direct, Indirect and Displaced Aggression. It also correlated signifi-cantly and positively with Non Aggression.

Anger Arousal was positively and significantly correlated with all Anger Response variables ex-cept Non Aggression. In order to examine the predictors of the Anger Response scales, a series ofhierarchical regression models were examined using the BIS/BAS Scales as predictors of theAnger Response scales, controlling for Anger Arousal in each case by entering it in the first stepof the models. We also initially controlled for age of the participants, however age did not signifi-cantly correlate with or predict any of the anger variables, so we present results without age in-cluded. Table 5 shows the standardized beta weights, R2 and DR2 values for the final step ofeach of the models. As can be seen in Table 5, when controlling for Anger Arousal, only BAS-Fun Seeking significantly and positively predicted both Direct and Indirect Aggression. For Self

Table 4Correlations between the BIS/BAS and ARI measures

Measure CW BIS CW BAS-RR CW BAS-D CW BAS-FS

Anger Arousal .24* .16 .24* .10Direct Aggression �.11 .02 .07 .41**

Indirect Aggression �.02 .11 .12 .31*

Displaced Aggression .04 .01 .21* .23*

Self Aggression .44** .24* .10 �.03Anger In .32** .16 .18 .12Non Aggression .09 .33** .11 .25*

Cognitive Reappraisal .07 .24* .11 .06

* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 5Hierarchical Regressions of BIS/BAS Scales on the Anger Behavioural Response scales, controlling for Anger Arousal

Measure R2 DR2 Anger Arousal CW BIS CW BAS-RR CW BAS-D CW BAS-FS

Standardised beta weights

Direct Aggression .28** .18** .35** �.12 �.04 �.13 .41**

Indirect Aggression .21** .09* .36** �.10 .05 �.08 .28**

Displaced Aggression .17** .06 .30** .03 �.15 .13 .19Self Aggression .35** .12** .40** .30** .11 �.05 �.03Anger In .47** .04 .60** .19* �.02 �.01 .09Non Aggression .15** .14** .06 .01 .31** �.10 .20Cognitive Reappraisal .06 .06 �.07 .02 .22 .03 .02

* p < .05.** p < .01.


Aggression and Anger In, only the BIS scale significantly and positively predicted these variables.In addition, BAS-Reward Responsiveness significantly and positively predicted Non Aggression.

4. Discussion

The aims of the current study were to examine relations between the BIS/BAS Scales and mea-sures of trait anger, anger expression and anger control, as well as responses to anger inducingscenarios. The hypothesis that both BIS and BAS scales would positively correlate with trait angerwas partially supported. While the BIS scale positively correlated with trait anger, of the BASscales, only the BAS-Drive scale correlated positively with trait anger. The results further showedthat BIS positively correlated with Anger Expression In but did not correlate significantly withcontrol of anger, while only BAS-Drive correlated significantly and negatively with both AngerControl-Out and Anger Control-In. None of the BAS variables correlated with Anger Expres-sion-Out.

When examining the responses to a series of anger inducing scenarios it was found that bothBIS and BAS-Drive positively correlated with Anger Arousal. When examining the predictors


of behavioural and cognitive responses to the scenarios it was found that BAS-Fun Seeking sig-nificantly and positively predicted Direct and Indirect Aggression, the BIS scale significantly andpositively predicted Anger In and Self Aggression and the BAS-Reward Responsiveness scale sig-nificantly and positively predicted Non Aggression. These results partially supported the hypoth-eses that both BIS and BAS scales would positively predict Anger Arousal and that high BAS andlow BIS would relate to anger responses involving approach oriented actions and high BIS andlow BAS would relate to anger responses that involved holding anger in.

The current study appears to be the first that has examined how trait individual differences inBIS and BAS relate to a wide range of anger responses to specific anger inducing scenarios. Ofinterest in the current study is the finding that specific BIS or BAS traits are positively associatedwith relatively specific actions as a result of imagining oneself in a scenario designed to representcommon situations that induce anger. For example, BAS-Fun Seeking positively related toaggressive forms of response, whereas BAS-Drive and BAS-Reward Responsiveness did not.BAS-Reward Responsiveness positively related to non-aggressive responses, whereas it may havebeen expected that BIS would relate most strongly to non-aggressive responses. One possibleexplanation for this unexpected result is that BAS-Reward Responsiveness and BIS were moder-ately positively correlated in this study. Of the BAS scales, only BAS-Drive positively correlatedwith the tendency to feel angry. This suggests that anger results from frustration in achieving agoal, but that the type of response elicited is largely mediated by BIS and BAS-Fun Seeking. Thisfurther highlights that although the BAS traits as measured in the Carver and White (1994) scaleare lower order factors of a higher order single BAS trait, they are also relatively distinct in theirrelationship with different emotions and subsequent behavioural and cognitive responses.

The pattern of relationships between angry behavioural responses and the BIS and BAS aremost likely quite complex in real life behaviour, but at a broad level we can suggest that highBIS (but not low BAS) is positively associated with responses that involve the internalizationof angry feelings, while high BAS (but not low BIS) is positively associated with responses thatinvolve an outward show of anger. The latter finding differs sharply from the conclusions madeby Smits and Kuppens (2005). In their study they found that when controlling for anger, measuresof Anger-Out and Physical and Verbal Aggression were related to low BIS scores and were notrelated to any of the BAS scores. In other words, aggression was primarily due to low responseinhibition, independent of anger. In this study, outward shows of anger were related to highBAS scores, but not BIS scores. The reason for the differences between studies may lie in the dif-ferent measurement instruments used in each study.

The findings from the current study broadly support Carver’s (2004) notion that some nega-tively valenced emotions relate to the BAS rather than the BIS. The relationship between angerand the BIS and BAS may be more complex than this however. The current findings suggest thatanger relates both to the BIS and BAS-Drive. Independent of the angry feeling, however, the BISand BAS appear to differentially relate to angry responses. While the feeling of anger itself mayrelate primarily to BAS traits, how it is coped with or responded to clearly also involves the BIS.Future studies should attempt to more rigorously assess Carver’s proposed model by experimen-tally manipulating progress towards an approach oriented goal, taking measures of state and traitanger and BIS and BAS traits. A further important task for future research will be examining an-ger responses in relation to the revised model of RST. It is conceivable that, dependent on thesituation, high trait levels of the BIS, BAS and FFFS may relate to increased feelings of anger


and angry responses. In practice, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish at self-report level angryresponses that relate to goal approach or predatory aggression (BAS oriented) or defensive fight(FFFS oriented). Future research will need to carefully delineate anger provoking situations onthis basis.

In conclusion, the current study appears to be the first to examine how the BIS and BAS relateto a more specific set of potential behavioural and cognitive responses as a result of feeling anger.The findings suggest that while anger itself relates most strongly to BIS and BAS-Drive, differentresponses to anger are associated with relatively specific BIS and BAS traits. The current studyshould be interpreted in light of several limitations however. Firstly, the study was correlational,therefore cause and effect relationships cannot be presumed. Secondly, self report measures of an-ger may be particularly sensitive to social desirability biases. Thirdly, it is likely that responses toanger in real life situations are particularly sensitive to variable social cues, therefore standardizedhypothetical scenarios may be unable to model anger responses accurately. Despite these limita-tions however, this study provides important additional evidence that individual differences inpersonality traits linked with the BIS and BAS relate meaningfully to both anger and responsesto anger. It is hoped that future studies can build on this research by moving beyond writtenhypothetical scenarios to examine how the BIS and BAS relate to anger responses induced directlyin laboratory and real-life settings.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Professor June Price Tangney, George Mason Univer-sity, for kindly providing the Anger Response Inventory.

References

Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38,1145–1160.

Carver, C. S. (2004). Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system. Emotion, 4, 3–22.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.Cloninger, C. R. (1988). A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states: A

reply to commentaries. Psychiatric Developments, 2, 83–120.Corr, P. J. (2002). J.A. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory and frustrative nonreward: A theoretical note on

expectancies in reactions to rewarding stimuli. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1247–1253.Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28,

317–332.Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error

in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29.Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive

motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569.Gomez, R., & Cooper, A. (in press). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and mood induction studies. In P. Corr (Ed.), The

reinforcement theory of personality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gomez, R., Cooper, A., & Gomez, A. (2000). Susceptibility to positive and negative mood states: Test of Eysenck’s,

Gray’s and Newman’s theories. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 351–366.


Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288.Gray, J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion:

Fundamental questions (pp. 243–247). New York: Oxford University Press.Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Anger and the behavioral approach system. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,

995–1005.Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., & Meulders, M. (2004). Every cloud has a silver lining: Interpersonal and individual

differences determinants of anger-related behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1550–1564.Linden, W., Hogan, B. E., Rutledge, T., Chawla, A., Lenz, J. W., & Leung, D. (2003). There is more to anger coping

than ‘‘in’’ or ‘‘out’’. Emotion, 3, 12–29.McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive

distance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 285–305.Smillie, L. D., Jackson, C. J., & Dalgleish, L. I. (2006). Conceptual distinctions among Carver and White’s (1994) BAS

Scales: A reward-reactivity versus trait impulsivity perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1039–1050.Smillie, L. D., Pickering, A. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). The new Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory: Implications for

personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 320–335.Smits, D. J. M., & De Boeck, P. (2007). From anger to verbal aggression: Inhibition at different levels. Personality and

Individual Differences, 43, 47–57.Smits, D. J. M., & Kuppens, P. (2005). The relations between anger, coping with anger, and aggression, and the BIS/

BAS system. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 783–793.Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) -2. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment

Resource Inc.Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Marschall, D., & Gramzow, R. (1991). The Anger Response Inventory (ARI). Fairfax

VA: George Mason University.

the relationships between the bis and bas, anger and responses to anger

Documents