Application of a behavioral theory of motivation to the concepts of anxiety and impulsivity

Abstract Gray's model has been employed in attempts to formulate theories concerning the processes underlying various types of psychopathology. In the most direct application of his model, the dominant mood is assumed to reflect the strength of the underlying motivational system—i.e., strong anxiety with a strong behavioral inhibition system (BIS), strong positive affect with a strong behavioral activation system (BAS). This approach would predict strong anxiety to be associated with a dominance of passive avoidance and extinction and, similarly, strong positive affect with a dominance of impulsivity and other approach behaviors. The present paper has argued that these expectations are based on an implicit assumption that equally stressful environments are encountered—an assumption that would be undermined by individual differences in the very motivational systems under consideration. Examination of the approach-avoidance conflict paradigm supported the argument that, at least in the case of anxiety, one should not expect a strong association between behavior and motivational states. In particular, a weak behavioral inhibition system or strong behavioral activation system is likely to facilitate anxiety-producing impulsive behavior, whereas a strong behavioral inhibition system or weak behavioral activation system may facilitate anxiety-reducing cautious behavior. Other factors were also thought to promote independence of affective states and behavioral traits across individuals. On this argument, trait anxiety conceptualized as resulting from a strong BIS may not be highly correlated with frequent anxiety. Stating this another way, the behavioral correlates of a dominant BIS may be relatively independent of a trait involving a dominance of anxious mood. Using Tellegen's (1985) discussion of self-report measures of mood and personality traits, it was proposed that the trait factor of Constraint may be more strongly associated with behavioral consequences of the BAS and BIS, whereas the Negative Emotionality dimension is largely unrelated to the behavioral effects of the BIS. Since Negative Emotionality corresponds to the traditional anxiety/neuroticism factor, this proposal differs from the customary assumptions about the alignment of Gray's motivational systems and personality traits. The personality trait of Positive Emotionality (cf. extraversion) may be associated with individual differences in the strength of the BAS, with both affective and behavioral components. Thus, the hypothesis of motivational-behavioral uncoupling offers an alternative to the usual intepretations of the three major dimensions seen in most personality inventories. Unfortunately, it remains unclear as to how well the three major personality traits (Positive Emotionality, Negative Emotionality, and Constraint) are aligned with the hypothesized underlying motivational dimensions, and any hypotheses must be seen as extremely tentative. Finally, the question of the validity of self-report measures was discussed briefly. Of greatest interest is the possibility that a subset of subjects are unable to accurately report their emotional states, and that methods are available for identifying these individuals. If so, the validity of these self-report measures may be significantly improved, facilitating research on anxiety and impulsivity.