Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35069316›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Bridging Classical and Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Research: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Large Population Study.

Daniela A Espinoza Oyarce, Richard Burns, Peter Butterworth, Nicolas Cherbuin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniela A Espinoza OyarceCentre for Research on Ageing, Health & Welbeing, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Richard BurnsCentre for Research on Ageing, Health & Welbeing, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Peter ButterworthCentre for Research on Ageing, Health & Welbeing, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Nicolas CherbuinCentre for Research on Ageing, Health & Welbeing, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) proposes that neurobiological systems mediate protective and appetitive behaviours and the functioning of these systems is associated to personality traits. In this manner, the RST is a link between neuroscience, behaviour, and personality. The theory evolved to the present revised version describing three systems: fight-flight-freezing, behavioural approach/activation (BAS), and behavioural inhibition (BIS). However, the most widely available measure of the theory, the BIS/BAS scales, only investigates two systems. Using a large longitudinal community survey, we found that the BIS/BAS scales can be re-structured to investigate the three systems of the theory with a BIS scale, three BAS scales, and a separate fight-flight-freezing system (FFFS) scale. The re-structured scales were age, sex, and longitudinally invariant, and associations with personality and mental health measures followed theoretical expectations and previously published associations. The proposed framework can be used to investigate behavioural choices influencing physical and mental health and bridge historical with contemporary research.

Indexed as

factor analysislongitudinalmeasurement invarianceneuropsychologyreinforcement sensitivity theory

Identifiers

PMID35069316
PMCPMC8771200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.