Behavioural Activation System and Regulatory Focus Theory
A widely researched accepted theory in psychology of biological models is the bio-psychological theory of personality proposed by Jeffrey Alan Gray (Deci 2012). Behavioral activities are said to be controlled by two variables as behavioral activation system (BAS) and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS). The BAS was seen to be connected to rewards as well as motivational approaches whereas the BIS was found to be sensitive to punishment hence avoidance of motivational factors (Carver 2000).When psychological test scales were designed for correlating attributes of hypothesized systems, BIS scale was seen to have positive correlation with neuroticism whereas it was found to be negatively correlated to BAS scale.
The regulatory focus theory proposed by Higgins comprise of two orientations which are independent and self-regulatory in nature as promotion and prevention(Higgins 1997). Prevention orientation is focused on responsibility, safety and security needs. Promotion is focused on hope, advancement needs and accomplishments. Regulatory focus can differ between individuals and across situations. Every regulatory orientation has its own preferred strategy. The scope of this study analyses relation between motivational orientation and regulatory focus. In psychology it has been explored that people tend to approach pleasure and avoid pain has an underlying motivational principle, referred to as the hedonic principle (Rothermund 2008). This model has tremendous applications as it has been applied from psychology across biology to sociology. The variable has limitations as merely being an explanatory variable. This hedonic principle can be applied across any areas of motivation in two different ways as prevention focus and promotion focus. In order to regulate ways of measuring pain and pleasure, regulatory focus is utilized (Beckes 2011). It is said to have impact on feelings, actions and thoughts of people, which are characterized as independent according to hedonic principle. Self-regulatory system had been found to converge and have positive affect in relation to goal pursuit. Second self-regulatory system was found to be connected to avoidance or withdrawal with having negative affect to threats. These themes were often found to have broader connection to personality (Vansteenkiste 2013).
In order to attain findings related to the study, following research questions were required to be answered.
- Is there a correlation between behavioral activation system and promotional self-regulation focus?
- Can behavioral activation system scores explain variance and predict changes in promotional self-regulation focus?
For the scope of this study, it was hypothesized that behavioral activation system and promotional self-regulation focus were uncorrelated. It can be understood from this that there are three independent variables as Behavioral Activation System drive, Behavioral Activation System reward responsiveness and Behavioral Activation System fun-seeking (Frijda 2010). There is a single dependent variable for this study as promotional focus score.
Research Questions
In order to conduct this study, there had to be data collected in order to arrive at findings related to the study. The study was conducted in the campus of University of Roehampton, post obtaining ethical permission from the University Ethics Committee. The scholar ensured that all ethical procedure was followed for the study.
There have been two sub-scales of two questionnaires that have been used for this study as;
- Behavioral Approach System (BAS) subscale from the BIS/BAS scale (Carver & White, 1994).
- Promotion sub-scale from the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ; Higgins et al., 2001).
These questionnaires were part of the larger study and had to be completed by participants. They were given ample time, pencil and eraser to complete the questionnaire data sets given across to them.
A research design for a particular study encompasses procedures and methods that are undertaken for collection of and analysis measure of variables identified in research problem. There are three independent variables as Behavioral Activation System drive (BAS_DR), Behavioral Activation System reward responsiveness (BAS RR) and Behavioral Activation System fun-seeking (BAS_FS). There is a single dependent variable for this study as promotional focus score. Post collection of data from 145 participants for the study and then correlation and simple linear regression has been conducted on it. The outcome variable for this study is promotional self-regulation focus score (RTF). Post collection of various BAS category score RTF was measured.
Data was collected from first year undergraduate psychology students at the University of Roehampton. One fine morning University students was approach with the aims and goals related to the study. A comprehensive workshop was conducted with the University students. This workshop highlighted the way bouts of participating and progressing in this research. Participants’ mean age for the study was 20.94 years with skewness of 3.54 and kurtosis of 12.82. Males in the study were 22 and female participants were 123. Research procedure and ways to calculate scores related to BIS and BAS was taught to them. Once all procedures had been told to them many withdrew and indicated their disinterest to participate in the study. Amongst remaining participants only 145 students finally participated in the research procedure. The participants for the study were handed over the questionnaire for the research. Participants were not naïve regarding the aims of the research as they were students of psychology departments. Participants were given certificates for participating in the study procedure.
Participants were made to follow step by step procedure for undertaking part in the study. The participants were asked to attend a workshop to get details regarding research aims. They were briefed about the techniques to calculate scores. Participant were given participation form and asked to put their signature to indicate consent for taking part in the study. The questionnaire was distributed to the participants and they were asked to answer the multiple choice questions by using pencil. After completion of the answering session scores related to BAS and RTF were calculated by the scholar. The results of the test were finalized after a week of study.
Methodology
The data of 145 participants were collected from the thirteen answers of behavioral activation system (BAS) and six answers on promotional self-regulation focus. Three measures, BAS Drive (BAS_DR), BAS Reward Responsiveness (BAS_RR) and BAS Fun Seeking (BAS_FS) were measured (Carver & White, 1994) from the thirteen answers on behavioral activation systems. The promotional self-regulation focus score (RTF) was calculated (Higgins et al., 2001) from the six answers on regulation focus. Behavioral activation systems scores were negatively skewed with skewness of -0.124 (BAS_DR), -0.218 (BAS_RR) and -0.298 (BAS_FS). The kurtosis measures were 0.4 (BAS_DR), -0.27 (BAS_RR) and -0.39 (BAS_FS). It was claimed that the population distribution was non-normal in nature and hence non-parametric, as interoperated from value of skewness and kurtosis. Scattered diagrams were drawn to understand the relation between three independent variables of BAS and the dependent RTF score(Ferguson 2008). Highly scattered data in the scatter plots indicated that RTF score of the participants were independent of all of the three BAS scores.
Figure 1: Relation between Regulation focus promotion and BAS Drive
Figure 2: Relation between Regulation focus promotion and BAS Fun Seeking
Figure 3: Relation between Regulation focus promotion and BAS Reward Responsiveness
The mean behavioral activation scores for the participants were 2.71 for BAS drive (S.D 0.57), 3 for BAS fun seeking (S.D 0.55) and 4.26 for BAS reward responsiveness (S.D 0.48). Mean for the dependent promotional self-regulation focus score was 3.24 with S.D 0.36.
Reliability measure (Cronbach alpha) of BAS drive, BAS_FS and BAS_RR were 0.78, 0.71 and 0.57 respectively. Hence the three scores were almost acceptable as measures of behavioral activation scores. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between RTF score and BAS Drive, BAS_RR and BAS_FS were -0.006, 0.102 and 0.049 (table 7 in appendix). The correlation coefficient scores revealed that the BAS scores were uncorrelated with RTF score and the significance values for all these correlations were greater than 0.05. The null hypothesis was readily accepted that promotional self-regulation focus was independent of behavioral scores.
A linear regression model was constructed where the coefficients were -0.043, -0.018 and 0.089 for BAS drive, BAS_FS and BAS_RR. The significance values were 0.477, 0.776 and 0.218 for the three independent behavioral scores. The intercept was 2.928 with significance value of zero. Hence RTF score was had a statistically poor linear relationship with behavioral scores where the coefficients were statistically insignificant. The high positive intercept indicated the RTF score was independent from the BAS scores. The adjusted R square for the regression model was almost zero (-.007) and hence BAS scores failed to explain the variance in promotional self-regulation.
Results
The main aim of the research work was to find existence of any correlation between promotional self-regulation focus and behavioral activation system(Skinner 2009). The study found that there behavioral activation system scores did not have an effect on the promotional self-regulation for the participants. The collected data was also unable to establish any explanation of variance in self-regulation for the participants. In an earlier study by Ursache, Blair and Raver (2011) found that promotional self-regulation was related to early achievements in children. Similar trends were also established earlier by Schmeichel, Brandon J.,Harmon-Jones, Cindy,Harmon-Jones, Eddie (2010). The researcher did not find any relevant correlation in support of the previous works. The hedonic principle (Rothermund 2008) could not be supported in the research work.
The limitation lied in the fact the study was conducted with only first year students of the university where most number of participants were females. The gender biasness (figure 4-6 in appendix) and small population were two major reasons for un-correlative nature of the results(Higgins 1998). There was scope for future study including all the students of the university. Heterogeneous population with gender parity was required to obtain normal population and for parametric tests.
References
Beckes, L., &Coan, J. A. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(12), 976-988.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., &Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(6), 741-751.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. The Oxford handbook of human motivation, 85-107.
Ferguson, M. J., Hassin, R., &Bargh, J. A. (2008). Implicit motivation: Past, present, and future. Handbook of motivation science, 150-166.
Frijda, N. H. (2010). Impulsive action and motivation. Biological psychology, 84(3), 570-579.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46).Academic Press.
Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual review of psychology, 60, 1-25.
Rothermund, K., Voss, A., &Wentura, D. (2008). Counter-regulation in affective attentional biases: a basic mechanism that warrants flexibility in emotion and motivation. Emotion, 8(1), 34.
Schmeichel, B. J., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). Exercising self-control increases approach motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(1), 162.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. Handbook of motivation at school, 223-245.
Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012).The promotion of self?regulation as a means of enhancing school readiness and early achievement in children at risk for school failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 122-128.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
