Ptnon. !U‘/Kid. D%f Vol. I I. No. 4. pp. 343-353. 1990 0191.8869 90 S3.OOf0.00 Prmted m Great Britain. All rights rererved Copyright < 1990 Pergamon Press plc

SENSATION SEEKING, EYSENCK’S PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCEMENT SENSITIVITY IN

CONCEPT FORMATION*

SAMUEL A. BALL and MARVIN ZUCKERMAN~

Department of Psychology, University of Delaware. Newark, DE 19716, U.S.A.

(Received 19 May 1989)

Summary-The relationship between the SSS and EPQ personality dimensions and reinforcement sensitivity was examined in 140 undergraduates using a non-reversal shift concept formation task. Differences in reinforcement sensitivity related to sensation seeking (SS) were not found, although this trait and the EPQ scales were correlated with the Reward and Punishment Expectancy scales from a newly developed questionnaire (GRAPES). The superior concept learning of high neuroticism subjects was markedly disrupted by the frustration of an abrupt change in reinforcement contingency. There was some support for past research findings that introverts and low psychoticism (P) subjects were more inhibited by punishment than extraverts and high P subjects.

Zuckerman’s (1969) original theory explained sensation seeking (SS) in the context of an optimal level of reticulocortical arousal, wherein cortically underaroused high sensation seekers engaged in varied, novel, complex, and risky behavior to achieve a more optimal level of arousal. Likewise, low SS Ss engaged in less complex and risky behavior to avoid overstimulating an already aroused cortical system. More recently, Zuckerman (1984) has updated his optimal level theory on the basis of catecholamine levels in the brain as moderating reward sensitivity through the limbic system.

Zuckerman ( 1979, 1984) has suggested that high sensation seekers may engage in novel and risky behavior because of the expectancy that reward rather than punishment will result from such activity. Low sensation seekers may be more prone to anticipate negative consequences of engaging in novel or risky behavior, and therefore avoid these activities. The theory is an extension of Gray’s (198 I) hypothesis that impulsives and extraverts tend to be sensitive to signals of reward in contrast to controlled introverts who are more sensitive to signals of punishment, frustration, and fear. According to Gray (1981), Neuroticism (N) heightens an individual’s overall sensitivity to signals of both reward and punlishment, while the Extraversion (E) factor determines the relative sensitivity to reward or punishment. Thus, the neurotic-introvert (high anxiety) is most susceptible to signals of punishment and frustration while high E, N and P (high impulsivity) is directly related to sensitivity to signals of reward (Gray, 1987). Support for Gray’s revision of Eysenck’s theory of conditioning has come from instrumental learning experiments involving pursuit rotor perfor- mance (Seunath, 1975), verbal operant conditioning (Gupta, 1976), sexual arousal conditioning (Kantorowitz, 1978), mathmatics achievement (McCord & Wakefield, 1981), and stimulus gener- alization, peak shift, and behavioral contrast tasks (Nicholson & Gray, 1972).

Eysenck’s high P Ss have demonstrated poor anticipation of negative consequences and poor avoidance learning (Gorenstein & Newman, 1980). Beyts, Frcka and Martin (1983) found that high P Ss conditioned poorly, showed deficits in anticipating a noxious stimulus, and habituated more quickly to aversive stimuli than did low P Ss. Other conditioning studies have indicated the importance of narrow Impulsiveness (nIMP), a trait in Eysenck’s typology (Frcka, Beyts, Levey & Martin, 1983; Frcka & Martin, 1987). Recent work examining response latencies for rewarding and punishing conditions found that high impulsivity Ss had the fastest latencies under reward conditions, while high anxiety Ss had the fastest latencies under punishment conditions (Nichols & Newman, 1986).

*This article is based on a master’s thesis completed-by Samuel A. Ball under the direction of Marvin Zuckerman in the Department of Psychology at the University of Delaware, June 1988.

tTo whom all correspondence should be addressed.

343

344 SAYL.EL A. BALL and MARVIS ZIX-KEK~~~\N

In a recent factor analysis of many questionnaire measures of personality. Zuckerman, Kuhlman and Camac (1988) found SS more closely aligned with the P (and also IMP) than with the E dimension. It was therefore possible that SS, P, IMP and E might share a common reinforcement disposition, a sensitivity to signs of reward, an insensitivity to signals of punishment. or both. The exact nature of this hypothesized reinforcement disposition has not been explained. It may involve differences in generalized expectancy for reinforcement or more specific preferences for particular reinforcers (e.g. primary vs secondary or conditioned). Differences may depend upon the frequency with which reinforcement is delivered (e.g. continuous vs partial schedule), sensitivity to withdrawal of rewards and punishments or changes in reinforcement contingency. A concept formation task using rewards and punishment (delivered verbally and monetarily), continuously vs partially reinforced attributes, and a non-reversal contingency shift (see Gormezano & Abraham, 1961) was chosen as the paradigm for this study because it permitted an examination of some of the different aspects underlying this hypothesized reinforcement disposition.

Research on Eysenck’s, Zuckerman’s. and Gray’s dimensions and the correlation between these personality traits or types suggested several possible outcomes in the present study. It was predicted that high SS (like high E and P) Ss would learn a concept formation task in fewer trials than lows when rewarded for correct responses, Lows were expected to take fewer trials to learn a concept when punished for incorrect responses. It was also predicted that highs would have shorter response latencies than lows after rewarded trials, and lows would have longer response latencies than highs after punished trials. There has been no empirical work to support specific predictions regarding the influence of partially reinforced concept attributes or the non-reversal shift in reinforcement contingency. However, some tentative working predictions could be offered. If highs are more sensitive than lows to partial reinforcement, they might take longer to learn an initial concept if an irrelevant attribute is being reinforced simultaneously at a level above chance. If highs can adapt better than lows to contingency changes in the environment, then they might learn a new concept more quickly, particularly if this attribute was partially reinforced prior to the shift in reinforcement contingency. There have been few studies examining the influence of types of reinforcement other than Spielberger, Kling and O’Hagan’s (1978) findings that sociopaths (presumably high P) were unresponsive to verbal or social reinforcers, but capable of conditioning when given monetary reinforcement. High SS Ss may also share this more specific sensitivity.

METHOD

Subjects

The Ss were 140 predominantly white male (n = 70) and female (n = 70) undergraduates. SS

were pretested on the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS V; Zuckerman, 1979) and cut-off scores corresponding to the upper and lower deciles for the SSS were established as a criterion for inclusion in this study. Ss were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. Five of the 140 Ss failed to learn the pre-shift task and were excluded from the entire analysis. Nine Ss failed to learn the post-shift task and were included only in the analysis of the pre-shift task. The concept formation task and subsequent questionnaires were administered by a male experimenter who remained blind to Ss scores on the personality questionnaires.

Concept formation test

The concept formation task consisted of a series of 16 eight-dimensional simultaneous discrimination problems. Each of the eight dimensions had two attribute values: (1) letter (X or T); (2) letter size (large or small); (3) letter color (black or white); (4) underline (solid or dashed); (5) border shape (circle or square); (6) border number (1 or 2); (7) border texture (solid or dashed), and (8) number of spots (1 or 2). Two (right and left) stimulus displays were drawn in black on 3” x 5” white unlined laminated index cards. One display had one set of attribute values from each of these dimensions (e.g. right side: white small T) while the other display had the complementary set of attributes (e.g. left side: black large X). The position of the attributes shifted from pattern to pattern from card to card.

Reinforcement sensitivity 345

The rules for the construction of these stimulus displays were modified from the work of Levine (1971, 1975). Two dimensions were chosen to serve as correct or reinforced attributes for this experiment and were varied randomly between and within Ss: (1) letter (T or X); (2) border shape (circle or square). Both letter and border shape were embedded equally in complex parts of the larger stimulus displays, i.e. letter with letter size and color; border shape with border number and texture. The deck of stimulus cards used for the Random Attribute condition contained stimulus attributes which were paired with each other 50% of the time (i.e. randomly). In the Correlated Attribute condition, an irrelevant attribute was partially reinforced or correlated 75% of the time with the correct attribute while all other attributes were paired randomly (i.e. 50%). Stimulus cards were presented to Ss on top of a small steel box with two (right and left) plastic buttons on top connected to a reset box and a clock for measuring response latencies. Latencies were read in hundredths of seconds and rounded to tenths of seconds.

Generalized Reward and Punishment Expectancy Scales (GRAPES)

Upon arriving for the experiment, Ss completed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) and an additional test, the GRAPES. This unpublished 30 item questionnaire yielded scores for an individual’s expectations regarding reinforcement from various life events and was included in this study to assess one aspect of its construct validity. Previously, a factor analysis of a longer version of this scale (120 items) yielded two independent factors: (I) Reward Expectancy (characterized by an optimistic attitude and expectations of success and life satisfaction); (2) Punishment Expectancy (characterized by pessimism, distrust and expectations of being a victim of a crime, accidents, and major illness). A copy of the items for these two scales is included in Appendix A.

Procedure

Ss were instructed about the nature of the concept formation task. In the verbal reward condition, the experimenter said the word “right” immediately after each correct identification of the target stimulus display. Ss received no verbal feedback when they chose the incorrect stimulus display. In the z~erbalpunishment condition, the experimenter said the word “wrong” when the S chose the incorrect display, and nothing was said following a correct identification.

In the monetary reward condition, Ss started with no money and received a nickel for each correct identification and nothing for an incorrect identification. In the monetary punishment condition, Ss started with a sum of money ($3.25) and had a nickel taken away after each incorrect identification, and nothing taken away after a correct identification. The delivery of both verbal and monetary methods of reward and punishment were modeled on the work of Nichols and Newman (1986).

Each trial of the concept formation task consisted of the display of an index card containing two stimulus patterns and the simultaneous activation of the timer. Ss then chose which (right or left) stimulus display contained the correct attribute and pressed the corresponding button on the response box, thus stopping the timer. Ss were given immediate reinforcement (verbal or monetary) regarding their choice and then allowed I5 set (see Bourne & Bunderson, 1963) to study the card.

The presentation of cards continued until the S reached a criterion of five consecutive correct responses. At this point, a non-reversal shift occurred in which the rewarded attribute became irrelevant (not rewarded) and a previously irrelevant attribute (although partially reinforced in one condition) became the correct or rewarded attribute. Ss were not informed that a shift in reinforcement contingency would occur. After the shift, the same procedure was repeated until the same criterion was reached. Upon completion of the task, Ss filled out a brief questionnaire assessing their knowledge of the correct attribute and rating the usefulness of the reinforcement given and their level of frustration on a 7 point scale from (I) Not at all to (7) Very much.

RESULTS

Relation of GRAPES to SSS and EPQ

Although the GRAPES is a new test, The correlations between Reward (Rew) and Punishment (Pun) Expectancy scores and the SSS and EPQ are of interest because some theories (Gray, 1987;

346 SAMLEL .4. BALL and MARVIS Z~IXERN\S

Table I Correlations between GRAPES Reward (Re\r) and Pwuhmrnc (Pun, Expectancy .md SSS Total. EPQ smd SAT Scale,

Ongmal correlakxl\ Ss psrrinllsd out

n RN PIN RW PUII

sss wnl EPQ E All

HI LOU

EPQ N All Hi LO\r

EPQ P All Hi LO\%

EPQ L All Hi Lou

SAT (V + Q) All HI LOW

GRAPES Rrw Exp

13’) ss 125 SS 64 ss 61 Sb 125 ss 64 ss 61 S> I25 ss 64 ss 61 SI 125 SS 64 ss 61 S\ I77 ss ~65 ss 72

I25

0.21** 0.50****

0.51****

0.10***

-0.26** -0.27’ -0.23. -0.01 -0.27.

0.01 -0.0X

0.1’) -0.07

0.1 I 0.09 005

-0.11”” - - _0,,-..’

-002 0.45*** - 0.04

-0.12 0.36"" -0.25** 0.36**** 0 3.l” 0.11J”’

-0.30’ -0.1’)’ -00’ -0.01

0. I2 0.07 0.03 -0.13

-0.15 -0.12 -0.23 0.06 -0.15 -0.14 -0.2;“’ _O,?‘“’ -0.20’

l p < 0.05: **P < 0.01; l **p < 0.001. *“*P < 0.0001

Zuckerman, 1979) might predict relationships between these scores and reinforcement sensitivities. Table 1 shows these correlations.

Since Ss were selected on the basis of extreme scores on the SSS, the correlations of this and other scales with the GRAPES might be inflated, particularly those scales like Extraversion (E) and Psychoticism (P) which are moderately correlated with the SSS. The selection factor was controlled in two ways: (I) partial correlations were done which removed the influence of the SSS Total score from the correlations between the other variables and the Rew and Pun expectancy scores; (2) correlations were done separately for the high and low SS groups. A correlation that is not influenced by selection of extreme groups would remain significant in the partial correlations and show significant, if somewhat reduced, correlations in both the high and low SS groups as well. Alpha coefficients of reliability were calculated for the GRAPES scales; they were 0.63 for the Rew and 0.60 for Pun scales. Considering the limited length of the scales these would represent adequate but not optimal reliability. The last row in Table I shovvs the correlation between Rew and Pun scales which is negative and low but significant.

The SSS Total score was positively related to Rew and negatively related to Pun. Both correlations were significant although the one with Pun was somewhat higher. Since these correlations are inflated by the selection of extreme groups it is possible that the correlation with Rew might be reduced to nonsignificance in a normal sample. The E scale also correlated positively with Rew and negatively with Pun in the entire group, but the partial correlations and correlations in the separate high and low SS groups between E and Pun were not significant. In contrast, the positive correlation between E and Rew remained highly significant. The Neuroticism (N) scale correlated negatively with Rew and positively with Pun, and these relationships remained significant in the partial and subgroup correlations. The P scale showed an initial negative correlation with Punishment expectancy but this disappeared in the partial correlation where a low negative correlation with reward expectancy appeared. Since this was found only in the high SS subgroup it can be discounted.

Concept formation trials to criterion

Five independent variables were analyzed by multiple analyses of variance: (1) personality dimension (high vs low scoring groups as defined by median splits on: SS, E, N, P, Rew, and Pun scales); (2) sex of S; (3) reinforcement condition (reward vs punishment); (4) attribute condition (random vs 75% correlated attribute on the pre-shift concept formation task); (5) incentive condition (verbal vs monetary form of reinforcement). The two dependent variables were: (1) trials to criterion (number of stimulus cards needed to learn the pre-shift and post-shift concepts; (2) response latency (duration of time between stimulus card presentation and S’s response following a correct or incorrect trial). The data were initially analyzed in a between and within Ss ANOVA design with pre-shift and post-shift trials to criterion and response latencies as the repeated

.Cloin tyltu.\

(1) ss

(2) E (3) s

P Inrrro<‘rro,t.\

(I) P x Reinforcement

x sex

(2) Reuard Expectuw>

x RsmSorcemcnt v Sex

(3) SS x Attention

x Incentive

(4) P x Attention

x lncenrive

Pre->hit? Par-ah1l-t

Highs > low

E>I

NrS szs Hlghs > IOU,

Highs moles > IOU. male,

when punished

High mole, z low males:

low females > low males

v.hen punished

Highs > lous after 75%:

corrcl.tt4 task using

\srb;tl raniorcement

Lo\rs > highs after

random tak using

wbill relniorcemrnr

> Indwates ‘faster learning than’ (fewer trials)

measures with Ss. Since the trials to criterion measure did not interact with any of the between Ss factors, the pre-shift and post-shift trial series were analyzed separately. See Table 2 for a summary of the significant effects for the trials measure.

Mairz efSrcrs. Analysis of the pre-shift task revealed main effects for SS [F( 1,104 = 6.64, P =O.OOl], E [F(1,90) = 7.42, P =O.OOS], N [F(1,90) = 5.31, P =0.023]. and Pun [F(1,104) = 5.29, P = 0.0211. High sensation seekers learned the pre-shift task more quickly than lows; extraverts learned faster than introverts; neurotics learned more rapidly than stables (i.e. low N): and low Punishment Expectancy Ss learned more quickly than highs. There was a significant main effect for N on the post-shift task, but in the opposite direction to that found on the pre-shift task [F( 1.85) = 5.69. P = 0.0191. Stables learned more quickly than neurotics after the non-reversal shift occurred. There were no other significant effects for any of the other independent variables for the trials measure.

The usefulness of interpreting findings for EPQ and GRAPES is questionable given the pre-selection of Ss on the basis of their extreme SSS scores and the correlation of SSS, EPQ, and GRAPES scales. Multiple analyses of covariance were performed on the EPQ and GRAPES scales in an attempt to control for the SS pre-selection factor. The main effect for Punishment Expectancy was not significant when the effect of SS was removed while a main effect for P reached significance on the post-shift task on the analysis of covariance [F( 1,85) = 4.33. P = 0.041]. Highs learned the task more quickly than lows. All of the effects reported below for the EPQ and GRAPES scales remained significant when the effect of the covariate (SS) was removed.

Conrrol for intelligence. Research has demonstrated a positive relationship between intelligence and concept formation ability (Osler & Fivel, 1961; Smith & Barron, 1981) and a low positive correlation between intelligence and SS (see Zuckerman, 1979; Table 3). Multivariate analyses of covariance were run to assess the effects of personality with intelligence (Scholastic Aptitude Test; SAT) controlled. The effect of the covariate (SAT) approached significance for the pre-shift [F(l,lOl) = 3.60, P = 0.061 and the post-shift tasks [F(1,92) = 2.96. P = 0.091. In the analyses of covariance. however, the main and interaction effects for the personality variables remained significant with the effect of intelligence controlled.

Interactions. The predicted SS x Reinforcement, E x Reinforcement, and P x Reinforcement interactions were not significant. Both P and Reward Expectancy did interact with the Reinforce- ment condition and Sex at the 3-way level on the pre-shift task. High P and high Reward Expectancy males learned the pre-shift task more quickly than lows lvhen punished. The differences were not significant in the reward condition or for females. The SS x Attribute x Incentive interaction was significant [F( 1.95) = 4.56, P = 0.0351. High SS learned the post-shift correct concept more quickly than lows when this attribute was partially reinforced on the pre-shift task under verbal reinforcement incentive conditions [F( 1,30) = 6.62, P = 0.015]. Highs also learned this partially reinforced post-shift concept faster in verbal than in monetary reinforcement incentive

348 SAMUEL A. BALL and MARVIS ZUCKERMAS

Verbal incentive Money incentive

23 . Hlqh SS

13 ’

Random

I

Corretated

Attribute

Random

Attribute

Correlated

Fig. 1. The SS x Attribute x Incentive condition interaction for the trials to criterion measure on the pre-shift concept formation task.

conditions [F( 1,30) = 6.27, P = 0.0181 (see Fig. 1). A similar P x Attribute x Incentive interaction was also significant [F( 1,85) = 6.75, P = 0.01 I].

Response iatencies

Two measures of response latency (average latency following correct trials; average latency following incorrect trials) were calculated and analyzed as a within-Ss repeated measures variable called trial type in the 5-way analysis of variance (see Table 3 for summary).

Main e&cts. Analysis of both pre- and post-shift latencies yielded significant main effects for two Personality dimensions, N and Punishment Expectancy. Stables had faster average overall latencies than neurotics on the post-shift concept formation task [F( 1,85) = 5.95, P = 0.0171. Low Punishment Expectancy Ss had faster latencies than highs on the pre-shift task [F( 1.104) = 12.64, P = O.OOl].

There were also significant main effects for trial type, reinforcement condition, and sex of S. All Ss had faster average response latencies on trials following correct trials than on trials following incorrect trials on both pre-shift [F(l,l04) = 58.87, P = O.OOl] and post-shift [F(.95) = 47.22, P = O.OOl] tasks. Ss also had faster overall latencies in a condition of reward than in a condition of punishment on the post-shift task [F( 1,95) = 8.91, P = 0.0041. Females had faster overall latencies than males on the pre-shift concept formation task [F(1,104) = 4.80, P = 0.0311.

Table 3. Significant effects for response latency measure

Task

Pre-shift Post-shift

Main e/j&-1s (1) N (2) Punish Expectancy (3) Trial Type (4) Reinforcement (5) Sex

Inrrracrions (I) E x Trial Type

x Reinforcement (2) P x Trial Type

x Reinforcement

(3) Reward Expectancy x Reinforcement

(4j Reward Expectancy x Reinforcement x Trial Tvoe _ _

Lows > highs Correct > incorrect trtnls

Females > males

N>S

Reward > Punishment

E > 1 when punished for incorrect trials

Highs faster after correct than incorrect trials in punishment condttion Highs > lows when punished: lows faster when reuarded than when punished Highs B lows when punished for incorrect trials

(5) Punish Ex’p’ectancy Lows > highs especialI! x Trial Type after incorrect trials

> Indicates ‘faster response latencies than’.

Reinforcement sensitivity 349

Reward trials Punish trials

6r r

Reword Pumsh.

Condition

I I

Reword Punish

Condition

Fig. 2. The E x Trial Type x Reinforcement condition interaction for the response latency measure on the post-shift concept formation task.

Interacrions. The predicted SS x Trial Type and E x Trial Type interactions were not significant. Punishment Expectancy was the only personality dimension to interact with Trial Type at the 2-way level [F(l,l04 = 6.63, P c 0.01 I]. High Punishment Expectancy Ss had slower overall latencies than lows, and this difference was greater after incorrect than after correct trials.

Analysis of the E dimension revealed a significant E x Trial Type x Reinforcement interaction on the post-shift task [F(l,85) = 4.32, P < 0.0411. Introverts had slower latencies after incorrect trials in a condition of punishment than in a condition of reward (see Fig. 2).

Analysis of the P dimension yielded a significant P x Trial Type x Reinforcement interaction for the pre-shift task [F( 1,90) = 4.80, P = 0.03 11. All Ss had faster latencies after correct than after incorrect trials. In a condition of reward, this difference was significantly larger for high P Ss [F(1,32) = 33.23, P = O.OOl] than for low P Ss [F(l,28) = 16.73, P = O.OOl] (see Fig. 3).

Analysis of the Reward Expectancy dimension revealed a significant reward Expec- tancy x Reinforcement interaction on the pre-shift task [F(l,l04) = 5.01, P = 0.0271. Low Reward Expectancy Ss had slower latencies than highs in a condition of punishment [F( 1,64) = 4.91, P = 0.0291. Lows also had slower latencies when punished than when rewarded [F(l,70) = 4.50, P = 0.0371. The Reward Expectancy x Reinforcement x Trial Type interaction [F( 1,70) = 4.50, P = 0.0371 indicated that the above 2-way interaction was significant only after incorrect trials [F( 1,130) = 4.72, P = 0.0321, although the simpler effects remained significant for both types of trials (see Fig. 4).

Reward trials Punish trials

45 r

. High P

4 0 - 0 LOW P

:: z 3.5 - ,<

,

0”

E - < 3.0 - ,

-1

I I I

Reword Pumsh. Reword Punish

Condition _ - Condition

Fig. 3. The P x Trial Type x Reinforcement condition interaction for the response latency measure on the pre-shift concept formation task.

350 SASILEL A. BALL and MARVIS ZLCKER>WS

Reward trials Punish trials

. High Rew Exp

0 Low Rew Exp

Reword Punish. Reword PUnlSb

Condition Condit Ion

Fig. 4. The reward Expectancy (GRAPES) x Trial Type x Reinforcement condition interaction for the response latency measure on the post-shift concept formation task.

Post -experimental questionnaire

Usefulness of reinforcement. The E x Reinforcement x Incentive interaction [F( I,90 = 5.34, P < 0.0231 indicated that extraverts reported that they found verbal reward more useful than did introverts. The Reward Expectancy x Reinforcement interaction [F(1,104) = 9.20, P = 0.0031 indicated that lows found punishment less useful than reward while highs found reward less useful than punishment.

Frustration level. Analysis of this measure revealed low, but significant, correlations with the trials and response latency measures. Ss who took longer to learn the pre-shift and post-shift tasks and who had longer latencies reported higher levels of frustration. The analysis of variance revealed a significant E x Reinforcement interaction [F( 1,90) = 4.00, P = 0.0481. Introverts were more frustrated than extraverts in punishment than in reward conditions. Extraverts were more frustrated than introverts in reward conditions. A similar P x Reinforcement interaction [F( 1,90) = 5.28, P = 0.0241 indicated that low P Ss were more frustrated in punishment than in reward conditions while highs were more frustrated in reward than in punishment conditions. A significant main effect for N [F( 1,90) = 5.17, P = 0.0251 indicated that neurotics felt more frustrated than stables.

DISCUSSION

Sensation seeking theory (Zuckerman. 1979) has hypothesized that this trait is related to Gray’s (1981, 1987) reward sensitivity, but not to punishment sensitivity. Surprisingly, the correlations between GRAPES and the SS scales suggested a stronger negative relationship with generalized punishment expectancy than a positive one with reward expectancy. However, these data are consistent with the negative correlations between risk appraisal and sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1979). While there is no relationship between SS and anxiety or neuroticism traits, low sensation seekers may be highly risk aversive or harm avoidant. Sensation seeking is defined in part as the “willingness to take risks. . (Zuckerman.

Gray’s suggests E-I related the between and sensitivities; greater E higher reward relative punishment and

greater tendency I stronger converse. would that (E) the should positively to and related punishment

In study, was and related reward but at to expectancy. theory that is related both and sensitivities general in to of reward punishment novel The data instead negative between and expectancy a relationship N punishment The

between results Gray’s may based the between

Reinforcement sensitivity 351

predicted and observed events. The GRAPES deals mostly with predicted events or expectancies, while Gray’s theory refers to immediate reactions or anticipations in response to stimuli of emotional significance. Neurotics, particularly those with high dependency, may be alert for signals of reward (like praise, affection, etc.) precisely because they have low self-confidence and do not expect reward. They would be equally alert for signals of punishment which they do expect (criticism, rejection, etc.).

Gray’s theory relates the P dimension to the ‘fight-flight’ system which is in turn related to sensitivity to unconditioned punishment and non-reward. In the current results there was a low negative correlation between P and Pun Exp, but this disappeared after controlling for SS. Perhaps SS is the essential part of P that accounts for these results. However, the correlation is in the opposite direction to the sensitivity to non-reward predicted by the theory.

The finding that E is related only to reward expectancy and N most strongly to punishment expectancy is suggestive of support for Tellegen’s (1985) concept that the E dimension is closely identified with the experiencing of positive affect while the N dimension is closely related to negative affect. This interpretation would assume that generalized reward expectancy can be equated with positive affect trait and generalized punishment expectancy with negative affect trait. Large scale psychometric studies in unselected populations are needed to clarify the actual degree of correlation among the GRAPES, SSS, EPQ, affective trait tests (or states sampled over time and aggregated).

We had predicted interactions between personality and reinforcement conditions: high SS, E and P were expected to learn the concept in fewer trials in a reward condition (and have faster response latencies) because of their hypothesized sensitivity to signals of reward. The results actually showed a superiority of high SS, E, N and P Ss in learning the first concept across both reward and punishment conditions. According to Gray’s (1987) recent structural definitions, high E, N and P together constitute the positive pole of the dimension impulsirity with low E, N and P at the negative pole. Impulsivity is supposed to be a dimension directly related to sensitivity to signals of reward but not to signals of punishment. Contrary to the hypothesis. high P and high Reward Expectancy Ss actually learned the concept better in the punishment condition with no differences in the reward condition, although this finding only held for males. The faster learning and lower reported frustration of high P males may be consistent with previous findings that high P Ss were less sensitive than lows to the disruptive effects of punishment (Beyts et al., 1983; Gorenstein & Newman, 1980). High P Ss had faster latencies on the pre-shift task when rewarded for correct trials than when reward was withheld. Introverts, low Reward and high Pun Exp Ss had slower latencies when punished following an incorrect trial than when punishment was withheld. These groups of Ss seemed more sensitive than their polar opposites to the disruptive effects of punishment on a concept formation task. However, it should be pointed out that in Gray’s conceptualization, our conditions were not exemplars of reward and punishment since the absence of reward constitutes punishment and the absence of punishment constitutes reward.

The high N dimension by itself is theoretically related to sensitivity to both signals of reward and punishment and therefore would predict learning across both reinforcement conditions. The frustration produced by the (nonreversal) shift in correct solution seemed to wipe out any personality differences in SS, E and P and reversed the direction of the difference in N. Neurotics learned the pre-shift task more quickly than stables, but stables learned the post-shift task more quickly and had faster overall latencies than neurotics on the post-shift task. Most Ss reported and evidenced signs of frustration and anxiety after the unexpected shift. and took significantly longer to learn the new correct dimension. Predictably, neurotics were more susceptible to the disruptive effects of frustration because they were probably already at an optimal level of arousal during the initial learning task; added emotional arousal causes rigidity and interference.

Although an optimal level of anxiety theory could account for the performance of high and low N Ss, what might account for the superiority of high SS, E, N and P Ss in learning an initial concept? It may be that highs performed better than lows on a concept formation task because they were more aroused by a difficult, novel and complex task which encouraged some cognitive risk taking in regard to stimulus selection. Differences in stimulus selection strategies could be tested by using a simpler version of the concept formation task such as Levine’s (1975).

Research on selective attention yielded another plausible hypothesis. Martin (1985) found that high sensation seekers were more efficient than lows at focusing their attention (as measured by

352 SAMUEL A. BALL and MARVIN ZCCKERMAS

the Embedded Figures Test), but highs were less efficient at dividing their attention (as measured by concurrent task performance). Thus, the superior focused attention of highs may have improved their learning on a task involving the selection of a single concept attribute from a complex display. The performance of highs after the non-reversal shift also suggested that highs allocated some of their attention to a partially reinforced attribute (although only in a verbal incentive condition) in a manner that did not impede current learning, and actually facilitated later learning when this previously irrelevant attribute became the rewarded concept.

Although concept formation involves focused attention, it also involves many other cognitive processes (Bourne & Haygood, 19.59; Levine, 1975) which may account for differences between high and low SS. Intelligence appeared to be a determinant of concept formation ability, but it did not seem to account for the difference in performance between high and low sensation seekers. A potentially more rewarding line of research, however, may be to look more closely at the role of selective attention in sensation seeking using a more sophisticated paradigm.

REFERENCES

Beyts. J.. Frcka. G. & Martin, I. (1983). The influence of psychoticism and extraversion on classical eyelid conditioning using paraorbital shock UCS. Personality and Indicidual Differences, 4, 275-283.

Bourne. L. E. & Bunderson, C. V. (1963). ElTects of delay of informative feedback and length of post-feedback interval on concept identification. Journul of Experimenral Ps.ychology, 65, 1-5.

Bourne. L. E. & Haygood. R. C. (1959). The role of stimulus redundancy in concept identification. Journal of Experimenfol Psychology. 58, 232-238.

Eysenck. H.‘J.& Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Frcka. G. & Martin, I. (1987). Is there-or is there not-an influence of’impulsiveness on classical eyelid conditioning?

Personality and Indiriduol D@erences. 8, 241-252. Frcka. G.. Beyts. J., Levey. A. B. & Martin, I. (1983). The influence of psychoticism on classical conditioning. Personality

and Indiridual D@ereerences. 4. 189-197. Gorenstein. E. E. & Newman. J. P. (1980). Disinhibitory psychopathology: A new perspective and a model for research.

P.sychological Reritx. 8% 30 l-3 15. Gormezano. I. & Abraham, F. D. (1961). Intermittent reinforcement, non-reversal shifts, and neutralizing in concept

formation. Journal of Experimenral Psychology. 61, l-6. Gray. J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.), A model for personality. New

York: Springer. Gray. J. A. (1987). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In Stahl, S. M., Iverson, S. D. & Goodman, E. C.

(Eds). Cognitive neuropsychology (pp. 171-190). New York: Oxford University Press. Gupta. B. S. (1976). Extraversion and reinforcement in verbal operant conditioning. &fish Journal of Psychology, 67,

47-52. Kantorowitz. D. A. (1978). Personality and conditioning of tumescence and detumescence. Behatiour Research & Therapy,

16. 117-123. Levine, M. (I971 ). Hypothesis theory and non-learning despite ideal S-R reinforcement contingencies. Psychological

Rerielt., 78, 130-140. Levine. M. (1975). Hy,porhesis resting: A cognirire rheory of learning. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. McCord. R. R. & Wakefield. J. A. (1981). Arithmetic achievement as a function of introversion-extraversion and teacher

presented reward and punishment. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, l-8. Martin. M. (1985). Individual differences in sensation seeking and attentional ability. Personality und India-idual Di’rences,

6. 637-639. Nichols, S. L. & Newman. J. P. (1986). Effects of punishment on response latency in extraverts. Journal of Personalily and

Social Psychology. 50. 624-630. Nicholson. J. N. & Gray, J. A. (1972). Peak shift, behavioural contrast and stimulus generalization as related to personality

and development in children. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 4762. Osler. S. F. & Fivel. M. W. (1961). Concept attainment: I: The role of age and intelligence in concept attainment by

induction. Journal of experimental Ps_vchology, 62, l-8. Seunath. 0. M. (1975). Personality. reinforcement and learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 459463. Smith. J. D. & Barton. J. (1981). Individual differences in the classification of stimuli by dimension. Journal of Experimenfal

Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 7. 1132-l 148. Spielberger. C. D.. Kling. J. K. & O’Hagan. S. E. J. (1978). Dimensions of psychopathic personality: Antisocial behavior

and anxiety. In Hare. R. D. & Schalling. D. (Eds), Psychoparhic behaciour: Approaches to trearmenf. Chichester: Wiley. Tellegen. A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on

self-report. In Turna. A. H. & Maser, J. D. (Eds). Anxiety and Ihe anxiety disorders. (pp. 681-706). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Zuckerman. M. (1969). Theoretical formulations I. In Zubek. J. P. (Ed.). .Sensor_r deprivation: Ff3een years of research. New York: Appleton-Century.

Zuckerman. M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal lerel of arousal. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum. Zuckerman. M. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behatioral and Brain Sciences, 7,

413471. Zuckerman. M.. Kuhlman. D. M. & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to

measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personulify and Social Psyvhology, 54, 96-107.

Reinforcement sensitivity 353

APPENDIX A

Generalized Reward and Punishment Expectancy Scales (GRAPES)

A. Reward Expecranq Scale

(I) If I invested in stocks I would probably make money. (2) Eventually we will have a world where no one will be hungry. (3) I usually find my work or study exciting or challenging. (4) Crime and violence are there but aren’t really that common. (5) I tend to be impulsively optimistic. (6) I lose more often than I win. (F)’ (7) 1 have great confidence in my future. (8) I tend to plunge right into the lively part of a party since I usually have no trouble finding someone interesting to

talk to. (9) All I need to do in order to succeed in my work is to let my natural enthusiasm carry me along.

(IO) I expect that I will rise to the top of any field of work I am or will be engaging in. (1 I) I am usually surprised when people start talking about their concerns about getting cancer. (12) When I look for a job, it is likely that it will take me a long time to find one. (F) (13) Someday. I expect to see my achievements written up in a newspaper. (14) If I invested in stocks I would probably lose money. (F) (IS) I am quick to perceive opportunities and take advantage of them.

B. Punishment Expectancy Scale

(1) In light of all the crime in the world. I expect to be the victim of a mugging or an assault at some point during my life.

(2) It is likely that most of us will have a serious car accident at some point in our lives. (3) Most people cannot be trusted too far. (4) Driving in fast-moving, crowded traffic makes me very uncomfortable. (5) With all the impurities in food one must select foods very carefully. (6) I feel uncomfortable when a person whom I am talking with falls silent. (7) I hardly ever worry about whether my health .will be good in the future. (F) (8) Many people at a party seem to pretend they are having a good time when they are not really enjoying themselves. (9) When I enter a new situation I am quick to notice where the danger lies.

(IO) I automatically prepare myself for possible trouble when going into an empty or darkened house. (1 I) I am generally a cautious person. (12) When there is a disease going around, I worry about getting it. (13) Most people can be trusted. (F) (14) I don’t worry about whether I will get cancer. (F) (15) I am usually completely at ease walking outside after dark. (F)

l (F) = scored if answered ‘false’; all other items scored for ‘true’ responses.

T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

GRAPES SUBJECT NUMBER_____________ Date_______________

Instructions: Please indicate whether you think that the following statements are true for you by circling T, of false for you by circling F. Please answer every question.

1. If I invested in stocks, I would probably make money……………………………………….. 2. In light of all the crime in the world, I expect to be a victim of a mugging or an assault at some point in my life.……………………………………………………….,……………….…. 3. It is likely that most of us will have a serious car accident at some point in our lives…….. 4. Eventually we will have a world where no one will be hungry……………………….……... 5. Most people cannot be trusted too far………………………………………………………... 6. I usually find my work or study exciting or challenging……………………………………... 7. Crime and violence are there, but aren’t really that common……………………………… 8. Driving in fast-moving, crowded traffic makes me very uncomfortable…………………….. 9. I tend to be impulsively optimistic…………………………………………………………… 10. I lose more often than I win………………………………………………………….……… 11. With all the impurities in food one must select foods very carefully………………………. 12. I feel uncomfortable when a person I am talking with falls silent…………………………. 13. I hardly every worry about whether my health will be good in the future………………… 14. Many people at a party seem to pretend they are having a good time when they are really not enjoying themselves…………………………………………….…………….…………….. 15. I have great confidence in my future………………………………………………………... 16. I tend to plunge right into the lively part of the party since I usually have no trouble finding someone interesting to talk to…………………………………………………………... 17. All I need to do in order to succeed in my work is to let my natural enthusiasm carry me along………………………………………………………………………………….…………. 18. When I enter a new situation I am quick to notice where the danger lies…………………. 19. I expect that I will rise to the top of any field of work I am or will be engaging in………… 20. I am quick to perceive opportunities and take advantage of them…………………………. 21. I am usually surprised when people start talking about their concerns about getting cancer……………………………………………………………………………………………. 22. I automatically prepare myself for possible trouble when going into an empty or darkened house………………………………………………………………………………….. 23. I am generally a cautious person……………………………………………………………. 24. When there is a disease going around, I worry about getting it……………………………. 25. When I look for a job, it is likely that it will take me a long time to get one……………… 26. Someday I expect to see my achievements written up in a newspaper……………………... 27. If I invested in stocks I would probably lose money………………………………………... 28. Most people can be trusted………………………………………………………………….. 29. I don’t worry about whether I will get cancer………………………………………………. 30. I am usually completely at ease walking outside after dark…………………………………