Gray (1970, 1982) proposed that the reward and punishment systems were
independent systems. Gray stated that an individual’s BAS sensitivity was only activated by the presence of reward stimuli (regardless of their original BIS sensitivity or the presence of punishment cues). In turn, an individual’s original BIS sensitivity was only activated by punishment stimuli (regardless of their BAS sensitivity or the presence of reward cues).11 However, recent research has argued that the activation of the reward and punishment system is dependent upon broader environmental cues (see Corr, 2001, 2002, 2008). For instance, Corr (2002) contended that individuals are exposed to a range of both reward and punishment stimuli and thus are simultaneously responsive to both incentive and aversive environmental cues. Corr (2001, 2002) proposed the joint subsystem hypothesis to reflect this interaction between the BAS and BIS. Specifically, the joint subsystem hypothesis predicts that the BAS and the BIS can have two separate effects on behaviour: facilitatory or antagonistic. For instance, individuals with a strong BAS or weak BIS should demonstrate greater approach behaviour towards incentive stimuli; BAS is facilitatory and BIS is antagonistic.
Alternatively, individuals with a strong BIS or weak BAS should demonstrate greater avoidance behaviour towards aversive cues; BIS is facilitatory and BAS is antagonistic.
However, Corr (2002) further proposed that independent approach and avoidance responses would occur under specific circumstances, such as when individuals are only exposed to reward or punishment stimuli, when individuals are presented with strong reward/
10 Chapter 7, section 7.4.3.2, describes the Q-Task in further detail.
11 Corr (2001, 2002) later referred to this process as the separable subsystem hypothesis.
29 punishment stimuli, and when assessing hyper-active approach or avoidance oriented
individuals.
While Corr’s (2002) initial research was consistent with the joint subsystem hypothesis, additional empirical evidence assessing this hypothesis is mixed (Gomez &
Gomez, 2002; Kim & Lee, 2011). Gomez and Gomez (2002) applied Gray’s original RST and provided some support for the joint subsystem hypothesis. Gomez and Gomez (2002) recruited 163 undergraduate students to complete three tasks (i.e., word fragmentation, word recognition, and word recall) that were designed to measure participants’ responses towards positive, negative, or neutral words. Consistent with the separable subsystem hypothesis, the results showed that there were significant small to moderate positive correlations between original BIS scores and processing of negative word stimuli and no significant correlations between original BIS scores and processing of positive word stimuli. However, consistent with the joint subsystem hypothesis, there were significant small positive correlations
between BAS scores and the processing of positive word stimuli (in the recognition and recall tasks) as well as a significant small negative correlation between BAS scores and processing of negative stimuli in the recall task.
Similar to Gomez and Gomez (2002), Kambouropoulos and Staiger (2004) also found mixed support for the joint subsystem hypothesis. In their study, participants (N = 78) were required to complete four measures of RST: two self-report personality measures and two objective measures (i.e., CARROT, objective measure of the BAS; and the Q-Task, objective measure of the original BIS). The results partially supported the joint subsystem hypothesis, showing that there was an interaction between the BIS and BAS on the Q-Task. Specifically, individuals with a strong BAS and a strong BIS demonstrated slower RTs to the letter ‘Q’
(i.e., the inhibitory stimulus) during the Q-Task. However, their findings also supported the separable subsystem hypothesis as only those individuals with a strong BIS responded more
30 to the inhibitory stimulus on the Q-Task compared to the remaining three groups (i.e., weak
BIS, strong and weak BAS).
Kim and Lee (2011) examined the joint subsystem hypothesis by recruiting 577 undergraduate students to assess their decision making in a gambling task. Participants were divided into four groups based on their self-reported personality scores: (i) strong BAS and strong original BIS, (ii) strong BAS and weak original BIS, (iii) weak BAS and strong original BIS, and (iv) weak BAS and weak original BIS. Supporting the joint subsystem hypothesis, they found that participants with a strong BAS and a weak original BIS were significantly more likely to undertake risky decision making to increase their chances of winning compared to those in the other three personality groups. In contrast, participants with a strong original BIS and a weak BAS were significantly more likely to make safer decisions in order to decrease their chances of losing than those in the other three personality
conditions. Due to the limited power in Studies 2 and 3b, the separate and joint subsystems were not further assessed in this research program.
2.6 Chapter summary
This chapter critically reviewed the literature on Gray and McNaughton’s revised RST and argued why further research is required to examine these revised traits. Specifically, this chapter presented research that has examined the extent to which individual differences in the revised BAS, FFFS, and BIS may influence various behaviours (e.g., drinking
behaviour, risky and safe driving behaviours, work engagement, and resolving goal conflict).
Next, this chapter provided a brief overview of the underlying neural structures of the RST.
The chapter then provided a critique of the self-report and objective measures that have been previously used to assess the RST traits and argued for the inclusion of three self-report measures and two objective measures in the current program of research. The chapter then concluded by discussing the joint and subsystem hypotheses.
31 Chapter 3. Health Communication Messages: Message Framing Effects and Message
Acceptance 3.1 Chapter Overview
This chapter reviews the literature on message framing effects and message
acceptance. More specifically, this review demonstrates the impact of factors, such as reward and punishment sensitivity personality traits and issue involvement on the extent to which individuals accept health communication messages. The chapter then discusses the specific health advertising context of focus in this program of research, road safety messages. The chapter concludes by discussing the potential influence of opposing message cues, such as those introduced by promotional motor vehicle advertisements, on the persuasiveness of road safety messages that promote safe/ legal behaviour. Throughout the chapter, it is argued that messages designed to target specific personality traits, as conceptualised by Gray and McNaughton’s revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST), may increase individuals’
message processing and subsequent message acceptance.