Reinforcement sensitivity theory and relationship satisfaction via mastery
Introduction
Healthy romantic relationships are good for well-being and have wide spread benefits. A key factor for healthy romantic relationships is personality (Del Giudice, Gangestad, & Kaplan, 2015). Many studies have shown the “Big Five” personality dimensions relate to romantic relationships (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). However, the role of RST in romantic relationships is still largely unknown. RST is one of the major biological models of individual differences in motivation, emotion, and learning that links reinforcement processes with personality (Collins, Jackson, Walker, O'Connor, & Gardiner, 2017). The application of RST to practical real-world outcomes are much needed. Empirical support is lacking for the many individuals wanting to know how to have healthy relationships when statistics show one in three American marriages end in divorce (Marcassa, 2013). Individuals dealing with divorce can face negative personal, social, and economic consequences (Hollander, 2017). Clinicians, at best, have modest results of evidence-based therapy in controlled trials, while evidence for the effectiveness of community-based services lag behind (Schofield, Mumford, Jurkovic, Jurkovic, & Bickerdike, 2012). Therefore, research in this field is vital. A well-known indicator of healthy romantic relationships is relationship satisfaction. The purpose of this study is to examine the links between RST and relationship satisfaction via the mediator mastery. The components of RST explored were the Behavioral Approach Systems (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) (Table 2).
The reinforcement sensitivity theory is a neurobiologically-based theory of personality (Walker, Jackson, & Frost, 2017). The theory suggests that basic motivation entails approach and avoidance of appetitive and aversive stimuli, respectively (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). These responses to reinforcers are proposed to be mediated by the sensitivity of neurobiology and individual differences, contributing to personality variation (Corr, 2008). Therefore, RST explains personality via a strong basic personality model that is grounded in neuroscience and animal learning (Walker et al., 2017). Gray's model of personality proposes the existence of three brain circuits, which represent general emotional-motivational systems: BAS, BIS, and Fight, Flight Freeze System (FFFS).
The BAS is referred to as the reward system relating to dopaminergic neurotransmissions. It is a sense of “Let's go for it!” (Corr & Cooper, 2016). The BAS may be conceptualized as having four sequential components: Reward Interest (BAS-RI), representing identification of the biological resource; Goal-Drive Persistence (BAS-GDP), reflecting planning behavior on how to attain the resource; Impulsivity (BAS-IMP), encompassing fast reaction to executing plans; and Reward Reactivity (BAS-RR), the emotional reaction on attaining the resource forming a positive feedback loop (Corr & Cooper, 2016). States of emotion serve as internal motivators of behavior. Therefore, high BAS sensitivity has been linked with well-being (Harnett, Loxton, & Jackson, 2013).
From an evolutionary standpoint, BAS reflects a resource acquisition mechanism that has been shown to be important in everyday life (Kenrick & Shiota, 2008). Evolutionary psychologists theorize approach behaviors originate from needs and desires to reproduce and survive. The elements of insight, planning, and control found in BAS-RI, BAS-GDP, and BAS-RR were shown to relate to a slow lifestyle, which is evolutionarily adaptive in stable environments with low mortality (Krupić, Banai, & Corr, 2018). Satisfied couples usually adopt slow lifestyles, perceiving themselves as more agreeable, conscientious, and honest, while tending to have more stable close relationships, fewer offspring, and higher parental involvement (Del Giudice et al., 2015). The role of RST in romance needs to be further explored, especially as romantic relationships are an evolutionary imperative and RST has links with evolutionary psychology. Fig. 1 displays how the evolutionary and RST theory of BAS connects with relationship satisfaction.
The BIS is referred to as the punishment system and is responsible for solving conflicts of approach and avoidance. Before the conflict is resolved, individuals with high BIS may be consumed by the feeling of anxiety, worry, and rumination while risk assessing and intensely analyzing their memory and environment (Corr, 2008). It is the sense of “Watch out for danger!” (Corr, 2008). Individuals with high BIS may be prone to depression and anxiety disorders (Harnett et al., 2013). Extensive research links BIS with attachment insecurity (Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014). These results align with Gray and McNaughton's (2000) theory that painful conflicts of approach and avoidance stem from inconsistent or unresponsive reinforcement from a primary attachment figure.
Relationship satisfaction and the RST have not been explored together before. However, links show life satisfaction and psychological well-being are positively associated with BAS and negatively associated with BIS (Harnett et al., 2013). Similarly, links show relationship satisfaction correlates with life satisfaction (Pavot & Diener, 1993). A meta-analysis by Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, and Rooke (2010) concluded the personality trait of high extroversion as a significant predictor of intimate relationship satisfaction. BAS is associated with extroversion and novelty seeking (Corr, 2008). Individuals with BAS and individuals with secure attachment both display more daily positive affect and less anger/irritability (Hundt et al., 2013). Therefore, evidence indicates an association between RST and relationship satisfaction.
Mastery is a form of goal orientation and is a model of learning and competence associated with effort. Individuals who score highly on mastery tend to be adaptive and have high self-efficacy and persistence when pursuing specific, difficult, and challenging goals (Jackson, 2005). Low mastery is described as having low self-efficacy, effort, and persistence. Previous research proposes mastery is a mediator that re-expresses undirected energy toward functional outcomes (Elliot & Thrash, 2010; Jackson, 2008; Walker & Jackson, 2014). BAS, is conceptualized as a distal driver of reward-oriented behavior (Clark, Loxton, & Tobin, 2015). Past research suggests, an individual's desire to achieve rewards may re-express this energy into goals that require effort, such as actively improving relationship satisfaction.
Similarly, previous literature indicates a significant positive relationship between extroversion and mastery (Reshma & Manjula, 2016). Thus, research indicates benefits to wanting to grow in relationships and improve with effort (Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002). Therefore, it seems fitting that individuals with a high level of mastery have a higher chance at relationship satisfaction because good relationships require much effort. Therefore, the links between mastery, relationship satisfaction, and RST needs further investigation.
Past research has not examined the association between mastery and relationship satisfaction with RST. Furthermore, most studies have used outdated RST scales because no widely used standard scale established for RST yet (Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014). Therefore, using the arguably most up to date measure of RST must be extensively replicated to ensure its reliability and validity. Lastly, literature exploring RST and its subscales, in relation to positive romantic relationships is lacking.
This study aims to examine the links between RST and relationship satisfaction via the mediator mastery. Hypothesis 1 is that BAS sensitivity will positively predict relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 2 is that the subcategories of BAS sensitivity will positively predict relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 3 is that BIS sensitivity will negatively predict relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 4 is that the direct relationships of the first two hypotheses will be mediated by Mastery. An association between FFFS and relationship satisfaction was not expected. Fig. 2 displays the hypotheses.
Section snippets
Participants
The inclusion criteria were adults above 18 years from the United States who were in an exclusive relationship (N = 110, 63 women, 47 men, Mage = 34.85 years, SDage = 9.88 years, age range: 19–68 years). There was a full response rate. The ethnic backgrounds included Caucasian (75%), Hispanic/Latino (9%), Asian (8%), African American (6%), Pacific Islander (1%) and other (1%). The self-declared relationship status of participants was married or cohabitating (62%), dating (32%), and engaged
Results
The statistical analysis plan for the data was to check the assumptions, conduct correlation and linear regression analyses with mediation. Table 1 shows the correlations and that the measures had adequate reliability. Relationship satisfaction had a medium correlation with BAS, r = 0.27, p < .004, BAS-RI, r = 0.34, p < .001, BAS-GDP, r = 0.34, p < .001, and BAS-RR, r = 0.26, p < .005. BIS sensitivity had a medium to strong association with relationship satisfaction, r = −0.37, p < .001.
Discussion
This study aimed to examine the links between RST and relationship satisfaction via the mediator mastery. Hypothesis 1 was supported as BAS sensitivity positively predicted relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported as BAS-RI positively predicted relationship satisfaction and BAS-IMP negatively predicted relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 3 was supported as BIS sensitivity negatively predicted relationship satisfaction. Hypothesis 4 was mostly supported as the direct
Conclusion
The present study provides evidence to support RST, the neurobiological model of personality, can predict relationship satisfaction, through mastery. The results highlight that the revised BAS and its subcategory RI each predicted relationship satisfaction. Mastery mediated the relationship between BAS, BAS-RI, and BAS-RR with relationship satisfaction. Interestingly, Impulsivity negatively predicted relationship Satisfaction. Also, BIS negatively predicted relationship satisfaction. This
References (36)
- et al.
Multiple mediators of reward and punishment sensitivity on loneliness
Personality and Individual Differences
(2015) - et al.
Revised reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for psychopathology and psychological health
Personality and Individual Differences
(2013) - et al.
Reinforcement sensitivity theory predicts positive and negative affect in daily life
Personality and Individual Differences
(2013) - et al.
Mechanisms underlying REBT in mood disordered patients: Predicting depression from the hybrid model of learning
Journal of Affective Disorders
(2012) - et al.
Individual differences in adult attachment and reinforcement sensitivity
Personality and Individual Differences
(2014) - et al.
The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis
Journal of Research in Personality
(2010) - et al.
How the five factor model and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory predict divergent thinking
Personality and Individual Differences
(2014) - et al.
Examining the validity of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory scales
Personality and Individual Differences
(2017) - et al.
A comparison of revised reinforcement sensitivity theory with other contemporary personality models
Personality and Individual Differences
(2017) - et al.
Big five personality variables and relationship constructs
Personality and Individual Differences
(2004)
Dark triad traits and romantic relationship attachment, accommodation, and control
Personality and Individual Differences
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Integrating the context-appropriate balanced attention model and reinforcement sensitivity theory: Towards a domain-general personality process model
Psychological Bulletin
Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): introduction
The Corr-Cooper Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation
Psychological Assessment
Life history theory and evolution psychology
Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality
Journal of Personality
G/power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences
Behavior Research Methods
Cited by (9)
Reinforcement sensitivity theory and goals in tattooed individuals
2020, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Conversely, Demonstration Avoidance Goals regard avoiding poor performance in comparison to others. Development approach goals is also called mastery and other studies have found BAS to positively predict mastery (e.g., Shahzadi & Walker, 2018; Walker & Jackson, 2014). The current study seeks to replicate Farrell and Walker's (2019a) study on RST and goals.
Reinforcement sensitivity theory and mindfulness
2020, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Many studies have reported mindfulness to be beneficial for physical and psychological well-being (Baer, 2003). As yet, few studies have examined the relations between Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (Corr, 2008; Shahzadi & Walker 2019) and mindfulness. This research will assist in discerning human personality structures and potentially be useful for targeted interventions.
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and the 2 × 2 Standpoints Model of Achievement Goals
2019, Personality and Individual DifferencesStatistics anxiety or statistics fear? A reinforcement sensitivity theory perspective on psychology students’ statistics anxiety, attitudes, and self-efficacy
2024, European Journal of Psychology of EducationReinforcement sensitivity theory and adult attachment: A replication study
2022, Current Psychology