Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Personality and Individual Differences
                                         Manuscript Draft
       Manuscript Number: PAID-D-08-00106R1
       Title: An evaluation of the relationship between Gray's revised RST and Eysenck's PEN: Distinguishing BIS 
       and FFFS in Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales
       Article Type: Research Paper
       Section/Category: Regular Issue
       Keywords: Behavioural Inhibition System; Behavioural Activation System; Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory; 
       Psychoticism; Confirmatory factor analysis; Path analysis
       Corresponding Author: Miss Nadja Heym, BSc, MSc
       Corresponding Author's Institution: University of Nottingham
       First Author: Nadja Heym, BSc, MSc
       Order of Authors: Nadja Heym, BSc, MSc; Eamonn Ferguson, BSc., PhD., CPsychol., AFBPsS., FRSH; 
       Claire Lawrence, BSc., PhD.
       Manuscript Region of Origin: 
       Abstract: Recent revisions of Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) have important implications for 
       self-report measures of approach and avoidance behaviours and how Gray's model relates to other 
       personality models. In this paper, we examine the revised RST by comparing Carver and White's (1994) 
       original one-factor solution of the BIS scale with two alternative two-factor solutions separating BIS-Anxiety 
       and FFFS-Fear. We also examine the relationships between Eysenck's PEN and revised RST factors. Two 
       hundred and twelve participants completed Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales and Eysenck's Personality 
       Questionnaire-Revised. Confirmatory factor analyses of the original BIS scale showed that the hypothesized 
       two-factor model of BIS-Anxiety and FFFS-Fear was the best fit to these data. Associations between the 
       revised RST and Eysenck's PEN were examined using path analysis. In line with theoretical predictions, 
       Psychoticism was related to revised BIS-Anxiety and BAS, Neuroticism to revised BIS-Anxiety and FFFS-
       Fear, and Extraversion to BAS and FFFS-Fear. Distinctions between BAS subscales and their associations 
       to BIS, N and P were made in terms of past, present and future focus. Possible explanations for mixed 
       findings in the literature and implications for future research are discussed.
 Cover Letter and Word Count
                   Revisions to: Ms. Ref. No.:  PAID-D-08-00106
           A re-evaluation of the relationship between Eysenck's PEN and Gray's revised RST: 
              Psychoticism in the here and now - BIS in the yesterday and tomorrow!
         Dear Editor,
             Thank you for organizing the review process and for you email of April 9th 2008
         giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the Manuscript. We would like to thank 
         the three reviewers for the time and effort they put into their reviews. Their comments 
         were very useful and allowed us to clarify the focus of the paper and strengthen the 
         analyses. Detailed answers to the reviewers’ comments are presented below. We have 
         addressed all of the reviewers’ concerns.
             First of all, we would like to thank you for your personal comments and reference 
         for the recently released Corr & McNaughton chapter in Corr (2008). We have 
         incorporated their invaluable discussion into our manuscript. For instance, you had 
         pointed out that the first suggestion for the split of the BIS scale into specific anxiety and 
         fear items was made by Corr & McNaughton (2008) and we have highlighted this in the 
         paper (page 4, paragraph 3; page 5, paragraph 2).
             Moreover, a number of the reviewers’ changes called for additional information 
         and we have tried to make all of these changes while keeping the manuscript within the 
         5000 word limit for Personality and Individual Differences. For example, we have now 
         included one additional model for the confirmatory factor analysis and the appropriate 
         figures showing the two CFA models (e.g. page 9 and 10, Figure 2) as well as a 
         descriptive table for the RST and PEN variables (page 11, Table 2). Throughout the text 
         we have also clarified some arguments. 
         Word count: 4908
                            Reviewer 1
         General Comment:
             ‘In this study the authors examine associations among Eysenck's PEN and indices 
         relevant to Gray's RST, using Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales to index RST 
         constructs. Noting important theoretical distinctions between Gray's early (1987) and 
         revised (Gray & McNaughton,2000) theory (e.g., the reallocation of sensitivity to 
         conditioned fear stimuli from the BIS to FFFS), the authors inspect the C&W BIS scale 
         items and, on rational grounds, identify items more related to "fear" than to "anxiety" 
         and demonstrate, using CFA, statistical support for separate BIS-anxiety and FFFS-fear 
         scales.  Associations among these scales generally conform to hypotheses and provide a 
         useful contribution to the literature on relations between PEN and RST constructs.
             The manuscript is well-written, well-organized, and concise. Hypotheses are 
         clearly stated, methods and analyses clearly described, and results are presented in a 
                     straightforward manner. Recognizing that there is some pressure on authors to limit 
                     introductory material in light of word or page limits for manuscripts, the few concerns I 
                     had about this manuscript relate mainly to issues in their literature review.’
                     Response:
                             We thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the paper and for the 
                     extremely helpful and detailed comments on the MS. We agree with all of the points 
                     made by the reviewer and have addressed each as detailed below.
                     Issue 1:
                             ‘On p.3 the authors note, regarding the literature on relations between E and BIS, 
                     that "the negative relationship . is not always found", citing a single reference. Of course, 
                     even a single instance supports the descriptor "not always," but this characterization 
                     hardly describes what the bulk of the literature with which I am familiar seems to show. 
                     See, e.g., the following correlations and associated references:
                             -.14     Carver & White (1994), Study 2
                             -.19     Jorm et al. (1999)
                             -.20     Caseras et al. (2003)
                             -.16     Heubeck et al. (1998)
                             -.14     Franken et al. (2005)
                             -.12     Muller & Wytykowska (2005), Study 4
                             -.11     Chi et al. (2005)
                             Unless the authors have a number of other exceptional findings with which I am 
                     not familiar, wouldn't ". is usually found" (citing the above) be a fairer characterization 
                     of the literature than the one they have chosen?’
                     Response 1: 
                             We agree with this comment and have changed the wording on page 3 (paragraph
                     3) highlighting that the negative link between E and BIS is usually found, but is typically 
                     weaker. We refer to the recent review chapter by Torrubia, Avila and Caseras (2008) who 
                     quoted most of the references indicated above by the reviewer and came to the same 
                     conclusions. 
                     Issue 2:  
                             ‘Also on p. 3, the authors note that evidence for a positive relationship between N 
                     and BAS has not been consistently demonstrated. Again, in much of the literature with 
                     which I am familiar, except for an occasional positive relationship between N and 
                     Reward Responsivity, correlations between N and BAS (Total score or subscales) have 
                     pretty consistently been very low (i.e., < .10) and sometimes on the order of "0" if not 
                     negative. See, e.g., 
                             Jorm et al. (1999) except for RR = .25