488 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
on each other. A neuropsychological theory of personality has emerged within
behaviorism that helps explain the mutual influence between individuals’ tempera-
ments and responses to conditioning, known as Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory
(RST; Corr, 2008; Pickering & Gray, 1999). This theory identifies three emotional-
motivational systems in individuals: one “approach” system (the behavioral approach
system, BAS) and two “avoidance” systems (the behavioral inhibition system, BIS,
and the fight-flight-freeze system, FFFS). The BAS is responsive to rewards,
impulses, and pleasurable experiences, whereas the BIS is responsive to punish-
ments and anxiety. The FFFS is responsive to fear and threat. These systems are
related to both positive (in the case of the BAS) and negative (in the case of the
BIS and FFFS) emotions, and hence help explain both the development and main-
tenance of certain features of personality. These reinforcement sensitivities tie into
Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning and reinforcement by making clear that
different behavior is shaped by different rewards and punishments—that is, condi-
tioning shapes personality, but also personality affects conditioning.
Research supports this mutual relationship between conditioning and personal-
ity. Corr and colleagues’, for example, used the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory to
help examine why people differ on a number of personality characteristics. In one
recent study, Stoeber and Corr (2015) examined the trait of perfectionism, which is
characterized by exceedingly high standards of performance. Perfectionism comes in
three different forms: a) self-oriented perfectionists endorse the belief that being per-
fect is important and are critical of themselves when they fail to meet high standards;
b) other-oriented perfectionists believe that it is important for others to be perfect and
are critical of those who fail to meet high expectations; and c) socially prescribed
perfectionists believe that striving for perfection is important to others and expect that
others will be highly critical of them if they fail to meet high expectations (Hewitt &
Flett, 1991). Stoeber and Corr (2015) predicted that reinforcement sensitivity (condi-
tioning) may help explain different forms of perfectionism (personality) and also that
these sensitivities are reinforced differently by different emotional responses.
To test their prediction, Stoeber and Corr (2015) administered three psycho-
logical measures to 388 university students. First, students completed a measure of
perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991); second, a measure of reinforcement sensitivity—
that is, whether they are likely to approach (BAS), inhibit (BIS), or fight, flee, and
freeze (FFFS) (Corr & Cooper, 2016); and finally, a measure of positive and negative
mood over the past two weeks (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
Results of the study supported the prediction that differences in reinforcement
sensitivity (conditioning) would predict different forms of perfectionism (personal-
ity). Each of the three reinforcement sensitivities (approach, inhibition, and fight,
freeze, or flight) showed positive relationships with self-oriented perfectionism, indi-
cating that being reactive to both positive and negative reinforcers in one’s environ-
ment is associated with being a self-oriented perfectionist. Other-oriented
perfectionism, by contrast, showed a negative relationship with the BIS (and was
unrelated to the FFFS). Other-oriented perfectionists appear highly defensive and
show reduced sensitivity to negative reinforcers. Behavioral inhibition and approach
showed positive relationships with socially prescribed perfectionism, and was unre-
lated to the FFFS. Social perfectionists have a highly active BIS but are also impul-
sive and lack goal-oriented persistence.