Talk:Reinforcement sensitivity theory

Untitled

Hi, I am attempting to expand this article. Gray's Biopsychological Theory of Personality [this theory has been renamed Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory] has a stub page that may be better incorporated into the Reinforcement sensitivity theory page with respect to origin of the theory [or at the very least linked to it internally]. I would also like to expand this article to include information on critique and revisal of this theory, and add internal and external links to reverse orphan status. I also aim to summarize current applications of the theory in anxiety disorder research. Please make suggestions regarding how best to expand this article and integrate it into larger Wikipedia encyclopedia. Plroseman (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's_biopsychological_theory_of_personality should be merged here. You're right that "Reinforcement sensitivity theory" is the preferred term today. Your suggestions are fine. Sections for critique, history/origin, revision, and current application are appropriate. You should also add links in relevant articles. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Smallman12q (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RST is the better name these days. Great to see you working on this page. If you have access to these journals, here are a couple reviews that might be helpful (there are many others!):

Smillie, L.D., Pickering, A., & Jackson, C.J. (2006). The new reinforcement sensitivity theory: Implications for personality measurement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 320-335.

Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). The personality theories of H. J. Eysenck and J. A. Gray: A comparative review. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 583-626.

--Jayzzee (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a graduate student in personality psychology. I hope you do not mind but I decided to add some information to this article.(Kasob (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, since this part of article:

The theory is characterised by the construct of three brain systems which move an animal 1. towards rewarding stimuli (Behavioral Activation System, BAS), 2. away from threatening stimuli (Fight Flight Freeze System, FFFS), and 3. which mediate conflict between BAS and FFFS-activating stimuli. Individual differences in sensitivity of these systems to their reinforcers (hence reinforcement sensitivity) are proposed to be the basis of personality traits.

was not cited and contained mistakes, I removed it. (Kasob (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I am adding sections to Origins, Revisal, Critique, and expanding this article. Please direct me to appropriate edits. Thank you! Plroseman (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for DYK to get edits/feedback.

DYK nomination

Hi, LauraHale, thank you again for your feedback. I left comments directly on your talk page as per your instructions. Please direct me further. Mathew Townsend, the new section for "Renaming Impulsivity" was a mistake. This section is now incorporated under the general RST. The issue is relevant for applications of the theory. As per your critique, I believe "Applications" may be a better title: specifically, the applications of this theory and BIS/BAS measurement scales to anxiety disorders occurred in the past and continues today. The workplace performance applications of this theory are more recent, but equally relevant. Thank you for your timely feedback. Plroseman (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

The origins and evolution section was confusing. It seems like this section should show the progression from Eysenck’s work through Grays biopsychological theory and further evolution and refinement into RST. It’s the Origins and Evolution of RST, but we don’t get all the way there. We have another whole section on Gray’s theory before we get to RST. I suggest making the “Origins” section a brief but more complete summary OR incorporating the Gray’s theory section into the “origins” section to give a more cohesive narrative. Note: while it’s true that a Wikipedia article is not supposed to “tell a story”, when you’re relating the history of a person or idea, I believe that having a cohesive narrative is still important.

The nomenclature used to describe the BAS, BIS and FFS systems is difficult and jargony. Unless you can point to another Wikipedia page that explains things like “catecholaminergic action” or “septohippocampal system”, I think they need to be explained here, just a sentence or two describing where they are and what they do. My understanding is that these articles should be accessible to a lay person. The third paragraph of the “Separable and Joint Subsystems Hypothesis” section also seems to suffer from this. I don’t think that referring to main effects and statistically significant interactions is appropriate for a lay person. This may need to be dumbed down.

When you say “high BAS” or “high BIS”, I'm not always sure what you mean. Is it high BAS "activation", "sensitivity" or a score on an RST measure. It seems like "high BAS" should always be followed by one of these nouns.

In general, you often refer to the BAS and BIS without the article, ‘the’. I think this is incorrect, but I’m not a hundred percent sure about that. My reasoning is that if you replaced the acronym with the full name, you would need the article so it should be included. When referring to BAS activation or scores, of course, this wouldn’t apply.

I think you need a few sentences to introduce RST when you get to it’s main section halfway down the page. Jumping into the redefinition bullet points feels a little abrupt.

Overall, very good work. I learned quite a bit in reading your article!Armsbf11 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful feedback, Armsbf11! Your comments helped me increase clarity and flow within the article (I hope!)Plroseman (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review II

Overall, excellent work. This article is packed with information and covers wide ground. Attention to detail is one of the huge strengths of this article. I do have a suggestions that you may consider. I will go over them below.

In the hook, could you add a sentence or two in the beginning to talk about RST more generally/theoretically? You dive right into the brain-behavioral systems, which some readers mya not be expecting, since the title is about a theory and not necessarily about neuroscience/the brain.
Under "Origins and Evolution of the Theory," the dive right into Gray's and Eysenck's theory seems a little abrupt. Perhaps you can talk a little bit about the theory itself and then talk about where it came from? Otherwise, since it's your first paragraph, it makes the article seem to be about Gray/Eysenck rather than RST.
Overall, if you can do a little bit more to distinguish RST from Gray's/Eysenck's theory, that might be helpful. Since you talk so much about Gray's/Eysenck's theory, I wasn't sure if RST is the same thing or how it is different.
Perhaps one solution to the above two problems could be to put the major section entitled "Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory" above the section entitled "Origins and Evolution of the Theory"?
Under "Improved RST Measures," I wasn't sure if the FFFS is a measure or a neuroscientific theory?
In general, what is great about this article is the blend of neuroscience, experimental psychology, and historical grounding. However at times, they can blend together so much that it can be hard to understand how the things go together. You might consider separating those different approaches/areas of information under the different sections

Again, this is an excellent article and full of rich information. Please take my suggestions with a grain of salt because you, as the author, have a much firmer grasp on what you are trying to accomplish! Velvsop (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvsop (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]