fei75766_ch16_495-533.indd 526  02/06/20 01:34 PM
Part VI    Learning-Cognitive Theories526
Although thisstudy hadnodirect evidence, other research provides oneplau-
sibleexplanation fortheindividual differences seeninD-amphetamine: Itresults in
individual differences insensitivities totheneurotransmitter dopamine, which is
associated withmost increases infeeling good orhaving apositive mood. Inother 
words, responders aremore likely tobeaffected bythestimulant, because theirsensi -
tivity todopamine isgreater. Totheextent thatpersonality hasabiological basis (see
Chapters 14and15),itcanaffect sensitivity toconditioning. Indeed, many research -
ersconsider dopamine tobethe“positive reinforcement” system. 
Mutual Influence Between Personality and Conditioning
Inaddition totheindependent evidence thatconditioning affects personality and
thatpersonality affects conditioning, there isalsomutual evidence fortheir influ-
enceoneach other. Aneuropsychological theory ofpersonality hasemerged within 
behaviorism thathelps explain themutual influence between individuals’ tempera -
ments andresponses toconditioning, known asReinforcement Sensitivity Theory 
(RST; Corr, 2008;). Thistheory identifies three emotional –motivational systems 
inindividuals: one“approach” system (thebehavioral approach system, BAS) and
two“avoidance” systems (thebehavioral inhibition system, BIS,andthefight-flight-
freeze system, FFFS). TheBASisresponsive torewards, impulses, andpleasurable 
experiences, whereas theBISisresponsive topunishments andanxiety. TheFFFS 
isresponsive tofearandthreat. These systems arerelated tobothpositive (inthe
caseoftheBAS) andnegative (inthecaseoftheBISandFFFS) emotions, and
hence helpexplain boththedevelopment andmaintenance ofcertain features of
personality. These reinforcement sensitivities tieintoSkinner’s theory ofoperant 
conditioning andreinforcement bymaking clear thatdifferent behavior isshaped 
bydifferent rewards andpunishments—that is,conditioning shapes personality, but
alsopersonality affects conditioning. 
Research supports thismutual relationship between conditioning andpersonal -
ity.Corr andcolleagues’, forexample, usedtheReinforcement Sensitivity Theory to
helpexamine whypeople differ onanumber ofpersonality characteristics. Inone
recent study, Stoeber andCorr (2015) examined thetraitofperfectionism, which is
characterized byexceedingly highstandards ofperformance. Perfectionism comes 
inthree different forms: (a)self-oriented perfectionists endorse thebelief thatbeing 
perfect isimportant andarecritical ofthemselves when theyfailtomeet highstan-
dards; (b)other-oriented perfectionists believe thatitisimportant forothers tobe
perfect andarecritical ofthose whofailtomeet highexpectations; and(c)socially 
prescribed perfectionists believe thatstriving forperfection isimportant toothers 
andexpect thatothers willbehighly critical ofthem iftheyfailtomeet highexpecta -
tions (Hewitt &Flett, 1991). Stoeber andCorr (2015) predicted thatreinforcement 
sensitivity (conditioning) mayhelpexplain different forms ofperfectionism (person -
ality) andalsothatthese sensitivities arereinforced differently bydifferent emotional 
responses. 
Totesttheirprediction, Stoeber andCorr (2015) administered three psycho -
logical measures to388university students. First, students completed ameasure of
perfectionism (Hewitt &Flett, 1991); second, ameasure ofreinforcement sensitivity—
thatis,whether theyarelikely toapproach (BAS), inhibit (BIS), orfight, flee,andFinal PDF to printer