 22. The Approach System as a Component of Personality 489
contrasts with the BAS items, which focus 
more generally on experiences of reward or 
good experiences.
In addition to this difference, many SR 
items connote some degree of social deviance 
or general negativity (e.g., “Do you like dis -
playing your physical abilities even though 
this may involve danger?”). As a result, a 
“yes” response to these items concedes some 
level of negative consequence of approach 
behavior. While it was not assumed that in -
dividuals would necessarily have equal sen -
sitivities to different types of reward, Tor -
rubia and colleagues (2001) expected that 
differences would generalize across types 
of reward; as a result, items are summed 
to provide one total score. Although some 
subsequent researchers have reported satis -
factory internal consistency of the SR scale 
(e.g., Caseras, Ávila, & Torrubia, 2003; 
Mitchell et al., 2007), others have not found 
strong support for the original two-  factor 
model differentiating reward versus punish -
ment sensitivity (e.g., O’Connor, Colder, & 
Hawk, 2004; Cogswell et al., 2006).The SHAPS
The SHAPS was devised to be brief measure 
of anhedonia (the inverse of reward sensitiv -
ity) that could be used across cultural and 
clinical populations. To this end, researchers 
asked 55 individuals ages 15–80, recruited 
from the community to list five situations 
that they found pleasurable and thought 
would be applicable to broad groups of peo -
ple (Snaith et al., 1995). These depictions 
were then reworded to form scale items. The 
final scale includes 14 items that loaded on a 
single factor, answered using a dichotomous 
“agree” or “disagree” format (higher scores 
indicate greater anhedonia). A validation 
study of the SHAPS in a nonclinical popula -
tion generated high internal consistency val -
ues and replicated the single-  factor structure 
(Franken, Rassin, & Muris, 2007).
The TEPS
Development of the TEPS was based on 
biological and behavioral evidence that re -
sponses to reward anticipation versus con -TABLE 22.1.  Descriptions and Reliability Statistics of Four Measures of the Sensitivity of the BAS
Measure Subscales Description Internal reliability
BIS/BAS  
(Carver & White, 1994)Drive (4 items) Sustained pursuit of goals a = .76
Reward Responsiveness 
(5 items)Positive affect, energy, and 
motivation in response to 
obtaining or anticipating rewarda = .73
Fun Seeking (4 items) Tendency to approach new 
experiences that may lead 
to reward without regard to 
negative consequences; desire 
for novel rewardsa = .66
SPSRQ  
(Torrubia et al., 2001)Sensitivity to Reward 
(SR) (24 items)Tendency to approach reward in 
specific contexts, and to react to 
reward cuesa = .78 (males) 
a = .75 (females) 
SHAPS  
(Snaith et al., 1995)Snaith-Hamilton 
Pleasure Scale (14 items)Inability to experience pleasure 
across normatively enjoyable 
situationsa = .91
TEPS  
(Gard et al., 2006)Anticipatory Pleasure 
(10 items)Tendency to experience pleasure 
during anticipation of rewarda = .74
Consummatory 
Pleasure (8 items)Tendency to experience “in-the-
moment” pleasurea = .71
Note . Subscales not relevant to the BAS are not included here. Reliability statistics are based on those reported in Franken 
et al. (2007).