Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales (RITSS)

1. Abstract

The Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales (RITSS) is an 11-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Bradley M. Kleinman, Karen J. Kaczynski, and Charles S. Carver (2010). Built upon the conceptual architecture of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) and motivational models of human behavior, the RITSS was designed to measure individual differences in appetitive (approach) and aversive (avoidance) motivational sensitivities operating specifically within the ecological domain of adult romantic partnerships. While dispositional measures like the Behavioral Approach System / Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS/BAS) Scales capture generalized reactivity to reward and punishment cues across broad life domains, the RITSS isolates how these systems manifest in romantic contexts, providing superior predictive validity for relationship-specific processes.

The instrument comprises two distinct, orthogonal subscales: Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS), which includes 6 odd-numbered items assessing heightened responsiveness to positive relationship experiences, shared intimacy, and social connection; and Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS), which includes 5 even-numbered items assessing vulnerability, distress, and vigilant concern regarding interpersonal conflict, perceived rejection, criticism, and relationship-threatening events. Items are rated on a 4-point response format ranging from A = Very true for me to D = Very false for me, scored such that higher numbers reflect elevated sensitivity. Psychometric investigations have confirmed the bifactorial structure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, demonstrating robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .74 and .84 for RIS, and .76 to .83 for RTS), excellent convergent and discriminant validity relative to generalized BIS/BAS, trait affectivity, and adult romantic attachment orientations (anxiety and avoidance), as well as incremental validity in predicting daily relational affect, dyadic satisfaction, and behavioral trajectories in longitudinal and daily diary studies.

2. Keywords

Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales, RITSS, Behavioral Approach System, Behavioral Inhibition System, Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, romantic relationships, approach motivation, avoidance motivation, relationship satisfaction, dyadic interaction, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales were developed through a collaborative research program led by prominent scholars in clinical psychology, romantic relationship dynamics, and motivational personality processes:

• Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Ph.D.: Unidel A. Gilchrist Sparks III Chair and Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Delaware. Dr. Laurenceau is a leading expert in intimate relationship processes, dyadic intimacy, interpersonal emotional dynamics, and daily diary and intensive longitudinal methodology.
• Bradley M. Kleinman, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist specializing in couple interactions, cognitive-behavioral processes, and quantitative measurement methodologies.
• Karen J. Kaczynski, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist specializing in developmental, interpersonal, and family systems, with extensive research on affective and behavioral adjustment in dyadic contexts.
• Charles S. Carver, Ph.D. (1947–2019): Formerly Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami. Dr. Carver was an internationally recognized authority in personality psychology, self-regulation theory, behavioral approach and inhibition systems, dispositional optimism, and affective science.

Correspondence regarding the original validation of the RITSS was primarily directed to the Department of Psychology at the University of Delaware (Newark, DE 19716) or the Department of Psychology at the University of Miami (Coral Gables, FL 33124).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales (RITSS) is to provide an empirically sound, domain-specific measurement tool designed to evaluate individual differences in motivational neurobehavioral sensitivities within adult romantic partnerships. For several decades, personality and social psychologists have recognized that human behavior is guided by two fundamental motivational engines: an appetitive approach system oriented toward obtaining rewards, incentives, and positive outcomes, and an aversive avoidance system oriented toward evading threats, punishments, and negative outcomes. Although generalized instruments—most notably the BIS/BAS Scales developed by Carver and White (1994)—have been extensively utilized across personality, clinical, and cognitive neuroscience paradigms, personality theorists have increasingly recognized the limitations of applying broad, generalized dispositional measures to specialized interpersonal contexts.

Interpersonal relationships, particularly long-term adult romantic partnerships, constitute high-stakes psychological environments characterized by unique vulnerabilities, intense interdependence, attachment needs, and complex emotional feedback loops. A person may exhibit moderate or low general threat sensitivity when facing occupational or financial risks, yet display intense, hypervigilant threat sensitivity when confronting potential disapproval, coldness, or conflict from a romantic partner. Conversely, an individual might not be particularly motivated by abstract social rewards, yet exhibit extraordinary responsiveness and vigor in pursuing opportunities for closeness, shared joy, and relational enhancement with their partner. The RITSS was designed to fill this critical psychometric void by translating the theoretical foundations of generalized reinforcement sensitivity into the specific psychological ecology of romantic dyads.

In clinical and couple therapy settings, the RITSS serves as a potent diagnostic and psychoeducational instrument. Relational distress frequently stems from mismatched or dysregulated approach and avoidance motivational profiles. For instance, a partner with high Relationship Threat Sensitivity combined with low Relationship Incentive Sensitivity is prone to viewing the relationship almost exclusively through a defensive lens—monitoring for signs of partner anger, emotional withdrawal, or criticism while failing to initiate or experience pleasure from positive bonding events. In couple therapy, identifying these baseline motivational sensitivities enables clinicians to tailor interventions: fostering approach-oriented behaviors (e.g., shared novel activities, expressions of affection, savoring positive moments) while decoupling threat-vigilant cognitive distortions from automatic defensive reactions (e.g., stonewalling, preemptive attacks, anxious reassurance seeking). In empirical research, the RITSS facilitates fine-grained examinations of dyadic interaction, daily affect regulation, affective forecasting, conflict resolution, and the long-term trajectory of marital stability.

5. Psychological Construct

The RITSS measures two distinct, functionally autonomous psychological constructs that govern how individuals process, anticipate, and react to relational stimuli: Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS) and Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS).

Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS)

Relationship Incentive Sensitivity represents the individual’s degree of affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactivity to appetitive cues, rewards, and opportunities for positive connection within their romantic partnership. Functioning as the relational operationalization of the Behavioral Approach System (BAS), RIS reflects the vigor, excitement, and proactive commitment with which a person pursues positive relational states. Individuals scoring high on RIS are characterized by:

• Heightened Relational Savoring: An amplified capacity to experience joy, enthusiasm, and warmth when relationship dynamics are going well (e.g., Item 3: “When things are going well in my romantic relationship, it draws me to the relationship even more”).
• Proactive Relational Engagement: A persistent willingness to expend effort and take active initiatives to foster intimacy, mutual understanding, and closeness (e.g., Item 1: “I go out of my way to be connected to my romantic partner”; Item 5: “When I want something good to happen in my romantic relationship, I go all-out to make it happen”).
• Opportunistic Responsiveness: Acute vigilance for and rapid mobilization toward opportunities to deepen the relational bond or enhance mutual happiness (e.g., Item 7: “If I see a chance to have something good happen in my romantic relationship, I move on it right away”; Item 9: “When I see an opportunity to enhance my romantic relationship, I get excited about doing it”).

In essence, RIS reflects an approach-oriented interpersonal orientation wherein the primary psychological goal is the promotion of relational flourishing, intimacy growth, and shared positive affect.

Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS)

Relationship Threat Sensitivity represents the individual’s degree of emotional vulnerability, affective reactivity, and cognitive vigilance regarding potential or actual punishments, rejection, relational conflict, and partner disapproval. Functioning as the relational operationalization of the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), RTS captures the defensive, protective posture an individual assumes within the romantic dyad. Individuals scoring high on RTS are characterized by:

• Hyper-reactivity to Partner Criticism: Deep, disproportionate emotional pain and distress triggered by negative evaluations, scolding, or perceived disapproval from the partner (e.g., Item 2: “Criticism or scolding from my romantic partner hurts me quite a bit”).
• Anticipatory Relational Anxiety: Pervasive cognitive worry and physiological agitation regarding looming conflict, negative emotional states, or relational ruptures (e.g., Item 4: “I feel worried or upset when I think or know my romantic partner is angry at me”; Item 6: “If I think something unpleasant is going to happen in my romantic relationship I usually get pretty ‘worked up’ and upset”).
• Error-Monitoring and Guilt Vulnerability: Persistent apprehension regarding one’s own behavioral shortcomings, mistakes, or failures to meet partner expectations (e.g., Item 8: “I feel worried when I think I’ve acted poorly in my romantic relationship”; Item 10: “I worry about making mistakes in my romantic relationship”).

RTS constitutes an avoidance-oriented interpersonal posture in which the primary psychological objective is risk mitigation, self-protection, and the avoidance of interpersonal discord, rejection, or abandonment.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the RITSS rests at the intersection of three major psychological frameworks: Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, Social Approach and Avoidance Motivation, and Adult Attachment Theory.

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) and Self-Regulation

Rooted in the biopsychological theories of Jeffrey Alan Gray and subsequently elaborated by Charles S. Carver and Michael Scheier, Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory posits that human behavior is governed by distinct neuropsychological systems. The Behavioral Approach System (BAS) is sensitive to signals of reward, conditioned appetitive stimuli, and relief from punishment, generating positive affect (such as hope, elation, and eagerness) and driving active pursuit of goals. Conversely, the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) is sensitive to signals of punishment, novelty, uncertainty, and non-reward, generating negative affect (such as anxiety, rumination, and distress) and prompting behavioral inhibition and vigilance.

Carver and White (1994) established that these systems represent stable dispositional traits. However, Laurenceau and colleagues (2010) recognized that while generalized BIS and BAS traits govern broad self-regulatory tendencies across life, intimate relationships represent a distinct behavioral arena requiring context-specific behavioral calibration. Carver’s cybernetic control-process model further explains that approach and avoidance function as dual feedback loops: the approach loop minimizes the perceived distance to desirable states (intimacy, connection), whereas the avoidance loop maximizes the distance from undesirable states (conflict, rejection). The RITSS operationalizes the dynamic parameters of these two feedback loops specifically within the romantic sphere.

Social Approach and Avoidance Motivation

The RITSS is deeply indebted to the empirical and theoretical work of Shelly L. Gable and colleagues regarding approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Gable’s hierarchical model of social motivation posits that generalized motivational dispositions inform domain-specific motives, which subsequently direct concrete social goals, daily social interactions, and subjective well-being. According to this model, approach social motives are directed toward attaining positive social outcomes (such as friendship, intimacy, and fun), whereas avoidance social motives are directed toward avoiding negative social outcomes (such as rejection, loneliness, and embarrassment).

Research within this framework demonstrates that approach and avoidance social motivations operate along independent pathways. Approach motivation strongly predicts positive emotional experiences, increased relationship satisfaction, and the perception of social events as opportunities for growth. Avoidance motivation, in contrast, strongly predicts heightened negative emotional states, interpersonal insecurity, hyper-vigilance toward ambiguous partner behaviors, and greater decreases in relationship satisfaction over time. The RITSS directly translates Gable’s social motivational architecture into a concise, psychometrically rigorous self-report scale calibrated specifically for romantic partners.

Intersections with Adult Attachment Theory

The constructs of RIS and RTS also exhibit conceptual correspondence with the two orthogonal dimensions of adult romantic attachment: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Attachment anxiety involves a pervasive fear of rejection and abandonment, hyperactivating attachment strategies, and emotional distress over perceived partner unavailability—features closely aligned with Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS). Attachment avoidance, on the other hand, involves a deactivation of attachment needs, compulsive self-reliance, and discomfort with intimacy—qualities that inversely correspond to Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS).

However, Laurenceau et al. (2010) empirically demonstrated that RITSS represents a distinct, non-redundant theoretical layer. Attachment measures primarily capture internalized mental working models of self-worth and partner dependability formed through developmental histories. The RITSS, by contrast, captures direct motivational sensitivities—the fundamental appetitive responsiveness to relationship rewards and aversive reactivity to relational threats. As such, the RITSS accounts for unique variance in daily romantic functioning above and beyond romantic attachment styles.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the RITSS has been rigorously evaluated through empirical studies examining construct, convergent, discriminant, predictive, and incremental validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation study conducted by Laurenceau et al. (2010), involving multiple independent samples of individuals in committed romantic relationships, structural validity was confirmed using structural equation modeling. The two-factor model (separating RIS and RTS into independent, orthogonal constructs) exhibited superior fit indices compared to a unidimensional model or competing hierarchical models. The intercorrelation between the RIS and RTS latent factors was negligible to weak (typically ranging between r = -.05 and r = .15), confirming that appetitive and aversive relational sensitivities operate as distinct, functionally independent psychological systems.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by examining associations between the RITSS subscales and conceptually related personality and relationship constructs:

• Generalized BIS/BAS: As predicted by Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, RIS demonstrated significant positive correlations with general BAS subscales (Drive, Reward Responsiveness, and Fun Seeking; r values ranging from .32 to .48), while displaying negligible correlations with general BIS (r < .10). Conversely, RTS demonstrated significant, robust positive correlations with general BIS (r values ranging from .45 to .58), while showing minimal association with BAS subscales.
• Five-Factor Model (Big Five): RIS correlates positively with Extraversion and Agreeableness, reflecting a sociable, positive emotional orientation. RTS correlates strongly with Neuroticism, reflecting emotional volatility and threat reactivity.
• Adult Romantic Attachment: RTS demonstrates strong positive convergence with attachment anxiety (r ≈ .50 to .62), reflecting shared underlying concerns about partner abandonment and criticism. However, RTS is distinct in its narrow focus on immediate emotional reactivity to partner signals. RIS demonstrates moderate negative correlations with attachment avoidance (r ≈ -.35 to -.45), confirming that individuals who value and pursue romantic incentives are less prone to emotional detachment.

Crucially, discriminant validity analyses confirmed that the RITSS subscales are not merely redundant reflections of general personality traits. In regression models controlling for generalized BIS/BAS, Extraversion, and Neuroticism, the RITSS subscales consistently explained substantial unique variance in romantic relationship criteria.

Predictive and Incremental Validity

The utility of the RITSS is most prominent in its predictive and incremental validity in longitudinal and daily diary studies:

• Daily Affective Fluctuations: In intensive daily diary protocols, Laurenceau et al. (2010) demonstrated that individuals high in RIS experienced significantly greater increases in daily positive affect and dyadic intimacy on days characterized by positive partner interactions or shared relationship events. Conversely, individuals high in RTS experienced significantly sharper spikes in daily negative affect, anxiety, and distress on days characterized by relationship conflict, partner withdrawal, or perceived criticism.
• Relationship Satisfaction: RIS consistently emerges as a significant positive predictor of global marital and relationship satisfaction, fostering relationship resilience through proactive capitalization on positive events. RTS predicts lower relationship satisfaction over time, mediated by increased cognitive catastrophizing during dyadic disagreements.
• Incremental Validity over General BIS/BAS: In hierarchical regression analyses predicting relationship satisfaction and daily relational affect, the domain-specific RITSS accounted for statistically significant incremental variance (ΔR² ranging from .08 to .18) over and above general dispositional BIS and BAS scales, demonstrating the essential value of measuring incentive and threat sensitivities specifically within the intimate relationship context.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the RITSS has been evaluated across multiple independent investigations, encompassing cross-sectional surveys, multi-wave longitudinal studies, and daily diary paradigms involving diverse community and college student romantic couples.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates for both RITSS subscales demonstrate satisfactory to strong reliability across samples:

• Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS): In the initial validation studies by Laurenceau et al. (2010), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the 6-item RIS subscale consistently ranged from α = .74 to α = .84 across diverse cohorts (including undergraduate samples and adult married couples). Corrected item-total correlations for RIS items systematically range between .46 and .68, confirming high item homogeneity.
• Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS): The 5-item RTS subscale demonstrated comparable internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from α = .76 to α = .83. Corrected item-total correlations for RTS items systematically range between .48 and .69.
• McDonald’s Omega (ω): Contemporary psychometric evaluations utilizing McDonald’s omega have reaffirmed these properties, reporting hierarchical and total omega coefficients consistently exceeding .78 for both subscales, indicating that measurement error is well within acceptable scientific thresholds.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Because the RITSS measures enduring individual differences in relational motivational sensitivities, its scores demonstrate strong temporal stability over moderate time intervals. Test-retest reliability evaluated across intervals ranging from 4 to 8 weeks yielded correlation coefficients of r = .78 to .82 for RIS, and r = .75 to .80 for RTS. While demonstrating high stability indicative of trait-like cognitive-affective sensitivities, the scale remains moderately sensitive to substantial shifts in the relational environment (such as relationship transitions, severe traumatic relationship breaches, or successful couple therapy), reflecting both dispositional stability and ecological responsiveness.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the RITSS was established through rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted during the instrument’s initial development and subsequent replications.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the developmental phase of the RITSS, item pools were subjected to principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations to accommodate potential minor correlations between appetitive and aversive drives. Scree plot inspections, parallel analysis, and Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion uniformly supported a clean two-factor solution, which accounted for approximately 48% to 56% of the total variance across samples.

All items loaded strongly onto their designated latent constructs with salient primary factor loadings exceeding .50, while cross-loadings onto the unintended factor remained negligible (typically < .15). Specifically:

• The 6 odd items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) loaded cleanly onto the first factor, representing Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS), with standardized factor loadings ranging from .54 to .78.
• The 5 even items (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) loaded cleanly onto the second factor, representing Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS), with standardized factor loadings ranging from .56 to .81.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses conducted on independent cross-validation samples confirmed that the theoretical two-factor model provides an exceptional fit to empirical data. Standard model fit indices evaluated across samples demonstrated excellent parameters:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely ranged between .95 and .98, exceeding the conventional .95 benchmark for superior fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values ranged between .94 and .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values ranged from .042 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .028 to .071), indicating close approximate model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values were consistently below .050.

Competing models, including a unidimensional single-factor model (in which all 11 items loaded onto a generalized relationship sensitivity dimension), exhibited severely degraded fit indices (CFI < .65, RMSEA > .14, SRMR > .13), confirming the theoretical premise that relational incentive and threat sensitivities are distinct, independent psychological processes rather than opposite ends of a single continuum.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales (RITSS) is a brief, self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Its structural, administrative, and scoring parameters are outlined below:

• Instrument Name: Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales (RITSS)
• Authors: Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Bradley M. Kleinman, Karen J. Kaczynski, and Charles S. Carver
• Publication Year: 2010
• Constructs Measured: Relationship-specific Behavioral Approach System sensitivity (Relationship Incentive Sensitivity) and relationship-specific Behavioral Inhibition System sensitivity (Relationship Threat Sensitivity)
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) who are currently involved in an ongoing romantic relationship (dating, cohabiting, or married)
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes
• Item Count: 11 items
  • Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS): 6 items (Odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11)
  • Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS): 5 items (Even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
• Response Scale: 4-point categorical response format:
  • A = Very true for me (Scored as 4)
  • B = Somewhat true for me (Scored as 3)
  • C = Somewhat false for me (Scored as 2)
  • D = Very false for me (Scored as 1)
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • No Item Reversals: All 11 items are worded in the positive direction; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Numerical Conversion: Convert responses so that larger numerical values represent higher sensitivity: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1.
  • Subscale Score Calculation:
    • Relationship Incentive Sensitivity (RIS): Calculate the arithmetic mean of the 6 odd-numbered items: RIS = (Item 1 + Item 3 + Item 5 + Item 7 + Item 9 + Item 11) / 6. Possible scores range from 1.00 to 4.00.
    • Relationship Threat Sensitivity (RTS): Calculate the arithmetic mean of the 5 even-numbered items: RTS = (Item 2 + Item 4 + Item 6 + Item 8 + Item 10) / 5. Possible scores range from 1.00 to 4.00.
  • Interpretation: Higher scores on RIS indicate greater appetitive drive, enthusiasm, and active promotion of closeness. Higher scores on RTS indicate greater emotional reactivity to partner criticism, fear of relational mistakes, and hypervigilance toward relationship discord.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Relationship Incentive and Threat Sensitivity Scales was officially published in 2010 in the American Psychological Association (APA) journal Psychological Assessment. The instrument was developed by Jean-Philippe Laurenceau, Bradley M. Kleinman, Karen J. Kaczynski, and the late Charles S. Carver.

Licensing and Accessibility: In accordance with the longstanding academic dissemination practices of Charles S. Carver and his collaborators, the RITSS is available in the public academic domain for non-commercial research, academic inquiry, and educational purposes without royalty fees. Researchers and clinicians may utilize, reproduce, and administer the scale in scientific investigations provided proper academic citation is given to Laurenceau et al. (2010). The scale was also hosted on Dr. Carver’s official University of Miami academic faculty portal (http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/ccarver/) to ensure open access for relationship and personality researchers worldwide. Commercial applications, inclusion in fee-based psychological assessment batteries, or digital commercial software distribution require formal permission from the copyright holders and the American Psychological Association.

12. References

Below are primary foundational references for the RITSS and the theoretical frameworks supporting its construction:

• Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
• Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9044-7
• Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral approach, behavioral inhibition, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
• Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 175–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00373.x
• Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00405.x
• Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Laurenceau, J.-P., Kleinman, B. M., Kaczynski, K. J., & Carver, C. S. (2010). Assessment of relationship-specific incentive and threat sensitivities: Predicting satisfaction and affect in adult intimate relationships. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019346
• Updegraff, J. A., Gable, S. L., & Taylor, S. E. (2004). What makes experiences satisfying? The interaction of dispositional motivations and emotions in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.496

13. Items of the Scale