Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward (SPSRQ)

Abstract

The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) is a prominent 48-item self-report psychometric instrument designed by Rafael Torrubia, César Ávila, Javier Moltó, and Xavier Caseras in 2001. Developed to operationalize Jeffrey Alan Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) of personality, the SPSRQ measures individual differences in the reactivity of two foundational neuropsychological systems: the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), represented by the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) subscale, and the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), represented by the Sensitivity to Reward (SR) subscale. Unlike alternative instruments that capture broader facets of trait anxiety or sensation seeking, the SPSRQ was engineered specifically to reflect direct behavioral, emotional, and cognitive reactions to concrete conditioned and unconditioned signals of punishment (e.g., physical threats, social rejection, anticipated failure) and reward (e.g., monetary gain, social approval, sexual attraction, sensation enhancement). Each scale contains exactly 24 items arranged in an alternating sequence and administered via a dichotomous (Yes / No) response format. Extensive psychometric validation studies across international clinical and non-clinical cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .82 to .89 for Sensitivity to Punishment and from .75 to .83 for Sensitivity to Reward, alongside high test-retest stability across intervals spanning several months. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirm the presence of two primary orthogonal or slightly correlated latent dimensions, although contemporary structural investigations have identified nuanced sub-facets within the reward domain, such as reward responsivity versus rash impulsiveness. The SPSRQ has established criterion, convergent, and construct validity across diverse experimental paradigms—including passive avoidance learning, Go/No-Go response inhibition, event-related brain potentials, and resting-state frontal electroencephalographic (EEG) asymmetry—and serves as an essential measurement tool in psychopathology, predicting vulnerability to depressive and anxiety disorders, substance dependence, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disordered eating, and pathological gambling.

Keywords

Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire, SPSRQ, Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, Behavioral Inhibition System, Behavioral Activation System, Gray’s Personality Dimensions, Anxiety, Impulsivity, Psychometrics, Factor Structure

Authors

The SPSRQ was developed and psychometrically validated by a consortium of leading personality researchers and psychobiologists based in Spain:

• Rafael Torrubia, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry and Forensic Medicine, Institute of Neurosciences, Autonomous University of Barcelona (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Bellaterra, Spain.
• César Ávila, Ph.D. — Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University (Universitat Jaume I), Castellón de la Plana, Spain.
• Javier Moltó, Ph.D. — Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University (Universitat Jaume I), Castellón de la Plana, Spain.
• Xavier Caseras, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry and Forensic Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain (subsequently affiliated with the MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Cardiff University, UK).

Inquiries regarding the original Castilian Spanish instrument and normative adaptation data are traditionally directed to the Laboratory of Neuropsychology and Personality at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona or Universitat Jaume I.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SPSRQ is to provide a theoretically grounded, ecologically valid self-report instrument capable of indexing individual variations in primary motivational and emotional reactivity as formulated in Jeffrey A. Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of personality. Prior to the development of the SPSRQ, researchers investigating Gray’s paradigm often relied on proxy measures adapted from Hans Eysenck’s dimensional model—specifically mathematical rotations of Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N) into Gray’s axes of Trait Anxiety (Anx) and Trait Impulsivity (Imp)—or generic measures of sensation seeking and trait anxiety. Torrubia and colleagues argued that utilizing instruments constructed under competing theoretical frameworks induced substantial construct contamination, conflated motivational sensitivity with behavioral output, and obscured the underlying biological substrates governing reinforcement processing.

The SPSRQ was formulated with explicit design criteria intended to remedy these methodological limitations:

• Ecological Reinforcement Framing: The items were constructed to depict real-world situations featuring explicit appetitive incentives (cues of reward) or aversive threats (cues of punishment, non-reward, or social sanction), rather than abstract adjectives, emotional states, or decontextualized traits.
• Dissociation of Affect from Approach/Avoidance Behavior: The questionnaire captures both behavioral tendencies (e.g., behavioral inhibition, avoidance, approach) and subjective cognitive-affective reactivity (e.g., worry, fear of failure, anticipation of praise) tied to reward and punishment contingencies.
• Empirical Utility Across Diverse Scientific Disciplines: The SPSRQ was structured to advance translational psychopathology, cognitive neuroscience, psychopharmacology, behavioral economics, and clinical psychology by offering an efficient metric to predict laboratory conditioning, emotional learning, neuroimaging activations, and risk for externalizing versus internalizing psychiatric conditions.

In clinical practice and psychopathological research, the SPSRQ is widely used to evaluate endophenotypic vulnerabilities. Elevated Sensitivity to Punishment scores reliably identify individuals predisposed to generalized anxiety, social phobia, obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, and major depressive disorder, reflecting chronic hypervigilance toward potential negative outcomes and threat overestimation. Conversely, high Sensitivity to Reward scores delineate vulnerability to substance use disorders, pathological gambling, binge-eating behavior, bipolar spectrum disorders, and antisocial personality traits, where appetitive motivational drive and sensitivity to positive reinforcement override inhibitory cognitive controls.

Psychological Construct

The SPSRQ operationalizes two cardinal personality dimensions that map directly onto Gray’s biological systems of motivation:

1. Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) — The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS)

The Sensitivity to Punishment subscale consists of 24 items designed to measure individual differences in the functional reactivity of the Behavioral Inhibition System. Within Gray’s neuropsychological framework, the BIS is activated by conditioned stimuli associated with punishment, stimuli associated with the omission or termination of reward (frustrative non-reward), novel stimuli, and innate fear stimuli. The subjective psychological manifestation of an overactive BIS is state and trait anxiety, cognitive hypervigilance, and heightened sensitivity to threat.

Functionally, the SP scale evaluates:

• Passive Avoidance and Behavioral Arrest: The tendency to interrupt ongoing behavior and refrain from acting when a potential hazard, illegality, or adverse consequence is anticipated (e.g., Item 1: refraining from actions due to fear of illegality; Item 9: renouncing rights to prevent interpersonal quarrels).
• Anticipatory Anxiety and Worry: Intrusive cognitive rumination regarding past blunders or prospective catastrophes, difficulty relaxing before demanding tasks, and nocturnal sleep disruption driven by worry (e.g., Item 23: difficulty falling asleep due to cognitive brooding; Item 31: post-event rumination regarding verbal statements or behaviors).
• Social Evaluative Threat and Interpersonal Inhibitions: Pronounced apprehension in social evaluative contexts, fear of public embarrassment, social shyness, and reluctance to initiate unfamiliar social encounters (e.g., Item 7: difficulty telephoning unknown persons; Item 17: self-identified shyness; Item 35: avoidance of public speaking; Item 47: behavioral inhibition driven by fear of embarrassment).
• Fear of Novelty and Failure: Aversive reactivity toward unfamiliar environments and unexpected operational demands (e.g., Item 5: apprehension toward new or unexpected circumstances; Item 13: disproportionate dread of failure during unprepared tasks; Item 29: active avoidance of unknown places).

2. Sensitivity to Reward (SR) — The Behavioral Activation / Approach System (BAS)

The Sensitivity to Reward subscale consists of 24 items designed to measure individual differences in the functional reactivity of the Behavioral Activation System. The BAS is activated by conditioned and unconditioned appetitive stimuli, signals of reward, and cues indicating the successful termination or relief from punishment (active avoidance). Activation of the BAS generates positive affect (e.g., hope, elation, anticipatory excitement) and mobilizes goal-directed, appetitive approach behaviors. The clinical and behavioral manifestation of an amplified BAS is heightened impulsivity and sensation-seeking.

Functionally, the SR scale captures reactivity across several distinct incentive modalities:

• Monetary and Material Incentives: Strong motivational instigation and willingness to undertake effort or take physical/financial risks to secure monetary gains (e.g., Item 2: intense motivation driven by the prospect of obtaining money; Item 26: preference for activities offering immediate gains; Item 42: willingness to execute dangerous or risky jobs for financial reward).
• Social Approval and Status Seeking: Active behavioral pursuit of praise, prestige, social admiration, and hierarchical ascendancy (e.g., Item 4: encouragement derived from feeling valued by peers, employers, or family; Item 10: performing deeds expressly to receive praise; Item 14: extensive investment in physical/social image; Item 24: motivation toward social advancement even through unfair practices).
• Physical and Sexual Appetitive Motivation: Heightened perceptual sensitivity and proactive approach toward sexually or romantically attractive individuals (e.g., Item 6: high baseline frequency of noticing attractive persons; Item 20: seizing opportunities to pick up attractive targets; Item 40: distractibility from occupational tasks caused by the presence of an attractive stranger).
• Competitive Drive and Thrill Seeking: Drive to outperform others, desire to win at all costs, and attraction to intense physiological or sensory experiences (e.g., Item 30: fierce drive to compete and win; Item 44: integrating competitive dynamics into routine activities; Item 48: displaying physical prowess despite acute bodily danger).
• Substance-Related and Sensation Reinforcement: Behavioral attraction toward pharmacological substances and recreational gambling machines characterized by immediate reward delivery and impaired self-terminating capacity (e.g., Item 8: substance ingestion driven by hedonic pleasure; Item 36: difficulty discontinuing play on electronic gaming / slot machines).

Theoretical Framework

The SPSRQ is anchored in Jeffrey A. Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) of personality, initially conceptualized in the 1970s and refined throughout the 1980s and 1990s as a neuropsychological alternative to descriptive trait typologies. Gray posited that the fundamental dimensions of personality are not arbitrary descriptive summaries of lexical descriptors, but rather emergent properties of distinct, evolutionary conserved neurobiological systems dedicated to processing environmental reinforcement contingencies.

Classic Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (Gray, 1982, 1987)

In classical RST, individual differences are organized around two causal neuropsychological mechanisms:

• The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS): Gray localized the BIS within the septo-hippocampal system, its monoaminergic afferents ascending from the brainstem (specifically the locus coeruleus noradrenergic and raphe serotonergic projections), and the neocortical projections terminating in the frontal and cingulate cortex. The classical BIS functions as a comparator, continually evaluating expected environmental stimuli against actual sensory feedback. When a mismatch is detected, or when conditioned signals of punishment or frustrative non-reward appear, the BIS initiates three immediate outputs: (a) behavioral inhibition (freezing or motor termination), (b) an increase in autonomic and cortical arousal, and (c) heightened selective attention toward environmental threats. Gray identified the functional output of this system as Trait Anxiety.
• The Behavioral Activation System (BAS): Classical RST mapped the BAS onto ascending dopaminergic pathways, primarily the mesolimbic and mesocortical projections originating in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and innervating the nucleus accumbens, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. The BAS responds to appetitive stimuli, initiating goal-directed approach behavior, mediating positive affect, and facilitating conditioned active avoidance. Gray designated the functional output of this system as Trait Impulsivity.
• The Fight-Flight System (FFS): Responsible for unconditioned defensive reactions (freezing, escape, defensive attack) mediated primarily by the periaqueductal gray and medial hypothalamus in response to unconditioned aversive stimuli.

Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (Gray & McNaughton, 2000)

In 2000, Gray and Neil McNaughton substantially revised RST, resolving conceptual ambiguities regarding the functional distinction between fear and anxiety. Under revised RST:

• The Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) mediates reactions to all aversive stimuli (conditioned and unconditioned), organizing defensive avoidance (active escape) and fear.
• The Behavioral Activation System (BAS) remains dedicated to appetitive approach behaviors across conditioned and unconditioned reward signals.
• The Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) was redefined strictly as a goal-conflict resolution mechanism. It becomes engaged during concurrent approach-avoidance conflicts (e.g., when an organism simultaneously faces potential reward and potential punishment), approach-approach conflicts, or avoidance-avoidance conflicts. When activated, the BIS suppresses prepotent approach behavior, increases risk assessment, activates cognitive scanning, and evokes the subjective feeling of anxiety.

Because the SPSRQ was published in 2001 (based on empirical development conducted throughout the 1990s), its primary conceptual architecture reflects classical RST, mapping Sensitivity to Punishment to anxiety/BIS and Sensitivity to Reward to impulsivity/BAS. Nevertheless, its items directly address the conflict scenarios (e.g., weighing reward against punishment in social advancement, fear of failure under evaluative scrutiny) central to revised RST, allowing it to maintain ongoing conceptual validity within both the classical and revised theoretical paradigms.

Validity

The SPSRQ has undergone rigorous psychometric evaluation across diverse international populations, yielding substantial empirical support across multiple validity domains:

Construct and Convergent Validity

In their seminal validation study, Torrubia et al. (2001) examined associations between the SPSRQ scales and prominent psychometric personality instruments across Spanish university cohorts (N = 709). The Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) scale exhibited strong positive correlations with Eysenck’s Neuroticism (r ≈ .60 to .66), Spielberger’s Trait Anxiety (STAI-T; r ≈ .65 to .70), and Taylor’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS; r ≈ .68). Concurrently, SP demonstrated moderate negative correlations with Eysenck’s Extraversion (r ≈ −.30 to −.40), perfectly mirroring Gray’s theoretical prediction that anxiety occupies a 30-degree rotation from Neuroticism toward Introversion.

The Sensitivity to Reward (SR) scale demonstrated substantial positive correlations with Cloninger’s Novelty Seeking from the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ; r ≈ .45 to .55), Zuckerman’s Impulsive Sensation Seeking (ImpSS; r ≈ .40 to .50), and Eysenck’s Extraversion (r ≈ .30 to .40) and Psychoticism (r ≈ .25 to .35). Furthermore, when compared with Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS Scales, the SPSRQ SP scale demonstrated strong convergence with Carver & White BIS (r > .60), while the SR scale converged robustly with Carver & White BAS Drive and BAS Fun Seeking (r values spanning .45 to .58; Caseras et al., 2003).

Discriminant Validity

The SPSRQ demonstrates remarkable independence between its two core subscales. Torrubia et al. (2001) observed that the correlation between SP and SR hovered near zero in males (r = −.04) and was modest in females (r = −.15), confirming the theoretical orthogonality of the underlying biological systems. Unlike early impulsivity scales contaminated by anxiety-related neurotic distress, the SR scale operates largely independent of negative emotionality.

Predictive and Behavioral Criterion Validity

Extensive experimental paradigms have substantiated the behavioral validity of the SPSRQ:

• Passive Avoidance Learning: Ávila and Torrubia (2004) demonstrated that individuals with elevated SP scores commit significantly fewer passive avoidance errors under conditions involving monetary punishment or negative auditory feedback, confirming enhanced behavioral arrest when confronted with conditioned aversive cues.
• Response Inhibition and Go/No-Go Tasks: High SR individuals consistently display higher rates of commission errors on rapid Go/No-Go and stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) tasks when appetitive reward contingencies are introduced, reflecting prepotent motor disinhibition driven by incentive cues.
• Psychophysiological and Neuroimaging Correlates: Resting-state electroencephalographic (EEG) investigations indicate that high SR scores correlate with heightened left-frontal cortical activity (a marker of appetitive approach motivation), whereas elevated SP scores correspond to relative right-frontal asymmetry (a marker of behavioral inhibition and withdrawal). Moreover, event-related potential (ERP) studies have confirmed that participants scoring high on SP exhibit amplified Error-Related Negativity (ERN) and Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) in response to unfavorable task outcomes.

Reliability

The SPSRQ possesses highly stable and replicable reliability parameters across various cultural, linguistic, and clinical settings:

Internal Consistency

In the original normative validation sample of 709 Spanish university students (Torrubia et al., 2001), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated excellent reliability:

• Sensitivity to Punishment (SP): α = .83 for males; α = .82 for females.
• Sensitivity to Reward (SR): α = .78 for males; α = .75 for females.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations in international samples have replicated or exceeded these indices. In an English-language validation study conducted with American undergraduate cohorts, O’Connor, Colder, and Hawk (2004) reported Cronbach’s alphas of .89 for SP and .80 for SR. Similar evaluations in Australia (e.g., Nicholls, 2013; Cooper & Gomez, 2008) yielded internal consistency estimates ranging between .84 and .88 for the SP dimension and between .78 and .82 for the SR dimension. In French-language adaptations (Lézard et al., 2013), Cronbach’s alphas reached .85 (SP) and .77 (SR).

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability over time is critical for a measure conceptualized as reflecting stable biological traits. Torrubia et al. (2001) evaluated test-retest reliability across a 3-month interval in a university sub-cohort (n = 143), obtaining test-retest correlation coefficients of:

• Sensitivity to Punishment: r = .89 (indicating exceptional temporal trait stability).
• Sensitivity to Reward: r = .87.

Longitudinal research tracking participants over one- to two-year intervals has shown continued stability (test-retest correlations consistently exceeding .70), establishing that the SPSRQ captures stable endophenotypic personality architecture rather than transient state-dependent fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the SPSRQ has been subjected to extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across numerous independent empirical cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

During scale construction, Torrubia and colleagues extracted two predominant factors via principal component analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations. The 48 retained items exhibited high, unequivocal factor loadings on their designated target factor (≥ .30 to .65) with negligible secondary cross-loadings (≤ .20). The first factor unequivocally mapped onto Sensitivity to Punishment, capturing items related to social anxiety, public scrutiny, punishment avoidance, and fear of failure. The second factor mapped onto Sensitivity to Reward, capturing items pertaining to monetary incentives, physical attraction, competitive drive, and social praise.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) and Structural Controversies

Subsequent structural evaluations led by Anglo-American psychometricians revealed psychometric complexities within the dichotomous structure of the instrument:

• O’Connor, Colder, and Hawk (2004): Evaluated the full 48-item SPSRQ using CFA in a collegiate sample. The original two-factor orthogonal model yielded marginal fit indices (e.g., Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≈ .06 to .07; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ≈ .80 to .85), driven largely by the statistical difficulty of fitting 48 categorical items across a dichotomous format, as well as minor secondary cross-loadings. Through rigorous item-pruning, O’Connor and colleagues derived a refined 35-item version (24 SP items and 11 SR items) which demonstrated superior goodness-of-fit indices (RMSEA = .048; CFI = .92; TLI = .91).
• Multidimensionality of Sensitivity to Reward: Several psychometricians (e.g., Cogswell et al., 2006; Cooper & Gomez, 2008) observed that while the SP factor is largely unidimensional (dominated by threat sensitivity and social anxiety), the SR subscale displays multidimensional heterogeneity. Factor analytic decompositions of the 24 SR items frequently extract two or three correlated sub-factors:
  1. Reward Responsivity / Social Praise: Motivated behavior oriented toward securing social approval, praise, and financial success (e.g., Items 4, 10, 14, 22).
  2. Rash Impulsiveness / Sensation Seeking: Impulsive, disinhibited behavior characterized by an inability to delay gratification, risk-taking, and attraction to forbidden or pharmacologically stimulating substances (e.g., Items 8, 24, 28, 36, 42, 48).

Despite these multidimensional nuances, the consensus across personality literature maintains that the composite SP and SR factor scores provide robust, theoretically defensible, and clinically predictive operational indicators of Gray’s BIS and BAS constructs.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire is structured as an objective, self-administered personality inventory. Below is the operational measurement profile of the standard instrument:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological scale / dimensional personality inventory.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; paper-and-pencil or computerized/online psychometric testing platforms.
• Target Population: Adolescents (aged 16+) and adults across general, occupational, and psychiatric populations.
• Total Item Count: Exactly 48 items arranged in an alternating sequence (odd-numbered items assess Punishment; even-numbered items assess Reward).
• Subscale Composition:
  • Sensitivity to Punishment (SP): 24 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47).
  • Sensitivity to Reward (SR): 24 items (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48).
• Response Scale: Forced-choice dichotomous format: Yes (affirmative) or No (negative).
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Every “Yes” response is scored as 1 point.
  • Every “No” response is scored as 0 points.
  • No reverse-keyed items are utilized; affirmative responses directly index elevated reinforcement sensitivity.
  • Subscale Range: Each subscale yields an integer score ranging from 0 to 24.
  • Total Profile: The instrument yields two distinct dimensional indices (SP score and SR score) which are interpreted independently rather than combined into a singular global sum.
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Interpretation Norms:
  • High SP (≥ 15–18): Heightened vulnerability to anxiety, behavioral inhibition, hypervigilance, social avoidance, and depressive rumination.
  • Low SP (≤ 5–7): Low trait anxiety, fearlessness, resilience under social evaluative pressure, potential risk for antisocial fearlessness if paired with high SR.
  • High SR (≥ 14–17): High appetitive drive, impulsiveness, novelty seeking, elevated vulnerability to substance abuse, behavioral addictions, and externalizing behaviors.
  • Low SR (≤ 4–6): Hypo-reactivity to rewards, anhedonic tendencies, low motivational drive toward social/material achievement.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire was formally published in 2001 by Rafael Torrubia, César Ávila, Javier Moltó, and Xavier Caseras in the peer-reviewed journal Personality and Individual Differences (Elsevier Science Ltd.).

• Intellectual Property & Licensing: The original copyright for the scientific paper belongs to Elsevier. However, in accordance with international academic conventions, the 48 scale items were placed directly into the public academic domain within the publication to facilitate open scientific research.
• Fee: The SPSRQ is available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, university teaching, and clinical investigation. No royalty fees or specialized purchase agreements are required for standard educational or research administration.
• Commercial Use: Commercial exploitation, inclusion within fee-based diagnostic assessment batteries, or integration into proprietary software requires permission from the primary corresponding authors and the copyright holder.
• Citation Obligation: Any empirical deployment of the instrument must formally cite the foundational validation publication (Torrubia et al., 2001).

References

• Ávila, C., & Torrubia, R. (2004). Personality and passive avoidance: The role of sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(6), 1373–1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00234-7
• Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, 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
• Caseras, X., Ávila, C., & Torrubia, R. (2003). The measurement of individual differences in Gray’s personality dimensions: An evaluation of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) and the BIS/BAS scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.3.205
• Cogswell, A., Alloy, L. B., van Dulmen, M. H., & Fresco, D. M. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of behavioral inhibition and approach self-report measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1649–1658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.008
• Cooper, A., & Gomez, R. (2008). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire: A test of alternative factor structures. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1135–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.007
• Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University Press.
• Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198522713.001.0001
• Lézard, S., Dardenne, B., & Hansenne, M. (2013). Validation of the French version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ). L’Année Psychologique, 113(2), 221–242.
• Nicholls, J. D. (2013). The role of impulsivity in co-occurring social anxiety and substance misuse (Doctoral dissertation, Deakin University). http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30062519/nicholls-therole-2013A.pdf
• O’Connor, R. M., Colder, C. R., & Hawk, L. W., Jr. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.004
• Torrubia, R., Ávila, C., Moltó, J., & Caseras, X. (2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 837–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5

Items of the Scale