Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(2), 200–208, 2015 Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2014.940625

Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales PAUL M. HO,1 ANDREW J. COOPER,2 PHILLIP J. HALL,3 AND LUKE D. SMILLIE1 1

Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia 2 Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom 3 Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Feelings of pleasure felt in the moment of goal attainment (consummatory pleasure) are thought to be dissociable from feelings of desire connected with the motivated approach of goals (anticipatory pleasure). The Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales (TEPS; Gard, Gard, Kring, & John, 2006) was developed to assess individual differences in these distinct processes. Recently, an independent evaluation of the psychometric characteristics of a Chinese-translated TEPS suggested a more complex factor structure (Chan et al., 2012). This study aimed to reexamine the factor structure and convergent and divergent validity of the TEPS in two previously unexamined multiethnic samples. University students in the United Kingdom (N D 294) completed the TEPS and university students in Australia (N D 295) completed the TEPS as well as a battery of conceptually related questionnaires. A confirmatory factor analysis of Gard et al.’s (2006) 2-factor model produced inadequate fit, which model-modification indexes suggested might be due to item cross-loadings. This issue was examined further using an exploratory factor analysis, which revealed a clear 2-factor solution despite cross-loadings among some items. Finally, mixed evidence for convergent–divergent validity was obtained, in terms of relationships between the TEPS and measures of anhedonia, approach-motivation, and positive emotion.

Irregularities in reward processing feature prominently in a number of mental disorders. For instance, anhedonia— concerning diminished motivational or affective responses to rewards—appears in a variety of mental disorders and is a main diagnostic criterion for both major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Conversely, addictive behaviors have been explained in terms of excess attribution of incentive salience to rewarding stimuli (e.g., drugs, alcohol), producing intense feelings of desire or wanting to obtain such stimuli (Berridge & Robinson, 2003). Less extreme variations in reward processing are also salient in basic dimensions of personality. Most notably, the broad personality trait extraversion—reflecting the tendency to be bold, sociable, and outgoing—has been linked with neural structures and functions concerned with the processing of rewards (Depue & Collins, 1999; Smillie, 2013). Overall, individual differences in reward processing are salient constructs in both clinical and basic psychological science. An influential development in this literature concerns the sharp distinction that has been drawn, primarily on neurobiological grounds, between two branches of the rewardprocessing system. Specifically, this research suggests that the motivation to approach goals or rewards—which might be experienced as feelings of eagerness, desire, or wanting—are separable from positive emotional responses to reward attainment or consumption—experienced as euphoria, enjoyment, or liking (Berridge & Robinson, 2003; Berridge, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2010). Whereas reward wanting has been linked

Received August 5, 2013; Revised May 22, 2014. Address correspondence to Luke D. Smillie, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 12th Floor, Redmond Barry Building, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; E-mail: [email protected]

with the functions of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system, reward liking has been linked with the functions of forebrain opioid circuits (Berridge et al., 2010; Knutson, Adams, Fong, & Hommer, 2001). Importantly, the majority of this research has involved experiments with nonhuman animals, and it is only relatively recently that implications of this fractioning of the reward system have been explored in clinical and basic psychology. For example, it has been suggested that a distinction might be made between motivational anhedonia and consummatory anhedonia, with the former characterizing a lack of interest or energy, and the latter characterizing blunted affective responses (Treadway & Zald, 2011, 2013). On similar grounds, personality psychologists have distinguished aspects of trait extraversion concerned with boldness and assertiveness from those concerned with the experience of positive emotions (DeYoung, 2013; Smillie, 2013). A challenge that researchers in this area face, however, is ambiguity surrounding the optimal conceptualization of reward wanting and reward liking. One recent achievement on this front was the development of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales (TEPS; Gard, Gard, Kring, & John, 2006). This was developed to assess individual differences in reward wanting and liking in terms of two novel constructs termed anticipatory pleasure and consummatory pleasure. Anticipatory pleasure concerns the tendency to experience positive feelings about future, to-beobtained rewards (e.g., I get so excited the night before a major holiday I can hardly sleep), whereas consummatory pleasure concerns the tendency to experience positive feelings in the moment of reward attainment (e.g., A hot cup of coffee or tea on a cold morning is very satisfying to me). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the TEPS in four independent samples (U.S. students) appeared to support the two hypothesized factors. In addition, correlations with a range of relevant constructs lent encouragement to the convergent and divergent

200

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE TEPS validity of the questionnaire. For example, established measures of anhedonia were correlated significantly with both of the TEPS subscales, which potentially confirms that such measures conflate multiple aspects of reward processing. On the other hand, whereas anticipatory pleasure was more strongly related to measures of approach motivation (e.g., Behavioral Activation System [BAS] scale; Carver & White, 1994), consummatory pleasure related more strongly to a measure of physical anhedonia (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1976). More recent evaluations of the TEPS have shown, for instance, that the two subscales demonstrate rank-order stability, with scores having moderate to high test–retest reliability over 6 months (TEPS–ANT, r D .77; TEPS–CON, r D .48; Buck & Lysaker, 2013). Despite the apparent promise of the TEPS as a convenient and effective tool for assessing separable aspects of reward processing, there might be a need for further evaluation of its psychometric properties. As far as we are aware, only two independent evaluations of the proposed two-factor structure of the TEPS using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been conducted, both of which have used translated versions (Chan et al., 2012; Favrod, Ernst, Giulani, & Bonsack, 2009). This means that, to date, the hypothesized factor structure of the original, English-language version of TEPS has not been confirmed using CFA. To add to this concern, the CFAs that have been performed on translated versions of the TEPS have yielded mixed support for the factor structure of the TEPS. For instance, a four-factor structure was found to be the most optimal structure when using a Chinese-translated version of the TEPS administered to Chinese university students (Chan et al., 2012). These authors suggested that the two TEPS scales should be divided into abstract and contextualized subscales. Abstract items were described in terms of experience of pleasure without reference to specific situations or stimuli (e.g., I look forward to a lot of things), whereas contextualized items are explicit about such details (e.g., I love when people play with my hair). The authors explained their findings by suggesting that responses to abstract items would require greater mental effort—indeed, their results showed that abstract items required a significantly longer time to rate. While acknowledging the possible impact of contextualized item content on the recall of past events, it should be noted that the TEPS factor structure obtained by Chan et al. (2012) was not decisively interpretable in such terms. It is also important to note that the authors made a number of modifications to the TEPS prior to conducting a CFA: Three out of 18 of the original items were removed and replaced with two items that the authors suggested were more appropriate. Specifically, Item 7 (I don’t look forward to things like eating out at restaurants) was removed because it had a low correlation with other items. Item 9 (I love it when people play with my hair) and Item 11 (When I’m on the way to an amusement park, I can hardly wait to ride the roller coaster) were replaced with two new items (I love it when a baby snuggles into my arms and On the way to my first date with my beloved, I can hardly wait to see him/her). This was due to the authors’ perception that Item 9 might be a cultural taboo and Item 11 might be an enjoyment to which only young participants would be able to relate. Overall, it is difficult to say with any certainty whether Chan et al.’s (2012) findings reflect a general limitation of the

201 TEPS as a measure of anticipatory and consummatory pleasure. It is possible, for instance, that the problems identified in this study were in some way specific to the Chinese translation of the TEPS, or even cultural factors that are somewhat specific to Chinese samples. It also seems likely that the changes made to the TEPS item content could have influenced the obtained factor solution. Finally, Chan et al.’s findings also differ substantially from those of a study using a Frenchtranslated version of the TEPS, administered to French participants (Favrod et al., 2009). In that study, a CFA yielded good support for the two-factor solution proposed by the scale authors. It also, however, revealed some minor issues with the TEPS in the form of problematically low factor loadings (.05



.30; Floyd & Widaman, 1995) on the first factor, with essentially no crossloading on the second factor. Although this was also the case for the majority of consummatory pleasure items, three items (8, 9, and 19) loaded more weakly (».25) and similarly on both factors. These same items had relatively weak and undifferentiated loadings in the original scale development study (especially Item 8, as noted earlier). These three items also had somewhat lower item–total correlations, as shown in Table 2. Table 3 compares factor loadings from our twofactor solution with results originally presented by Gard et al. (2006). The overall pattern of results from this EFA is broadly consistent with results from our two CFAs; however, in the combined sample it seems that the problem of cross-loading might apply quite specifically to just three items of the TEPS. In contrast to the two-factor solution, the four-factor model was not very interpretable, and largely inconsistent with the model proposed by Chan et al (2012). Only one of their factors was recovered—the three item Abstract-Anticipatory

factor. The remaining three factors did not resemble the four abstract, contextual, anticipatory, and consummatory constructs suggested by Chan et al. For instance, Factors 1 and 3 both appeared somewhat similar to the concept of contextualized anticipatory pleasure, whereas Factor 2 consisted largely of consummatory pleasure items. Interestingly, Item 8 did not load on any factor, which was also the case in our two-factor solution but not in Chan et al.’s four-factor solution. Item 7 also failed to load on either factor, which is interesting, as it was the item excluded from Chan et al.’s analysis. Table 4 compares factor loadings from our four-factor solution with results originally presented by Chan et al.

Convergent and Divergent Validity Associations among our convergent and divergent measures administered to participants in Sample B are shown in Table 5. In general, correlations were highest among measures that putatively assessed the same broad construct (i.e., anhedonia, approach motivation, or positive emotionality). An exception here was the Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale, which was only modestly associated with pleasant affect and homeostatically protected mood. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed in terms of the bivariate correlations that each of these measures had with the two TEPS scales (see Table 6). Given that even very small correlations will reach conventional thresholds for significance (as a result of the large sample size), we focused mainly on effect size, highlighting any correlations > .40 in bold. Overall, the pattern of associations seen here is not clearly supportive of the conceptual distinctiveness of the two TEPS subscales. Consistent with Gard et al. (2006), both TEPS scales were negatively correlated with the measures of anhedonia. Among the divergences, it was expected that TEPS– ANT would be more related to measures of approach motivation and TEPS–CON would be more related to measures of

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE TEPS

205

TABLE 3.—Comparison of Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales (TEPS) factor loadings obtained via exploratory factor analysis (in samples A and B combined) with the original findings of Gard et al. (2006). Gard et al.a TEPS

1

Anticipatory factor 1 3 7 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 Consummatory factor 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 13

When something exciting is coming up in my life, I really look forward to it When I think about eating my favourite food, I can almost taste how good it is I don’t look forward to things like eating out at restaurants (R) When I’m on the way to an amusement park, I can hardly wait to ride the roller coaster I get so excited the night before a major holiday I can hardly sleep When I think of something tasty, like a chocolate chip cookie, I have to have one Looking forward to a pleasurable experience is in itself pleasurable I look forward to a lot of things in my life When ordering something off the menu, I imagine how good it will taste When I hear about a new movie starring my favourite actor, I can’t wait to see it Internal consistency (a) The sound of crackling wood in the fireplace is very relaxing I love the sound of rain on the windows when I’m lying on my warm bed The smell of freshly cut grass is enjoyable to me I enjoy taking a deep breath of fresh air when I walk outside A hot cup of coffee or tea on a cold morning is very satisfying to me I love it when people play with my hair I really enjoy the feeling of a good yawn I appreciate the beauty of a fresh snowfall

2

1

.55 .27 .67 .18 .38 .07 .43 .16 .45 .25 .63 ¡.19 .46 .22 .43 .23 .64 .13 .48 ¡.06 .72 .12 .28 ¡.03 .06 .27 .21 .25 .03

Sample A & Bb

.72 .44 .64 .58 .22 .35 .36 .61

Internal consistency (a)

.78

.71

Anticipatory and consummatory scale intercorrelation

.46

.43

2

.52 .52 .39 .37 .58 .53 .43 .55 .56 .58 .77

.09 .15 ¡.07 ¡.02 ¡.09 ¡.08 .10 .10 .09 .01

¡.10 ¡.01 ¡.05 .03 .15 .20 .25 .02

.76 .52 .57 .59 .23 .26 .28 .52

Note. Values taken from Gard et al. (2006). a High factor loadings (> .30) are shown in bold. bExtraction by principal axis factoring and rotation by direct oblimin.

positive emotionality. Instead, what was found was that TEPS–ANT tended to have somewhat stronger associations with all of the convergent scales relative to TEPS–CON.

DISCUSSION The TEPS were developed to assess individual differences in two theoretically distinct constructs, anticipatory pleasure and consummatory pleasure. Apart from the original study

conducted with North American university students, only two other studies have examined its factor structure using CFA (Chan et al., 2012; Favrod et al., 2009). Both of these studies employed translated versions of the TEPS, and taken together they provided mixed evidence for the factor structure proposed by the scale authors. In this study we reexamined the factor structure and construct validity of the TEPS in two ethnically diverse but English-speaking samples. In both samples, CFA revealed relatively weak support for the two-factor TEPS

TABLE 4.—Comparison of the factor loadings obtained via exploratory factor analysis (in Samples A and B combined) with the findings of Chan et al. (2012). Chan et al.a

18 9 14 12 11 6 5 8 13 4 16 15 1 10 3 17 2 7

When I hear about a new movie starring my favourite actor, I can’t wait to see it I love it when people play with my hair When I think of something tasty, like a chocolate chip cookie, I have to have one I get so excited the night before a major holiday I can hardly sleep When I’m on the way to an amusement park, I can hardly wait to ride the roller coaster I enjoy taking a deep breath of fresh air when I walk outside The smell of freshly cut grass is enjoyable to me A hot cup of coffee or tea on a cold morning is very satisfying to me I appreciate the beauty of a fresh snowfall I love the sound of rain on the windows when I’m lying in my warm bed I look forward to a lot of things in my life Looking forward to a pleasurable experience is in itself pleasurable (Anticipatory) When something exciting is coming up in my life, I really look forward to it I really enjoy the feeling of a good yawn When I think about eating my favourite food, I can almost taste how good it is When ordering something off the menu, I imagine how good it will taste (Anticipatory) The sound of crackling wood in the fireplace is very relaxing I don’t look forward to things like eating out at restaurants (R)

1

2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .67 .68 .74 1 1 1 1 ¡1

.64 .36 .60 .59 .67

3

Presentb 4

.75 .75 .49 .57 .57

.58 .64 .64 .61

1

2

3

4

.33 .05 .49 .06 ¡.01 ¡.07 ¡.06 .16 ¡.10 .16 ¡.02 .14 .04 .15 .64 .68 .04 .23

.01 .29 ¡.08 ¡.08 .01 .57 .55 .22 .51 .51 .03 .08 .04 .30 .13 .06 .72 ¡.07

.18 .32 .17 .59 .58 .04 .03 .01 .09 ¡.08 ¡.02 .01 .02 .23 ¡.10 ¡.05 ¡.10 .12

¡.20 .05 .01 ¡.18 ¡.01 ¡.13 ¡.04 ¡.03 ¡.10 .06 ¡.81 ¡.38 ¡.62 .04 ¡.10 ¡.08 ¡.01 ¡.13

Note. Factor labels for Chan et al. (2012) are as follows: 1 D abstract anticipatory; 2 D contextual anticipatory; 3 D abstract consummatory; 4 D contextual consummatory. a Only highest factor loading shown. bHighest factor loadings in each factor are shown in bold. Secondary loadings (> .30) are shown in italics.

206

HO, COOPER, HALL, SMILLIE

TABLE 5.—Correlations among the convergent and divergent measures.

1. Physical anhedonia 2. Social anhedonia 3. Beck Depression Inventory anhedonia 4. Appetitive motivation 5. Approach motivation 6. BAS 7. BAS Drive 8. BAS Fun 9. BAS Reward Responsivity 10. Pleasant affect 11. HP Mood 12. Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 .52 .36 ¡.44 ¡.41 ¡.37 ¡.20 ¡.35 ¡.35 ¡.33 ¡.38 ¡.34

1 .45 ¡.29 ¡.32 ¡.31 ¡.12 ¡.35 ¡.31 ¡.39 ¡.40 ¡.30

1 ¡.24 ¡.37 ¡.27 ¡.18 ¡.18 ¡.29 ¡.57 ¡.54 ¡.16

1 .49 .60 .46 .66 .34 .28 .33 .12

1 .68 .58 .44 .62 .43 .52 .27

1 .81 .79 .82 .42 .42 .19

1 .44 .49 .27 .28 .09

1 .50 .35 .39 .11

1 .40 .36 .26

1 .77 .19

1 .17

Note. Correlations > .20 are significant at p < .001. Correlations exceeding .40 are shown in bold. BAS D Behavioral Activation System; HP Mood D Homeostatically Protected Mood Scale.

structure proposed by Gard et al. (2006). Most of the model fit indexes failed to provide support this factor solution, achieving only adequate fit in one of three model fit indexes. Model modification indexes suggested that the poor fit might have resulted from constraining each item to load only on one factor. A likely explanation for the inadequate fit of the TEPS, therefore, is that the two latent factors are not clearly distinct, with some items potentially tapping multiple factors (Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996). To examine this possibility further, an EFA was conducted on our combined samples, yielding a clear two-factor solution for the TEPS. However, three of the consummatory items showed a pattern of weak cross-loadings onto both factors (A hot cup of coffee or tea on a cold morning is very satisfying to me; I love it when people play with my hair; I really enjoy the feeling of a good yawn). For the first of these items, the same problem was evident in the original scale development study by Gard et al. (2006), and similar issues were observed by

TABLE 6.—Correlations between the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales (TEPS) and convergent and divergent measures, and internal consistency of convergent and divergent measures. Anticipatory Consummatory Significant Pleasure Pleasure Difference Anhedonia Physical anhedonia Social anhedonia BDI anhedonia Approach motivation Appetitive motivation Approach motivation BAS BAS Drive BAS Fun BAS Reward responsivity Positive emotionality Pleasant affect Homeostatically Protected Mood Scales Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale

¡.51 ¡.46 ¡.32

¡.54 ¡.29 ¡.14

.30 .55 .46 .29 .39 .46

.24 .34 .23 .12 .21 .24

.44 .49

.21 .24

.25

.20

* *

* *

Note. Correlations > .20 are significant at p < .001. Correlations exceeding .40 are shown in bold. BAS D Behavioral Activation System. *p < .001.

Favrod et al. (2009). All items of the anticipatory pleasure scale loaded highly on the anticipatory factor, and there was no evidence of cross-loading. This is indicative of simple structure and lends support to the reliability of this measure. Results overall suggest that the TEPS is best represented by a two-factor model, but that these factors are not clearly separable, and that this is possibly driven by a few problematic items on the consummatory pleasure scale. In a recent evaluation of a Chinese translation of the TEPS, Chan et al. (2012) suggested that abstract items might be answered differently from contextual items, for both consummatory and anticipatory pleasure items. However, our CFA of their proposed four-factor model produced even poorer fit than the two-factor model. Furthermore, an EFA with a forced four-factor solution was largely uninterpretable and mostly failed to replicate the pattern of factor loadings obtained by Chan and colleagues. Given the possibility that cultural differences between Chan et al.’s sample and our samples caused the disparity in results, future studies might investigate how culture or ethnic identity might influence the experience of anticipatory and consummatory pleasure. An alternative explanation is that that the Chinese translation of the TEPS resulted in some change in semantic meaning of the items (Van De Vijver & Poortinga, 1982). Neither potential issue seems to have occurred using a French translation of the TEPS (Favrod et al., 2009). Overall, this study suggests that the TEPS is most meaningfully represented in terms of a twofactor structure, despite some limitations to that structure, and that Chan et al.’s (2012) four-factor solution is not robust in these British and Australian samples. To reexamine the convergent and divergent validity of the TEPS, we examined relationships that each TEPS subscale had with measures of anhedonia, approach motivation, and positive emotionality. In line with our predictions, individual differences in the experience of these two reward processes were fairly similarly associated with various measures of anhedonia. To the extent that the TEPS scales are valid measures of their intended constructs, this potentially confirms that established measures of anhedonia conflate variation in anticipatory and consummatory pleasure (Treadway & Zald, 2011). However, other observations raise concerns about the validity of the TEPS. Specifically, both the anticipatory and consummatory pleasure scales were significantly related to all of our

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE TEPS measures of approach motivation and positive emotionality. The only pattern of divergence was a general tendency for consummatory pleasure to relate more weakly to all other measures. In combination with the weak support we obtained for a distinct two-factor structure, this lack of divergent validity could have several explanations. First, it might indicate problems in the way anticipatory and consummatory processes are conceptualized and distinguished within the TEPS. These results could therefore signal that revision and refinement of the TEPS item content is required to improve its structure and validity. Second, it might indicate that anticipatory and consummatory processes are simply very difficult to distinguish via self-report methods (Berridge & Robinson, 2003). It is for this reason that others have sought to distinguish these constructs using implicit or behavioral measures (Wiers, Van Woerden, Smulders, & De Jong, 2002), based, for instance on the Implicit Association Task (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Having said that, the success of such measures has also proved problematic, and one study actually found that self-reports provided a clearer dissociation between anticipatory and consummatory pleasure than behavioral measures (Tibboel et al., 2011). The development of reliable and valid measures that distinguish between anticipatory and consummatory pleasure—and other constructs relating to reward wanting and reward liking (Berridge & Robinson, 2003)—has recently been highlighted as an important goal for clinical science (Treadway & Zald, 2011, 2013). This is because traditional conceptualizations of deficits in reward processing, as in the case of anhedonia, appear to conflate processes that have been shown to arise from neurobiologically separate mechanisms. Optimal treatment of motivational anhedonia (concerning deficits in dopaminergic function) might differ markedly from treatment of consummatory anhedonia (concerning deficits in opioid function), yet traditional assessment tools might not be sensitive to the motivational–consummatory distinction. This highlights the potential practical impact of measures such as the TEPS, and underscores the importance of improving the divergent validity of this measure in future investigations. Strengths of this study include the use of two independent, relatively diverse samples to examine the structure of the TEPS using CFA. CFA is an important step in the process of developing valid and reliable self-report measures for use in the public domain. To date, there has been a surprising lack of evaluations of the TEPS using this method, and those studies that have been conducted have yielded mixed results. The CFAs conducted on our two samples yielded highly similar findings in terms of fit indexes, suggesting that our results are likely to be generalizable—at least within English-speaking populations. The potential impact of language and cultural factors on our results is important to note, given that our results differed markedly from recent investigations in nonEnglish-speaking populations. In addition, a limitation of this study was the examination of convergent–divergent validity in only one of our samples, and this was entirely limited to selfreport questionnaires. Among other problems, this does mean that the relations between our different measures might be partly due to common method variance. Further studies might therefore consider employing behavioral or implicit measures of anticipatory and consummatory processes (e.g., Pizzagalli, Jahn, & O’Shea, 2005; Tibboel et al., 2011; Treadway,

207 Buckholtz, Schwartzman, Lambert, & Zald, 2009). Using such measures, one might predict that anticipatory pleasure will be related to behavioral approach of reward, or effort expended to obtain reward, whereas consummatory pleasure will be related to experienced pleasure and displays of hedonia following the consumption or enjoyment of rewarding stimuli (Geaney, Treadway & Smillie, 2014). In conclusion, this reexamination of the psychometric structure of the TEPS suggests that a two-factor structure is not an adequate fit to the data, but might nevertheless be the most meaningful structural representation of this questionnaire. Convergent and divergent validity were shown to be relatively poor, with the consummatory and anticipatory scales showing similar relationships to a range of key constructs. Given the potential value of measures that clearly dissociate anticipatory and consummatory pleasure (Treadway & Zald, 2011), future research could consider revising the TEPS subscales to improve its psychometric structure and validity.

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory–II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neuroscience, 26, 507–513. Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E., & Aldridge, J. W. (2010). Dissecting component of reward: “Liking,” “wanting,” and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9, 65–73. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258. Buck, B., & Lysaker, P. H. (2013). Consummatory and anticipatory anhedonia in schizophrenia: Stability, and associations with emotional distress and social function over six months. Psychiatry Research, 205, 30–35. 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, 319–333. Chan, R. C. K., Shi, Y.-F., Lai, M.-K., Wang, Y.-N., Wang, Y., & Kring, A. M. (2012). The temporal experience of pleasure scale (TEPS): Exploration and confirmation of factor structure in a healthy Chinese sample. PLoS, 7, 1–7. Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Raulin, M. L. (1976). Scales for physical and social anhedonia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 374–382. Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93–114. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Cooper, A. J., Smillie, L. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2008). A trait conceptualization of reward-reactivity. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 168–180. Cummins, R. A., Stokes, M. A., & Davern, M. T. (2007). Core affect and subjective wellbeing: A rebuttal to Moum and Land. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 457–466. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9065-2 Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.

208 Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569. doi:10.1017/ s0140525£99002046 DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762 Eckblad, M. L., Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Mishlove, M. (1982). The Revised Social Anhedonia Scale. Unpublished test, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78, 865–906. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. Favrod, J., Ernst, F., Giulani, F., & Bonsack, C. (2009). Validation of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS) in a French-speaking environment. L’Enc ephale, 35, 241–248. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299. Gard, D. E., Gard, M. G., Kring, A. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Anticipatory and consummatory components of the experience of pleasure: A scale development study. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1086–1102. Geaney, J. T., Treadway, M. T., & Smillie, L. D. (2014). Trait anticipatory pleasure predicts effort expenditure for rewards. Manuscript in preparation. Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62–72. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Hogarty, K. Y., Hines, C. V., Kromrey, J. D., Ferron, J. M., & Mumford, K. R. (2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 202–226. Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001). Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 1–5. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

HO, COOPER, HALL, SMILLIE O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402. Pizzagalli, D. A., Jahn, A. L., & O’Shea, J. P. (2005). Toward an objective characterization of an anhedonic phenotype: A signal-detection approach. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 319–327. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338. Smillie, L. D. (2013). Extraversion and reward processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 167–172. Snaith, R. P., Hamilton, M., Morley, S., Humayan, A., Hargreaves, D., & Trigwell, P. (1995). A scale for the assessment of hedonic tone in the Snaith– Hamilton Pleasure Scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 99–103. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Spruyt, A., Field, M., Kemps, E., & Crombez, G. (2011). Testing the validity of implicit measures of wanting and liking. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 42, 284–292. Treadway, M. T., Buckholtz, J. W., Schwartzman, A. N., Lambert, W. E., & Zald, D. H. (2009). Worth the “EEfRT”? The effort expenditure for rewards task as an objective measure of motivation and anhedonia. PLoS ONE, 4, 1–9. Treadway, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2011). Reconsidering anhedonia in depression: Lessons from translational neuroscience. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 35, 537–555. Treadway, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2013). Parsing anhedonia: Translational models of reward-processing deficits in psychopathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 244–249. doi:10.1177/0963721412474460 Van De Vijver, F. J., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1982). Cross-cultural generalisation and universality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 387–408. Wiers, R. W., Van Woerden, N., Smulders, F. T. Y., & De Jong, P. J. (2002). Implicit and explicit alcoholrelated cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 648–658. Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263–311. Yik, M., Russell, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11, 705–731.

Copyright of Journal of Personality Assessment is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Factor structure and construct validity of the temporal experience of pleasure scales.

Feelings of pleasure felt in the moment of goal attainment (consummatory pleasure) are thought to be dissociable from feelings of desire connected wit...
156KB Sizes 0 Downloads 4 Views