Behavioral Activation and Inhibition Systems: Further Evaluation of a BIS-BAS Model of Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The role of the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) in function has been evaluated in a wide range of populations. However, research on the role of the BIS and BAS in pain is in its early stages. This study sought to evaluate the utility of a BIS-BAS model of chronic pain. METHODS: Participants were 164 individuals with chronic pain who responded to an online survey. Participants provided information about pain location, intensity, and frequency and completed questionnaires assessing behavioral inhibition and activation sensitivity, pain catastrophizing, pain interference, activity engagement, pain willingness, hope, and pain self-efficacy. Seven hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test hypothesized associations between BIS and BAS sensitivity and measures of participant function. RESULTS: BIS scores were significantly and positively associated with pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, and pain interference and were negatively associated with activity engagement, hope, and pain self-efficacy (P<0.01). BAS scores showed significant and positive associations with activity engagement and hope and showed significant negative associations with pain catastrophizing and anxiety (P<0.05). Furthermore, BIS sensitivity evidenced stronger associations with all the other study measures than did BAS sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide important new information regarding the utility of the BIS-BAS model of chronic pain. Our results support the idea that BIS activation is more important than BAS activation in explaining a variety of pain-related outcomes, including positive and negative responses to pain, and suggest that modification of the model may be indicated. These results have several theoretical and clinical implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".