Introduction

1. RFFT Group Design Error Error Ratio Measure Mean F Mean F Mean F BAS Fun High 12.40 .013 12.32 .009 12.44 .001 Low 12.45 12.36 12.45 BAS Reward High 17.68 1.56 17.90 .951 18.14 5.08* Low 18.15 17.48 17.25 BAS Drive High 11.01 .784 11.34 7.35** 11.45 9.93** Low 11.38 10.23 10.20 BAS Total High 41.09 .826 41.56 2.30 42.03 5.56* Low 41.98 40.07 39.90 BIS High 20.60 8.81** 20.61 2.06 21.32 .011 Low 22.34 21.54 21.25 PSWQ High 48.68 5.15* 48.78 4.13* 49.87 1.07 Low 54.61 53.96 52.23 * p<.05 ** p<.01 • Right Frontal Functioning, Personality, Worry, and the Cardiovascular System in a College Population Jared A. Rowland, M.S., Michael M. Knepp, M.S., Sheri L. Towe, M.S., Chad L. Stephens, M.S.,Chris S. Immel, M.S., Ryoichi J.P. Noguchi, M.S., & David W. Harrison, Ph. D. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. Introduction Results Heart rate reaction by Error Ratio group Table 1. BIS/BAS and PSWQ scores by RFFT Group. • The Behavioral Activation System (BAS) is associated with approach and reward seeking and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) is associated with the avoidance of punishment and conflict. • These constructs have been shown to be related to neurological activation, the BAS with relative activation of the left frontal cortex and the BIS with relative activation of the right frontal cortex (see Demaree, Robinson, Everhart, & Youngstrom, 2005). • Differential frontal activation has been related to cardiovascular functioning. The right frontal cortex has been found to regulate sympathetic response (e.g. Wittling, 1997). Right frontal stressors produce an increased sympathetic response in individuals with right frontal dysfunction (e.g. Demaree & Harrison, 1997; Williamson & Harrison, 2003). • Research has shown that worry is also related to exaggerated cardiovascular reactivity and delayed recovery to laboratory stressors (Lyonfields, Borkavec, & Thayer, 1995). • Our primary hypotheses for this study: Individuals with decreased right frontal functionality would have increased reactivity to the right frontal task, higher trait worry, higher BAS and lower BIS scores. Discussion Mixed support were found for our hypotheses. The data suggest that behavioral inhibition and worry were associated with a decrease in the number of designs produced on the RFFT. Behavioral approach, especially related to Drive, was associated with a higher number of errors produced. Worry was associated with a lower number of overall errors, but not when controlling for the number of designs produced as increased worry was related to a reduced number of designs produced as well. Interestingly, behavioral inhibition was not related to a reduced number of errors produced. These data suggest that trait worry and BIS/BAS personality variables measure different constructs, and that these constructs are differentially related to performance on a test of neuropsychological functioning. It is possible that individuals with higher trait Worry were more observant and cautious about making mistakes, while individuals higher on BIS were not as cautious about errors. The two measures were highly correlated (r=.612), so it is possible that higher BIS scores indicate a degree of caution, but higher Worry scores indicate an even higher level of caution. RFFT performance was also associated with a cardiovascular response, though not in the typical direction. Past research has associated poor performance on the RFFT with less activation in the right frontal cortex and an increase in HR in response to a stressor, especially in individuals considered High Hostiles (Demaree & Harrison, 1997). However, we observed the opposite reaction in our sample. Our sample displayed an increase in HR in the group performing better on the RFFT, and a decrease in HR in the group performing worse on the RFFT. This could possibly be due to the fact that they are not considered a High Hostile group. Participants/Methodology • Right frontal functioning was related to measures of BIS BAS such that non-fluent individuals scored higher on BIS and individuals committing more perseverative errors scored higher on BAS. Trait worry had mixed findings, such that non-fluent individuals scored higher on trait worry, as well as those individuals committing fewer perseverative errors, but there was no difference with regards to error ratio. • These findings are replicated when the normative groups are examined. Individuals classified as below average with respect to error ratio scored higher on the BAS Drive scale (F(1, 177) = 8.75, p<.004). Individuals classified as below average with respect to total designs scored higher on the BIS scale (F(1, 177)=4.46, p<.036) and the PSWQ (F(1, 176) = 4.40, p<.038). • Finally, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between performance on the RFFT and heart rate across time in the normative design group (F(1, 178)=3.72, p<.055) and the normative error ratio group (F(1, 178)=3.20, p<.076). This is also seen in the upper and lower third groups for error ratio (F(1, 126) = 3.826, p<.053), total errors (F(1, 126)= 2.94, p<.089), but not for designs. The interaction reflected individuals performing better on the RFFT displaying an increase in HR and those performing worse displaying a decrease in HR. • 785 undergraduates completed questionnaires as part of the STATE project. 186 participants also completed the right frontal task and cardiovascular recording phase. Validity checks indicated if subjects were paying attention to the questionnaires. • Behavioral activation and inhibition scores are from the BIS/BAS Scales (Carver & White, 1994). Worry scores are from The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Molina & Borkovec, 1994). Right frontal functionality was measured using the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT; Ruff, Light, & Evans, 1987). • Groups representing the upper and lower third were created for total unique designs (n=75, 56), total errors (n=61,70), and error ratios (74, 56). The design group produced an average of 110.8 and 55.1 designs, respectively. The error group produced an average of 7.8 and .55 errors and the error ratio group had an average of .081 and .005 ratios, respectively. • Analyses were also run using groups based on the normative data provided by the RFFT manual. Groups were created for individuals rates as average or higher and below average for unique designs (73, 105) and error ratio (105, 73). Individuals in the design group created an average of 110.5 and 66.9 designs respectively and individuals in the error ratio group had an average of .014 and .079 error ratios, respectively. Presented at the 42nd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Orlando, FL, November 2008 Correspondence to jarowlan@vt.edu