Impulsiveness and resource allocation: Testing Humphreys and Revelle’s (1984) explanation of impulsive personality (original) (raw)
Related papers
Correlates of trait impulsiveness in performance measures and neuropsychological tests
Psychiatry research, 2005
Performance measures of impulsiveness offer great promise for assessing this trait in clinical and experimental studies. However, little is known about their relative superiority or inferiority to standard cognitive performance measures as correlates of this trait. In this study, 58 healthy volunteers completed a self-rating of impulsiveness (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) and a battery of neuropsychological tests. The test battery included measures of reaction time, attention, memory, fluency, and executive function, as well as two performance measures of impulsiveness--Time Estimation and a Go-No Go task. Self-ratings correlated moderately with a number of these test scores, but many correlations became non-significant after adjustment for age and education. Correlations with the Go-No Go task, verbal fluency, executive function measures (Trails B), and tasks requiring decision-making against time (Choice Reaction Time, Reaction Time to Paired Words and Paired Faces Memory Tasks, an...
Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures
Personality and Individual Differences, 2006
Impulsivity as a behavioral construct encompasses a wide range of what are often considered maladaptive behaviors. Impulsivity has been assessed using a variety of measures, including both self-report personality questionnaires and behavioral tasks, and each of these measures has been further subdivided into separate components which are thought to represent different underlying processes. However, few studies have employed both personality measures and behavioral tasks, and so the relations among these measures are not well understood. In one analysis we examined correlations between three widely used personality measures (i.e., BIS-11, I 7 , and MPQ) and four laboratory-task measures of impulsive behavior (behavioral inhibition (2), delay discounting, and risk taking) in 70 healthy adult volunteers. The correlations among the various self-report measures were high, but self-reports were not correlated with behavioral-task measures. In a second analysis we performed a principal-components analysis using data from the four behavioral tasks for 99 participants. Two components emerged, labeled ''impulsive disinhibition'' (Stop Task and Go/No-Go task) and ''impulsive decision-making'' (Delay-Discounting task and Balloon Analog Risk Task). Taken collectively, these analyses support other recent findings indicating that self-report 0191-8869/$ -see front matter Ó (H. de Wit).
The Individual Antecedents of Impulsive Behavior
This study aims to investigate some individual antecedents of impulsive behavior. Within the literature, studies suggest that dark side of personality and self-efficacy belief considered an effective factors on employees' impulsive behaviors. For this purpose, the data were collected via survey method from 201 employees who are working in four and five star hotels in Antalya and Bursa provinces. Accordingly exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, correlation and structural equation modelling were used for the data analyses. The results of the study indicate that while psychopathy has a significant and positive effect on employees' impulsive behaviors, narcissism has a significant and negative effect on the impulsivity. However, Machiavellianism has no significant effect on impulsive behaviors. On the other hand, it is found that self-efficacy has a significant and negative effect on employees' impulsive behaviors.
Slower adaptation of control strategies in individuals with high impulsive tendencies
2020
Flexible use of reactive and proactive control mechanisms according to environmental demands is the key to adaptive behaviors. In this study, forty-eight adults performed ten blocks of an AX-CPT task to reveal the strength of proactive control mechanisms by the calculation of the proactive behavioral index (PBI). They also fulfilled the UPPS questionnaire to assess their impulsiveness. The median-split method based upon the UPPS score distribution was used to categorize participants as having high (HI) or low (LI) impulsiveness traits. The analyses revealed that the PBI was smaller in the HI group compared to the LI group. Moreover, the PBI increased over blocks, but more slowly in the HI group than in the LI group. Overall, the current study demonstrates that (1) impulsiveness is associated with less dominant proactive control due to (2) a stronger reliance on reactive processes across blocks despite task demands.
Impulsive Motor Behavior: Effects of Personality and Goal Salience
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990
This experiment used a circle tracing paradigm to extend our recent theoretical development concerning the contributions of extraversion and neuroticism to impulsive performance on continuous motor tasks. Subjects (N = 137) completed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 circle conditions: The goal condition provided subjects with a salient behavioral end point for their tracings, whereas the no-goal condition promoted behavioral uncertainty. In both conditions, Ss were asked to trace the circle under neutral and inhibition instructions. Using Gray's impulsivity and anxiety dimensions to group subjects, impulsive subjects under inhibition instructions displayed significantly faster tracing speed than nonimpulsive subjects in the presence of a salient goal, whereas anxious subjects appeared behaviorally impulsive in a situation promoting uncertainty and response conflict. Conceptualizing impulsivity and anxiety in terms of extraversion and neuroticism, with impulsive Ss as neurotic extraverts and anxious Ss as neurotic-introverts, it is proposed that Ss' level of extraversion determines the type of stimuli to which they are responsive, and that level of neuroticism influences the magnitude of this reaction.
Are high-impulsive and high risk-taking people more motor disinhibited in the presence of incentive?
Personality and Individual Differences, 2002
In this study we assess the ability to inhibit certain planned actions in relation to the impulsiveness and venturesomeness traits of personality using the stop-signal paradigm. In the first condition subjects performed the stop-signal task without incentives. In the second condition, subjects performed the same task using an approach-avoidance conflict situation: speed of response was rewarded and the lack of inhibition was punished. Twenty male subjects were selected after preliminary testing using the impulsivity subscale from the Eysenck Personality Inventory. The main findings were: (1) no deficit in motor inhibition was found for high-impulsive subjects; estimated mean reaction times of inhibitory processes were the same for both high-and low-impulsive groups and (2) the presence of an incentive in the conflict situation affected motor inhibition for low venturesomeness subjects, who adopted a more cautiousness response strategy. #
Quick to Act, Quick to Forget: the Link Between Impulsiveness and Prospective Memory
European Journal of Personality, 2013
Several traits of impulsiveness (e.g. lack of planning and perseverance, difficulty focusing attention) seem intimately connected to the skills required for successful prospective memory performance. This is the first study to examine whether the various inter-correlated dimensions of impulsiveness are related to problems with prospective memory. Undergraduate students (N = 184) completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale 11, the Prospective Memory Questionnaire, the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire, and two objective prospective memory tests. Results revealed consistent correlations between the various dimensions of impulsiveness (attentional, motor, non-planning) and self-reported problems with prospective memory. Subsequent regression analyses indicated that attentional impulsiveness is a unique predictor of self-reported problems with internally cued prospective memory, and non-planning impulsiveness is a unique predictor of self-reported problems with episodic and overall prospective memory. Similarly, findings from the objective prospective tests showed that non-planning impulsiveness was related to worse performance on the two prospective memory tests. Whereas non-planning impulsiveness was also related to using fewer prospective memory-aiding strategies, mediation analyses showed that use of these strategies does not account for any of the detected relationships. Because the findings suggest that a failure to plan does not underlie the detected effects, other potential explanations for the relationships are discussed.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2017
The place of impulsiveness in multidimensional personality frameworks is still unclear. In particular, no consensus has yet been reached with regard to the relation of impulsiveness to Neuroticism and Extraversion. We aim to contribute to a clearer understanding of these relationships by accounting for the multidimensional structure of impulsiveness. In three independent studies, we related the subscales of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) to the Big Five factors of personality. Study 1 investigated the associations between the BIS subscales and the Big Five factors as measured by the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) in a student sample (N = 113). Selective positive correlations emerged between motor impulsiveness and Extraversion and between attentional impulsiveness and Neuroticism. This pattern of results was replicated in Study 2 (N = 132) using a 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory. In Study 3, we analyzed BIS and NEO-FFI data obtained from a sample of patients with pathological buying (N = 68). In these patients, the relationship between motor impulsiveness and Extraversion was significantly weakened when compared to the non-clinical samples. At the same time, the relationship between attentional impulsiveness and Neuroticism was substantially stronger in the clinical sample. Our studies highlight the utility of the BIS subscales for clarifying the relationship between impulsiveness and the Big Five personality factors. We conclude that impulsiveness might occupy multiple places in multidimensional personality frameworks, which need to be specified to improve the interpretability of impulsiveness scales.
We propose a model of impulsivity that predicts both domain-general and domain-specific variance in behaviours that produce short-term gratification at the expense of long-term goals and standards. Specifically, we posit that domain-general impulsivity is explained by domain-general self-control strategies and resources, whereas domain-specific impulsivity is explained by how tempting individuals find various impulsive behaviours, and to a lesser extent, in perceptions of their long-term harm. Using a novel self-report measure, factor analyses produced six (non-exhaustive) domains of impulsive behaviour (Studies 1-2): work, interpersonal relationships, drugs, food, exercise and finances. Domain-general self-control explained 40% of the variance in domain-general impulsive behaviour between individuals, r effect =.71. Domain-specific temptation (r effect =.83) and perceived harm (r effect =À.26) explained 40% and 2% of the unique within-individual variance in impulsive behaviour, respectively (59% together). In Study3, we recruited individuals in special interest groups (e.g. procrastinators) to confirm that individuals who are especially tempted by behaviours in their target domain are not likely to be more tempted in non-target domains.