The difference between trait disinhibition and impulsivity—and why it matters for clinical psychological science.

Abstract

In the psychological science field, there is substantial interest in quantifying individual differences in self-regulatory capacity because of its transdiagnostic relevance to various forms of psychopathology. Trait disinhibition and impulsiveness are popular conceptualizations of dispositions reflecting self-regulation of behavioral and emotional responding. In the literature, these constructs are often treated interchangeably because of their shared focus on general disconstraint and a lack of direct comparisons between measures of each. The current work used structural modeling to examine conceptual and empirical differences between 2 popular operationalizations of these traits in 2 samples (Ns = 400, 308), and employed regression and dominance analyses to compare their predictive relations with criterion measures of externalizing problems and negative affectivity (NA). Impulsigenic traits were related both to externalizing problems and NA, whereas trait disinhibition was selectively associated with externalizing. In a dominance analysis, trait disinhibition exhibited complete dominance over all impulsigenic traits in predicting externalizing problems. Conversely, multiple impulsigenic traits evidenced complete dominance over trait disinhibition in prediction of NA. The current work provides evidence that (a) disinhibition and impulsigenic traits are not interchangeable, (b) disinhibition specifically indexes propensity for externalizing problems, and (c) impulsigenic traits reflect a blend of externalizing and NA that appears relevant to diverse forms of psychopathology.

Evaluating the validity of brief prototype‐based informant ratings of triarchic psychopathy traits in prisoners

“…As reported by Brislin et al. ( 2019 ) for TriPM Disinhibition, and consistent with findings from many other studies (Iacono et al., 1999 ; Joyner et al., 2019 , 2020 ), informant‐rated disinhibition was associated robustly with substance use problems in the current sample—both when examined in an individual‐trait regression model and when examined concurrently with informant‐rated boldness and meanness in a joint model. Informant‐rated disinhibition also showed positive, preferential relations with both frequency and diversity of self‐harm behavior, mirroring results for TriPM Disinhibition in the current sample (Brislin et al., 2019 ).…”

Assessing general versus specific liability for externalizing problems in adolescence: Concurrent and prospective prediction of symptoms of conduct disorder, ADHD, and substance use.

“…Importantly, the general disinhibition factor from this model relates robustly to externalizing problems (Patrick, Venables, et al, 2013; Venables, Foell, et al, 2018), suggesting it is what the personality, cognitive, and brain-response measures have in common that predicts externalizing. Together, these findings indicate that disinhibition reflects proneness to externalizing problems, related to variations in the capacity for inhibitory control and distinct from dispositional factors that confer vulnerability to internalizing problems (Joyner et al, 2021). Although related to the well-established literature on trait impulsivity in developmental psychopathology (e.g., Beauchaine et al, 2017), disinhibition is distinguished by its links to inhibitory control, rather than reward processing and negative affectivity, and by its specificity to externalizing.…”

Case Study of Recognition Patterns in Haunted People Syndrome

“…Third, several other pertinent psychometric measures could have been administered to further refine our understanding of witness psychology in paranormal contexts, such as ambiguity tolerance ( Lange and Houran, 2001a ), aberrant salience ( Irwin et al, 2014 ), idiopathic environmental intolerance ( Witthöft et al, 2008 ), schizotypal tendencies ( Cicero et al, 2021 ), and particularly in this case, the variables of allostatic load (i.e., the cumulative burden of chronic stress and life events, Guidi et al, 2021 ) and negative urgency (i.e., the tendency to act rashly when distressed, Settles et al, 2012 ; see also Joyner et al, 2021 ). Percipients’ receptivity to psychological contagion might also be explored deeper with measures such as the Gudjonsson (1984) Suggestibility Scale or the Absorption Scale to gauge a person’s tendency to become immersed within sensory experiences ( Tellegen and Atkinson, 1974 ).…”