The latent structure of impulsivity: impulsive choice, impulsive action, and impulsive personality traits

Abstract

Rationale Impulsivity has been strongly linked to addictive behaviors, but can be operationalized in a number of ways that vary considerably in overlap, suggesting multidimensionality. Objective This study tested the hypothesis that the latent structure among multiple measures of impulsivity would reflect three broad categories: impulsive choice, reflecting discounting of delayed rewards; impulsive action, reflecting ability to inhibit a prepotent motor response; and impulsive personality traits, reflecting self-reported attributions of self-regulatory capacity. Methods The study used a cross-sectional confirmatory factor analysis of multiple impulsivity assessments. Participants were 1252 young adults (62% female) with low levels of addictive behavior who were assessed in individual laboratory rooms at the University of Chicago and the University of Georgia. The battery comprised a delay discounting task, Monetary Choice Questionnaire, Conners Continuous Performance Test, Go/NoGo Task, Stop Signal Task, Barratt Impulsivity Scale, and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Results The hypothesized three-factor model provided the best fit to the data, although Sensation Seeking was excluded from the final model. The three latent factors were largely unrelated to each other and were variably associated with substance use. Conclusions These findings support the hypothesis that diverse measures of impulsivity can broadly be organized into three categories that are largely distinct from one another. These findings warrant investigation among individuals with clinical levels of addictive behavior and may be applied to understanding the underlying biological mechanisms of these categories.

Overlapping Neural Endophenotypes in Addiction and Obesity

“…It is typically tested with the delay discounting task, in which participants must choose between an immediate, smaller monetary sum and a larger, delayed amount (82). A steeper delay discounting rate is associated with a greater preference for immediate rewards, which reflects impulsive decision-making.…”

Impulsividad y conciencia del problema predicen la adherencia terapéutica y el abandono del tratamiento en el trastorno por juego de azar

“…En este sentido, el modelo UPPS-P del comportamiento impulsivo Whiteside, Lynam, Miller y Reynolds, 2001) ha mostrado ser más ventajoso que otras mediciones de la impulsividad, en términos de capacidad discriminativa y de correspondencia con sistemas psicobiológicos disociables (Rochat, Billieux, Gagnon y Van der Linden, 2017). A pesar de su valor teórico innegable, otros métodos de valoración alternativos basados en tareas neuropsicológicas o de toma de decisiones (por ejemplo, Torres et al, 2013aTorres et al, , 2013b, arrojan asociaciones muy modestas con herramientas de autoinforme, incluso para muestras muy grandes (Cyders et al, 2011;MacKillop et al, 2016). Hasta la fecha, no existe una batería de pruebas de este tipo que sea considerada como una alternativa comprehensiva y eficiente en términos de tiempo para evaluar la impulsividad como constructo multidimensional (Stahl et al, 2014).…”

Hierarchical investigation of genetic influences on response inhibition in healthy young adults.

“…Additionally, participants could receive additional compensation from one of the tasks. Full details of the phenotypic assessment are reported in MacKillop et al (2016).…”

“…Associations between poor inhibitory control and risk for abuse have been observed across a number of drug classes, including alcohol, stimulants, and cannabis (Weafer et al, 2015; although perhaps less so for opiate drugs: Ahn & Vassileva, 2016; Badiani, Belin, Epstein, Calu, & Shaham, 2011). As such, there is a strong interest in determining the neurobiological factors, including genetic influences, underlying deficits in inhibition (Bevilacqua & Goldman, 2013; Iacono et al, 1999; Mackillop et al, 2016). Twin studies indicate that inhibitory control is heritable (31% – 50%) (Crosbie et al, 2013; Gagne & Saudino, 2010; Schachar, Forget-Dubois, Dionne, Boivin, & Robaey, 2011), yet the specific genetic influences on inhibitory control are not yet known.…”