Abstract
The broad construct of impulsivity is one that spans both personality and cognitive ability. Despite a common overarching construct, previous research has found no relationship between self-report measures of impulsivity and people's ability to inhibit pre-potent responses. Here, we use evidence accumulation models of choice reaction time tasks to extract a measure of “response caution” (boundary separation) and examine whether this correlates with self-reported impulsivity as measured by the UPPS-P questionnaire. Response caution reflects whether an individual makes decisions based on more (favouring accuracy) or less (favouring speed) evidence. We reasoned that this strategic dimension of behaviour is conceptually closer to the tendencies that self-report impulsivity measures probe than what is traditional measured by inhibition tasks. In a meta-analysis of five datasets (total N = 296), encompassing 19 correlations per subscale, we observe no evidence that response caution correlates with self-reported impulsivity. Average correlations between response caution and UPPS-P subscales ranged from rho = −0.02 to −0.04. While the construct of response caution has demonstrated value in understanding individual differences in cognition, brain functioning and aging; the factors underlying what has been called “impulsive information processing” appear to be distinct from the concept of impulsivity derived from self-report.
Highlights
The constructs of impulsivity and self-control play a prominent role in our current understanding of personality and neuropsychological disorders (Chambers, Garavan, & Bellgrove, 2009; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)
High scores on the UPPS-P subscales are indicative of higher impulsivity, whereas lower values of boundary separation are associated with lower caution
Despite conceptual overlap and common terminology, we find no evidence that response caution, as defined by cognitive decision models, is associated with any dimension of impulsivity, as defined by the UPPS-P
Summary
The constructs of impulsivity and self-control play a prominent role in our current understanding of personality and neuropsychological disorders (Chambers, Garavan, & Bellgrove, 2009; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Though different taxonomies of impulsivity exist, one fundamental distinction is that performance in behavioural tasks often shows little to no relationship with self-report measures (Creswell, Wright, Flory, Skrzynski, & Manuck, 2019; Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011, 2012; Eisenberg et al, 2019; Sharma, Markon, & Clark, 2014). Cyders and Coskunpinar (2011) suggest that self-report measures focus on general tendencies or traits while lab-based tasks focus on “snapshots” of behaviour, which may be more sensitive to fluctuations in states (see Wennerhold & Friese, 2020). The UPPS-P impulsivity questionnaire consists of five subscales labelled negative urgency, positive urgency, (lack of) premeditation, (lack of) perseverance and sensation-seeking (Lynam, Smith, Whiteside, & Cyders, 2006). Individuals rate the extent of their agreement with statements about their general behaviour, such as “I am a cautious person”, an item in the premeditation subscale
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
