4.5 Article

Comparisons of women with high and low trait impulsivity using behavioral models of response-disinhibition and reward-choice

Journal

PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 1291-1310

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00014-4

Keywords

impulsivity; response disinhibition; reward choice; commission errors; behavioral assessment; women

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two types of behavioral models of impulsive behavior, response-disinhibition/attentional and reward-choice response models, were used to compare women grouped by high (Impulse +, n=43) and low (Impulse-, n = 43) self-reported impulsive behavior on the Eysenck I-7 Questionnaire. Two of the four different tasks tested were response-disinhibition/attentional models; these included the Immediate and Delayed Memory Task and the GoStop Task. The other two tasks were based on the reward-choice model of impulsivity and included the Single Key Impulsivity Paradigm and the Two-Choice Reward Task. Of particular interest was whether commission errors (response-disinhibition/attentional paradigms) or a preference for smaller-sooner rewards over larger-later rewards (reward-choice) would differ between the groups. Participants completed one session of each task in a single day. The most significant findings were that the Impulse + group had: (1) elevated commission errors; (2) lower stimulus discriminability (between target and catch stimuli); and (3) poorer response inhibition to a stop signal. Responding on the response-disinhibition/attentional tasks distinguished between the impulsivity groups while the reward-choice tasks did not. These results demonstrate that women who report higher levels of trait impulsivity respond in a manner consistent with previous studies examining impulsive behavior. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available