Associations between laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity
Introduction
Impulsivity is characterized by rapid, unplanned, inappropriate, and potentially maladaptive conduct (e.g., Visser, Das-Smaal, & Kwakman, 1996). It is observed in both clinical and non-clinical populations, and most commonly measured using self-report personality inventories. Despite variability in the behavioral expression of impulsiveness (ranging from, for example, a disinhibited verbal response to severe risk-taking and aggression), there is agreement on the general characteristics of impulsive behavior. Investigations of impulsivity, however, are limited by an imprecise understanding of the underlying cognitive cause of such behavior. A possible underlying cause of impulsivity is inhibitory dyscontrol.
Inhibitory control concerns the suppression of an explicit or implicit response. It is suggested that inhibitory control is governed by the orbitofrontal cortex (Fassbender et al., 2004); it is likely, however, that several reciprocally connected cortical and subcortical structures are involved (Bradshaw, 2001).
Paradigms of inhibition reflect an array of putative abilities. Nigg (2000) identifies “executive inhibition” (p. 237), which includes interference control, cognitive inhibition, and behavioral inhibition. Logan, Schachar, and Tannock (1997) suggest that executive inhibitory dyscontrol underlies impulsivity. This relationship is implied by several explanatory models, the most common of which maintains that inhibitory dyscontrol of an inappropriate response produces impulsive behavior, as in the case of impulsive violence. Barkley (1997) suggests that inhibitory control provides a delay in which executive functions can operate effectively. At present, however, few researchers have examined the relationship between impulsivity and inhibitory control.
Impulsivity is often measured via self-report (i.e., personality-based impulsivity). Laboratory based inhibitory control tasks (often considered objective tests of impulsivity) provide a measure that is uninfluenced by an individual’s biases and inaccuracies. Laboratory tasks, however, are usually administered in a relatively neutral environment, and do not account for factors that mediate impulsivity (e.g., autonomic arousal). This is where self-report measures, despite their limitations, may possibly come into their own. If we are to use both methods, an important conceptual question concerns the (putative) association between scores based on ‘objective’ laboratory measures of inhibition and scores derived from self-report tools such as questionnaires.
Impulsivity and inhibitory control have been examined in a range of clinical and non-clinical populations (see Evenden, 1999). Results traditionally suggest that personality measures of impulsivity inter-correlate well, but poorly with measures of inhibitory control (e.g., Milich and Kramer, 1984, White et al., 1994). It is unclear whether the apparent lack of relationship represents the measurement of distinct and unrelated concepts, measurement error, or variability in the measures used.
By contrast, a small number of recent investigations suggest that inhibition and personality-based impulsivity may be (negatively) related. Logan et al. (1997) found an association between high-impulsivity on the Eysenck Personality Scale and poor stopping ability in university students, while Swann, Bjork, Moeller, and Dougherty (2002) found that response disinhibition on a continuous performance task correlated significantly with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Concerning cognitive inhibition, Visser et al. (1996) found a diminished negative priming effect in children subjectively classified as “socially impulsive”, while Posner et al. (2002) found significant correlations between Stroop conflict and a self-report measure of behavioral control. Inconsistent findings are perhaps due to the measures employed; many older studies are limited by the use of measures which incorporate an inhibitory component, but are not pure measures of inhibition. Such measures are unduly affected by other processes, such as working memory.
The current study was designed as a preliminary investigation of the relationship between several laboratory measures of inhibition and a popular self-report measure of impulsivity in a normal adult population. This would allow us to determine whether there is evidence to suggest that reduced inhibitory control is associated with personality-based impulsivity in a non-clinical adult sample.
Section snippets
Participants
Thirty one adults (14 male, 17 female; age range: 19–51 years, M = 32.26, SD = 11.66) participated in the study. There were 24 right-handed participants (13 female) and 7 left-handed participants (3 female). Participants were excluded if they reported any history of neurological or psychological disturbance, and were chosen from the local community to represent a broad cross-section of age and occupation. They were either known to the first author or recruited via word of mouth. Participants had
Results
Summary data are presented in Table 1. We sought to determine whether the Stroop and negative priming tasks produced the associated effects, thus justifying their inclusion. On the spatial Stroop task, participants took significantly longer to respond to the incongruent condition (M = 591 ms, SD = 127) than the congruent condition (M = 547 ms, SD = 119), F(1, 30) = 21.44, p < .0001, and also made more errors on the incongruent condition (M = 4.40, SD = 5.62) than the congruent condition (M = 1.49, SD = 2.28), F(1, 30) =
Discussion
These preliminary findings support recent evidence suggesting that some measures of inhibition are associated with personality-based, self-reported impulsivity. An increase in time taken to resolve interference was moderately and significantly associated with non-planning impulsiveness, attentional impulsiveness, motor impulsiveness, and overall impulsiveness. Stroop conflict may serve therefore as a useful objective measure of impulsive behavior.
A decreased ability to inhibit a prepotent
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mark Bellgrove, Chris Chambers, Maree Farrow, Ester Klimkeit, and Jason Mattingley for assistance and advice with the inhibitory control tasks. We also thank Jeremy Young and Anthony Nicola for hardware construction, software programming, and technical support.
References (21)
- et al.
The functional neuroanatomical correlates of response variability: evidence from a response inhibition task
Neuropsychologia
(2004) - et al.
A topography of executive functions and their interactions revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging
Cognitive Brain Research
(2004) - et al.
Two models of impulsivity: relationship to personality traits and psychopathology
Biological Psychiatry
(2002) - American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text...
Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD
Psychological Bulletin
(1997)Developmental disorders of the frontostriatal system: neuropsychological, neuropsychiatric, and evolutionary perspectives
(2001)- et al.
Assessing inhibitory control: a revised approach to the stop signal task
Journal of Attentional Disorders
(2003) Impulsivity: a discussion of clinical and experimental findings
Journal of Psychopharmacology
(1999)- et al.
Examining the development of attention and executive functions in children with a novel paradigm
Child Neuropsychology
(2004) On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a users’ guide to the stop-signal paradigm
Cited by (171)
Neural mechanisms of domain-general inhibitory control
2024, Trends in Cognitive SciencesInflamed but not impulsive: Acute inflammatory cytokine response does not impact prepotent response inhibition
2023, Journal of Affective DisordersCognitive effort and impulsivity
2022, Personality and Individual DifferencesMeasurement of risk taking from developmental, economic, and neuroscience perspectives
2021, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience: Second EditionExploring the relationship of working memory to the temporal distribution of pausing and revision behaviors during L2 writing
2023, Studies in Second Language AcquisitionSelf-Reported Versus Computer Task: Impulsivity in Young Males and Females
2024, Trends in Psychology