Are rash impulsive and reward sensitive traits distinguishable? A test in young adults

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.027Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Risk-related personality traits show extensive overlap in youth.

  • Reward sensitive and rash impulsive traits are structurally distinguishable.

  • Reward sensitive traits predict both adaptive and maladaptive behavior.

  • Rash impulsive traits predict only maladaptive risk behavior.

Abstract

Adolescents and young adults are characterized as prone to risky behavior with a wide range of traits identified as predictors of individual differences in this behavior. Here we test a crucial difference between traits that reflect rash impulsivity, the tendency to engage in risky behavior without consideration of consequences, versus reward sensitivity, the tendency to be attracted to novel and rewarding experience. To test the validity of this distinction, we examined the factorial structure of eight risk-related traits in a sample of 899 18 to 22 year-olds. We predicted that rash impulsive traits would be separable in structure from reward sensitive traits and would uniquely predict relatively maladaptive risk-taking (e.g., drug use). In addition, we predicted that reward sensitive traits would be related to both adaptive (e.g., entering competitions) and maladaptive risk behaviors. Results revealed a factorial structure that distinguished these traits, with rash impulsive and reward sensitive traits uniquely predictive of different forms of risk-taking. The results suggest that it is possible to distinguish traits that reflect these two forms of risk-taking with implications for the measurement and interpretation of risk propensities in youth.

Introduction

Adolescence and young adulthood are transition periods characterized by elevated risk-taking behaviors relative to later adulthood (Arnett, 1992). One common neurobiological explanation for this increase in risk-taking is that the prefrontal cortex, which supports cognitive control, is underdeveloped in comparison to reward processing brain regions that motivate impulsive behavior (Galvan et al., 2006, Steinberg, 2008). Despite potential developmental differences between adolescents and adults, not all forms of reward-seeking are impulsive. A two-factor model posits that some forms may be better characterized as reward sensitive, which can be distinguished from rash impulsiveness, defined as the inability to control oneself when engaging in rewarding activities, despite potential negative consequences (Dawe et al., 2004, Dawe and Loxton, 2004, Reyna et al., 2011). Reward sensitivity is defined as a more general tendency motivated by the dopamine reward system to seek novel and exciting experiences (Dawe and Loxton, 2004, Wahlstrom et al., 2010). However, the reward system is also a source of rash impulsiveness (Buckholtz et al., 2010, DeYoung, 2013), which makes it difficult to separate these two risk-taking tendencies.

Distinguishing these two tendencies has important implications for designing interventions (Reyna and Farley, 2006, Romer et al., 2011). Individuals guided by the prospect of achieving rewarding goals may weigh the benefits of risky behavior more heavily than the costs, making them more attracted to such behavior (Reyna and Farley, 2006). For others, heightened activation of the reward system may be accompanied by reduced ability to control risk-taking, and these individuals may be better characterized as exhibiting rash impulsive tendencies.

Consistent with the theoretical distinction between reward sensitive and rash impulsive personalities, one would expect differences in their typical forms of risk-taking behaviors. Although risk-taking can be maladaptive and lead to poor outcomes, some risk-taking can serve adaptive purposes (Pfeifer and Allen, 2012). For example, entering a competition can be considered a risky activity that could result in failure. Yet, such risk-taking is more adaptive than, for example, repeatedly engaging in unprotected sex or using drugs, and may be important for attaining achievement-oriented goals. Thus, the reward system can serve both as a vulnerability for maladaptive risk-taking outcomes (e.g., STD from unprotected sex) as well as an opportunity for adaptive outcomes (e.g., winning an award in a competition) (Telzer, 2016). What determines which of these goals individuals typically pursue may depend on their ability to regulate this system when faced with risks that may lead to poorer outcomes (Telzer, 2016, Wahlstrom et al., 2010).

Below we review eight reward-seeking traits that are hypothesized to reflect reward sensitivity or rash impulsiveness and their associations with different forms of youth risk-taking.

The behavioral activation system (BAS) has been identified as the neurobiological system underlying reward sensitivity and activation of dopaminergic pathways (Carver and White, 1994, Gray, 1981). Three subscales assess subtraits within the BAS: reward responsiveness (“positive responses to the occurrence or anticipation of reward”); drive (“persistent pursuit of desired goals”); and fun-seeking (“desire for new rewards and a willingness to approach a potentially rewarding event on the spur of the moment”). Similarly, sensation seeking (SS), the tendency to seek out novel and exciting experiences, is another trait reflecting reward sensitivity (Chambers et al., 2003, Zuckerman, 1994), although it may reflect rash impulsiveness too (Dawe and Loxton, 2004). BAS and SS have been linked to potentially harmful risk-taking, such as drug and alcohol abuse, dangerous driving, smoking, and risky sex (Franken and Muris, 2006, Hoyle et al., 2000, Reyna et al., 2011, Zuckerman, 1994). However, BAS also has been related to adaptive risk-taking associated with goal-striving (Alloy et al., 2012) and adaptive psychological outcomes such as greater hope (Harnett, Loxton, and Jackson, 2013) and less loneliness (Clark, Loxton, and Tobin, 2015). Similarly, SS may be related to increased working memory, IQ, and cognitive control (Dawe and Loxton, 2004, Romer et al., 2011, Zuckerman, 1994).

Drawing from animal research (Winstanley, Olausson, Taylor, and Jentsch, 2010), two kinds of rash impulsivity are distinguishable: impulsive action and impulsive choice. Impulsive action is assessed with trait batteries that focus on tendencies to act without thinking (Patton, Stanford, and Barratt, 1995). Given its high reliability, we used three subscales from Whiteside and Lynam's (2001) Urgency Premeditation Perseverance Sensation Seeking (UPPS) scale to assess different facets of impulsive action: urgency, (lack of) premeditation, and (lack of) perseverance. Urgency reflects acting on strong impulses often under conditions of negative affect. Lack of premeditation reflects acting without thinking. Lack of perseverance reflects the inability to stay focused on boring or difficult tasks. Alternatively, impulsive choice is assessed with delay discounting tasks that present choices between immediate versus delayed rewards (Kirby, Petry, and Bickel, 1999).

Both impulsive action and impulsive choice have been associated with weak executive function (Horn et al., 2003, Shamosh et al., 2008) and maladaptive risk-taking behavior, such as addiction (Magid et al., 2007, Smith et al., 2007), gambling, and drug use (Reynolds, 2006, Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2008). Each trait has been shown to predict unique variance in alcohol use (Cyders et al., 2009, Khurana et al., 2013) and sexual initiation during early adolescence (Khurana et al., 2012).

The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) to determine whether personality traits associated with risk-taking in young people are separable into reward sensitive and rash impulsive tendencies; and 2) to test whether reward sensitive and rash impulsive traits differentially predict adaptive versus maladaptive risk behaviors. To address these goals, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to determine the factorial structure of the eight traits described above and their unique associations with risk-taking behaviors in a young adult sample, when many risk behaviors emerge (Willoughby, Good, Adachi, Hamza, and Tavernier, 2013).

Section snippets

Participants

Eight hundred ninety-nine (28% male) students (ages 18–22, M = 19.5, SD = 1.02) at X University (temporarily blinded for review) participated in an online survey for course credit: 60% non-Hispanic white, 22.2% Asian, 6.1% African-American, 3.7% Hispanic, and 7.6% other. This study was approved by X University's Institutional Review Board (temporarily blinded for review).

Self-report questionnaires

Eight impulsivity-related traits were assessed with the UPPS, Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS), and Behavioral Activation

Means and correlations

Descriptive statistics for measures are displayed in Supplemental Table 3 separately for males and females. Supplemental Table 4 presents inter-correlations among the personality scales and ARQ risk behaviors for males and females. Consistent with our classification of sports and entering competitions as more adaptive forms of risk-taking, rash impulsive traits tended to be exclusively related to maladaptive risk behaviors. SS was positively related to all forms of risk-taking except for sports

Discussion

This study examined a wide variety of associations among risk-related traits and with different forms of risk-taking in young adults. Aside from delay discounting, all of the traits were inter-correlated, which confirms the difficulty of distinguishing them. Further analysis identified five correlated factors: impulsive action, discounting, SS, BAS, and lack of perseverance. Once we controlled for overlap among these factors, all of them except lack of perseverance uniquely predicted risky

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. (DGE 1106401).

References (49)

  • L. Steinberg

    A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking

    Developmental Review

    (2008)
  • E.H. Telzer

    Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: A new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation

    Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

    (2016)
  • A. Verdejo-Garcia et al.

    Impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for substance-use disorders: Review of findings from high-risk research, problem gamblers and genetic association studies

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

    (2008)
  • D. Wahlstrom et al.

    Developmental changes in dopamine neurotransmission in adolescence: Behavioral implications and issues in assessment

    Brain and Cognition

    (2010)
  • S.P. Whiteside et al.

    The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2001)
  • T. Willoughby et al.

    Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk taking from a social-developmental perspective

    Brain and Cognition

    (2013)
  • L.B. Alloy et al.

    High Behavioral Approach System (BAS) sensitivity, reward responsiveness, and goal-striving predict first onset of bipolar spectrum disorders: A prospective behavioral high-risk design

    Journal of Abnormal Psychology

    (2012)
  • J.J. Arnett

    Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1992)
  • G.S. Berns et al.

    Engagement in dangerous behaviors is associated with increased white matter maturity of frontal cortex

    PloS One

    (2009)
  • J.W. Buckholtz et al.

    Dopaminergic network differences in human impulsivity

    Science

    (2010)
  • C.S. Carver et al.

    Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and reward: The BIS/BAS Scales

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1994)
  • R.A. Chambers et al.

    Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence: A critical period of addiction vulnerability

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (2003)
  • M.A. Cyders et al.

    The role of personality dispositions to risky behavior in predicting first year college drinking

    Addiction

    (2009)
  • C.G. DeYoung

    The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Department of Human Development, Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850.

    View full text