20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk-Taking and Impulsivity: The Role of Mood States and Interoception

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives: The consequences of impulsive decisions and actions represent a major source of concern to the health and well-being of individuals and society. It is, therefore, crucial to understand the factors which contribute to impulsive behaviors. Here, we examined how personality traits of behavioral tendencies, interoceptive sensibility as well as transient mood states predict behavioral performance on impulsivity and risk-taking tasks.

          Method: 574 (121 males; age 18–45) individuals completed self-report personality measures of impulsivity, reward sensitivity, punishment avoidance as well as interoceptive sensibility, undertook a mood assessment and performed a set of cognitive tasks: delay discounting (temporal impulsivity), probability discounting (risk-taking), and reflection impulsivity task. Data were interrogated using principal component analysis, correlations and regression analyses to test mutual relationships between personality traits, interoceptive sensibility, mood state and impulsive behaviors.

          Results: We observed a clear separation of measures used, both trait and behavioral. Namely, sensation-seeking, reward sensitivity and probability discounting reflected risk-taking. These were separate from measures associated with impulsivity, both trait (negative and positive urgency, premeditation, perseverance) and behavioral (delayed discounting and reflection impulsivity). This separation was further highlighted by their relationship with the current emotional state: positive affect was associated with increased risk-taking tendencies and risky decision-making, while negative emotions were related to heightened impulsivity measures. Interoceptive sensibility was only associated with negative emotions component.

          Conclusion: Our findings support the proposal that risk-taking and impulsivity represent distinct constructs that are differentially affected by current mood states. This novel insight enhances our understanding of impulsive behaviors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy.

          Deciding advantageously in a complex situation is thought to require overt reasoning on declarative knowledge, namely, on facts pertaining to premises, options for action, and outcomes of actions that embody the pertinent previous experience. An alternative possibility was investigated: that overt reasoning is preceded by a nonconscious biasing step that uses neural systems other than those that support declarative knowledge. Normal participants and patients with prefrontal damage and decision-making defects performed a gambling task in which behavioral, psychophysiological, and self-account measures were obtained in parallel. Normals began to choose advantageously before they realized which strategy worked best, whereas prefrontal patients continued to choose disadvantageously even after they knew the correct strategy. Moreover, normals began to generate anticipatory skin conductance responses (SCRs) whenever they pondered a choice that turned out to be risky, before they knew explicitly that it was a risky choice, whereas patients never developed anticipatory SCRs, although some eventually realized which choices were risky. The results suggest that, in normal individuals, nonconscious biases guide behavior before conscious knowledge does. Without the help of such biases, overt knowledge may be insufficient to ensure advantageous behavior.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: evidence for a dual systems model.

            It has been hypothesized that sensation seeking and impulsivity, which are often conflated, in fact develop along different timetables and have different neural underpinnings, and that the difference in their timetables helps account for heightened risk taking during adolescence. In order to test these propositions, the authors examined age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity in a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse sample of 935 individuals between the ages of 10 and 30, using self-report and behavioral measures of each construct. Consistent with the authors' predictions, age differences in sensation seeking, which are linked to pubertal maturation, follow a curvilinear pattern, with sensation seeking increasing between 10 and 15 and declining or remaining stable thereafter. In contrast, age differences in impulsivity, which are unrelated to puberty, follow a linear pattern, with impulsivity declining steadily from age 10 on. Heightened vulnerability to risk taking in middle adolescence may be due to the combination of relatively higher inclinations to seek excitement and relatively immature capacities for self-control that are typical of this period of development.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              There is a longstanding association between substance-use disorders (SUDs) and the psychological construct of impulsivity. In the first section of this review, personality and neurocognitive data pertaining to impulsivity will be summarised in regular users of four classes of substance: stimulants, opiates, alcohol and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Impulsivity in these groups may arise via two alternative mechanisms, which are not mutually exclusive. By one account, impulsivity may occur as a consequence of chronic exposure to substances causing harmful effects on the brain. By the alternative account, impulsivity pre-dates SUDs and is associated with the vulnerability to addiction. We will review the evidence that impulsivity is associated with addiction vulnerability by considering three lines of evidence: (i) studies of groups at high-risk for development of SUDs; (ii) studies of pathological gamblers, where the harmful consequences of the addiction on brain structure are minimised, and (iii) genetic association studies linking impulsivity to genetic risk factors for addiction. Within each of these three lines of enquiry, there is accumulating evidence that impulsivity is a pre-existing vulnerability marker for SUDs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                29 August 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 1625
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Behavioral and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Psychology, University of Sussex , Brighton, United Kingdom
                [2] 2Sussex Addiction and Intervention Centre, University of Sussex , Brighton, United Kingdom
                [3] 3Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, University of Sussex , Brighton, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Brighton and Sussex Medical School , Brighton, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Bernhard Hommel, Leiden University, Netherlands

                Reviewed by: Natalia Albein-Urios, Deakin University, Australia; Nicola Canessa, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia (IUSS), Italy

                *Correspondence: Aleksandra M. Herman, a.herman@ 123456sussex.ac.uk

                This article was submitted to Cognition, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01625
                6123387
                30210421
                ebd93007-fd91-4d26-9391-99f491d18146
                Copyright © 2018 Herman, Critchley and Duka.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 02 March 2018
                : 14 August 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 77, Pages: 11, Words: 0
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                upps-p,sensation seeking,delay discounting,probability discounting,reflection impulsivity,interoceptive sensibility,emotional state

                Comments

                Comment on this article