CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do facets of self-reported impulsivity predict decision-making under ambiguity and risk? Evidence from a community sample

Bayard, Sophie, Raffard, Stéphane, Gely-Nargeot, Marie-Christine·2011·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We investigated the links among decision-making assessed by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Game of Dice Task (GDT), and the four facets of impulsivity (urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking, UPPS) proposed by Whiteside and Lynam (2001) in a sample of 107 healthy volunteers. Hierarchical regressions controlling for age and gender indicated that sensation seeking and urgency were linked to disadvantageous decisions on the GDT while no association was found between IGT performance and the UPPS. Sensation seeking and urgency facets of impulsivity are related in healthy individuals, to decision-making processes where potential consequences of different options and their subsequent probabilities rely on explicit information. In healthy controls, there is little overlap between decision-making influenced by both implicit and explicit information and impulsivity as measured by the UPPS. These findings add evidence to the notion that self-reported trait impulsivity is associated with the decision making process. Decisions made under risk seemed to be differentially associated with specific facets of impulsivity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.013

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Bayard, 2011, Dopamine dysregulation syndrome in Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome, Geriatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement, 9, 227, 10.1684/pnv.2011.0275 · DOI
  2. Bechara, 2003, Role of the amygdala in decision-making, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 985, 356, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07094.x · DOI
  3. Bechara, 2005, Decision-making and impulse control after frontal lobe injuries, Current Opinion in Neurology, 18, 734, 10.1097/01.wco.0000194141.56429.3c · DOI
  4. Bechara, 1997, Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy, Science, 275, 1293, 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bechara, 1998, Dissociation of working memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex, Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 428, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-01-00428.1998 · DOI
  6. Bechara, 2000, Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions, Brain, 123, 2189, 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 · DOI
  7. Bechara, 2002, Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia for the future or hypersensitivity to reward?, Neuropsychologia, 40, 1690, 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00016-7 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Billieux, 2010, The role of urgency and its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 1085, 10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.008 · DOI
  9. Brand, 2008, Personality and decision-making in laboratory gambling tasks evidence for a relationship between deciding advantageously under risk conditions and perfectionism, Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 226, 10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.003 · DOI
  10. Brand, 2005, Decision-making deficits of korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: associations with executive functions, Neuropsychology, 19, 267, 10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.267 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Brand, 2005, Decision-making impairments in patients with pathological gambling, Psychiatry Research, 133, 91, 10.1016/j.psychres.2004.10.003 · DOI
  12. Brand, 2006, Neuropsychological correlates of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations, Neural Networks, 19, 1266, 10.1016/j.neunet.2006.03.001 · DOI
  13. Brand, 2007, Neuropsychological correlates of decision making in patients with bulimia nervosa, Neuropsychology, 21, 742, 10.1037/0894-4105.21.6.742 · DOI
  14. Brand, 2007, Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 86, 10.1080/13803390500507196 · DOI
  15. Brand, 2008, Executive functions and risky decision-making in patients with opiate dependence, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 97, 64, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.017 · DOI
  16. Brogan, 2010, Anorexia, bulimia, and obesity: shared decision making deficits on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 16, 711, 10.1017/S1355617710000354 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Buelow, 2009, Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task, Neuropsychological Review, 19, 102, 10.1007/s11065-009-9083-4 · DOI · Paper page
  18. d'Acremont, 2007, How is impulsivity related to depression in adolescence? Evidence from a French validation of the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire, Journal of Adolescence, 30, 271, 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.02.007 · DOI
  19. Dunn, 2006, The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 239, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Enticott, 2006, Elucidation of impulsivity, Australian Psychologist, 41, 3, 10.1080/00050060500391894 · DOI
  21. Enticott, 2006, Associations between laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 285, 10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.011 · DOI
  22. Evenden, 1999, Varieties of impulsivity, Psychopharmacology, 146, 348, 10.1007/PL00005481 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Fanken, 2008, Impulsivity is associated with behavioral decision-making deficits, Psychiatry Research, 158, 155, 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.06.002 · DOI
  24. Gillberg, 2010, Attention, executive functions, and mentalizing in anorexia nervosa eighteen years after onset of eating disorder, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 358, 10.1080/13803390903066857 · DOI
  25. Jollant, 2005, Impaired decision making in suicide attempters, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 304, 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.304 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kertzman, 2011, Risk-taking in pathological gamblers is not a result of their impaired inhibition ability, Psychiatry Research, 188, 71, 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.021 · DOI
  27. Kooijmans, 2000, Response inhibition and measures of psychopathology: a dimensional analysis, Child Neuropsychology, 6, 175, 10.1076/chin.6.3.175.3154 · DOI
  28. Labudda, 2008, Neural correlates of decision making with explicit information about probabilities and incentives in elderly healthy subjects, Experimental Brain Research, 187, 641, 10.1007/s00221-008-1332-x · DOI
  29. Liao, 2009, An examination of decision making in bulimia nervosa, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 455, 10.1080/13803390802251378 · DOI
  30. Mackinnon, 2005, The estimation of premorbid intelligence levels in French speakers, L'Encéphale, 31, 31, 10.1016/S0013-7006(05)82370-X · DOI
  31. Must, 2006, Sensitivity to reward and punishment and the prefrontal cortex in major depression, Journal of Affective Disorders, 90, 209, 10.1016/j.jad.2005.12.005 · DOI
  32. Perales, 2009, Bright and dark sides of impulsivity: performance of women with high and low trait impulsivity on neuropsychological tasks, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 927, 10.1080/13803390902758793 · DOI
  33. Schuermann, 2011, Impaired decision making and feedback evaluation in borderline personality disorder, Psychological Medicine, 24, 1
  34. Suhr, 2010, Who fails the Iowa Gambling Test (IGT)? Personality, neuropsychological, and near-infrared spectroscopy findings in healthy young controls, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25, 293, 10.1093/arclin/acq017 · DOI
  35. Van der Linden, 2006, A French adaptation of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of undergraduate students, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 38, 10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.38 · DOI
  36. Whiteside, 2001, The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669, 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Whiteside, 2005, Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: a four-factor model of impulsivity, European Journal of Personality, 19, 559, 10.1002/per.556 · DOI
  38. Zermatten, 2005, Impulsivity and decision making, Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 193, 647, 10.1097/01.nmd.0000180777.41295.65 · DOI
  39. Zuckerman, 1964, Development of a sensation-seeking scale, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 28, 477, 10.1037/h0040995 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bayard, S., Raffard, S., & Gely-Nargeot, M.-C.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
190
Issue
2-3
Pages
322-326
ISSN
0165-1781
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.013
Cited by
60
References
5
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review