Positive Urgency Is Related to Difficulty Inhibiting Prepotent Responses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Emotion © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 16, No. 5, 750–759 1528-3542/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000182 Positive Urgency Is Related to Difficulty Inhibiting Prepotent Responses Sheri L. Johnson, Jordan A. Tharp, Charles S. Carver Andrew D. Peckham, and Amy H. Sanchez University of Miami University of California, Berkeley Positive urgency, the tendency to respond impulsively to positive affective states, has been linked to many psychopathologies, but little is known about mechanisms underpinning this form of impulsivity. We examined whether the Positive Urgency Measure (PUM) related to higher scores on performance- based measures of impulsivity and cognitive control that were administered after a positive mood induction. Undergraduates (n ϭ 112) completed the self-report PUM, several positive mood inductions, and behavioral measures of impulsivity and cognitive control. PUM scores were significantly related to poor performance on the antisaccade task, a measure of prepotent response inhibition, but not to other performance measures. Together with existing literature, findings implicate deficits in response inhibition as one mechanism involved in emotion-related impulsivity. Keywords: urgency, positive urgency, impulsivity, cognitive control, response inhibition A growing literature documents that impulsivity is a transdiag- itive as well as negative urgency is robustly related to a broad nostic risk factor for psychopathology (Brezo, Paris, & Turecki, range of internalizing and externalizing outcomes (Berg, Latzman, 2006). Impulsivity, however, is a very broad construct, with little Bliwise, & Lilienfeld, 2015). In sum, support has accrued rapidly correlation among the various self-report or behavioral indices suggesting the transdiagnostic importance of impulsive reactions (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011; Sharma, Markon, & Clark, 2014). to emotions per se, without regard to the emotion’s valence. Whiteside and Lynam (2001) developed a model of impulsivity Negative urgency and positive urgency are both self-reported that differentiated urgency, defined as tendencies to act impul- tendencies. An important question is how they relate to perfor- sively in response to emotions, from other forms of impulsivity, mance on behavioral measures of impulsivity. The core hypothesis such as sensation seeking, lack of planning, and lack of persever- is that they should relate to deficits in inhibiting prepotent re- ance. Across studies, urgency has been more closely tied to inter- sponses (Bechara & Van Der Linden, 2005). A good deal more nalizing and externalizing psychopathologies than have other information is available on this hypothesis regarding the Negative forms of impulsivity such as difficulties with attention and follow- Urgency Measure (hereafter NUM) than the Positive Urgency through (Carver, Johnson, & Joormann, 2013; Dick et al., 2010; Measure (PUM). Consistent with this hypothesis, NUM scores Johnson, Carver, & Joormann, 2013). have been related to poorer performance on several measures of Impulsive responses to emotion are not restricted to negative inhibition of prepotent responses. Although null effects have also emotion, however. A tendency to overreact to positive emotions— been observed, many of the null effects were in studies with small called positive urgency (Cyders & Smith, 2007)—has also been samples. To address the inconsistent findings, we calculated a related to externalizing problems (Zapolski, Cyders, & Smith, meta-analysis (see Table 1), updating previous meta-analyses on 2009). In fact, even disorders that are obviously grounded in this point (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011; Sharma et al., 2014). In negative affect, such as depression and anxiety, have been linked community and student samples, we obtained a weighted mean to positive urgency (Carver et al., 2013). A recent meta-analysis of effect size, r ϭ .12 for NUM, and a similar weighted mean effect studies involving more than 40,000 individuals suggests that pos- size, r ϭ .14 for PUM. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Previous meta-analyses also suggest that this effect is relatively This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. specific. In one meta-analysis of 80 studies, NUM scores were not This article was published Online First April 11, 2016. related to other performance measures of impulsivity, including Sheri L. Johnson, Jordan A. Tharp, Andrew D. Peckham, and Amy H. delay response, resistance to distractor interference, and resistance Sanchez, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley; to proactive interference (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011); in an- Charles S. Carver, Department of Psychology, University of Miami. other it was not related to measures of shifting, inattention, or Our thanks to Anna Feiss, Aly DiRocco, Steven Wandery, and Chris impulsive decision-making (Sharma et al., 2014). Such specificity Bruce for their assistance in data collection and Caroline Kinsey and is not well documented for PUM, however. Gaining further infor- Andrea Elser for help cleaning data. Andrew D. Peckham was supported by mation on that question was one purpose of the study reported National Institute of Mental Health Grant T32 MH089919 during the here. preparation of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sheri L. A second purpose of the study was to test a core aspect of the Johnson, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, mechanism presumed to underlie urgency effects. Because ur- 3210 Tolman Hall 1650, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: sljohnson@ gency is defined by impulsive responses to emotions, its influence berkeley.edu on behavioral impulsiveness should be exacerbated during states 750 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Table 1 Effect Sizes (r) in Previous Studies of Negative or Positive Urgency and Response Inhibition Urgency NUM in student or PUM in student or NUM in Author, year Sample measure Performance-based measure community samples n community samples n clinical samples n Bagge, Littlefield, Rosellini, & Suicide attempters UPPS Go–stop — — .31 69 Coffey, 2013 POSITIVE URGENCY AND PREPOTENT RESPONSES Billieux, Gay, Rochat, & Van der Community volunteers French UPPS Emotional stop signal .06 95 — — Linden, 2010 Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2012 Undergraduates UPPS-P Go–stop task (50- and 350-ms Ϫ.04 77 .11 77 — trials) Denny & Siemer, 2012 Undergraduates UPPS-P Emotional go/no-go .18 112 .16 112 — Gay, Rochat, Billieux, d’Acremont, Community volunteers UPPS Go/no-go .17 126 — — & Van der Linden, 2008 Gunn & Finn, 2015 Undergraduates NUM Cued go/no-go false alarm rate .20 — — 86 Jacob et al., 2010 Women with borderline UPPS Stroop (.27), Antisaccade .21 15 — — personality disorder errors (.14), and stop signal and controls (.21; average) Perales, Verdejo-Garcia, Moya, Women with high and Spanish UPPS-P Go/no-go false alarm rate first .16 32 .17 32 — Lozano, & Perez-Garcia, 2009 low UPPS total two blocks scores Roberts, Fillmore, & Milich, 2011 ADHD and controls UPPS Cued go/no-go (Ϫ.17), manual Ϫ.05 28 — .23 30 stopping task (Ϫ.05), visual stopping task (.03), delayed ocular response task (Ϫ.01) Rochat, Beni, Annoni, Vuadens, & Patients with traumatic UPPS Stop signal reaction time Ϫ.04 27 — .54 28 Van der Linden, 2013 brain injury and matched controls Wilbertz et al., 2014 High and low BIS UPPS Stop signal reaction time .28 26 — — scorers Total sample size 624 221 127 Weighted mean effect r .12 .14 .34 Note. NUM ϭ Negative Urgency; PUM ϭ Positive Urgency Measure; UPPS ϭ Impulsive Behavior Scale; UPPS-P ϭ Impulsive Behavior Scale–Positive Urgency; ADHD ϭ attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder; BIS ϭ Barrett Impulsivity Scale. Torres et al. (2013) effect size was not available. Perales also examined the D2 test of attention. 751 752 JOHNSON, THARP, PECKHAM, SANCHEZ, AND CARVER of emotion. Evidence on this point is sparse (the issue was not 16% Hispanic/Latino, and 17% other. They reported a mean grade addressed in the studies cited above). Two studies do bear on the point average of 3.47 (SD ϭ 0.37) on a 4-point scale. issue, but both are limited. In one, a negative mood induction did Participants completed a series of experimental manipulations not significantly alter the link between NUM scores and perfor- designed to induce happy mood states, interspersed with behav- mance on a go/no-go task, but mood ratings were positive after the ioral indices of impulsivity and cognitive inhibition. Tasks and negative mood induction, suggesting that it was ineffective (Gunn experimental mood induction procedures were administered in & Finn, 2015). Another study found that PUM scores predicted random order. Participants rated their mood only once at the end of greater increase in risk taking on the balloon analogue risk task the session, because several studies indicate that labeling emotion (BART) after positive mood induction, compared to baseline (Cy- states diminishes both subjective affect and amygdala response to ders et al., 2010). This study included only the BART as a emotion cues (Lieberman, Inagaki, Tabibnia, & Crockett, 2011). behavioral measure, however, thus not addressing the specificity Self-report measures (with the exception