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 RESPONSES PREPOTENT AND URGENCY POSITIVE 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 of the Risk Perception of the effect. It is unclear then, to what extent effects of emotion- Scale) were given online before the session. With the exception of related impulsivity on behavioral tasks depend on the existence of delay discounting, all tasks were completed via E-prime Studio emotional states. (version 2.0.10.353). After completing study measures, partici- To more carefully examine this question, the study reported here pants completed funneled debriefing questions about the perceived examined how positive urgency related to a range of performance- purpose of the study, whether they noticed a focus on positive based measures of impulsivity after positive mood inductions. We moods, whether they had heard about study procedures before the focused on impulsivity in the context of positive moods because session, and the believability of study procedures. Due to sched- negative mood (sadness) tends to produce a variety of properties uling difficulties, some measures were not administered to the full that go beyond the affective response. Some of these properties sample (Ns for specific analyses are provided in the tables). (loss of motivation, psychomotor slowing) would likely interfere with performance on the behavioral tasks via pathways in which Measures of Impulsiveness impulsivity is only a secondary issue. We reasoned that our hypotheses would be better tested using an affective state for which Positive Urgency Measure (PUM). The PUM (Cyders, Smith, this issue does not arise. Spillane, et al., 2007) is a 14-item self-report scale designed to Participants completed the PUM and a set of behavioral assess the tendency to act recklessly or inappropriately when measures of impulsivity and cognitive control. These included experiencing positive emotions (Cyders & Smith, 2008). Partici- inhibition of prepotent responses (antisaccade task), risk taking pants responded to items on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (the BART and the Risk Perception Scale), resistance to pro- (strongly disagree)to4(strongly agree), maximum score ϭ 56. active interference (immediate memory task), lack of planning PUM scores have been found to be distinct from measures of (time to first move on the Tower of London task), and temporal positive affectivity (Cyders & Smith, 2008) and tendencies to discounting. Drawing on the literature reviewed above, we respond with positive affect to mood manipulations (Cyders et al., predicted that PUM scores would relate specifically to poor 2010). Internal consistency for this sample was excellent, ␣ϭ.94. performance on the antisaccade task. Tonic skin conductance The mean (25.40) and SD (8.41) in this sample were comparable level (SCL) was measured throughout (a) as a manipulation to those observed in adult community samples, Ms ϭ 21 to 28.4, check to assess whether the mood inductions elicited autonomic SD ϭ 7.29 to 13.17 (Muhtadie, Johnson, Carver, Gotlib, & Ketter, arousal compared to baseline and (b) to investigate whether 2014; Rose & Segrist, 2014; Maher, Thomson & Carlson, 2015). PUM scores predicted greater effects on performance-based Antisaccade task. The antisaccade task (Kane, Bleckley, impulsivity measures among persons who demonstrated greater Conway, & Engle, 2001) was designed as a measure of cognitive sympathetic reactivity. control and has been validated as a measure of prepotent response A final issue addressed here draws on findings shown in Table inhibition (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). The task includes 50 trials 1 that the effect sizes for NUM with response inhibition have been that take one of two forms: prosaccade or antisaccade trials. Each larger in clinical samples, weighted mean r ϭ .34 studies than in trial begins with a central fixation display of three blue asterisks control or community samples, weighted mean r ϭ .12. This (randomly varying interval from 200 to 2,200 ms), followed by a suggests the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between re- black screen (100 ms). An equal sign is then presented on the left This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. sponse inhibition and emotion-related impulsivity, with more ro- or right side of the screen as a distractor (100 ms). One of three This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. bust linkage at higher levels of impulsivity. This study provided target letters (B, P, or R) is then randomly presented on the left or the first direct examination of this possibility, doing so with right side (100 ms). On prosaccade trials, the distractor appears on respect to positive urgency. the same side of the screen as the target. On antisaccade trials, the target letter appears on the opposite side of the screen as the Method distractor, requiring the participant to rapidly override the tendency to attend to the distractor. The target is followed by a 50-ms Participants and Design mask (the letter H) and then the number 8, both in the same location as the target letter. The “8” stays on the screen until a All procedures were approved by the university Institutional response is made on the keyboard (but only up to 10 s). For each Review Board. Participants (n ϭ 112) were undergraduates (68% trial, participants pressed a key labeled to correspond to the target female, age M ϭ 20.82, SD ϭ 2.87) who completed written letter. informed consent before completing study procedures. Participants Participants completed 10 practice trials, then 10 prosaccade described their ethnicity as 31% European/Caucasian, 36% Asian, trials, 10 antisaccade practice trials, and then 40 antisaccade trials. POSITIVE URGENCY AND PREPOTENT RESPONSES 753

The index of interest was accuracy on the antisaccade trials (over- are asked to click the mouse once they had solved the problem. all M ϭ 0.63, SD ϭ 0.16), controlling for accuracy on the pro- They are then asked to enter the number of moves it would take to saccade trials (overall M ϭ 0.87, SD ϭ 0.12; Roberts, Hager, & complete the puzzle. Previous studies have shown that shorter Heron, 1994). Reaction time during antisaccade trials (M ϭ 907.38 latency to respond is related to poor response inhibition (cf. Stein- ms) was unrelated to mood or self-ratings of impulsivity this study, berg, 2010). and was not examined further. Delay discounting. Delay discounting is a commonly used Immediate memory task (IMT). The IMT (Dougherty, Bjork, measure of difficulty in waiting to obtain larger rewards (Bickel & Huckabee, Moeller, & Swann, 1999) is a variant of a continuous Marsch, 2001). For each of 30 trials, participants are asked to performance test that has been validated as an index of resistance choose between an immediate, smaller reward and a fixed larger to proactive interference (Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Previous reward to be received 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, or 1 year work has shown that resistance to proactive interference and later (Johnson & Bickel, 2002). Each time delay represents a prepotent response inhibition are distinct dimensions of cognitive block, and for each block there are 6 trials. The smaller immediate control (Friedman & Miyake, 2004). In this task, five-digit num- reward is initially set at $50 and is adjusted trial to trial such that bers appear one-at-a-time on a computer screen and participants the amount increases in response to a “larger later” decision but are asked to respond whenever two identical number strings appear decreases in response to the “smaller sooner” decision, while the consecutively. Catch trials are embedded in which numbers are larger reward remains constant at $100, allowing for the determi- similar but not identical (e.g., 24,681 followed by 24,618); false nation of an indifference point for each time delay (cf. Jarmolo- alarms are based on (incorrect) key presses in response to these wicz, Bickel, & Gatchalian, 2013). Monetary rewards were hypo- catch trials. Participants have 500 ms to respond; a failure to do so thetical, as has been validated previously (Johnson & Bickel, is considered a miss. Participants were not given feedback as to 2002). Discounting rate was calculated by hyperbolic-power dis- whether their response was correct. Participants completed two counting function, V ϭ A/1ϩkD(Mazur & Coe, 1987), where k 5-min blocks consisting of 25 targets, 25 catch trials, and 51 filler represents the index of discounting, A is the larger, delayed re- trials (in which numbers are dissimilar from the last number ward, V is the current value of the reward, and D is the delay. As presented), presented in random order. The chief index derived in previous research, the natural logarithm of the discounting from this task is D=, which is equal to the Z score for false alarms parameter k was used for analyses, and participants were excluded minus Z score for correct hits. Scores on the task have been shown from analysis (n ϭ 22) if their pattern of indifference points did to be sensitive to psychopathology as well as to pharmacological not meet previously validated criteria designed to detect persons manipulation (Dougherty et al., 2003). Although previous research whose responses are nonsystematic (Johnson & Bickel, 2008). found no relation between resistance to proactive interference and Time estimation. In this task, participants are asked to indi- either PUM or NUM scores (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2012; Gay, cate when they think 1 min has passed (Dougherty et al., 2003). Rochat, Billieux, d’Acremont, & Van der Linden, 2008), we Distortions in time perception have been linked to sensation seek- included this task here because the relation has not been tested ing (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2012) and to psychological syn- after an affect induction. dromes characterized by impulsive behavior (Dougherty et al., Balloon analogue risk task (BART). The BART task was 2003). Participants are seated at a computer (with no clocks designed as a measure of risk taking (Lejuez et al., 2002). Partic- nearby). After receiving instructions, participants press the mouse ipants are asked to use key presses to inflate a balloon on the to begin the trial, and they are instructed to press the mouse again computer screen. They earn one point per pump, and are instructed when they believe 1 min has passed. to earn as many points as possible without popping the balloon; if Risk Perception Scale (RPS). The RPS (Weber, Blais, & the balloon pops, no points are earned on that trial (nor are points Betz, 2002) is 40-item self-report scale to assess perceptions of the subtracted). Participants can stop inflating the balloon at any point risk involved in specific actions across five domains: financial risk, to collect the points earned for that trial. Balloons pop after a social risk, ethical risk, health or safety risk, and recreational risk. random number of pumps ranging from 6 to 50. At the beginning Participants are asked to make their “gut level” assessment of the of the task, participants were told that if they earned 4000 points riskiness of each situation on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from or more they would be entered into a prize drawing. The task lasted 1(not at all risky)to5(extremely risky). Internal consistency for approximately four minutes and consisted of 31 trials (balloons). this sample was good, Cronbach’s alpha ϭ .88. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. We assessed performance using proportion of balloons popped Mood ratings. High arousal positive (HAP) affect was eval- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (Lejuez et al., 2002). uated at the end of the session. Participants were asked to rate their Tower of London. The Tower of London task is typically current mood using three adjectives (enthusiastic, active, and used as a measure of executive function; however, latency to first amused) on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (very slightly or not at all) move has also been used as a measure of impulsivity (Steinberg, to5(extremely). The three items were averaged to form a com- 2010). Participants are shown two images on a computer screen. posite score, which demonstrated adequate internal consistency, Each image shows three pegs and three different colored balls. ␣ϭ.73. Participants are asked to determine how to move the balls from the starting position shown in the top image to the goal position, Mood Inductions shown in the lower image, in as few moves as possible, while following specific rules: “only one ball can move at a time” and “a Well-validated experimental mood inductions were used to in- ball cannot be moved if another ball is on top of it.” Before duce and sustain a positive mood state throughout the session. participants are allowed to make any moves, they are asked to Thought speed task. In the thought speed task (Pronin & imagine the moves they would use to solve the puzzle. Participants Jacobs, 2008), participants are asked to say aloud 60 statements 754 JOHNSON, THARP, PECKHAM, SANCHEZ, AND CARVER

presented on a computer screen. Each statement automatically palm. SCL was measured during a 4-min baseline session, during scrolls into view one letter at a time in large print (Arial 44-point a 2-min period at a midsession after the administration of some of font), until appearing at full length in the middle of the screen. The the mood inductions, and during the antisaccade, BART, IMT, statements advance at a speed of 40 ms per letter (with an addi- Tower of London, and time estimation tasks. SCL was not gath- tional 320 ms between slides), which requires participants to speak ered during the delay discounting task or RPS. rapidly. The first six statements are neutral, and the statements The SCL was calculated using the Mindware EDA 2.10 Module. become more positive as the task continues (e.g., to “Wow, I feel SCL values in each epoch below 1 ␮S, which is below the great!”). This task has been validated as inducing elevating mood, expected range of SCL values, likely reflects poor electrode place- risk-taking and self-confidence (Pronin, 2013; Yang, Friedman- ment or dry hands and were coded as missing. SCL levels for each Wheeler, & Pronin, 2014). minute were averaged to index physiological arousal during base- Facial symmetry feedback. At the beginning of the session, line, at midsession post mood inductions, and during the tasks. participants were told that research demonstrates that facial symmetry is related to attractiveness. They were then asked to stand in front of Potential Confounds a camera to have their picture taken. The experimenter adjusted the camera to focus on the participant’s face. Participants were asked to At the time of the session, participants were asked to rate hunger complete other study procedures while the researcher “analyzed” their levels, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine use in the past 12 hours, and photo in “special facial symmetry software.” Later in the session, number of hours of sleep. participants were provided with (false) printed results from the facial symmetry software, which described their face as having above av- Data Analysis Plan erage symmetry and stated that 91% of people would be attracted to them. All participants received identical feedback, but each feedback Preliminary correlational analyses considered the effectiveness report was tailored to include the participant’s unique ID. This ma- of the mood inductions and whether mood inductions worked nipulation has been shown to induce positive moods (Cyders, comparably across levels of PUM. To test primary hypotheses, Coskunpinar, & Lehman, 2012). linear and curvilinear associations of the PUM scores with behav- Shape tracing task. This task was introduced as being highly ioral indices of impulsivity were computed. Correlational analyses related to intelligence. In this task, participants are provided with a set were then used to assess whether between-subjects variability in of figures (from Glass & Singer, 1972), and for each figure, they are mood state related to performance on the behavioral indices of asked to trace each line of the figure without raising their pencil from impulsivity. Finally, regression models were constructed to test the paper or retracing any lines (Cyders et al., 2012). They are told whether PUM moderated the effects of mood state on behavioral that the puzzles tend to be very difficult for most individuals and that, indices, such that those with higher PUM scores would show more on average, only about 5% of individuals complete all the figures degraded performance in the context of higher arousal and HAP correctly within the allotted 5-min time limit. The puzzles are actually states. easy to solve, mean completion time ϭ 1.73 min, SD ϭ 0.85. This task has been shown to be effective in inducing a positive mood Results (Cyders et al., 2012). Modified Iowa Gambling Task. In this variant of the Iowa All analyses were completed using SPSS Version 22. Alpha Gambling Task (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson, was set to .05, and all analyses were two-tailed. Eleven partic- 1994), participants were told that they would be completing a ipants were excluded from analyses: four for failing more than gambling task. Four card decks were shown on the computer 50% of catch trials interspersed throughout the battery (e.g., screen, and participants were told that the task would consist of “Please select ‘4’ as your answer for this item”), three because drawing a card from one of the decks for each trial. Participants they endorsed taking antipsychotic medications (which could were informed that every card drawn would either result in a influence cognition and reaction time), two because their lim- reward or penalty and that there are some “good decks” and ited English skills interfered with comprehending instructions, some “bad decks.” Participants were told that one person would one because of reporting use of psychoactive substances within randomly be chosen from all participants of the semester to hours of arriving for a session, and one who accurately de- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. receive 10% of the money won during the task. The task was scribed the study goals during debriefing. After excluding these This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. rigged with four “good decks” so that all participants would win participants, 101 participants were included in analyses of most amounts ranging from $25 to $1,250. To enhance believability, measures, with the exception of IMT, time estimation, and slightly less than 25% of the trials had one deck with a non- Tower of London, where data were available for only 73 winning amount ranging from $0 to –$350. Participants com- participants. Based on review of the patterns of missing data, pleted 100 trials. This modified version of the task has been missing data on all tasks except delay discounting were deemed shown effectively induce a positive mood (Cyders et al., 2012). to be missing at random; thus, missing data for the other performance tasks and SCL were imputed with Norm software Physiological Assessment Version 2.03 using maximum likelihood estimation (Schafer, 2000). Distributions approximated normalcy. As expected, Sympathetic activity was indexed by SCL. SCL was acquired performance-based impulsivity measures were not significantly using eight-channel chassis BioLab acquisition software version correlated with each other, |rs| Ͻ .14, ns. 2.5 (Mindware Technologies, Gahanna, OH) at 10,000 Hz through Impulsivity performance scores were not related to caffeine, two snap electrodes attached to the participant’s nondominant alcohol, nicotine use, hours of sleep, nor hunger ratings, with the POSITIVE URGENCY AND PREPOTENT RESPONSES 755

␤ ϭ ϭ ␤ ϭ ϭ ␤ ϭ exception that alcohol use in the past 12 hours was related to BART .15, p .14, IMT .22, p .09, time estimation ϭϪ ϭ ϭ ␤ ϭ ϭ poorer performance on the antisaccade task, r .22, N 101, .05, p .73, Tower of London .21, p .18. Similar regression p ϭ .03. Task order and mood induction order were unrelated to models were constructed to assess the interactions of PUM with performance on the impulsivity tasks or to the effectiveness of the HAP scores. No significant interactions were observed of PUM Ͻ Ͼ ␤ ϭ ϭ mood inductions, all Fs 1.65, ps .11. Because controlling for scores with HAP scores, antisaccade task .11, p .30, ␤ ϭ ϭ ␤ ϭϪ ϭ ␤ ϭ alcohol and caffeine use did not substantively change effects noted BART .09, p .38, IMT .01, p .95, Tower of London ϭ ␤ ϭ ϭ below, analyses are presented without control over these variables. .08, p .49, delay discounting .17, p .13, with the exception PUM scores did not differ significantly between females, M ϭ of time estimation, which was opposite to the expected direc- ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ␤ ϭϪ ϭ 24.79 (SD 8.68) and males, M 26.88 (SD 7.79), t(98) tion time estimation .27, p .02. Thus, higher happiness 1.17, p ϭ .24. ratings and task-related sympathetic arousal did not seem tied to a differential decrement in performance on impulsivity tasks for Effectiveness of the Mood Inductions those with high PUM scores. Participants showed greater sympathetic activation (SCL) at Discussion midsession after the administration of mood induction procedures as compared to baseline (Wilcoxon’s signed rank z ϭ 7.30, n ϭ Self-reported emotion-related impulsivity is a potentially impor- 101, p Ͻ .001),1 indicating that the mood inductions were effective tant construct for understanding psychopathology. Yet relatively in activating sympathetic arousal. At the end of the session, the little research has examined how this variable relates to behavioral average HAP mood rating was 2.51 (SD ϭ 0.88) on the 5-point indices of impulsivity. The study reported here examined associ- scale, intermittent between mild and moderate levels of HAP. ations between self-reported positive urgency and several Mood inductions worked comparably across PUM levels, con- performance-based measures of impulsivity, which were adminis- sistent with previous findings (Cyders et al., 2010). That is, PUM tered after positive mood inductions. scores were not significantly related to self-rated HAP, r ϭ .05, Our findings provide evidence of both convergent and discrim- N ϭ 101, p ϭ .61, nor to sympathetic reactivity, as indexed by inant validity. There was convergence between PUM scores and midsession SCL controlling for baseline SCL, semipartial prepotent response inhibition, as indexed by the antisaccade task. r(98) ϭϪ0.16, p ϭ .11. There was also evidence of discriminant validity, in the fact that PUM scores did not relate to other performance-based measures. PUM scores also were not tied to emotional hyper-reactivity, as Correlations of PUM With Performance-Based indexed by affect ratings or physiological arousal, which is con- Measures of Impulsivity sistent with previous findings (Cyders et al., 2010). This pattern of convergent and discriminant findings is concep- As shown in Table 2, PUM was not significantly related to tually consistent with evidence from a previous meta-analysis higher scores on performance-based measures of impulsivity, indicating that negative urgency relates to deficits in prepotent all rs Ͻ .12, and was correlated opposite to the expected response inhibition, but not to other forms of impulsive behavior direction with IMT and time estimation. PUM scores did, (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). Our findings extend that pattern to however, have a significant curvilinear relationship with anti- positive urgency. saccade performance, R2 change (N ϭ 101) ϭ .07, p ϭ .04. As It is important to note that the relationship between PUM scores shown in Figure 1, antisaccade performance deteriorated as and antisaccade performance was curvilinear rather than linear. PUM scores reached a higher range. Supplementary regression Deficits in response inhibition were apparent only among persons analyses suggested that gender did not significantly moderate with relatively high PUM scores, suggesting that this difficulty the associations of PUM scores with any of the performance- may emerge only among persons with pronounced tendencies to based measures of impulsivity, all part rs Ͻ .02, ns. respond impulsively to emotion. This is a possibility that should be explored in future research, including research on negative ur- Mood State Influences gency. Independent of positive urgency, this study found evidence that Bivariate correlations were used to assess whether performance This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. high arousal positive mood states overall predicted greater will- measures of impulsivity were influenced by mood state. As shown This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ingness to take risks on the BART. This is consistent with previous in Table 2, of the 20 correlations only one was significant, that of findings (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2010). Our finding suggests that HAP ratings with BART performance. People who showed a positive mood shifts per se may be more influential for risk taking larger response to the mood inductions, then, did not seem to be than for other manifestations of impulsivity (cf. Isen, 2000). This more impulsive on the behavioral tasks, with the exception of suggests a more specific model of which aspect of impulsivity is increased willingness to take risks on the BART task. likely to emerge during high arousal positive mood states; this To test whether PUM moderated mood state effects on model should be subjected to further testing. performance-based measures, simultaneous regression models Several limitations must be noted. First, the cross-sectional were constructed to assess interactions of PUM with task SCL, nature of the design precludes any comments about causality. controlling for baseline SCL in the first block, on the impul- Second, many of the performance-based tasks have themselves had sivity tasks. Separate models were computed for the antisaccade task, BART, IMT, Tower of London, and time estimation. PUM scores did not interact significantly with SCL levels in the 1 A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used because the SCL data violated ␤ ϭ ϭ prediction of any of these tasks, antisaccade task .05, p .61, the assumption of normally distributed differences. 756 JOHNSON, THARP, PECKHAM, SANCHEZ, AND CARVER

Table 2 Pearson Correlations of Impulsivity Measures With Mood and Physiology (N ϭ 101 Except Where Noted)

Tower of Time Delay IMT London latency estimation RPS discounting Measure PUM Antisaccade BART (n ϭ 72) (n ϭ 72) (n ϭ 70) (n ϭ 100) (n ϭ 79)

SCL n/a Ϫ.01 .07 .04 Ϫ.16 Ϫ.02 not acquired not acquired Ϫ.14 Ϫ.03 Ϫ.01 .00 Ϫ.10 ءءHAP .05 Ϫ.07 .27 PUM Ϫ.04 .03 Ϫ.23 .09 Ϫ.13 .12 Ϫ.02 Antisaccade Ϫ.06 .13 .17 .02 Ϫ.06 Ϫ.06 03. ءءBART Ϫ.05 Ϫ.03 .01 .32 IMT Ϫ.03 Ϫ.01 Ϫ.01 .06 Tower of London latency Ϫ.22 Ϫ.04 Ϫ.03 Ϫ.04 ءTime estimation .30 RPS .02 Note. SCL ϭ tonic skin conductance during task, controlling for baseline skin conductance level; HAP ϭ high arousal positive affect rating at the end of the session; PUM ϭ Positive Urgency Measure; BART ϭ balloon risk taking task; IMT ϭ immediate memory task; RPS ϭ Risk Perception Scale; n/a ϭ not applicable. .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء

relatively little validity testing to ensure that they do assess the students may be in a developmental period of relatively high behavioral property they are assumed to assess; indeed, recent impulsivity (Steinberg et al., 2008; Forbes & Dahl, 2010). research suggests that many may capture a broader range of Another important limitation is that we found little evidence constructs than is widely assumed (Sharma et al., 2014). Third, the that the mood inductions we employed had much bearing on sample was composed of undergraduates at a competitive univer- performance-based impulsivity measures. That is, the effect sity, and so it will be important to assess whether findings gener- size of PUM scores with response inhibition obtained here is alize to community samples. We would note, however, that the similar to findings of studies that did not employ mood induc- mean and variability of PUM scores in this sample were compa- tion procedures. Even though we used well-validated proce- rable to that observed general community samples, and college dures and observed significantly higher physiological arousal 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.

Figure 1. Curvilinear relationship between the Positive Urgency Measure (PUM) and performance on the antisaccade task. POSITIVE URGENCY AND PREPOTENT RESPONSES 757

levels after mood induction compared to baseline, participants behaviours. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 1085–1096. http://dx rated their moods as only mildly to moderately positive at the .doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.008 end of the session. Given the modest effects of the mood Brezo, J., Paris, J., & Turecki, G. (2006). Personality traits as correlates of induction in our own study and other studies of response suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completions: A system- inhibition (Gunn & Finn, 2015), it remains difficult to make a atic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 113, 180–206. http://dx clear statement about the role of mood state in driving deficits. .doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00702.x We also observed no significant interaction of PUM scores Carver, C. S., Johnson, S. L., & Joormann, J. (2013). Major depressive disorder and impulsive reactivity to emotion: Toward a dual-process with the degree of mood or physiological arousal elevation on view of depression. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, performance, although we were relatively underpowered for 285–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12014 examining interactions. This absence of interaction may be Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2010). Is urgency emotionality? Sep- attributable to the relatively low intensity of the affect created. arating urgent behaviors from effects of emotional experiences. Person- Future work should perhaps turn to more intense affects, such ality and Individual Differences, 48, 839–844. http://dx.doi.org/10 as anger or fear. Another possibility is that further research use .1016/j.paid.2010.02.009 ambulatory monitoring of natural variation in mood state to Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2011). Measurement of constructs more carefully assess whether highly elevated mood states using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: Is there overlap in nomothetic interfere with response inhibition for persons with high levels span and construct representation for impulsivity? Clinical Psychology of positive urgency. Review, 31, 965–982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.001 Despite these limitations, understanding the mechanisms in- Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2012). The relationship between volved in emotion-relevant impulsivity remains an important self-report and lab task conceptualizations of impulsivity. Journal of goal. Our findings suggest that emotion-relevant impulsivity Research in Personality, 46, 121–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp may be related to deficits in prepotent response inhibition. This .2011.11.005 finding is intriguing in that both emotion-relevant impulsivity Cyders, M. A., Coskunpinar, A., & Lehman, Z. A. (2012). Difficulties and (Berg et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2007) and response inhibition advancements in the assessment and induction of emotion-based impulsivity: Development of the three-task procedure. In M. A. Cyders (Ed.), (Wright et al., 2014) have been found to be relevant to a broad Psychology of impulsivity (pp. 237–258), 2nd edition. Nove Science range of psychopathologies. It is also intriguing that emotion- Publishers. relevant impulsivity appears to be fairly specifically linked to Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2007). Mood-based rash action and its problems with response inhibition, and not other aspects of components: Positive and negative urgency and their relations with other neurocognitive or impulsive performance. Difficulties with re- impulsivity-like constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, sponse inhibition also appear not to be evident until scores are 839–850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.008 in the higher ranges of the PUM. These findings provide a Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based dispositions to rash foundation for neural, cognitive remediation, and therapeutic action: Positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134, research. To the extent that emotion-relevant impulsivity turns 807–828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013341 out to involve cognitive vulnerability, it will be important to Cyders, M. A., Smith, G. T., Spillane, N. S., Fischer, S., Annus, A. M., & consider interventions for people with this form of impulsivity Peterson, C. (2007). Integration of impulsivity and positive mood to that do not depend heavily on cognitive control. predict risky behavior: Development and validation of a measure of positive urgency. Psychological Assessment, 19, 107–118. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.107 References Cyders, M. A., Zapolski, T. C., Combs, J. L., Settles, R. F., Fillmore, M. T., & Smith, G. T. (2010). Experimental effect of positive urgency on Bagge, C. L., Littlefield, A. K., Rosellini, A. J., & Coffey, S. F. (2013). negative outcomes from risk taking and on increased alcohol consump- Relations among behavioral and questionnaire measures of impulsivity tion. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 367–375. http://dx.doi.org/ Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, in a sample of suicide attempters. 10.1037/a0019494 43, 460–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12030 Denny, K., & Siemer, M. (2012). Trait aggression is related to anger- Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). modulated deficits in response inhibition. Journal of Research in Per- Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human pre- sonality, 46, 450–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.04.001 Cognition, 50,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. frontal cortex. 7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010- Dick, D. M., Smith, G., Olausson, P., Mitchell, S. H., Leeman, R. F., 0277(94)90018-3 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. O’Malley, S. S., & Sher, K. (2010). Understanding the construct of Bechara, A., & Van Der Linden, M. (2005). Decision-making and impulse impulsivity and its relationship to alcohol use disorders. Addiction control after frontal lobe injuries. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18, 734–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.wco.0000194141.56429.3c Biology, 15, 217–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009 Berg, J. M., Latzman, R. D., Bliwise, N. G., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). .00190.x Parsing the heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of Dougherty, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Harper, R. A., Marsh, D. M., Moeller, the behavioral implications of the UPPS for psychopathology. Psy- F. G., Mathias, C. W., & Swann, A. C. (2003). Behavioral impulsivity chological Assessment, 27, 1129–1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ paradigms: A comparison in hospitalized adolescents with disruptive pas0000111 behavior disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Bickel, W. K., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Toward a behavioral economic Allied Disciplines, 44, 1145–1157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610 understanding of drug dependence: Delay discounting processes. .00197 Addiction, 96, 73–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001 Dougherty, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Huckabee, H. C., Moeller, F. G., & Swann, .961736.x A. C. (1999). Laboratory measures of aggression and impulsivity in Billieux, J., Gay, P., Rochat, L., & Van der Linden, M. (2010). The role of women with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 85, urgency and its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic 315–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(99)00011-6 758 JOHNSON, THARP, PECKHAM, SANCHEZ, AND CARVER

Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Pubertal development and behavior: Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of Hormonal activation of social and motivational tendencies. Brain and individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Cognition, 72, 66–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.007 Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14. http://dx.doi Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and .org/10.1177/0963721411429458 interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Muhtadie, L., Johnson, S. L., Carver, C. S., Gotlib, I. H., & Ketter, T. A. Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101–135. http://dx.doi.org/10 (2014). A profile approach to impulsivity in bipolar disorder: The key .1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 role of strong emotions. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 129, 100–108. Gay, P., Rochat, L., Billieux, J., d’Acremont, M., & Van der Linden, M. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acps.12136 (2008). Heterogeneous inhibition processes involved in different facets Perales, J. C., Verdejo-Garcia, A., Moya, M., Lozano, O., & Perez-Garcia, of self-reported impulsivity: Evidence from a community sample. Acta M. (2009). Bright and dark sides of impulsivity: Performance of women Psychologica, 129, 332–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08 with high and low trait impulsivity on neuropsychological tasks. Journal .010 of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 927–944. http://dx Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Behavioral aftereffects of unpredict- .doi.org/10.1080/13803390902758793 able and uncontrollable aversive events. American Scientist, 60, 457– Pronin, E. (2013). When the mind races: Effects of thought speed on 465. feeling and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, Gunn, R. L., & Finn, P. R. (2015). Applying a dual process model of 283–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413482324 self-regulation: The association between executive working memory Pronin, E., & Jacobs, E. (2008). Thought speed, mood, and the experience capacity, negative urgency, and negative mood induction on pre-potent of mental motion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 461–485. response inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 210– http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00091.x 215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.033 Roberts, J. R. J., Hager, L. D., & Heron, C. (1994). Prefrontal cognitive Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. L. J. processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. Haviland-Jones (Ed.), Handbook of emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 417–435). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 374–393. http://dx New York, NY: Guilford Press. .doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.374 Jacob, G. A., Gutz, L., Bader, K., Lieb, K., Tüscher, O., & Stahl, C. (2010). Roberts, W., Fillmore, M. T., & Milich, R. (2011). Linking impulsivity and Impulsivity in borderline personality disorder: Impairment in self-report inhibitory control using manual and oculomotor response inhibition measures, but not behavioral inhibition. Psychopathology, 43, 180–188. tasks. Acta Psychologica, 138, 419–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000304174 .actpsy.2011.09.002 Jarmolowicz, D. P., Bickel, W. K., & Gatchalian, K. M. (2013). Alcohol- Rochat, L., Beni, C., Annoni, J. M., Vuadens, P., & Van der Linden, M. dependent individuals discount sex at higher rates than controls. Drug (2013). How inhibition relates to impulsivity after moderate to severe and Alcohol Dependence, 131, 320–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsycholog- .drugalcdep.2012.12.014 ical Society, 19, 890–898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of S1355617713000672 real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Rose, P., & Segrist, D. J. (2014). Negative and positive urgency may both Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 129–146. http://dx.doi.org/10 be risk factors for compulsive buying. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, .1901/jeab.2002.77-129 3, 128–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.011 Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying Schafer, J. L. (2000). NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivar- nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Experimental and Clinical Psy- iate data under a normal model, version 2.03. chopharmacology, 16, 264–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297 Sharma, L., Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a theory of .16.3.264 distinct types of “impulsive” behaviors: A meta-analysis of self-report Johnson, S. L., Carver, C. S., & Joormann, J. (2013). Impulsive responses and behavioral measures. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 374–408. http:// to emotion as a transdiagnostic vulnerability to internalizing and exter- dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034418 nalizing symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150, 872–878. http:// Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., Cyders, M. A., Annus, A. M., Spillane, N. S., & dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.05.004 McCarthy, D. M. (2007). On the validity and utility of discriminating Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A among impulsivity-like traits. Assessment, 14, 155–170. http://dx.doi controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Ex- .org/10.1177/1073191106295527 perimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. http://dx.doi.org/10 Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. .1037/0096-3445.130.2.169 Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 216–224. Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Stuart, G. L.,...Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75–84. http://dx.doi model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778. http://dx.doi.org/10 .org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75 .1037/a0012955 Lieberman, M. D., Inagaki, T. K., Tabibnia, G., & Crockett, M. J. (2011). Torres, A., Catena, A., Megías, A., Maldonado, A., Cándido, A., Verdejo- Subjective responses to emotional stimuli during labeling, reappraisal, García, A., & Perales, J. C. (2013). Emotional and non-emotional and distraction. Emotion, 11, 468–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ pathways to impulsive behavior and addiction. Frontiers in Human a0023503 Neuroscience, 7, 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00043 Maher, A. M., Thomson, C. J., & Carlson, S. R. (2015). Risk-taking and Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. (2002). A domain-specific risk- impulsive personality traits in proficient downhill sports enthusiasts. attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 20–24. http://dx.doi.org/10 Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ .1016/j.paid.2015.01.041 bdm.414 Mazur, J. E., & Coe, D. (1987). Tests of transitivity in choices between Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and fixed and variable reinforcer delays. Journal of the Experimental Anal- impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand im- ysis of Behavior, 47, 287–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.47- pulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689. http:// 287 dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7 POSITIVE URGENCY AND PREPOTENT RESPONSES 759

Wilbertz, T., Deserno, L., Horstmann, A., Neumann, J., Villringer, A., erate depressive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38, 261– Heinze, H. J.,...Schlagenhauf, F. (2014). Response inhibition and its 269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9597-9 relation to multidimensional impulsivity. NeuroImage, 103, 241–248. Zapolski, T. C., Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Positive urgency http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.021 predicts illegal drug use and risky sexual behavior. Psychology of Wright, L., Lipszyc, J., Dupuis, A., Thayapararajah, S. W., & Schachar, R. Addictive Behaviors, 23, 348–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014684 (2014). Response inhibition and psychopathology: A meta-analysis of go/no-go task performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 429– 439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036295 Received October 8, 2015 Yang, K., Friedman-Wheeler, D. G., & Pronin, E. (2014). Thought accel- Revision received February 1, 2016 eration boosts positive mood among individuals with minimal to mod- Accepted February 23, 2016 Ⅲ 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.