User:Ntpham2/sandbox

According to Eveden (1999), there is not one unitary impulsivity. Instead, there are several related phenomena which are classified together as impulsivity. Daruna and Barnes (1993) described impulsivity as actions that "appear poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, unduly risky, or inappropriate to the situation and that often result in undesirable consequences". More recently, Madden and Johnson (2010) characterized impulsivity as a tendency to act on a whim and disregard a more rational long-term goal for success. Dickman (1990) suggested two different types of impulsivity: dysfunctional impulsivity defined as the tendency to act with less forethought than do most people which leads the subject into difficulties and functional impulsivity, that is the tendency to act with little forethought when the situation is optimal. Impulsivity has been measured as an aspect of personality trait using self-report measures such as the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (Patton,Stanford, &. Barratt, 1995) or the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978).

Cognitive Depletion
Self-control refers to the capacity for altering one’s own responses, especially to bring them into line with standards such as ideals, values, morals, and social expectations, and to support the pursuit of long-term goals. Self-control enables a person to restrain or override one response, thereby making a different response possible. Baumeister and colleagues developed the strength model of self-control. A major tenet of the model is that engaging in acts of self-control draws from a limited “reservoir” of self-control that, when depleted, results in reduced capacity for further self-regulation. In the model, self-control is viewed as analogous to a muscle. Just as a muscle requires strength and energy to exert force over a period of time, acts that have high self-control demands also require strength and energy to perform. Similarly, as muscles become fatigued after a period of sustained exertion and have reduced capacity to exert further force, self-control can also become depleted when demands are made of self-control resources over a period of time. Baumeister and colleagues termed the state of diminished self-control strength ego depletion (or cognitive depletion).

The strength model of self-control:


 * First, just as exercise can make muscles stronger, there are signs that regular exertions of self-control can improve willpower strength . These improvements typically take the form of resistance to depletion, in the sense that performance at self-control tasks deteriorates at a slower rate . Targeted efforts to control behavior in one area, such as spending money or exercise, lead to improvements in unrelated areas, such as studying or household chores. And daily exercises in self-control, such as improving posture, altering verbal behavior, and using one’s nondominant hand for simple tasks, gradually produce improvements in self-control as measured by laboratory tasks . The finding that these improvements carry over into tasks vastly different from the daily exercises shows that the improvements are not due to simply increasing skill or acquiring self-efficacy from practice.


 * Second, just as athletes begin to conserve their remaining strength when their muscles begin to tire, so do self-controllers when some of their self-regulatory resources have been expended. The severity of behavioral impairment during depletion depends in part on whether the person expects further challenges and demands . When people expect to have to exert self-control later, they will curtail current performance more severely than if no such demands are anticipated.


 * Third, and consistent with the conservation hypothesis, people can exert self-control despite ego depletion if the stakes are high enough. Offering cash incentives or other motives for good performance counteracts the effects of ego depletion . This may seem surprising but in fact it may be highly adaptive. Given the value and importance of the capacity for self-control, it would be dangerous for a person to lose that capacity completely, and so ego depletion effects may occur because people start conserving their remaining strength . When people do exert themselves on the second task, they deplete the resource even more, as reflected in severe impairments on a third task that they have not anticipated.

Personality tests and reports

 * The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) is one of the oldest and most widely used measures of impulsive personality traits. The first BIS was developed in 1959 by Dr. Ernest Barratt . It has been revised extensively to achieve two major goals: (1) to identify a set of "impulsiveness" items that was orthogonal to a set of "anxiety" items as measured by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) or the Cattelll Anxiety Scale, and (2) to define impulsiveness within the structure of related personality traits like Eysenck's Extraversion dimension or Zuckerman's Sensation-Seeking dimension, especially the disinhibition subfactor. . The BIS-11 with 30 items was developed in 1995 . A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with PROMAX rotation yielded six factors with factor labels and definitions as following: 1. Attention: "focusing on the task at hand". 2. Motor impulsiveness: "acting on a the spur of the moment". 3. Self-control: "planning and thinking carefully". 4. Cognitive complexity: "enjoy challenging mental tasks". 5. Perseverance: "a consistent life style". 6. Cognitive instability: "thought insertion and racing thoughts". The second-order factor analysis produced three factors, including Attentional Impulsiveness, Motor Impulsiveness, and Non-planning Impulsiveness.


 * Sybil B. G. Eysenck and Hans Eysenck suggest that there are several quite separate factors involved in what is often supposed to be a general trait of impulsiveness (ImpB) . They are impulsiveness (ImpN), risk-taking, non-planning, and liveliness . The factors extracted are correlated with measures of the major personality dimensions. Results show that ImpN is closely and positively related to Psychoticism (P) and negatively related to Lie (L) (negatively) . Risk-taking shows a positive relationship with Extraversion (E), and almost equally clear one with P. Non-planning is positively related to P and negatively to Neuroticism (N) . Liveliness positively correlates with E but negatively correlates with N. It does not seem relate at all with P or L.