The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity

Stephen P. Whiteside, Donald R. Lynam*
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044, USA
Received 23 August 1999; received in revised form 1 February 2000
Abstract
The present project utilized the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1990) to clarify the multi-faceted nature of impulsivity. The NEO-PI-R and a
number of commonly used impulsivity measures were administered to over 400 young adults. Exploratory factor analyses identi®ed four distinct personality facets
associated with impulsive-like behavior which were labeled urgency, (lack of) premeditation, (lack of) perseverance, and sensation seeking. Each of these traits was
marked by a di€erent facet of the FFM. Following the initial factor identi®cation, scales to measure each of the personality facets were created and combined to form
the UPPS Impulsive Behavior scale. Implications for the understanding of impulsive behavior and the FFM are discussed, as are future applications of the UPPS impulsive
behavior scale. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Five Factor Model; Personality; Impulsivity; Deliberation; Sensation seeking; Urgency
1. Introduction
Impulsivity is an important psychological construct. It appears, in one form or another, in every major system of personality. For instance, Eysenck and Eysenck (1985)
include impulsiveness (e.g., I usually think carefully before doing anything) as a component of psychoticism and venturesomeness (e.g., I would enjoy waterskiing) and
sensation-seeking (e.g., I sometimes like doing things that are a bit frightening) as components of extraversion in their three dimensional view of personality. In his
models, Cloninger (Cloninger, Przybeck & Svrakic, 1991; Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993) includes a superfactor of novelty seeking which consists of items asking
about thrill seeking and preferring to act on feelings of the moment without regard for rules
0191-8869/01/$ – see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(00)00064-7
Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2001) 669±689
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-606-257-8662; fax: +1-606-323-1979. E-mail address: dlynal@pop.uky.edu (D.R. Lynam).
and regulations. Finally, Tellegen (1982) incorporates a dimension of control (vs impulsiveness) under his higher-order constraint factor. In addition to its
importance in personality, impulsivity also plays a prominent role in the understanding and diagnosis of various forms of psychopathology. In fact, after subjective
distress, impulsivity may be the most common diagnostic criteria in the fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American
Psychiatric Association, 1994). In addition to an entire section devoted to impulse-control disorders (e.g., intermittent explosive disorder, kleptomania, and
pyromania), impulsivity appears in the diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorders as varied as: borderline personality disorder (i.e., impulsivity in at least two
areas that are potentially self-damaging), antisocial personality disorder (i.e., impulsivity or failure to plan ahead), attention-de®cit/hyperactivity disorder (i.e.,
blurts out answers, diculty waiting turn, and interrupts or intrudes), mania (e.g., excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential for
painful consequences), dementia (i.e., disturbance in executive functioning), bulimia nervosa (e.g., feeling as though one cannot control how much one is eating),
substance use disorders, and the paraphilias. Additionally, impulsivity serves as a centerpiece in etiologic theories of psychopathy (Newman & Wallace, 1993; Lynam,
1996), crime (Mott, 1993), and substance use (Wills, Vaccaro & McNamara, 1994). Given the pervasive importance of impulsivity in psychology, it is somewhat surprising
to note the variety of current conceptualizations of impulsivity and the inconsistencies among them. As Depue and Collins (1999) note, “impulsivity comprises a
heterogeneous cluster of lower-order traits that includes terms such as impulsivity, sensation seeking, risk-taking, novelty seeking, boldness, adventuresomeness,
boredom susceptibility, unreliability, and unorderliness” (p. 495). Unfortunately, impulsivity su€ers from both the “jingle” and “jangle” fallacies (Block, 1995).
The jingle fallacy refers to situations in which two constructs with equivalent labels are in reality quite di€erent; in the present instance, measures labeled
impulsivity may re¯ect constructs as diverse as a short attention span and a tendency to participate in risky behavior. On the other hand, the jangle fallacy refers to
situations in which two constructs with di€erent labels are actually the same; for example, Tellegen’s control (Tellegen, 1982) and Zuckerman’s Disinhibition
(Zuckerman, 1994) scales seem to measure similar constructs despite bearing di€erent labels. Clearly, the jingle and jangle fallacies are more likely to inhibit than to
advance the understanding of impulsivity; these fallacies “waste scienti®c time” and “work to prevent the recognition of correspondences that could help build
cumulative knowledge” (Block, 1995, p. 210). It is in response to these concerns that we conduct the current investigation of impulsivity. Speci®cally, we attempted
to understand the construct of impulsivity by analyzing, within the framework of a well-validated personality model, a variety of commonly used impulsivity measures.
1.1. Personality theories incorporating conceptualizations of impulsivity
There have been several previous attempts to bring clarity to the construct of impulsivity. For instance, Eysenck and colleagues have discussed impulsivity in terms of
their three factor theory of personality which currently consists of neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism. In their earlier work, Eysenck and Eysenck (1968)
included impulsivity as a subscale of the second order personality trait extraversion. Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) revised their personality scale which,
670 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
according to Rocklin and Revelle (1981), rede®ned extraversion in a manner that included liveliness and sociability, but excluded impulsivity. Subsequent to the
revision of their three factor theory of personality Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) subdivided impulsivity (labeled broad impulsiveness) into four speci®c dimensions:
narrow impulsiveness, risk-taking, non-planning, and liveliness. They found that the four impulsivity scales correlated di€erentially with extraversion, neuroticism,
and psychoticism. The ®rst factor, narrow impulsiveness, had high correlations with neuroticism and psychoticism, but did not correlate with extraversion. However, the
other dimensions, risk-taking, non-planning, and liveliness, were more strongly correlated with extraversion. This work contributed to Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1985),
reconsideration of their original placement of impulsivity on extraversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) and their proposal that impulsivity consists of two components:
venturesomeness that corresponds to extraversion, and impulsiveness, that corresponds to psychoticism. Buss and Plomin (1975) included impulsivity, along with
emotionality, activity, and sociability in their four factor model of temperament. They hypothesize that impulsivity is a multidimensional temperament with inhibitory
control, or the ability to delay the performance of a behavior, as its core aspect. The other three components of impulsivity in this system involve the tendency to
consider alternatives and consequences before making a decision, the ability to remain with a task despite competing temptations, and the tendency to become bored and
need to seek novel stimuli. Although the authors describe impulsivity and the other temperaments as separate dimensions they contend that the traits in¯uence behavior
in an interactional manner. For instance, they postulate that while activity and emotionality motivate individuals to action, impulsivity works to slow down or inhibit
behavior. Zuckerman and colleagues likewise have discussed impulsivity in terms of a general model of personality. Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornquist and Kiers (1991)
began the development of an alternative ®ve-factor model through the factor analysis of a number of general personality inventories. They identi®ed a factor consisting
of the four subscales from Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1994) and other measures of impulsivity which they have since labeled impulsive-sensation
seeking. Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta and Kraft (1993) described this scale as consisting of items that “involve a lack of planning and the tendency to act
impulsively without thinking”, as well as “experience seeking, or the willingness to take risks for the sake of excitement or novel experiences”. They determined
that their impulsive sensation seeking scale measured a construct similar to the NEO conscientiousness factor (discussed below, Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the EPQ
psychoticism factor. Cloninger bases his model of personality structure and development on the physiological underpinnings of behavior (Cloninger et al., 1991, 1993).
He has identi®ed four temperament scales through research on studies of twins and families, longitudinal development, and neuropharmacology. Cloninger de®nes
temperament factors as dimensions of personality that “involve automatic, preconceptual responses to perceptual stimuli, presumably re¯ecting heritable biases in
information processing” (Cloninger et al., 1993, p. 977). Cloninger includes impulsivity as an aspect of novelty seeking, one of the four temperaments. In addition,
novelty seeking also includes: (1) the initiation of approach behavior in response to novelty; (2) extravagance in approach to reward cues; and (3) the tendency to
quickly lose one’s temper. Cloninger therefore, apparently conceptualizes impulsivity as an automatic response to novel stimuli that occurs at a preconscious level due
to biological tendencies.
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 671
Tellegen (1982, 1985) has proposed a personality system that includes three higher-order factors. The ®rst two, positive emotionality and negative emotionality, are
directly related to mood. The third dimension, constraint, captures an individual’s level of caution, restraint, propensity towards risky behavior, and acceptance of
conventional society. Individuals low in constraint describe themselves as relatively impulsive, adventurous, and inclined to reject conventional restrictions on
behavior. The constraint factor includes a control-versus-impulsiveness scale. In Tellegen’s model impulsivity is one of three factors that determines the manner and
intensity in which individuals respond to emotional stimuli.
1.2. Previous theories of impulsivity
Barratt and colleagues (Barratt, 1993; Gerbing, Ahadi & Patton, 1987; Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995; Stanford & Barratt, 1992) have developed one of the most
comprehensive approaches to impulsivity by including information from four diverse perspectives: the medical model, the psychological model, the behavioral model, and
the social model. The research incorporates a variety of measures including self-report inventories, cognitive and behavioral tasks, and brain-behavioral research with
animals (Barratt, 1993). These researchers (Patton et al., 1995) have identi®ed three higher-order factors which they argue re¯ect the di€erent components of
impulsivity: attentional impulsiveness (the ability to focus on the tasks at hand and cognitive instability), motor impulsiveness (acting on the spur of the moment and
perseverance), and non-planning (self-control and cognitive complexity). The latter two factors have been identi®ed by other researchers (Luengo, Carrillo-De-La-Pena &
Otero, 1991) while the third factor has not replicated reliably. In an e€ort to understand impulsivity from a physiological perspective, Newman and colleagues (Newman &
Wallace, 1993; Wallace, Newman & Bachorowski, 1991) have attempted to map Eysenck’s system of personality on to Gray’s neuropsychological model (Gray, 1987) of
approach/avoidance learning. In Gray’s model behavior arises from three separate components: the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), the Behavioral Inhibition System
(BIS), and the Nonspeci®c Arousal System (NAS). The BAS responds to environmental cues for reward and nonpunishment by initiating approach and active avoidance. The
BIS, on the other hand, responds to environmental cues for punishment and non-reward, with passive avoidance behavior, or extinction/inhibition of ongoing behavior.
Thus, the BAS and BIS have inhibitory connections to each other so that activation of one system inhibits the other. The third system, the NAS, receives excitatory
input from both the BAS and the BIS. Stimulation of the NAS in turn serves to intensify the frequency and intensity of behavior emanating from either system. Thus, an
increase in the NAS prepares the organism to respond. Further these authors suggest that extraversion re¯ects the relative strength of the BAS to BIS and that
neuroticism re¯ects the relative strength of the NAS. Based on this theory, Newman and his colleagues have identi®ed three distinct pathways to impulsive responding.
The ®rst pathway (normal impulsivity) involves the dominance of the BAS over the BIS ampli®ed by a highly reactive NAS which results in overresponding to rewards; this
pattern is seen in neurotic extraverts. The second pathway (anxious impulsivity) results from a dominant BIS intensi®ed by a highly reactive NAS under conditions in
which the dominant response is constrained to be one of approach; this pattern is seen in neurotic introverts. The
672 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
third pathway, called de®cient P-constraint by Lynam (1996), is seen in psychopaths responding under competing reward and punishment contingencies. Dickman (1990) has
proposed a two dimensional theory of impulsivity based on an information processing approach to personality. His work stems out of his observation that impulsivity can
have positive as well as negative consequences and he di€erentiates between functional (i.e., the tendency to act with relatively little forethought when such a trait
is optimal) and dysfunctional impulsivity (i.e., the tendency to act with less forethought than most people of equal ability when this is a source of diculty). He has
argued that dysfunctional impulsivity is associated with disorderliness, a tendency to ignore hard facts when making decisions, acting without forethought, and “a
tendency to engage in rapid, error prone information processing because of an inability to use a slower, more methodical approach under certain circumstances” (p.
101). On the other hand, functional impulsivity is associated with enthusiasm, adventuresomeness, activity, and an ability “to engage in rapid error prone information
processing when such a strategy is rendered optimal by the individual’s other personality traits” (p. 101). Despite attempts to place impulsivity in a comprehensive
theory of personality by researchers such as Eysenck, Jackson, and Cloninger, none of the frameworks put forward have gained widespread acceptance. This may be due, in
part, to the variety of personality models used as a reference point and their disagreement on the number and content of personality dimensions. In an attempt to add
clarity to the assortment of impulsivity measures that have been embedded in a variety of personality theories, the current project attempts to identify facets of
impulsivity that are common across measures and place them in an inclusive model of personality. Speci®cally, we use the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM; McCrae
& Costa, 1990) to provide a framework from which to understand and in which to place the various conceptions of impulsivity. This decision is consistent with Zuckerman
et al. (1991) who concluded that three- and ®ve-factor models of personality are equally robust and recommended the use of the latter, given its greater speci®city.
One structural model of personality that might be used for the above purposes is the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1990). This model consists
of ®ve broad higher-order factors called domains (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) each of which is
composed of six subfactors called facets. Within this model, there appear to be four distinct facets, on three di€erent domains, that capture some aspect of
impulsivity. Costa and McCrae (1992) explicitly propose that low self-control is measured by the Impulsiveness facet of the Neuroticism domain and by the Self-
discipline facet of the Conscientiousness domain of their personality inventory the NEO-PI-R. Speci®cally, they assert that “people high in impulsiveness cannot
resist doing what they do not want themselves to do” and that “people low in self-discipline cannot force themselves to do what they want themselves to do” (p. 18).
High scorers on the Impulsiveness facet are described as moody, irritable, and excitable, whereas low scorers on the Self-discipline facet are described as lazy,
disorganized, and not thorough. In addition, there are two other facets that capture impulsivity as conceptualized by other investigators. First, there is the
excitement seeking facet of extraversion which is similar to the dimension of sensation seeking of Zuckerman (1994) and the venturesomeness of Eysenck and Eysenck
(1977); high scorers on this facet are described as pleasureseeking, daring, and adventurous. Second, there is the deliberation facet of conscientiousness which is
similar to Tellegen’s control scale and to Barratt’s non-planning factor; low scorers on
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 673
this facet are described as hasty, impulsive, careless, and impatient. In the end, the FFM o€ers four distinct conceptualizations of impulsivity that might be used to
bring structure to the construct of impulsivity itself. The present study examines the relations of commonly-used measures of impulsivity to the FFM. Speci®cally, we
examine whether the four aspects of impulsivity inherent in the FFM map empirically onto the various conceptions of impulsivity present in the literature. To the
extent that the FFM can bring structure to the diversity of impulsivity conceptions and measures, it provides a potentially useful framework for the understanding and
study of impulsivity. Additionally, to the extent that distinct aspects of impulsivity emerge, scales to measure each form can be developed.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were 437 undergraduates (316 females, 111 males) enrolled in an introductory psychology course who participated to ful®ll a course requirement.
Participants were administered measures of impulsivity and the NEO-PI-R in groups of up to 25 students.
2.2. Measures
In order to maximize the variance and comparability across scales, all the items (including those that were originally in a true/false format) except for Zuckerman’s
sensation seeking scales were adapted to a four-point Likert-type format ranging from one to four.
2.2.1. EASI-III Impulsivity Scales The EASI-III is a self-report measure designed by Buss and Plomin (1975) to re¯ect their four temperament theory of personality:
emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity. Only the 20 items on the four impulsivity subscales, inhibitory control (e.g. Usually I can’t stand waiting),
decision time (e.g. I often have trouble making up my mind), sensation seeking (e.g. I generally seek new and exciting experiences and sensations), and persistence
(e.g. I generally like to see things through to the end) were included in this study. Braithwaite, DuncanJones, Bosly-Craft and Goodchild (1984) report reliability
coecients of 0.61, 0.40, 0.46, and 0.54, for the inhibitory control, decision time, sensation seeking, and persistence subscales, respectively.
2.2.2. Dickman’s Functional and Dysfunctional Impulsivity Scales The impulsivity scales of Dickman (1990) are based on his two dimensional conception of impulsivity.
His instrument assesses both functional impulsivity (11 items; e.g. Most of the time I can put my thoughts into words very rapidly) and dysfunctional impulsivity (12
items; e.g. Often I don’t spend enough time thinking over a situation before I act). Dickman (1990) reported Cronbach’s alphas of 0.83 and 0.86 for the functional and
dysfunctional impulsivity scales respectively, and an interscale correlation of 0.22.
674 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
2.2.3. Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) The BIS-11 (Patton et al., 1995) represents the latest e€ort by Barratt and colleagues to measure an impulsivity
construct that is orthogonal to anxiety and is related to similar personality traits, such as extraversion and sensation seeking. The BIS-11 is made up of three
subscales: attentional impulsiveness (e.g. I get easily bored when solving thought problems), motor impulsiveness (e.g. I do things without thinking), and non-planning
impulsiveness (e.g. I am more interested in the present than the future). Patton et al. (1995) report internal consistency coecients for the BIS-11 total score that
range from 0.79 to 0.83 for separate populations of undergraduates, substance-abuse patients, general psychiatric patients, and prison inmates.
2.2.4. I-7 Impulsiveness Questionnaire (I-7) The I-7 (Eysenck, Pearson, Easting & Allsopp, 1985) is a 54 item, true false response inventory designed to measure
impulsiveness (e.g. I generally do and say things without stopping to think), venturesomeness (e.g. I quite enjoy taking risks), and empathy. Because the empathy
subscale was included primarily to provide divergent validity, only the subscales pertaining to impulsivity were included in this study. Eysenck et al. (1985) reported
reliability coecients above 0.80 for the impulsiveness and venturesomeness scales and an interscale correlation of around 0.36.
2.2.5. Personality Research Form Impulsivity Scale (PRF) The PRF (Jackson, 1984) is a self-report inventory designed to measure personality traits related to areas of
normal functioning. Of the 22 scales available on the PRF only the 16 items on the impulsivity scale were included in the present study (e.g. Often I stop in the
middle of one activity in order to start something else). Jackson reports a reliability coecient of 0.85 for the impulsivity scale.
2.2.6. Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Control Scale (MPQ) The MPQ (Tellegen, 1982) is a 300 item, true/false, factor-analytically derived personality
measure composed of eleven primary personality scales, three “higher order traits”, and six validity scales. Tellegen (1982) reports a thirty day test±retest
reliability of 0.82 for the 24 item control (vs impulsiveness) scale (e.g. I often stop one activity before completing it and start another), the only scale used in
the present study.
2.2.7. Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) The TCI (Cloninger et al., 1991) is a self-report inventory based on Cloninger’s psychobiological model of
personality. This model contains seven factors and combines Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, and Reward Dependence from his original model with Persistence,
Selfdirectedness, Cooperativeness, and Self-transcendence from more recent work. Only the eightitem novelty seeking subscale of impulsiveness vs re¯ection (e.g. I
often react so strongly to unexpected news that I say or do things that I regret) was included in the present study. Cloninger et al. (1993) report internal
consistency for the impulsiveness vs re¯ection scale of 0.62.
2.2.8. Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) The SSS (Zuckerman, 1994) represents an attempt by Zuckerman and colleagues to operationalize “the construct of optimal level of
stimulation (p. 139)”. It contains four sub-scales
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 675
consisting of 10, forced-choice, items: thrill and adventure seeking (TAS), experience seeking (ES), disinhibition (DIS), and boredom susceptibility (BS). Only the
latter two scales were included in the present study. Zuckerman, Eysenck and Eysenck (1978) report alpha coecients for the DIS and BS scales as above 0.74 and 0.56
respectively, in mixed gender samples from the UK and the USA.
2.2.9. Additional “impulsiveness” items Pilot work suggested the need for additional items that tapped the “impulsiveness” aspect (e.g., strong cravings) of
impulsivity. To this end, fourteen additional items were created by the investigators. Example items include: “When I feel bad I will often do things I later regret
in order to make myself feel better now”, “I only act rashly when I am upset”, and “It is hard for me to resist acting on my feelings”.
2.2.10. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240 item self-report inventory designed to measure the basic components
of personality as identi®ed by the ®ve-factor-model. The inventory contains ®ve domains of personality, neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness, each of which is sub-divided into six facet scales. Internal consistencies for the individual facets range from 0.56 to 0.81. The NEO-PI-R is a
widely used personality inventory with considerable empirical data to support its internal and external validity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The present investigation only
included those domains that contained facets believed a priori to be related to impulsivity: neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness.
3. Results
3.1. Scale reliabilities
Individual impulsivity scales were constructed using unit weighting; items with negative corrected item-total correlation were removed. This procedure resulted in one
item being removed from each of the following scales: the EASI-III decision time scale, the EASI-III sensation seeking scale, the BIS-11 nonplanning scale, the BIS-11
attentional scale, and the I-7 venturesomeness scale. The resulting reliability coecients ranged from 0.52 for the EASI-III inhibitory control to 0.90 for the MPQ
control scale and are presented in Table 1.
3.2. Initial factor analysis
An exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis and a varimax rotation was conducted on the four NEO-PI-R representations of impulsivity
(impulsiveness, excitement seeking, self-discipline, and deliberation) and the seventeen impulsivity scales. Examination of the scree plot and the eigenvalues greater
than one suggested a four-factor solution; these four factors explained 66% of the variance in the measures. The factor loadings for the individual impulsivity and
NEO-PI-R facet scales are presented in Table 2. Based on content analysis, we labeled the four factors (lack of) Premeditation, Urgency, Sensation Seeking, and (lack
of) Perseverance.
676 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
The primary factor, (lack of) Premeditation, captured the most frequent conceptualization of impulsivity and included the NEO-PI-R facet of (low) deliberation, MPQ
control, PRF impulsivity, I-7 impulsivity, TCI impulsiveness vs re¯ection scale, EASI-III decision time, dysfunctional impulsivity, and BIS attention. All of these
scales assess the tendency to delay action in favor of careful thinking and planning. The second factor, Urgency, appeared to re¯ect a tendency to commit rash or
regrettable actions as a result of intense negative a€ect. The scales re¯ecting this factor included the NEO-PI-R facet of impulsiveness, EASI-III inhibitory control,
the additional items created by the authors, and, to a lesser degree, the BIS attention scale. For the most part, these scales include items related to an inability to
resist cravings, binging, and acting rashly while upset. The third factor, sensation seeking, was comprised of scales measuring the tendency to seek excitement and
adventure: the NEO-PI-R facet of excitement seeking, I-7 venturesomeness, EASI-III sensation seeking, SSS disinhibition, and functional impulsivity. Finally, the
fourth factor, (lack of) Perseverance, includes scales that assess one’s ability to remain with a task until completion and avoid boredom. The scales comprising this
factor are the NEO-PI-R facet (low) self-discipline, EASI-III persistence, and SSS disinhibition and boredom susceptibility scales. For the most part, the scales
contributing to each factor had relatively high primary loadings and few
Table 1 Internal consistencies for original scales
Impulsivity scale Reliability
EASI-III 0.72 EASI-III Inhibitory control 0.52 EASI-III Decision timea 0.56 EASI-III Sensation seekinga 0.59 EASI-III Persistence 0.66 Dickman’s Functional Impulsivity
0.79 Dickman’s Dysfunctional Impulsivity 0.85 Cloninger’s TCI Impulsiveness 0.63 Jackson’s PRF-E Impulsivity 0.81 Tellegen’s MPQ Control 0.90 BIS-11 0.84 BIS-11
Nonplanning impulsivenessa 0.74 BIS-11 Motor impulsiveness 0.78 BIS-11 Attentional impulsivenessa 0.58 Eysenck’s I-7 Venturesomenessa 0.87 Eysenck’s I-7 Impulsiveness
0.87 Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scales Zuckerman Disinhibition 0.78 Zuckerman Boredom Susceptibility 0.57 Additional items 0.89 NEO-PI-R Facets NEO Impulsiveness 0.63
NEO Excitement seeking 0.69 NEO Self-discipline 0.80 NEO Deliberation 0.80
a One item was dropped from each of these scales due to a negative corrected item-total correlation.
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 677
secondary loadings; the only exceptions were SSS disinhibition scale which loaded almost equally on the sensation seeking and (lack of) perseverance factors, and BIS
attention which loaded equally on the (lack of) premeditation and urgency factors. Next, we conducted the factor analyses including all of the NEO-PI-R facets, not
just the ones hypothesized to relate to impulsivity. A ®ve-factor solution was suggested that accounted for 63% of the variance; results are provided in Table 3.
Although there were some di€erences between this factor structure and the one discussed above, in general, the factors remained the same. The major di€erence was the
emergence of a sensation seeking factor separate from NEOPI-R extraversion. The ®rst factor continued to re¯ect (lack of) premeditation. The only change from the ®rst
solution was the primary loading of the BIS attention scale which before had only a secondary loading on this factor. The second factor was comprised of NEO-PI-R
Neuroticism and the other Urgency scales. The fact that the BIS attention scale no longer loaded most strongly on factor two does not a€ect the interpretation of this
factor in that the attention scale had a relatively small loading previously. In addition, the attention scale did not appear to ®t conceptually with the other scales.
The BIS attention scale is replaced on the second factor by Dickman’s functional impulsivity scale, which originally loaded on the sensation seeking factor. The
negative loading of functional impulsivity on the Urgency factor probably re¯ects this factor’s emphasis on dysfunctional behaviors inspired by negative a€ect.
Functional impulsivity
Table 2 Factor loadings of NEO-PI-R impulsivity-related facets and other impulsivity scalesa
Impulsivity scale Factors
I II III IV NEO-PI-R Deliberation ÿ70 ÿ30 ÿ19 ÿ30 MPQ Control 87 18 18 21 PRF-E Impulsivity 82 28 14 20 Dysfunctional Impulsivity 80 29 06 14 I-7 Impulsivity 75 40 30
08 TCI Impulsivity 75 06 05 17 EASI-III Decision Time 66 07 28 18 BIS Nonplanning 66 10 ÿ05 45 BIS Motor Impulsivity 64 51 34 ÿ09 NEO-PI-R Impulsiveness 14 74 ÿ08 18
EASI-III Inhibitory Control 20 72 15 21 Additional items 30 71 13 ÿ04 BIS Attentional Impulsivity 45 50 03 27 NEO-PI-R Excitement Seeking 02 14 74 14 I-7
Venturesomeness 21 ÿ03 80 ÿ09 EASI-III Sensation Seeking 10 33 74 02 Functional Impulsivity 36 ÿ27 54 ÿ13 NEO-PI-R Self-discipline ÿ37 ÿ36 19 ÿ63 SSS Disinhibition 15
22 52 53 EASI-III Persistence 37 14 ÿ21 68 SSS Boredom Susceptibility 17 01 38 67
a The highest loading for each scale is in bold.
678 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
continues to have a secondary loading on the sensation seeking factor. The third factor interestingly, was composed of the ®ve facets of conscientiousness (minus
deliberation) and the scales associated previously with (lack of) perseverance; this suggests an overweighting of the perseverance dimension in the NEO-PI-R. The fact
that the EASI-III perseverance scale was the only impulsivity scale to load on this factor re¯ects the lack of attention given to the ability to remain focused on a
dicult task in the impulsivity literature. However, the Zuckerman’s boredom
Table 3 Factor loadings of all NEO-PI-R facets and other impulsivity scalesa
Scale Factors
I II III IV V NEO-PI-R Competence ÿ33 ÿ26 60 ÿ08 33 NEO-PI-R Order ÿ47 00 46 ÿ09 ÿ02 NEO-PI-R Dutifulness ÿ33 ÿ15 66 ÿ04 15 NEO-PI-R Achievement Striving ÿ23 ÿ07 78
ÿ07 21 NEO-PI-R Self-Discipline ÿ33 ÿ31 73 ÿ08 14 NEO-PI-R Deliberation ÿ72 ÿ11 35 ÿ24 ÿ03 MPQ Control 86 ÿ02 ÿ27 16 02 PRF-E Impulsivity 86 09 ÿ21 14 05 Dysfunctional
Impulsivity 82 11 ÿ21 10 ÿ03 I-7 Impulsivity 80 12 ÿ12 38 ÿ07 TCI Impulsivity 76 01 ÿ15 10 ÿ01 EASI-III Decision Time 66 ÿ11 ÿ22 17 15 BIS Nonplanning 61 ÿ06 ÿ52 02
ÿ02 BIS Motor Impulsivity 75 22 05 33 15 SSS Disinhibition 20 03 ÿ35 63 15 EASI-III Persistence 31 11 ÿ69 ÿ04 ÿ04 SSS Boredom Susceptibility 20 ÿ08 -36 50 ÿ04 NEO-PI-R
Anxiety ÿ07 77 01 ÿ34 10 NEO-PI-R Angry Hostility 21 65 01 10 ÿ27 NEO-PI-R Depression 04 75 ÿ07 00 ÿ20 NEO-PI-R Self-Consciousness ÿ10 70 ÿ09 ÿ18 ÿ13 NEO-PI-R
Impulsiveness 29 61 ÿ16 17 19 NEO-PI-R Vulnerability 07 71 ÿ33 ÿ13 ÿ14 EASI-III Inhibitory Control 36 48 ÿ16 37 11 Additional items 43 54 06 37 ÿ12 BIS Attentional
Impulsivity 52 31 ÿ32 14 15 NEO-PI-R Warmth ÿ09 ÿ04 24 ÿ03 83 NEO-PI-R Gregariousness 06 ÿ08 ÿ06 27 74 NEO-PI-R Assertiveness 16 ÿ29 34 23 37 NEO-PI-R Activity 30 ÿ05
42 14 52 NEO-PI-R Excitement Seeking 10 ÿ09 ÿ05 57 60 NEO-PI-R Positive Emotions 05 ÿ13 20 ÿ06 81 I-7 Venturesomeness 22 ÿ27 12 67 10 EASI-III Sensation Seeking 20 03
08 77 10 Functional Impulsivity 36 ÿ46 22 37 ÿ01 a The highest loading for each scale is in bold; important secondary loadings are underlined.
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 679
susceptibility continued to have a strong secondary loading on this factor. The fourth factor was made up of the scales previously comprising the sensation seeking
factor and SSS boredom susceptibility. Finally, the ®fth factor was comprised of the NEO-PI-R extraversion facets.
3.3. Item selection
After the identi®cation of the four meanings of impulsivity in the initial factor analysis, including only the four NEO-PI-R facets related to impulsivity, items were
selected to measure each of the meanings. Item selection began by selecting those items with the highest correlations with each factor score. However, in order to
preserve the breadth of content within each scale we created pools of at least 25 items for each scale from which to select the most representative items. Therefore we
identi®ed cut o€ scores which would allow us to select the 25 items with the highest factor loadings for each factor. Unfortunately, although factor one had a plethora
of items with loadings greater than 0.50 the remaining factors did not. Therefore, in order to systematically accumulate at least 25 items with the highest loadings
for each scale we were forced to use separate cut o€ scores. For factor one, the 43 items with correlations greater than 0.50 were selected. For factors two and three,
the 27 and 32 items with correlations greater than 0.40 were initially selected. For factor four, the 33 items with correlations greater than 0.3 were included. In
addition, any item which had a correlation on one factor that was at least 0.2 greater than its correlation on the others was retained. In the next step, the selected
items were reduced to 15 items per scale based on content. This was accomplished through the identi®cation of items with similar content within each type of
impulsivity and by retaining only those with the highest item-factor correlations; this served to retain the breadth of coverage present in each factor while reducing
redundancy. These items’ correlations ranged from 0.47 to 0.68 for factor one, 0.42 to 0.59 for factor two, 0.52 to 0.69 for factor three, and 0.32 to 0.55 for factor
four. Next, items with the lowest corrected item-total correlations were dropped to increase reliability. Finally, the 50 items representing the four meanings of
impulsivity were entered into an exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis and a varimax rotation; results (see Table 4) indicated that a four
factor solution best described the data.1 From these remaining items each scale was reduced to between 10 and 12 items by retaining the items with the highest factor
loadings, and relatively lower loadings on the other factors. In addition, when items with redundant content were identi®ed, only those with higher loadings were
retained. This procedure resulted in 45 items measuring the four factors. Table 5 presents the ®nal items for each scale. The internal consistency coecients were 0.91,
0.86, 0.90, and 0.82 for scales one, two, three, and four respectively. Across all scales, convergent corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.38 to 0.79 with a
mean of 0.58, whereas the average divergent item-total correlations ranged from 0.05 to 0.33 with a mean of 0.17. These results suggest good convergent and divergent
relations among items. Finally, the correlations
1 A two-group Con®rmatory Analysis was performed to examine whether or not the four-factor structure held for both males and females. Results from analyses comparing a
model in which loadings and covariances were free to vary across males and females to a model in which they were constrained to be equal across gender indicated that
the models were the same for males and females,
2(49)=51, ns.
680 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
Table 4 Factor loadings of the 50 impulsivity items with satisfactory item-total correlationsa
Abbreviated Items Factors
I II III IV
Reserved and cautious attitude 65 07 08 06 Thinking is careful and planful 73 ÿ01 08 17 Blurt out things without thinking (R) 60 ÿ05 10 04 Like to stop and think
things over 72 ÿ08 12 10 Don’t start projects until I know how to proceed 58 ÿ05 01 09 Follow a rational and sensible approach 73 ÿ07 12 16 Usually make up mind though
careful reasoning 81 ÿ03 18 13 Am a cautious person 77 08 08 11 Like to ®nd out what to expect in new situation 68 09 ÿ04 09 Plan tasks carefully 68 08 12 29 Do things
without thinking (R) 50 34 38 14 Usually think carefully before doing anything 76 02 07 16 Do things on spur of the moment (R) 52 17 45 02 Consider all advantages and
disadvantages 73 02 06 18 Have trouble controlling impulses 11 24 47 21 Have trouble resisting cravings ÿ02 08 43 27 Involved in things later wish could get out of 01
08 64 19 Often change interests ÿ06 34 51 13 When feel bad will do things later regret 08 05 58 06 When feel bad can’t seem to stop what am doing 06 ÿ01 54 07 When
upset act without thinking 20 20 70 02 When rejected say things later regret 05 ÿ04 76 05 Hard to resist acting on feelings 08 16 71 ÿ06 Act without thinking worsens
matters when upset 12 11 76 02 Say things later regret in heat of argument 09 05 71 ÿ07 Always able to keep feelings under control 05 ÿ17 47 08 Do things on impulse
that later regret 22 04 54 17 Seek new and exciting experiences ÿ08 59 18 ÿ27 Will try anything once 04 62 09 05 Do crazy things to be di€erent 15 56 18 04 Like games
when have to choose move quickly ÿ02 55 13 ÿ09 Would enjoy water skiing 23 65 01 ÿ11 Enjoy taking risks 17 77 13 09 Would enjoy parachute jumping 08 73 ÿ05 00 Welcome
new experiences even if frightening ÿ07 80 08 ÿ07 Would like to learn to ¯y airplane 01 70 ÿ07 ÿ02 Like doing things that are a bit frightening 03 70 16 ÿ10 Would
enjoy sensation of skiing very fast 01 75 00 00 Would like to go scuba diving ÿ18 73 ÿ03 ÿ10 Would enjoy fast driving 11 67 09 07 Like to see things through to end 36
ÿ19 ÿ12 55 Tend to give up easily (R) ÿ12 00 18 65
(Table continued on next page)
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 681
Table 4 (continued)
Abbreviated Items Factors
I II III IV Bothered by un®nished tasks 35 ÿ16 08 51 Hate to stop once get going on something 35 ÿ19 ÿ04 58 Concentrate easily 26 ÿ10 10 50 Finish what start 34 ÿ16 02
64 Pace self to get things done on time 08 06 11 58 Productive person who gets job done 16 ÿ06 13 66 Almost always ®nish started projects 09 ÿ01 12 69 So many little
jobs sometimes ignore them all (R) 14 05 19 46
a The highest loading for each scale is in bold; items that were dropped in the next step are underlined.
(Table continued on next page)
Table 5 Items on ®nal UPPS impulsive behavior scale
Premeditation 1. I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward life. 2. My thinking is usually careful and purposeful. 3. I am not one of those people who blurt out
things without thinking. 4. I like to stop and think things over before I do them. 5. I don’t like to start a project until I know exactly how to proceed. 6. I tend to
value and follow a rational, “sensible” approach to things. 7. I usually make up my mind through careful reasoning. 8. I am a cautious person. 9. Before I get into a
new situation I like to ®nd out what to expect from it. 10. I usually think carefully before doing anything. 11. Before making up my mind, I consider all the
advantages and disadvantages.
Urgency 1. I have trouble controlling my impulses. 2. I have trouble resisting my cravings (for food, cigarettes, etc.). 3. I often get involved in things I later wish
I could get out of. 4. When I feel bad, I will often do things I later regret in order to make myself feel better now. 5. Sometimes when I feel bad, I can’t seem to
stop what I am doing even though it is making me feel worse. 6. When I am upset I often act without thinking. 7. When I feel rejected, I will often say things that I
later regret. 8. It is hard for me to resist acting on my feelings. 9. I often make matters worse because I act without thinking when I am upset. 10. In the heat of an
argument, I will often say things that I later regret. 11. I am always able to keep my feelings under control. (R) 12. Sometimes I do things on impulse that I later
regret
682 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
among scales (Table 6) ranged from 0.45 for premeditation and perseverance to zero for premeditation and sensation seeking with an average of 0.22.
3.4. Relation between impulsivity scales and NEO facets
The ®nal set of analyses examined the relations between the impulsivity scales and all of the NEO-PI-R facets through a joint factor analysis.2 Examination of the
scree plot strongly suggested a three-factor solution that accounted for 59% of the variation in the scales. The factor structure clearly mapped onto the structure of
the three domains of the NEO-PI-R; see Table 7 for results. Factor one was comprised of (lack of) premeditation, (lack of) perseverance, and all six facets of
conscientiousness. Factor two was comprised of sensation seeking and all six facets of extraversion. Finally, factor three was comprised of urgency and all six facets
of neuroticism. Importantly, there were few, if any, consequential secondary loadings.
Table 5 (continued)
Sensation Seeking 1. I generally seek new and exciting experiences and sensations. 2. I’ll try anything once. 3. I like sports and games in which you have to choose
your next move very quickly. 4. I would enjoy water skiing. 5. I quite enjoy taking risks. 6. I would enjoy parachute jumping. 7. I welcome new and exciting
experiences and sensations, even if they are a little frightening and unconventional. 8. I would like to learn to ¯y an airplane. 9. I sometimes like doing things that
are a bit frightening. 10. I would enjoy the sensation of skiing very fast down a high mountain slope. 11. I would like to go scuba diving. 12. I would enjoy fast
driving.
Perseverance 1. I generally like to see things through to the end. 2. I tend to give up easily. (R) 3. Un®nished tasks really bother me. 4. Once I get going on
something I hate to stop. 5. I concentrate easily. 6. I ®nish what I start. 7. I’m pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time. 8. I am a
productive person who always gets the job done. 9. Once I start a project, I almost always ®nish it. 10. There are so many little jobs that need to be done that I
sometimes just ignore them all. (R)
(R) ± indicates that the item is reverse-scored.
2 In order to reduce item-overlap, the item common to the NEO-PI-R impulsiveness facet and the urgency scale was dropped. In the case of (lack of) perseverance, which
contains four items from the NEO-PI-R self-discipline facet, two items each were dropped from the facet and the scale.
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 683
4. Discussion
The present study attempted to bring order to the myriad of measures and conceptions of impulsivity by identifying distinct facets of personality that have been
frequently confused and combined under the umbrella term of impulsivity. The current project examined the various conceptions of impulsivity within the framework
provided by the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1990). The FFM was chosen because of its comprehensiveness and its explicit inclusion of several
separate traits that have been formerly described as impulsivity.
Table 7 Factor loadings of all NEO-PI-R facets and UPPS impulsive behavior scalea
Scale Factors
I II III NEO-PI-R Competence 72 30 ÿ24 NEO-PI-R Order 68 ÿ13 ÿ03 NEO-PI-R Dutifulness 75 15 ÿ17 NEO-PI-R Achievement Striving 76 30 ÿ06 NEO-PI-R Self-Discipline 80 19
ÿ29 NEO-PI-R Deliberation 78 ÿ28 ÿ13 UPPS Premeditation ÿ63 18 ÿ04 UPPS Perseverance ÿ80 ÿ24 17 NEO-PI-R Warmth 34 70 02 NEO-PI-R Gregariousness ÿ06 73 ÿ04 NEO-PI-R
Assertiveness 10 59 ÿ26 NEO-PI-R Activity 09 73 ÿ01 NEO-PI-R Excitement Seeking ÿ18 73 ÿ09 NEO-PI-R Positive Emotions 21 71 ÿ05 UPPS Sensation Seeking ÿ18 48 ÿ30 NEO-
PI-R Anxiety 14 ÿ09 83 NEO-PI-R Angry Hostility ÿ23 ÿ07 63 NEO-PI-R Depression ÿ15 ÿ19 76 NEO-PI-R Self-Consciousness 01 ÿ25 72 NEO-PI-R Impulsiveness ÿ37 28 62 NEO-
PI-R Vulnerability ÿ29 ÿ24 72 UPPS Urgency ÿ45 27 58 a The highest loading for each scale is in bold.
Table 6 Intercorrelations of ®nal UPPS impulsivity subscalesa
Subscales Premeditation Urgency Sensation Seeking Perseverance
Premeditation (0.91) Urgency 0.28 (0.86) Sensation Seeking 0.00 0.18 (0.90) Perseverance 0.45 0.29 ÿ0.14 (0.82) a Internal consistencies presented in parentheses.
684 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
The 180 items assessing neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness from the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) were administered to a large sample of young adults
along with many of the most widely used measures of impulsivity. Factor analyses of the scales revealed a robust four-factor solution that corresponded nicely to the
four traits related to impulsivity found on the NEO-PI-R. Many previous researchers have identi®ed multiple psychological traits that underlie behaviors that others
view as impulsive, i.e. Eysenck’s impulsiveness and venturesomeness. However, there continues to be a lack of agreement on what constitutes impulsivity. For instance,
although Barratt (1993) de®nes impulsiveness as orthogonal to neuroticism, Costa and McCrae place their impulsiveness facet within the Neuroticism domain. We have
attempted to consolidate the previous literature by identifying and separating distinct personality facets that have been previously lumped together as
“impulsivity”. These four facets are not considered variations of impulsivity, but rather discrete psychological processes that lead to impulsive-like behaviors. The
use of “impulsive” in our de®nition, the very term we are striving to avoid, demonstrates the diculty of ®nding a single de®nition for the four factors identi®ed
here. We believe that this diculty stems from the fact that each of these factors represent a discrete facet of personality which have been erroneously consolidated
under the single term impulsivity. The ®rst facet, urgency, is associated with the impulsiveness facet of the NEO-PI-R, and is the least well represented in the
current literature. It refers to the tendency to experience strong impulses, frequently under conditions of negative a€ect. Although some theorists, such as Barratt
(Barratt, 1993), believe that impulsivity is independent of emotional factors, others recognize (Jackson, 1984; Wallace et al., 1991) that negative emotions may
promote impulsive action. High scorers on urgency are likely to engage in impulsive behaviors in order to alleviate negative emotions despite the long-term harmful
consequences of these actions. The items that contribute to urgency and the fact that urgency is aligned with Neuroticism suggest that the impulsive actions associated
with this personality trait are colored and in¯uenced by strong impulses and emotions. The second facet, (lack of) premeditation, identi®ed with the (low) deliberation
facet of the NEO-PI-R, is consistent with several previous e€orts at describing impulsivity. Quite similar to the narrow impulsivity dimension identi®ed by Eysenck and
Eysenck (1977), this facet is the best and most widely represented among the previous impulsivity measures. Premeditation refers to the tendency to think and re¯ect on
the consequences of an act before engaging in that act. Low scorers are thoughtful and deliberative, whereas high scorers act on the spur of the moment and without
regard to the consequences. Lack of perseverance, associated with the self-discipline facet of the NEO-PI-R, is the third trait identi®ed in the present study that has
previously been incorporated into impulsivity. Perseverance refers to an individual’s ability to remain focused on a task that may be boring or dif®cult. Individuals
low in (lack of) perseverance are able to complete projects and to work under conditions that require resistance to distracting stimuli. High scorers, in the words of
Costa and McCrae (1992), “cannot force themselves to do what they want themselves to do” (p. 18). Although the conscientiousness domain of the NEO-PI-R seems
saturated with this personality trait, (lack of) perseverance, like urgency, is not well represented in other measures of impulsivity. Sensation seeking, associated
with the NEO-PI-R facet of excitement seeking, is the fourth and ®nal personality facet identi®ed in the present project. This impulsive-like behavioral tendency,
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 685
similar to (lack of) premeditation, has been commonly described in many previous theories (Buss & Plomin, 1975; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Eysenck, Easting & Pearson, 1984;
Zuckerman, 1994). The current conceptualization is similar to those proposed previously and incorporates two aspects: 1) a tendency to enjoy and pursue activities that
are exciting and 2) an openness to trying new experiences that may or may not be dangerous. High scorers enjoy taking risks and engaging in dangerous activities,
whereas low scorers avoid risk and danger. The identi®cation of four distinct facets of personality within the impulsivity literature supports the observations of
others (Depue and Collins, 1999) that impulsivity, as it has been previously measured, is a heterogeneous category which includes several di€erent traits. The current
lack of a common nosology can impede progress toward understanding impulsive behavior. Findings regarding the construct validity of impulsivity that appear
incompatible, may in actuality be the result of studies that measured di€erent personality facets that lead to impulsive behavior. The present paper o€ers a framework
that may be helpful for conceptualizing and parsing the heterogeneity in the current literature. Progress towards a commonly accepted taxonomy for the distinct facets
of personality that lead to impulsive behavior can increase the ®eld’s ability to synthesize independent lines of research. The divergent validity of the four
personality facets identi®ed in this study is apparent in the di€erential correlations with the facets of the NEO-PI-R. The results of these analyses indicate that each
of the four components is related to distinct aspects of personality as described by the FFM. For instance, (lack of) premeditation and (lack of) perseverance are
related to conscientiousness, urgency is associated with neuroticism, and sensation seeking is a component of extraversion. The results of this study suggest that the
NEO-PI-R does a fair job of describing and distinguishing the various facets of personality associated with impulsive behavior. However, the present results also
illuminate several shortcomings in the FFM’s conceptualization of impulsive behavior. For instance, the identi®cation of impulsivity by Costa and McCrae (1992), with
the impulsiveness facet of neuroticism and the self-discipline facet of conscientiousness is somewhat idiosyncratic; the preponderance of impulsivity measures included
in the present study assess (lack of) premeditation which is related to the deliberation facet of conscientiousness. Additionally, results from the analyses examining
the relations of the personality facets identi®ed in this study to the facets of the NEO-PI-R suggest that the NEO-PI-R over-represents (lack of) perseverance and
under represents (lack of) premeditation. Although the identi®cation of distinct facets of personality associated with impulsive behavior is of theoretical interest,
it will be important to demonstrate the criterion validity of these scales. One interesting avenue of investigation is to explore how the four facets relate to di€erent
forms of psychopathology. As stated above, impulsivity is associated with many psychological disorders either as an explicit part of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria (e.g.
borderline personality disorder; BPD) or as theoretically important aspects of other conditions (e.g. psychopathy). The utility of the present parsing of impulsivity
into distinct facets of personality would be supported by demonstrating that each facet underlies di€erent disorders. For instance, it is conceivable that urgency may
have stronger relations with BPD than other scales. This might be expected on the basis of the assertion that the pathological behavior of individuals with BPD results
from attempts to soothe a hypersensitive emotional system (Linehan, 1993). Urgency could also be related to bulimia, since the binges associated with this disorder may
be attempts to deal with negative a€ect (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
686 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
Lack of premeditation, on the other hand, may be related to disorders that involve insucient ability to plan out actions, to anticipate consequences, and/or other
de®cits in executive functioning (e.g. antisocial personality disorder, dementia, or psychopathy). As opposed to other disorders, these conditions do not necessarily
involve poor decision making in order to relieve negative a€ect or to pursue thrilling experiences. The impulsive behavior of these individuals result from a
dysfunction in the decision making process. For example, Newman and Wallace (1993) and Lynam (1996) have postulated that the psychopath’s central de®cit is a form of
impulsivity that involves the inability to inhibit previously rewarded behavior when presented with changing contingencies. This problem seems closely related to
premeditation which involves re¯ecting and pausing to consider the probable consequences of behavior. Lack of perseverance may be related to disorders that involve the
inability to ignore distracting stimuli or to remain focused on a particular task, such as attention de®cit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). More speci®cally, the facet
scales presented here could potentially di€erentiate between predominately inattentive and predominately hyperactive subtypes of ADHD. Since the former primarily
involves diculty remaining on task and sustaining attention it may have a stronger correlation to the (lack of) perseverance scale which directly taps these abilities.
The latter subtype involves an inability to remain seated and an elevated activity level which may have stronger correlation to the sensation seeking and (lack of)
premeditation scales. Finally, sensation seeking could also be related to disorders that involve engaging in exciting but potentially dangerous activities, such as
substance use disorders. The current study presents a new perspective which regards impulsivity as an arti®cial umbrella term that actually encompasses four distinct
facets of personality associated with impulsive behavior. However, this study is limited in that it represents merely the creation of the UPPS impulsive behavior
scale. The review of the instruments available to study impulsivity revealed that the facets the current authors labeled urgency and (lack of) perseverance are under-
represented in the current literature. This situation led them to create original items for the former and to utilize four items from the NEO-PI-R self-discipline
facet for the latter. Therefore, it is likely that the items on these facets, more so than the other two, may need to be revised or replaced. Moreover, before the
utility of this instrument can be explored the factor structure and other psychometric properties need to be replicated and extended to populations other than
undergraduate students. Clearly the UPPS impulsive behavior scale is in its infancy and work needs to be done to establish the reliability and validity of its scales.
However, this study represents an initial step towards providing a useful nosology to help bring order to the current cacophony of impulsivity measures.
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: APA. Barratt, E. S. (1993). Impulsivity:
integrating cognitive, behavioral, biological and environmental data. In W. McCowan, J. Johnson, & M. Shure, The impulsive client: theory, research, and treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ®ve-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin,
117, 187±215.
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 687
Braithwaite, V., Duncan-Jones, P., Bosly-Craft, R., & Goodchild, M. (1984). A psychometric investigation of the usefulness of the EASI-II Temperament Survey in the
Australian general population. Australian Journal of Psychology, 36, 85±95. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New
York: John Wiley & Sons. Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., & Svrakic, D. M. (1991). The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: US normative data. Psychological
Reports, 69, 1047±1057. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 50, 975±990. Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Depue, R.
A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 22, 491±569. Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 95±102. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual di€erences: a natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. Eysenck, H.
J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G.
(1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a
dimensional system of personality description. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57±68. Eysenck, S. B. G., Easting, G., & Pearson, P. R. (1984).
Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy in children. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 5, 315±321. Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting,
G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 6, 613±619. Gerbing, D. W.,
Ahadi, S. A., & Patton, J. H. (1987). Toward a conceptualization of impulsivity: components across the behavioral and self-report domains. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 22, 357±379. Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality research from
manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press. Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: The Guilford
Press. Luengo, M. A., Carrillo-De-La-Pena, M. T., & Otero, J. M. (1991). The components of impulsiveness: a comparison of the I.7 Impulsiveness Questionnaire and the
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 12, 657±667. Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identi®cation of chronic o€enders: who is the ¯edgling
psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209±234. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford. Mott, T. E. (1993).
Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674±701. Newman, J. P., & Wallace, J. F.
(1993). Divergent pathways to de®cient self-regulation: implications for disinhibitory psychopathology in children. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 699±720. Patton, J.
H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768±774. Rocklin, T., & Revelle,
W. (1981). The measurement of extraversion: a comparison of the Eysenck Personality Inventory and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 20, 279±284. Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1992). Impulsivity and the multi-impulsive personality disorder. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13,
831±834. Tellegen, A. (1982). Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
688 S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structure of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma, & J. D. Maser, Anxiety
and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681±706). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wallace, J. F., Newman, J. P., & Bachorowski, J. (1991). Failures of response
modulation: impulsive behavior in anxious and impulsive individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 23±44. Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1994).
Novelty seeking, risk taking, and related constructs as predictors of adolescent substance use: an application of Cloninger’s theory. Journal of Substance Abuse, 6,
1±20. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B. G., &
Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139±149.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M., & Kiers, H. (1991). Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture. Personality and
Individual Di€erences, 12, 929±941. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models of personality:
the big three, the big ®ve, and the alternative ®ve. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757±768.
S.P. Whiteside, D.R. Lynam/Personality and Individual Di€erences 30 (2001) 669±689 689

TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW