Rejecting impulsivity as a psychological construct: A theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural argument.
Rejecting impulsivity as a psychological construct: A theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural argument.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/rev0000263
复制
发表时间：
2021-03
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Johnson MW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Strickland JC;Johnson MW
我们通过理论、经验和社会文化证据证明，“冲动”的概念不符合心理结构的基本要求，应该被拒绝。冲动（或冲动）目前在心理学理论，研究和临床实践中占有中心地位，被认为是一个多方面的概念。然而，冲动性由于具有与心理测量学、神经科学和临床数据不相容的意义而不符合假设构式的理论规范。心理测量结果表明，冲动特征和行为（例如，反应抑制，延迟折扣）在很大程度上是不相关的，不能加载到一个单一的，上级潜在变量。现代神经科学也未能确定冲动行为背后的特定中枢神经行为机制，而是发现了导致各种冲动“类型”的独立神经化学系统和基因座。在临床上，这些不同的冲动类型表现出与行为和心理健康相关的不同和不同的途径和过程。冲动性测量对药理学、行为和认知干预的预测有效性和敏感性也因所评估的冲动性类型和所检查的临床状况而异。在冲动的单一保护伞下，不同的个性和行为机制的合并最终增加了社会文化层面上误解的可能性，并促进了误导的假设和人为的不一致，从而导致临床翻译。我们强烈建议，基于这些全面的证据，心理科学家和神经科学家拒绝冲动的语言，而倾向于具体关注几个定义明确、经验支持的因素，这些因素据称是冲动所涵盖的。
We demonstrate through theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural evidence that the concept of “impulsivity” fails the basic requirements of a psychological construct and should be rejected as such. Impulsivity (or impulsiveness) currently holds a central place in psychological theory, research, and clinical practice and is considered a multifaceted concept. However, impulsivity falls short of the theoretical specifications for hypothetical constructs by having meaning that is not compatible with psychometric, neuroscience, and clinical data. Psychometric findings indicate that impulsive traits and behaviors (e.g., response inhibition, delay discounting) are largely uncorrelated and fail to load onto a single, superordinate latent variable. Modern neuroscience has also failed to identify a specific and central neurobehavioral mechanism underlying impulsive behaviors, and instead has found separate neurochemical systems and loci that contribute to a variety of impulsivity “types.” Clinically, these different impulsivity types show diverging and distinct pathways and processes relating to behavioral and psychosocial health. The predictive validity and sensitivity of impulsivity measures to pharmacological, behavioral, and cognitive interventions also vary based on the impulsivity type evaluated and clinical condition examined. Conflation of distinct personality and behavioral mechanisms under a single umbrella of impulsivity ultimately increases the likelihood of misunderstanding at a sociocultural level and facilitates misled hypothesizing and artificial inconsistencies for clinical translation. We strongly recommend that, based on this comprehensive evidence, psychological scientists and neuroscientists reject the language of impulsivity in favor of a specific focus on the several well-defined and empirically supported factors that impulsivity is purported to cover.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1002/hup.2617
发表时间：
2017-09
期刊：
Human psychopharmacology
影响因子：
--
作者：
Adams S;Attwood AS;Munafò MR
通讯作者：
Munafò MR
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Addessi, Elsa;Paglieri, Fabio;Focaroli, Valentina
通讯作者：
Focaroli, Valentina
影响因子：
13.5
作者：
Bickel, Warren K.;Jarmolowicz, David P.;Mueller, E. Terry;Koffarnus, Mikhail N.;Gatchalian, Kirstin M.
通讯作者：
Gatchalian, Kirstin M.
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
Besson, Morgane;Belin, David;Dalley, Jeffrey W.
通讯作者：
Dalley, Jeffrey W.
影响因子：
25.8
作者：
Amlung, Michael;Marsden, Emma;McCabe, Randi E.
通讯作者：
McCabe, Randi E.