Impulsivity: four ways five factors are not basic to addiction

Gullo, Matthew J., Loxton, Natalie J. and Dawe, Sharon (2014) Impulsivity: four ways five factors are not basic to addiction. Addictive Behaviors, 39 11: 1547-1556. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.002

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ322218_preprint.pdf Full text (Preprint) application/pdf 312.48KB 0

Author Gullo, Matthew J.
Loxton, Natalie J.
Dawe, Sharon
Title Impulsivity: four ways five factors are not basic to addiction
Journal name Addictive Behaviors   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0306-4603
1873-6327
Publication date 2014-01-16
Year available 2014
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.01.002
Open Access Status File (Author Post-print)
Volume 39
Issue 11
Start page 1547
End page 1556
Total pages 10
Place of publication Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom
Publisher Pergamon
Language eng
Subject 2701 Medicine (miscellaneous)
3203 Clinical Psychology
3005 Toxicology
2738 Psychiatry and Mental health
Abstract Several impulsivity-related models have been applied to understanding the vulnerability to addiction. While there is a growing consensus that impulsivity is multifaceted, debate continues as to the precise number of facets and, more critically, which are most relevant to explaining the addiction-risk profile. In many ways, the current debate mirrors that which took place in the personality literature in the early 1990s (e.g., Eysenck's 'Big Three' versus Costa and McCrae's 'Big Five'). Indeed, many elements of this debate are relevant to the current discussion of the role of impulsivity in addictive behavior. Specifically, 1) the use of factor analysis as an atheoretical 'truth-grinding machine'; 2) whether additional facets add explanatory power over fewer; 3) the delineation of specific neurocognitive pathways from each facet to addictive behaviors, and; 4) the relative merit of 'top-down' versus 'bottom-up' approaches to the understanding of impulsivity. Ultimately, the utility of any model of impulsivity and addiction lies in its heuristic value and ability to integrate evidence from different levels of analysis. Here, we make the case that theoretically-driven, bottom-up models proposing two factors deliver the optimal balance of explanatory power, parsimony, and integration of evidence. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keyword Psychology, Clinical
Substance Abuse
Psychology
Substance Abuse
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Grant ID APP1036365
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2015 Collection
School of Psychology Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 43 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 45 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 05 Feb 2014, 10:52:49 EST by Matthew Gullo on behalf of Centre for Youth Substance Abuse