Correlations of Impulsivity with Dysfunctional Beliefs Associated with Borderline Personality
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Impulsivity has been defined as a predisposition toward reacting quickly and without planning to internal or external stimuli, with no thought to the consequences of these reactions for the impulsive individual or for others (Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, Schmitz, & Swann, 2001). Whiteside and Lynam's (2001) model of impulsivity identified four dimensions measured by the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale (see also Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005): (a) Urgency refers to the tendency to experience strong impulses in situations of intense negative or positive emotions (e.g., negative and positive urgency, respectively) to which the individual responds by behaving impulsively in an effort to rid himself of these emotions, regardless of any potential consequences or risk of injury, (b) Lack of Premeditation is the tendency to act without considering the consequences, (c) Lack of Perseverance refers to the difficulty of concentrating on a boring or difficult task, and (d) Sensation Seeking refers to the tendency to enjoy and pursue exciting activities, as well as the willingness to try new experiences that may or may not be dangerous. The UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale has been validated in several clinical populations and its factor structure has been replicated in men and women, adults and adolescents, and in several languages (d'Acremont & Van der Linden, 2005; Van der Linden et al., 2006; Whiteside & Lynam, 2003). The conceptualization of Urgency trait that is dominant in the literature postulates that this trait is an emotion-based disposition and the emergence of individual differences can be identified in the relationship between emotion and behavior (Cyders & Smith, 2008). According to this view, emotion has a primary role in the production of dysfunctional impulsive behaviour associated with Urgency trait. The loss of available cognitive resources and the interference with rational decision-making comes as a consequence of the intensity of the emotions (Cyders & Smith, 2008). This point of view seems in contrast to Beck's cognitive perspective. Beck's cognitive model has been empirically supported for treatment of a variety of Axis I and Axis II disorders (Beck, 2005; Beck & Dozois, 2011; Butler, Chapman, Forman, & Beck, 2006), including disorders associated with marked impulsivity such as borderline personality disorders (Brown, Newman, Charlesworth, Crits-Christoph, & Beck, 2004) and pathological gambling (Fortune & Goodie, 2012). From the perspective of cognitive theory, cognitive distortions and dysfunctional beliefs represent central aspects of the phenomenology of these disorders. Fundamental beliefs or cognitive schemas are deep, unconscious and stable structures that influence our assessment of reality and guide all cognitive processes, from encoding to the selection and expression of behavioral responses. Although Beck's model was not designed to explain impulsive behaviors, several components of the model refer to these behaviors (Ivanoff, Linehan, & Brown, 2001). First, the model posits that when a schema becomes rigid and dysfunctional, it becomes hypervalent, or easily activated by a trivial stimulus. A dysfunctional, hypervalent schema can also become prepotent and inhibit other schemas that are better adjusted to reality. In such a case, the schema can generate an intense emotional response, create attentional biases and decrease the processing of information needed for affective and behavioral regulation. Second, Beck's model views personality as a stable organization composed of different interrelated systems, each composed of several schemas with their own function: cognitive schemas (interpretation), affective schemas (generalization of feelings), motivational schemas (desires), action schemas (preparing the action), and schemas. Functioning alongside the action system, the control system modulates, modifies and inhibits impulses. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».