MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115463678 · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000099

UPPS Dimensions of Impulsivity

2013· article· en· W2115463678 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Gagnon, Sacha Daelman, Pierre McDuff, Andrea Kocka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Individual Differences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivitySensation seekingPsychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologyTraitPersonalityClinical psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although cognitive distortions are widely acknowledged in the explanation of impulsivity-related psychopathologies (and more recently in the explanation of specific impulsive behaviors), no study has systematically verified whether they can also explain the cognitive processes underlying these impulsivity traits of personality: urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking (UPPS). Moreover, childhood maltreatment has been frequently associated with both cognitive distortions and impulsive behaviors but never with UPPS traits. A study was conducted on undergraduate students to examine the influence of cognitive distortions and childhood maltreatment on four dimensions of impulsivity from the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Regression analyses revealed that Premature Processing, a term applied to a group of seven cognitive distortions such as emotional reasoning and confusing needs and wants, as well as childhood maltreatment, was able to predict significantly and independently the Negative Urgency dimension of impulsivity, above and beyond gender and the three other subscales of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Coherent with Beck’s cognitive model, these results suggest that the Negative Urgency trait is associated with cognitive distortions that can undermine thought processes in a variety of ways, increasing the likelihood of acting rashly. However, more studies are needed to develop instruments and identify specific forms of cognitive distortions associated with impulsivity traits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Individual DifferencesSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207