Correlations of Impulsivity with Dysfunctional Beliefs Associated with Borderline Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".