Under heightened emotional states, individuals are more inclined to engage in ill-considered or rash actions than at other times. The authors present evidence for the existence of two related traits called positive and negative urgency. The traits refer to individual differences in the disposition to engage in rash action when experiencing extreme positive and negative affect, respectively. The authors provide evidence that these traits are distinct from other dispositions toward rash action, and that they play distinct roles in predicting problem levels of involvement in behaviors such as alcohol consumption, binge eating, drug use, and risky sexual behavior. The authors identify facilitative conditions for the emergence of the urgency traits from neuroscience. Certain gene polymorphisms are associated with low levels of serotonin and high levels of dopamine; that pattern of neurotransmitter activity in a brain system linking the orbitofrontal cortex and the amygdala appears to facilitate development of positive and negative urgency. The authors discuss the implications of this theory. KeywordsImpulsivity; emotion; risky behavior; positive urgency; negative urgency We propose that there are two personality traits that refer to emotion-based dispositions to engage in rash actions. They are referred to as positive urgency (the tendency to engage in rash action in response to extreme positive affect) and negative urgency (the tendency to engage in rash action in response to extreme negative affect) Cyders & Smith, 2007;Fischer, Smith, Spillane, & Cyders, 2005;Smith, Fischer, Cyders, Annus, Spillane, & McCarthy, 2007a;Whiteside & Lynam, 2001Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005).To support this proposition, we proceed as follows. We first review evidence supporting the existence of the traits and evidence for their utility in accounting for risky behavior. In this section of the paper, we describe empirical support for the urgency traits' distinctness from other traits that dispose individuals to rash action and we consider the urgency traits in relation to comprehensive models of personality. We then provide a theoretical account relating emotion to action that illustrates the relevance of the traits for adaptive and maladaptive functioning. Next, we review a set of findings from neuroscience that, together, may describe the facilitative conditions for the emergence of the urgency traits. We identify a candidate brain system, we consider the roles of serotonin (5HT) and dopamine (DA) neurotransmitter activity in that system, and we discuss evidence that certain gene polymorphisms appear to contribute to the relevant neurotransmitter variability. We then consider the urgency traits in the course

In 3 studies, the authors developed and began to validate a measure of the propensity to act rashly in response to positive affective states (positive urgency). In Study 1, they developed a content-valid 14-item scale, showed that the measure was unidimensional, and showed that positive urgency was distinct from impulsivity-like constructs identified in 2 models of impulsive behavior. In Study 2, they showed that positive urgency explained variance in risky behavior not explained by measures of other impulsivity-like constructs, differentially explained positive mood-based risky behavior, differentiated individuals at risk for problem gambling from those not at risk, and interacted with drinking motives and expectancies as predicted to explain problem drinking behavior. In Study 3, they confirmed the hypothesis that positive urgency differentiated alcoholics from both eating-disordered and control individuals.

The ability to make precise distinctions among related personality constructs helps clarify theory and increases the utility of clinical assessment. In three studies, the authors evaluated the validity of distinctions among four impulsivity-like traits: sensation seeking, lack of planning, lack of persistence, and urgency (acting rashly when distressed). Factor analyses indicated that lack of planning and lack of persistence are two distinct facets of one broader trait, whereas urgency and sensation seeking are both very modestly related to each other and to the planning/persistence measures. The authors developed interview assessments of each, and multitrait, multimethod matrix results indicated clear convergent and discriminant validity among the constructs. The distinctions among them were useful: The traits accounted for different aspects of risky behaviors. Sensation seeking appeared to relate to the frequency of engaging in risky behaviors, and urgency appeared to relate to problem levels of involvement in those behaviors.

No abstract

Although highly emphasized in psychological research, there has been little empirical evidence examining the overlap in meaning for self-report measures and construct representation for behavioral lab tasks in most psychological constructs. Using the personality trait of impulsivity as an example, the authors completed a meta-analysis of 27 published research studies examining the relationship between these methods. In general, although there is a statistically significant relationship between multidimensional selfreport and lab task impulsivity (r = 0.097), practically, the relationship is small. Examining relationships among unidimensional impulsivity self-report and lab task conceptualizations indicated very little overlap in self-report and behavioral lab task constructs. Significant relationships were found between lack of perseverance and prepotent response inhibition (r = 0.099); between lack of planning and prepotent response inhibition (r = 0.106), delay response (r = 0.134), and distortions in elapsed time (r = 0.104); between negative urgency and prepotent response inhibition (r = 0.106); and between sensation seeking and delay response (r = 0.131). This little convergent validity evidence for impulsivity as measured by self-report and behavioral lab tasks could indicate that these two measures are assessing different constructs. If these are different constructs, referring to them in the literature as "impulsivity" influences one to think of them as representing a unitary underlying construct, when, in fact, we may be measuring disparate constructs. When disparate measures are described using the same multidimensional moniker, little forward progress can be made in figuring out how a trait relates to a criterion of interest. Researchers should take care to specify which particular unidimensional constructs are operationalized with not only impulsivity, but with all traits. If self-report and lab task conceptualizations measure disparate aspects of impulsivity, we, as a field, should not expect large conceptual overlap between these methods.