Another look at impulsivity: Could impulsive behavior be strategic?

Abstract

In the present article, we propose that impulsive behavior may be a response to certain needs or goals that people have in the moment and could therefore be strategic. We review briefly the dominant approaches and findings in the impulsivity literature. We then examine different behaviors that are typically considered impulsive such as delay discounting, risky sexual behavior, risk taking in the context of emotion dysregulation, and adolescent risk behavior and present evidence suggesting that they follow the general principles of goal pursuit. Specifically, they are (a) enacted when perceived as relevant to the individual's motivation; (b) less likely when alternative means to fulfill these goals are available; and (c) supported rather than reduced by sufficient executive control, a hallmark of goal pursuit. We do not argue that there is no impulsive behavior. Rather, we suggest that such behavior may represent individuals' attempts to fulfill current motivations or needs. This approach emphasizes the functionality and dynamism of the behavior, it provides a framework to explain the inconsistencies in the literature, it helps us to move away from pathologizing or moralizing the behavior, and it provides insights about potential strategies to mitigate the negative consequences of acting impulsively.

When impulsive behaviours do not equal self-control failures: the (added) value of temptation enactments

“…As such, our findings accord well with recent 'symmetric' models of self-control behaviour determination that provide a parsimonious account of the processes or mechanisms through which behaviour on the continuum from short-term oriented to long-term oriented is brought about. For instance, Kopetz, Woerner, and Briskin (2018) argue that people engage in impulsive as well as self-controlled behaviours as part of one and the same general principle of goal pursuit (Kopetz et al, 2018; see also Stroebe, Mensink, Aarts, Schut, & Kruglanski, 2008). In a similar vein, Berkman, Hutcherson, Livingston, Kahn, and Inzlicht (2017) propose to conceptualize self-control as a value-based choice or decision-making process whereby people decide for the long-term or short-term option based on the relative subjective values assigned to the competing response options.…”

Impulsivity and compulsivity are differentially associated with automaticity and routine on the Creature of Habit Scale

“…This subtle difference between goal-independence, as reflected by the COHS automaticity scale, and some relatedness of routines to a goal, appears to be critical in defining the influence of trait impulsivity on habit formation. Given that impulsive actions are spontaneous, premature, lack forethought, and have previously been described as an ‘inability to control automatic reactions to stimuli’ (Kopetz, Woerner, & Briskin, 2018), the positive relationship with stimulus-driven behaviours captured by the COHS automaticity scale may thus seem intuitive. The negative influence of impulsivity on routine behaviours, however, might be less obvious.…”

On How Definitions of Habits Can Complicate Habit Research

“…However, it is now generally accepted that automatic behavior is not necessarily stimulus-driven (e.g., Bargh, 1989, 1990; Aarts and Dijksterhuis, 2000; for a recent discussion, see Huang and Bargh, 2014). Even addictive behaviors, which are often seen as prototypical examples of automatic behavior because they are emitted despite their obvious negative consequences, are now considered by some to be directed at realizing goals (e.g., Baumeister, 2017; Hogarth, 2018; Kopetz et al, 2018). Moreover, if one would decide to infer the stimulus-driven nature of behavior from its automaticity, there remains the problem of establishing whether behavior qualifies as automatic.…”