Psychiatry Research 190 (2011) 322326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychiatry Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p s yc h r e s

Do facets of self-reported impulsivity predict decision-making under ambiguity and

risk? Evidence from a community sample
Sophie Bayard a, b,, Stphane Raffard c, d, Marie-Christine Gely-Nargeot c
a

Service de Neurologie, Unit des Troubles du Sommeil, Hpital Gui-de-Chauliac Montpellier, France
INSERM U 1061, Montpellier, France
Laboratoire Epsylon, EA 4425, Laboratoire de Psychologie : Psychopathologie Handicap et Socit, Universit Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France
d
Service de Psychiatrie, Hpital de la Colombire, Montpellier, France
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 15 March 2011
Received in revised form 8 June 2011
Accepted 15 June 2011
Keywords:
Iowa Gambling Task
Game of Dice Task
Impulsivity
Sensation seeking
Urgency

a b s t r a c t
We investigated the links among decision-making assessed by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the Game of
Dice Task (GDT), and the four facets of impulsivity (urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and
sensation seeking, UPPS) proposed by Whiteside and Lynam (2001) in a sample of 107 healthy volunteers.
Hierarchical regressions controlling for age and gender indicated that sensation seeking and urgency were
linked to disadvantageous decisions on the GDT while no association was found between IGT performance
and the UPPS. Sensation seeking and urgency facets of impulsivity are related in healthy individuals, to
decision-making processes where potential consequences of different options and their subsequent
probabilities rely on explicit information. In healthy controls, there is little overlap between decision-making
inuenced by both implicit and explicit information and impulsivity as measured by the UPPS. These ndings
add evidence to the notion that self-reported trait impulsivity is associated with the decision making process.
Decisions made under risk seemed to be differentially associated with specic facets of impulsivity.
2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Impulsivity appears to be a fundamental part of disruptive behavior
disorders, substance abuse, personality disorders, aggression, bipolar
disorder, and other potentially destructive behavioral problems (for a
review see Evenden, 1999; Enticott and Ogloff, 2006). This concept is
included in the diagnostic criteria of many disorders (Evenden, 1999). For
decades, there has been a lack of consensus on how to dene and measure
the concept of impulsivity. In early 2000, Whiteside and Lynam (2001)
proposed a new model for understanding the personality pathways to
impulsive behavior (Whiteside and Lynam, 2001). They identied four
distinct personality facets associated with impulsive-like behavior, which
were labeled urgency, (lack of) premeditation, (lack of) perseverance, and
sensation seeking, and validated the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale that
assesses these four facets of impulsivity. The rst dimension of the scale,
urgency, refers to difculty resisting strong impulses driven by negative
affect. The second dimension, premeditation, is characterized by an
inability to consider the potential consequences of one's behavior. The
third dimension, perseverance, refers to the lack of ability to stay on task
while experiencing boredom. Finally, sensation seeking refers to an
individual's need for excitement and stimulation.
Corresponding author at: Service de Neurologie, Hpital Gui-de-Chauliac, 80
avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295 Montpellier cedex 5, France. Tel.: + 33 4 67 33 94 68;
fax: + 33 4 67 33 72 85.
E-mail address: bayardsophie@yahoo.fr (S. Bayard).
0165-1781/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.06.013

Poor decision-making is a core symptom of certain psychiatric

conditions such as drug dependence, bipolar disorder (for a
comprehensive review see Dunn et al., 2006), pathological gambling
(for review and original data see Kertzman et al., 2011), suicidal
behaviors (Jollant et al., 2005) and some forms of eating disorder (e.g.
Brand et al., 2007a; Liao et al., 2009; Brogan et al., 2010). This was
illustrated by the observation of an abnormal response pattern in
experimental decision-making tasks such as the Iowa Gambling Task
(IGT) (Bechara et al., 2000) and the Game of Dice Task (GDT) (Brand
et al., 2005a). The IGT is considered to simulate decision-making in
real-life situations in which premises, outcomes, rewards, or
punishments are uncertain. In this task, subjects have to make choices
by picking cards from four decks that are either long-term
advantageous or disadvantageous. Participants do not know at the
beginning of the gamble that decks are advantageous and disadvantageous. By contrast, in the GDT, the potential consequences of
different options and their subsequent probabilities rely on explicit
information (Brand et al., 2006). This task consists of 18 trials in which
one single virtual die is shaken and participants have to guess which
number (16) will be thrown. The participants can choose among
different alternatives (1 single number or a combination of 2, 3 or 4
numbers) that are explicitly related to a specic amount of gain/loss
(1000100 Euro) and have obvious winning probabilities (1:6 to 4:6)
in each trial.
Impaired decision-making on the IGT has been interpreted as the
consequence of insensitivity to future consequences, positive or

S. Bayard et al. / Psychiatry Research 190 (2011) 322326

negative (Bechara et al., 2000). In a major article, Bechara et al. (1997)

reported that healthy participants decide advantageously before
having a conscious knowledge of the advantageous choices. Furthermore, they showed larger anticipatory skin conductance responses
prior to selecting a card from the disadvantageous decks compared to
the advantageous decks. The authors concluded that somatic markers
may assist the decision-making process in the IGT more than
conscious knowledge. Successful GDT performances appear highly
linked to performance in tasks measuring executive functions (Brand
et al., 2005b, 2006, 2007b, 2008) and to activation in the cerebral
network involved in executive functions (i.e. dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex, posterior parietal lobe, anterior cingulate, and right lingual
gyrus) (Labudda et al., 2008).
As mentioned earlier, it is well known that the personality trait of
impulsivity is a major component in several psychiatric disorders,
including the aforementioned disorders (Evenden, 1999; Enticott and
Ogloff, 2006). However, the relations between individual differences
and decision-making processes and, more specically, the relations
between impulsivity and this kind of process are poorly understood. In
early work on the IGT, Bechara et al. (2000) found that around 2030% of
normal adults performed disadvantageously on the IGT (Bechara et al.,
2000). Those participants with impaired behavioral performance were
characterized post hoc as high risk takers. Understanding the
relationship between decision-making processes and impulsivity has
implications for the interpretation of impaired performance in
individuals who complete the IGT and the GDT as part of a clinical
evaluation. Altered decision-making may simply reect individual
differences in preference for risk. Thus, selection of risky options can
be perfectly rational depending on the individual's preference structure.
To the best of our knowledge, there are currently only three studies
that have investigated the relationships between the UPPS and the IGT
performances in healthy controls. These studies have obtained mixed
results: Perales et al. (2009) found no relationship between impulsivity
and decision-making, whereas Zermatten et al. (2005) reported that lack
of premeditation was specically linked to disadvantageous decisions.
More recently, higher urgency was found to be associated with poor IGT
performances (Billieux et al., 2010). Additionally, to our knowledge,
nothing has been reported about relations between decision-making
under risk assessed by the GDT and the multifaceted impulsivity model.
The aim of the present study was to attempt to clarify relations
between decision-making under ambiguity and under risk performances
as assessed on control participants by two well-validated tasks (IGT and
GDT) and the multifaceted impulsivity model as measured by the UPPS.
Through the use of a multifaceted impulsivity measure, we hope to bring
clarity to the relations between facets of impulsivity and decisionmaking. Because there are limited impulsivity data on the IGT and the
GDT, it is important to emphasize that our study is largely an exploratory
investigation. Nevertheless, based upon previous studies and the nature
of the IGT and the GDT, several relations are hypothesized. Concerning
the IGT, the key feature of this task is that participants have to forego
short-term benet for long-term prot. It is consequently hypothesized
that the UPPS dimension of urgency will relate to disadvantageous
choices. Poor decision-making on the IGT has been interpreted as
myopia for the future or as decient anticipation of future outcomes in
decision-making processes (Bechara and Van Der Linden, 2005). We
therefore expect that the UPPS scale assessing lack of premeditation will
relate to the inability to predict long-term punishments and rewards
based on previous experience (i.e. preference for risky choices). The
urgency facet of impulsivity has been associated with the occurrence of a
wide range of disruptive behavior disorders (for a review, see Cyders and
Smith, 2008) in which executive decits are frequently documented (e.g.
Goudriaan et al., 2004; Gillberg et al., 2010; Hester et al., 2010;
Schuermann et al., 2011). In particular, this facet has been shown to
reect a relative inability to deliberately suppress dominant, automatic or
prepotent responses (Gay et al., 2008). Given the converging evidence of
executive decits and poor performance on the GDT, one may

323

hypothesize that an individual with a high level of urgency may prefer

risky alternatives.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
One-hundred and seven healthy individuals (41 males) participated in the study.
The mean age of the sample was 37.04 years (S.D. = 12.5, range 1860 years). The
average number of years of education was 13.6 years (range 720). Intellectual level
estimated using the French adaptation of the National Adult Reading Test (fNART,
Mackinnon and Mulligan, 2005) was 111.38 (range 97125). All participants were
community-dwelling adults living in Montpellier-France, and recruited from local
associative networks. Inclusion criteria for controls, as determined by telephone
screening, were the ability to understand and give informed consent, no history of
neurological or psychiatric disease (including substance abuse or dependence), and the
absence of any medication intake known to inuence cognition. All participants gave
written informed consent prior to the investigation and did not receive nancial
compensation for their participation.
2.2. Decision making measures
2.2.1. Iowa Gambling Task
The IGT was administered to assess decision-making under ambiguity (Brand et al.,
2005a; Bechara et al., 2000). In this task, participants are instructed that the goal of the
game is to win as much ctitious money as possible. The task entails a series of 100 card
selections from four decks (A, B, C and D), but participants are not informed of the
number of trials. Although they are told that some card decks might be better than
others, they do not know which ones are advantageous or disadvantageous. Decks A
and B are classied as disadvantageous because the nal balance is negative, with high
immediate gains of money but even higher future losses. In contrast, selecting a card
from decks C and D produces small gains, but unpredictable losses are smaller, so that
these decks will result in more money in the long run and are thus considered to be
advantageous. To analyze the decision-making, we calculated a net score by subtracting
the number of disadvantageous choices (decks A and B) from the number of
advantageous choices (decks C and D). Higher net scores, therefore, indicate better
performance on the task (range: 100 100). Following a recent proposal by Brand et
al. (2006), we also made a distinction between the initial phase (trials 140; blocks 1
and 2), and the second part of the IGT (trials 41100; blocks 3, 4 and 5).
2.2.2. Game of Dice Task
We used the GDT to assess decision making under risky conditions (Brand et al.,
2005). In the GDT, participants are asked to maximize their ctive starting capital of
1000 within 18 dice throws. Before each throw, participants have to choose between
the different single numbers or a combination of two, three or four numbers. Each
choice is associated with ctive gains and losses depending on the probability of the
occurrence of the choice: 1000 gain/loss for the choice of a single number (winning
probability 1:6), 500 gain/loss for two numbers (winning probability 2:6), 200 gain/
loss for three numbers (winning probability 3:6), or 100 gain/loss for four numbers
(winning probability 4:6). Participants receive feedback (gain or loss) for their previous
decision in a visual and auditory way, and the changed capital is shown. To analyze the
risky decision making, we classied the choices of three or four number combinations
as non-risky (winning probability of 50% and higher), and the choices of one or two
numbers as risky (winning probability of less than 50%). We calculated a net score by
subtracting the number of risky choices from the number of non-risky choices, as done
in several other studies that used this task. The higher the net score the more non-risky
is the performance (range: 18 to 18).
2.3. UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale
Self-reported impulsivity was assessed by the French version of the UPPS (Van der
Linden et al., 2006), which contains 45 items that are rated on a four-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The UPPS comprises four
subscales corresponding to the four distinct, yet related facets of impulsivity identied by
Whiteside and Lynam (2001): (1) urgency (12 items; e.g., When I feel rejected, I will often
say things I later regret); (2) (lack of) premeditation (11 items; e.g., I usually make up my
mind through careful reasoning); (3) (lack of) perseverance (10 items; e.g., Once I start a
project, I almost always nish it); and (4) sensation seeking (12 items; e.g., I welcome
new and exciting experiences and sensations, even if they are a little frightening and
unconventional). For each facet, higher scores indicate a higher level of impulsivity.
The two decision-making tasks were administered in a counterbalanced order.

3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics of study measures
The mean, standard deviation and range for each measure is
shown in Table 1. Inspection of the IGT and the GDT net score ranges

324

S. Bayard et al. / Psychiatry Research 190 (2011) 322326

indicated that some healthy individuals performed poorly (i.e.

negative net score with a majority of disadvantageous choices) on
the two decision-making tasks. Sixteen participants (15%) had a
negative net score on the GDT and 24 (26%) on the IGT. Finally, a wide
range of scores was observed for all facets of impulsivity as measured
by the UPPS Behavioral Scale.
3.2. Correlation analysis
Table 2 reports the two-tailed Pearson's correlations for all study
measures. Bonferroni correction for correlations resulted in a
lowering of the P value required for signicance to 0.01. Except for
sensation seeking, that did not correlate with lack of perseverance,
correlation analysis revealed signicant relationships between the
UPPS scales (Table 2). The GDT net score was negatively associated
with urgency and sensation seeking scales. We found no relationship
between UPPS scales and any IGT net scores. High scores on
perseverance and sensation seeking scales were negatively associated
with age, implying that younger participants were found to have
higher scores on these facets of impulsivity. Higher estimated
intellectual level was positively associated with IGT net scores (trials
1100 and trials 61100), premeditation and sensation seeking scales.
The GDT net score was positively associated with IGT net scores (trials
1100 and 140). Finally, males obtained signicantly higher scores
on sensation seeking scales than females (33.43 6.52 vs. 25.93
7.34, respectively; t (105) = 5.35; P b 0.001).
3.3. Hierarchical regressions
In order to control for the presence of multicollinearity before
interpreting the regression coefcients, we calculated the Variance
Ination Factor (VIF), which shows how much the variance of the
coefcient estimate is inated by multicollinearity, and the tolerance
score. According to several authors (e.g., Allison, 1989), VIF values
over 2.5 and tolerance below 0.40 are considered as problematic for
multicollinearity. The strongest VIF and the lowest tolerance
concerned Lack of premeditation (the VIF was 1.931 and the tolerance
amounted to 0.51) and sensation seeking (the VIF was 1.672 and the
tolerance 0.59). According to the above-mentioned criteria, there was
no sign of multicollinearity.
To test whether urgency and sensation seeking UPPS scales
predicted GDT performances, independent of age and gender, a
hierarchical regression analysis was carried out with age and gender,
entered into the rst step of the model, and two facets of impulsivity
entered in at the second step (see Table 3). Together the control
variables accounted for 5.5% of the GTD net score variance [F(2104) =
2.94, P = 0.057], and when urgency and sensation seeking scales were

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and range of study measures.
Mean
Demographic variables
Age
Education
Estimated intellectual level (f-NART)
Decision making
GDT: net score
IGT: net score (trials 1100)
IGT: net score (trials 140)
IGT: net score (trials 41100)
Impulsivity facets
Urgency (UPPS)
Lack of premeditation (UPPS)
Lack of perseverance (UPPS)
Sensation seeking (UPPS)

S.D.

Range

28.50
13.40
111.38

5.78
2.96
5.51

1860
720
97125

7.20
20.88
0.71
15.08

8.84
27.79
8.68
17.02

1818
3890
2032
2840

28.50
21.70
19.21
28.81

5.78
5.19
4.54
7.91

1746
1138
1031
1347

Note. f-NART = French adaptation of the National Adult Reading Test; UPPS = UPPS
Impulsive Behavior Scale; GDT = Game of Dice Task; IGT = Iowa Gambling Task.

then entered, these UPPS variables together explained 9.3% of the GDT
net score variance [F(2104) = 4.38, P = 0.003].
4. Discussion
The present study examines for the rst time to what extent
performance on behavioral measures of decision-making under
ambiguity and under risk, assessed with two well-validated tasks
(IGT and GDT), is predicted in healthy controls by self-reported
personality traits of impulsivity assessed by the UPPS. In addition to a
correlational approach, we also used regression analysis in order to
study the relative contribution of facets of self-reported impulsivity to
decision-making under risk and ambiguity.
No signicant correlation was found between any facets of selfreported impulsivity and decision-making assessed by the IGT. Our
hypotheses about the relationships between IGT performance and
UPPS dimensions (i.e. lack of premeditation and urgency) are not
conrmed. In this decision-making task, the subjects cannot apply
strategies until they have gured out the contingencies by using feedback that is provided. Despite an absence of integrated results
concerning the relationships between IGT and impulsivity, our results
are not in accordance with recent ndings from Zermatten et al.
(2005), Fanken et al. (2008) and Billieux et al. (2010) who found some
associations between impulsivity traits and disadvantageous decision-making performance (as measured by the IGT) in a healthy
sample. Zermatten et al. (2005) reported that lack of premeditation
(as measured by the UPPS) was the facet of impulsivity most related
to faulty decision-making. More recently, using a larger sample
(n = 95), the same researchers (Billieux et al., 2010) found a different
pattern of associations between the IGT and the UPPS scale, that is, an
association between disadvantageous choices and the urgency
dimension of impulsivity. Finally, Fanken et al. (2008) found that
high-impulsive individuals displayed a decrement in performance on
the IGT as compared to low-impulsives. In this study, trait impulsivity
was assessed by the Dutch version of the 19-item Impulsiveness Scale
I-7 questionnaire in a sample of young students with an overrepresentation of females (Eysenck et al., 1985).
A fact that may explain the divergence between our results and those
obtained by Fanken et al. (2008) is that in both studies different
questionnaires were used for assessment of impulsivity (i.e., the UPPS
vs. the I-7). As stressed by Whiteside and Lynam (2001), some variant of
impulsivity can be found in every model of personality. For instance,
terms such as control, deliberation, sensation seeking, excitement
seeking, psychoticism, venturesomeness, and self-discipline have been
used to describe impulsivity-related constructs. The I-7 is a true-false
response inventory designed to measure impulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy. It is therefore thinkable that UPPS and I-7 tap
different behavioral aspects of impulsivity. The participants recruited in
the present study were older than those enrolled in the study of Billieux
et al. (2010) (age: M = 23.31, S.D. = 3.07). Nevertheless, the two groups
obtained very similar descriptive scores on the UPPS and IGT, and we
found no association between IGT scores, UPPS dimensions and age.
Hence, neither age nor IGT and UPPS scores explained the discordance
between studies. The IGT was created to assess risky decision-making, a
complex, hard to dene construct. According to the somatic marker
hypothesis developed by Damasio et al. (1991), decision-making in
situations of complexity is regulated by emotion-based biasing signals
arising from the body. These signals are afterwards integrated in
ventromedial prefrontal cortex, in addition to other limbic structures
such as the amygdala (e.g. Bechara et al., 2003). In healthy subjects,
these authors showed larger anticipatory skin conduction responses
prior to selecting a card from the disadvantageous decks compared to
the advantageous decks (Bechara et al., 1997). They also reported that
healthy controls decide advantageously before having conscious
knowledge of the advantageous choices. Although, the IGT's sensitivity
for detecting decision-making impairment is well established, recent

S. Bayard et al. / Psychiatry Research 190 (2011) 322326

325

Table 2
Pearson's correlations (with Bonferroni corrections) between the variables.
1.
1. Age
2. Education
3. Estimated intellectual level
4. UPPS: urgency
5. UPPS: lack of premeditation
6. UPPS: lack of perseverance
7. UPPS: sensation seeking
8. GDT: net score
9. IGT: net score (trials 1100)
10. IGT: net score (trials 140)
11. IGT: net score (trials 41100)

0.01
0.09
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.31
0.17
0.02
0.04
0.04

2.

3.

0.25
0.13
0.12
0.07
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.24
0.07

0.12
0.35
0.16
0.20
0.06
0.28
0.20
0.27

4.

5.

0.51
0.34
0.28
0.22

0.56
0.26

0.03
0.05
0.06

0.01
0.15
0.17
0.10

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

0.02
0.06
0.01
0.12
0.03

0.21
0.07
0.10
0.15

0.24
0.24
0.18

0.60
0.91

0.29

Note. f-NART = French adaptation of the National Adult Reading Test; UPPS = UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale; GDT = Game of Dice Task; IGT = Iowa Gambling Task.
Correlation is signicant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

studies have highlighted the complexity of the task and the challenges it
poses for understanding what functions (or dysfunctions) are being
measured (for review see Dunn et al., 2006; Buelow and Suhr, 2009). In
healthy controls, IGT performances in the last blocks of trials were
associated with attentional control processes, more precisely the
executive functions (Brand et al., 2005a; Brand et al., 2005b, 2006,
2007b). In the same way, data suggest that poor performance on the IGT
could be conditioned by state mood. Must and colleagues (Must et al.,
2006) demonstrated that patients with major depressive disorder were
impaired on the IGT. Similarly, Suhr and Hammers (2010) found that
higher negative mood was related to disadvantageous choices on the
IGT in a nonclinical sample. These observations do suggest that
concurrent assessment of mood and executive functions must be
minimally taken into account when interpreting the signicance of IGT
ndings. The lack of such evaluations constitutes a limitation of the
current study, all the more so since there are data showing close
relationships between impulsivity, negative mood (d'Acremont and Van
der Linden, 2007), and executive functions (Billieux et al., 2010). This
limitation makes our results difcult compared with those obtained by
Billieux et al. (2010) and, as a general rule, can explain the contradictory
IGT data observed in various pathologies as in Parkinson's disease (for
review see Bayard et al., 2011) or schizophrenia (for review see Dunn et
al., 2006).
The second important nding of our study revealed that when
controlling for age and gender, the urgency and sensation seeking
facets of impulsivity predicted the tendency to make disadvantageous
choices in a situation of decision-making under risk (condition of
known probabilities as measured by the GDT). Thus, decisions made
under risk seemed to be differentially associated with specic facets of
impulsivity. Our hypothesis regarding the association between
urgency and the preference for risky alternatives in decision-making
under risk is conrmed. Nothing is known about relations between
decision-making under risk assessed by the GDT and the multiple
facets of impulsivity described in the literature (Whiteside and
Lynam, 2001). Contrary to our results, in 25 male patients with
pathological gambling and 25 male healthy controls, Brand et al.
(2005) found no association between GDT scores and the sensation
Table 3
Hierarchical regression analyses to examine the inuence of demographical variables
and UPPS scales on Game of Dice Task net score.
Step variables

Game of Dice Task (net score)

1. Age
0.17
Gender
0.15
2. Urgency
0.19
Sensation seeking
0.22
P b 0.01.

R2

R2

1.88
1.59
2.05
1.99

0.054

0.054

2.94

0.147

0.093

4.38

seeking dimension as examined with an adapted version of the

Sensation Seeking Scale of Zuckerman et al. (1964). This result is
comparable to that of two further studies of this group on decisionmaking in 14 female patients with anorexia nervosa (Brand et al.,
2007a) and in 58 healthy controls (Brand and Altsttter-Gleich,
2008), in which GDT performance was unrelated to the impulsivity
subscale of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Ostendorf and
Angleitner, 2003). Sensation seeking, as it is assessed by the UPPS,
refers to a tendency to enjoy and pursue activities that are exciting
and an openness to trying new experiences that may be dangerous
(Whiteside et al., 2005, p. 561). In contrast to the three other
dimensions of the multifaceted impulsivity model, sensation seeking
seems to involve motivational aspects of impulsivity, which rely on a
system that exaggerates the impact of reward and undermines the
impact of punishment (Bechara et al., 2002). Sensation seeking is
therefore characterized by effortful control abilities that could be
reliant upon executive functioning. Indeed, the GDT is clearly a
decision situation in which consequences are specied and the
associated probabilities are known. This task is commonly referred to
as decision under risk with explicit and stable rules from the very
beginning and over the entire task duration (Brand et al., 2006).
Urgency refers to the tendency to act impulsively when experiencing
negative affect. The urgency facet of impulsivity has been associated with
the occurrence of a wide range of disruptive behavior disorders (for a
review, see Cyders and Smith, 2008) in which executive decits are
frequently documented (e.g. Goudriaan et al., 2004; Gillberg et al., 2010;
Hester et al., 2010; Schuermann et al., 2011). Poor performance on
inhibition tasks has been related to self-reported impulsivity (e.g.,
Kooijmans et al., 2000; Enticott et al., 2006). In particular, the UPPS
scale assessing urgency has been specically associated to prepotent
response inhibition (Gay et al., 2008). Otherwise, many studies have
suggested that GDT performances appear closely associated to performance in tasks measuring executive functions (Brand et al., 2005a; Brand
et al., 2005b, 2006, 2007b) and in particular to executive indices quite
related to the inhibition function (i.e. Modied Card Sorting Test
perseverative error score and Stroop Test interference condition) (Brand
et al., 2006). One may speculate that healthy individuals with a high
urgency level may demonstrate poorer executive capacities than those
with lower scores on this UPPS dimension. Further research is needed to
conrm this hypothesis.
In conclusion, our results do not support the notion that decisionmaking as measured by the IGT is inuenced by impulsive personality
traits, and suggest that such previously reported links could be related
to other confounding variables. This should stimulate new topicrelated studies designed to reach a rm conclusion. Conversely, we
found that decision-making under risk where potential consequences
of different options and their subsequent probabilities rely on explicit
information was to some extent predicted by individual differences in

326

S. Bayard et al. / Psychiatry Research 190 (2011) 322326

self-reported personality traits (sensation seeking and urgency).

Further research must be carried out to replicate these results and
to explore these relationships in clinical populations.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by an award from the Fondation pour la Recherche
Mdicale en France (FRM).

References
Allison, P.D., 1989. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application.
SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
Bayard, S., Cochen De Cock, V., Dauvilliers, Y., 2011. Dopamine dysregulation syndrome
in Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome. Geriatrie et Psychologie
Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement 9, 227235.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R., 2003. Role of the amygdala in decision-making.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 985, 356369.
Bechara, A., Van Der Linden, M., 2005. Decision-making and impulse control after
frontal lobe injuries. Current Opinion in Neurology 18, 734739.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Damasio, A.R., 1997. Deciding advantageously
before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275, 12931295.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Anderson, S.W., 1998. Dissociation of working
memory from decision making within the human prefrontal cortex. Journal of
Neuroscience 18, 428437.
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., 2000. Characterization of the decision-making
decit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 123,
21892202.
Bechara, A., Dolan, S., Hindes, A., 2002. Decision-making and addiction (part II): myopia
for the future or hypersensitivity to reward? Neuropsychologia 40, 16901705.
Billieux, J., Gay, P., Rochat, L., Van der Linden, M., 2010. The role of urgency and its
underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours. Behaviour
Research and Therapy 48, 10851096.
Brand, M., Altsttter-Gleich, C., 2008. Personality and decision-making in laboratory gambling
tasks evidence for a relationship between deciding advantageously under risk conditions
and perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences 45, 226231.
Brand, M., Fujiwara, E., Borsutzky, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., Markowitsch, H.J., 2005a.
Decision-making decits of korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit
rules: associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology 19, 267277.
Brand, M., Kalbe, E., Labudda, K., Fujiwara, E., Kessler, J., Markowitsch, H.J., 2005b.
Decision-making impairments in patients with pathological gambling. Psychiatry
Research 133, 9199.
Brand, M., Labudda, K., Markowitsch, H.J., 2006. Neuropsychological correlates of
decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Networks 19,
12661276.
Brand, M., Franke-Sievert, C., Jacoby, G.E., Markowitsch, H.J., Tuschen-Cafer, B., 2007a.
Neuropsychological correlates of decision making in patients with bulimia nervosa.
Neuropsychology 21, 742750.
Brand, M., Recknor, E.C., Grabenhorst, F., Bechara, A., 2007b. Decisions under ambiguity
and decisions under risk: correlations with executive functions and comparisons of
two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology 29, 8699.
Brand, M., Roth-Bauer, M., Driessen, M., Markowitsch, H.J., 2008. Executive functions
and risky decision-making in patients with opiate dependence. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence 97, 6472.
Brogan, A., Hevey, D., Pignatti, R., 2010. Anorexia, bulimia, and obesity: shared decision
making decits on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). Journal of International
Neuropsychological Society 16, 711716.
Buelow, M.T., Suhr, J.A., 2009. Construct validity of the Iowa Gambling Task.
Neuropsychological Review 19, 102114.
Cyders, M.A., Smith, G.T., 2008. Emotion-based dispositions to rash action: positive and
negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin 134, 807828.
d'Acremont, M., Van der Linden, M., 2007. How is impulsivity related to depression in
adolescence? Evidence from a French validation of the cognitive emotion
regulation questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence 30, 271282.
Damasio, A.R., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., 1991. Somatic markers and the guidance of
behaviour: theory and preliminary testing. In: Levin, H.S., Eisenberg, H.M., Benton,
A.L. (Eds.), Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 217229.

Dunn, B.D., Dalgleish, T., Lawrence, A.D., 2006. The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical
evaluation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, 239271.
Enticott, P.G., Ogloff, J.R.P., 2006. Elucidation of impulsivity. Australian Psychologist 41,
314.
Enticott, P.G., Ogloff, J.R.P., Bradshaw, J.L., 2006. Associations between laboratory
measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity. Personality
and Individual Differences 41, 285294.
Evenden, J.L., 1999. Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology 146, 348361.
Eysenck, S.B.G., Pearson, P.R., Easting, G., Allsopp, J.F., 1985. Age norms for
impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual
Differences 6, 613619.
Fanken, I.H., van Strien, J.W., Nijs, I., Muris, P., 2008. Impulsivity is associated with
behavioral decision-making decits. Psychiatry Research 158, 155163.
Gay, P., Rochat, L., Billieux, J., d'Acremont, M., Van der Linden, M., 2008. Heterogeneous
inhibition processes involved in different facets of self-reported impulsivity:
evidence from a community sample. Acta Psychologica 129, 332339.
Gillberg, I.C., Billstedt, E., Wentz, E., Anckarster, H., Rstam, M., Gillberg, C., 2010.
Attention, executive functions, and mentalizing in anorexia nervosa eighteen years
after onset of eating disorder. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 32, 358365.
Goudriaan, A.E., Oosterlaan, J., de Beurs, E., Van den Brink, W., 2004. Pathological
gambling: a comprehensive review of biobehavioral ndings. Neuroscience and
Behavioral Review 28, 123141.
Hester, R., Lubman, D.I., Ycel, M., 2010. The role of executive control in human drug
addiction. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences 3, 301318.
Jollant, F., Bellivier, F., Leboyer, M., Astruc, B., Torres, S., Verdier, R., Castelnau, D.,
Malafosse, A., Courtet, P., 2005. Impaired decision making in suicide attempters.
The American Journal of Psychiatry 162, 304310.
Kertzman, S., Lidogoster, H., Aizer, A., Kotler, M., Dannon, P.N., 2011. Risk-taking in
pathological gamblers is not a result of their impaired inhibition ability. Psychiatry
Research 188, 7177.
Kooijmans, R., Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., 2000. Response inhibition and measures of
psychopathology: a dimensional analysis. Child Neuropsychology 6, 175184.
Labudda, K., Woermann, F.G., Mertens, M., Pohlmann-Eden, B., Markowitsch, H.J.,
Brand, M., 2008. Neural correlates of decision making with explicit information
about probabilities and incentives in elderly healthy subjects. Experimental Brain
Research 187, 641650.
Liao, P.C., Uher, R., Lawrence, N., Treasure, J., Schmidt, U., Campbell, I.C., Collier, D.A.,
Tchanturia, K., 2009. An examination of decision making in bulimia nervosa. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 31, 455461.
Mackinnon, A., Mulligan, R., 2005. The estimation of premorbid intelligence levels in
French speakers. L'Encphale 31, 3143.
Must, A., Szab, Z., Bdi, N., Szsz, A., Janka, Z., Kri, S., 2006. Sensitivity to reward and
punishment and the prefrontal cortex in major depression. Journal of Affective
Disorders 90, 209215.
Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., 2003. NEO-Persfnlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae,
revidierte form (NEO-PI-R). Hogrefe, Gttingen.
Perales, J.C., Verdejo-Garcia, A., Moya, M., Lozano, O., Perez-Garcia, M., 2009. Bright and
dark sides of impulsivity: performance of women with high and low trait
impulsivity on neuropsychological tasks. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology 31, 927944.
Schuermann, B., Kathmann, N., Stiglmayr, C., Renneberg, B., Endrass, T., 2011. Impaired
decision making and feedback evaluation in borderline personality disorder.
Psychological Medicine 24, 111.
Suhr, J., Hammers, D., 2010. Who fails the Iowa Gambling Test (IGT)? Personality,
neuropsychological, and near-infrared spectroscopy ndings in healthy young
controls. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 25, 293302.
Van der Linden, M., d'Acremont, M., Zermatten, A., Jermann, F., Laroi, F., Willems, S.,
2006. A French adaptation of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Conrmatory
factor analysis in a sample of undergraduate students. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 22, 3842.
Whiteside, S.P., Lynam, D.R., 2001. The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a
structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and
Individual Differences 30, 669689.
Whiteside, S.P., Lynam, D.R., Miller, J., Reynolds, B., 2005. Validation of the UPPS
impulsive behaviour scale: a four-factor model of impulsivity. European Journal of
Personality 19, 559574.
Zermatten, A., Van der Linden, M., d'Acremont, M., Jermann, F., Bechara, A., 2005.
Impulsivity and decision making. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases 193,
647650.
Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E.A., Pric, L., Zoob, I., 1964. Development of a sensation-seeking
scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 28, 477482.