- Email: [email protected]
Personality correlates of functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness
Person. in&d.
D@ Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1213-1217,
0191-8869/91 $3.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 199 1 Pergamon Press plc
1991
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF FUNCTIONAL DYSFUNCTIONAL IMPULSIVENESS PATRICK School
of Humanities
C. L. HEAVEN
and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia (Received
AND
16 January
P.O. Box 588,
1991)
Summary-The purpose of this study was to investigate Dickman’s (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95-102, 1990) claims that impulsiveness can be differentiated into two types, namely, functional impulsiveness and dysfunctional impulsiveness and that each have unique personality correlates. Respondents were 267 Australian adolescents (141 females, 126 males; median age = 17 yr). Support was found for the view that dysfunctional impulsiveness can be viewed as a negative trait, while sex differences with respect to the correlates of functional impulsiveness were noted. These findings are commented upon and some suggestions for further research are made.
INTRODUCTION
Impulsiveness, as a personality trait, is of central importance not only in Eysenckian theory, but also in the personality descriptions of writers such as Gray (1981). Together with other thrill-enhancing behaviours, impulsiveness is said to be dependent upon level of physiological arousal (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) and has been shown to overlap somewhat with sensationseeking (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977). In line with earlier work (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977), research among Australian adolescents (Heaven, 1991) has confirmed the multidimensionality of impulsiveness. Earlier formulations conceived of sociability and impulsiveness as integral components of extraversion (E); sociability being referred to as ‘well adjusted’ extraversion and impulsiveness being referred to as ‘maladjusted’ extraversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). It was argued that sociability and impulsiveness were only moderately correlated and that sociability was significantly negatively correlated with neuroticism (N). Impulsiveness, it was shown, correlated significantly positively with N. With the translation of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) into the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), however, the impulsiveness items of the E scale became more closely associated with the major dimension psychoticism (P). Thus, on the basis of their study of the correlates of the EPI and the EPQ, Rocklin and Revelle (1981, p. 280) concluded that “This pattern of correlations suggests that the extraversion scale contained in the EPQ is a measure of sociability with little relationship to impulsivity” (but see Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). In a recent development Dickman (1990) has questioned the tendency of previous writers to regard impulsiveness as a negative trait. On the basis of his earlier work into cognitive functioning, Dickman argued that under certain circumstances impulsivity may have positive effects. He stated: “ . . . when the experimental task is very simple, high impulsives’ rapid responding has little cost in errors . . . And when the time available for making a decision is extremely brief, high impulsives are actually more accurate than low impulsives . . .” (Dickman, 1990, p. 95). Dickman (1990) proceeded to demonstrate that impulsiveness is constituted of two types, namely, functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness. Whereas most previous work has tended to focus on what Dickman (1990) refers to as dysfunctional impulsiveness, functional impulsiveness is defined as “. . . the tendency to engage in rapid, error-prone information processing (i.e. to act with relatively little forethought) . . .” when this method of reacting is optimal (Dickman, 1990, p. 101). Dickman furthermore showed that his two impulsiveness scales correlated only moderately (r(477) = 0.22; P < O.Ol), but that each had unique personality and cognitive correlates. Dysfunctional impulsiveness, for example, was shown to correlate significantly with disorderliness and a tendency to ignore hard facts, while functional impulsiveness was more closely associated with factors like venturesomeness, activity, and sociability than dysfunctional impulsiveness. 1213
1214
PATRICKC. L. HEAVEN
Aims and rationale of study
The purpose of the present research was to investigate some of Dickman’s (1990) claims as to the distinctiveness of functional and dysfunctional impusiveness. In particular, it sought to provide further evidence relating to the personality correlates of functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness. Various personality and attitudinal measures were included in this study. If dysfunctional impulsiveness, as opposed to functional impulsiveness, does indeed have negative connotations (Dickman, 1990) and, given previous evidence relating to impulsiveness and psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) one would expect scores on the measure of dysfunctional impulsiveness to be significantly positively related to P and to be significantly negatively related to self-esteem. Moreover, given previous research into the relationship between impulsiveness and adolescents’ orientation to authority (e.g. Heaven, 1989a; Rigby, Mak & Slee, 1989) it was hypothesised that dysfunctional impulsiveness would be significantly negatively related to attitudes toward the family. Finally, it was predicted that dysfunctional impulsiveness would be significantly positively related to -traditional measures of impulsiveness (see Dickman, 1990). METHOD
Sample
Off-campus psychology undergraduates were asked to act as data gatherers and given course credit for their assistance. They were requested to distribute a ‘Social attitude inventory’ to adolescents 16-18 yr. They were instructed to contact 2 males and 2 females, to sample as widely as possible with respect to respondents’ socio-economic background, and to sample only one adolescent per family. Completed questionnaires were received from 267 respondents (141 females; 126 males). In order to check the socio-economic distribution of the sample, the occupation of the principle breadwinner (usually father) was coded according to Daniel’s (1983) prestige scale for Australian occupations. This measure codes occupations from high prestige (1.2) to low prestige (6.9). Four individuals (1.5%) were located in category 1-1.9; 30 (11.2%) in category 2-2.9; 60 (22.5%) in category 3-3.9; 103 (38.6%) in category 4-4.9; 44 (16.5%) in category 5-5.9, and 6 (2.2%) in category 6-6.9. Twenty respondents (7.5%) failed to provide this information. It is not claimed that this sample is representative of all Australian adolescents although it does appear to be sufficiently diverse. Materials
Respondents
were provided with a booklet which contained the following measures:
1. Functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness (Dickman, 1990). The items of the two scales together with their means, standard deviations, and item-total correlations are presented in Table 1. Each measure contains positively and negatively worded items to which respondents were asked to respond either Yes (scored 1) or No (scored 0). Alpha coefficients were 0.72 and 0.84 respectively. 2. Psychoticism scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The revised short form of this well known measure was used (Eysenck, Eysenck & Barratt, 1985). Alpha coefficient on the present occasion was 0.65. 3. Attitudes to the family (Hudson, 1982; cited in Corcoran h Fischer, 1987). This is a 25-item instrument and is designed to “. . . measure the extent, severity, or magnitude of problems that family members have in their relationships with one another” (Corcoran & Fischer, 1987, p. 440). The instrument was originally developed on married and single individuals as well as clinical and non-clinical respondents and has known-groups validity. On the present occasion, alpha coefficient was 0.95. 4. Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1979). This is a IO-item unidimensional scale. It has satisfactory reliability and established validity. For example, it has been found to correlate significantly with other self-esteem measures and to correlate in the predicted direction with measures of depression and anxiety (Corcoran & Fischer, 1987). For the present sample, alpha coefficient was 0.81.
Functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness Table
I. Dysfunctional
and functional
impulsiveness
(Dickman,
Item Dysfunctional impulsiveness (alpha = 0.84): I will often say whatever comes into my head without thinking first. *I enjoy working out problems slowly and carefully. I frequently make appointments without thinking about whether I will he able to keep them. I frequently buy things without thinking about whether or not I can really afford them. I often make up my mind without taking the time to consider the situation from all angles. Often, I don’t spend enough time thinking over a situation before I act. I often get into trouble because I don’t think before I act. Many times the plans I make don’t work out because I haven’t gone over them carefully enough in advance. *I rarely get involved in projects without first considering the potential problems. ‘Before making any important decision, 1 carefully weight the pros and cons. “I am good at careful reasoning. I often say and do things without considering the consequences. Functional impulsiueness (alpha = 0.72): *I don’t like to make decisions quickly, even simple decisions, such as choosing what to wear, or what to have for dinner. I am good at taking advantage of unexpected opportunities, where you have to do something immediately or lose your chance. Most of the time, I can put my thoughts into words very rapidly. ‘I am uncomfortable when I have to make up my mind rapidly. I like to take part in really fast-paced conversations, where you don’t have much time to think before you speak. *I don’t like to do things quickly, even when I am doing something that is not very difficult. I would enjoy working at a job that required me to make a lot of split-second decisions. I like sports and games in which you have to choose your next move very quickly. *I have often missed out on opportunities because I couldn’t make up my mind fast enough. People have admired me because I can think quickly. . . ..* ,. *I try to avoid actlvlties where you have to act wlthout mucn time to tmnK nrst.
1215 1990) M
SD
Item total correlation
0.52 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.53 0.53 0.45
0.50 0.48 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
0.44 0.36 0.41 0.36 0.62 0.66 0.60
0.38 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.55
0.48 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.49
0.53 0.29 0.51 0.42 0.69
0.49
0.50
0.26
0.62 0.62 0.47
0.48 0.48 0.50
0.37 0.41 0.43
0.42 0.56 0.33 0.65 0.60 0.34 0.66
0.49 0.49 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.47
0.35 0.25 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.38
*These items have been reverse-scored.
5.
Impulsiveness (Eysenck, Easting & Pearson, 1984). The items used on the present occasion
were those previously found to be suitable for use among Australian adolescents (Heaven, 1989b). This 7-item scale had an alpha coefficient on the present occasion of 0.76. Procedure
Respondents as well as their parents (where appropriate) were provided with a letter explaining the nature of the study. Respondents were provided with instructions as to how to complete the questionnaire. They were asked to complete it anonymously and in private. They were assured of confidentiality and provided with unmarked envelopes in which to return completed questionnaires to the student contact-person. RESULTS Pearson correlations between the measures are shown in Table 2 for males and females separately. As predicted, dysfunctional impulsiveness was significantly positively related to psychoticism and traditional impulsiveness, and significantly negatively associated with self-esteem and attitudes toward the family for both sexes. The correlates of functional impulsiveness differed slightly for the two sexes, however. Among females, scores on this measure were significantly positively related to P, self-esteem, and the traditional measure of impulsiveness. Functional impulsiveness did not correlate significantly with any of the measures for males. Finally, there was no significant relationship between the two types of impulsiveness for both sexes. Table 2. Intercorrelations I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Functional impulsiveness Dysfunctional impulsiveness P Self-esteem Attitudes to the family Impulsiveness
I2 201 S.35’9 14 23+*
between measures
2
3
4
5
6
09
10 40** -2o* -218 48**
ost -41** -29” 24” - 17.
-13 -25’. -37” 22’ -25**
09 40” 45” -35” -41.8
39** -33** -32** 31**
Note: Decimal places have been omitted. Females below the diagonal. *P < 0.05; **p < 0.01. tcorrelations differ significantly (Fisher’s z transformation).
1216
PATRICK C. L. HEAVEN Table 3. Results of principal components analyses with Varimax rotation components Measures Male
h2
-0.66 -0.73 0.82 0.07 0.58 0.80 44.0
0.20 0.35 0.20 0.89 0.13 0.29 18.1
0.47 0.65 0.72 0.80 0.36 0.73
-0.17 -0.29 0.88 0.37 0.59 0.89 37.6
0.74 0.80 -0.10 0.69 -0.15 0.06 27.0
0.59 0.72 0.79 0.62 0.37 0.79
-0.29 -0.28 0.86 0.44 0.59 0.87 39.7
0.65 0.79 -0.18 0.68 -0.11 -0.06 23.0
0.51 0.71 0.77 0.66 0.36 0.76
respondents
Attitudes to family Self-esteem Dysfunctional impulsiveness Functional impulsiveness Psychoticism Impulsiveness % Variance explained Total
2
respondents
Attitudes to family Self-esteem Dysfunctional impulsiveness Functional impulsiveness Psychoticism Impulsiveness % Variance explained Female
1
group
Attitudes to family Self-esteem Dysfunctional impulsiveness Functional impulsiveness Psychoticism Impulsiveness % Variance explained
Note: Loadings greater than 0.50 regarded as significant.
In order to further investigate these inter-relationships, a principal components analysis followed by Varimax rotation was computed for males, females, and the combined group. The results are shown in Table 3. In each instance, two components emerged and were labelled dysfunctional and functional impulsiveness respectively, thus supporting the notion of two quite distinct types of impulsiveness. DISCUSSION The findings presented here support Dickman’s (1990) supposition that one can differentiate between two types of impulsiveness. Indeed, among the present sample, functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness were shown to be quite independent of each other. Furthermore, support was also found for the view that their personality correlates are unique and that dysfunctional impulsiveness can be viewed as a negative trait. Although both functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness were significantly related to psychoticism for the female respondents, the results of the principal components analyses for all groups indicate that psychoticism is more closely associated with dysfunctional rather than functional impulsiveness. Why should functional impulsiveness correlate significantly with P and self-esteem among females? This is difficult to answer. It could simply be that the results reflect sampling error. On the other hand, it could be that the items of Dickman’s (1990) scales are not suitable for adolescents. Or it is possible that, among female adolescents at least, functional impulsiveness may contain elements of both healthy personality functioning and pathology. Viewed together, Tables 2 and 3 can be taken to lend some support to Eysenck’s claim that “. . . the subfactors of impulsivity cannot be said simply to correlate with either P or E; what happens is that they correlate with both, to varying degree” (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985, p. 69). In summary, there appears to be some merit in Dickman’s (1990) thesis that one can distinguish between functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness and that each has unique personality correlates. Future research should now carefully consider the utility and correlates of these various types and sub-types of impulsiveness. For example, to what extent do Dickman’s (1990) types of impulsiveness overlap with other measures such as ‘narrow impulsiveness’, ‘risk-taking’, and so forth (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977)? To what degree are these measures distinguishable? Finally, it would be appropriate to determine the extent to which these various measures of impulsiveness are related to other personality dimensions such as sensation-seeking, venturesomeness, extraversion and psychoticism.
Functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness
1217
REFERENCES Cocoran, K. & Fischer, J. (1987). Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook. New York: Free Press. Daniel, A. (1983). Power, privilege and prestige: Occupations in Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Dickman, S. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95-102. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Eysenck, S. B. G., Easting, G. & Pearson, P. (1984). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in children. Personality and Individual D@erences,
5, 3 15-326.
Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1969). The dual nature of extraversion. In Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (Eds) Personality structure and measurement (pp. 141-149). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57-68.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J. & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Dt$erences, 6, 21-29. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.) A model for personality (pp. 246-276). Berlin: Springer. Heaven, P. C. L. (1989a). Orientation to authority and its relation to impulsiveness. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, 8, 38-45.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1989b). Venturesomeness and impulsiveness: Their relation to orientation to authority among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
IO, 1205-1208.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1991). Venturesomeness, impulsiveness and Eysenck’s personality dimensions: A study among Australian adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 91-99. Rigby, K., Mak, A. & Slee, P. (1989). Impulsiveness, orientation to institutional authority, and gender as factors in self-reported delinquency among Australian adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 689-692. Rocklin, T. & Revelle, W. (1981). The measurement of extraversion: A comparison of the Eysenck Personality Inventory and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 279-284. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self New York: Basic Books.
D@ Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1213-1217,
0191-8869/91 $3.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 199 1 Pergamon Press plc
1991
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF FUNCTIONAL DYSFUNCTIONAL IMPULSIVENESS PATRICK School
of Humanities
C. L. HEAVEN
and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia (Received
AND
16 January
P.O. Box 588,
1991)
Summary-The purpose of this study was to investigate Dickman’s (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95-102, 1990) claims that impulsiveness can be differentiated into two types, namely, functional impulsiveness and dysfunctional impulsiveness and that each have unique personality correlates. Respondents were 267 Australian adolescents (141 females, 126 males; median age = 17 yr). Support was found for the view that dysfunctional impulsiveness can be viewed as a negative trait, while sex differences with respect to the correlates of functional impulsiveness were noted. These findings are commented upon and some suggestions for further research are made.
INTRODUCTION
Impulsiveness, as a personality trait, is of central importance not only in Eysenckian theory, but also in the personality descriptions of writers such as Gray (1981). Together with other thrill-enhancing behaviours, impulsiveness is said to be dependent upon level of physiological arousal (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) and has been shown to overlap somewhat with sensationseeking (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977). In line with earlier work (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977), research among Australian adolescents (Heaven, 1991) has confirmed the multidimensionality of impulsiveness. Earlier formulations conceived of sociability and impulsiveness as integral components of extraversion (E); sociability being referred to as ‘well adjusted’ extraversion and impulsiveness being referred to as ‘maladjusted’ extraversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). It was argued that sociability and impulsiveness were only moderately correlated and that sociability was significantly negatively correlated with neuroticism (N). Impulsiveness, it was shown, correlated significantly positively with N. With the translation of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) into the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), however, the impulsiveness items of the E scale became more closely associated with the major dimension psychoticism (P). Thus, on the basis of their study of the correlates of the EPI and the EPQ, Rocklin and Revelle (1981, p. 280) concluded that “This pattern of correlations suggests that the extraversion scale contained in the EPQ is a measure of sociability with little relationship to impulsivity” (but see Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). In a recent development Dickman (1990) has questioned the tendency of previous writers to regard impulsiveness as a negative trait. On the basis of his earlier work into cognitive functioning, Dickman argued that under certain circumstances impulsivity may have positive effects. He stated: “ . . . when the experimental task is very simple, high impulsives’ rapid responding has little cost in errors . . . And when the time available for making a decision is extremely brief, high impulsives are actually more accurate than low impulsives . . .” (Dickman, 1990, p. 95). Dickman (1990) proceeded to demonstrate that impulsiveness is constituted of two types, namely, functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness. Whereas most previous work has tended to focus on what Dickman (1990) refers to as dysfunctional impulsiveness, functional impulsiveness is defined as “. . . the tendency to engage in rapid, error-prone information processing (i.e. to act with relatively little forethought) . . .” when this method of reacting is optimal (Dickman, 1990, p. 101). Dickman furthermore showed that his two impulsiveness scales correlated only moderately (r(477) = 0.22; P < O.Ol), but that each had unique personality and cognitive correlates. Dysfunctional impulsiveness, for example, was shown to correlate significantly with disorderliness and a tendency to ignore hard facts, while functional impulsiveness was more closely associated with factors like venturesomeness, activity, and sociability than dysfunctional impulsiveness. 1213
1214
PATRICKC. L. HEAVEN
Aims and rationale of study
The purpose of the present research was to investigate some of Dickman’s (1990) claims as to the distinctiveness of functional and dysfunctional impusiveness. In particular, it sought to provide further evidence relating to the personality correlates of functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness. Various personality and attitudinal measures were included in this study. If dysfunctional impulsiveness, as opposed to functional impulsiveness, does indeed have negative connotations (Dickman, 1990) and, given previous evidence relating to impulsiveness and psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) one would expect scores on the measure of dysfunctional impulsiveness to be significantly positively related to P and to be significantly negatively related to self-esteem. Moreover, given previous research into the relationship between impulsiveness and adolescents’ orientation to authority (e.g. Heaven, 1989a; Rigby, Mak & Slee, 1989) it was hypothesised that dysfunctional impulsiveness would be significantly negatively related to attitudes toward the family. Finally, it was predicted that dysfunctional impulsiveness would be significantly positively related to -traditional measures of impulsiveness (see Dickman, 1990). METHOD
Sample
Off-campus psychology undergraduates were asked to act as data gatherers and given course credit for their assistance. They were requested to distribute a ‘Social attitude inventory’ to adolescents 16-18 yr. They were instructed to contact 2 males and 2 females, to sample as widely as possible with respect to respondents’ socio-economic background, and to sample only one adolescent per family. Completed questionnaires were received from 267 respondents (141 females; 126 males). In order to check the socio-economic distribution of the sample, the occupation of the principle breadwinner (usually father) was coded according to Daniel’s (1983) prestige scale for Australian occupations. This measure codes occupations from high prestige (1.2) to low prestige (6.9). Four individuals (1.5%) were located in category 1-1.9; 30 (11.2%) in category 2-2.9; 60 (22.5%) in category 3-3.9; 103 (38.6%) in category 4-4.9; 44 (16.5%) in category 5-5.9, and 6 (2.2%) in category 6-6.9. Twenty respondents (7.5%) failed to provide this information. It is not claimed that this sample is representative of all Australian adolescents although it does appear to be sufficiently diverse. Materials
Respondents
were provided with a booklet which contained the following measures:
1. Functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness (Dickman, 1990). The items of the two scales together with their means, standard deviations, and item-total correlations are presented in Table 1. Each measure contains positively and negatively worded items to which respondents were asked to respond either Yes (scored 1) or No (scored 0). Alpha coefficients were 0.72 and 0.84 respectively. 2. Psychoticism scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). The revised short form of this well known measure was used (Eysenck, Eysenck & Barratt, 1985). Alpha coefficient on the present occasion was 0.65. 3. Attitudes to the family (Hudson, 1982; cited in Corcoran h Fischer, 1987). This is a 25-item instrument and is designed to “. . . measure the extent, severity, or magnitude of problems that family members have in their relationships with one another” (Corcoran & Fischer, 1987, p. 440). The instrument was originally developed on married and single individuals as well as clinical and non-clinical respondents and has known-groups validity. On the present occasion, alpha coefficient was 0.95. 4. Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1979). This is a IO-item unidimensional scale. It has satisfactory reliability and established validity. For example, it has been found to correlate significantly with other self-esteem measures and to correlate in the predicted direction with measures of depression and anxiety (Corcoran & Fischer, 1987). For the present sample, alpha coefficient was 0.81.
Functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness Table
I. Dysfunctional
and functional
impulsiveness
(Dickman,
Item Dysfunctional impulsiveness (alpha = 0.84): I will often say whatever comes into my head without thinking first. *I enjoy working out problems slowly and carefully. I frequently make appointments without thinking about whether I will he able to keep them. I frequently buy things without thinking about whether or not I can really afford them. I often make up my mind without taking the time to consider the situation from all angles. Often, I don’t spend enough time thinking over a situation before I act. I often get into trouble because I don’t think before I act. Many times the plans I make don’t work out because I haven’t gone over them carefully enough in advance. *I rarely get involved in projects without first considering the potential problems. ‘Before making any important decision, 1 carefully weight the pros and cons. “I am good at careful reasoning. I often say and do things without considering the consequences. Functional impulsiueness (alpha = 0.72): *I don’t like to make decisions quickly, even simple decisions, such as choosing what to wear, or what to have for dinner. I am good at taking advantage of unexpected opportunities, where you have to do something immediately or lose your chance. Most of the time, I can put my thoughts into words very rapidly. ‘I am uncomfortable when I have to make up my mind rapidly. I like to take part in really fast-paced conversations, where you don’t have much time to think before you speak. *I don’t like to do things quickly, even when I am doing something that is not very difficult. I would enjoy working at a job that required me to make a lot of split-second decisions. I like sports and games in which you have to choose your next move very quickly. *I have often missed out on opportunities because I couldn’t make up my mind fast enough. People have admired me because I can think quickly. . . ..* ,. *I try to avoid actlvlties where you have to act wlthout mucn time to tmnK nrst.
1215 1990) M
SD
Item total correlation
0.52 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.53 0.53 0.45
0.50 0.48 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
0.44 0.36 0.41 0.36 0.62 0.66 0.60
0.38 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.55
0.48 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.49
0.53 0.29 0.51 0.42 0.69
0.49
0.50
0.26
0.62 0.62 0.47
0.48 0.48 0.50
0.37 0.41 0.43
0.42 0.56 0.33 0.65 0.60 0.34 0.66
0.49 0.49 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.47
0.35 0.25 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.38
*These items have been reverse-scored.
5.
Impulsiveness (Eysenck, Easting & Pearson, 1984). The items used on the present occasion
were those previously found to be suitable for use among Australian adolescents (Heaven, 1989b). This 7-item scale had an alpha coefficient on the present occasion of 0.76. Procedure
Respondents as well as their parents (where appropriate) were provided with a letter explaining the nature of the study. Respondents were provided with instructions as to how to complete the questionnaire. They were asked to complete it anonymously and in private. They were assured of confidentiality and provided with unmarked envelopes in which to return completed questionnaires to the student contact-person. RESULTS Pearson correlations between the measures are shown in Table 2 for males and females separately. As predicted, dysfunctional impulsiveness was significantly positively related to psychoticism and traditional impulsiveness, and significantly negatively associated with self-esteem and attitudes toward the family for both sexes. The correlates of functional impulsiveness differed slightly for the two sexes, however. Among females, scores on this measure were significantly positively related to P, self-esteem, and the traditional measure of impulsiveness. Functional impulsiveness did not correlate significantly with any of the measures for males. Finally, there was no significant relationship between the two types of impulsiveness for both sexes. Table 2. Intercorrelations I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Functional impulsiveness Dysfunctional impulsiveness P Self-esteem Attitudes to the family Impulsiveness
I2 201 S.35’9 14 23+*
between measures
2
3
4
5
6
09
10 40** -2o* -218 48**
ost -41** -29” 24” - 17.
-13 -25’. -37” 22’ -25**
09 40” 45” -35” -41.8
39** -33** -32** 31**
Note: Decimal places have been omitted. Females below the diagonal. *P < 0.05; **p < 0.01. tcorrelations differ significantly (Fisher’s z transformation).
1216
PATRICK C. L. HEAVEN Table 3. Results of principal components analyses with Varimax rotation components Measures Male
h2
-0.66 -0.73 0.82 0.07 0.58 0.80 44.0
0.20 0.35 0.20 0.89 0.13 0.29 18.1
0.47 0.65 0.72 0.80 0.36 0.73
-0.17 -0.29 0.88 0.37 0.59 0.89 37.6
0.74 0.80 -0.10 0.69 -0.15 0.06 27.0
0.59 0.72 0.79 0.62 0.37 0.79
-0.29 -0.28 0.86 0.44 0.59 0.87 39.7
0.65 0.79 -0.18 0.68 -0.11 -0.06 23.0
0.51 0.71 0.77 0.66 0.36 0.76
respondents
Attitudes to family Self-esteem Dysfunctional impulsiveness Functional impulsiveness Psychoticism Impulsiveness % Variance explained Total
2
respondents
Attitudes to family Self-esteem Dysfunctional impulsiveness Functional impulsiveness Psychoticism Impulsiveness % Variance explained Female
1
group
Attitudes to family Self-esteem Dysfunctional impulsiveness Functional impulsiveness Psychoticism Impulsiveness % Variance explained
Note: Loadings greater than 0.50 regarded as significant.
In order to further investigate these inter-relationships, a principal components analysis followed by Varimax rotation was computed for males, females, and the combined group. The results are shown in Table 3. In each instance, two components emerged and were labelled dysfunctional and functional impulsiveness respectively, thus supporting the notion of two quite distinct types of impulsiveness. DISCUSSION The findings presented here support Dickman’s (1990) supposition that one can differentiate between two types of impulsiveness. Indeed, among the present sample, functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness were shown to be quite independent of each other. Furthermore, support was also found for the view that their personality correlates are unique and that dysfunctional impulsiveness can be viewed as a negative trait. Although both functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness were significantly related to psychoticism for the female respondents, the results of the principal components analyses for all groups indicate that psychoticism is more closely associated with dysfunctional rather than functional impulsiveness. Why should functional impulsiveness correlate significantly with P and self-esteem among females? This is difficult to answer. It could simply be that the results reflect sampling error. On the other hand, it could be that the items of Dickman’s (1990) scales are not suitable for adolescents. Or it is possible that, among female adolescents at least, functional impulsiveness may contain elements of both healthy personality functioning and pathology. Viewed together, Tables 2 and 3 can be taken to lend some support to Eysenck’s claim that “. . . the subfactors of impulsivity cannot be said simply to correlate with either P or E; what happens is that they correlate with both, to varying degree” (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985, p. 69). In summary, there appears to be some merit in Dickman’s (1990) thesis that one can distinguish between functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness and that each has unique personality correlates. Future research should now carefully consider the utility and correlates of these various types and sub-types of impulsiveness. For example, to what extent do Dickman’s (1990) types of impulsiveness overlap with other measures such as ‘narrow impulsiveness’, ‘risk-taking’, and so forth (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977)? To what degree are these measures distinguishable? Finally, it would be appropriate to determine the extent to which these various measures of impulsiveness are related to other personality dimensions such as sensation-seeking, venturesomeness, extraversion and psychoticism.
Functional and dysfunctional impulsiveness
1217
REFERENCES Cocoran, K. & Fischer, J. (1987). Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook. New York: Free Press. Daniel, A. (1983). Power, privilege and prestige: Occupations in Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Dickman, S. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 95-102. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Eysenck, S. B. G., Easting, G. & Pearson, P. (1984). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in children. Personality and Individual D@erences,
5, 3 15-326.
Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1969). The dual nature of extraversion. In Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (Eds) Personality structure and measurement (pp. 141-149). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57-68.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J. & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Dt$erences, 6, 21-29. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.) A model for personality (pp. 246-276). Berlin: Springer. Heaven, P. C. L. (1989a). Orientation to authority and its relation to impulsiveness. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, 8, 38-45.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1989b). Venturesomeness and impulsiveness: Their relation to orientation to authority among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
IO, 1205-1208.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1991). Venturesomeness, impulsiveness and Eysenck’s personality dimensions: A study among Australian adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 91-99. Rigby, K., Mak, A. & Slee, P. (1989). Impulsiveness, orientation to institutional authority, and gender as factors in self-reported delinquency among Australian adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 689-692. Rocklin, T. & Revelle, W. (1981). The measurement of extraversion: A comparison of the Eysenck Personality Inventory and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 279-284. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self New York: Basic Books.