pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Latent Genetic Structure of Impulsivity and Its Relation to Internalizing Psychopathology - PubMed

The Latent Genetic Structure of Impulsivity and Its Relation to Internalizing Psychopathology

Daniel E Gustavson et al. Psychol Sci. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Factor analyses suggest that impulsivity traits that capture tendencies to act prematurely or take risks tap partially distinct constructs. We applied genomic structure equation modeling to evaluate the genetic factor structure of two well-established impulsivity questionnaires, using published statistics from genome-wide association studies of up to 22,861 participants. We also tested the hypotheses that delay discounting would be genetically separable from other impulsivity factors and that emotionally triggered facets of impulsivity (urgency) would be those most strongly genetically correlated with an internalizing latent factor. A five-factor model best fitted the impulsivity data. Delay discounting was genetically distinct from these five factors. As expected, the two urgency subscales were most strongly related to an internalizing-psychopathology latent factor. These findings provide empirical genetic evidence that impulsivity can be broken down into distinct categories of differential relevance for internalizing psychopathology. They also demonstrate how measured genetic markers can be used to inform theories of psychology and personality.

Keywords: Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale; genomic structural equation modeling; heritability; open data; open materials; self-control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Visual representation of the study aims. In all models, summary statistics for individual impulsive personality traits (IPTs) are represented by squares, latent factors are represented by ovals, single-headed arrows indicate factor loadings, and double-headed arrows indicate correlations. Aim 1 was to evaluate whether the five IPTs were captured by separate genetic factors or whether certain facets could be collapsed together (e.g., positive and negative urgency, and lack of perseverance and lack of premeditation, as in Cyders & Smith, 2007). In these models, UPPS-P subscales were initially modeled as separate factors, with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) total score loading on the lack-of-premeditation factor. Extraversion was included as a second indicator of sensation seeking to aid in model fit (see the

Supplemental Material

available online). Aims 2 and 3 were evaluated simultaneously by adding delay discounting and internalizing psychopathology in the same model to provide the maximum information in the genetic-correlation matrix. Aim 2 evaluated whether genetic influences on delay discounting were best modeled as an independent genetic factor or a facet of lack of premeditation. Aim 3 was to evaluate the hypothesis that a latent factor capturing genetic influences on internalizing psychopathology would be most strongly genetically correlated with IPT genetic factors related to control over emotion-based rash action (positive urgency, negative urgency, or their combination, depending on Aim 1). Genetic correlations among IPTs are shown in gray for simplicity. Thicker black arrows indicate stronger hypothesized correlations. NU = UPPS-P Negative Urgency subscale; PU = UPPS-P Positive Urgency subscale; Prem = UPPS-P Lack of Premeditation subscale; Pers = UPPS-P Lack of Perseverance subscale; SS = UPPS-P Sensation Seeking subscale; Extr = extraversion; MDD = major depressive disorder; Neur = neuroticism; SWB = subjective well-being.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Genetic-correlation matrix generated by genomic structural equation modeling (SEM) for Aim 2 and Aim 3 analyses involving all study measures. Matrices for Aim 1 (impulsive personality traits, or IPTs, only) were similar but not identical because each matrix was generated separately in genomic SEM. See

Table S1

in the

Supplemental Material

for exact r values. Subjective well-being was reverse scored. UPPS-P = UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale; BIS = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Best-fitting model of the genetic-factor structure of impulsivity facets. Individual impulsive personality traits (IPTs) are represented by squares, latent factors are represented by ovals, single-headed arrows indicate factor loadings, and double-headed arrows indicate correlations. All individual IPTs are based on summary statistics from genome-wide association studies. Factor loadings on factors with only two indicators were equated to identify the factor. Factors with only one indicator had factor loadings fixed to 1.0, and the residual variance (R) for that indicator was fixed to 0. Significant correlations are indicated by boldface and black arrows, and significant factor loadings are indicated by boldface (based on 95% confidence intervals). Confidence intervals are shown in

Table S2

in the

Supplemental Material

; confidence intervals were nearly identical to those displayed in Table 2 after adding other constructs to the model. All values reflect fully standardized parameter estimates. UPPS-P = UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale; NU = Negative Urgency; PU = Positive Urgency; Premed = Lack of Premeditation; BIS = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; SS = Sensation Seeking; Persev = Lack of Perseverance.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Barratt E. S. (1993). Impulsivity: Integrating cognitive, behavioral, biological, and environmental data. In McCown W. G., Johnson J. L., Shure M. B. (Eds.), The impulsive client: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 39–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    1. Berg J. M., Latzman R. D., Bliwise N. G., Lilienfeld S. O. (2015). Parsing the heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of the behavioral implications of the UPPS for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1129–1146. doi:10.1037/pas0000111 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Block J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bulik-Sullivan B. K., Loh P.-R., Finucane H. K., Ripke S., Yang J., Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, . . . Neale B. M. (2015). LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 291–295. doi:10.1038/ng.3211 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carver C. S., Johnson S. L. (2018). Impulsive reactivity to emotion and vulnerability to psychopathology. American Psychologist, 73, 1067–1078. doi:10.1037/amp0000387 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms