On the link between emotionally driven impulsivity and aggression:evidence from a validation study on the Dutch UPPS-P

The UPPS-P seems to be a promising instrument for measuring different domains of impulsivity in forensic psychiatric patients. Validation studies of the instrument however, have been conducted only in student groups. In this validation study, three groups completed the Dutch UPPS-P: healthy student (N = 94) and community (N = 134) samples and a forensic psychiatric sample (N = 73). The five-factor structure reported previously could only be substantiated in a confirmatory factor analysis over the combined groups but not in the subsamples. Subgroup sample sizes might be too small to allow such complex analyses. Internal consistency, as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, was high on most subscale and sample combinations. In explaining aggression, especially the initial subscale negative urgency (NU) was related to elevated scores on self-reported aggression in the healthy samples (student and community). The current study is the second study that found a relationship between self-reported NU and aggression highlighting the importance of addressing this behavioural domain in aggression management therapy

Is emotional impulsiveness (Urgency) a core feature of severe personality disorder?

Recent literature has focused on severity of personality disorder (PD) and a trait-based assessment of PDs in preference to assessment by specific sets of diagnostic criteria. Evidence suggests that emotional impulsiveness, also known as Urgency (Whiteside, & Lynam (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences (30, 669–689), might contribute to a broad spectrum of PDs and to overall PD severity. In a sample of 100 forensic psychiatric patients, all men with confirmed PD and a history of serious offending, two hypotheses were tested: first that high Urgency scores would be associated with a broad spectrum of PDs, and with PD severity; and second, that in regression analysis Urgency would uniquely predict measures of PD severity. Results confirmed these hypotheses and are consistent with the idea that emotional impulsiveness/Urgency contributes importantly to overall severity of PD, and in so doing may explain, at least in part, the well-documented link between PD and violence

Using Goal- and Grip-Related Information for Understanding the Correctness of Other’s Actions: An ERP Study

Detecting errors in other’s actions is of pivotal importance for joint action, competitive behavior and observational learning. Although many studies have focused on the neural mechanisms involved in detecting low-level errors, relatively little is known about error-detection in everyday situations. The present study aimed to identify the functional and neural mechanisms whereby we understand the correctness of other’s actions involving well-known objects (e.g. pouring coffee in a cup). Participants observed action sequences in which the correctness of the object grasped and the grip applied to a pair of objects were independently manipulated. Observation of object violations (e.g. grasping the empty cup instead of the coffee pot) resulted in a stronger P3-effect than observation of grip errors (e.g. grasping the coffee pot at the upper part instead of the handle), likely reflecting a reorienting response, directing attention to the relevant location. Following the P3-effect, a parietal slow wave positivity was observed that persisted for grip-errors, likely reflecting the detection of an incorrect hand-object interaction. These findings provide new insight in the functional significance of the neurophysiological markers associated with the observation of incorrect actions and suggest that the P3-effect and the subsequent parietal slow wave positivity may reflect the detection of errors at different levels in the action hierarchy. Thereby this study elucidates the cognitive processes that support the detection of action violations in the selection of objects and grips

Hazards to health in a cold environment

Contains fulltext : 158188.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)75 p

Predicting inpatient aggression by self-reported impulsivity in forensic psychiatric patients

Item does not contain fulltextBackground: Empirical knowledge of 'predictors' of physical inpatient aggression may provide staff with tools to prevent aggression or minimise its consequences. Aim: To test the value of a self-reported measure of impulsivity for predicting inpatient aggression. Methods: Self-report measures of different domains of impulsivity were obtained using the Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation seeking, Positive urgency (UPPS-P) impulsive behaviour scale with all 74 forensic psychiatric inpatients in one low-security forensic hospital. Aggressive incidents were measured using the Social Dysfunction and Aggression Scale (SDAS). The relationship between UPPS-P subscales and the number of weeks in which violent behaviour was observed was investigated by Poisson regression. Results: The impulsivity domain labelled ‘negative urgency’ (NU), in combination with having a personality disorder, predicted the number of weeks in which physical aggression was observed by psychiatric nurses. NU also predicted physical aggression within the first 12 weeks of admission. Conclusions: and implications for practice The results indicate that NU, which represents a patient's inability to cope with rejection, disappointments or other undesired feelings, is associated with a higher likelihood of becoming violent while an inpatient. This specific coping deficit should perhaps be targeted more intensively in therapy. Self-reported NU may also serve as a useful adjunct to other risk assessment tools and as an indicator of change in violence risk.13 p

Example stimuli used in the experiment.

<p>For each object pair an action sequence was constructed, consisting of 3 action snapshots (left column, middle column and right column). The correctness of the object grasped and the grip applied to the object were independently manipulated, resulting in action sequences representing an actor (1) grasping the correct object with a correct grip (upper row), (2) grasping the correct object with an incorrect grip (2^nd row), (3) grasping the incorrect object with a correct grip (3^rd row) or (4) grasping the incorrect object with an incorrect grip (bottom row).</p