skiire0518.html.xdomain.jpskiire0518.html.xdomain.jp/Kiire_Matsumoto_Yoshida_20… · Web...
Transcript of skiire0518.html.xdomain.jpskiire0518.html.xdomain.jp/Kiire_Matsumoto_Yoshida_20… · Web...
Title: Discrimination of Dark Triad traits using the UPPS-P model of impulsivity
Supplementary Material 1: validation of the Japanese version of short UPPS-P impulsivity
behavioral scale (SUPPS-P)
1 Background
The original UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale includes 59 items (Lynam, Smith,
Whiteside, & Cyders, 2006) and requires substantial time to complete, possibly imposing a
burden on participants. However, a 20-item short version, the SUPPS-P, has been developed and
validated (Billieux et al., 2012; Cyders, Littlefield, Coffey, & Karyadi, 2014). The SUPPS-P has
the same factor structure and overlapping variance as the full version of the UPPS-P but can be
administered in less time (Cyders et al., 2014). Thus, using the SUPPS-P allows for broader
research because it imposes less of a burden on participants and can be easily administered.
The SUPPS-P has been translated into various languages, including Arabic (Bteich,
Berbiche, & Khazaal, 2017), Farsi (Shokri & Sanaeepour, 2016), German (Keye, Wilhelm, &
Oberauer, 2009), Italian (D'Orta et al., 2015), Swedish (Claréus, Daukantaitė, Wångby-Lundh, &
Lundh, 2017), and Spanish (Cándido, Orduña, Perales, Verdejo-García, & Billieux, 2012), as has
the original UPPS-P (cf., Lynam et al., 2006).
Although the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale has been translated into the various
languages mentioned above, there is no Japanese version. Therefore, we translated the short
version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (SUPPS-P; from Cyders et al., 2014) into
Japanese and validated it in this study.
1
2 Pilot study: item wordings
We translated the SUPPS-P from English to Japanese and confirmed the wording
adequacy by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). In the original framework of the UPPS model
(Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) and following the UPPS-P model (Cyders & Smith, 2007; Cyders et
al., 2014), it is considered that all 5 factors would show small to medium inter-correlations. In
particular, inter-correlations between Lack of Premeditation and Perseverance and between
Negative and Positive Urgency would be moderate and robust.
2.1 Participants
We used multiple samples from 8 universities to determine the Japanese wording of the
SUPPS-P. Sample 1 included 77 participants (50 females, 26 males, and 1 unspecified, Mage =
19.6, SD = 1.33); Sample 2 included 59 participants (32 females, 26 males, and 1 unspecified,
Mage = 20.3, SD = 1.00); Sample 3 included 60 participants (45 females and 15 males, Mage =
19.7, SD = 0.87); Sample 4 included 115 participants (48 females and 67 males, Mage = 18.8, SD
= 1.98); Sample 5 included 44 participants (29 females and 15 males, Mage = 18.7, SD = 0.83);
Sample 6 included 103 participants (82 females and 21 males, Mage = 20.3, SD = 2.07); Sample 7
included 82 participants (53 females and 28 males, Mage = 20.2, SD = 1.58); and Sample 8
included 65 participants (all females, Mage = 19.2, SD = 0.94). No individuals participated more
than once.
2.2 Procedure and results
2
For the translation, we first obtained the permission to translation the SUPPS-P from the
original author, Dr. Cyders, M. A., and translated the SUPPS-P into Japanese. Second, the
Japanese version was back-translated to English by translators at a leading language service
company (http://www.editage.com./; assignment no. UXTEX_8). Third, Dr. Cyders, M. A,
confirmed the consistency between the original and Japanese wordings of the SUPPS-P.
We then conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) four times, making minor
wording changes after each of the first three analyses. The first CFA used Samples 1 to 3 (total N
= 196, including 127 females, 67 males, and 2 individuals of unspecified sex, Mage = 19.9, SD =
1.05). We made minor changes to problematic wording and conducted a second CFA using
Samples 4 and 5 (total N = 159, including 77 females and 82 males, Mage = 18.8, SD = 1.74). We
again made minor wording changes and conducted a third CFA using Sample 6 and a fourth
CFA using Samples 7 and 8 (total N = 147, including 118 females and 28 males, Mage = 19.8, SD
= 1.43). The fourth CFA showed marginally acceptable model fittings (χ2(160) = 292.60, p
< .001; CFI = .798; TLI = .760; RMSEA = .075, 90% CI = [.061, .089]; SRMR = .086). Each
last item wording, loading, and factor correlation is shown in Supplementary Material 2 (item 6
showed small loadings in the pilot study; however, adequate loadings were shown in the testing
validity section). Significant inter-factor correlations were shown between Positive and Negative
Urgency (r = .90, p < .001) as expected. However, there was non-significance between Lack of
Premeditation and Perseverance (r = .09), and Sensation Seeking was negatively related with
Lack of Perseverance (r = -.31, p < .01). These were not supported in the original framework
(although these problems did not emerge in the following study, the testing validity section).
However, we used this third wording iteration as the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P because
3
these wordings have content validity, and there is no extreme bias of distributions (Skewness = |
0.11| to |0.37|, Kurtosis = -0.54 to -0.17).
3 Testing the validity of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P: Prediction and Methods
In this study, first, we examined the factorial validity of SUPPS-P-J using another
sample. We predicted that the SUPPS-P-J would replicate the original 5-factor structure. Similar
to other translated versions (Bteich et al., 2017; Cándido et al., 2012; Claréus et al., 2017; D’Orta
et al., 2015), each inter-factor correlation showed positive correlations, markedly so between
Positive and Negative Urgency as well as between Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation.
Furthermore, we compared the higher-order factor model, which has Urgency (higher-order
factor of Positive and Negative Urgency) and Lack of Consciousness (higher-order factor of
Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation), and Sensation Seeking, along with the 5 factors and
inter-correlation model.
Second, we tested the validity of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P by examining the
relationships between each SUPPS-P factor and trait anxiety, depressive symptoms, primary and
secondary psychopathy, self-control, grit, life history strategy, and risk-taking behaviors. Other
translated versions of the SUPPS-P showed that Negative Urgency and Positive Urgency, both of
which are facets of the SUPPS-P, are positively related to trait anxiety and depressive symptoms
(Billieux et al., 2012; Claréus et al., 2017; D'Orta et al., 2015). Thus, these factors should be
positively correlated with both varieties of urgency.
Although psychopathy is one of the components of the Dark Triad, various studies have
investigated only psychopathy both theoretically and empirically (e.g., Hare, 2003). From these
4
findings, psychopathy is composed of primary psychopathy, which is an affective facet
characterized by deficits of empathy and interpersonal manipulation, and secondary
psychopathy, which is a behavioral facet characterized by an erratic life-style and antisocial
behavior1. Thus, although both psychopathic traits are related to impulsivity, secondary
psychopathy is more strongly related to SUPPS-P impulsivity than primary psychopathy
(Poythress & Hall, 2011).
Self-control involves the control of automatic and impulsive behaviors (Tangney,
Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Thus, all SUPPS-P factors showed a negative relationship with
self-control.
Grit involves perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth, Peterson,
Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). Grit has two subtypes, Consistency of Interests and Perseverance of
Effort. Consistency of Interests reflects individual differences in continually focusing on an
interest. Perseverance of Effort reflects the ability to stay committed to a task until completion.
Both varieties of grit should be negatively related to Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation.
However, we did not specifically hypothesize about Urgency.
From an evolutionary perspective, life history strategies are sets of behavioral patterns
(i.e., strategies) formed by genetic factors and the environmental cues of early childhood that
underlie broad individual differences in personality, attitudes, and beliefs (Figueredo et al., 2006,
2014). Individual life history strategy differences can be measured on a unidimensional
1 Although Hare’s (2003) definition of Factor 1 and 2 of psychopathy construction might not
strictly correspond with primary and secondary psychopathy, we treated them as if they do
because the purpose of this study may become unclear were the strict treatment used.5
continuum from fast to slow life history strategies using the K-factor. Fast life history strategies
are shaped by unstable and unpredictable early childhood environments and genetic factors, and
slow life history strategies are shaped by genetic factors and stable and predictable early
childhood environments. Individuals living in unpredictable environments cannot expect long-
term implicit benefits and place greater importance on immediate benefits. Such a background,
together with genetic factors, leads to the development of faster life history strategies, which can
affect any individual characteristic. Impulsivity is a central component of fast life history
strategies because individuals with certain genetic backgrounds living in unpredictable
environments ignore possible future outcomes and tend to seek immediate benefits (Figueredo et
al., 2006, 2014; Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010). Thus, faster life history strategies are
considered to be associated with greater impulsivity. Note that the lower the K-factor (i.e., the
score reflecting the position on the continuum of life history strategies), the faster the life history
strategy. Thus, the K-factor is negatively related to SUPPS-P impulsivities.
Risk-taking behavior is one of the outcomes of impulsivity (Zuckerman & Kuhlman,
2000). Therefore, we examine whether the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P predicts risk-taking
behaviors. In particular, it is predicted that individuals with higher sensation seeking tend to
exhibit high-risk behaviors with a lack of danger awareness (Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 2000).
Oshio (2001) distinguished personal from social risk-taking behavior. Personal risk-taking
behavior poses a physical risk directly to the individual agent (the scale includes items such as
“consuming a large amount of alcohol”). However, social risk-taking behavior poses an indirect
social risk such as a loss of social status (the scale includes items such as “breaking a promise”).
6
At any rate, both risk-taking behaviors should be associated with SUPPS-P factors, especially
Sensation Seeking.
3.1 Participants
We examined the validation of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P using the same
sample as that used in the main study. Specifically, we used 3 samples from 3 universities, of
which 1) includes 86 participants (60 females and 26 males, Mage = 20.9, SD = 0.62); 2) includes
56 participants (all females, Mage = 20.3, SD = 2.03); and 3) includes 65 participants (all females,
Mage = 19.2, SD = 0.94); and we combined the samples and pooled the participants across sexes
because a multiple-group analysis revealed model invariance across samples and sexes. The total
sample included 207 participants (181 females and 26 males, Mage = 20.2, SD = 1.43). To verify
test-retest reliability, we again conducted a survey of the first and second samples three weeks
after the first survey. This total sample included 125 participants (104 females and 21 males, Mage
= 20.7, SD = 1.45). Note that there were no significant differences in the UPPS-P impulsivity
scores, age, or sex ratios between those who participated in the second survey and those who did
not.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Japanese version of the SUPPS-P
The wordings of the SUPPS-P-J were established in a pilot study. The SUPPS-P-J
consists of 20 items. Each of the five UPPS-P facets was measured with 4 items. The participants
7
responded on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly, 4 = Agree Strongly).
3.2.2 Beck depression inventory II (BDI-II)
The BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) is a widely used questionnaire that measures
the severity of depressive symptoms. The BDI-II consists of 21 four-choice statements. Kojima
and Furukawa (2003) developed the Japanese version of this questionnaire, which has good
reliability and validity. The internal consistency in this study was good (α= .90).
3.2.3 State-trait anxiety inventory - trait version (STAI-T)
The STAI-T (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) is a self-reported
questionnaire to assess trait anxiety. The STAI-T consists of 20 items on a 4-point scale. We
used the Japanese version that was developed by Hidano, Fukuhara, Iwawaki, Soga, and Charles
(2000). The internal consistency was good (α= .88).
3.2.4 Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRP)
The LSRP is a 26-item scale developed and validated to measure each primary and
secondary psychopathy factor (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Primary psychopathy is
measured by 16 items, and secondary psychopathy is measured by 10 items. Scale items include
“Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers” (primary
psychopathy) and “I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time” (secondary
psychopathy). The Japanese version of the LSRP was developed and validated by Sugiura and
Sato (2005), and we used this version. The participants responded on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =
8
disagree strongly, 4 = agree strongly). The internal consistency was good (αprimary psychopathy = .82;
αsecondary psychopathy = .68). We used averaged scores as the observed variables.
3.2.5 Brief self-control scale (BSCS)
The BSCS is a 13-item scale developed and validated to measure self-control (Tangney et
al., 2004). Scale items include “I am good at resisting temptation.” A Japanese version of the
BSCS was also developed and validated by Ozaki, Goto, Kobayashi, and Kutsuzawa (2016), and
we used this version. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all like me,
5 = very much like me). The internal consistency was good (α= .83). We used averaged scores as
the observed variables.
3.2.6 Short grit scale (Grit-S)
The Grit-S is an 8-item scale developed and validated to measure grit (Duckworth &
Quinn, 2009). Consistency of Interest and Perseverance of Effort are each measured by 4 items.
Scale items include “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one” (Consistency of
Interest) and “I finish whatever I begin” (Perseverance of Effort). The Japanese version of the
Grit-S was developed and validated by Nishikawa, Okugami, and Amemiya (2015), and we used
this version. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all like me, 5 =
Very much like me). The internal consistency was acceptable (αConsistency of Interests = .76; αPerseverance of
Effort = .75). We used averaged scores as the observed variables.
3.2.7 Mini-K
9
The Mini-K scale is a 20-item scale developed and validated to measure the K-factor as
the index of life history strategy (Figueredo et al., 2006). Scale items include “I can often tell
how things will turn out.” A Japanese version of the Mini-K was developed and validated by
Kawamoto (2015), and we used this version. The participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = not very true of me, 7 = very true of me). The internal consistency was acceptable (α= .78).
We used averaged scores as the observed variables.
3.2.8 Risk-taking behavior scale for undergraduates (RIBS-U)
The RIBS-U is a 12-item scale originally developed and validated in Japan to measure
risk-taking behaviors (Oshio, 2001). Personal and Social risk-taking behaviors are each
measured by 6 items. The participants indicated the frequency of experienced risk-taking
behavior on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, and 4 = often) for the
following behaviors: drunk driving, smoking, speeding in a car or motorcycle, binge-drinking at
a party, consuming a large amount of alcohol, and gambling, for example, on pachinko or horse
racing (personal risk-taking behaviors) and being late for a class or an appointment, running a
red light, breaking a promise, dashing for a train and making it, playing hooky, and lying (social
risk-taking behaviors). The internal consistency was acceptable (αPersonal = .70; αSocial = .70). We
used summed scores as the observed variables.
3.2.9 Short dark triad (SD3)
The SD3 is a 27-item scale developed and validated to measure each Dark Triad trait by
Jones and Paulhus (2014). Each Dark Triad trait is measured by 9 items. Scale items include “It’s
10
not wise to tell your secrets” (Machiavellianism), “People see me as a natural leader”
(narcissism), and “I like to get revenge on authorities” (psychopathy). The Japanese version of
the SD3 was developed and validated by Shimotsukasa and Oshio (2017), and we used this
version. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). The results for internal consistency from Jones and Paulhus (2014) and Shimotsukasa and
Oshio (2017) were consistent and acceptable (αMachiavellianism = .69, αnarcissism = .75, αpsychopathy = .58).
Thus, we used averaged scores as the observed variables. Note that DT scores were used in the
main study and not in the validity testing.
3.3 Procedure
All surveys were conducted during a university lecture. The participants responded
individually, reported their age and sex, and responded to all questions. Furthermore, the
participants from the first and second samples were readministered the SUPPS-P three weeks
after the first survey. The participants received course credit for their participation. All
procedures were approved by the ethics committee of [institution blinded for review].
3.4 Statistical analysis
3.4.1 Validation of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P
First, we examined the factorial validity of SUPPS-P’s five factors using CFA. Note that
we conducted a multigroup CFA to test model invariance across samples and sexes before
examining factorial validity. Second, we calculated the internal consistency and tested the
11
validity of the SUPPS-P using correlation coefficients between the SUPPS-P subscale and
anxiety, depressive symptoms, psychopathy, self-control, grit, and the K-factor. Third, we
conducted a regression analysis to determine whether the SUPPS-P predicts risk-taking
behaviors. Note that we assumed a negative binomial distribution for personal risk-taking
behavior due to a biased distribution. Finally, we examined test-retest reliability using correlation
coefficients between SUPPS-P scores at time 1 and time 2.
4 Testing the validity of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P: Results
We conducted a multigroup CFA to examine model invariance across samples and sexes.
The results of the information criteria showed that scalar invariance had a better fit across
samples and sexes than configural or metric invariance (Supplementary Table S1A). Thus, we
combined the samples and sexes into one sample. Next, we conducted a CFA to determine
whether the original factor structure of the SUPPS-P was replicated. The fit indices were
acceptable (χ2(160) = 299.10, p < .001; CFI = .849; TLI = .821; RMSEA = .066, 90% CI = [.054,
.077]; SRMR = .068; Supplementary Fig. S1D). Each factor loading was also acceptable,
specifically, over .29 (see Figure S1D and Supplementary Table S2A). Furthermore, inter-factor
correlations replicated the original UPPS-P model: The positive inter-correlations were as
expected although Lack of Perseverance correlated only with Lack of Premeditation.
Specifically, the positive relationships between Negative and Positive Urgency (r = .91, p < .001)
and Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation (r = .44, p < .001) were shown. Thus, SUPPS-P-J
almost measured the original UPPS-P impulsivity. Furthermore, a higher-order factor model that
assumed Urgency to be a higher-order factor over Positive Urgency and Negative Urgency and
12
Lack of Conscientiousness to be a higher-order factor over Lack of Perseverance and Lack of
Premeditation was replicated by a Bayesian estimation (Supplementary Table S2A). However,
the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) indicated that the 5-factor and covariance model was
better than the higher-order factor model (BIC = 9657.87 vs. 9881.68). Thus, we addressed these
scores as 5 different dimensional factors that were correlated each other. We calculated the
SUPPS-P scores and other scale scores as observed variables. Each internal consistency of the
SUPPS-P subscale was acceptable (αNegative Urgency = .68, αPositive Urgency = .66, αLack of Perseverance = .66,
αLack of Premeditation = .67, and αSensation Seeking = .64).
Descriptive statistics, alpha, sex differences, and results of correlation analysis are shown
in Supplementary Table S1B. The supported hypothesis combinations were as follows: both
Positive and Negative Urgency were positively correlated with anxiety (r = .36 and .44, ps
< .001, respectively) and depressive symptoms (r = .32 and .37, ps < .001, respectively); primary
psychopathy (r = .32 and .27, ps < .001, respectively); and secondary psychopathy (r = .53
and .53, ps < .001, respectively) and negatively correlated with self-control (r = -.67 and -.65, ps
< .001, respectively) and the K-factor (r = -.25 and -.17, p < .001 and .05, respectively). Lack of
Perseverance and Premeditation were positively correlated with secondary psychopathy (r = .28
and .30, ps < .001, respectively) and negatively correlated with self-control (r = -.28 and -.34, ps
< .001, respectively); the Perseverance of Effort facet of grit (r = -.50 and -.31, ps < .001,
respectively); and the K-factor (r = -.34 and -.28, ps < .001, respectively). Sensation Seeking was
also positively correlated with primary psychopathy (r = .24, p < .001) and secondary
psychopathy (r = .27, p < .001) and negatively correlated with self-control (r = -.16, p < .05),
with secondary psychopathy showing a stronger association than primary psychopathy (ΔrNegative
13
Urgency = |.25|, t = 4.11, p < .001; ΔrPositive Urgency = |.22|, t = 3.52, p < .001; ΔrLack of Perseverance = |.09|, t =
1.31, ns; ΔrNegative Urgency = |.20|, t = 2.91, p < .01; ΔrPositive Urgency = |.03|, t = 0.46, ns).
However, the combinations that did not support our hypotheses were as follows: Lack of
Premeditation and the Consistency of Interests facet of grit was negatively correlated (r = -.10,
ns) as were Sensation Seeking and the K-factor (r = -.03, ns). Furthermore, other combinations
were significantly correlated but were not specifically hypothesized about: Positive and Negative
Urgency were negatively correlated with the Consistency of Interests facet of grit (r = -.31, -.25,
ps < .001), and Positive Urgency was negatively correlated with the Perseverance of Effort facet
of grit (r = -.17, p < .05).
Subsequently, we conducted a multiple regression analysis to examine whether each of
the SUPPS-P subscales predicts risk-taking behaviors (Supplementary Table S1C). The results
showed that personal risk-taking behavior was predicted by Sensation Seeking (b* = .59, p < .01)
and Lack of Premeditation (b* = .57, p < .01), and social risk-taking behavior was predicted by
Sensation Seeking (b* = .19, p < .01), Negative Urgency (b* = .16, p < .05) and Lack of
Perseverance (b* = .16, p < .05). These results supported our hypotheses.
Last, we calculated the correlation coefficients between times 1 and 2 for each SUPPS-P
subscale score to examine test-retest reliability. The results showed that each SUPPS-P subscale
has good reliability (rNegative Urgency = .76, rPositive Urgency = .80, rLack of Perseverance = .66, rLack of Premeditation
= .69, and rSensation Seeking = .84).
5 Discussion
14
We developed a Japanese version of the SUPPS-P. The results from the project showed
that the Japanese version replicated the factor structure of the original UPPS-P model (Cyders &
Smith, 2007; Cyders et al., 2014; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Note that the 5-factor inter-
correlation model was better than the higher-order factor model in the present study. In the
previous studies, findings of higher-order factor models are inconsistent across various countries
(Billieux et al., 2012; Bteich et al., 2017; Cándido et al., 2012; Claréus et al., 2017; Cyders &
Smith, 2007; Cyders et al., 2014; D'Orta et al., 2015). Future research should examine the
cultural differences of multidimensional impulsivity. Furthermore, most of each UPPS-P
impulsivity facet measured by the SUPPS-P-J was associated with distinct personality traits,
attitudes, and behavioral patterns. These relationships supported theoretical links with UPPS-P
impulsivity facets.
No relationships were found between Lack of Premeditation and Consistency of Interests
or between Sensation Seeking and the K-factor, although we expected these associations. These
results suggest a qualitative difference between premeditation and consistency of interests (an
aspect of grit) and between sensation seeking and pursuit of immediate benefits (an aspect of a
fast life history strategy). However, contrary to our results, some previous findings support the
existence of each of these relationships (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2018 for the former, Figueredo et
al., 2006, for the latter). One possible explanation for the lack of an association is the presence of
mediating variables. Thus, future research is needed to clarify these discrepancies.
Furthermore, there are some unexpected relationships, specifically, negative relationships
between Urgency and grit, in particular, combinations of Negative Urgency and Consistency of
Interests, Positive Urgency and Consistency of Interests, and Positive Urgency and Perseverance
15
of Effort. These findings might suggest that people who tend to be disturbed emotionally find it
difficult to continue things or to maintain their interest. These possibilities also need to be
clarified.
5.1 Limitations
The present study has some limitations. First, all indices to examine the validity of
SUPPS-P-J were self-reported. Some previous studies have shown experimental and behavioral
evidence (e.g., Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2012). Future research should examine whether the
SUPPS-P-J captures behavioral data in experimental laboratory and/or daily life.
16
References
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). BDI-II, Beck depression inventory: Manual.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Billieux, J., Rochat, L., Ceschi, G., Carré, A., Offerlin-Meyer, I., Defeldre, A.-C., . . . Van der
Linden, M. (2012). Validation of a short French version of the UPPS-P impulsive
behavior scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53(5), 609-615.
Bteich, G., Berbiche, D., & Khazaal, Y. (2017). Validation of the short Arabic UPPS-P
impulsive behavior scale. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 244.
Cándido, A., Orduña, E., Perales, J. C., Verdejo-García, A., & Billieux, J. (2012). Validation of a
short Spanish version of the UPPS-P impulsive behaviour scale. Trastornos Adictivos,
14(3), 73-78.
Claréus, B., Daukantaitė, D., Wångby-Lundh, M., & Lundh, L.-G. (2017). Validation of a
Swedish version of the short UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale among young adults.
Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6, 118-122.
Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2012). The relationship between self-report and lab task
conceptualizations of impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 121-124.
Cyders, M. A., Littlefield, A. K., Coffey, S., & Karyadi, K. A. (2014). Examination of a short
English version of the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale. Addictive Behaviors, 39(9),
1372-1376.
Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2007). Mood-based rash action and its components: Positive and
negative urgency. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 839-850.
17
D'Orta, I., Burnay, J., Aiello, D., Niolu, C., Siracusano, A., Timpanaro, L., . . . Billieux, J.
(2015). Development and validation of a short Italian UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale.
Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2, 19-22.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-
1101.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale
(Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.
Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P., Enkavi, A. Z., Li, J., MacKinnon, D., Marsch, L., & Poldrack, R.
(2018). Uncovering mental structure through data-driven ontology discovery. PsyArXiv
Preprints. doi:10.31234/osf.io/fvqej
Figueredo, A., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B., Schneider, S., Sefcek, J., Tal, I., . . . Jacobs, W.
(2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy.
Developmental Review, 26(2), 243-275.
Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner,
C., . . . Rushton, J. P. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history
strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3),
148-185.
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems.
Hidano, N., Fukuhara, M., Iwawaki, M., Soga, S., & Charles, D. S. (2000). State-trait anxiety
inventory-form JYZ. Tokyo, Japan: Jitsumukyoiku-Shuppan.
18
Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The Dark Triad and life
history theory. Human Nature, 21(4), 428-442.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure
of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41.
Kawamoto, T. (2015). The translation and validation of the Mini-K scale in Japanese. Japanese
Psychological Research, 57(3), 254-267.
Keye, D., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2009). Structure and correlates of the German version of
the brief UPPS impulsive behavior scales. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 25(3), 175-185.
Kojima, M., & Furukawa, T. (2003). Manual for the Beck depression inventory-II (Japanese
translation). Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo: Nihon Bunka Kagakusha Co., Ltd.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in
a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1),
151-158.
Lynam, D. R., Smith, G. T., Whiteside, S. P., & Cyders, M. A. (2006). The UPPS-P: Assessing
five personality pathways to impulsive behavior. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Nishikawa, K., Okugami, S., & Amemiya, T. (2015). Development of the Japanese short grit
scale (Grit-S). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 24(2), 167-169.
Oshio, A. (2001). Development and validation of a Risk-Taking Behavior Scale for
Undergraduates (RIBS-U). Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education and Human
Development, Nagoya University (Psychology and Human Developmental Sciences), 48,
257-265.
19
Ozaki, Y., Goto, T., Kobayashi, M., & Kutsuzawa, G. (2016). Reliability and validity of the
Japanese translation of Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS-J). The Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 87(2), 144-154.
Poythress, N. G., & Hall, J. R. (2011). Psychopathy and impulsivity reconsidered. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 16(2), 120-134.
Shokri, O., & Sanaeepour, M. H. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation of a Farsi version of the
impulsive behavior scale-short form in Iran. International Journal of Body, Mind and
Culture, 3(2), 101-112.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for
the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI, Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Sugiura, Y., & Sato, A. (2005). Validation of the Japanese version of primary and secondary
psychopathy scale. Poster session presented at the Sixtyninth Meeting of the Japanese
psychological Association. Tokyo, Japan.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72(2), 271-324.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common bisocial
factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999-1029.
20
Supplementary Table S1A. Bayesian information criteria (BIC) for each invariance constraint.
Sex SampleConfigural 10,127.07 10,425.88Metric 10,067.24 10,307.43Scalar 10,010.52 10,200.54
21
Supplementary Table S1B. Descriptive statistics, sex differences, and correlation coefficients.
Female Male Correlation coefficients
M (SD) M (SD) ta d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Age α 20.11 (1.50)
20.92(0.64) -4.76*** -
0.57
1. Negative urgency .68 2.36 (0.61) 2.56(0.77) -1.27 -
0.32
2. Positive urgency .66 2.19 (0.61) 2.42(0.64) -1.65 -
0.36 .62***
3. Lack of perseverance .66 2.02 (0.55) 1.98(0.54) 0.34 0.07 .00 .03
4. Lack of premeditation .67 2.26 (0.53) 2.03(0.50) 2.13* 0.44 .11 .25*** .38***
5. Sensation seeking .64 2.01 (0.64) 2.50(0.80) -2.92** -
0.74 .22** .32*** -.11 .14*
6. Primary psychopathy .82 2.50 (0.48) 2.52(0.61) -0.15 -
0.04 .27*** .32*** .19** .11 .24***
7. Secondary psychopathy .68 0.72 (0.44) 0.70(0.52) 0.23 0.06 .53*** .53*** .28*** .30*** .27*** .47***
8. Anxiety .88 2.06 (0.43) 2.30(0.36) -2.95** -
0.55 .44*** .36*** .00 .02 -.06 .10 .51***
9. Depression .90 2.23 (0.42) 2.37(0.50) -1.35 -
0.33 .37*** .32*** .04 .06 .01 .17* .55*** .76***
10. Self-control .83 2.81 (0.66) 2.55(0.73) 1.68 0.39 -.6
5*** -.6
7*** -.28*** -.34*** -.16* -.34*** -.66*** -.48*** -.46***
11. Consistency of interest .75 2.64 (0.80
) 2.39(0.84) 1.38 0.30 -.25
*** -.31
*** -.37*** -.10 -.11 -.32*** -.53*** -.19** -.27*** .47***
12. Perseverance of effort .76 3.08 (0.80) 2.77(1.03) 1.43 0.37 -.0
8-.1
7* -.50*** -.31*** .04 -.20** -.43*** -.22** -.27*** .48*** .40***
13. K-factor .78 4.69 (0.64) 4.11(0.69) 3.94*** 0.89 -.1
7* -.2
5*** -.34*** -.28*** -.03 -.33*** -.40*** -.34*** -.32*** .36*** .14* .42***
14. Personal risk takingb .70 7.11 (2.17) 8.75(3.33) -2.35* -
0.70 .18** .25*** -.04 .25*** .31*** .26*** .21** -.04 .06 -.25*** -.09 -.09 -.12
22
15. Social risk takingb .70 12.20 (3.36)
12.17(3.55) 0.04 0.01 .30*** .33*** .17* .21** .26*** .47*** .47*** .13 .23** -.46*** -.27*** -.29*** -.13 .46***
aWelch’s t-test. bSummed scores were used as scale scores. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
23
Supplementary Table S1C. Results of the regression analysis of the effect of UPPS-P
impulsivity on risk-taking behaviors (standardized regression coefficients).
Personal risk takinga
Social risk taking
Negative Urgency .13 .16 *
Positive Urgency .17 .13
Lack of Perseverance -.28 .16 *
Lack of Premeditation .57 ** .06
Sensation Seeking .59 ** .19 **
aNegative binomial distribution was applied. *p < .05, **p < .01.
24
NU PU LPE LPR SS
6 15138 3 201710 1 1174 2 19125 9 181614
.58 .53 .73 .49 .44 .70 .45 .76 .47 .42 .70 .80 .61 .62 .34 .75 .76 .75 .29 .44
.91 -.001 .44 .34
.29
.20 .47
.39-.01 -.14
Supplementary Fig. S1D. Results of CFA. Significant correlations are highlighted in bold.
Reverse items have been reversed. NU = Negative Urgency; PU = Positive Urgency; LPE =
Lack of Perseverance; LPR = Lack of Premeditation; SS = Sensation Seeking.
25