A state model of negative urgency: Do momentary reports of emotional impulsivity reflect global self-report?

In a sample of young adults (N = 222) assessed 3 times per day for 10 days, we tested whether negative emotions were associated with multiple facets of impulsivity at the state-level, and whether those associations were moderated by global self-report of negative urgency. Our findings suggest a robust within-person association between negative affect and acting on impulse. However, global self-report of negative urgency did not moderate any emotion-impulsivity association we tested.

January 2020 issue – The Bridge ADHD edition

Special edition of The Bridge on ADHD, includes guidelines on service transition for young people, substance use, emotional impulsivity, emotion dysregulation, diagnosis and misdiagnosis.

Emotional impulsivity and deficient emotional self-regulation might be core symptoms of ADHD

A large proportion of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit notable emotion-related problems (or “emotional symptoms”). These emotional symptoms seem to associate with poor quality of life, impaired social adjustment and reduced marital status.

Affect-driven impulsivity impairs human action control and selection, as measured through Pavlovian instrumental transfer and outcome devaluation

Two experiments were designed to study the role of emotional impulsiveness in action control and selection, involving healthy young women participants. In Experiment 1, the effects of both outcome devaluation and Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) were assessed on instrumental responding. In Experiment 2, we further explored the effect of outcome devaluation on outcome-specific PIT. The role of emotional impulsivity, specifically negative urgency (NU), was also evaluated in both experiments using a self-reported measure (UPPS-P scale, Spanish short version). Experiment 1 showed both outcome devaluation and outcome-specific PIT effects, which were positively inter-correlated and negatively correlated with scores in NU. Experiment 2 found an effect of outcome devaluation on outcome-specific PIT, which was negatively correlated with scores on NU. These results highlight the relevance of considering individual differences in affect-driven impulsivity, specifically NU, when addressing failures in action control and selection (proneness to habit). Moreover, these findings suggest that, at least with the procedure used in these experiments, outcome-specific PIT may be based on a goal-directed process that is under the participant’s control.

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews

Background and objectivesMany donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor–recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.Design, setting and participantsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor–recipient pairs before the transplant and 11–14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsWe identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).ConclusionsDonor–recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.