The UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale is a 59-item measure of factors that could lead to impulsive behaviors. It was derived by including existing scales of impulsivity in factor analysis. Participants respond to each item using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 (Agree Strongly), 2 (Agree Some), 3 (Disagree Some), and 4 (Disagree Strongly). There are five subscales: Positive Urgency, Negative Urgency, Lack of Premeditation, Lack of Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking. Positive Urgency measures the tendency to act impulsively due to positive affect. Twelve items contribute to this score (e.g., “When I am in great mood, I tend to get into situations that could cause me problems”). Negative Urgency measures the tendency to act impulsively due to negative affect. Twelve items contribute to this score (e.g., “When I am upset, I often act without thinking”). Lack of Premeditation refers to the tendency to act rashly without first reflecting upon the decision to act. Eleven items contribute to this score (e.g., “I am not one of those people who blurt out things without thinking”). Lack of Perseverance involves a tendency not to complete projects. Ten items contribute to this score (e.g., example of a reverse-coded item: “Unfinished tasks really bother me”). Sensation Seeking involves motivation to experience novelty. Twelve items contribute to this score (e.g., “I would like to learn to fly an airplane”).
The UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale assesses traits that may lead to impulsive actions (Cyders, Smith, Spillane, Fischer, Annus, & Peterson, 2007). Understanding factors that drive impulsive behaviors is critical for testing self-regulatory mechanisms of behavior change. Indeed, many of the factors have been associated with maladaptive behaviors. For example, urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking have been linked to risky sexual behaviors and use of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs (Miller, Flory, Lynam, & Leukefeld, 2003).
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Cyders, M. A., Smith, G. T., Spillane, N. S., Fischer, S., Annus, A. M., & Peterson, C. (2007). Integration of impulsivity and positive mood to predict risky behavior: Development and validation of a measure of positive urgency. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 107-118.
Text Citation: Miller, J., Flory, K., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). A test of the four-factor model of impulsivity-related traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1403-1418.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
|UPPS Impulsivity Survey||Visit Link|
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.