Personality and Individual Differences 129 (2018) 70–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Self-control mediates the relationship between personality trait and T

impulsivity
⁎
Tianxin Maoa, Weigang Panb, Yingying Zhua, Jian Yanga, Qiaoling Donga, Guofu Zhouc,d,e,
a
School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
b
Laboratory of Emotion and Mental Health, Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences, Chongqing 402160, China
c
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Optical Information Materials and Technology & Institute of Electronic Paper Displays, South China Academy of Advanced
Optoelectronics, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
d
National Center for International Research on Green Optoelectronics, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
e
Shenzhen Guohua Optoelectronics Tech. Co. Ltd., Shenzhen 518110, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of the current study was to explore the mediation effect of self-control on the relationship between
Big Five Personality personality traits and impulsivity in Chinese cultural context. A total of 804 participants completed a packet of
Self-control questionnaires that assessed personality traits, impulsivity, and self-control, of which personality traits were
Impulsivity measured by the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory brief version (CBF-PI-B), impulsivity was measured by
Mediating effect
the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), and self-control was measured by the Self-Control Scale (SCS).
Correlation results demonstrated that openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness were all
negatively correlated with impulsivity, and positively correlated with self-control; neuroticism was positively
correlated with impulsivity, and negatively correlated with self-control. Furthermore, mediational analyses
showed that three factors of the Big Five Personality (openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) exerted
their indirect effects on impulsivity through self-control, and the mediating effect accounted for 29.54%,
40.00%, 55.77% of the total effect respectively. These findings suggest that self-control might be one mechanism
explaining how individuals' personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) influence their
impulsivity.

1. Introduction that there was no significant correlation between extraversion and

Over the past few decades, researchers have conducted extensive
studies on the relationship between personality traits and impulsivity.
As a classical model of personality traits, the Big Five Personality model
(conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, and extra-
version) has been widely used. Although many studies had investigated
the relationship between impulsivity and the Big Five Personality traits,
the results observed were still inconsistent. For example, some studies
found that there was no significant correlation between con-
scientiousness and impulsivity (Luo, Cai, & Chen, 2014), while some
other studies found a significant negative correlation between the two
variables (Hair & Hampson, 2006; Lange, Wagner, Muller, & Eggert,
2017; Russo, Leone, Penolazzi, & Natale, 2012). Some studies found
that there was no significant correlation between agreeableness and
impulsivity (Lange et al., 2017; Russo et al., 2012), while some other
studies found a significant negative correlation between the two vari-
ables (Hair & Hampson, 2006; Luo et al., 2014). Some studies found
impulsivity (Hair & Hampson, 2006; Luo et al., 2014; Russo et al.,
2012), while some other studies found a significant negative correlation
between the two variables (Lange et al., 2017). Most studies found that
there was a significant positive correlation between neuroticism and
impulsivity (Hair & Hampson, 2006; Luo et al., 2014; Russo et al.,
2012), while some other studies found no significant correlation be-
tween the two variables (Lange et al., 2017). In addition, there was no
significant correlation between openness and impulsivity, which is re-
latively consistent with previous studies (Hair & Hampson, 2006; Lange
et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2014; Russo et al., 2012). The inconsistent re-
sults of the relationship between the Big Five Personality and im-
pulsivity were generally assessed by bivariate correlational, which may
yield spurious associations, thus providing misleading information on
the unique impact of each personality trait on impulsivity. Therefore,
there are perhaps some mediator variables between the variables
(Russo et al., 2012). Based on previous studies, we inferred that self-
control may be a potentially important mediator variable.

⁎
Corresponding author at: No. 378, West Waihuan Road, Guangzhou Higher Education Mega Center, Guangzhou 510006, China.
E-mail address: guofu.zhou@m.scnu.edu.cn (G. Zhou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.013
Received 6 November 2017; Received in revised form 26 February 2018; Accepted 7 March 2018
Available online 20 March 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Mao et al.
Self-control is a central function of the self, which refers to the
ability to override one's thoughts and emotions, as well as to interrupt
undesired behavioral tendencies to keep them in line with overarching
goals (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2010; Inzlicht, Schmeichel, & Macrae,
2014; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Sometimes, self-control is
regarded as the opposite of impulsivity (Duckworth & Kern, 2011), but
many studies found that there was a significant negative correlation
between self-control and impulsivity and that the correlation coeffi-
cients were all lower than 0.8 (Friese & Hofmann, 2009; Nebioglu,
Konuk, Akbaba, & Eroglu, 2012; Wolff, Kronke, & Goschke, 2016).
Besides, Ludwig et al. summarized that although high impulsivity and
low self-control overlap in large parts, these two concepts are not re-
dundant (Ludwig et al., 2013). Therefore, the first hypothesis of the
current study was that there is a significant negative correlation be-
tween self-control and impulsivity.
Besides, it had been found that there were close links between the
Big Five Personality traits and self-control in many studies. Such as, a
significant negative correlation was observed between neuroticism and
self-control, and both agreeableness and conscientiousness were found
significantly positively associated with self-control (Andrei, Mancini,
Trombini, Baldaro, & Russo, 2014; Bazzy, Woehr, & Borns, 2017; Green,
O'Connor, Gartland, & Roberts, 2016; Schlegel, Grandjean, & Scherer,
2013; Vries & Gelder, 2013). Meanwhile, the relationships between
both extraversion and openness and self-control was inconsistent, some
studies have found that extraversion and self-control had significant
negative correlation (Green et al., 2016; Schlegel et al., 2013), while
some other studies found no significant correlation between them
(Andrei et al., 2014; Bazzy et al., 2017; Vries & Gelder, 2013). As to the
relationship between openness and self-control, some studies found that
there was a significant positive correlation (Andrei et al., 2014), while
some studies found no significant correlation (Bazzy et al., 2017;
Schlegel et al., 2013; Vries & Gelder, 2013). From previous studies
mentioned above, it can be seen that neuroticism, conscientiousness,
and agreeableness all had a robust relationship with self-control. While
the relationship between openness and extraversion and self-control
was relatively weak. Therefore, our second hypothesis is that the Big
Five Personality traits would be related to self-control, of which the
three factors (conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness)
would have a strong correlation with self-control, while the other two
factors (openness and extraversion) would have a weak correlation with
self-control.
Based on the preceding rationale and available literature showing
that personality traits contribute to self-control, and that self-control
correlates to impulsivity, the third hypothesis of this study is that self-
control would have a certain mediating effect on the impact of the
personality traits (especially the conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
agreeableness) on impulsivity. Thus personality traits will indirectly
predict impulsivity through self-control. The aim of this study was to
examine such questions by exploring how self-control mediates the
relationship between personality traits on impulsivity.
Individuals' personality traits may affect their impulsivity to some
extent. There is no doubt that the ability to make decisions and act
quickly without hesitation can be advantageous in many settings.
However, when persistently expressed, impulsive decisions and actions
are considered risky, maladaptive and symptomatic (Dalley & Robbins,
2017). Thus, the present study might throw some light on the potential
psychological mechanism in helping people in decreasing impulsivity.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The participants in this research were recruited via websites. A total
of 804 adults from China volunteered to take part in the study, of which
32.1% were males and 67.9% were females. The mean age of the
overall sample was 24.51 years (standard deviation = 6.45 years). The
71
Personality and Individual Differences 129 (2018) 70–75
participants were all over the country and mainly were college stu-
dents.
2.2. Measures
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt,
1995). It was adapted to Chinese by Xian-Yun et al. (Xian-Yun et al.,
2011). The Chinese version Bis-11 is a 30-item self-report measurement
of impulsivity, which consists of three factors: attention impulsivity
(e.g., I don't pay attention), motor impulsivity (e.g., I act on the spur of
the moment), and non-planning impulsivity (e.g., I plan for job se-
curity). Participants rated the items from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The
internal consistency of the scale and the three subscales were ranged
from 0.77 to 0.89, and the test-retest reliability was varied from 0. 68 to
0. 89. In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha for the scale and
subscales ranged from 0.82 to 0.90.
Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory brief version (CBF-PI-B;
Wang, Dai, & Yao, 2011). The scale was developed to assess Chinese
personality, which has 40 items and 5 subscales: openness (e.g., I am
curious about many different things), conscientiousness (e.g., I am a
reliable worker), extraversion (e.g., I am outgoing, sociable), agree-
ableness (e.g., I am considerate and kind to almost everyone), neuro-
ticism (e.g., I get nervous easily). The response items varied from 1 (not
at all applicable to me) to 5 (very much applicable to me) and high
scores indicated higher levels of the subscale personality trait. The
Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was reported ranging from
0.76 to 0.81, and the retest reliabilities were reported ranging from
0.67 to 0.81. The internal consistency coefficient for the scale and
subscales for the present data were varied from 0.74 to 0.84.
Self-Control Scale (SCS; Tangney et al., 2004). In the current study,
we use the Chinese version Self-Control Scale, which was revised by
Tan and Guo (2008). The Chinese version SCS consists of 19 items and
five subscales. It was rated on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1
(not at all applicable to me) to 5 (very much applicable to me), and the
total scores can range from 19 to 95. A higher score indicates greater
self-control. An example item is “I am lazy.” Besides, the scale showed
good internal consistency (0.86) and retest reliability (0.85). The in-
ternal consistency coefficient for the present data was 0.87.
2.3. Procedure
Participants completed surveys consisting of the CBF-PI-B, BIS-11,
and SCS through online. The researcher assured the participants of the
confidentiality of their responses. It took approximately 20 min for the
participants to complete the surveys.
2.4. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics of personality traits scores were computed
firstly. Then, the bivariate relationship was assessed by computing the
Pearson r coefficients using SPSS 19.0. Furthermore, SEM procedure
was used to investigate the impact of self-control on the relationship
between personality traits and impulsivity using AMOS 22.0.
3. Results
3.1. Correlational analysis
The means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients for all
study variables are displayed in Table 1. It can be seen from the Table 1
that impulsivity had a significant correlation with the Big Five Per-
sonality. Specifically, impulsivity was significantly positively related
with neuroticism, while negatively associated with the other four di-
mensions. Besides, a significant negative relationship between im-
pulsivity and self-control was observed. Furthermore, it had been de-
monstrated that self-control was significantly negatively correlated
T. Mao et al. Personality and Individual Differences 129 (2018) 70–75

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, Pearson correlation coefficients between personality, self-control, and impulsivity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. BIS-11 1
2. CBF-PI-N 0.460⁎⁎⁎ 1
3. CBF-PI-C −0.699⁎⁎⁎ −0.343⁎⁎⁎ 1
4. CBF-PI-A −0.209⁎⁎⁎ −0.146⁎⁎⁎ 0.335⁎⁎⁎ 1
5. CBF-PI-O −0.297⁎⁎⁎ −0.147⁎⁎⁎ 0.372⁎⁎⁎ 0.288⁎⁎⁎ 1
6. CBF-PI-E −0.174⁎⁎⁎ −0.234⁎⁎⁎ 0.275⁎⁎⁎ 0.270⁎⁎⁎ 0.476⁎⁎⁎ 1
7. SCS −0.724⁎⁎⁎ −0.513⁎⁎⁎ 0.634⁎⁎⁎ 0.204⁎⁎⁎ 0.138⁎⁎⁎ 0.149⁎⁎⁎ 1
M 37.698 26.511 33.500 35.024 31.847 28.838 62.687
SD 12.047 7.025 6.017 5.368 6.074 6.384 10.514

Notes. BIS-11 = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11; CBF-PI = Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory, N = Neuroticism, C = Conscientiousness, A = Agreeableness, O = Openness,
E = Extraversion; SCS = Self-Control Scale.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

with neuroticism while significantly positively associated with the ΔCFI = 0.028, ΔTFI = 0.022, ΔRMSEA = 0.002). Therefore, we did not
personality dimensions. detect any obvious method biases.

3.2. The test of common method biases 3.3. Mediation analyses

In this study, Harman's one-factor test was used to check the
common method biases, the basic assumption of this method is that if
there is a large amount of variation in the method, the factor analysis
can be taken to separate a single factor, or a common factor explaining
the most variation of the variables (Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, &
Babin, 2016). Factor analysis of data in this study was carried out to
analyze 19 factors of characteristic roots > 1, among which the first
factor explained the variation of 18.98%, < 40%. Besides, the results
reported that χ2/df = 5.118, RMR = 0.125, GFI = 0.529, CFI = 0.467,
NFI = 0.415, RMSEA = 0.072 when the loadings of all measurement
items were on a common latent factor. According to the indices re-
commended by the previous study (Hu & Bentler, 1999), we can draw
the conclusion that the model fitting is undesirable and there was no
methodological factor that can explain most variation. In addition, we
adopted another method to detect whether there are common method
biases based on previous studies (Jarvis & Petty, 1996; Litman & Pezzo,
2005). In the new method, two models were developed and compared
to each other. Model A was comprised of 7 factors (impulsivity, self-
control, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness,
neuroticism) with paths leading to the items hypothesized to load on
that factor. Model B was the same as Model A, but also included a
common method variance factor. The results demonstrated that Model
B (7 factors + 1 common method factor) did not improve the fitting
index significantly when compared with Model A (Δχ2/df = 0.160,
We adopted the path analysis method of Structural Equation Model
to test the mediating effect of self-control on the influence of the Big
Five Personality on individual impulsivity. The results showed that the
beta values of these three paths (agreeableness → self-control, extra-
version → self-control, and agreeableness → impulsivity) were 0.005,
−0.038, and 0.038 respectively (all ps > 0.05). Therefore, we deleted
the three paths and then analyzed it again. The new model showed
excellent fit to data: χ2/df = 1.697 < 2.00, RMSEA = 0.029 < 0.06,
GFI = 0.999, AGFI = 0.985, NFI = 0.999, RFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.994,
CFI = 1.000, which were all > 0.900; and FMIN value was 0.002,
which was close to 0. Based on the criteria recommended by Hu and
Bentler (1999), we can draw the conclusion that the fitting results of the
model are good, and the overall model is adequately fit (see Fig. 1).
In the new model, agreeableness did not enter into the path analysis.
Table 2 showed the total effect of four other dimensions of the Big Five
Personality and the indirect effect through self-control. It can be seen
from the Table 2 that conscientiousness has the greatest overall effect
on impulsivity, followed by neuroticism, while the effect of extraver-
sion and openness on impulsivity is relatively small. Besides, con-
scientiousness and openness have negative effects on individual im-
pulsivity, and neuroticism and extraversion have positive effects on
impulsivity. In general, self-control played an important mediation role
in the influence of openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism on
individual impulsivity. That is, people who have high levels of

Fig. 1. The mediation of self-control: the effect of Big Five Personality on impulsivity.

72
T. Mao et al.
Table 2
Total effect and direct effect.
Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect
(Proportion of by self-control
the total effect) (Proportion of
the total effect)
Extraversion—impulsivity 0.074⁎⁎ 0.074⁎⁎ (100%) 0 (0.00%)
Openness—impulsivity −0.069⁎⁎⁎ −0.121⁎⁎⁎ 0.052⁎⁎⁎
(70.46%) (29.54%)
Conscientiousness—impulsivity −0.605⁎⁎⁎ −0.363⁎⁎⁎ −0.242⁎⁎⁎
(60.00%) (40.00%)
Neuroticism—impulsivity 0.260⁎⁎⁎ 0.114⁎⁎⁎ 0.145⁎⁎⁎
(44.23%) (55.77%)
⁎⁎
p < 0.01
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.
neuroticism and conscientiousness or low levels of openness are likely
to induce greater self-control, which in turn contributed to reducing
impulsivity.
4. Discussion
The objective of the current study was to examine the mediating
role of self-control on the relationship between personality traits and
impulsivity. The study tested three hypotheses: (1) self-control would
be related to impulsivity, (2) personality traits would be related to self-
control, of which conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness
would have a strong correlation with self-control while openness and
extraversion would have a relatively weak correlation with self-control,
(3) self-control would mediate the relationship between personality
traits (especially conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness)
and impulsivity. These hypotheses were mostly supported.
Correlational results showed that there was a significant negative
correlation between self-control and impulsivity, which was consistent
with previous studies (Friese & Hofmann, 2009; Ludwig et al., 2013;
Nebioglu et al., 2012; Wolff et al., 2016). As to the relationship between
the Big Five Personality and self-control, neuroticism was significantly
negatively associated with self-control, while other four personality
traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness)
were significantly positively associated with self-control. Of the five
personality traits, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness
are the closest to self-control and followed by openness and extraver-
sion. The results were similar to previous studies (Andrei et al., 2014;
Bazzy et al., 2017; Green et al., 2016; Schlegel et al., 2013; Vries &
Gelder, 2013). It also showed the weak relationship between both
openness and extraversion and self-control. As high order traits, each
dimension of the Big Five Personality has some separate secondary
structures. Such as openness includes fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, ac-
tions, ideas, and values; conscientiousness includes competence, order,
dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation; ex-
traversion includes warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity,
excitement seeking and positive emotion; agreeableness includes trust,
straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tendermind-
edness; neuroticism includes anxiety, hostility, depression, self-con-
sciousness, impulsiveness and vulnerability to stress (Altaras-
Dimitrijevic, 2012). Therefore, from the secondary structure of the
high-order structure of the Big Five Personality, it seems that con-
scientiousness and neuroticism do have a better agreement with the
concept of self-control than the other three dimensions. Therefore,
neuroticism and conscientiousness have relatively high ability to in-
terpret and predict self-control. Besides, as lower-order of con-
scientiousness, deliberation seems to be the opposite of impulsivity.
And, impulsiveness (as lower-order of neuroticism) and excitement
seeking (as lower-order of extraversion), might be positively related to
impulsivity. In future research, relationships with the secondary
structure characteristics of personality dimensions should be explored.
73
Personality and Individual Differences 129 (2018) 70–75
The most important finding of this study is that self-control acted as
a mediator of the relationship between personality traits (con-
scientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) and impulsivity. Impulsivity
varies between individuals. Conscientiousness appears to be a central
element of self-control, neuroticism and openness have also been im-
plicated as correlates of self-control. Impulsive precursors of behavior
would transfer into impulsive behavior more readily for people with
weak self-control abilities compared to those with stronger self-control
abilities. In other words, individuals with high levels of neuroticism and
conscientiousness or low levels of openness are likely to induce greater
self-control, which in turn contributed to decreasing in impulsivity.
Agreeableness did not enter into the mediation model for it was not
significantly associated with impulsivity. Extraversion entered into the
mediation model, but the direct effect is very small (0.074), and no
indirect effect through self-control appeared. One potential possible
reason may be that both agreeableness and extraversion had a weak
correlation with impulsivity and self-control in this context. Besides, the
effect value of conscientiousness is the biggest in the total effect, as well
as in the indirect effect. The second is neuroticism and then is openness.
Among the total effect of the Big Five Personality traits on impulsivity,
conscientiousness and openness have a negative effect on impulsivity,
and neuroticism has a positive effect on impulsivity. Furthermore,
among the indirect effect through self-control, conscientiousness has a
negative effect on impulsivity, and neuroticism and openness have a
positive effect on impulsivity. Previous research found that con-
scientiousness and its secondary structures had significant correlations
with many behaviors (e.g., chronotype, work performance, motivation,
health behaviors, academic performance) (Rahafar, Castellana,
Randler, & Antunez, 2017), and can also effectively explain and predict
these behaviors. The results of this study also demonstrated that con-
scientiousness might play a more pronounced role in predicting im-
pulsivity through self-control. Based on the results mentioned above,
we can draw the conclusion that self-control plays a role in how im-
pulsivity determines the personality profile that people develop: per-
haps those who are high in impulsivity consequently become more
neurotic and less aggregable through a lack of self-control, while
something else is going on in terms of conscientiousness.
Several limitations should be noted in the current study. First, this
study had a cross-sectional design which makes it difficult to draw any
causal relationship among the variables. In future, researchers may
conduct experimental or longitudinal studies to examine the mediation
model. Second, the data relied exclusively on self-report measures and
the sample were all from online, both multiple assessment methods and
multiple data collecting methods may be used to further strengthen the
validity of the findings in future studies. Another limitation is that only
BIS-11 was used as dependent variable. To date, there is a growing
consensus that impulsivity is a multidimensional construct containing
impulsive action and impulsive choice (Bari & Robbins, 2013; Dalley,
Everitt, & Robbins, 2011; Nigg, 2017; Wang et al., 2016), which are
both usually measured by behavioral tasks. However, many studies
found that there was no significant correlation between self-report and
behavioral approaches to the measurement of impulsivity (Farr, Hu,
Zhang, & Chiang-shan, 2012), suggesting that these measurement
modes reflected a difference between trait impulsivity and specific
impulsivity processes (Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, Schmitz, & Swann,
2001). Furthermore, one study found that there was clearly neural
dissociations between impulsive choice and impulsive action (Wang
et al., 2016). Another study reported that agreeableness was the best
predictor of interpersonal impulsivity, whereas conscientiousness was
the best predictor of schoolwork impulsivity (Tsukayama, Duckworth,
& Kim, 2013). Based on the above mentioned, further study may divide
the multidimensional structure of impulsivity into a more detailed di-
vision, and then further to explore the relationship between personality
and impulsivity.
Despite these limitations, the current study is the first attempt to
investigate the relationship between personality traits, self-control, and
T. Mao et al.
impulsivity in a sample of participants in the Chinese context. The study
provides important implications for understanding the link between
personality traits, self-control, and impulsivity. Impulsivity is not
merely a lack of self-control, but rather a manifestation of relatively
high levels of appetitive motivation for which self-control may serve as
a buffer to modulate acting on such appetites. Low impulsivity doesn't
necessarily reflect a degree of self-control, but rather correspond to
lower levels of experienced desire, drive, or appetite. This could have
implications for all manner of situations in which approach or avoid-
ance motives might come into play. For example, one study examined
relationships between Interest(I) and Deprivation (D) type epistemic
curiosity (EC) and several aspects of self-regulation and found that I-
type reflected a carefree approach to learning, while D-type involved
thoughtfulness and caution (Lauriola et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
findings of this mechanism can provide useful suggestions to decrease
individual's impulsivity. Impulsivity induces to undesirable outcomes in
both healthy people (Chuang et al., 2017; Everitt & Robbins, 2013;
Schag, Schonleber, Teufel, Zipfel, & Giel, 2013) and clinical patients
(Fineberg et al., 2014; Hamilton et al., 2015; Plichta & Scheres, 2014).
In fact, many prevalent social problems result from deficits in self-
control (Friese & Hofmann, 2009). Therefore, training and improving
self-control is potentially highly consequential.
5. Conclusion
The current results demonstrate that the Big Five Personality traits
are significantly related to impulsivity among Chinese adults, and self-
control is one mechanism underlying this relationship. Individuals with
high levels of neuroticism and conscientiousness or low levels of
openness are likely to induce greater self-control, which in turn con-
tributed to decreasing in impulsivity. Nevertheless, given the multi-
dimensional structure of both personality and impulsivity, further in-
vestigation is highly necessary.
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (No. 2016YFB0404202); the Innovation
Project of Graduate School of South China Normal University (No.
2017WKXM007); the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. U1501244, 51561135014); the Guangdong Innovative
Research Team Program (No. 2013C102); the Science and Technology
project of Guangdong Province (No. 2014B090914004); the Guangdong
Provincial Key Laboratory of Optical Information Materials and
Technology (Grant No. 2017B030301007); the Guangzhou Key
Laboratory of Electronic Paper Displays Materials and Devices
(201705030007) and MOE International Laboratory for Optical
Information Technologies and the 111 Project.
References
Altaras-Dimitrijevic, A. (2012). A faceted eye on intellectual giftedness: Examining the
personality of gifted students using FFM domains and facets. Psihologija, 45(3),
231–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/psi1203231a.
Andrei, F., Mancini, G., Trombini, E., Baldaro, B., & Russo, P. M. (2014). Testing the
incremental validity of Trait Emotional Intelligence: Evidence from an Italian sample
of adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.02.007.
Bari, A., & Robbins, T. (2013). Inhibition and impulsivity: Behavioral and neural basis of
response control. Progress in Neurobiology, 108, 44–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
pneurobio.2013.06.005.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2010). The strength model of self-control.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x.
Bazzy, J. D., Woehr, D. J., & Borns, J. (2017). An examination of the role of self-control
and impact of Ego depletion on integrity testing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
39(2), 101–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1283502.
Chuang, C. I., Sussman, S., Stone, M. D., Pang, R. D., Chou, C. P., Leventhal, A. M., &
Kirkpatrick, M. G. (2017). Impulsivity and history of behavioral addictions are as-
sociated with drug use in adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 74, 41–47. http://dx.doi.
74
Personality and Individual Differences 129 (2018) 70–75
org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.021.
Dalley, J., Everitt, B., & Robbins, T. (2011). Impulsivity, compulsivity, and top-down
cognitive control. Neuron, 69(4), 680–694.
Dalley, J. W., & Robbins, T. W. (2017). Fractionating impulsivity: Neuropsychiatric im-
plications. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 18(3), 158–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nrn.2017.8.
Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-
control measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268.
Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2013). From the ventral to the dorsal striatum: Devolving
views of their roles in drug addiction. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(9 Pt
A), 1946–1954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.010.
Farr, O. M., Hu, S., Zhang, S., & Chiang-shan, R. L. (2012). Decreased saliency processing
as a neural measure of Barratt impulsivity in healthy adults. NeuroImage, 63(3),
1070–1077.
Fineberg, N. A., Chamberlain, S. R., Goudriaan, A. E., Stein, D. J., Vanderschuren, L. J.,
Gillan, C. M. et al. Potenza, M. N. (2014). New developments in human neurocog-
nition: Clinical, genetic, and brain imaging correlates of impulsivity and compul-
sivity. CNS Spectrums, 19(1), 69–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S1092852913000801.
Friese, M., & Hofmann, W. (2009). Control me or I will control you: Impulses, trait self-
control, and the guidance of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5),
795–805.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common
methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
3192–3198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.
Green, J. A., O'Connor, D. B., Gartland, N., & Roberts, B. W. (2016). The Chernyshenko
conscientiousness scales: A new facet measure of conscientiousness. Assessment,
23(3), 374–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191115580639.
Hair, P., & Hampson, S. E. (2006). The role of impulsivity in predicting maladaptive
behaviour among female students. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(5),
943–952.
Hamilton, K. R., Mitchell, M. R., Wing, V. C., Balodis, I. M., Bickel, W. K., Fillmore, M.
et al. Moeller, F. G. (2015). Choice impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and
clinical implications. Personal Disord, 6(2), 182–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
per0000099.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may
not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tics.2013.12.009.
Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 172–194.
Lange, F., Wagner, A., Muller, A., & Eggert, F. (2017). Subscales of the Barratt impul-
siveness scale differentially relate to the Big Five factors of personality. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 254–259.
Lauriola, M., Litman, J. A., Mussel, P., Santis, R. D., Crowson, H. M., & Hoffman, R. R.
(2015). Epistemic curiosity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences,
83, 202–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.017.
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2005). Individual differences in attitudes towards gossip.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 963–980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2004.09.003.
Ludwig, V. U., Stelzel, C., Krutiak, H., Prunkl, C. E., Steimke, R., Paschke, L. M. et al.
Walter, H. (2013). Impulsivity, self-control, and hypnotic suggestibility. Consciousness
and Cognition, 22(2), 637–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.001.
Luo, Y. H., Cai, T. S., & Chen, G. (2014). The characteristics of impulsivity and its re-
lationship with the Big Five Personality in criminals. Chinese Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 22(4), 691–695.
Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, A. C. (2001).
Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(11),
1783–1793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783.
Nebioglu, M., Konuk, N., Akbaba, S., & Eroglu, Y. (2012). The investigation of validity
and reliability of the Turkish version of the brief self-control scale. Klinik
Psikofarmakoloji Bulteni, 22(4), 340–351.
Nigg, J. T. (2017). Annual research review: On the relations among self-regulation, self-
control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-
taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 361–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12675.
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt
impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, (6), 768–774.
Plichta, M. M., & Scheres, A. (2014). Ventral–striatal responsiveness during reward an-
ticipation in adhd and its relation to trait impulsivity in the healthy population: A
meta-analytic review of the fmri literature. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,
38(2), 125–134.
Rahafar, A., Castellana, I., Randler, C., & Antunez, J. M. (2017). Conscientiousness but
not agreeableness mediates females' tendency toward being a morning person.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 249–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sjop.
12362.
Russo, P. M., Leone, L., Penolazzi, B., & Natale, V. (2012). Circadian preference and the
big five: The role of impulsivity and sensation seeking. Chronobiology International,
29(8), 1121–1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2012.706768.
Schag, K., Schonleber, J., Teufel, M., Zipfel, S., & Giel, K. E. (2013). Food-related im-
pulsivity in obesity and binge eating disorder—A systematic review. Obesity Reviews,
14(6), 477–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.12017.
Schlegel, K., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). Constructs of social and emotional
T. Mao et al.
effectiveness: Different labels, same content? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4),
249–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.005.
Tan, S. H., & Guo, Y. Y. (2008). Revision of self-control scale for Chinese college students.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16(5), 468–470.
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.
Tsukayama, E., Duckworth, A. L., & Kim, B. (2013). Domain-specific impulsivity in
school-age children. Developmental Science, 16(6), 879–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/desc.12067.
Vries, R. E. D., & Gelder, J. L. V. (2013). Tales of two self-control scales: Relations with
five-factor and hexaco traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 756–760.
75
Personality and Individual Differences 129 (2018) 70–75
Wang, M. C., Dai, X. Y., & Yao, S. Q. (2011). Development of the Chinese Big Five
Personality Inventory (CBF-PI) III: Psychometric properties of CBF-PI brief version.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(4), 454–457.
Wang, Q., Chen, C., Cai, Y., Li, S., Zhao, X., Zheng, L. et al. Xue, G. (2016). Dissociated
neural substrates underlying impulsive choice and impulsive action. NeuroImage, 134,
540–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.010.
Wolff, M., Kronke, K. M., & Goschke, T. (2016). Trait self-control is predicted by how
reward associations modulate Stroop interference. Psychological Research, 80(6),
944–951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0707-4.
Xian-Yun, L. I., Phillips, M. R., Dong, X. U., Zhang, Y. L., Yang, S. J., Tong, Y. S., et al.
(2011). Reliability and validity of an adapted Chinese version of Barratt impulsive-
ness scale. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25(8), 610–615.