IMPACT OF WORKING MEMORY LOAD AND EMOTIONAL VALENCE ON STATE

IMPULSIVITY: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

BY

DAMLA ECE AKSEN

BS, Middle East Technical University, 2016

MS, Binghamton University (SUNY), 2019

DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology
in the Graduate School of
Binghamton University
State University of New York
2023
© Copyright by Damla E. Aksen, 2023

All Rights Reserved

 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology
in the Graduate School of
Binghamton University
State University of New York
2023

March 27, 2023

Steven Jay Lynn, Ph.D., Faculty Advisor

Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (State University of New York)

Deanne L. Westerman, Ph.D., Member

Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (State University of New York)

Loretta Mason-Williams, Ph.D., Outside Examiner

Department of Teaching, Learning, & Educational Leadership, Binghamton
University (State University of New York)

Mark Lenzenweger, Ph.D., Member

Department of Psychology, Binghamton University (State University of New York)

iii
 Abstract

Theoretical conceptualizations and empirical evidence indicate that working memory,

emotions, and impulsivity are interrelated. Nevertheless, research is lacking on the

relations among these variables within a single study. Disagreement exists regarding

the relation between working memory (WM) deficits and state impulsivity, and

research on emotions and impulsivity is mostly confined to correlational evidence. To

address these issues, I (a) manipulated the level of updating working memory load

with a visual N-back task (Kirchner, 1958) and emotional state by varying the valence

(positive, negative, neutral; International Affective Picture System (IAPS), Bradley,

& Lang, 1999) of pictures to-be-recognized; (b) assessed resultant impulsivity with

the Delay Discounting and Probability task (Richards et al., 1999); (c) investigated

whether sex, affect, trait mindfulness, impulsivity, emotion regulation, dissociation,

neuroticism, depression, ego dissolution, and reports of alcohol and cannabis use

moderate the effect of updating working memory performance on state impulsivity.

Findings based on 335 community participants revealed no hypothesized differences

in state impulsivity as a function of emotion valence and updating working memory

performance. Moderation analyses revealed that trait impulsivity, cannabis use, and

emotion regulation moderated the relation between updating working memory

performance and state impulsivity in the positive emotion condition. This study

suggests that state impulsivity is not impacted by emotion valence and updating

working memory. Findings highlight the need for converging measures of state

iv
impulsivity and further investigation into the relations among emotions, updating

working memory, and impulsivity.

Keywords: impulsivity, updating working memory overload, emotion

v
 Acknowledgements

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mentor and advisor, Dr.

Steven Jay Lynn, for his continuous support of my dissertation study and related

research and his mentorship, instrumental guidance, support, and patience. Second, I

would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Mark Lenzenweger, Dr. Deanne L. Westerman,

and Dr. Loretta Mason-Williams, as I am grateful for their valuable feedback and

insight on this dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank my family, Senay, Kerim,

and Ivonne for their continued support, encouragement, and love.

vi
 Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. v

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

Impulsivity ......................................................................................................... 1

Working Memory............................................................................................... 6

Emotion Induction ........................................................................................... 10

Potential Correlates and Moderators ................................................................ 11

Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 14

Methodology ................................................................................................................ 16

Participants ....................................................................................................... 16

Power Analysis ................................................................................................ 16

Measures .......................................................................................................... 17

N-back .................................................................................................. 17

International Affective Picture System ................................................ 18

Delay Discounting Probability Task .................................................... 19

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule................................................ 19

Dissociative Experiences Scale-II........................................................ 20

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire ................................................ 20

Urgency, Premeditation (lack of), Perseverance (lack of, Sensation

Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive Behavior Scale ........................ 21

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale- 1 .................................... 21

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Brief From .................... 22

iii
 Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test- Revised ......................... 22

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test .......................................... 23

Ego-Dissolution Inventory ................................................................... 23

Patient Health Questionnaire-8 ............................................................ 23

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale ............................................ 24

Procedure ......................................................................................................... 24

Response Validity ................................................................................ 25

Manipulation Checks ........................................................................... 26

Design Concerns .................................................................................. 26

Data Analytic Plan ........................................................................................... 28

Results .......................................................................................................................... 31

Preliminary Analyses ....................................................................................... 31

Manipulation Checks and Response Validity ...................................... 31

Participant Characteristics ................................................................... 31

Stimuli Effects: Manipulation Checks ................................................. 32

Main Analyses: Major Hypotheses .................................................................. 33

Delay Discounting and Probability Task ............................................. 34

Exploratory Moderation Analyses ................................................................... 36

Discussion .................................................................................................................... 39

References .................................................................................................................... 50

iv
List of Tables

Table 1…………………………………………………………….…………………62

Table 2………………………………………………………...…………..…………63

Table 3………………………………………………………...…………..…………64

Table 4………………………………………………………...…………..…………66

Table 5………………………………………………………...…………..…………66

Table 6………………………………………………………...…………..…………68

Table 7……………………………………………………………………………….69

Table 8………………………………………………………...…………..…………70

Table 9………………………………………………………...…………..…………71

v
 Introduction

Impulsivity

Impulsivity can be defined as a “tendency to act spontaneously and without

deliberation” (Carver, 2005, p. 313) and, relatedly, as a propensity to unplanned,

emotion-driven action (Joyner et al., 2021, p. 31). Researchers have also variously

defined impulsivity as (a) a personality dimension that involves the failure to resist

drives or the impulse to put oneself or others in danger; (b) a characteristic of

individuals who are restless, risk-takers, sensation seekers, and are doers rather than

thinkers (Barratt, 1993); and (c) as a state that fluctuates over time and across

situations and is reflected, for example, in a diminished ability to delay gratification,

susceptibility to boredom, and hedonism (Petry, 2001).

Impulsivity is an important focus of research and diverse clinical interventions

as it contributes to problem behaviors across many psychological disorders catalogued

in DSM-5 (APA, 2013; Beauchaine & Neuhaus, 2008). More specifically, impulsivity

is included in the diagnostic criteria for impulse control disorders and is represented

by many conditions, including gambling disorder, pyromania, kleptomania,

trichotillomania, personality disorders (borderline, antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic),

manic episodes of bipolar disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),

intermittent explosive disorder, substance use disorders, autism spectrum disorder,

and conduct disorder. The broad range of impulse-related disorders and problems

constitutes a significant proportion of the general population, as reflected in a study

1
finding that 17% of 34,653 adults over age 18 reported notable levels of both trait and

state impulsivity (Chamorro et al., 2012).

Researchers, however, often study impulsivity as a stand-alone construct,

independent of any particular disorder, whether the condition is diagnosed as an

internalizing disorder (e.g., depression, anxiety) or as an externalizing disorder (e.g.,

conduct disorder, substance abuse, antisocial behavior) marked by socially

inappropriate or “excessive” behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, binge eating) and

deficits in self-regulation (Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2008). Although some individuals

struggle with impulsivity in the context of a psychological disorder (Berg et al.,

2015), others exhibit impulsive behaviors as a function of their internal affective state,

current circumstances, and their responses to those circumstances (Kisa et al., 2005;

Nguyen et al., 2018). Research has suggested that the construct of impulsivity may be

more complex than researchers previously acknowledged. For example, Sharma et al.

(2014) proposed a theory that distinguishes between different types of impulsive

behaviors, including reward-driven impulsivity and emotion-driven impulsivity.

Whereas the theory has been subject to criticism (Creswell et al., 2019), it highlights

the imperative to consider diverse antecedents of impulsive behavior.

Before proceeding further, it is important to distinguish impulsivity from the

related construct of disinhibition. Like impulsivity, disinhibition is characterized by

deficits in constraint and in the ability to regulate behaviors and emotions.

Disinhibition, however, is more typically and specifically linked with “recklessness,

lack of planning and forethought,” which poses a liability in relation to externalizing

disorders marked by an inability to control behaviors (see Joyner et al., 2021, p. 30;

Patrick et al., 2009).

2
 Moreover, researchers have typically not documented a reliable link between

trait measures of impulsivity and behavioral indices of loss of inhibitory control (see

Joyner et al., 2021; MacKillop et al., 2016), and Joyner et al. (2021) determined that

whereas trait disinhibition was “selectively associated with externalizing problems”

(p. 30), impulsivity was more specifically linked to more global negative affectivity.

In contrast with trait impulsivity, and the related yet distinct construct of

disinhibition, my research focuses primarily on state impulsivity. State impulsivity

refers to an impulsive and often highly variable response to contextual intrinsic and

extrinsic stimuli that is exhibited and can be assessed on a momentary basis (Bari et

al., 2011; De Wit, 2009; Wingrove & Bond, 1997). Accordingly, variations in state

impulsivity impact individuals across diverse domains of life, ranging from mundane

activities to making important decisions with serious and potentially life-altering

consequences (Beauchaine & Neuhaus, 2008).

State impulsivity and trait impulsivity are commonly studied in relation to

impulsive behaviors. Whereas the constructs are often related, discrepancies may be

evident, particularly in certain contexts. For example, level of state impulsivity does

not consistently align with level of trait impulsivity in situations associated with

substance use or strong emotions (Schippers et al., 2010). However, some studies

have found a positive correlation between state and trait impulsivity in tempting or

risk-related situations that are prone to elicit impulsive behavior (Carver & Johnson,

2010). However, other studies have found little or no relation between the two

constructs, and researchers have documented negative correlations as well (Whiteside

& Lynam, 2001). These mixed findings suggest that the interplay between state and

trait impulsivity may be complex and context-dependent, varying in relation to the

3
specific impulsive behaviors examined. Accordingly, more research is needed to

better understand the relation between state and trait impulsivity.

Researchers have identified determinants of state impulsivity including limited

working memory capacity, negative affect, and sleep deprivation (Anderson &

Platten, 2011; Hinson et al., 2003; Jameson et al., 2004; Pecchinenda et al., 2006;

Sperry et al., 2016) and have assessed impulsivity in diverse ways, including self-

report questionnaires, behavioral tasks, and physiological measures. For example,

some researchers have used self-report questionnaires such as the UPPS-P Impulsive

Behavior Scale (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) or the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale

(Patton et al., 1995) to index trait impulsivity, as well as a modified version to study

state impulsivity, whereas other researchers have used behavioral tasks as state

measures that include the Stop Signal Task (Lijffijt et al., 2005) or the Balloon

Analogue Risk Task (Lejuez et al., 2002) and measure state impulsiveness in real-

time. The Stop Signal Task (SST) assesses the ability to inhibit a pre-potent response

(Lijffijt et al., 2005), whereas the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) requires

participants to repeatedly choose between inflating a virtual balloon to earn increasing

amounts of money or stopping to cash out winnings, with the risk of the balloon

bursting and losing all winnings (Lejuez et al., 2002). Additionally, some studies have

implemented physiological measures, such as heart rate variability (HRV) and/or

cortisol levels, to index state impulsivity (e.g., Verdejo-Garcia & Bechara, 2005).

My study capitalizes on a commonly used delay discounting and probability

task (DDPT; Richards et al., 1999) to assess state impulsivity. The DDPT is based on

a widely used paradigm of delay discounting, which assumes that the inclination to

opt for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards is a fundamental

characteristic of impulsive behavior. Compared to other state impulsivity measures,

4
like the Go/No-Go task or the Continuous Performance Task, delay discounting tasks

have demonstrated greater potential in predicting real-world impulsive behaviors,

such as drug abuse and risky sexual behavior (Madden et al., 1997; Reynolds et al.,

2002). Moreover, the DDPT exhibits good internal consistency and construct validity

(Olson et al., 2007), sensitivity in documenting individual differences in impulsivity,

and has provided valuable insights regarding cognitive and motivational processes

underlying impulsive decision-making (Bickel et al., 2012).

State measures, like the DDPT, which possess high reliability and validity,

have been utilized in studies that examine the impact of diverse variables such as

emotions, working memory capacity, and substance use, on state impulsivity (Lejuez

et al., 2002; Lijffijt et al., 2005; Mitchell et al., 2014; McTavish et al., 2015).

Nevertheless, extant measures of state impulsivity often do not correlate very highly

with measures of trait impulsivity (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2018;

Reynolds et al., 2008; Wingrove & Bond, 1997). These findings underline (a) the

potential independence of state and trait impulsivity; (b) the value of research geared

to examine the link between state and trait impulsivity; and the value of developing

psychometrically sound, widely used consensus measures of these constructs. Thus,

one aim of my research is to further elucidate the link between a measure of state

impulsivity (DDPT) and a widely used measure of trait impulsivity (UPPS).

My research aims to investigate impulsivity in terms of the impact of low vs.

high updating working memory capacity and emotion valence (i.e., negative, neutral,

positive) on state impulsivity. Despite concerted efforts to define impulsivity and

investigate how it contributes to maladaptive behaviors, psychological disorders, and

decision-making (e.g., seeking immediate gratification, risky choices), the effects of

emotional stimuli and updating working memory load on state impulsivity continue to

5
remain unclear (Dawe & Loxton, 2004; Estibaliz & Carmen, 2006). More

specifically, whereas studies have explored relations among impulsivity and variables

such as substance use, executive functioning, and sensation-seeking (Ellingson et al.,

2014; Hartfield-Eldred et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2009), knowledge of the impact

of emotional states and updating working memory load on state impulsivity remains

under-researched and elusive, as discussed in the following section.

In light of these gaps in our understanding of the antecedents of impulsivity, it

is crucial to investigate updating working memory load and emotional stimuli as

potential variables that influence state. Specifically, I will determine how state

impulsivity is impacted by emotions of varying valence (i.e., positive, negative,

neutral) and constrained by updating working memory capacity (high vs. low). In

sum, my study is designed to elucidate the relations among impulsivity, emotions, and

updating working memory, which I will discuss in the next section.

Working Memory

Working memory is a type of short-term memory that serves as the interim

between perception and long-term memory and is responsible for the temporary

retrieval, maintenance, and manipulation of information prerequisite to carrying out

cognitive tasks such as learning, reasoning, comprehension, language processing, and

completing daily tasks (Cowan, 2014). The central executive component of working

memory--the general processing capacity that intervenes when routine and

habitualized control mechanisms are insufficient to facilitate adaptive self-control and

emotion regulation--integrates information from perception, attention, and memory to

do so (Baddeley, 2003).

Updating working memory is a critical aspect of cognitive processes that

underlie many everyday tasks, including learning, problem solving, and decision

6
making (Diamond, 2013). More specifically, updating WM is the process of replacing

outdated information in working memory with new information crucial to adapting to

changing circumstances and to informed and adaptive decision-making (Olesen et al.,

2004). Olesen et al. (2004), for example, found that individuals with high updating

memory ability exhibited greater regulation of their emotions and behavior compared

to individuals with relatively low updating ability. Compared to other types of

working memory, updating working memory specifically relates to the regulation of

emotions and behavior, thereby qualifying updating as a unique aspect of working

memory relevant studying impulsivity. Kwok et al. (2021), for example, found that

higher working memory capacity predicts better decision-making and lower levels of

impulsivity. Importantly, working memory training improves emotion regulation and

reduces impulsivity in adolescents (Liao et al., 2020), underscoring the plasticity of

working memory and its potential for enhancement as well as the limited capacity of

working memory and the need for efficient regulation of cognitive demands.

Not surprisingly, working memory overload impairs emotion regulation and

can increase impulsivity (Kohn et al., 2017), perhaps as a function of increased

sensitivity to rewards and sensation seeking, thereby abetting impulsivity and

behavioral disinhibition (Finn et al., 2002; Hinson et al., 2003). Low working memory

capacity and reduced executive ability also increases vulnerability to impulsive

behavior in daily life, including addictions (i.e., alcohol, cocaine, marijuana; Day et

al., 2013; Finn et al, 2002). However, studies of the effects of working memory on

impulsivity have proved to be inconsistent or ambiguous: Some studies have

documented that working memory overload increases impulsive responding in males

but not females, whereas other studies have questioned whether working memory

overload induces random responding rather than impulsive responding (Franco-

7
Watkins et al., 2006; Hartfield-Eldred et al., 2015; Hinson et al., 2003), clouding the

interpretation of previous studies.

In order to assess memory updating ability and working memory performance

in the present study, I used the N-back task (Kirchner, 1958), a widely used cognitive

task that assesses working memory. In this task, participants view a sequence of

stimuli, which could be numbers, letters, shapes, pictures, or words (Coulacoglou &

Saklofske, 2017; Kirchner, 1958; Kopf et al., 2013; Ribeiro et al., 2019). In the

present study, I presented single images sequentially and asked participants if the

current stimulus is the same as the one presented N-trials back (e.g., 1 or 4 trials).

The N-back task is a reliable measure of updating WM and WM performance

due to the complex cognitive processes involved (Gajewski et al., 2018), as

participants must encode and store each stimulus in the sequence in working memory

while they continuously update this information as new stimuli are presented (Owen

et al., 2005). Additionally, irrelevant items must be inhibited, and currently irrelevant

items must be removed from working memory. A counting and matching process

between the upcoming and stored stimulus in working memory is necessary to decide

whether the stimulus is the same and initiate a correct response (Kane et al., 2007).

These processes require a range of cognitive functions, including attention, inhibition,

and updating, and are known to be associated with performance on various cognitive

tasks (Chatham et al., 2011; Friedman et al., 2006; Soutschek et al., 2018).

Additionally, the N-back task is associated with activity in brain regions

important for working memory, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)

(Owen et al., 2005; Redick et al., 2013), which is involved in cognitive processes that

include attentional control, inhibition, and updating. Accordingly, the DLPFC is

believed to play a critical role in working memory (Barrouillet & Camos, 2015;

8
Miyake et al., 2000). These findings suggest that the N-back task is a useful tool for

studying neural and cognitive mechanisms underlying working memory and its role in

everyday cognition.

Researchers have provided further evidence that the N-back task is useful for

assessing updating working memory performance. Redick et al. (2013), for example,

suggested that the N-back task exhibited good test-retest reliability and was sensitive

to individual differences in updating ability. Similarly, training programs that target

updating ability using tasks, such as the N-back task, can improve working memory

and other cognitive abilities (Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013). Furthermore, the N-

back task has demonstrated good reliability and validity across different populations,

documenting its usefulness in assessing updating ability and working memory

capacity (Jaeggi et al., 2010; Redick et al., 2013).

An overall aim of my research is to replicate and extend previous studies that

have evaluated the effects of working memory on state impulsivity (Finn et al., 1999;

Hatfield-Eldred et al., 2015; Hinson et al., 2003; Pecchinenda et al., 2006), by

exposing participants to low and high-load working memory conditions and including

emotion inductions using emotionally-valenced negative, neutral, and positive

pictures, as described in the next section. My study clarifies the extent to which low

working memory capacity increases state impulsivity and whether the effects of

working memory performance on state impulsivity are comparable across different

induced emotions. A strong methodological feature of my study is that I excluded

participants from statistical analyses who responded randomly to the delayed

discounting task, thereby eliminating random responding as an alternative explanation

for the outcomes secured.

9
Emotion Induction

Researchers have well established (a) that emotions can negatively impact

both WM performance and impulsivity (Cyders et al., 2012; Grissman et al., 2017;

Raczy & Orzechowski, 2019; Smith & Cyders, 2016) and (b) have explored the

relation between emotions and impulsivity via self-report measures of trait

impulsivity that incorporate negative and positive urgency based on the theory that

individuals high in trait impulsivity act reflexively and impulsively to extreme

positive and negative emotions (Smith & Cyders, 2016). However, previous studies

have not directly compared the impact of eliciting different emotions on state

impulsivity utilizing a WM task.

This omission is particularly important because, in response to strong

emotions, individuals may focus on short-term gains or needs while they

underestimate the probability of negative consequences and become distracted from

engaging in optimal rational decision making (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004). Emotion

inductions also impair WM performance, with some studies finding negative mood

inductions to be more impairing (Grissman et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2019), whereas

other studies document the opposite pattern (Raczy & Orzechowski, 2019).

Additionally, researchers have observed gender differences in the impact of emotions

on both WM and impulsivity, with women generally showing a stronger effect

(Christiansen et al., 2016; Hamstra et al., 2018).

My study addresses salient research gaps by examining the inter-relations

among working memory, emotion, and impulsivity within the same study, thereby

permitting controlled evaluation of the impact of emotions and different updating

working memory loads on state impulsivity. In order to induce emotions, I utilized a

sequence of emotionally-valenced (i.e., negative, positive, or neutral) pictures of

10
complex scenes as stimuli during the N-back tasks (Kopf et al., 2013). Importantly,

previous studies document that emotionally-valenced pictures adequately induce

emotions, as intended (Choi et al., 2013; Fairfield et al., 2014; Kopf et al., 2013;

Marther et al., 2006; Martin, & Kerns, 2011; Palmiero & Piccard, 2017).

Potential Correlates and Moderators

The current research evaluates potential correlates and moderators of

impulsivity. Sex is the sole moderator variable that researchers have studied in

exploring the relation between working memory and impulsivity (Hartfield-Eldred et

al., 2015). Accordingly, research is needed to evaluate potential moderators of

impulsivity, including the variables examined herein that span emotion dysregulation,

dissociation, trait impulsivity, substance use, neuroticism, depression, ego dissolution,

and mindfulness.

Emotion regulation and impulsivity are strongly and negatively correlated

(Schreiber et al., 2012), and studies suggest that impulsive behaviors such as

substance abuse may ensue from lack of adaptive emotion regulation strategies

(Morrell et al., 2010; Selby et al., 2008; Wegner et al., 2002; Whiteside & Lynam,

2003). Researchers have determined that working memory capacity moderates the

relation between impulsivity and alcohol use (Ellingson et al., 2014). For example,

individuals with low memory capacity are more inclined towards poor decision

making, which might ultimately eventuate in alcohol use disorder compared with

people with high working memory capacity. However, researchers have not

considered how changes in updating working memory capacity, which vary in relation

to emotional states, impact state impulsivity.

Additionally, trait mindfulness strongly and negatively correlates with trait

impulsivity (Peters et al., 2011). Mindfulness skills may constrain impulsive

11
behaviors in the presence of negative affect or distress by enhancing awareness of

internal experiences and monitoring of impulses (Peters et al., 2011; Wingrove &

Bond, 1997).

Although both impulsivity and dissociation co-occur and appear to contribute

to symptoms of many disorders (e.g., pathological gambling, borderline personality

disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder), scant research addresses the direct link

between these two variables. Accordingly, researchers have been motivated to call

for investigating this potential relation (Evren et al., 2012; Gori et al., 2016;

Kulacaoglu et al., 2017; Somer et al., 2012). Although emerging evidence indicates

that impulsivity and dissociation are moderately and positively correlated, these

findings await replication (Aksen et al., 2020).

Likewise, neuroticism and impulsivity also co-occur in disorders such as

substance use disorders and eating disorders (Lee-Winn et al., 2016; Valero et al.,

2014). In fact, researchers developed the commonly used trait impulsivity scale, the

UPPS (Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking scale,

Whiteside & Lynam, 2001), used in the current research, based on the Five Factor

Model of personality, which includes neuroticism as one of its main facets (FFM,

McCrae & Costa, 1990). Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) determined that impulsivity

and neuroticism were moderately correlated.

Strong evidence indicates that depression and state impulsivity are positively

correlated. Individuals with high levels of depression exhibit greater impulsivity in

terms of motor behavior, non-planning, attention, and a tendency towards suicidal

thoughts, compared to their less depressed counterparts (Corruble et al., 2003;

Oumeziane & Foti, 2016; Swann et al., 2008). These findings suggest that depression

may moderate the relation between working memory and impulsive responding such

12
that individuals relatively high in depression will demonstrate more impulsive

responding than their less depressed counterparts when experiencing high working

memory load.

Negative urgency refers to the tendency to act impulsively in response to

negative emotions, particularly in high-arousal or distressing situations (Cyders &

Smith, 2008, p. 807). Negative urgency is considered a facet of the broader construct

of impulsivity and has been linked to negative outcomes, including substance abuse,

problematic gambling, and risky sexual behavior (Anestis et al., 2014; Billieux et al.,

2012; VanderVeen et al., 2016; Villaruel et al., 2020). Carver and Johnson (2018)

examined the relation between emotional impulsivity and psychopathology and found

evidence for a link between negative urgency and externalizing disorders.

Additionally, some studies have disclosed an association between impulsivity and

externalizing disorders, and researchers have linked emotional impulsivity to suicidal

ideation and behavior. Researchers reported that negative urgency at age 10 is

successful in predicting suicide attempts by age 25 (Carver & Johnson, 2018, p.

1042). Therefore, the moderating effect of emotional impulsivity on psychopathology

may be related to functional impairment and failures of response inhibition that are

affected by and/or integral to externalizing disorders (Carver & Johnson, 2018).

Impulsivity predicts and moderates both alcohol use and relapse (Charney et

al., 2010; Gray & Mackillop, 2014; Potenza & De Wit, 2010). For example, Reed et

al. (2012) determined that alcohol use increased both state and trait impulsivity, as

assessed by cognitive tasks and self-report measures. Likewise, recreational cannabis

use and cannabis use disorder are positively correlated with trait and state impulsivity

(Moreno et al., 2012). Moreover, cannabis users exhibit uncertainty and inefficient

use of information in decision making (Solowij et al., 2011). Finally, although

13
measures of trait and state impulsivity typically correlate only weakly, it is

nevertheless worthwhile to examine trait impulsivity as a moderator of state

impulsivity, as research on this relation is lacking.

In sum, my primary aims were to (1) evaluate the effect of updating working

memory load on impulsivity; (2) evaluate the effect of emotion on impulsivity; and

(3) investigate whether sex, affect, trait mindfulness, impulsivity, emotion regulation,

dissociation, neuroticism, depression, ego dissolution, alcohol and cannabis use

moderate the hypothesized relations described below.

Hypotheses

I hypothesize that (1) regardless of the emotion induced (i.e., positive, neutral,

negative condition), individuals in the high working memory load condition (i.e., 4 N-

back) will exhibit significantly greater impulsive responding compared with those in

the low working memory load condition (i.e., 1 N-back); (2) regardless of the working

memory load, there will be an independent effect of emotional valence on impulsivity

such that negative emotional stimuli will engender the greatest impulsive responding,

followed by positive emotions, and neutral emotions.

In keeping with Kopf et al. (2013), who, as noted above, used an N-back task

with emotionally-valenced images and found that participants in the negative emotion

condition had greater activation in the amygdala compared to those in the neutral

emotion condition, the current research explored an important research question: Will

the combination of high working memory load and negative emotional valence result

in the highest level of impulsive responding relative to other conditions?

In addition, I predict that trait impulsivity will moderate the effects of

working memory load on state impulsivity. More specifically, individuals who are

higher in trait impulsivity will respond more impulsively after the high load working

14
memory task as compared to the low load working memory task. Furthermore, I

predict that other dispositional traits such as high trait dissociation, depression,

cannabis use, alcohol use, neuroticism, and ego dissolution; and low trait mindfulness

and emotion regulation will moderate the effects of working memory load on state

impulsivity such that individuals who are high or low (depending on the trait) on these

dispositional traits will respond more impulsively after the high load working memory

task as compared to the low working memory task.

15
 Methodology

Participants

I recruited a community sample of 335 participants through Prolific, a

platform that provides high-quality data for behavioral science research (Eyal et al.,

2021). I collected demographic data to describe, distribute, and understand the

characteristics of the participants. The sample consisted of 52.4% females and 47.6%

males, (M = 35.16, SD = 11.177). Participants self-identified as White/Caucasian

(78.1%), Asian (4.3%), Black or African American (10.3%), and Hispanic/Latinx

(4.7%). In terms of sexual orientation, 76.4% identified as heterosexual, 10.7% as

bisexual, 4.7% as gay/lesbian, 1.7% as pansexual, 4.7% as asexual, and 1.3% as

queer.

Power Analysis

I conducted a power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.4 to determine the

minimum number of participants to detect effects from a 3 (Emotion: positive,

negative, neutral) x 2 (Trial: low WM load, high WM load) mixed model ANOVA.

The power analysis indicated that to obtain adequate power (1-β) = .80 to detect a

small effect size (ηp2 = .02), given a .05 significance level (Cohen, 1992), a sample

with a minimum of 123 participants was required. However, I enrolled a large sample

of 335 participants to acquire reliable results and account for non-systematic and

random data in the delay discounting and probability task (DDPT) task. I screened out

37 participants because they failed the practice N-back trails 3 times, indicating that

they did not demonstrate adequate attentional skills or understanding of the task.

16
Additionally, I excluded 65 participants as their responses on the DDPT task were

determined to be random and non-systematic. Participants who provided random

responses on the delay discounting and probability task were distributed as follows:

negative (19), neutral (24), and positive (23). The residual sample size utilized in the

analyses was N=233. Previous studies, which have attained significant group

differences, utilized samples smaller than the number in the current study and have

called for studies utilizing mixed or within-subject designs with greater sample sizes.

These considerations provided the rationale for the relatively large sample size

(Aranovich, et al., 2016; Hatfield-Eldred et al., 2015; Hinson et al., 2003;

Pecchinenda et al., 2006).

Measures

N-Back (Kirchner, 1958) and Delay Discounting Probability Tasks (DDPT;

Richards et al., 1999) were presented in 6 consecutive blocks. Each block consisted of

a working memory task (N-Back) followed by a delay discounting task (DDPT). The

two types of blocks are as follows: 1 N-back task + DDPT task; and 4 N-back task +

DDPT task. Blocks were presented randomly for counterbalancing and preventing

order effects. During each block, the delay discounting task (DDPT) was presented

immediately after either the 1 N-back or the 4 N-back working memory task. The N-

back and DDPT tasks are described in more detail below.

N-back

In order to induce emotions, I utilized a sequence of emotionally-valenced

(i.e., negative, positive, or neutral) pictures as stimuli during the N-back tasks (Kopf

et al., 2013) described above. Importantly, previous studies document that

emotionally valenced pictures adequately induce emotions (Choi et al., 2013; Kopf et

al., 2013; Fairfield et al., 2014; Marther et al., 2006; Martin, & Kerns, 2011; Palmiero

17
& Piccard, 2017). Accordingly, participants were divided into 3 groups (negative,

positive, or neutral emotion condition), and each participant performed two N-back

trials consisting of a 1 N-back and a 4 N-back trial. For the practice rounds for both 1-

back and 4-back, only neutrally valenced pictures were used. To prevent confounding

effects, pictures in the practice trials were not used in experimental trials.

During each N-back trial participants viewed 64 pictures, 16 of which were

targets. Participants were asked to recognize the picture they observed N (either 1 or

4) trials earlier. Depending on the type of N-Back, each trial had a variable number of

lures (6 for the 1-back trial, and 3 for the 4-back trial), which are defined as any

stimulus repeated during the trial that was not presented N trials back (e.g., a 1, 3, 4

N-back repeat would be a lure in a 2 N-back task). A 10 second delay occurred

between each block of stimuli (i.e., pictures). Each picture was shown for 1.5 seconds,

and a focal point (i.e., white cross in the center of the page) was presented for 1

second between images, consistent with previous research (Grissman et al., 2017).

The size of each picture was scaled to fill 60% of the display in order to avoid

unnecessary eye-movements and reduce fatigue, following Grissman et al. (2017).

Response accuracy was recorded to quantify updating working memory performance.

As previously stated, after each N-back trial, participants were administered a DDPT

trial that assesses their impulsivity.

International Affective Picture System

The IAPS (IAPS; Bradley, & Lang, 1999) is a database of 700 standardized

pictures that consistently elicit specific emotional response in viewers. I composed a

list of 96 emotionally-valenced pictures congruent with the assigned emotional

valence condition. Valence ratings for pictures are often confounded with arousal and

stimuli, with strong (positive or negative) valence ratings usually high in arousal

18
ratings (Grissman et al., 2017). Consistent with image selection procedures utilized by

Grissman et al. (2017), I selected pictures with the highest valence ratings (M = 7.61,

SD = 0.28) for the positive valence condition and pictures with lowest valence ratings

(M = 1.95, SD = 0.28) for the negative emotional valence condition to improve

discriminability between affective conditions. Whereas the arousal ratings for both

negative (M = 6.38, SD = 0.58) and positive (M = 5.5, SD = 0.83) emotional valence

conditions were high and statistically not significantly different from each other

(t(39)= -14.17, p = 3.43), stimuli for the neutral condition were selected based on the

lowest arousal ratings (M = 2.53, SD = 0.29) and moderate valence ratings (M = 5.21,

SD = 0.65). Last, I eliminated all images with graphic sexual content.

Delay Discounting Probability Task

The delay discounting and probability task (DDPT; Richards et al., 1999)

involved assessing discounting rate across five delay periods: 1, 7, 30, 180, and 365

days. The task also included assessing the discounting rate of five probabilities of

winning, which were 25%, 35%, 50%, 80%, and 95% (Olson et al., 2007). For

example, participants may be asked to choose between receiving $50 today or $100 in

six months with a probability of winning of 35%. DDPT trials were consistently

conducted after N-back trials.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

The 20-item PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) is self-report measure that assesses

positive and negative affect. Participants rate on a 5-point Likert-type scale that

ranges from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) to indicate how often each item applies to

them. PANAS yields two sub-scores: positive and negative affect. The PANAS

possesses strong reliability (Watson et al., 1998) and adequate test-retest reliability

over two and three-month periods (Serafini et al., 2016). Both positive (Cronbach’s α

19
= .86-.90) and negative affect (Cronbach’s α = .84-.87) scales possess good internal

consistencies (Watson et al., 1998). Additionally, the PANAS possesses good

construct, convergent, and discriminant validity with self-report measures of

depression, state anxiety, and general distress (Watson et al., 1988). I modified

instructions for PANAS to assess participants’ affect in the past hour. The PANAS’s

internal consistency was excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Dissociative Experiences Scale-II

The 28-item DES-II self-report questionnaire (Carlson & Putnam, 1993)

assesses dissociative experiences such as depersonalization, derealization, and

psychogenic amnesia. Participants report the percentage of time an experience occurs

for each item, ranging from 0 to 100% in increments of 10%. The DES-II possesses

strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .92) and test-retest reliability (.93)

(Carlson & Putnam, 1993; Zingrone & Alvarado, 2001). This scale possesses strong

predictive validity for dissociative disorders and strong convergent validity with other

dissociative experience measures (Carlson & Putnam, 1993; Van Ijzendoorn &

Schuengel, 1996). The DES’s internal consistency was excellent in the present study

(Cronbach’s α = .91).

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

The 39-item FFMQ self-report (Baer et al., 2006) questionnaire measure

yields a total score and five facets of mindfulness: observe, describe, act with

awareness, accept without judgment, and nonreactivity, all of which were analyzed.

Participants rate on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never or very rarely true) to 5

(very often or always true) to indicate how each item applies to themselves. The

FFMQ possesses good internal consistencies for total and subscale scores (Cronbach’s

α = .75-.92) and acceptable convergent, discriminant, and construct validity (Baer et

20
al., 2006; 2008; De Bruin et al., 2012; Mehling et al., 2012). Additionally, the FFMQ

possesses good to excellent test-retest reliability across several samples (De Bruin et

al., 2012). The FFMQ’s internal consistency was excellent in the present study

(Cronbach’s α = .91).

Urgency, Premeditation (lack of), Perseverance (lack of, Sensation Seeking,

Positive Urgency, Impulsive Behavior Scale

The 59-item UPPS-P self-report (Lynam et al., 2006) measure assesses trait

impulsivity across multiple dimensions. Participants rate statements on a 4-point

Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (agree strongly) to 4 (disagree strongly) to

indicate how much they agree with each statement. The scale yields a total score of

148, which comprises of five factor scores/subscales, all of which were analyzed:

negative urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, sensation seeking, and

positive urgency. The total score and subscales possess good-to -excellent internal

consistency (Cronbach’s α = .82-.91) (Magid & Colder, 2007). Additionally, the

UPPS-P possesses good convergent and discriminant validity (Cyders et al., 2007).

The UPPS-P’s internal consistency was excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α =

.91).

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale- 1

The 11-item MC-S1 (Ballard, 1992) questionnaire that assesses the extent to

which participants present themselves in an overly favorable and inaccurate manner

(Lambert et al., 2016). The MC-S1 is a shortened version of the Marlowe-Crowne

Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), and is strongly correlated (r =

.86), with the original version (Loo & Loewen, 2004). The MC-S1 has adequate-to-

good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α= .60-.74) and good construct validity

21
(Ballard, 1992; Loo & Loewen, 2004). The MC-SI’s internal consistency was

excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire Brief From

This 155-item True-False self-report measure (Patrick et al., 2002) assesses

personality at lower order trait and broader structural levels. Broad dimensions

include positive emotional temperament, negative emotional temperament, constraint

and absorption. Primary trait scales include well-being, social potency, achievement,

social closeness, stress reaction, alienation, aggression, control vs impulsivity, harm

avoidance vs danger seeking, absorption and traditionalism. Because I assessed

absorption with the DES, I removed the questions that assess absorption. The MPQ-

BF has acceptable to excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α= .74-.91), and excellent

validity (e.g., Patrick et al., 2002; Sellbom et al., 2015). The MPQ-BF’s internal

consistency was excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test- Revised

The 8-item self-report screening instrument (Adamson et al., 2010) assesses

cannabis abuse or dependence. Participants rate responses on 5-point Likert scale

from 0 (“never”) to 5 (“more than four times a week”, or “daily/almost daily”) to

indicate how frequently they engage in activities related to cannabis use. The CUDIT-

R is a refined and newer version of the original 10-item Cannabis Use Disorders

Identification Test (Adamson & Sellman, 2003). Researchers have evaluated the

CUDIT-R in psychiatric and healthy samples and yielded good reliability (Cronbach’s

α= .83) among alcohol dependent samples, concurrent validity, and discriminant

validity (Adamson et al., 2010; Schultz et al., 2019). Additionally, the CUDIT-R

exhibited improved psychometric properties over the original scale and high

22
sensitivity (91%) and specificity (90%) (Adamson et al., 2010). The CUDIT-R’s

internal consistency was excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

The 10-item self-report screening instrument (Isaacson et al., 1994) assesses

alcohol abuse or dependence. Participants rate responses on a 5-point scale ranging

from “never” to “four or more times a week” to indicate how frequently they engage

in the described experiences. The AUDIT possesses good construct validity and good-

to-excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α=.75-.97) (Reinert & Allen, 2007). Additionally,

the AUDIT exhibited very high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (96%) relative to

physician ratings (Isaacson et al., 1994). The AUDIT’s internal consistency was

excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Ego-Dissolution Inventory

The 8-item EDI self-report questionnaire (Nour et al., 2016) assesses the

extent to which participants experience an increased union with their surroundings

and dissolved ego-boundaries. Participants rate items on a scale of 0 (“no, not more

than usually”) to 100 (“yes, entirely or completely”) with incremental units of one to

indicate the extent to which they experience the items. The EDI has excellent internal

consistency (Cronbach’s α=.93) and good construct validity (Nour et al., 2016). The

EDI’s internal consistency was excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Patient Health Questionnaire-8

The PHQ-8 (Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002) is an 8-item self-report questionnaire

that is a shortened version of the original PHQ-9, and omits question 9, which

assesses thoughts about death. The PHQ-8 is commonly used in research to identify

individuals with depressive symptoms (Wu et al., 2019). Participants rate items on a

scale of 0 (“not at all”) to 3 (nearly every day”) to indicate the frequency they endorse

23
depressive symptoms. The PHQ-8 has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=.82)

and good construct validity (Pressler et al., 2011). The PHQ’s internal consistency

was excellent in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .91).

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale

The 36-item DERS self-report questionnaire (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) assesses

emotional dysregulation and comprises the following facets: emotional acceptance,

goal-directed behavior, impulsivity, affective awareness, regulation strategy access,

and emotional clarity. Participants rate on a Likert-type scale how often each item

applies to them, ranging from 1 as almost never (0–10%) to 5 as almost always (91–

100%). The DERS exhibits good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas α=.76-.89)

and possesses excellent test-retest reliability over one and two months, internal

consistency, and convergent validity with other measures of emotion regulation

(Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Weinberg & Klonsky, 2009; Williams et al., 2015). The

DERS was modified so that participants respond based on their experiences during the

N-Back and DDPT tasks.

Procedure

The Binghamton University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the

procedure. Informed consent was obtained prior to the experimental procedures. The

study was entitled “Psychology Study of Memory and Emotions,” and participants

were told that the study examines their personality characteristics, mood, and

attention. The web-based experiment was hosted on the Pavlovia platform, and I

utilized Prolific to recruit participants, and via using Prolific settings, randomly

assigned participants to one of three conditions: (1) positive emotion (n = 77); (2)

neutral emotion (n = 79); and (3) negative emotion (n = 77). I stratified the sample to

include an approximately equal number of males and females in each group in order

24
to examine the moderating effects of sex on impulsivity. After signing the consent

form, participants completed a demographics questionnaire (i.e., age, ethnicity, race,

gender, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, employment status). Before

commencing the experimental trials, detailed instructions with demonstrations of both

the N-back (1 and 4) and DDPT tasks were issued to the participants to practice up to

three times to ensure they understood the requirements of the tasks. Participants who

failed to meet a 70% accuracy rate by the end of three practice trials were eliminated

from the study. Each trial of working memory task (1 N-back or 4 N-back) was

followed by a trial of the delay discounting task (DDPT). Participants completed 3

runs of 1 N-back + DDPT, and 3 runs of 4 N-back + DDPT trials, adding up to 6 runs.

After completing the experimental trials, the participants were first

administered the PANAS, and UPPS-P, DERS, MPQ, DES, AUDIT, CUDIT, FFMQ,

MC-S1, BDI, and Ego dissolution questionnaires in a randomized order. Finally,

participants were debriefed and those who passed 90% of manipulation checks were

automatically provided with entry to the experiment and were paid 15$ USD per hour

of their time.

Response Validity

Participants were presented with 12 filler questions assessing their attention

throughout the questionnaires. Their data were considered only if they responded

accurately to 90% of these questions. The questions were unrelated to the task and

were not commonly endorsed by majority of the population. For example, participants

may be asked how frequently they vacation on the moon. Additionally, throughout the

behavioral experimental tasks, participants were prompted to provide a response if

they remained unresponsive for two minutes. They were excluded from the study and

data if they remained unresponsive for two minutes at a time for more than three

25
times. Lastly, the instructional index of response validity was administered to assess

attention during self-report measures (Hauser, & Schwarz, 2016). Participants were

asked “Which of these activities do you engage in regularly? And they were provided

with sports response options; however, within the instructions they were instructed to

ignore the sports options and instead write “I read the instructions” in the box marked

“other.”

Manipulation Checks

Before participants are given the option to provide their name and e-mail

address, they were asked open-ended questions that assessed their comprehension of

the task, their views on the hypotheses of the study, and their experiences during the

experiment. Using a five-point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate the

level of the following: how challenging they perceived the experiment to be,

frustration, anxiety and nervousness, success/response accuracy, and concentration

ability. Additionally, they were administered the PANAS after completing the

working memory and impulsivity tasks to assess the effectiveness of the mood

inductions.

Design Concerns

The emotion induction and updating working memory task were administered

simultaneously, and therefore it may be challenging to disentangle the effect of

emotion from updating working memory performance. However, a neutral emotion

condition was included so that I could evaluate the effect of updating working

memory performance in isolation compared with other conditions in which the

updating working memory task and emotionally valenced stimuli are administered

concurrently and independently. Additionally, I controlled the affective pictures for

arousal and emotional valance for consistency.

26
 Second, blocks of N-back and DDPT were randomized, with each block

comprising one trial of N-back (1 or 4 N-back) and one trial of DDPT. The aim for

randomizing the blocks was to remedy the concerns of systematic carry-over effects

from one trial to another and ensure that participants’ working memories are

overloaded while they respond to state impulsivity questions. Third, Aranovich et al.

(2016) stated that possible reasons for previous mixed results (Franco-Watkins et al.,

2006; Haushofer et al., 2013; Hinson et al., 2003) may be due to inadequate

overloading of updating working memory, small sample sizes, and individual factors.

Thus, a 4 N-back condition instead of a 3 N-back condition, as used by some previous

studies, was utilized (Hinson et al., 2003). To further reinforce adequate updating

working memory overload and assess updating working memory performance, I

asked participants to recognize the target stimuli (emotionally-valenced picture) N-

trials back (Shelton, Metzger, & Elliot, 2007). Additionally, a larger sample (N=233)

was used to detect potential meaningful relations among the variables of interest.

Fourth, it is possible that participants experience frustration, anxiety, or

nervousness when their working memories are overloaded by the N-back trials or

when negative emotions are induced, for example. To assess the potential impacts of

these experiences on participants’ performances, I asked specific questions regarding

experiences of emotions such as anxiety and frustration, concentration ability, and

perceived success (e.g., frustration, anxiety, concentration). Participants utilized a 5-

point Likert-type scale the extent to which they had these experiences during the

experiment. These questions were presented at the end of the study with the

manipulation check questions.

Fifth, trait measure of impulsivity as well as a state impulsivity task was

administered. Researchers have posited that asking participants to self-report their

27
experiences of impulsivity increase mindfulness and awareness of impulsivity/rash

decision-making and decreases state impulsivity (Chapman et al. 2006; Peters et al.,

2011; Wingrove & Bond, 1997). Consequently, administering an impulsivity

questionnaire may decrease participants’ state impulsivity on behavioral tasks. To

prevent potential interference, the trait impulsivity scale was administered after

participants completed the experimental task, which was designed to assess state

impulsivity as only a function of emotional N-back task manipulations.

Data Analytic Plan

I performed statistical analysis using SPSS version 26. There were no missing

data, so missing data analyses were not conducted, and data were not estimated.

Normality was evaluated using histograms, skewness, kurtosis, and associated

standard error estimates. Normality was determined to be appropriate across all

variables, so no transformations were conducted. Inferential statistics were computed

at a .05 significance level.

Responses to the PANAS were assessed to evaluate whether the experimental

emotion inductions exerted differential effects consistent with the condition (i.e.,

positive, negative, neutral). A one-way ANOVA was performed for positive and

negative affect as assessed by PANAS. I performed t-tests for each emotion condition

to evaluate whether the updating working memory manipulation exerts differential

effects on state impulsivity.

The dependent variables, impulsivity scores were computed based on response

patterns on the DDPT, that is, the choices made between small, immediate rewards

and larger, delayed rewards while updating working memory performance was

indexed using accuracy on the N-back task. I created an algorithm to identify and

eliminate nonsystematic and random data (difference points that did not decrease with

28
delay) and rejected data based on the following standards: (a) indifference points that

were at least 20% larger than the previous indifference points, and (b) indifference

points that were not at least 10% less than the indifference point at the shortest delay

period (one day) at the longest delay period (one year) (Johnson & Bickel, 2008). This

method enabled the identification and elimination of 65 participants from the data

analyses.

I applied chi-squared test to assess any potential gender or racial disparities

among the participants who were randomly assigned to each condition (positive,

neutral, and negative). A number of one-way ANOVAs were computed to ascertain if

the participants who were randomly assigned to each experimental condition differed

in terms of age and sex, as well as other factors such as trait impulsivity, emotion

dysregulation, trait mindfulness, dissociation, substance use, and MPQ-measured

neuroticism trait. If differences were present for any of these variables among the

emotion conditions, then they were included as covariates in follow-up ANCOVAs

testing if significant effects remained even after accounting statistically for covariates.

To evaluate my hypotheses, specifically to examine the main effects and

interactions of emotion inductions and updating working memory performance on

state impulsivity, I performed a 2 (updating working memory performance: high vs.

low) x 3 (emotion: positive, negative/neutral) mixed-model ANOVA. These analyses

aimed to test my hypothesis predicting that (1) individuals in the high working

memory load (i.e., 4 N-back) will exhibit significantly greater impulsive responding

than those in the low working memory load (i.e., 1 N-back); (2) individuals in

negative emotion induction condition will experience the greatest impulsivity

followed by individuals in positive and neutral emotion induction conditions. I also

evaluated whether the combination of negative emotion and high working memory

29
would induce the most impulsive responding compared with other conditions. I

performed planned comparisons to determine whether the negative emotion and high

working memory load condition differed significantly from the other conditions.

Accordingly, if the main effects and updating working memory performance x

emotion interaction proved significant, then a series of post hoc Tukey tests would be

conducted to evaluate the differences among the experimental conditions.

Finally, I performed moderation analyses utilizing SPSS Process version 4.2.

to determine if trait impulsivity, sex, mindfulness, dissociation, neuroticism,

depression, ego dissolution, substance use, and emotion regulation moderate the

relation between working memory load and state impulsivity. To identify a significant

moderating effect, the alpha level was fixed at p ≤ .01. The moderator and predictor

variables were both mean-centered, and significant interaction terms were examined

at low (-1 SD), medium (mean), and high (+1 SD) levels of the moderators.

30
 Results

Preliminary Analyses

Manipulation Checks and Response Validity

Thirty-seven participants did not pass the practice trials and were therefore

excluded from the study; the remaining 298 participants passed the practice trials and

were admitted to the study. None of these participants were terminated during the

experiment phase for remaining unresponsive for longer than two minutes, suggesting

that they were attentive and focused during the experimental procedures. Participants’

responses to the manipulation check and response validity indices were supportive for

all 12 questions for all participants (e.g., “I often travel to the moon”). I performed a

series of t-tests to evaluate whether participants across conditions differed

significantly in self-reported levels of anxiety, frustration, perceived difficulty,

perceived ease, and concentration ability, assessed at the end of the experiment. No

significant differences across conditions were secured (all ps >.05). Additionally, all

participants provided appropriate responses to the open-ended manipulation check

questions that asked them to recall specific procedural elements of the study and their

experiences during different sections of the study. Sixty-five participants were

excluded from data analysis due to random and non-systematic responding in the

DDPT task. Consequently, data from 233 participants were retained for purposes of

statistical analyses.

Participant Characteristics

31
 Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the participant

characteristics by condition. There were no significant differences in gender

distribution among the positive (50.6%), negative (50.8%), and neutral (50.8%)

conditions, as all three conditions had roughly equal representation of females

compared to males. There were no significant differences in age among the positive

(M = 35.71, SD = 11.04), negative (M = 34, SD = 11.56) and neutral (M = 35.75, SD =

10.99) emotion conditions. Moreover, there were no significant differences in

participants’ years of education among the positive (M = 15.53, SD = 1.22), negative

(M = 15.25, SD = 1.10) and neutral (M = 15.11, SD = 1.04) emotion induction

condition.

Stimuli Effects: Manipulation Checks

A One-Way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in

PANAS negative and positive affect scores among the three emotion conditions

(negative, positive, and neutral) and that the manipulation of affect was successful.

Specifically, the mean negative affect score of participants in the negative emotion

condition (M = 15.71, SD = 6.434) was found to be significantly higher than that of

participants in the positive emotion condition (M = 14.69, SD = 5.67) and the neutral

emotion condition (M = 18.91, SD = 8.54), F(2, 230) = 7.73, p < .001, η² = .063. The

results indicated that the emotion induction manipulation was successful in eliciting

different levels of negative affect among the conditions, with a medium effect size.

However, groups did not differ significantly in positive affect, F(2, 230) = 0.68, p =

0.503, η² = .001.

I performed a series of paired t-tests to ascertain that the updating working

memory manipulation engendered poorer performance depending on the respective

condition. As seen in Table 2, results revealed that working memory performance

32
decreased significantly in the negative emotion condition from 1 N-back to 4 N-back

t(76) = 25.11, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .10. As seen in Table 3, working memory

performance in the neutral condition decreased significantly from 1 N-back to 4 N-

back t(78) = 25.86, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .10 . Finally, as seen in Table 4, working

memory performance decreased significantly in the positive emotion condition across

1 N-back and 4 N-back conditions t(76) = 27.87, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .09. These

results documented that, across all emotion conditions, the N-back task was

successful in overloading working memory and thus in decreasing working memory

performance, as intended.

Main Analyses: Major Hypotheses

Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations of all study variables by

condition of emotion inductions. I hypothesized that (1) individuals in the high

working memory load condition (i.e., 4 N-back) will exhibit significantly greater

impulsive responding compared with individuals in the low working memory load

condition (i.e., 1 N-back), and (2) individuals in the negative emotion condition will

exhibit the greatest state impulsivity, followed by individuals in positive and neutral

emotion conditions. I also posed the question of whether the combination of high

working memory load and negative emotion would engender the greatest state

impulsivity among the conditions.

Although both the emotion induction and updating working memory

manipulations created differential effects across conditions, as intended, the results

did not support my hypotheses. A 2 (working memory performance) x 3 (emotion)

mixed model ANOVA revealed no significant main effects or interaction effects.1

1
I performed a number of planned comparisons to evaluate whether high working memory load and
negative affect condition, compared to other conditions, resulted in the greatest state impulsivity. None
of the groups differed from each other significantly (all ps>.05)

33
Accordingly, I did not perform post hoc Tukey tests. The findings are described in

detail in the following sub-sections.

Delay Discounting and Probability Task

The discount rate, which characterizes the rate of decline in subjective value in

a delay discounting task, is positively associated with state impulsivity (Reynolds et

al., 2006). A higher discount rate indicates a greater tendency to devalue delayed

rewards in favor of immediate rewards, which is associated with greater state

impulsivity. In contrast, a lower discount rate reflects a greater willingness to wait for

larger, delayed rewards, which is associated with greater self-control (Kirby, 2009).

To determine the rate of decline, a discounting function was fitted to the

choices made by participants in the study. The most commonly used discounting

function in the literature is the hyperbolic discounting function, which is given by the

following equation,

V = A/(1+kD)

where V is the subjective value of a reward, A is the amount of the reward, k is the

discounting rate, and D is the delay to the reward. The discounting rate, k, represents

the degree of delay discounting, with higher k values indicating steeper discounting

(Kirby & Marakovic, 1996; Myerson & Green, 1995). The hyperbolic discounting

function was used to fit the choices made by participants in each of the three

emotional conditions (i.e., positive, neutral, negative).

Results from the post 1 N-back indicate that the positive (M = .01, SD = .03)

emotion condition resulted in the highest level of delay discounting compared to the

negative (M = .01, SD = .03) and neutral (M = .01, SD = .03) emotion conditions.

Results from the post 4 N-back also suggest that the positive (M = .03, SD = .06)

emotion condition resulted in the highest level of delay discounting compared to the

34
negative (M = .03, SD = .06) and neutral (M = .02, SD = .06) emotion conditions.

Results did not support my hypotheses because, there were no statistically significant

differences among these means. However, the trend indicated that participants in the

positive emotion condition demonstrated the greatest state impulsivity followed by

negative and neutral emotion conditions. Contrary to my predictions, individuals in

the negative emotion condition did not demonstrate the highest state impulsivity.

I hypothesized that significant differences in state impulsivity would be

evidenced across the emotion and working memory conditions. In addition to

expecting significant main effects, I also posed the research question of whether the

combination of working memory load and negative emotion will elicit the greatest

impulsive responding such that most impulsive responding would be apparent in the

high negative load, negative affect condition. However, results did not support my

hypotheses. A 2 (WM performance) x 3 (emotion condition) mixed ANOVA was

conducted to test the two main effects and interaction effect of emotion induction

conditions and working memory performance on state impulsivity. The results

demonstrated that state impulsivity did not significantly differ among the emotion

conditions F(2,230) = .16, p = .852, η2 =.001. Therefore, emotion induction did not

significantly impact state impulsivity. There was also no significant main effect

between working memory and state impulsivity, F(2,230) = 1.06, p = .303, η2 = .005,

indicating that working memory load did not significantly impact participants’

impulsive responding. Additionally, the analysis revealed no statistically significant

interaction between emotion induction conditions and WM performance and state

impulsivity F(2,227) = 1.86, p = .158 , η2 = .001 (see Table 6), such that state

impulsivity was greatest in the negative affect, high memory load condition.

35
Exploratory Moderation Analyses

To address potential moderation effects on an exploratory basis, I evaluated

trait impulsivity, trait emotion regulation, dissociation, mindfulness, depression,

cannabis use, alcohol use, neuroticism, sex, and ego dissolution as moderators of the

relation between working memory load and impulsivity. Moderation analyses were

conducted separately in the positive condition (N = 77), neutral condition (N = 79)

and negative condition (N = 77) to test if moderation effects were specific to one

condition relative to the others.

I predicted that trait impulsivity would moderate the effects of working

memory load on state impulsivity such that individuals who are higher in trait

impulsivity will respond more impulsively after the high working memory load as

compared to the low working memory load. Results partially supported my

hypothesis. Trait impulsivity moderated the relation between working memory and

state impulsivity in the positive emotion condition, but not the neutral and negative

emotion conditions. Table 7 presents moderation analysis with trait impulsivity as the

moderator. Analysis revealed that the interaction term between working memory load

and trait impulsivity was significantly related to state impulsivity in the positive

condition, ΔR2 = .20, F(1, 73) = 3.24, p = .001. Simple slope tests revealed that the

relation between state impulsivity post 1 N-back and state impulsivity post 4 N-back

was statistically significant at low levels (-1 SD) of trait impulsivity, B = -.05, t(72) =

-2.83, p < 0.01, but not significant at medium levels (mean) of trait impulsivity, B = -

.01, t(72) = -1.33, p = .187, and not significant at high levels (+1 SD) of trait

impulsivity, B = .01, t(72) = .95, p = .343. Overall, trait impulsivity moderated the

relation between working memory and state impulsivity such that individuals who

possess low trait impulsivity performed better in high working memory load condition

36
as assessed by accuracy on the 4 N-back and responded less impulsively on the

DDPT, as compared to those with medium and high trait impulsivity.

I predicted that cannabis use would moderate the effects of working memory

load on state impulsivity such that individuals who reported higher cannabis use will

respond more impulsively after the high working memory load as compared to the

low working memory load. Results partially supported my hypothesis. Cannabis use

moderated the relation between working memory and state impulsivity in the positive

emotion condition, but not the neutral and negative emotion conditions. In the positive

emotion condition, the interaction term between working memory load and cannabis

use was significantly (p = .009) related to state impulsivity, ΔR2 = .12, F(1, 72) =

3.54, p < 0.05 as seen in Table 8. Simple slope tests revealed that the relation between

state impulsivity post 1 N-back and state impulsivity post 4 N-back was statistically

significant at low levels (-1 SD) of cannabis use, B = -.03, t(72) = -2.32, p < 0.05, not

significant at medium levels (mean) of cannabis use, B = -.01, t(72) = -.99, p = .32,

and not significant at high levels (+1 SD) of cannabis use B = .02, t(72) = 1.22, p =

.18. Overall, cannabis use moderated the relation between working memory and state

impulsivity such that individuals who endorsed low cannabis use performed better in

high working memory load condition as assessed by accuracy on the 4 N-back and

responded less impulsively on the DDPT, as compared to those with medium and high

cannabis use.

I predicted that emotion regulation would moderate the effects of working

memory load on state impulsivity such that individuals who are lower in trait emotion

regulation will respond more impulsively after the high working memory load as

compared to the low working memory load. Results partially supported my

hypothesis. Emotion regulation moderated the relation between working memory and

37
state impulsivity in the positive emotion condition, but not the neutral and negative

emotion conditions. Table 9 presents moderation analysis with emotion regulation as

the moderator. Analysis revealed that the interaction term between working memory

load and emotion regulation was significantly related to state impulsivity in the

positive condition, ΔR2 = .08, F(1, 72) = 2.33, p = 0.05. Simple slope test revealed

that the relation between state impulsivity post 1 N-back and state impulsivity post 4

N-back was statistically significant at low levels (-1 SD) of emotion regulation, B = -

.05, t(72) = -2.58, p = 0.03, not significant at medium levels (mean) of emotion

regulation, B = -.02, t(72) = -1.41, p = .16, and not significant at high level (+1 SD) of

emotion regulation B = .01, t(72) = .65, p = .51. Overall, emotion regulation

moderated the relation between working memory and state impulsivity such that

individuals who possess high emotion regulation performed better in high working

memory load condition, as assessed by accuracy on the 4-back and responded less

impulsively on the DDPT, as compared to those with medium and low emotion

regulation.

Moreover, I predicted that trait emotion regulation, dissociation, mindfulness,

depression, cannabis use, alcohol use, neuroticism, sex, and ego dissolution would

moderate the effects of updating working memory load on state impulsivity. Results

did not support this hypothesis and revealed that sex, dissociation, depression,

neuroticism, ego dissolution, mindfulness and alcohol use did not significantly

moderate the relation between working memory load and state impulsivity across any

of the emotion conditions (all ps > .102).

38
 Discussion

My research evaluated the effects of emotion-valence and updating working

memory on state impulsivity. In order to contextualize the present findings, it is

important to acknowledge that manipulation and procedural checks for attention, the

effects of varying memory load on working memory, and for random responding that

identified and excluded 65 potential participants, supported the functioning of the

manipulation and the methodological integrity of the research.

However, although the manipulation was successful in relation to negative and

neutral affect, no meaningful differences in positive affect were secured across the

positive, neutral, and negative affect induction conditions. As expected, participants in

the negative affect condition reported the highest negative affect scores on the

PANAS followed by neutral and positive affect conditions. However, no meaningful

condition differences in positive affect were observed across the positive, neutral, and

negative emotion induction conditions. Further research is needed to determine the

conditions under which emotional stimuli affect state impulsivity, especially the

conditions under which working memory tasks with concurrent emotion

manipulations can effectively induce emotions in participants.

My findings failed to support two key hypotheses related to state impulsivity.

The first hypothesis posited that regardless of the emotion induced (i.e., positive,

neutral, negative), individuals in the high working memory load condition (i.e., 4 N-

back) would exhibit significantly greater impulsive responding than those in the low

working memory load condition (i.e., 1 N-back). My findings did not support this

39
hypothesis. That is, high memory load did not affect state impulsivity, as predicted

differences between high vs. low memory load conditions did not emerge.

Working memory performance is assumed to compromise the capacity to shift

attention from more immediate and relevant outcome knowledge to more distal and

delayed information. The compromised capacity to shift attention tends to intensify

the effect of immediate considerations and reduce the effect of delayed contingencies,

resulting in more impulsive decisions (Ingarm & Finn, 2019).

Yet the finding that working memory performance was not significantly

related to state impulsivity is consistent with previous studies that have found no

significant effects of working memory on impulsivity (Johnson et al., 2013).

However, several studies have used alternative and more complex measures of

working memory capacity, such as the Operation Span task (Conway et al., 2005) or

the Reading Span task (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) and have documented a

moderate-to-strong relation with impulsivity measures (Miyake et al., 2000).

Furthermore, other studies have used working memory tasks that specifically target

the central executive component of working memory (e.g., the Letter-Number Span

task) and have found significant effects on state impulsivity (Miyake et al., 2000). It is

possible that a more complex and demanding measure of working memory capacity

might produce outcomes consistent with the hypotheses that I advanced related to

state impulsivity. Additionally, I utilized an updating working memory manipulation

concurrently with an emotion induction, which may account for results inconsistent

with previous research, as the N-back task was not used as a stand-alone manipulation

to identify its unique effects on updating working memory, independent of emotion

valence.

40
 The second hypothesis posited that negative emotional stimuli would engender

greatest impulsive responding, followed by positive emotions, and neutral emotions.

However, in contrast with my hypothesis, no statistically significant differences were

secured in delay discounting among the three emotion conditions (positive, neutral,

negative). These findings contrast with previous findings that positive emotions can

increase impulsive behavior (Colder & Chassin, 1997; Ericson & Loewenstein, 2011).

However, my study relied on images from the International Affective Picture System

(Bradley, & Lang, 1999), which may have failed to induce sufficiently intense affect

to influence state impulsivity.

With regard to the research question regarding the combined effects of

emotion and memory load, I found no interaction of emotion valence and memory

load and no significant differences across conditions to support the possibility that

high working memory load and negative emotions combine to engender the greatest

impulsive responding among experimental conditions. However, my study used a

different measure of impulsivity (delay discounting) compared with previous studies,

which could potentially account for the absence of significant results concordant with

my hypotheses.

Still, evidence exists that working memory tasks can successfully induce

emotions in experimental contexts. For example, Grissman et al. (2017) used

emotionally-valenced images during a 2-back updating working memory task and

identified significant differences in updating working memory performance among

the positive, negative, and neutral emotion conditions. Kopf et al. (2013) used an N-

back task with emotionally-valenced words from the Berlin Affective Word List (Vo

et al, 2009) and found that participants in the negative emotion condition had greater

activation in the amygdala compared to those in the neutral emotion condition. These

41
findings suggest that working memory tasks can effectively induce emotions in

participants.

Yet not all studies have found successful induction of emotions in updating

working memory tasks. For example, Ribeiro et al. (2019) found that an N-back task

with emotionally-valenced images did not elicit significant differences in emotional

state between the positive and negative emotion conditions. Discrepancies in findings

may be due to differences in the emotion induction procedure, or the working memory

task used. Accordingly, some aspect of the emotional induction procedure in the

present study might have failed to induce sufficiently strong emotions, or the

emotional stimuli were not appropriate and requisite to elicit a moderating effect.

The analyses that examined the moderating effect of sex, depression,

neuroticism, mindfulness, alcohol use, ego dissolution, and dissociation on the

relation between updating working memory and state impulsivity did not reveal

statistically significant relations. Contrary to my exploratory hypothesis, the potential

moderator variables evaluated did not moderate the relation between working memory

performance and state impulsivity. Previous studies have not systematically addressed

the moderating effects of variables evaluated herein, and my findings did not disclose

significant findings in this regard. Nevertheless, future research would benefit from

replicating the current research and expanding the study of potential moderators of the

link between working memory and state impulsivity.

My null findings regarding the moderating effect of sex on state impulsivity

highlights the importance of replication in science. Previous studies have investigated

the relation among gender/sex, working memory, and state impulsivity. Whereas Mei

et al. (2017) found that males make more impulsive choices in a delay discounting

task, suggesting an interaction effect between gender and WM, other studies have

42
reported (a) no significant main effect or interaction effects between sex and working

memory or impulsivity (Finn et al., 2015) or (b) little support for gender or sex

differences in executive function (Grissom & MacKillop, 2014). In contrast, Fridberg

and colleagues (2013) found that gender differences were evidenced in the effects of

substance dependence, high cognitive control demand, and working memory load on

decision making in the Iowa Gambling Task. These mixed findings underscore the

complexity of the relations among sex and gender, working memory, and state

impulsivity and the need for research to further elucidate these relations.

The finding that trait impulsivity was a significant moderator of state

impulsivity in the positive emotion and high working memory load condition, such

that individuals with high trait impulsivity responded more impulsively, has potential

implications for understanding the underpinnings of emotion-related impulsivity

(Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Prior research has identified a significant relation

between impulsivity and working memory for individuals with a higher trait tendency

to respond impulsively to strong emotions (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). Consistent

with the goal of reducing impulsivity, cognitive working memory training

interventions appear to be effective in reducing emotion-related impulsivity (Peckham

& Johnson, 2018). However, more research is needed to determine whether trait

impulsivity moderates the success of such trainings.

The current findings regarding the moderating effect of trait impulsivity in the

positive emotion condition has implications for theoretical understanding of emotion-

based urgency. Although I did not investigate the effects of positive and negative

urgency on the relation between working memory and state impulsivity, my emotion

manipulations may have induced positive and/or negative urgency, as strong affective

states can induce emotion-based urgency in some people. I found a negative relation

43
between working memory and state impulsivity in the positive emotion condition (but

not in the neutral or negative conditions) for individuals who scored lower in trait

impulsivity. This finding is partly consistent with the theory that individuals who

possess higher levels of negative and positive urgency tend to behave more

impulsively when experiencing intense negative and positive emotions, respectively

(Cyders & Smith, 2008). My study corroborates the distinct types of emotion-based

(i.e., positive, negative) urgency by demonstrating that positive and negative emotion

states and, possibly negative and positive urgency, may impact how the relation

between working memory and state impulsivity is expressed.

Billieux et al. (2015) and Johnson (2020) have suggested that urgency may be

a unitary construct that encompasses both positive and negative urgency and may be

grouped together in a general feature of emotion-related impulsivity. Given that my

findings suggest that the moderating effects of trait impulsivity on state impulsivity

differs under different emotion conditions, there is a need for studies that examine

how emotional states influence the moderating effects of trait impulsivity on the

relation between working memory and state impulsivity.

Cannabis use was a significant moderator of state impulsivity in the positive

emotion and high working memory load condition. Specifically, compared to

participants who reported cannabis use, individuals who reported not using cannabis

and were in the positive emotion condition displayed lower levels of state impulsivity

after the high working memory load manipulation. This result is in line with previous

research that has linked cannabis use to increased levels of self-reported impulsivity

(Trull et al., 2016) and impairment of cognitive function, including working memory

(Crean et al., 2012). Research is needed to better understand the underlying

44
mechanisms of this interaction and to explore the potential implications for cannabis

users.

Emotion regulation was a significant moderator of state impulsivity in the

positive emotion and high working memory load condition. In the positive emotion

condition, individuals with high emotion regulation, as compared with individuals in

the medium and low emotion regulation conditions, performed better in the high

working memory load condition and demonstrated less state impulsivity. These

results are consistent with research indicating that positive emotion can engender

increased cognitive interference and impaired cognitive processes necessary for

deliberate responses (Dreisback et al., 2004). Additionally, my findings align with

studies demonstrating that increased emotion dysregulation is associated with

increased trait impulsivity (Schereiber et al., 2012; Velotti & Garofalo, 2015) and low

working memory capacity predicts increased emotion dysregulation (Ferrel et al.,

2020; Tajik-Parvinchi et al., 2021).

My study therefore adds to the growing body of research exploring the

relations among emotion regulation, working memory, and state impulsivity with

particular emphasis on the moderating role of emotion regulation in emotional

contexts. However, mechanisms of the moderating effect of emotion regulation in the

positive emotion condition remain unclear. Additional research on potential

mechanisms can inform targeted interventions aimed at decreasing state impulsivity

among individuals who experience emotion dysregulation and impaired working

memory performance in positive emotion-inducing contexts. Replication and

expansion of these findings is warranted to examine the moderating effect of emotion

regulation on the relation between working memory and state impulsivity across

45
emotion conditions. For example, utilizing video-based emotion inductions instead of

photograph-based emotion inductions may provide useful information.

Given the variety of methods utilized to assess state impulsivity, it is not

surprising that findings diverge across studies. As a result, it can be challenging to

compare studies and to draw definitive conclusions regarding the relation between

state impulsivity and other variables. To address this issue, future studies should aim

to develop a widely adopted, if not consensus, measure of state impulsivity, with

impeccable psychometric properties, which can be used across diverse a research

contexts. Doing so would increase the comparability of results across studies and

facilitate more accurate and meaningful comparisons among research findings.

My study has several limitations worth mentioning. One of the most

significant is that the research was conducted online, such that a researcher was not

physically present with the participants to monitor their behavior. Despite the

measures included to ensure the validity of the results, 65 participants were still

excluded from the analyses due to evidence of random responding in the delay

discounting and probability task.

Previous research has also reported non-systematic or random responding in

delay discounting tasks. For example, Green, Myerson, and Ostlund (2008) aimed to

develop a discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards

and determined that between 10-20% of participants’ responses in delay discounting

tasks were random. Similarly, Frederick et al. (2002) critically reviewed the

inconsistent literature on the relation between time discounting and time preference

and reported that the evidence for the relation between time discounting was not

consistent across studies, possibly due to random responding and lack of control for

non-systematic responding. The high number of participants with non-systematic data

46
in the delay discounting task in the present study highlights the potential importance

of using multiple methods to validate the results in impulsivity and delay discounting

tasks, especially when they are conducted online. Indeed, random responding in delay

discounting tasks can contribute to misleading conclusions regarding participants'

preferences for immediate versus delayed rewards (Franco-Watkins et al., 2006).

Although researchers should consider the limitations noted, when interpreting the

results of this study, the current study still provides insights into the preferences for

immediate versus delayed rewards and contributes to the corpus of knowledge in the

field.

Another possible limitation was the task that assessed working memory

performance. One drawback is that N-back task is limited in its ecological validity,

insofar as it may not accurately reflect real-world situations. For example, the task

typically involves simple stimuli (such as letters or numbers) and only requires a

binary response (match or non-match), whereas real-world situations often involve

complex stimuli and require nuanced responses (Unsworth & Engle, 2006).

Additionally, the N-back task may only index a specific type of working memory

(i.e., verbal-working memory), and may not accurately reflect overall working

memory abilities (Ospanova et al., 2014). Furthermore, researchers have called into

question the validity of the N-back task as a measure of fluid intelligence, which is the

ability to solve novel problems and reason abstractly (Bugg & Head, 2008).

Another related concern is that whereas the N-back task is often used in

research, it is not commonly employed in real-world applications (Egner, 2008),

which may limit the practical relevance of the task, as well as its ability to predict

real-world outcomes (Klingberg et al., 2009). The use of different task variations and

47
parameters, such as the type of stimuli and the number of stimuli to be remembered,

can also impact outcomes and limit comparability among studies (Egner, 2008).

Despite these limitations, several implications of the research are notable.

First, the findings suggest that contrary to previous research, emotion induction may

not impact state impulsivity significantly. Second, the study highlights the potential

importance of using multiple and diverse measures of impulsivity when examining

the relation among various cognitive and emotional factors and impulsive behavior.

Finally, it suggests that future research should examine other potential moderators of

state impulsivity such as positive and negative urgencies.

Moreover, the research design possesses several strengths that enhance its

validity. Utilizing a large sample size addresses the calls for larger sample sizes in

research and mitigates the risk of false positive or negative results. Additionally, the

sample was also diverse in terms of participant characteristics, including gender and

substance use, which reduced selection effects, and the research considered random

responding and participant attention in the experimental design.

In conclusion, my study found no support for a direct effect of emotions and

working memory performance on state impulsivity. Although the emotion induction

did not moderate the relation between working memory performance and state

impulsivity, future studies should explore other potential moderators of state

impulsivity. The present study adds to the growing body of literature examining the

relations among various cognitive and emotional factors and impulsive behavior

Despite the lack of significant effects obtained, the discrepancy with previous studies,

which have found significant effects of emotions and working memory performance

on impulsivity, may be due to the different measures utilized to assess state

impulsivity. The lack of a widely accepted measure of state impulsivity diminishes

48
the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the relation between state impulsivity

and other variables. Future studies should aim to develop such a measure of state

impulsivity to increase the comparability and replicability of results across studies and

to allow for more accurate and precise conclusions regarding the relation between

state impulsivity and other variables of theoretical and research interest.

49
 References

Adamson, S. J., & Sellman, J. D. (2003). A prototype screening instrument for

cannabis use disorder: The Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test
(CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample. Drug and Alcohol
Review, 22(3), 309-315.

Adamson, S. J., Kay-Lambkin, F. J., Baker, A. L., Lewin, T. J., Thornton, L., Kelly,
B. J., & Sellman, J. D. (2010). An improved brief measure of cannabis misuse:
The Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R). Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 110(1-2), 137-143.

Ait Oumeziane, B., & Foti, D. (2016). Reward‐related neural dysfunction across
depression and impulsivity: A dimensional
approach. Psychophysiology, 53(8), 1174-1184.

Aksen, D. E., Polizzi, C., & Lynn, S. J. (2020). Correlates and Mediators of
Dissociation: Towards a Transtheoretical Perspective. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 0276236620956284.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

Ammons, R. B., & Ammons, C. H. (1962). The quick test (QT): provisional
manual. Psychological Reports, 11(1), 111-161.

Anderson, C., & Platten, C. R. (2011). Sleep deprivation lowers inhibition and
enhances impulsivity to negative stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 217(2),
463-466.

Anisi, J. (2012). Validity and reliability of NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) on

university students. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5(4), 351-
355.

Aranovich, G. J., McClure, S. M., Fryer, S., & Mathalon, D. H. (2016). The effect of
cognitive challenge on delay discounting. NeuroImage, 124, 733-739.

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839.

50
Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Walsh, E.,
Duggan, D., Williams, J.M.G., 2008. Construct validity of the five facet
mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples.
Assessment 15, 329–342.

Ballard, R. (1992). Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability

scale. Psychological Reports, 71(3_suppl), 1155-1160.

Bari, A., Robbins, T. W., & Dalley, J. W. (2011). Impulsivity. In Animal models of
drug addiction (pp. 379-401). Humana Press.

Barratt, E. S. (1993). Impulsivity: Integrating cognitive, behavioral, biological, and

environmental data. In W. G. McCown, J. L. Johnson, & M. B. Shure
(Eds.), The impulsive client: Theory, research, and treatment (p. 39–56).
American Psychological Association.

Basile, A. G., & Toplak, M. E. (2015). Four converging measures of temporal

discounting and their relationships with intelligence, executive functions,
thinking dispositions, and behavioral outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
728.

Billieux, Heeren, A., Rochat, L., Maurage, P., Bayard, S., Bet, R., Besche‐Richard,
C., Challet‐Bouju, G., Carré, A., Devos, G., Flayelle, M., Gierski, F., Grall‐
Bronnec, M., Kern, L., Khazaal, Y., Lançon, C., Lannoy, S., Michael, G. A.,
Raffard, S., … Baggio, S. (2021). Positive and negative urgency as a single
coherent construct: Evidence from a large‐scale network analysis in clinical
and non‐clinical samples. Journal of Personality, 89(6), 1252–1262.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12655

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW):
Instruction manual and affective ratings (Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 25-36). Technical
report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology, University of Florida.

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2007). The International Affective Picture System
(IAPS) in the study of emotion and attention. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen
(Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 29–46). Oxford
University Press.

Burton, C. M., Pedersen, S. L., & McCarthy, D. M. (2012). Impulsivity moderates the
relationship between implicit associations about alcohol and alcohol
use. Psychology of addictive behaviors, 26(4), 766.

Carlson, E. B., & Putnam, F. W. (1993). An update on the dissociative experiences

scale. Dissociation: progress in the dissociative disorders.

Carver, C. S. (2005). Impulse and constraint: Perspectives from personality

psychology, convergence with theory in other areas, and potential for
integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 312-333.

51
Chamorro, J., Bernardi, S., Potenza, M. N., Grant, J. E., Marsh, R., Wang, S., &
Blanco, C. (2012). Impulsivity in the general population: a national
study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46(8), 994-1001.

Chapman, A.L., Gratz, K.L., Brown, M.Z., 2006. Solving the puzzle of deliberate
selfharm: the experiential avoidance model. Behavior Research and Therapy
44, 371–394.

Charney, D. A., Zikos, E., & Gill, K. J. (2010). Early recovery from alcohol
dependence: factors that promote or impede abstinence. Journal of Substance
Abuse Treatment, 38(1), 42-50.

Chen, P., & Jacobson, K. C. (2013). Impulsivity moderates promotive environmental

influences on adolescent delinquency: A comparison across family, school,
and neighborhood contexts. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(7),
1133-1143.

Choi, H. Y., Kensinger, E. A., & Rajaram, S. (2013). Emotional content enhances true
but not false memory for categorized stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 41(3),
403-415.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education.
Routledge. https://book4you.org/book/3623824/e19576

Colder, & Chassin, L. (1997). Affectivity and Impulsivity: Temperament Risk for
Adolescent Alcohol Involvement. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11(2),
83–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.11.2.83

Cools, R., Sheridan, M., Jacobs, E., & D'Esposito, M. (2007). Impulsive personality
predicts dopamine-dependent changes in frontostriatal activity during
component processes of working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(20),
5506-5514. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0601-07.2007

Corruble, E., Benyamina, A., Bayle, F., Falissard, B., & Hardy, P. (2003).
Understanding impulsivity in severe depression? A psychometrical
contribution. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological
Psychiatry, 27(5), 829-833.

Coulacoglou, C., & Saklofske, D. H. (2017). Psychometrics and psychological

assessment: Principles and applications. Academic Press.

Cowan. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and

Education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197–223.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349.

52
Creswell, Wright, A. G. C., Flory, J. D., Skrzynski, C. J., & Manuck, S. B. (2019).
Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity-related measures in relation to
externalizing behaviors. Psychological Medicine, 49(10), 1678–1690.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718002295

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., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based dispositions to rash action:

positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 807.

Cyders, M. A., Coskunpinar, A., & Lehman, Z. A. (2012). Difficulties and

advancements in the assessment and induction of emotion‐based impulsivity:
Development of the three‐task procedure In Cyders MA (Ed.), Psychology of
impulsivity. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

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.

Dawe, S., & Loxton, N. J. (2004). The role of impulsivity in the development of
substance use and eating disorders. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews, 28(3), 343-351.

Day, A. M., Metrik, J., Spillane, N. S., & Kahler, C. W. (2013). Working memory and
impulsivity predict marijuana-related problems among frequent users. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 131(1-2), 171-174.

De Bruin, E. I., Topper, M., Muskens, J. G., Bögels, S. M., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2012).
Psychometric properties of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ) in a meditating and a non-meditating sample. Assessment, 19(2), 187-
197.

De Wit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a

review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14(1), 22-31.

Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive
control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343.

Ellingson, J. M., Fleming, K. A., Vergés, A., Bartholow, B. D., & Sher, K. J. (2014).
Working memory as a moderator of impulsivity and alcohol involvement:
Testing the cognitive-motivational theory of alcohol use with prospective and
working memory updating data. Addictive Behaviors, 39(11), 1622-1631.

Evren, C., Cinar, O., Evren, B., & Celik, S. (2012). Relationship of self-mutilative
behaviours with severity of borderline personality, childhood trauma and

53
 impulsivity in male substance-dependent inpatients. Psychiatry
Research, 200(1), 20-25.

Eyal, P., David, R., Andrew, G., Zak, E., & Ekaterina, D. (2021). Data quality of
platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research
Methods, 1-20.

Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional

system of personality description. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 16(1), 57-68.

Fairfield, B., Mammarella, N., Di Domenico, A., & Palumbo, R. (2014). Running
with emotion: When affective content hampers working memory
performance. International Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 161-164.

Finn, P. R., Gunn, R. L., & Gerst, K. R. (2015). The effects of a working memory
load on delay discounting in those with externalizing
psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(2), 202-214.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2167702614542279

Finn, P. R., Justus, A., Mazas, C., & Steinmetz, J. E. (1999). Working memory,
executive processes and the effects of alcohol on Go/No-Go learning: testing a
model of behavioral regulation and impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146(4),
465-472.

Finn, P. R., Mazas, C. A., Justus, A. N., & Steinmetz, J. (2002). Early‐onset
alcoholism with conduct disorder: go/no go learning deficits, working memory
capacity, and personality. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 26(2), 186-206.

Franco-Watkins, A. M., Pashler, H., & Rickard, T. C. (2006). Does working memory
load lead to greater impulsivity? Commentary on Hinson, Jameson, and
Whitney (2003).

Fridberg, Gerst, K. R., & Finn, P. R. (2013). Effects of working memory load, a
history of conduct disorder, and sex on decision making in substance
dependent individuals. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 133(2), 654–660.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.08.014

Gajewski, Hanisch, E., Falkenstein, M., Thönes, S., & Wascher, E. (2018). What
Does the n -Back Task Measure as We Get Older? Relations Between
Working-Memory Measures and Other Cognitive Functions Across the
Lifespan. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2208–2208.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02208

Gori, A., Craparo, G., Caretti, V., Giannini, M., Iraci-Sareri, G., Bruschi, A., ... &
Tani, F. (2016). Impulsivity, alexithymia and dissociation among pathological
gamblers in different therapeutic settings: A multisample comparison
study. Psychiatry Research, 246, 789-795.

54
Gray, J. C., & MacKillop, J. (2014). Interrelationships among individual differences
in alcohol demand, impulsivity, and alcohol misuse. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 28(1), 282.

Grissom, N. M., & Reyes, T. M. (2019). Let's call the whole thing off: evaluating
gender and sex differences in executive function. Neuropsychopharmacology :
official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology,
44(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-018-0179-5

Grissmann, S., Faller, J., Scharinger, C., Spüler, M., & Gerjets, P. (2017).
Electroencephalography based analysis of working memory load and affective
valence in an n-back task with emotional stimuli. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 11, 616.

Gullo, M. J., & Potenza, M. N. (2014). Impulsivity: mechanisms, moderators and

implications for addictive behaviors. Addictive Behaviors, 39(11), 1543-1546.

Gunn, R. L., Gerst, K. R., Lake, A. J., & Finn, P. R. (2018). The effects of working
memory load and attention refocusing on delay discounting rates in alcohol
use disorder with comorbid antisocial personality disorder. Alcohol, 66, 9-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.alcohol.2017.07.009

Hatfield-Eldred, M. R., Skeel, R. L., & Reilly, M. P. (2015). Is it random or impulsive

responding? The effect of working memory load on decision-making. Journal
of Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 27-36.

Haushofer, J., Cornelisse, S., Seinstra, M., Fehr, E., Joëls, M., Kalenscher, T., 2013.
No effects of psychosocial stress on intertemporal choice. PLoS One 8,
e78597.

Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2003). Impulsive decision-making and
working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 29(2), 298-306. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-
7393.29.2.298

Isaacson, J. H., Butler, R., Zacharke, M., & Tzelepis, A. (1994). Screening with the
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in an inner-city
population. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9(10), 550-553.

Jameson, T. L., Hinson, J. M., & Whitney, P. (2004). Components of working

memory and somatic markers in decision making. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 11(3), 515-520.

Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic

delay-discounting data. Experimental and clinical
psychopharmacology, 16(3), 264.

Johnson, S. L., Elliott, M. V., & Carver, C. S. (2020). Impulsive responses to positive
and negative emotions: Parallel neurocognitive correlates and their

55
 implications. Biological Psychiatry, 87(4), 338-349.
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.biopsych.2019.08.018

Joyner, K. J., Daurio, A. M., Perkins, E. R., Patrick, C. J., & Latzman, R. D. (2021).
The difference between trait disinhibition and impulsivity-and why it matters
for clinical psychological science. Psychological assessment, 33(1), 29–44.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000964

Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. (2007). Working
memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct
validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 33(3), 615.

Karthik, L., Kumar, G., Keswani, T., Bhattacharyya, A., Chandar, S. S., & Rao, K. B.
(2014). Protease inhibitors from marine actinobacteria as a potential source for
antimalarial compound. PloS One, 9(3), e90972.

Kim, H. R., Kim, Y. S., Kim, S. J., & Lee, I. K. (2018). Building emotional machines:
Recognizing image emotions through deep neural networks. IEEE
Transactions on Multimedia, 20(11), 2980-2992.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07543

Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing

information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352.

Kisa, C., Yildirim, S. G., & Göka, E. (2005). Impulsivity and mental disorders. Turk
psikiyatri dergisi= Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 16(1), 46-54.

Kopf, J., Dresler, T., Reicherts, P., Herrmann, M. J., & Reif, A. (2013). The effect of
emotional content on brain activation and the late positive potential in a word
n-back task. The Public Library of Science One, 8(9), Article 75598.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075598

Kroenke, K., & Spitzer, R. L. (2002). The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and
severity measure. Psychiatric Annals, 32(9), 509-515.

Kulacaoglu, F., Solmaz, M., Ardic, F. C., Akin, E., & Kose, S. (2017). The
relationship between childhood traumas, dissociation, and impulsivity in
patients with borderline personality disorder comorbid with
ADHD. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(4), 393-402.

Lambert, C. E., Arbuckle, S. A., & Holden, R. R. (2016). The Marlowe–Crowne

social desirability scale outperforms the BIDR impression management scale
for identifying fakers. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 80-86.

Lee-Winn, A. E., Townsend, L., Reinblatt, S. P., & Mendelson, T. (2016).

Associations of neuroticism and impulsivity with binge eating in a nationally
representative sample of adolescents in the United States. Personality and
Individual Differences, 90, 66-72.

56
Loo, R., & Loewen, P. (2004). Confirmatory factor analyses of scores from full and
short versions of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 34(11), 2343-2352.

Loree, A. M., Lundahl, L. H., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2015). Impulsivity as a

predictor of treatment outcome in substance use disorders: Review and
synthesis. Drug and Alcohol Review, 34(2), 119-134.

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, 10.

Magid, V., & Colder, C. R. (2007). The UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale: Factor
structure and associations with college drinking. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43(7), 1927-1937.
Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a Theory of Distinct Types of
“Impulsive” Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis of Self-Report and Behavioral
Measures. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 374–408.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034418

Martin, E. A., & Kerns, J. G. (2011). The influence of positive mood on different
aspects of cognitive control. Cognition and Emotion, 25(2), 265-279.

Mather, M., & Knight, M. R. (2006). Angry faces get noticed quickly: Threat
detection is not impaired among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(1), P54-P57.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood New York:
Guilford. McCraePersonality in adulthood1990.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587-596.

Mei, Tian, L., Xue, Z., & Li, X. (2017). A working memory task reveals different
patterns of impulsivity in male and female college students. Behavioural
Processes, 138, 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.02.023

Moreno, M., Estevez, A. F., Zaldivar, F., Montes, J. M. G., Gutiérrez-Ferre, V. E.,
Esteban, L., ... & Flores, P. (2012). Impulsivity differences in recreational
cannabis users and binge drinkers in a university population. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 124(3), 355-362.

Moring, B. (2014). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of

information. WW Norton & Company.
https://book4you.org/book/3499323/ede799

Morrell, H. E., Cohen, L. M., & McChargue, D. E. (2010). Depression vulnerability

predicts cigarette smoking among college students: Gender and negative
reinforcement expectancies as contributing factors. Addictive
Behaviors, 35(6), 607-611.

57
Nguyen, R., Brooks, M., Bruno, R., & Peacock, A. (2018). Behavioral measures of
state impulsivity and their psychometric properties: A systematic
review. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 67-79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.040

Nour, M. M., Evans, L., Nutt, D., & Carhart-Harris, R. L. (2016). Ego-dissolution and
psychedelics: validation of the ego-dissolution inventory (EDI). Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 10, 269.

Olson, E. A., Hooper, C. J., Collins, P., & Luciana, M. (2007). Adolescents’
performance on delay and probability discounting tasks: contributions of age,
intelligence, executive functioning, and self-reported externalizing
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1886-1897.

Palmiero, M., & Piccardi, L. (2017). The role of emotional landmarks on

topographical memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 763.

Pecchinenda, A., Dretsch, M., & Chapman, P. (2006). Working memory involvement
in emotion-based processes underlying choosing
advantageously. Experimental Psychology, 53(3), 191-197.

Peckham, & Johnson, S. L. (2018). Cognitive control training for emotion-related

impulsivity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 105, 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.03.009.

Perera, H. N., McIlveen, P., Burton, L. J., & Corser, D. M. (2015). Beyond
congruence measures for the evaluation of personality factor structure
replicability: An exploratory structural equation modeling
approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 23-29.

Peters, J. R., Erisman, S. M., Upton, B. T., Baer, R. A., & Roemer, L. (2011). A
preliminary investigation of the relationships between dispositional
mindfulness and impulsivity. Mindfulness, 2(4), 228-235.

Petry, N. M. (2001). Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using

alcoholics, currently abstinent alcoholics, and
controls. Psychopharmacology, 154(3), 243-250.

Potenza, M. N., & De Wit, H. (2010). Control yourself: alcohol and

impulsivity. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34(8), 1303-
1305.
Pressler, S. J., Subramanian, U., Perkins, S. M., Gradus-Pizlo, I., Kareken, D., Kim,
J., ... & Sloan, R. (2011). Measuring depressive symptoms in heart failure:
Validity and reliability of the Patient Health Questionnaire–8. American
Journal of Critical Care, 20(2), 146-152.

Rączy, K., & Orzechowski, J. (2019). When working memory is in a mood:

Combined effects of induced affect and processing of emotional
words. Current Psychology, 1-10.

58
Reed, S. C., Levin, F. R., & Evans, S. M. (2012). Alcohol increases impulsivity and
abuse liability in heavy drinking women. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 20(6), 454.

Reinert, D. F., & Allen, J. P. (2007). The alcohol use disorders identification test: an
update of research findings. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 31(2), 185-199.

Reynolds, B., Penfold, R. B., & Patak, M. (2008). Dimensions of impulsive behavior
in adolescents: laboratory behavioral assessments. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 16(2), 124.

Ribeiro, F. S., Santos, F. H., & Albuquerque, P. B. (2019). How Does Allocation of
Emotional Stimuli Impact Working Memory Tasks? An Overview. Advances
in Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 155.

Richards, J. B., Zhang, L., Mitchell, S. H., & De Wit, H. (1999). Delay or probability
discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(2), 121-143.

Robinson, M. D., Pearce, E. A., Engel, S. G., & Wonderlich, S. A. (2009). Cognitive
control moderates relations between impulsivity and bulimic
symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33(4), 356-367.

Saults, J. S., Cowan, N., Sher, K. J., & Moreno, M. V. (2007). Differential effects of
alcohol on working memory: Distinguishing multiple processes. Experimental
and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15(6), 576–587.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.15.6.576

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business
students. Pearson education. https://book4you.org/book/5631668/edc804

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the
art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147.

Schreiber, L. R., Grant, J. E., & Odlaug, B. L. (2012). Emotion regulation and
impulsivity in young adults. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46(5), 651-658.

Schultz, N. R., Bassett, D. T., Messina, B. G., & Correia, C. J. (2019). Evaluation of
the psychometric properties of the cannabis use disorders identification test-
revised among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 95, 11-15.
Selby, E. A., Anestis, M. D., & Joiner, T. E. (2008). Understanding the relationship
between emotional and behavioral dysregulation: Emotional
cascades. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(5), 593-611.

Sellbom, M., Corey, D. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2021). Examining the validity of the
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire in the assessment of police
candidates. Assessment, 28(1), 295-309.

59
Serafini, K., Malin-Mayor, B., Nich, C., Hunkele, K., & Carroll, K. M. (2016).
Psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS) in a heterogeneous sample of substance users. The American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 42(2), 203-212.

Shelton, J. T., Metzger, R. L., & Elliott, E. M. (2007). A group-administered lag task
as a measure of working memory. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 482-
493.

Smith, G. T., & Cyders, M. A. (2016). Integrating affect and impulsivity: The role of
positive and negative urgency in substance use risk. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 163, S3-S12.

Solowij, N., Jones, K. A., Rozman, M. E., Davis, S. M., Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C.,
... & Yücel, M. (2011). Verbal learning and memory in adolescent cannabis
users, alcohol users and non-users. Psychopharmacology, 216(1), 131-144.

Somer, E., Ginzburg, K., & Kramer, L. (2012). The role of impulsivity in the
association between childhood trauma and dissociative psychopathology:
Mediation versus moderation. Psychiatry Research, 196(1), 133-137.

Sperry, S. H., Lynam, D. R., Walsh, M. A., Horton, L. E., & Kwapil, T. R. (2016).
Examining the multidimensional structure of impulsivity in daily
life. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 153-158.

Swann, A. C., Steinberg, J. L., Lijffijt, M., & Moeller, F. G. (2008). Impulsivity:
differential relationship to depression and mania in bipolar disorder. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 106(3), 241-248.

Tajik‐Parvinchi, Farmus, L., Tablon Modica, P., Cribbie, R. A., & Weiss, J. A.
(2021). The role of cognitive control and emotion regulation in predicting
mental health problems in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Child :
Care, Health & Development, 47(5), 608–617.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12868

Valero, S., Daigre, C., Rodríguez-Cintas, L., Barral, C., Gomà-i-Freixanet, M., Ferrer,
M., ... & Roncero, C. (2014). Neuroticism and impulsivity: Their hierarchical
organization in the personality characterization of drug-dependent patients
from a decision tree learning perspective. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(5),
1227-1233.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Schuengel, C. (1996). The measurement of dissociation in

normal and clinical populations: Meta-analytic validation of the Dissociative
Experiences Scale (DES). Clinical Psychology Review, 16(5), 365-382.

Velotti, & Garofalo, C. (2015). Personality styles in a non-clinical sample: The role of
emotion dysregulation and impulsivity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 79, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.046

60
Võ, Conrad, M., Kuchinke, L., Urton, K., Hofmann, M. J., & Jacobs, A. M. (2009).
The Berlin Affective Word List Reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research
Methods, 41(2), 534–538. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.534

Wagner, E. F., Lloyd, D. A., & Gil, A. G. (2002). Racial/ethnic and gender
differences in the incidence and onset age of DSM-IV alcohol use disorder
symptoms among adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(5), 609-619.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity:
Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669-689.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Understanding the role of impulsivity and
externalizing psychopathology in alcohol abuse: application of the UPPS
impulsive behavior scale. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 11(3), 210.

Wingrove, J., & Bond, A. J. (1997). Impulsivity: a state as well as trait variable. Does
mood awareness explain low correlations between trait and behavioural
measures of impulsivity? Personality and Individual Differences, 22(3), 333-
339.

Wu, Y., Levis, B., Riehm, K. E., Saadat, N., Levis, A. W., Azar, M., ... & Thombs, B.
D. (2020). Equivalency of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9: a
systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Psychological
Medicine, 50(8), 1368-1380.

Yun, R. J., Krystal, J. H., & Mathalon, D. H. (2010). Working memory overload:
fronto-limbic interactions and effects on subsequent working memory
function. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 4(1), 96-108.

Zingrone, N. L., & Alvarado, C. S. (2001). The Dissociative Experiences Scale-II:

Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and frequency of
experiences. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 21(2), 145-157.

61
Table 1

Participant Characteristics by Emotion Condition

Demographics Positive Negative Neutral

M SD M SD M SD

Gender
50.6% 50.8% 50.8%
(Females)

Age 35.71 11.04 34 11.56 35.75 10.99

Education * 15.53 1.22 15.25 1.10 15.11 1.04

Note. *Number of years of education completed

62
Table 2

Working Memory Performance on the N-back Task in the Negative Emotion

Condition

Condition 1 N-back 4 N-back Cohen’s

t(76) p
M SD M SD d

Negative .98 .06 .67 .09 25.11 <.001 .10

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Note. Working memory performance was assessed by accuracy on the N-back task.

63
Table 3

Working Memory Performance on the N-back Task in the Neutral Emotion Condition

Condition 1 N-back 4 N-back

Cohen’s
t(78) p
M SD M SD d

Neutral .96 .09 .67 .08 25.86 <.001 .10

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Note. Working memory performance was assessed by accuracy on the N-back task

64
Table 4

Working Memory Performance on the N-back Task in the Positive Emotion Condition

Condition 1 N-back 4 N-back

Cohen’s
t(76) p
M SD M SD d

Positive .97 .06 .67 .09 27.87 <.001 .09

**p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Note. Working memory performance was assessed by accuracy on the N-back task

65
Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations of the Study Variables Across the Emotion Induction
Conditions

Positive Neutral Negative

Variable
M SD M SD M SD

Cannabis 4.60 8.87 6.01 9.21 6.40 9.96

DES 41.27 33.87 38.97 38.677 45.27 39.13

DERS 48.38 24.75 45.15 25.29 42.47 39.13

EGO 17.43 13.61 18.70 14.52 19.73 12.94

129.8
FFMQ 130.6 20.77 134.2 20.42 19.28
3
PANAS-NA 14.69 5.67 18.91 8.54 15.71 6.43

PANAS-PA 27.86 7.76 26.44 8.75 27.69 8.13

PHQ 7.66 6.23 7.30 6.71 7.45 6.43

UPPS 27.12 4.77 26.19 4.95 26.49 4.692

AUDIT 5.31 3.24 6.87 4.89 5.53 4.67

Post 1 N-back
.01 .03 .01 .03 .01 .01
DDPT
Post 4 N-back
.03 .03 .02 .03 .03 .03
DDPT
1 N-back .97 .08 .96 .09 .98 .06

4 N-back .67 .09 .67 .08 .67 .09

Note. n = 77 for positive condition. n = 79 for neutral condition. n = 77 for negative
condition.

Key: Cannabis (Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test- Revised); DES

(Dissociative Experiences Scale-II); DERS(Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale);
EGO (Ego-Dissolution Inventory); FFMQ (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire);

66
PANAS-NA (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule- Negative Affect scale);
PANAS-PA (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule- Positive Affect scale);
PHQ(Patient Health Questionnaire-8); UPPS (Urgency, Premeditation (lack of),
Perseverance (lack of, Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive Behavior
Scale); AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test); Post 1 N-back DDPT
(Delay Discounting Probability Task after the 1 N-back Task); Post 4 N-back DDPT
(Delay Discounting Probability Task After the 4 N-back Task); 1 N-back (Low load
Working Memory Task); 4 N-back (High Load Working Memory Task)

67
Table 6

2 (Updating Working Memory Performance) x 3(Emotion) Mixed-Model ANOVA with

State Impulsivity as the Outcome Variable

Predictor Sum of df Mean F p η2

Squares Square

(Intercept) .208 1 .208 48.690 <.001 .177

Emotional
.001 2 .001 .161 .852 .001
condition

N-back .005
1 .005 1.066 .303 .005
performance

Emotion *
N-back .016 2 .008 1.863 .158 .016
performance

Error .972 227 .004

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Note. R Squared = .007 (Adjusted R Squared = -.015). Working memory performance

was assessed by accuracy in the N-back task.

68
Table 7

Moderation Analysis with Trait Impulsivity as a Moderator for the Relation Between
Working Memory and State Impulsivity Across Emotion Induction Conditions

Relation Ba df t
Positive Condition (N = 77)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT .007 70 2.66**
Neutral Condition (N = 79)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT -.0007 72 -1.99
Negative Condition (N = 77)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT -.001 70 -0.45
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
ainteraction effect

Key: DDPT (Delay Discounting and Probability Task); N1 (post 1 N-back); N4 (post
4 N-back)

69
Table 8

Moderation Analysis with Cannabis Use as a Moderator for the Relation Between
Working Memory and State Impulsivity Across Emotion Induction Conditions

Relation Ba df t
Positive Condition (N = 77)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT .004 72 2.72**
Neutral Condition (N = 79)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT -.0009 74 -.43
Negative Condition (N = 77)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT -.0005 72 -.32
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
ainteraction effect

Key: DDPT (Delay Discounting and Probability Task); N1 (post 1 N-back); N4 (post
4 N-back)

70
Table 9

Moderation Analysis with Emotion Regulation as a Moderator for the Relation

Between Working Memory and State Impulsivity Across Emotion Induction
Conditions

Relation Ba df t
Positive Condition (N = 77)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT -.001 72 2.26*
Neutral Condition (N = 79)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT .0003 74 .417
Negative Condition (N = 77)
N1 DDPT → N4 DDPT .0008 72 .14
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
ainteraction effect

Key: DDPT (Delay Discounting and Probability Task); N1 (post 1 N-back); N4 (post
4 N-back)

71
 ProQuest Number: 30316490

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA