Research@StAndrews
 
The University of St Andrews

Research@StAndrews:FullText >
University of St Andrews Research >
University of St Andrews Research >
University of St Andrews Research >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2161
This item has been viewed 918 times in the last year. View Statistics

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Cross2011PsychBullSexDifferences_WithAppendix1.pdf727 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Sex differences in impulsivity : a meta-analysis
Authors: Cross, Catharine Penelope
Copping, Lee T.
Campbell, Anne
Keywords: Impulsivity
Sex
Sensation seeking
Effortful control
Reinforcement sensitivity
Risk-task bart
Gender-differences
Self-control
Personality-traits
Decision-making
General-theory
Behavioral activation
Construct-validity
BF Psychology
Issue Date: Jan-2011
Citation: Cross , C P , Copping , L T & Campbell , A 2011 , ' Sex differences in impulsivity : a meta-analysis ' Psychological Bulletin , vol 137 , no. 1 , pp. 97-130 .
Abstract: Men are overrepresented in socially problematic behaviors, such as aggression and criminal behavior, which have been linked to impulsivity. Our review of impulsivity is organized around the tripartite theoretical distinction between reward hypersensitivity, punishment hyposensitivity, and inadequate effortful control. Drawing on evolution try, criminological, developmental, and personality theories, we predicted that sex differences would be most pronounced in risky activities with men demonstrating greater sensation seeking, greater reward sensitivity, and lower punishment sensitivity. We predicted a small female advantage in effortful control. We analyzed 741 effect sizes from 277 studies, including psychometric and behavioral measures. Women were consistently more punishment sensitive (d = -0.33), but men did not show greater reward sensitivity (d = 0.01). Men showed significantly higher sensation seeking on questionnaire mea lures (d = 0.41) and on a behavioral risk-taking task (d = 0.36). Questionnaire measures of deficits in effortful control showed a very modest effect size in the male direction (d = 0.08). Sex differences were not found on delay discounting or executive function tasks. The results indicate a stronger sex difference in motivational rather than effortful or executive forms of behavior control. Specifically, they support evolutionary and biological theories of risk taking predicated on sex differences in punishment sensitivity. A clearer understanding of sex differences in impulsivity depends upon recognizing important distinctions between sensation seeking and impulsivity, between executive and effortful forms of control, and between impulsivity as a deficit and as a trait.
Version: Postprint
Description: Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021591.supp
Status: Peer reviewed
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2161
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021591
ISSN: 0033-2909
Type: Journal article
Rights: This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. The published version (c) 2011 American Psychological Association is available at DOI: 10.1037/a0021591
Appears in Collections:Psychology & Neuroscience Research
University of St Andrews Research



This item is protected by original copyright

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2012  Duraspace - Feedback
For help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk | Copyright for this page belongs to St Andrews University Library | Terms and Conditions (Cookies)