Use of Instant Messaging Predicts Self-Report but Not Performance Measures of Inattention,Impulsiveness,and Distractibility

Abstract

We examined how young adults' use of instant messaging, text messaging, and traditional reading related to their self-reported experience of distractibility and impulsiveness and to their performance on computerized tasks designed to assess inattention and impulsive responses to visual stimuli. Participants reported their media use and completed self-report measures of impulsiveness (i.e., the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) and distractibility for academic reading. They also completed performance based measures of inattention and impulsiveness using the Tests of Variables of Attention (T.O.V.A.^®). Results demonstrated that instant message use was significantly related to higher levels of attentional impulsiveness and distractibility on the self-report measures, while traditional reading consistently predicted lower levels of impulsiveness and distractibility. However, media use was not significantly related to the performance measures of inattention and behavioral impulsiveness.

In contemporary media culture, multitasking has become the norm, especially among young people.¹ Whether they are texting while driving, carrying on multiple conversations via instant messaging, or social networking while studying, young people are dividing their attention in ways that are likely to shape their cognitive functioning, behavior, or well-being. One-third of teens admit to having texted or e-mailed while driving.² In academic settings, more than half of students have reported that they check text messages on their cell phones during class.³ Furthermore, people seem to be unaware of the amount of distraction they experience when they multitask. When placed in front of both a television and a computer, people switched their attention on average four times a minute, but were unaware that they had done so.⁴

There is a growing body of research that shows that multitasking interferes with performance on academic and cognitive tasks. For example, students who instant messaged while reading academic material took significantly longer to accomplish the same task.^5,6 Students who were interrupted by a cell phone during a lecture had poorer test performance.⁷ Students who used laptops in class were likely to multitask, which correlated with poorer class performance and more distraction,⁸ and 78% of students reported that electronic multitasking in class was distracting.⁹ Cell phone use and texting while studying decreased accuracy in a learning and memory task.¹⁰ Further, students who reported using media while studying performed more poorly in class,¹¹ and in self-report studies, greater electronic multitasking was associated with more distractibility and impulsiveness, while traditional reading was related to lesser amounts.^12,13

Research on the relation between media use and distractibility and impulsiveness has relied on self-report measures. Commonly used self-report measures of impulsiveness (e.g., Barratt Impulsiveness Scale,¹⁴ Eysenck Impulsiveness Scale,¹⁵ Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale¹⁶) correlate with one another, but do not necessarily correlate with performance measures, suggesting that they are likely measuring different aspects of impulsiveness.¹⁷ Self-report measures of impulsiveness are generally considered to be indicators of long-lasting traits. For example, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale¹⁴ has been interpreted as a measure of integrated trait impulsivity representing cognitive and behavioral domains that are stable and long lasting.^18–21 However, impulsiveness can vary situationally, and performance tests, such as the Tests of Variables of Attention (T.O.V.A.^®), have been designed to examine that more state dependent aspect of impulsivity in a rapid response situation.^20,21 Past research demonstrating differing patterns of relations between disordered behavior and self-report versus performance measures of impulsiveness support the idea that the two types of measures tap into differing dimensions.^22–29

Currently no research has examined whether media multitasking is related to performance rather than self-report measures of distractibility and impulsiveness. The purpose of the present study was to examine relationships between media use patterns, specifically instant messaging, text messaging, and traditional reading, and both self-report and performance measures of inattention, impulsiveness, and distractibility. We predicted that instant messaging and text messaging, which often involve interruption and multitasking, would predict greater inattention, impulsiveness, and distractibility. We also hypothesized that more traditional reading would predict better attention and less impulsiveness and distractibility for performance as well as self-report measures.

Method

Participants

A total of 150 students enrolled in psychology classes at a public university participated. The students were aged from 18 to 28 years (M=20.12 years, SD=2.35), and 54% were women, 83% were white non-Latino, 7% African-American, 7% Latino, and 3% Asian. Students received course credit for their participation.

Self-report measures of impulsiveness and distractibility

Impulsiveness

The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11)^14,30 is a 30-item self-report measure of impulsiveness that provides an overall impulsiveness score and three subscales scores described below. The BIS-11 has been widely used and found to be a reliable and valid standard measure of impulsiveness.¹⁷ Participants responded to items such as “I act on impulse” on 4-point scales (1=“rarely/never” to 4=“almost always/always”). The total scale score is a measure of general impulsiveness.³⁰ Internal consistency with our sample was good (Cronbach's α=0.82) and consistent with prior reported values.¹⁷

The three BIS subscales are: Attention Impulsiveness (e.g., inability to focus attention or concentrate; having intrusive or racing thoughts; 8 items); Motor Impulsiveness (e.g., acting without thinking; 11 items); and Non-planning Impulsiveness (e.g., lack of “futuring” or careful thinking; 11 items).^17,30 Psychometric properties of the subscales are acceptable.¹⁷ In our sample, the internal consistencies of the subscales (Cronbach's α) were 0.74, 0.62, and 0.73 respectively.

Distractibility for Academic Reading Scale (DAR)

Students completed the 4-item DAR on 5-point Likert type scales (1=“strongly disagree” to 5=“strongly agree”), adapted from Levine et al.,¹² to measure self-reported academic focus and distractibility for academic reading. Higher scores indicate greater distractibility. Prior research has demonstrated the content validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability of the DAR.¹³ For the present sample, the Cronbach's alpha was 0.77.

Performance measures of attention

Tests of Variables of Attention (T.O.V.A. version 7.3) is a valid and reliable computerized continuous performance test used to assess visual information processing and attention problems.³¹

The T.O.V.A. presented targets (a square with a smaller square inside of it, near the upper border) or nontargets (a square with the smaller square inside of it, near the lower border) on a computer screen, in random order, for a duration of 100 milliseconds, every 2 seconds. Participants were asked to press a microswitch as fast as they could every time the target was presented, but not when a nontarget was presented. During the first half of the test (“target infrequent” condition), one target was presented, randomly, for every 3.5 nontargets. Participants needed to remain vigilant. During the second half (“target frequent” condition), the ratio was reversed (e.g., 3.5 targets to 1 nontarget). Participants needed to inhibit any response tendency.

In the present study, we used the following standard T.O.V.A. measures:³¹ (a) response time variability (RTV)—a measure of inconsistency in response to targets that indicates attention difficulty; (b) response time (RT) taken to respond correctly to a target—an indicator of attentional difficulty; (c) omission errors (for the first half of the test; OE₁) or “misses”— a measure of inattention; (d) commission errors (for the second half of the test; CE₂) or “false alarms”—a measure of behavioral impulsiveness; (e) response sensitivity (d′) is a measure of the rate of deterioration of performance over time.³¹ For easier interpretation, we report on, and use in our analyses, the T.O.V.A. standard scores.

Measures of media use

Students completed a questionnaire asking about electronic and print media use. From these items, we created summative composite measures for the amount of traditional reading, instant messaging, and text messaging. Specifically, our measure of traditional reading reflects the summed amount of traditional print reading per week that students reported on four measures—reading printed books for pleasure, books assigned for classes, magazines and newspapers (none online)—on 8-point scales: 0, <1, 1–2, 3–5, 6–9, 10–13, 14–17, or 18 or more hours per week. Responses for each reading measure were coded for data entry as 0 to 7 respectively and summed. Our measure of instant messaging (IM use) reflects the summed amount of three student reported measures. The first is the amount of time spent instant messaging in a typical week. Response choices in hours were 0, 1–7, 8–14, 15–21, 22–28, 29–35, or 36 or more, and were coded for data entry as 0 to 6 respectively. The second measure is whether their IM is typically used when their computer is turned on (1=“never” to 5=“very often”). The third measure is the immediacy of their responses to instant messages (1=“never respond immediately” to 5=“always respond immediately”). Responses for each measure were transformed into z scores and summed. Our measure of text messaging (TM use) reflects the summed amount of three student reported measures: (a) the number of text messages that they send in a typical month (open-ended); (b) the number of text messages that they receive in a typical month (open-ended); (c) the immediacy of their responses to text messages (1=“never respond immediately” to 5=“always respond immediately”). Responses for each measure were transformed into z-scores and summed.

Results

Instant messaging and text messaging were common activities for the study participants (see Table 1 for media use descriptive statistics). In sum, 68% of the students reported that they used IM in a typical week, most of those (79%) for between 1 and 14 hours, for a mean amount of approximately 8 hours and 50 minutes per week (SD=7.21). Most (82%) reported that their IM was turned on typically sometimes, often, or always, and 92% reported that they sometimes, often, or always respond right away when they received an IM. For text messaging, nearly all (96%) reported that they texted. For mean number of texts sent and received per month, see Table 1. About 98% reported that they sometimes, often, or always respond right away when they received a text message.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Instant Message, Text Message, and Traditional Reading Variables

Variable	M	SD	Min	Max
Instant message time^a	1.16	1.17	0	6
IM turned on^b	3.23	1.45	1	5
IM respond right away^b	3.44	0.94	1	5
No. texts sent/month	887.43	1,332.26	0	7,000
No. texts received/month	947.97	1,273.18	0	8,000
Text respond right away^b	3.89	0.68	1	5
Traditional reading^c	6.61	2.79	1	15

Response choices in hours were 0, 1–7, 8–14, 15–21, 22–28, 29–35, or 36 or more, and were coded for data entry as 0 to 6 respectively.

5-point Likert scale: 1=“never”; 5=“always.”

Reading total is combined amount of reading print media (total books, magazines, newspapers). Print media responses choices in hours were 0, <1, 1–2, 3–5, 6–9, 10–13, 14–17, 18 or more, and were coded 0 to 7 respectively.

Multiple regression analyses predicting distractibility and impulsiveness variables using TM and IM factors

We conducted a series of multiple regression analyses including IM use, TM use, amount of traditional reading, and gender as predictors for impulsiveness and distractibility variables. Descriptive statistics for the variables used in all regressions are presented in Table 2 and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 3.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Attention, Impulsiveness, and Distractibility Variables

Variable	M	SD	Min	Max
Self-report
BIS-11 (Total Impulsiveness)	62.98	10.29	36.00	89.00
BIS-11 (Attention Impulsiveness)	16.86	3.89	9.00	27.00
BIS-11 (Motor Impulsiveness)	22.18	4.14	13.00	33.00
BIS-11 (Non-planning Impulsiveness)	23.95	4.70	11.00	36.00
DAR (Distractibility)	13.02	3.03	6.00	20.00
Performance (T.O.V.A. standard scores)
Response time variability	97.07	18.04	42.00	129.00
Response time	114.57	15.68	40.00	143.00
Omission errors_{(Half 1)}	97.37	13.57	40.00	105.00
Commission errors_{(Half 2)}	101.48	15.38	40.00	120.00
Response sensitivity (d′)	95.40	17.63	49.00	144.00
IM and TM factors (z scores)
IM time	0.00	1.00	−1.00	4.16
IM turned on	0.00	1.00	−1.54	1.22
IM respond right away	0.00	1.00	−2.59	1.65
TM sent	0.00	1.00	−0.72	4.95
TM received	0.00	1.00	−0.71	5.29
TM respond right away	0.00	1.00	−4.28	1.65

Note. IM and TM predictors used in regressions were summed z scores for IM and TM measures.

Table 3.

Zero-Order Correlations for Inattention, Impulsiveness, Distractibility, and Media Use Variables

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. BIS-11 (Total Impulsiveness)	—	0.79^**	0.81^**	0.82^**	0.41^**	−0.05	−0.07	−0.17^*	0.02	−0.05	−0.27^**	0.17^*	0.06	−0.05
2. BIS-11 (Attention-Impulsiveness)		—	0.49^**	0.47^**	0.55^**	−0.05	−0.06	−0.18^*	−0.01	−0.01	−0.27^**	0.20^*	0.02	−0.04
3. BIS-11 (Motor Impulsiveness)			—	0.48^**	0.20^*	−0.10	−0.11	−0.15	−0.01	−0.08	−0.17^*	0.02	0.03	−0.08
4. BIS-11 (Non-planning Impulsiveness)				—	0.29^**	0.05	0.05	−0.14	0.05	−0.04	−0.22^**	0.21^*	0.11	0.01
5. DAR (Distractibility)					—	−0.12	−0.09	−0.13	0.02	−0.05	−0.37^**	0.21^*	−0.01	−0.05
6. TOVA Response Time Variability						—	0.65^**	0.42^**	0.23^**	0.48^**	−0.02	0.13	−0.01	−0.10
7. TOVA Response Time							—	0.21^**	−0.28^**	−0.04	0.04	0.17^*	0.09	0.06
8. TOVA Omission Errors_{(Half 1)}								—	0.14	0.46^**	0.08	−0.06	−0.02	−0.03
9. TOVA Commission Errors_{(Half 2)}									—	0.65^**	−0.02	0.03	−0.01	−0.15
10. TOVA Response Sensitivity (d^')										—	0.06	0.04	−0.03	−0.20^*
11. Traditional Reading											—	−0.11	−0.08	0.07
12. IM Use												—	0.20^*	0.07
13. TM Use													—	0.04
14. Gender														—

Note. Gender was coded: 0=“male”; 1=“female.” ^*p≤0.05; ^**p≤0.01.

Regressions for self-report measures (BIS-11 and DAR)

In a series of five multiple regression analyses, we utilized IM use, TM use, amount of traditional reading, and gender to predict overall impulsiveness (BIS-11 total score), as well as the three BIS-11 subscales (BIS Attention Impulsiveness, BIS Motor Impulsiveness, BIS Non-planning Impulsiveness), and DAR Scale. All regressions were significant (p<0.05) except for the one predicting BIS Motor Impulsiveness (see left side of Table 4 for these regression results).

Table 4.

Multiple Regression Results for Self-Reported Impulsiveness and Distractibility (BIS, DAR) Measures and TOVA Performance Inattention

	Self-Report					T.O.V.A.
Variable	BIS TOT β	BIS A-I β	BIS M-I β	BIS N-I β	DAR β	RTV β	RT β	OE β	CE β	d¹ β
Intercept	62.98	20.67	25.01	27.45	17.17	99.00	110.17	94.08	104.32	94.40
Traditional Reading	−.25^**	−.25^**	−.16^*	−.20^*	−.35^***	.00	.06	.07	−.01	.07
TM Use	.02	−.04	.01	.06	−.07	−.03	.06	−.01	−.01	−.03
IM Use	.13	.17^*	.01	.17^*	.18^*	.13	.16	−.05	.04	.06
Gender	−.05	−.03	−.07	−.01	−.04	−.10	.04	−.03	−.15	−.21^*
	R² = .09	R² = .10	R² = .03	R² = .08	R² = .17	R² = .03	R² = .04	R² = .01	R² = .03	R² = .06
	p = .008	p = .004	p = .296	p = .015	p = .000	p = .438	p = .253	p = .850	p = .454	p = .119
	F = 3.61	F = 3.95	F = 1.24	F = 3.19	F = 7.20	F = 0.95	F = 1.35	F = 0.34	F = 0.92	F = 1.87

***

p ≤ .001, ^** p ≤ .01, ^* p ≤ .05

Note 1. For all regressions df_n = 4, df_d = 145.

Note 2. Regressions results for each of the BIS-11, DAR, and T.O.V.A. DV's are reported separately in each column. TM Use is sum of z-scores for number of texts sent, number of texts received and text respond right away. IM Use is sum of z-scores for IM Hrs/week, IM is on when computer is on, and IM respond right away.

For all significant regressions, examination of the regression coefficients (β) demonstrates that the impulsiveness and distractibility measures were inversely related to the amount of time spent in traditional reading (p<0.05). For all significant regressions except for the one predicting overall impulsiveness, the self-reported impulsiveness and distractibility measures were significantly positively predicted by IM use (p<0.05).

Regressions for performance measures (T.O.V.A. measures)

Similarly, in a series of five multiple regression analyses, we used the same predictors described above to predict, separately, each of the T.O.V.A. performance measures (standard scores) of inattention and impulsiveness: response time variability, response time, omission errors (half 1), commission errors (half 2), and response sensitivity. All regressions were nonsignificant (p>0.05; see right side of Table 4 for these regression results).

Discussion

Results demonstrated that IM use and traditional reading were consistently related to self-report measures of impulsiveness and distractibility but not to performance measures of inattention and impulsiveness. Use of IM was related to higher levels of impulsiveness and distractibility while traditional reading was related to lower levels as measured by self-report. However, the T.O.V.A. performance measures were not significantly related to any type of media use. Amount of text messaging was not related to impulsiveness and distractibility in this sample.

The findings of differential outcome as a function of type of impulsiveness measure are interesting in light of a number of previous studies that examined the connections between nonmedia experiences or conditions, and self-report and performance-based attention measures. These studies on the whole demonstrated connections between the variables or conditions of interest and self-report but not performance measures of attention.^{19,22–24,26} The findings support the idea that performance measures are likely measuring different aspects of impulsiveness and distractibility than self-report measures.¹⁷

As previously discussed, the BIS self-report measure has been interpreted as a measure of trait impulsiveness, while the T.O.V.A. measures state-dependent impulsiveness in a rapid response situation. In the present study, trait impulsiveness was predicted by self-reported history of IM use and reading. A state-dependent measure such as the T.O.V.A. might be useful in experimental investigations examining the immediate after effects of the use of IM or other interruptive technology. One issue in the interpretation of the study is whether self-report measures tend to be related more strongly to one another than to performance-based measures. In this study, the BIS-11 and the DAR were significantly related to each other and to the self-report measure of media use. Few of the self-report measures of impulsiveness and distractibility were related to the performance-based results of the T.O.V.A. Similar discrepancies between self-report and performance measures have been found in other studies. Numerous studies that used the BIS to measure self-control found smaller relationships between the BIS and behaviors assessed through direct observation than between the BIS and other self-report measures.^17,32 The measures of distractibility and impulsiveness differ in the aspect of impulsiveness that they elicit. In this study, media use was found to be related to the subjective experience of distractibility and impulsiveness but not to actions demonstrating inattention and impulsiveness.

This difference is found both in performance on the T.O.V.A. and in responses to the Motor Impulsiveness Scale of the BIS-11. Whereas Attention Impulsiveness and Non-planning Impulsiveness measures of the BIS-11 were related to media use, the subscale of Motor Impulsiveness was not. The Motor Impulsiveness measure consists of items such as “I act ‘on impulse’” and “I act on the spur of the moment” that describe impulsive actions, whereas the other two scales contain items such as “I have ‘racing’ thoughts” and “I am a careful thinker” that focus more on mental activity.

In sum, there is no evidence in our study for connections between media use (IM, TM, traditional reading) and the behavioral or performance dimensions of impulsiveness and inattention. However, the connections between IM use, reading, and most self-report measures of trait impulsiveness and distractibility were consistent and significant, although not large, in both this and previous studies.^5,12,13 Although there are many other factors associated with trait impulsiveness and distractibility, use of IM was consistently associated with an individual's level of impulsiveness and distractibility, particularly in regard to mental processes rather than physical actions.

Due to study design limitations, direction of effects is not clear from these findings. Media use and multitasking may contribute to the development of a style characterized by impulsiveness and distractibility, while reading promotes a more reflective, controlled style. However, it is also possible that someone with a more impulsive, distractible personality style will be more attracted to multitasking with media and less to traditional reading. At present, we can speculate that the relation found between multitasking and impulsivity may be both cause and effect. Individuals who are more impulsive and distractible may be drawn to media multitasking, but their experience with these media then encourages them to jump quickly from one event to the next, further developing their tendency to respond impulsively and attend to distractions. Such a bidirectional effect has been found in children who play videogames.³³ Individuals who are less impulsive may be more likely to engage in more traditional reading. They may then be more likely to find rewards in pursuing a single activity without distraction, thereby developing their tendency to maintain their focus and ignore distractions. In future research, it will be important to continue to explore the type of impulsivity and distractibility that is associated with new communication technology available to users and to add evidence concerning the direction of effects.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Rideout

, Foehr

, Roberts

. (2010) Generation M2: media in the lives of 8- to18-year-olds. www.kff.org/entmedia/8010.cfm (accessed Oct. 15, 2012).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012) 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) results. www.cdc.gov/Features/YRBS/ (accessed Oct. 15, 2012).

Burns

, Lohenry

. Cellular phone use in class: implications for teaching and learning a pilot study. College Student Journal, 2010; 44:805–810.

Brasel

, Gips

. Media multitasking behavior: concurrent television and computer usage. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:527–534.

Bowman

, Levine

, Waite

, et al. Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 2010; 54:927–931.

Fox

, Rosen

, Crawford

. Distractions, distractions: does instant messaging affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task?. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:51–53.

Shelton

, Elliott

, Eaves

, et al. The distracting effects of a ringing cell phone: an investigation of the laboratory and the classroom setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2009; 29:513–521.

Fried

. In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 2008; 50:906–914.

Wurst

, Smarkola

, Gaffney

. Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers & Education, 2008; 51:1766–1783.

10.

Smith

, Isaak

, Senette

, et al. Effects of cell phone and text-message distractions on true and false recognition. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:351–358.

11.

Gurung

. How do students really study (and does it matter)?. Teaching of Psychology, 2005; 32:239–241.

12.

Levine

, Waite

, Bowman

. Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2007; 10:560–566.

13.

Waite

, Levine

, & Bowman

. Instant messaging, multitasking and media use of college youth: connections to impulsiveness and distractibility. American Journal of Media Psychology, 2009; 2:126–147.

14.

Barratt

. (1994) Impulsiveness and aggression. In Monahan

, Steadman

, eds. Violence and mental disorder: developments in risk assessment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–79.

15.

Eysenck

, Pearson

, Easting

, et al. Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality & Individual Differences, 1985; 6:613–619.

16.

Zuckerman

, Eysenck

. Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 1978; 46:139–149.

17.

Stanford

, Mathias

, Dougherty

, et al. Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: an update and review. Personality & Individual Differences, 2009; 47:385–395.

18.

Barratt

, Patton

. (1983) Impulsivity: cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological correlates. In Zuckerman

, ed. Biological basis of sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 77–116.

19.

Swann

, Lijffijt

, Lane

, et al. Interactions between bipolar disorder and antisocial personality disorder in trait impulsivity and severity of illness. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2010; 121:453–461.

20.

Swann

, Lijffijt

, Lane

, et al. Trait impulsivity and response inhibition in antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2009; 43:1057–1063.

21.

Swann

, Birnbaum

, Jagar

, et al. Acute Yohimbine increases laboratory-measured impulsivity in normal subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 2005; 57:1209–1211.

22.

Janis

, Nock

. Are self-injurers impulsive? Results from two behavioral laboratory studies. Psychiatry Research, 2009; 169:261–267.

23.

Horesh

. Self-report vs. computerized measures of impulsivity as a correlate of suicidal behavior. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention & Suicide Prevention, 2001; 22:27–31.

24.

Moeller

, Dougherty

, Barratt

, et al. Increased impulsivity in cocaine dependent subjects independent of antisocial personality disorder and aggression. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 2002; 68:105–111.

25.

Swann

, Pazzaglia

, Nicholls

, et al. Impulsivity and phase of illness in bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2003; 73:105–111.

26.

Rodriguez-Jimenez

, Avila

, Jimenez-Arriero

, et al. Impulsivity and sustained attention in pathological gamblers: influence of childhood ADHD history. Journal of Gambling Studies, 2006; 22:451–461.

27.

Malloy-Diniz

, Fuentes

, Leite

, et al. Impulsive behavior in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: characterization of attentional, motor and cognitive impulsiveness. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2007; 13:693–698.

28.

Swann

, Bjork

, Moeller

, et al. Two models of impulsivity: relationship to personality traits and psychopathology. Biological Psychiatry, 2002; 51:988–994.

29.

Cao

, Su

, Liu

, et al. The relationship between impulsivity and Internet addiction in a sample of Chinese adolescents. European Psychiatry, 2007; 22:466–471.

30.

Patton

, Stanford

, Barratt

. Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1995; 51:768–774.

31.

Leark

, Greenberg

, Kindschi

, et al. (2007. T.O.V.A.^® professional manual: Test of Variables of Attention Continuous Performance Test. (Ed. No. 410). Los Alamitos, CA: The TOVA Company. www.tovatest.com/clinicalsupport/clinical (accessed Nov. 5, 2012).

32.

de Ridder

, Lensvelt-Mulders

, et al. Taking stock of self-control: a meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2012; 16:76–99.

33.

Gentile

, Swing

, Lim

, et al. Video game playing, attention problems, and impulsiveness: evidence of bidirectional causality. Psychology Of Popular Media Culture [serial online], 2012; 1:62–70.