Impulsivity and compulsivity have been placed on a continuum in which impulsivity is motivated by reward sensitivity and compulsivity by avoidance. Recently, however, studies emphasised...Show moreImpulsivity and compulsivity have been placed on a continuum in which impulsivity is motivated by reward sensitivity and compulsivity by avoidance. Recently, however, studies emphasised neurocognitive influences on impulsivity and compulsivity, underscoring the significance of action control. Thus, this study proposed the metacontrol state model (MSM) as an additional explanation of variance in impulsivity and compulsivity across the general population. The MSM views individuals to fall on a spectrum between cognitive flexibility and persistence, where the individual’s biases towards either side of the spectrum impacts their ability to control and inhibit action. We hypothesised that individual meta-control biases towards flexibility or persistence predict individual differences in impulsivity and compulsivity in addition to reward sensitivity and avoidance. In order to examine this relationship, 41 participants (mean age = 23.7) completed a variation of the Stroop task, the Monetary Incentive Delay task, and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behaviour Scale. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that a meta-control bias towards flexibility was positively associated with impulsivity while a persistence bias was associated with compulsivity. However, this study’s findings contradicted the traditional view, indicating an association of reward sensitivity with compulsivity and avoidance with impulsivity. The exploratory analysis, identified an interaction between reward sensitivity and the meta-control biases and a mediating effect of the MSM was suspected. Overall, this study highlights the association between individual differences in cognitive control and impulsivity and compulsivity, emphasising both the insufficiency of traditional models and the relevance of the meta-control state model.Show less
