In Fenneman et al.'s (2022) review of theories and integrated impulsivity model, the authors distinguish between information impulsivity (i.e., acting without considering consequences) and temporal impulsivity (i.e., the tendency to pick sooner outcomes over later ones). The authors find that both types of impulsivity can be adaptive in different contexts. For example, when individuals experience scarcity of resources or when they are close to a minimum level of reserves (critical threshold). In this commentary, we extend their findings to a discussion about the measurement of impulsivity. We argue that a common method for measuring temporal impulsivity in which people make decisions between outcomes that are spaced out in time (intertemporal choice tasks), puts individuals in a specific context that is unlikely to generalize well to other situations. Furthermore, trait measures of impulsivity may only be modestly informative about future impulsive behavior because they largely abstract away from important context. To address these issues, we advocate for the development of dynamic measures of the two types of impulsivity. We argue that measuring temporal impulsivity in naturalistic contexts with varying environmental and state parameters could provide insights into whether individuals (i.e., humans and nonhuman animals) react to environmental changes adaptively, while trait measures of impulsivity more generally should collect and provide more contextual information. Dynamic measurement of different types of impulsivity will also allow for more discussion about adaptive impulsive responses in different contexts, which could help combat the stigmatization of various disorders associated with impulsivity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

Fenneman 等人 (2022) 对正式冲动模型的回顾：对冲动理论和测量的启示。

在 Fenneman 等人（2022）对理论和综合冲动模型的回顾中，作者区分了信息冲动（即不考虑后果的行动）和时间冲动（即选择较早结果而不是较晚结果的倾向）。作者发现，两种类型的冲动都可以适应不同的环境。例如，当个人经历资源稀缺或接近最低储备水平（临界阈值）时。在这篇评论中，我们将他们的发现扩展到关于冲动测量的讨论。我们认为，测量时间冲动的常用方法是人们在时间间隔的结果之间做出决策（跨期选择任务），该方法将个体置于特定的环境中，而该环境不太可能很好地推广到其他情况。此外，冲动的特质测量对于未来的冲动行为可能只能提供有限的信息，因为它们很大程度上脱离了重要的背景。为了解决这些问题，我们主张制定针对这两类冲动的动态措施。我们认为，在具有不同环境和状态参数的自然背景下测量时间冲动可以深入了解个体（即人类和非人类动物）是否对环境变化做出适应性反应，而更普遍的冲动特征测量应该收集和提供更多的背景信息。对不同类型冲动的动态测量也将允许对不同背景下的适应性冲动反应进行更多讨论，这可能有助于对抗与冲动相关的各种疾病的污名化。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。