Impulsivity Facets and Substance Use Involvement: Insights from Genomic Structural Equation Modeling

Laura Vilar-Ribó, Alexander S Hatoum, Andrew D Grotzinger, Travis T Mallard, 23andMe Research Team, Sarah Elson, Pierre Fontanillas, Abraham A Palmer, Daniel E Gustavson, Sandra Sanchez-Roige
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.24.24315331

Abstract

Background Impulsivity is a multidimensional trait associated with substance use disorders (SUDs), but the relationship between distinct impulsivity facets and stages of substance use involvement remains unclear.

Methods We used genomic structural equation modeling and genome-wide association studies (N=79,729-903,147) based on individuals of European ancestry to examine the latent genetic architecture of impulsivity and substance use behaviors. We included GWAS data from nine impulsivity traits and seven substance use (SU) and SUD traits.

Results We found that the SU and SUD factors were strongly genetically inter-correlated (rG=0.77) but their associations with impulsivity factors differed. Lack of premeditation, negative and positive urgency were equally positively genetically correlated with both the SU (rG=.0.30-0.50) and SUD (rG=0.37-0.47) factors; sensation seeking was more strongly genetically correlated with the SU factor (rG=0.27 vs. rG=0.10); delay discounting was more strongly genetically correlated with the SUD factor (rG=0.32 vs. rG=0.21); and lack of perseverance was only weakly genetically correlated with the SU factor (rG=0.09). After controlling for the genetic correlation between SU/SUD, we found that lack of premeditation and positive urgency were independently genetically associated with both the SU (β=0.39, β=0.28, respectively) and SUD factors (β=0.28, β=0.19, respectively); sensation seeking and lack of perseverance were independently genetically associated with the SU factor (β=0.46, β=0.19, respectively); and negative urgency and delay discounting were independently genetically associated with the SUD factor (β=0.34, β=0.39, respectively).

Conclusions Our findings show that specific impulsivity facets confer risk for distinct stages of substance use involvement, with potential implications for SUDs prevention and treatment.

Introduction

Impulsivity, broadly defined as the tendency to act on urges or desires without forethought or consideration of potential consequences, is a heritable trait associated with numerous psychiatric disorders, including substance use disorders (SUDs) (Amlung et al., 2017; Berg et al., 2015; Ersche et al., 2010; Kozak et al., 2019; Lees et al., 2021; MacKillop et al., 2011; Mitchell, 2019; Vassileva & Conrod, 2019). As the concept of impulsivity has evolved, researchers have recognized that it represents a family of cognitive and behavioral tendencies influenced by partially distinct neurobiological substrates (E. Levitt et al., 2020; Meda et al., 2009; Miller & Gizer, 2023; Vassileva & Conrod, 2019), as opposed to a single unitary construct (Dick et al., 2010; Evenden, 1999; Griffin et al., 2018). These different forms can manifest, for instance, through motor (acting without thinking), non-planning (lack of forethought), choice (preference for immediate rewards), risk-taking (engaging in potentially harmful activities) or attentional (difficulty focusing) impulsivity. To thoroughly assess this multi-dimensionality, several psychological instruments have been developed, including self-reported questionnaires such as the Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS-P) (Cyders et al., 2014; Whiteside et al., 2005), the Barratt Impulsiveness scale (BIS) (Barratt, 1994), and the Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ) (Kirby et al., 1999).

Impulsivity is a well-established risk factor for SUDs, and is known to influence several stages of vulnerability, including initial substance use, regular use without consequences or dependence (“normative use”; Kearns et al., 2022; Shin et al., 2012; Wasserman et al., 2020, 2021), as well as the progression towards compulsive and problematic use (Lee et al., 2019; Petker et al., 2021; Poulton & Hester, 2020; Verdejo-Garcia & Albein-Urios, 2021), and treatment outcomes (Athamneh et al., 2019, 2022; Heinz et al., 2015; E. E. Levitt et al., 2023; Loree et al., 2015). In addition, these epidemiological studies have suggested that specific impulsivity facets have unique relationships with these different stages of substance use vulnerability. For instance, sensation seeking is often associated with substance use initiation, whereas other facets, such as negative urgency, lack of premeditation and delay discounting, are associated with substance use-related problems or poorer treatment outcomes (Hershberger et al., 2017; Hildebrandt et al., 2021; Kearns et al., 2022; Kräplin et al., 2020; MacKillop et al., 2011; Petker et al., 2021; Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2017; Stautz & Cooper, 2013; Tran et al., 2018). A deeper knowledge into these differences could lead to more effective strategies for treating and preventing SUDs by targeting specific dimensions of impulsivity. However, these prior phenotypic studies often face methodological challenges, such as small sample sizes, variability in instrument measurement and difficulty controlling for potential environmental biases, which can limit the generalizability and interpretability of the findings (Friedman & Gustavson, 2022; Sanchez-Roige & Palmer, 2020).

Genetic studies can partially overcome some of the limitations of phenotypic studies by examining the relationship between impulsivity and substance use vulnerability using independent cohorts, which partially controls for potential environmental confounds (Miller & Gizer, 2024; Sanchez-Roige, Fontanillas, et al., 2019; Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023). For more than two decades, family and twin studies have shown that the relationships between impulsivity and substance use behaviors are largely due to an underlying shared genetic liability (Kendler et al., 2003; Slutske et al., 2002; Tarter et al., 2004). Recent multivariate techniques, such as Genomic Structural Equation Modeling (Genomic SEM), can combine data from multiple correlated phenotypes derived from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and model the latent genetic factor structure of impulsivity and substance use behaviors (Grotzinger et al., 2019). Using recent GWAS of impulsivity (Sanchez-Roige, Fontanillas, et al., 2019; Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023), we have applied Genomic SEM to model the genetic architecture of impulsivity facets and corroborated that impulsivity is multidimensional (Gustavson et al., 2020, 2024; Mallard et al., 2023). While most impulsivity facets were positively genetically correlated with one another, others such as sensation seeking and delay discounting were divergent (Gustavson et al., 2020, 2024; Mallard et al., 2023). We also used Genomic SEM to model the latent structure of SUDs, and shown that the genetic architecture of normative use and SUDs are distinct (Hatoum et al., 2022, 2023; Mallard et al., 2022). Furthermore, a recent Genomic SEM study identified a stronger genetic overlap between sensation seeking and alcohol consumption compared to alcohol use disorder (Miller & Gizer, 2024). However, the extent to which other impulsivity facets are differentially genetically related to aspects of substance use involvement has not been systematically explored.

Here we build upon these Genomic SEM findings to model the genetic architecture of impulsivity facets and substance use behaviors. We leveraged access to well-powered GWAS summary statistics (N=79,729-903,147) to examine the latent genetic relationship between nine impulsivity facets, captured by six latent factors based on our prior work, including negative and positive urgency (inability to resist temptations while experiencing positive or negative affect), lack of premeditation (tendency to act without planning or self-control), lack of perseverance (inability to persist on difficult tasks), sensation seeking (tendency to enjoy risky situations) and delay discounting (preference for smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards), and seven substance use-related measures, captured by two factors based on our prior work (Hatoum et al., 2022, 2023), including normative substance use (SU; based on lifetime and quantity/frequency use) and SUD. Based on prior findings, we hypothesized that specific impulsivity facets would be differentially associated with SU and SUD factors, providing a more comprehensive understanding into the etiology of substance use vulnerability.

Methods

GWAS data

Overview

We used published GWAS derived from genetically-predicted individuals of European ancestry based on genetic similarity (National Academies of Sciences & Medicine, 2023). Our study was limited to this group because similar impulsivity GWAS data are not available for other groups. Table 1 provides an overview of the GWAS datasets used.

View this table:
Table 1. Summary of GWAS datasets for impulsivity, substance use and SUDs

Impulsivity

We used summary statistics from our latest impulsivity GWAS (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023). These included five measures from the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (Cyders et al., 2014; Whiteside et al., 2005) and three from the BIS scales (Barratt, 1994) in a cohort comprising up to 133,517 consented research participants from 23andMe, Inc. These data sets have been extensively described elsewhere (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023).

Delay discounting

We used summary statistics from our latest GWAS of delay discounting (H. H. A. Thorpe et al., 2024), which included 134,935 consented research participants from 23andMe, Inc. Participants completed the 27-item MCQ (Kirby et al., 1999). More information about this dataset can be found in H. H. Thorpe et al., (2024).

Substance use

We used summary statistics from three normative substance use GWAS: drinks per week (N = 666,978; Saunders et al., 2022), smoking initiation (N = 805,431; Saunders et al., 2022) and lifetime cannabis use (N = 184,765; Pasman et al., 2018).

Substance use disorders

We used summary statistics from four SUDs GWAS: problematic alcohol use (PAU) (N = 903,147; Zhou et al., 2023)), tobacco use disorder (TUD) (N = 495,471; Toikumo et al., 2024), cannabis use disorder (CUD) (N = 886,025; Levey et al., 2023) and opioid use disorder (OUD) (N = 79,729; Zhou, Rentsch, et al., 2020).

Data analysis

All analyses were conducted in R (Version 4.1.1; R CoreTeam, 2022). We used the GenomicSEM package (Version 0.0.4; Grotzinger et al., 2019), which applies SEM methods to GWAS summary statistics. Genomic SEM leverages Linkage Disequilibrium Score Regression (LDSC) (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015) to generate a genetic correlation matrix between traits from GWAS summary statistics. Genomic SEM adjusts for potential sample overlap by estimating a sampling covariance matrix that indexes the precision of the estimates as well as the extent to which the sampling dependencies of the estimates are associated (Grotzinger et al., 2019).

Structural equation models are fit to the data using Genomic SEM, which draws on functionality from the lavaan R package (Rosseel, 2012). We used standard European reference panels and parameter settings, and the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation method. Model fit was determined based on the comparative fit index (CFI) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Good-fitting models are expected to have CFI higher than .95 (.90 for acceptable fit), SRMR smaller than .08, and smaller AIC values than competing nested models (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Significance of individual parameter estimates was established with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and FDR corrected p value.

Model-fitting approach

First, we separately fit confirmatory factor models of impulsivity and substance use-related measures. For impulsivity, we fit a six-factor model, using GWAS data from the UPPS-P (five traits) and the BIS (three traits) subscales and delay discounting (Table 1), based on our prior work (Gustavson et al., 2020, 2024). This model included the three BIS subscales and the UPPS-P lack of premeditation subscale as indices of a lack of premeditation factor (Figure 2). Next, we fit a two-factor model comprising the SU and SUD factors, using GWAS data from seven substance use-related measures, based on prior work by Hatoum et al., (2022) and Karlsson Linnér et al., (2021). Notably, our SU factor is composed of indices of lifetime use as well as quantity/frequency of use. Despite the lack of GWAS for lifetime alcohol use, the high genetic correlation between alcohol quantity/frequency and smoking/cannabis lifetime use measures (Figure 1) suggests that these phenotypes could potentially be indicative of a single latent factor. Our SUD factor replicated the addiction-risk-factor model by Hatoum et al., (2022, 2023), replacing problematic tobacco use for TUD (Toikumo et al., 2024), which was not available at the time of their analyses. Finally, we constructed a common factor model in which all factors (six impulsivity factors, SU factor, SUD factor) were fitted simultaneously. We fit two versions of this model: (a) a correlated factors model where we estimated the genetic correlations between all impulsivity, SU, and SUD factors, and (b) a multiple regression mode, where impulsivity was regressed on SU and SUD factors, with the latent factors treated as correlated outcomes. Within the correlated factors model, to test whether impulsivity facets were differentially correlated with the SU and SUD factors, we included a computed variable (i.e., a defined parameter) that captured the difference between the SU and SUD estimates. We used the associated p value to test this difference. The multiple regression model was used to quantify whether genetic associations between impulsivity and SU were independent of genetic influences on SUD (and vice-versa). To account for multiple testing, we applied an FDR correction to all p values.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Genetic correlation (rg) matrix between all study variables. The size and color of the circle indicates the strength of the correlation. Non-significant genetic correlations are left blank. rg and 95% confidence intervals can be found in Supplementary Table 1. UPPS-S = Impulsive Behavior Scale; BIS = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Path diagram for the final model of impulsivity, substance use (SU) and substance use disorder (SUD) traits. Observed indicators are represented by squares and latent factors are represented by circles. Single headed arrows indicate factor loading, and double headed arrows indicate correlations. Orange arrows represent genetic correlations significantly different between impulsivity and SU versus SUD, and green arrows represent genetic correlations of similar magnitude between impulsivity and SU or SUD. All values indicate standardized parameters estimates. Confidence intervals and p values can be found in Supplementary Table 2.

Data availability

Summary statistics for the SU and SUD GWAS were publicly available. Data from 23andMe are available upon request (see https://research.23andme.com/dataset-access/). The R data files containing the Genomic SEM matrices and an R markdown with the analysis scripts and corresponding outputs are available at the following link https://osf.io/ba8dy/?view_only=acacd8c2eae844e88b8b4510a7d59973, which allows for replication and analyses of competing models without obtaining the source data.

Results

Figure 1 shows the genetic correlation matrix (rg) among all study variables. Genetic correlations between impulsivity facets and substance use involvement traits were broadly significant and positive, ranging from rg = 0.11 to rg = 0.80, with a few exceptions (Supplementary Table 1). Delay discounting was negatively genetically correlated with sensation seeking, lack of perseverance and lifetime cannabis use (rg range = −0.1 to -0.16).

The six-factor impulsivity model, which was based on prior work from (Gustavson et al., 2020), showed acceptable fit (χ2(17) = 441.49, CFI = .938, SRMR = .074) (Figure 2). This model included five single-item factors (i.e., negative urgency, positive urgency, lack of perseverance, sensation seeking and delay discounting), and one common factor comprising the three BIS subscales and lack of premeditation. The two-factor substance use model, which captured the shared genetic variation of drinks per week, smoking initiation and lifetime cannabis use into a SU factor, and the shared genetic variation of PAU, TUD, CUD and OUD into a SUD factor, also showed an acceptable fit (χ2(10) = 98.57, CFI = .985, SRMR = .056). As expected, the SU and SUD factors exhibited a strong positive genetic correlation, indicating significant shared genetic influences (rG = .77, 95% CI = [0.73, 0.81]). Because we expected that measures related to the same substance (e.g., drinks per week and PAU) would be especially correlated with one another, we also included residual correlations between these measures in our model. The residual correlation between drinks per week and PAU was moderate (rG = .44, 95% CI = [0.36, 0.52]), while the residual correlations between smoking initiation and TUD, and lifetime cannabis use and CUD, were relatively low (rG = .27, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.34] and .11, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.19], respectively).

Our final common factor model, displayed in Figure 2, combined the six impulsivity, SU and SUD factors (χ2(78) = 2392.55, CFI = .939, SRMR = .072). The SU and SUD factors were most strongly genetically correlated with lack of premeditation (SU rG = .50, 95% CI = [0.42, 0.58]; SUD rG = .47, 95% CI = [0.4, 0.53]), and least strongly genetically correlated with lack of perseverance (SU rG = .09, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.16]; SUD rG = .04, 95% CI = [-0.02, 0.1], p = n.s.). Sensation seeking was more strongly genetically correlated with the SU factor than with the SUD factor (rG = .27, 95% CI = [0.19, 0.34] vs. rG = .10, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.17], respectively, p = 4.17e-05). On the contrary, delay discounting was more strongly genetically correlated with the SUD factor than with the SU factor (rG = .32, 95% CI = [0.27, 0.38] vs. rG = .21, 95% CI = [0.15, 0.28], respectively, p = 2.41e-03). For all other impulsivity facets, genetic correlations with the SU and SUD factors were not significantly different from one another.

Given the strong genetic correlation between the SU and SUD factors, we performed a specificity analysis via a multiple regression model to test whether these factors were independently associated with impulsivity facets. This final model had the same fit as the correlated factor model (from Figure 2), and the results are described in Figure 3 and Supplementary Table 3. We observed distinct patterns of associations for most of the impulsivity facets with the SU and SUD factors. Controlling for SUD, the SU factor was positively genetically associated with positive urgency (beta (β) = 0.28, 95% CI = [0.1, 0.45], p = 2.94e-03), lack of premeditation (β = 0.39, 95% CI = [0.18, 0.61], p = 4.80e-04), lack of perseverance (β = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.31], p = 4.88e-02), and sensation seeking (β = 0.46, 95% CI = [0.3, 0.62], p = 8.65e-08). Controlling for SU, the SUD factor was positively genetically associated with negative urgency (β = 0.34, 95% CI = [0.2, 0.48], p = 2.53e-06), positive urgency (β = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.34], p = 1.64e-02), lack of premeditation (β = 0.24, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.42], p = 1.15e-02) and delay discounting (β = 0.39, 95% CI = [0.27, 0.51], p = 5.68e-10), and negatively genetically associated with sensation seeking (β = −0.25, 95% CI = [-0.4, −0.1], p = 1.98e-03).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Standardized genetic associations between SU and SUD (controlling for one another), and the six impulsivity factors. Estimates, 95% confidence intervals and p values for these regressions can be found in Supplementary Table 3. Significant associations are indicated with a filled-in circle.

Discussion

A deeper understanding of the relationship between impulsivity facets and stages of substance use vulnerability can facilitate the development of better prevention, diagnosis and treatment strategies for SUDs. In this study, we used GWAS data and Genomic SEM techniques to model the genetic architecture of nine impulsivity facets and seven measures related to substance use and SUDs. Virtually all facets of impulsivity were genetically correlated with both the SU and SUD factors, but the magnitude of these correlations varied across different impulsivity facets. Our findings provide evidence that specific impulsivity facets confer risk for distinct stages of substance use involvement and emphasize the need to consider the multi-dimensional nature of impulsivity in SUD-related research.

As expected, the SU and SUD factors were strongly genetically correlated but not at unity, consistent with our prior work (Hatoum et al., 2022, 2023). This supports the idea that while normative use and SUDs are related, they have different genetic architectures, which may also contribute to differences in their relationships with other traits or behaviors (Dick et al., 2011; Kranzler et al., 2019; Levey et al., 2023; Mallard et al., 2022; Mallard & Sanchez-Roige, 2021; Polimanti et al., 2020; Sanchez-Roige et al., 2022; Sanchez-Roige, Palmer, et al., 2019). For example, some impulsivity facets were most strongly linked to aspects of normative use. In particular, sensation seeking showed a stronger genetic correlation with the SU than the SUD factor. Delay discounting, however, showed a stronger genetic correlation with the SUD than the SU factor. Meanwhile, negative and positive urgency, lack of premeditation and lack of perseverance showed similar genetic correlations with both the SU and SUD factors. Most of these results held in our regression model, which accounted for the genetic overlap between the SU and SUD. Our findings further highlight impulsivity facets as independent phenotypic and genetic constructs, in some cases only moderately correlated with each other (Gustavson et al., 2019, 2020; Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023; H. H. Thorpe et al., 2024), that capture specific biological processes relevant to normative and disordered substance use (Miller & Gizer, 2024; Mitchell, 2019; Poulton & Hester, 2020).

Sensation seeking, defined as the tendency to engage in highly stimulating behaviors, was more strongly genetically correlated with the SU factor compared to the SUD factor, which was further supported by our regression model. Indeed, among all impulsivity facets, sensation seeking exhibited the strongest genetic association with the SU factor. Our results contribute to a substantial body of evidence demonstrating that sensation seeking is primarily associated with aspects of initiation and experimental substance use (Birkley & Smith, 2011; Fischer et al., 2008; Griffin et al., 2018; Hildebrandt et al., 2021; Stautz & Cooper, 2013). After controlling for SU, we also observed a significant negative genetic association between sensation seeking and the SUD factor, which aligns with previous phenotypic (Courtney et al., 2012) and genetic (Miller & Gizer, 2024) studies and suggests that the influence of sensation seeking on SUDs may primarily manifest through increased normative substance use.

Lack of perseverance, which reflects the cognitive difficulties of maintaining effort over an extended period of time, showed a unique, but weak, genetic correlation with the SU factor, but not with the SUD factor. This finding remained consistent in our regression model, and aligns with prior phenotypic studies (Fischer & Smith, 2008; Hildebrandt et al., 2021; Kearns et al., 2022; Magid & Colder, 2007; Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2017) and our prior GWAS (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023; Sanchez-Roige, Fontanillas, et al., 2019), suggesting that lack of perseverance may have a distinct genetic architecture and weaker genetic associations with substance use-related outcomes compared to other impulsivity facets (Gustavson et al., 2020, 2024).

Conversely, delay discounting showed a significantly stronger genetic correlation with the SUD factor compared to the SU factor, and as observed in the regression model, the strongest genetic association with the SUD factor among all impulsivity facets. This finding aligns with clinical- and population-based phenotypic studies, where devaluation of delayed rewards appears most relevant to problematic substance use over normative use (Courtney et al., 2012; Fröhner et al., 2022; Kräplin et al., 2020; P. Murphy & Garavan, 2011; Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2017).

Positive and negative urgency showed equal genetic correlations with the SU and SUD factors, however, this was not consistent in our regression model. While positive urgency was independently associated with both the SU and SUD factors, negative urgency was uniquely associated with the SUD factor. This specificity aligns with theoretical models proposing that positive urgency, driven by enhanced sensitivity to rewards, may promote both initial experimentation and escalation to substance misuse, whereas negative urgency, reflecting difficulties regulating responses to negative emotions, may specifically contribute to compulsive use via a process of negative reinforcement during withdrawal (Cyders & Smith, 2008; Koob & Le Moal, 2001; Koob & Volkow, 2010; Smith & Cyders, 2016). Prior epidemiological evidence aligns with this specificity. Positive urgency has been previously associated with both normative (Kaiser et al., 2016; Tomko et al., 2016; Zapolski et al., 2009), and problematic substance use (Coskunpinar et al., 2013; Stautz & Cooper, 2014; Tran et al., 2018), whereas negative urgency has been primarily implicated in SUDs severity and related problems (Adams et al., 2012; Coskunpinar et al., 2013; Fischer & Smith, 2008; Hildebrandt et al., 2021; Kearns et al., 2022; Magid & Colder, 2007; C. Murphy & Mackillop, 2012; Stamates & Lau-Barraco, 2017; Stautz & Cooper, 2013; Tomko et al., 2016; Verdejo-Garcia & Albein-Urios, 2021), supporting our results. Despite the high genetic correlation between positive and negative urgency, our results suggest some distinct genetic relationships with stages of substance use vulnerability. This finding reinforces the notion that these impulsivity facets should be considered separate constructs (Billieux et al., 2021; Carver & Johnson, 2018).

Lastly, lack of premeditation, a facet characterized by low executive control and difficulties with prospective thinking and planning, showed the strongest genetic correlation with both the SU and SUD factors. Our regression model suggests that lack of premeditation has independent genetic contributions to both the SU, which aligns with prior phenotypic studies (Fischer & Smith, 2008; Griffin & Trull, 2021; McCabe et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2012, 2013), as well as the SUD factor, where prior findings have been mixed (Fischer & Smith, 2008; Hershberger et al., 2017; Hildebrandt et al., 2021; Magid & Colder, 2007; McCabe et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2012).

Our findings should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, GWAS were only conducted in individuals with European genetic similarity; while we have no specific reason to believe these findings are specific to Europeans, future analyses should diversify genetic analyses as larger non-European samples become available. Additionally, all impulsivity GWAS were conducted in a cohort of 23andMe participants that were generally older and had higher socioeconomic status than the general population (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023). These factors may introduce biases due to gene-environment correlations (Abdellaoui et al., 2022; H. H. A. Thorpe et al., 2024) and reduce the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, Genomic SEM allows modeling the genetic architecture between the traits studied, but it does not infer causality or directionality. Impulsivity facets can represent both risk factors as well as consequences of substance use (Kaiser et al., 2016; Verdejo-García et al., 2008), as seen in longitudinal, family-based and clinical studies where individuals with increased impulsive behaviors have higher susceptibility to substance use and SUDs (Verdejo-Garcia & Albein-Urios, 2021). In addition, chronic substance use can lead to brain alterations that can further exacerbate impulsivity (de Wit, 2009). However, the 23andMe cohort used in the impulsivity GWAS data reported relatively low levels of drug use, suggesting that impulsivity due to recent drug use is unlikely to be a major confounder in our study (Sanchez-Roige et al., 2023). Furthermore, the SU and SUD factors exhibited a strong genetic correlation, complicating the interpretation of the regression model due to collinearity issues. Despite this challenge, it remains crucial to distinguish between normative use and SUDs, even if the unique variance is small. This differentiation will inform more effective prevention and intervention strategies aimed at preventing normative SU from progressing to SUDs. Finally, it is noteworthy that some of our results differ from those reported in previous phenotypic studies. However, genetic studies and phenotypic observations can sometimes diverge due to factors like gene-environment interplay, sampling error and confounding factors not accounted for in the analysis (e.g. socioeconomic status, peer influences, or availability of substances) (Sodini et al., 2018).

In conclusion, our study provides novel insights into the complex genetic relationships between distinct facets of impulsivity and different stages of substance use involvement. Our findings highlight both similarities and differences on the genetic contributions of various impulsivity domains to aspects of normative substance use and SUDs. These results reinforce the importance of studying impulsivity as multidimensional constructs when trying to determine their role in SUDs vulnerability. Future work should further explore the underlying biological mechanisms of individual facets of impulsivity, many of which are amenable to studies in non-human animals. The insights from this study can also be leveraged to inform targeted prevention and intervention efforts tailored to individual impulsivity profiles and substance use risk.

Conflict of interest

S.E., P.F., and 23andMe Research Team are employed by and hold stock or stock options in 23andMe, Inc. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

L.V.R., S.S.R, A.A.P., and D.E.G. are funded through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA DP1DA054394, P30DA060810, P50DA037844 and R01DA059804). A.A.P., and S.S.R. are funded through the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (T32IR5226 and 28IR-0070). T.T.M. is supported by funds from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; K08MH135343) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA; AA030083). A.D.G. is supported by NIMH Grant (R01MH120219).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the research participants and employees of 23andMe for making this work possible.

The following members of the 23andMe Research Team contributed to this study:

Stella Aslibekyan, Adam Auton, Elizabeth Babalola, Robert K. Bell, Jessica Bielenberg, Ninad S. Chaudhary, Zayn Cochinwala, Sayantan Das, Emily DelloRusso, Payam Dibaeinia, Sarah L. Elson, Nicholas Eriksson, Chris Eijsbouts, Teresa Filshtein, Pierre Fontanillas, Davide Foletti, Will Freyman, Zach Fuller, Julie M. Granka, Chris German, Éadaoin Harney, Alejandro Hernandez, Barry Hicks, David A. Hinds, M. Reza Jabalameli, Ethan M. Jewett, Yunxuan Jiang, Sotiris Karagounis, Lucy Kaufmann, Matt Kmiecik, Katelyn Kukar, Alan Kwong, Keng-Han Lin, Yanyu Liang, Bianca A. Llamas, Aly Khan, Steven J. Micheletti, Matthew H. McIntyre, Meghan E. Moreno, Priyanka Nandakumar, Dominique T. Nguyen, Jared O’Connell, Steve Pitts, G. David Poznik, Alexandra Reynoso, Shubham Saini, Morgan Schumacher, Leah Selcer, Anjali J. Shastri, Jingchunzi Shi, Suyash Shringarpure, Keaton Stagaman, Teague Sterling, Qiaojuan Jane Su, Joyce Y. Tung, Susana A. Tat, Vinh Tran, Xin Wang, Wei Wang, Catherine H. Weldon, Amy L. Williams, Peter Wilton.

References

  1. ↵
    Abdellaoui, A., Dolan, C. V., Verweij, K. J. H., & Nivard, M. G. (2022). Gene-environment correlations across geographic regions affect genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 54(9), 1345–1354. doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01158-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Adams, Z. W., Kaiser, A. J., Lynam, D. R., Charnigo, R. J., & Milich, R. (2012). Drinking motives as mediators of the impulsivity-substance use relation: Pathways for negative urgency, lack of premeditation, and sensation seeking. Addictive Behaviors, 37(7), 848–855. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.03.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Amlung, M., Vedelago, L., Acker, J., Balodis, I., & MacKillop, J. (2017). Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: A meta-analysis of continuous associations. Addiction, 112(1), 51–62. doi:10.1111/add.13535
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Athamneh, L. N., DeHart, W. B., Pope, D., Mellis, A. M., Snider, S. E., Kaplan, B. A., & Bickel, W. K. (2019). The phenotype of recovery III: Delay discounting predicts abstinence self-efficacy among individuals in recovery from substance use disorders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 33(3), 310–317. doi:10.1037/adb0000460
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Athamneh, L. N., Freitas Lemos, R., Basso, J. C., Tomlinson, D. C., Craft, W. H., Stein, M. D., & Bickel, W. K. (2022). The phenotype of recovery II: The association between delay discounting, self-reported quality of life, and remission status among individuals in recovery from substance use disorders. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 30(1), 59–72. doi:10.1037/pha0000389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Barratt, E. S. (1994). Impulsiveness and aggression. In Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 61–79). The University of Chicago Press.
  7. ↵
    Berg, J. M., Latzman, R. D., Bliwise, N. G., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). Parsing the heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of the behavioral implications of the UPPS for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1129–1146. doi:10.1037/pas0000111
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Billieux, J., 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. doi:10.1111/jopy.12655
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Birkley, E. L., & Smith, G. T. (2011). Recent advances in understanding the personality underpinnings of impulsive behavior and their role in risk for addictive behaviors. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 4(4), 215–227. doi:10.2174/1874473711104040215
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Bulik-Sullivan, B. K., Loh, P.-R., Finucane, H. K., Ripke, S., Yang, J., Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Patterson, N., Daly, M. J., Price, A. L., & Neale, B. M. (2015). LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 47(3), 291–295. doi:10.1038/ng.3211
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Carver, C. S., & Johnson, S. L. (2018). Impulsive reactivity to emotion and vulnerability to psychopathology. The American Psychologist, 73(9), 1067–1078. doi:10.1037/amp0000387
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Coskunpinar, A., Dir, A. L., & Cyders, M. A. (2013). Multidimensionality in impulsivity and alcohol use: A meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(9), 1441–1450. doi:10.1111/acer.12131
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Courtney, K. E., Arellano, R., Barkley-Levenson, E., Gálvan, A., Poldrack, R. A., Mackillop, J., Jentsch, J. D., & Ray, L. A. (2012). The relationship between measures of impulsivity and alcohol misuse: An integrative structural equation modeling approach. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 36(6), 923–931. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01635.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Cyders, M. A., Littlefield, A. K., Coffey, S., & Karyadi, K. A. (2014). Examination of a Short Version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Addictive Behaviors, 39(9), 1372–1376. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.02.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based dispositions to rash action: Positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 807–828. doi:10.1037/a0013341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    de Wit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: A review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14(1), 22–31. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2008.00129.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Dick, D. M., Meyers, J. L., Rose, R. J., Kaprio, J., & Kendler, K. S. (2011). Measures of current alcohol consumption and problems: Two independent twin studies suggest a complex genetic architecture. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 35(12), 2152–2161. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01564.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Dick, D. M., Smith, G., Olausson, P., Mitchell, S. H., Leeman, R. F., O’Malley, S. S., & Sher, K. (2010). Understanding the construct of impulsivity and its relationship to alcohol use disorders. Addiction Biology, 15(2), 217–226. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009.00190.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Ersche, K. D., Turton, A. J., Pradhan, S., Bullmore, E. T., & Robbins, T. W. (2010). Drug addiction endophenotypes: Impulsive versus sensation-seeking personality traits. Biological Psychiatry, 68(8), 770–773. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.06.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    Evenden, J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 348–361. doi:10.1007/PL00005481
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Fischer, S., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Binge eating, problem drinking, and pathological gambling: Linking behavior to shared traits and social learning. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 789–800. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Fischer, S., Smith, G. T., & Cyders, M. A. (2008). Another look at impulsivity: A meta-analytic review comparing specific dispositions to rash action in their relationship to bulimic symptoms. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1413–1425. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.09.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    Friedman, N. P., & Gustavson, D. E. (2022). Do Rating and Task Measures of Control Abilities Assess the Same Thing? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(3), 262–271. doi:10.1177/09637214221091824
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Fröhner, J. H., Ripke, S., Jurk, S., Li, S.-C., Banaschewski, T., Bokde, A. L. W., Quinlan, E. B., Desrivières, S., Flor, H., Grigis, A., Garavan, H., Heinz, A., Brühl, R., Martinot, J.-L., Paillère Martinot, M.-L., Artiges, E., Nees, F., Papadopoulos Orfanos, D., Poustka, L.,… IMAGEN Consortium. (2022). Associations of delay discounting and drinking trajectories from ages 14 to 22. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 46(4), 667–681. doi:10.1111/acer.14799
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Griffin, S. A., Lynam, D. R., & Samuel, D. B. (2018). Dimensional conceptualizations of impulsivity. Personality Disorders, 9(4), 333–345. doi:10.1037/per0000253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Griffin, S. A., & Trull, T. J. (2021). Alcohol use in daily life: Examining the role of trait and state impulsivity facets. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 35(2), 199–207. doi:10.1037/adb0000679
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Grotzinger, A. D., Rhemtulla, M., de Vlaming, R., Ritchie, S. J., Mallard, T. T., Hill, W. D., Ip, H. F., Marioni, R. E., McIntosh, A. M., Deary, I. J., Koellinger, P. D., Harden, K. P., Nivard, M. G., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2019). Genomic structural equation modelling provides insights into the multivariate genetic architecture of complex traits. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 513–525. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0566-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    Gustavson, D. E., Franz, C. E., Kremen, W. S., Carver, C. S., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2019). Common genetic influences on impulsivity facets are related to goal management, psychopathology, and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 161–175. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2019.03.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Gustavson, D. E., Friedman, N. P., Fontanillas, P., Elson, S. L., 23andMe Research Team, Palmer, A. A., & Sanchez-Roige, S. (2020). The Latent Genetic Structure of Impulsivity and Its Relation to Internalizing Psychopathology. Psychological Science, 31(8), 1025–1035. doi:10.1177/0956797620938160
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Gustavson, D. E., Morrison, C. L., Mallard, T. T., Jennings, M. V., Fontanillas, P., Elson, S. L., Palmer, A. A., Friedman, N. P., & Sanchez-Roige, S. (2024). Executive Function and Impulsivity Predict Distinct Genetic Variance in Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems, Thought Disorders, and Compulsive Disorders: A Genomic Structural Equation Modeling Study. Clinical Psychological Science, 12(5), 865–881. doi:10.1177/21677026231207845
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Hatoum, A. S., Colbert, S. M. C., Johnson, E. C., Huggett, S. B., Deak, J. D., Pathak, G., Jennings, M. V., Paul, S. E., Karcher, N. R., Hansen, I., Baranger, D. A. A., Edwards, A., Grotzinger, A., Substance Use Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Tucker-Drob, E. M., Kranzler, H. R., Davis, L. K., Sanchez-Roige, S., Polimanti, R.,… Agrawal, A. (2023). Multivariate genome-wide association meta-analysis of over 1 million subjects identifies loci underlying multiple substance use disorders. Nature. Mental Health, 1(3), 210–223. doi:10.1038/s44220-023-00034-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Hatoum, A. S., Johnson, E. C., Colbert, S. M. C., Polimanti, R., Zhou, H., Walters, R. K., Gelernter, J., Edenberg, H. J., Bogdan, R., & Agrawal, A. (2022). The addiction risk factor: A unitary genetic vulnerability characterizes substance use disorders and their associations with common correlates. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 47(10), 1739–1745. doi:10.1038/s41386-021-01209-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    Heinz, A. J., Bui, L., Thomas, K. M., & Blonigen, D. M. (2015). Distinct facets of impulsivity exhibit differential associations with substance use disorder treatment processes: A cross-sectional and prospective investigation among military veterans. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 55, 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.02.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Hershberger, A. R., Um, M., & Cyders, M. A. (2017). The relationship between the UPPS-P impulsive personality traits and substance use psychotherapy outcomes: A meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 178, 408–416. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Hildebrandt, M. K., Dieterich, R., & Endrass, T. (2021). Disentangling substance use and related problems: Urgency predicts substance-related problems beyond the degree of use. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 242. doi:10.1186/s12888-021-03240-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    Kaiser, A., Bonsu, J. A., Charnigo, R. J., Milich, R., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Impulsive Personality and Alcohol Use: Bidirectional Relations Over One Year. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 77(3), 473–482. doi:10.15288/jsad.2016.77.473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Karlsson Linnér, R., Mallard, T. T., Barr, P. B., Sanchez-Roige, S., Madole, J. W., Driver, M. N., Poore, H. E., de Vlaming, R., Grotzinger, A. D., Tielbeek, J. J., Johnson, E. C., Liu, M., Rosenthal, S. B., Ideker, T., Zhou, H., Kember, R. L., Pasman, J. A., Verweij, K. J. H., Liu, D. J.,… Dick, D. M. (2021). Multivariate analysis of 1.5 million people identifies genetic associations with traits related to self-regulation and addiction. Nature Neuroscience, 24(10), 1367–1376. doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00908-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    Kearns, N. T., Gunn, R. L., Stevens, A. K., Berey, B. L., & Metrik, J. (2022). Longitudinal associations between impulsivity and alcohol and cannabis use frequency, quantity, and problems among military veterans. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 36(7), 762–774. doi:10.1037/adb0000825
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    Kendler, K. S., Prescott, C. A., Myers, J., & Neale, M. C. (2003). The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors for common psychiatric and substance use disorders in men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(9), 929–937. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.929
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 128(1), 78–87. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.128.1.78
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    Koob, G. F., & Le Moal, M. (2001). Drug Addiction, Dysregulation of Reward, and Allostasis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 24(2), 97–129. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(00)00195-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2010). Neurocircuitry of Addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 217–238. doi:10.1038/npp.2009.110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    Kozak, K., Lucatch, A. M., Lowe, D. J. E., Balodis, I. M., MacKillop, J., & George, T. P. (2019). The neurobiology of impulsivity and substance use disorders: Implications for treatment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1451(1), 71–91. doi:10.1111/nyas.13977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    Kranzler, H. R., Zhou, H., Kember, R. L., Vickers Smith, R., Justice, A. C., Damrauer, S., Tsao, P. S., Klarin, D., Baras, A., Reid, J., Overton, J., Rader, D. J., Cheng, Z., Tate, J. P., Becker, W. C., Concato, J., Xu, K., Polimanti, R., Zhao, H., & Gelernter, J. (2019). Genome-wide association study of alcohol consumption and use disorder in 274,424 individuals from multiple populations. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1499. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09480-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Kräplin, A., Höfler, M., Pooseh, S., Wolff, M., Krönke, K.-M., Goschke, T., Bühringer, G., & Smolka, M. N. (2020). Impulsive decision-making predicts the course of substance-related and addictive disorders. Psychopharmacology, 237(9), 2709–2724. doi:10.1007/s00213-020-05567-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. ↵
    Lee, R. S. C., Hoppenbrouwers, S., & Franken, I. (2019). A Systematic Meta-Review of Impulsivity and Compulsivity in Addictive Behaviors. Neuropsychology Review, 29(1), 14–26. doi:10.1007/s11065-019-09402-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    Lees, B., Garcia, A. M., Debenham, J., Kirkland, A. E., Bryant, B. E., Mewton, L., & Squeglia, L. M. (2021). Promising vulnerability markers of substance use and misuse: A review of human neurobehavioral studies. Neuropharmacology, 187, 108500. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Levey, D. F., Galimberti, M., Deak, J. D., Wendt, F. R., Bhattacharya, A., Koller, D., Harrington, K. M., Quaden, R., Johnson, E. C., Gupta, P., Biradar, M., Lam, M., Cooke, M., Rajagopal, V. M., Empke, S. L. L., Zhou, H., Nunez, Y. Z., Kranzler, H. R., Edenberg, H. J.,… Gelernter, J. (2023). Multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of cannabis use disorder yields insight into disease biology and public health implications. Nature Genetics, 55(12), 2094–2103. doi:10.1038/s41588-023-01563-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    Levitt, E. E., Sousa, S., Costello, M. J., LaBelle, O. P., Rush, B., & MacKillop, J. (2023). The Clinical Relevance of Impulsivity in Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Examining Within-Treatment Changes and Relationship to Psychiatric Symptoms and Cravings in a Large Inpatient Sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 84(4), 570–578. doi:10.15288/jsad.22-00212
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    Levitt, E., Sanchez-Roige, S., Palmer, A. A., & MacKillop, J. (2020). Steep Discounting of Future Rewards as an Impulsivity Phenotype: A Concise Review. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 47, 113–138. doi:10.1007/7854_2020_128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    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. doi:10.1111/dar.12132
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    MacKillop, J., Amlung, M. T., Few, L. R., Ray, L. A., Sweet, L. H., & Munafò, M. R. (2011). Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology, 216(3), 305–321. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    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. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  55. ↵
    Mallard, T. T., & Sanchez-Roige, S. (2021). Dimensional Phenotypes in Psychiatric Genetics: Lessons from Genome-Wide Association Studies of Alcohol Use Phenotypes. Complex Psychiatry, 7(3–4), 45–48. doi:10.1159/000518863
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Mallard, T. T., Savage, J. E., Johnson, E. C., Huang, Y., Edwards, A. C., Hottenga, J. J., Grotzinger, A. D., Gustavson, D. E., Jennings, M. V., Anokhin, A., Dick, D. M., Edenberg, H. J., Kramer, J. R., Lai, D., Meyers, J. L., Pandey, A. K., Harden, K. P., Nivard, M. G., de Geus, E. J. C.,… Sanchez-Roige, S. (2022). Item-Level Genome-Wide Association Study of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in Three Population-Based Cohorts. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 179(1), 58–70. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20091390
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    Mallard, T. T., Tubbs, J. D., Jennings, M., Zhang, Y., Gustavson, D. E., Grotzinger, A. D., Westwater, M. L., Williams, C. M., Fortgang, R. G., Elson, S. L., Fontanillas, P., Davis, L. K., Raznahan, A., Tucker-Drob, E. M., Choi, K. W., Ge, T., Smoller, J. W., Palmer, A. A., & Sanchez-Roige, S. (2023). The pleiotropic architecture of human impulsivity across biological scales. medRxiv, 2023.11.28.23299133. doi:10.1101/2023.11.28.23299133
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    McCabe, C. J., Louie, K. A., & King, K. M. (2015). Premeditation moderates the relation between sensation seeking and risky substance use among young adults. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 753–765. doi:10.1037/adb0000075
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    Meda, S. A., Stevens, M. C., Potenza, M. N., Pittman, B., Gueorguieva, R., Andrews, M. M., Thomas, A. D., Muska, C., Hylton, J. L., & Pearlson, G. D. (2009). Investigating the behavioral and self-report constructs of impulsivity domains using principal component analysis. Behavioural Pharmacology, 20(5–6), 390–399. doi:10.1097/FBP.0b013e32833113a3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    Miller, A. P., & Gizer, I. R. (2023). Dual-systems models of the genetic architecture of impulsive personality traits: Neurogenetic evidence of distinct but related factors. Psychological Medicine, 1–11. doi:10.1017/S0033291723003367
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    Miller, A. P., & Gizer, I. R. (2024). Neurogenetic and multi-omic sources of overlap among sensation seeking, alcohol consumption, and alcohol use disorder. Addiction Biology, 29(2), e13365. doi:10.1111/adb.13365
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    Mitchell, S. H. (2019). Linking Delay Discounting and Substance Use Disorders: Genotypes and Phenotypes. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(3), 419–432. doi:10.1007/s40614-019-00218-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    Murphy, C., & Mackillop, J. (2012). Living in the here and now: Interrelationships between impulsivity, mindfulness, and alcohol misuse. Psychopharmacology, 219(2), 527–536. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2573-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    Murphy, P., & Garavan, H. (2011). Cognitive predictors of problem drinking and AUDIT scores among college students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 115(1–2), 94–100. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.10.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine. (2023). Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/26902
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    Pasman, J. A., Verweij, K. J. H., Gerring, Z., Stringer, S., Sanchez-Roige, S., Treur, J. L., Abdellaoui, A., Nivard, M. G., Baselmans, B. M. L., Ong, J.-S., Ip, H. F., van der Zee, M. D., Bartels, M., Day, F. R., Fontanillas, P., Elson, S. L., 23andMe Research Team, de Wit, H., Davis, L. K.,… Vink, J. M. (2018). GWAS of lifetime cannabis use reveals new risk loci, genetic overlap with psychiatric traits, and a causal influence of schizophrenia. Nature Neuroscience, 21(9), 1161–1170. doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0206-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    Petker, T., Ferro, M., Van Ameringen, M., Murphy, J., & MacKillop, J. (2021). Daily, but not occasional, cannabis use is selectively associated with more impulsive delay discounting and hyperactive ADHD symptoms in binge-drinking young adults. Psychopharmacology, 238(7), 1753–1763. doi:10.1007/s00213-021-05781-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    Polimanti, R., Walters, R. K., Johnson, E. C., McClintick, J. N., Adkins, A. E., Adkins, D. E., Bacanu, S.-A., Bierut, L. J., Bigdeli, T. B., Brown, S., Bucholz, K. K., Copeland, W. E., Costello, E. J., Degenhardt, L., Farrer, L. A., Foroud, T. M., Fox, L., Goate, A. M., Grucza, R.,… Gelernter, J. (2020). Leveraging genome-wide data to investigate differences between opioid use vs. Opioid dependence in 41,176 individuals from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Molecular Psychiatry, 25(8), 1673–1687. doi:10.1038/s41380-020-0677-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    Poulton, A., & Hester, R. (2020). Transition to substance use disorders: Impulsivity for reward and learning from reward. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(10), 1182–1191. doi:10.1093/scan/nsz077
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    Sanchez-Roige, S., Fontanillas, P., Elson, S. L., Gray, J. C., de Wit, H., MacKillop, J., & Palmer, A. A. (2019). Genome-Wide Association Studies of Impulsive Personality Traits (BIS-11 and UPPS-P) and Drug Experimentation in up to 22,861 Adult Research Participants Identify Loci in the CACNA1I and CADM2 genes. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 39(13), 2562–2572. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2662-18.2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    Sanchez-Roige, S., Jennings, M. V., Thorpe, H. H. A., Mallari, J. E., van der Werf, L. C., Bianchi, S. B., Huang, Y., Lee, C., Mallard, T. T., Barnes, S. A., Wu, J. Y., Barkley-Levenson, A. M., Boussaty, E. C., Snethlage, C. E., Schafer, D., Babic, Z., Winters, B. D., Watters, K. E., Biederer, T.,… Palmer, A. A. (2023). CADM2 is implicated in impulsive personality and numerous other traits by genome- and phenome-wide association studies in humans and mice. Translational Psychiatry, 13(1), 167. doi:10.1038/s41398-023-02453-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    Sanchez-Roige, S., Kember, R. L., & Agrawal, A. (2022). Substance use and common contributors to morbidity: A genetics perspective. EBioMedicine, 83, 104212. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    Sanchez-Roige, S., & Palmer, A. A. (2020). Emerging phenotyping strategies will advance our understanding of psychiatric genetics. Nature Neuroscience, 23(4), 475–480. doi:10.1038/s41593-020-0609-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    Sanchez-Roige, S., Palmer, A. A., Fontanillas, P., Elson, S. L., 23andMe Research Team, the Substance Use Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Adams, M. J., Howard, D. M., Edenberg, H. J., Davies, G., Crist, R. C., Deary, I. J., McIntosh, A. M., & Clarke, T.-K. (2019). Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in Two Population-Based Cohorts. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 176(2), 107–118. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18040369
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    Saunders, G. R. B., Wang, X., Chen, F., Jang, S.-K., Liu, M., Wang, C., Gao, S., Jiang, Y., Khunsriraksakul, C., Otto, J. M., Addison, C., Akiyama, M., Albert, C. M., Aliev, F., Alonso, A., Arnett, D. K., Ashley-Koch, A. E., Ashrani, A. A., Barnes, K. C.,… Vrieze, S. (2022). Genetic diversity fuels gene discovery for tobacco and alcohol use. Nature, 612(7941), 720–724. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05477-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    Shin, S. H., Chung, Y., & Jeon, S.-M. (2013). Impulsivity and substance use in young adulthood. The American Journal on Addictions, 22(1), 39–45. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2013.00324.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. ↵
    Shin, S. H., Hong, H. G., & Jeon, S.-M. (2012). Personality and alcohol use: The role of impulsivity. Addictive Behaviors, 37(1), 102–107. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.09.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    Slutske, W. S., Heath, A. C., Madden, P. A. F., Bucholz, K. K., Statham, D. J., & Martin, N. G. (2002). Personality and the genetic risk for alcohol dependence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(1), 124–133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. ↵
    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 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), S3–S12. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    Sodini, S. M., Kemper, K. E., Wray, N. R., & Trzaskowski, M. (2018). Comparison of Genotypic and Phenotypic Correlations: Cheverud’s Conjecture in Humans. Genetics, 209(3), 941–948. doi:10.1534/genetics.117.300630
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    Stamates, A. L., & Lau-Barraco, C. (2017). The dimensionality of impulsivity: Perspectives and implications for emerging adult drinking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 25(6), 521–533. doi:10.1037/pha0000153
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    Stautz, K., & Cooper, A. (2013). Impulsivity-related personality traits and adolescent alcohol use: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(4), 574–592. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.03.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    Stautz, K., & Cooper, A. (2014). Urgency traits and problematic substance use in adolescence: Direct effects and moderation of perceived peer use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 487–497. doi:10.1037/a0034346
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    Tarter, R. E., Kirisci, L., Habeych, M., Reynolds, M., & Vanyukov, M. (2004). Neurobehavior disinhibition in childhood predisposes boys to substance use disorder by young adulthood: Direct and mediated etiologic pathways. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 73(2), 121–132. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.07.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  86. ↵
    Thorpe, H. H. A., Fontanillas, P., Pham, B. K., Meredith, J. J., Jennings, M. V., Courchesne-Krak, N. S., Vilar-Ribó, L., Bianchi, S. B., Mutz, J., 23andMe Research Team, Elson, S. L., Khokhar, J. Y., Abdellaoui, A., Davis, L. K., Palmer, A. A., & Sanchez-Roige, S. (2024). Genome-wide association studies of coffee intake in UK/US participants of European ancestry uncover cohort-specific genetic associations. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. doi:10.1038/s41386-024-01870-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    Thorpe, H. H., Cupertino, R. B., Pakala, S. R., Fontanillas, P., Jennings, M. V., Yang, J., Meredith, J. J., Greenwood, T., Bianchi, S. B., Vilar-Ribo, L., Niarchou, M., Team, 23andMe Research, Elson, S. L., Ideker, T., Davis, L. K., MacKillop, J., deWit, H., Gustavson, D., Mallard, T. T.,… Sanchez-Roige, S. (2024). Genome-wide association study of delay discounting in 134,935 individuals identifies novel loci and transdiagnostic associations across mental and physical health (p. 2024.09.27.24314244). medRxiv. doi:10.1101/2024.09.27.24314244
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    Toikumo, S., Jennings, M. V., Pham, B. K., Lee, H., Mallard, T. T., Bianchi, S. B., Meredith, J. J., Vilar-Ribó, L., Xu, H., Hatoum, A. S., Johnson, E. C., Pazdernik, V. K., Jinwala, Z., Pakala, S. R., Leger, B. S., Niarchou, M., Ehinmowo, M., Penn Medicine BioBank, Jenkins, G. D.,… Sanchez-Roige, S. (2024). Multi-ancestry meta-analysis of tobacco use disorder identifies 461 potential risk genes and reveals associations with multiple health outcomes. Nature Human Behaviour. doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01851-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. ↵
    Tomko, R. L., Prisciandaro, J. J., Falls, S. K., & Magid, V. (2016). The structure of the UPPS-R-Child impulsivity scale and its relations with substance use outcomes among treatment-seeking adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 161, 276–283. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    Tran, J., Teese, R., & Gill, P. R. (2018). UPPS-P facets of impulsivity and alcohol use patterns in college and noncollege emerging adults. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 44(6), 695–704. doi:10.1080/00952990.2018.1503280
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    Vassileva, J., & Conrod, P. J. (2019). Impulsivities and addictions: A multidimensional integrative framework informing assessment and interventions for substance use disorders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 374(1766), 20180137. doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    Verdejo-Garcia, A., & Albein-Urios, N. (2021). Impulsivity traits and neurocognitive mechanisms conferring vulnerability to substance use disorders. Neuropharmacology, 183, 108402. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2020.108402
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    Verdejo-García, A., Lawrence, A. J., & Clark, L. (2008). Impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for substance-use disorders: Review of findings from high-risk research, problem gamblers and genetic association studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(4), 777–810. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.11.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  94. ↵
    Wasserman, A. M., Mathias, C. W., Hill-Kapturczak, N., Karns-Wright, T. E., & Dougherty, D. M. (2020). The Development of Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking: Associations with Substance Use among At-Risk Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence: The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence, 30(4), 1051–1066. doi:10.1111/jora.12579
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    Wasserman, A. M., Shaw-Meadow, K. J., Moon, T. J., Karns-Wright, T. E., Mathias, C. W., Hill-Kapturczak, N., & Dougherty, D. M. (2021). The externalizing and internalizing pathways to marijuana use initiation: Examining the synergistic effects of impulsiveness and sensation seeking. Developmental Psychology, 57(12), 2250–2264. doi:10.1037/dev0001267
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005). Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: A four-factor model of impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19(7), 559–574. doi:10.1002/per.556
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  97. ↵
    Zapolski, T. C. B., Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Positive urgency predicts illegal drug use and risky sexual behavior. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 23(2), 348–354. doi:10.1037/a0014684
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  98. ↵
    Zhou, H., Kember, R. L., Deak, J. D., Xu, H., Toikumo, S., Yuan, K., Lind, P. A., Farajzadeh, L., Wang, L., Hatoum, A. S., Johnson, J., Lee, H., Mallard, T. T., Xu, J., Johnston, K. J. A., Johnson, E. C., Nielsen, T. T., Galimberti, M., Dao, C.,… Gelernter, J. (2023). Multi-ancestry study of the genetics of problematic alcohol use in over 1 million individuals. Nature Medicine, 29(12), 3184–3192. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02653-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. ↵
    Zhou, H., Rentsch, C. T., Cheng, Z., Kember, R. L., Nunez, Y. Z., Sherva, R. M., Tate, J. P., Dao, C., Xu, K., Polimanti, R., Farrer, L. A., Justice, A. C., Kranzler, H. R., Gelernter, J., & Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program. (2020). Association of OPRM1 Functional Coding Variant With Opioid Use Disorder: A Genome-Wide Association Study. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(10), 1072–1080. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1206
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted October 25, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email
Impulsivity Facets and Substance Use Involvement: Insights from Genomic Structural Equation Modeling
Laura Vilar-Ribó, Alexander S Hatoum, Andrew D Grotzinger, Travis T Mallard, 23andMe Research Team, Sarah Elson, Pierre Fontanillas, Abraham A Palmer, Daniel E Gustavson, Sandra Sanchez-Roige
medRxiv 2024.10.24.24315331; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.24.24315331
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area