The Impulsive Personality Impact On Youth Risky Behavior And Intervention Research

Objective This study aims to investigate the influence of the impulsive personality of human intrinsic factors on the risk behavior of young people and intervene in the risk behavior of contemporary youth,in order to provide theoretical and practical reference for controlling the occurrence of dangerous behavior in young people.Specific objectives:1.Understand the prevalence and occurrence characteristics of youth risky behaviors;2.Explore the influence of impulsive personality on behavior in groups with high risk behaviors;3.Implement RCT behavioral interventions for high aggressive tendencies of high-risk behavior groups.Methods1.Investigation of the current situation of youth risk behavior（study 1）:A field questionnaire survey was conducted on 1659 young people aged15-25 years old in school using a whole group random sample,mainly for the high risk behavior group（RS group）to analyze the impulsive personality scale,related social psychological factors（social support,susceptibility quality）,indicate the current situation of risk behavior by incidence,cluster analysis of the occurrence characteristics of dangerous behavior,Amos structural equation model to build a risk behavior attribution model.2.Experimental study of impulsive personality in RS group（Study 2）:Applied behavioral experiments+event-related potentials（ERP）,analyzed the behavioral and cognitive effects of four impulsive traits in four experiments:（1）the impulsivity balloon simulated risk experiment（BART）.（2）Iowa Game Experiment（IGT）of Reward and Punishment Sensitivity,（3）Go/No-Go Implicit Association Experiment of Sensation Seeking,（4）.The shock-injury experiment（S-R）of aggression tendency collects the behavioral and cognitive response indicators of the study subjects for repeated measurement of variance analysis,and explains the behavioral and cognitive effects of the traits with the main effects and interaction effects.3.Behavioral intervention-RCT（study 3）:taking people with high aggressive tendencies in the risk behavior group as the intervention object,randomly grouped（intervention group/control group）,the main test and the study subject were double-blind,and the pain face was biased Experiments（PFAB）performed intervention effects tests to illustrate intervention effects with intergroup differences in behavioral and EEG outcomes by generalized estimation equations（GEE）.Results1.Study 1:The results of the investigation of youth’s risky behavior and impulsive personality are as follows:（1）Status of dangerous behaviors:The total incidence of risky behaviors among 1659 young people in school was 36.35%（n=603）,the five categories of risky behaviors are ranked from largest to smallest in terms of incidence:material dependence behavior（20.38%）>unsafe sexual behavior（17.46%）>assault violence（11.73%）>self-injurious behavior（10.51%）>violations（4.63%）.（2）Characteristics of risky behavior:Three major clustering characteristics of risky behavior groups:material dependence,aggressive violence,and self-injurious behavior;high aggressive violence is the primary feature of high-impulse groups.（3）Risky behavior attribution path model:Impulsive personality has a direct risky effect on risky behavior(β_{standardization}=0.607,P<0.01),and the two are affected Protective regulation of empathy(β_{standardization}=-0.78,P<0.01).2.Study 2:The results of four experimental studies on impulsive personality are as follows:（1）Risk decision-making experiment（Experiment 1）:The risk behavior group（RS）vs control group（HC）compared between participants.a.Behavioral results:the risk behavior group with high-risk decision-making tendency was higher than the control group(t _BART value=9.36,P<0.05).b.ERP results:Under the conditions of positive/negative feedback,the control group had more attention to resource input than the risk behavior group（P3:HC positive direction is greater than RS）;the control group was more sensitive to false feedback than the risk behavior group（FRN:HC negative direction was greater than RS）.（2）Iowa game task（Experiment 2）:interstitial design.a.behavioral results:the net score of the risk behavior group was significantly lower than that of the control group,indicating the short-term high risk tendency of the risk behavior group（net score F group=43.12,p<0.01）.b.ERP results:FRN（risk behavior group negative is greater than the control group）,indicating that the high reward and punishment sensitive risk behavior group is highly sensitive to negative feedback of expected mismatch,so that fr N is negatively increased;P3（both groups have positive increase）,indicating that the gain/loss stimulus to the youth group is more generally high attention to investment,so that P3 positive changes.（3）Behavioral words-positive/negative implicit association experiment（Experiment 3）:interstitial design.a.behavioral results:dˊvalue（Go response rate）:risky behavior-positive association of risk behavior group positive tendencies higher than the control group,problem behavior-negative association of risky behavior group of negative behavior group negative tendency is lower than the control group.b.ERP results:problem behavior-positive connection of semantic stimulation control group is higher than the risk behavior group（P2:HC positive direction is higher than RS）,The semantic stimulus risk behavior group of risk-negative associations was higher than the control group（P2:RS positive was higher than HC）.The risk behavior group of risk-taking behaviors-/problem behaviors-negative combinations of cognitive conflict risk behavior was larger than that of the control group（LPP:RS positive than HC）;the cognitive conflict control group of risk-risk behaviors-/problem behaviors-positive coupled pairs was larger than that of risky behaviors（LPP:HC positive higher than RS）.（4）Shock-Injury Experiment（Experiment 4）:Designed within the subject.a.Behavioral results:The proportion of electric shocks is affected by the interaction between shock intensity and self-correlation（F shock intensity×self-correlation=6.30,P<0.01）;during reaction（RT）electric shock intensity（F shock intensity=38.63,P<0.01）and self-correlation（F self-correlation=6.68,P<0.05）Main Effect Effect.b.ERP results:N2（negative increase）,P2（positive increase）,LPP（positive increase）,overall indication of high shock and high intimacy of injury stimulation,inducing RS study subjects to produce higher emotional response,cognitive conflict,emotional arousal attention.Overall,the differences in behavioral indicators between the four behavioral experiments indicate that the risk-threatening behavior group has a higher risk-seeking tendency,the pursuit of immediate rewards,and a positive implicit tendency toward risk-taking behaviors/problem behaviors;the cognitive differences indicate that the risky behavior group has low attention to resource investment in risk decision-making,is highly sensitive to expected mismatch of reward and punishment signals,and has a high response to semantic stimuli of risk-negative bonding.Risky behavior groups have a certain low-harm tendency and emotional conflict response when making harm decisions.3.Study 3:Aggressive behavioral interventions-RCT results are as follows:（1）Intervention implementation:Taking the high aggressive tendency in the risk behavior group as the research object,the intervention group and the control group carried out different emotional face attention training tasks,the intervention group（injury scenario+negative emotional face diagram）,the control group（no injury scenario+no emotional face plan）.（2）Intervention process:（a）pre-intervention-t0 points:baseline level between groups was consistent;（b）during the intervention-t1/t2/t3 points:the correctness of the intervention group’s judgment of negative faces increased（36.85%-43.35%-51.18%）,;（c）Behavioral results of the t3-PFAB experiment:Negative face judgment rate（AR）showed significant differences with time（group×time=187.19,p<0.01）,and noted that the bias score（ABs）showed significant differences with time（group×time=96.86,p<0.01）。ERP results:t3 points-negative faces-N1（the intervention group was negatively higher than the control）,indicating that the face cognitive initiation of the intervention group was higher than that of the control group;t3 points-negative faces-P3（the intervention group was positively higher than the control）,indicating that the cognitive resource investment of negative faces in the intervention group was higher than that of the control group.The topographic map showed that the t3-negative face had a higher degree of activation in the prefrontal and mid-frontal zones of the intervention group.（3）Post-intervention measurement:After three months t3,the aggressive tendency and aggressive behavior intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group,indicating that the initiation of emotional empathy sensitive to negative faces helped to reduce the aggressive tendency.Conclusion1.The occurrence of dangerous behavior among young people in school has a certain universality and characteristics.Smoking/drinking is at the top of the incidence,and impulsive personality is a direct influence on risky behavior.2.The behavioral influences of different impulsive traits are correspondingly manifested:high risk-seeking tendency,pursuit of immediate rewards,high involvement of risk-taking behavior,and high tendency to attack.3.High aggression violent behavior is the primary risk behavior characteristic of high-impulse youth,and the intervention of high-impulse youth and the improvement of cognitive empathy emotional cue perception have a positive intervention effect.