Personality, Executive Functions, and Behavioral Disinhibition in Adolescence

144 Pages·2017·3.45 MB·English

University of Colorado, Boulder
CU Scholar
Psychology and Neuroscience Graduate Theses &
Psychology and Neuroscience
Dissertations
Spring 1-1-2014
Personality, Executive Functions, and Behavioral
Disinhibition in Adolescence
Joanna M. Vandever
University of Colorado Boulder, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:https://scholar.colorado.edu/psyc_gradetds
Part of theBiological Psychology Commons, and theGenetics Commons
Recommended Citation
Vandever, Joanna M., "Personality, Executive Functions, and Behavioral Disinhibition in Adolescence" (2014).Psychology and
Neuroscience Graduate Theses & Dissertations. 69.
https://scholar.colorado.edu/psyc_gradetds/69
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Psychology and Neuroscience at CU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Psychology and Neuroscience Graduate Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CU Scholar. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Personality, Executive Functions, and Behavioral Disinhibition in Adolescence

by
Joanna M. Vandever
B.S., Black Hills State University, 2008

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience
2014
This thesis entitled:

Personality, Executive Functions, and Behavioral Disinhibition in Adolescence

written by Joanna M. Vandever
has been approved for the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience

Michael C. Stallings

Naomi P. Friedman

John K. Hewitt

Matthew B. McQueen

Yuko Munakata

Soo Hyun Rhee

Date 04/11/14

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we
Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards
Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.

IRB protocol # ___0600.01, 0109.47, 0109.48, 0324.97, 10-0325_____________
iii
Vandever, Joanna M. (Ph.D., Psychology)

Personality, Executive Functions, and Behavioral Disinhibition in Adolescence

Thesis directed by Associate Professor Michael C. Stallings

Prior studies suggest there are common genetic vulnerabilities underlying antisocial
behavior and substance use disorders, which are often comorbid. It has been proposed that
cognitive and personality factors related to behavioral disinhibition may explain some of the
association between these behaviors. This dissertation uses adolescent twins from the Colorado
Center for Antisocial Drug Dependence (CADD) to investigate (a) whether behavioral
disinhibition and factors common and specific to executive functions share genetic influences,
and (b) how genetic relations change with specific stages of substance use. Then, a subset of
items from the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) is examined for its usefulness in
predicting antisocial behavior and substance use problems.
In the first two studies, latent constructs reflected variance shared among either executive
function tasks or behavioral disinhibition measures. A set of updating tasks and a set of shifting
tasks were each represented by latent factors. All three types of tasks (updating, shifting, and
inhibiting) loaded on a third executive function factor. The behavioral disinhibition factor
included conduct disorder, substance use or dependence vulnerability, and the TPQ novelty
seeking dimension. The first study showed that genetic influences on the common executive
function factor were more highly correlated with genetic influences on behavioral disinhibition
when substance use, rather than dependence vulnerability, was included in the model. Results
iv
from the second study indicated a higher proportion of shared genetic influences between the
common executive function factor and age-of-onset than between executive functioning and later
problem-use stages. The final study identified a set of TPQ items that reflected disinhibitory
personality. Although the new measure predicted antisocial behavior and substance use
disorders, it did not show significant improvement over the original novelty seeking dimension
commonly used in studies of behavioral disinhibition. Implications for these findings are
discussed.
Dedication

To my parents Chuck and Nancy Vandever

For their endless love and encouragement

I especially want to thank my mother for the myriad ways
in which she actively supported me throughout my education,
and for instilling me with a passion for learning.
vi
Acknowledgements
I cannot express how grateful I am to my advisor Michael Stallings. He has taught me
much about research in behavioral genetics, professional development, and the importance of a
balanced life. I wish to thank Robin Corley, Susan Young, and Naomi Friedman for their
assistance with my research. I am also grateful for the guidance and support of my fellow
graduate students—Melissa Munn-Chernoff, Raven Astrom, Josh Bricker, Rohan Palmer, and
Brooke Huibregtse. I want to give special thanks to Hannah Snyder for her friendship. Through
ups and downs she has lent a kind ear and has proven to be the perfect hiking companion. Finally
I would like to thank my fiancé John Crabtree for being there for me during the writing process
and for being my best cheerleader.
This work would not have been possible without funding from the National Institutes of
Health. The longitudinal sample and data were maintained by a grant from the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development (HD010333). Data collection was supported by grants
from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH63207) and the National Institute of Drug
Abuse (DA011015). I am also grateful for the support from the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, which included an institutional training grant awarded to the Institute
for Behavioral Genetics (T32 HD007289) and a Research Project Grant awarded to Rand Donald
Conger (R01HD064687-04).
vii
Contents
Chapter
1 Introduction
1.1 Genetic influences common to substance use disorders and antisocial
behavior 2

1.2 Genetic effects on personality contribute to antisocial behaviors and
substance use disorders 3

1.3 Executive functions and behavioral disinhibition 4
1.4 Summary 5
2 Behavioral Disinhibition and Executive Functions: Genetic Correlations are Stronger for
Substance Use than Dependence Vulnerability
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Methods 8
2.2.1 Participants 8
2.2.2 Behavioral disinhibition measures 10
2.2.2.1 Conduct disorder 10
2.2.2.2 Substance measures 12
2.2.2.3 Novelty seeking 16
2.2.2.4 Data transformation 19
2.2.3 Executive function tasks 22
2.2.3.1 General procedure 22
2.2.3.2 Inhibiting tasks 23
2.2.3.2.1 Antisaccade 23
2.2.3.2.2 Stop signal 23
2.2.3.2.3 Stroop 23
viii
2.2.3.3 Updating tasks 24
2.2.3.3.1 Keep track 24
2.2.3.3.2 Letter memory 24
2.2.3.3.3 Spatial 2-back 25
2.2.3.4 Shifting tasks 25
2.2.3.4.1 Number-letter 25
2.2.3.4.2 Color-shape 26
2.2.3.4.3 Category switch 26
2.2.3.5 Data transformation 26
2.2.4 The twin design 31
2.2.5 Statistical analyses 33
2.2.5.1 General procedure 33
2.2.5.2 Modeling 34
2.3 Results 38
2.3.1 Preliminary analyses 38
2.3.1.1 Executive functioning 38
2.3.1.2 Behavioral disinhibition 39
2.3.2 Substance use vs. dependence vulnerability in behavioral
disinhibition 44
2.3.3 Behavioral disinhibition and the common executive function
factor 49
2.3.4 Behavioral disinhibition and the updating- and shifting-specific
factors 51
2.4 Discussion 51
ix
3 The Role of Executive Functioning in the Progression from Substance Use to
Dependence
3.1 Introduction 56
3.2 Methods 57
3.2.1 Participants 57
3.2.2 Measures 57
3.2.2.1 Age-of-onset 57
3.2.2.2 Problem use 61
3.2.2.3 Dependence 61
3.2.2.4 Executive function tasks 62
3.2.3 Statistical analyses 62
3.2.3.1 General procedure 62
3.2.3.2 Modeling 64
3.3 Results 67
3.3.1 Substance stages 67
3.3.2 Substance stages and common executive functioning 72
3.4 Discussion 81
4 Using Items from the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire to Assess Behavioral
Disinhibition
4.1 Introduction 84
4.2 General Methods 87
4.2.1 Samples 87
4.2.1.1 Community twin sample 87
4.2.1.2 Selected family sample 88