Correlations between Impulsivity and Technical Performance in Handball Female Athletes

doi:10.4236/psych.2011.27110

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2011. Vol.2, No.7, 721-726

Correlations between Impulsivity and Technical Performance in

Handball Female Athletes

Guilherme M. Lage1, Lívia G. Gallo1, Gabriela J. M. Cassiano1, Ingrid L. B. Lobo1,

Marcus V. Vieira2, João V. Salgado3, Daniel Fuentes4, Leandro F. Malloy-Diniz5

1College of Health Sciences, Universidade FUMEC, Belo Horizonte, Brazil;

2Helena Antipoff Fundation, Ibirité, Brazil;

3Institute of Biological Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil;

4Psychiatry Institute, Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil;

5Faculty of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Email: [email protected]

Received July 13th, 2011; revised August 24th, 2011; accepted September 27th, 2011.

A complex and dynamic environment where impulsivity probably interferes in the human behavior is the sport

context. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate the possible relationship between impulsivity and

technical performance in handball athletes. Eleven junior female athletes on a handball team were submitted to a

neuropsychological assessment of impulsivity using Conner’s CPT-II and the Iowa Gambling Task. In 11

matches, participants’ handball performance was analyzed. We adopted the resampling statistical approach to

correlate the measures of technical performance with the neuropsychological measures. IGT net score was posi-

tively correlated with technical faults. Omission errors on the CPT-II were positively correlated with the number

of fouls suffered, the number of fouls committed, and the number of offensive fouls. Commission errors on the

CPT-II were negatively correlated with rebounds with defense ball possession. Our results support the idea of

relationships between impulsivity and technical performance in specific match situations.

Keywords: Impulsivity, Sports, Handball, Motor Behavior, Attention, Decision Making, Response Inhibition

Introduction

Impulsivity is a behavioral pattern characterized by several

types of manifestations. For instance, Barratt (Patton, Stanford,

& Barrat, 1995) proposed the existence of three classes of im-

pulsivity: motor (acting without thinking), attentional (lack of

focus on the task at hand), and non-planning (focus on the pre-

sent without accounting for the consequences of the future out-

comes).

The impulsive behavior is a core symptom in a large number

of psychiatric disorders but, nonetheless, there is also a growing

interest in the role of impulsivity among healthy populations

engaging in different activities (Stanford, Mathias, Dougherty,

Lake, Anderson, & Patton, 2009). For example, a complex and

dynamic environment where impulsiveness probably inter-

feres in the human behavior is the sportive context. Previous

research in this area has focused on demonstrating the relation-

ship between impulsivity and the involvement in particular

types of sports. Svebak and Kerr (1989), for example, com-

pared the impulsiveness of athletes involved in sports defined

as “endurance sports” (i.e., those involving sustained activity)

and “explosive sports” (i.e., those involve short, intense bursts

of activity). They found that athletes who engaged in explosive

sports (e.g., football) scored higher on impulsivity measures

than endurance participants (e.g., marathon runners).

Impulsivity may be an important factor in motor performance

interference in open-skill sports (e.g., soccer, basketball and

handball). Due to constant changes in the environment (e.g.,

alterations in opponents positioning), the player is forced to

inhibit pre-planned responses, anticipate actions and coordinate

corporal segments based on the complex and dynamic flow of

sensorial information. Previous studies using motor laboratory

tasks have shown that motor control is affected by the degree of

the subject’s impulsivity (Enticott, Ogloff, & Bradshaw, 2006;

Lemke, Fischer, Wendorff, Fritzer, Rupp, & Tetzlaff, 2005).

For instance, healthy individuals with higher impulsivity scores

present shorter relative time to achieve the peak velocity than

the low-impulsives in manual aiming movements (Lemke et al.,

2005). In addition, high-impulsive subjects tend to inhibit their

responses at a slower pace than low-impulsive subjects (Lijffit,

Bekker, Quik, Bakker, Kenemans, & Verbaten, 2004). High-

impulsive subjects also present higher reaction time than low-

impulsives in conditions of low compatibility stimulus-re-

sponse (Expósito & AndrésPueyo, 1997) and are less accurate

than low-impulsives in tapping at a specified rate (Barrat, 1981).

In spite of some controversial findings (cf. Dickman, 1993), the

general pattern over the course of these studies has indicated

that high-impulsive subjects are faster in their responses but

less accurate than their less impulsive counterparts (Lage,

Malloy-Diniz, Neves, Moraes, & Corrêa, in press).

Although generally viewed as counterproductive (Stanford et

al., 2009), it is possible that impulsivity had a positive role on

motor behavior in some specific circumstances. This may be

true in cases in which there is limited time available to: 1) rec-

ognize the opponent’s action; 2) process a decision; and 3)

organize the motor system to initiate a response. In such situa-

tions, it is probable that some degree of impulsivity helps the

player to achieve his/her goal successfully. An explanation for

this hypothesis might be based on the concept of functional

impulsivity characterized by a tendency or ability to think, act

and speak rapidly (Dickman, 1990, Reeve, 2007). Recently,

Lage et al. (in press) found that in situations in which the tem-

poral and spatial demands to the motor system were high, the

impulsivity had a functional, adaptive effect on manual motor

control.

G. M. LAGE ET AL.

722

Although several evidences suggest an influence of impul-

sivity on motor control, to our knowledge, there are no studies

investigating this relation in the context of competitive sports.

Therefore, we aimed to investigate the relationships between

different impulsivity dimensions and technical performance in

an open-skill sport. Handball was chosen because it is a fast and

dynamic game that is played in a confined area where a high

degree of temporal and spatial pressure is involved. The very

intense physical contact among players often creates moments

of forceful behaviors, and the close proximity of coaches, offi-

cials and spectators to the court may represent an increased

psychological demand.

Although our approach was mainly exploratory, on the basis

of previous evidence found in laboratory studies, an association

between impulsivity dimensions and technical performance was

predicted. In match situations in which both speed and accuracy

are categorically involved (e.g., when a shot on goal is taken),

motor impulsivity should be a factor of possible interference. In

match conditions that require high decisional demand (e.g.,

when the player holds the ball and has a second or two to de-

cide what to do next), non-planning impulsivity may be related

to the quality of motor response. In situations in which the at-

tentional demands are high (e.g., a direct confrontation with the

opponent), attentional impulsivity might be related to the

player’s level of success.

Methods

Participants

Twenty-two junior female athletes (between 17 and 18 years

of age; mean age = 17.45 ± 0.5 years) from a three-time state

champion handball team were invited to participate in this

study. All of them were court players. Seven players decided to

not participate, resulting in a sample of fifteen athletes. On

average, participants had 6 ± 1.8 years of handballs experience.

The local ethics review committee approved the study protocol.

All participants and their parents (only for the 17-year-old par-

ticipants) signed informed consent forms before participating in

this study.

Instruments

The neuropsychological assessment has been described

elsewhere (see in Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007). Briefly, we used

Conner’s Continuous Performance Task (CPT-II; omission and

commission errors as measures of attentional and motor impul-

sivity) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT; the net score was

used as a measure of non-planning, decision-making, -related

impulsivity). Unlike CPT-II scores, high scores on the IGT

indicate a low level of impulsivity (Lage, Malloy-Diniz, Matos,

Bastos, Abrantes, & Corrêa, 2010).

Handball Technical Performance Evaluation. To scrutinize

the technical performance of the 15 court players, some pa-

rameters of a handball scout were used (Vieira, Greco, & Cha-

gas, 1990). The performance parameters investigated were

divided into technical faults, throwing and other measures.

The technical faults of each player were analyzed based on

the number of times any of the following occurred: 1) passing

error; 2) reception error; 3) touching the ball with the foot; 4)

double dribble; 5) loss of ball possession; 6) entering the goal

area; 7) carrying the ball for more than three steps; 8) holding

the ball for more than three seconds; and 9) offensive foul.

The technical performance related to the throwing was ana-

lyzed through the number of: 1) shots scored (goals); 2) shots

missed (ball was out of the court or ball hit the goalpost or

crossbar); 3) shots caught by the goalkeeper; 4) shots that

resulted in rebounds with defense ball possession (goalkeeper

rebounded and ball possession was returned to the defense); 5)

shots that resulted in rebounds with attack ball possession

(goalkeeper rebounded and the ball possession stayed with the

attack); 6) shots blocked with defense ball possession (shot

blocked and the defense stayed with the ball possession); and

7) shots blocked with attack ball possession (shot blocked and

the ball returned to the attack players). Other performance

measures analyzed were: 1) gaining possession of the ball

(“stolen” the ball of opponent); 2) passive play; 3) fouls

committed; and 4) fouls suffered. In each match, all of these

technical aspects were analyzed for each player throughout

the handball scout.

Procedure

Eleven matches in the regional championship (during the

first semester of 2007) were analyzed. During the same period

(first semester of 2007, before the championship), the CPT-II

and IGT were administered to all players. Two trained physical

education professionals were responsible for watching and

filling the scouts during the matches. A third experimenter

filmed the matches in case of doubt in the posterior analyses.

Two trained neuropsychologists administered the neuropsy-

chological tests (tests were applied individually in a quiet room.

See detailed procedures in Malloy-Diniz, 2007). The order of

CPT-II and IGT application was randomized among partici-

pants. The entire procedure was blinded since the neuronpsy-

chologists did not watch the matches and the physical edu-

cation professionals did not have access to neuropsychological

results.

Analyses

Before the contest, we conducted a pilot study that consisted

of the analysis of three handball matches. The purpose of the

study was to analyze the coefficient of concordance among the

three physical education professionals. Kendall’s W test indi-

cated a significant degree of concordance (W = .9193, p < .0001)

on the filling of the scout.

After the championship, the match analysis showed that three

players did not play any of the 11 matches. One athlete played

for only a very short time during matches (mean of 11.25 min-

utes). Thus, we decide to exclude this player from the final

analysis. Therefore, the final sample was composed of 11 ath-

letes who played a mean of 7.58 (SD = 2.7) matches with a

mean time on court of 33.24 (SD = 10.6) minutes.

Due to the small sample size of this study we adopted the re-

sampling statistical approach (Stergiou, 2004), more specifi-

cally, a correlation with random data permutation (see the pro-

cedures in Edginton & Onghena, 2007: p.178). We correlated

the measures of technical performance (the mean for each

player during the 11 matches) with the neuropsychological

measures (scores obtained in each test). The number of re-

samples of the original data was equal to 1000, and the level of

significance adopted in all analyses was .05. The software used

was RT4win (Edginton & Onghena, 2007).

Results

Neuropsychological data of each player are presented in Ta-

G. M. LAGE ET AL. 723

ble 1.

Technical performance data of each player are presented in

Table 2. The technical fault of “holding the ball for more than

three seconds” was not analyzed because this variable was con-

stant (zero) during all matches for all players.

Correlations between Technical Faults and

Neuropsychological Measures

The correlations between technical faults and neuropsy-

chological measures are shown in Table 3. A significant nega-

Table 1.

Neuropsychological data of ea ch p layer.

Players

Neuropsychological data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

OE 12 7 13 12 11 5 17 16 15 6 8

COE 35 7 21 11 18 21 11 21 26 3 17

Net Score -2 46 –20 4 19 12 10 19 –14 –20 0

Note: Neuropsychological measures: OE = omission errors on the CPT-II; COE = commission errors on the CPT-II; Net Score = total score on the IGT.

Table 2.

Technical performance data of ea c h player.

Players

Performance measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Matches 4 11 10 5 4 11 4 8 10 10 6

MTC 16.3 41.2 46.3 40.5 34.7 42.2 21.6 30.6 38.3 36.2 40.1

PE 4 2 13 15 4 12 19 0 8 7 3

RE 1 1 4 3 3 1 10 2 3 4 0

TBF 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 0 1 2 2

DD 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

LBP 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

EGA 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0

CBTS 0 0 10 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0

OF 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

SS 8 2 45 65 16 12 54 4 13 35 6

SM 4 0 9 12 1 2 15 0 4 5 0

SC 3 2 14 16 13 6 19 1 6 9 2

SRDP 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

SRAP 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SBDP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

SBAP 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

GBP 9 2 18 6 6 7 26 1 6 20 4

PASSIV 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

FC 17 6 60 35 13 7 42 2 17 28 6

FS 24 7 52 19 24 7 37 6 16 27 9

Note: Number of matches played = Matches. Mean time on court (minutes) = MTC. The technical performance measures: passing errors (PE); reception errors (RE);

touching the ball with the foot (TBF); double dribble (DD); loss of ball possession (LBP); enter the goal area (EGA); carrying the ball for more than three steps (CBTS);

offensive foul (OF); shots scored (SS); shots missed (SM); shots caught by the goalkeeper (SC); shots that result in rebounds with defense ball possession (SRDP); shots

that result in rebounds with attack ball possession (SRAP); shots blocked with defense ball possession (SBPD); shots blocked with attack ball possession (SBAP); gaining

possession of the ball (GPB); passive play (PASSIV); fouls committed (FC); and (4) fouls suffered (FS).

G. M. LAGE ET AL.

724

Table 3.

Correlations between technic a l f a u l t s a n d n e u r opsychological measures.

Technical faults

Impulsivity measures

PE RE TBF DD LBP EGA CBTS OF

OE r = –.44 .03 –.47 –.29 .01 .14 .20 –.61*

p = .18 .92 .14 .38 .95 .65 .57 .04

COE r = –.13 .07 –.37 –.50 .38 –.39 –.55 –.18

p = .69 .83 .24 .13 .25 .22 .08 .53

Net Score r = .11 .28 .04 .28 –.34 .63* .69* .64*

p = .74 .36 .90 .37 .32 .02 .02 .02

Note: *significant correlation (p ≤ .05). The technical performance measures: passing errors (PE); reception errors (RE); touching the ball with the foot (TBF); double

dribble (DD); loss of ball possession (LBP); enter the goal area (EGA); carrying the ball for more than three steps (CBTS); offensive foul (OF). Neuropsychological meas-

ures: omission errors on CPT-II (OE); commission errors on CPT-II (COE); total score from IGT (Netscore). The r values refer to original data and the p values refer to the

1,000 resampling.

tive correlation (r = –.61, p = .04) was found between offensive

fouls (OF) and omission errors (OE) on the CPT-II. In other

words, the number of fouls made in attack was inversely corre-

lated with the players’ level of attentional impulsivity. Fur-

thermore a positive correlation was found between the IGT net

score and the following foul measures: 1) entering the goal area

(EGA) (r = .63, p = .02); 2) carrying the ball for more than

three steps (CBTS) (r = .69, p = .02); and 3) offensive foul (OF)

(r = .64, p = .02). Since high IGT net scores indicate low levels

of non-planning impulsivity, a lower level of this kind of im-

pulsivity was related to a higher number of offensive fouls.

Other correlations were not significant (Table 3).

Correlations between Throwing Performance and

Neuropsychological Measures

The analysis of technical performance related to the throwing

and neuropsychological measures (Table 4) showed a signifi-

cant positive correlation between shots that resulted in rebounds

with defense ball possession (SRDP) and commission errors

(COE) on CPT-II (r = .67, p = .03). This finding shows that

higher levels of motor impulsivity were related to a higher

number of balls defended by the goalkeeper that resulted in

rebounds with defense ball possession. Other correlations were

not significant (Table 4).

Correlat ions betwee n O t h er Perform ance Measure s

and Neuropsychological Measures

Omission error scores on the CPT-II were negatively corre-

lated with the following performance measures: 1) gaining

possession of the ball (GPB) (r = –.63, p = .03); 2) fouls com-

mitted (FC) (r = –.63, p = .04); and 3) fouls suffered (FS) (r =

−.63, p = .02). In other words, higher levels of attentional im-

pulsivity were related to fewer fouls (committed or suffered)

and fewer “stolen” balls (represented by the gaining possession

of the ball measure). Other correlations were not significant

(Table 5).

Discussion

The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate the pos-

sible relationships between impulsivity dimensions and techni-

cal performance on an open-skill sport. To the best of our

knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the possible

relationship between impulsivity and this specific facet of

sports—the technical skills. Three types of results were identi-

fied: non-planning impulsivity was positively correlated with

measures related to technical faults; attentional impulsivity was

positively correlated with measures related to fouls; motor im-

pulsivity was negatively correlated with a measure of throwing:

rebounds with defense ball possession. The magnitude of all

significant correlations was moderate (0.61 - 0.69).

Non-planning impulsivity, as measured on the IGT, was

positively correlated with the following measures of technical

faults: 1) entering the goal area; 2) carrying the ball for more

than three steps; and 3) offensive foul measures. At first sight,

these findings seem paradoxical because low non-planning

impulsivity was correlated with a higher number of technical

faults. It has been shown that non-planning impulsivity has a

dysfunctional role in decision-making so that impulsive indi-

viduals make risky decisions. In doing so, they choose immedi-

ate rewards despite potential long-term negative consequences

(Möller, Barrat, Dougherty, Schmitz, & Swann, 2001). Deci-

sion-making consists of multiple operations, including option

evaluation, actions and outcome monitoring. These operations

involve slow, conscious and effortful reflections about possible

consequences (Bechara & Van der Linden, 2005). This is a

remarkable feature in open-skill sports characterized by a high

level of uncertainty that forces the player to use complex cogni-

tive skills under temporal pressure (Ripoll, Kerlirzin, Stein, &

Reine, 1995). Hence, it is possible that players with low

non-planning impulsivity emphasize the accuracy of motor

responses, thereby causing a temporal cost in situations in

which the speed of information processing is an essential fea-

ture. In other words, players with low non-planning impulsivity

would have decreased technical performance in match situa-

tions in which they needed to think and respond quickly.

This assumption is corroborated by Dickman and Meyer

(1988), who found a relationship between impulsivity and op-

timality of performance. High-impulsive subjects exhibited

decreased performance when accuracy was rewarded more than

speed, whereas low-impulsive subjects presented a disadvan-

tage when speed was rewarded more than accuracy. In this

sense, individuals at both extremes of the impulsivity contin-

uum are at a disadvantage under specific circumstances. How-

ever, further studies are needed to confirm that functional im-

pulsivity has a positive role in open-skill sports in which com-

plex decision-making under temporal and/or spatial pressure is

G. M. LAGE ET AL. 725

Table 4.

Correlations between performanc e i n th r ow i n g and neuropsycho l og i c al measures.

Measures of performance in throwing

Impulsivity measures

SS SM SC SRDP SRAP SBDP SBAP

OE r = –.31 –.57 -.33 .12 –.49 .18 –.33

p = .38 .07 .32 .77 .09 .55 .36

COE r = –.14 –.08 –.28 .67* .13 .22 –.37

p = .67 .81 .38 .03 .80 .50 .16

Net Score r = –.08 –.04 –.02 –.26 .13 –.14 .72

p = .81 .98 .92 .35 .53 .65 .08

Note: *significant correlation (p ≤ .05). technical performance measures: 1) shots scored (SS); 2) shots missed (SM); 3) shots caught by the goalkeeper (SC); 4) shots that

result in rebounds with defense ball possession (SRDP); 5) shots that result in rebounds with attack ball possession (SRAP); 6) shots blocked with defense ball possession

(SBPD); and 7) shots blocked with attack ball possession (SBAP). Neuropsychological measures: omission errors on the CPT-II (OE); commission errors on the CPT-II

(COE); total score from IGT (net score). The r values refer to original data and the p values refer to the 1000 resampling.

Table 5.

Correlations between performance measures and neurop sy ch ol ogical measures.

Other performance measures

Impulsivity measures

GPB PAS FC FS

OE r = –.63* .28 –.63* –.62*

p = .03 .41 .04 .02

COE r = –.11 –.13 –.29 –.52

p = .73 .66 .37 .10

Net Score r = .18 .05 .28 .27

p = .59 .84 .39 .41

Note: *significant correlation (p ≤ .05). Technical performance measures: 1) gaining possession of the ball (GPB); 2) passive play (PASSIV); 3) fouls committed (FC); and

4) fouls suffered (FS). Neuropsychological measures: OE = omission errors on the CPT-II; COE = commission errors on the CPT-II; net score = total score on the IGT.

The r values refer to original data and the p values refer to the 1000 resampling.

required. One possible way to investigate this directly is to

administer the Functional Impulsivity Scale (Dickman, 1990) to

the players.

The attentional impulsivity analyses revealed a negative cor-

relation between the omission errors on the CPT-II and several

situations in which the player had some kind of contact with the

opponent. High numbers of fouls suffered (committed or offen-

sive) were related to low attentional impulsivity. One could say

that these findings also seem intuitively paradoxical. However,

because a person with a high level of attentional impulsivity

presents an inability to focus on a task (Malloy-Diniz et al.,

2007)—perhaps resulting from a greater susceptibility to ch-

anges in arousal (Stanford et al., 2009)—it is possible that he or

she has more restricted participation during matches due to his

or her higher distractibility. This type of behavior would ex-

plain the inverse correlation found between attentional im-

pulsivity and fouls, as highly impulsive players are those less

involved in contact situations. Taking into account the limita-

tions of correlational studies and the lack of previous research

with similar characteristics, this assumption should be viewed

cautiously.

Attentional impulsivity also showed a negative correlation

with the gaining possession of the ball measure. Here, the re-

sults seem intuitive: low levels of attentional impulsivity were

related to higher numbers of “stolen” balls. In this case, players

who were more focused on their tasks probably had more suc-

cess in this technical fundament.

A positive correlation was found between rebounds with de-

fense ball possession and motor impulsivity. Here, it is possible

that 1) a trend to specify stereotyped motor responses or 2) a

propensity to respond rapidly, thereby emphasizing the speed to

the detriment had some influence in this finding. Spinella (2005)

found that motor impulsivity is related to deficits in self-inhi-

bition. It is possible that an inability to inhibit pre-potent motor

responses, observed in high-impulsive subjects (Möller et al.,

2001), creates more a stereotyped pattern of throwing that fa-

cilitates the action of the goalkeepers. Another explanation is

related to the speed-accuracy trade-off phenomenon (Schmidt

& Lee, 2005). This phenomenon is associated to the human

tendency to decrease the accuracy of a motor response when its

speed is increased. Literature about impulsivity shows that

high-impulsive subjects are faster in their responses but less

accurate than their less impulsive counterparts (Lage et al., in

press). Therefore, it is possible that high-impulsive players

presented faster throwing, but with a decreased accuracy when

compared to the low-impulsives, characteristic that facilitates

the action of the goalkeepers.

In short, this study is the first to produce evidence of a rela-

tionship between impulsivity and technical performance in an

open-skill sport. As a consequence, this study may open a

G. M. LAGE ET AL.

726

promising way of investigating the impact of impulsivity in a

specific context of sportive performance. However, it is impor-

tant to remember that the need for a resampling statistical ap-

proach only allowed us to draw assumptions about the sample

at hand, rather than about the population as a whole (Stergiou,

2004). Furthermore, the descriptive analysis does not prove any

causal relationship between impulsivity and performance. Due

to these limitations, our results should be interpreted with cau-

tion. Further studies with a sample size that permits the separa-

tion of high impulsivity athletes from low impulsivity athletes

are needed in order to compare the technical performance be-

tween the two groups. Similar investigations with other open-

skill sports are also suggested.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by FAPEMIG, FUNADESP and

ProPIC FUMEC.

References

Barrat, E. S. (1981). Time perception, cortical evoked potentials and

impulsiveness among three groups of adolescents. In J. K. Hays, T.

K. Roberts, & K. S. Solway (Eds.), Violence and the violent individ-

ual (pp. 87-95). New York: Spectrum Publications.

Bechara, A., & Van Der Linden, M. (2005). Decision-making and im-

pulse control after frontal lobe injuries. Current Opinion in Neurol-

ogy, 18, 734-739. doi:10.1097/01.wco.0000194141.56429.3c

Dickman, S. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Person-

ality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 58, 95-102. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.95

Dickman, S. (1993). Impulsivity and information processing. In W.

Mccown, M. Shure, & J. Johnson (Eds.), The impulsive client: The-

ory, research and treatment (pp. 151-184). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10500-010

Dickman, S. J., & Meyer, D. E. (1988). Impulsivity and speed-accuracy

tradeoffs in information processing. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 54, 274-290. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.274

Edgington, E. S., & Onghena, P. (2007). Randomization tests (4th ed.).

Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Enticott, P. G., Ogloff, R. P., & Bradshaw, J. (2006). Associations be-

tween laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-

reported impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 41,

285-294. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.011

Expósito, J., & Andrés-Pueyo, A. (1997). The effects of impulsivity on

the perceptual and decision stages in a choice reaction time task.

Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 693-697.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00259-0

Lage, G. M., Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Matos, L. O., Bastos, M. A. R.,

Abrantes, S. S., & Corrêa, H. (2010). Impulsivity and the 5-HTTLPR

polymorphism in a non-clinical sample. Plos One, 6, e16927.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016927

Lage, G. M., Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Neves, F. S., Moraes, P. H. P, Corrêa,

H. (in press). A kinematic analysis of the association between impul-

sivity and manual aiming. Human Movement Science.

Lemke, M. R., Fischer, C. J., Wendorff, T., Fritzer, G., Rupp, Z., &

Tetzlaff, S. (2005). Modulation of involuntary and voluntary be-

havior following emotional stimuli in healthy subjects. Progress in

Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 29 , 69-76.

doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2004.10.007

Lijffijt, M., Bekker, E. M., Quik, E. H., Bakker, J., Kenemans, J. L., &

Verbaten, M. N. (2004). Differences between low and high trait im-

pulsivity are not associated with differences in inhibitory motor con-

trol. Journal of Attention Disorders, 8, 25-32.

doi:10.1177/108705470400800104

Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Fuentes, D., Leite, W. B. Correa, H., & Bechara, A.

(2007). Impulsive behavior in adults with ADHD: Characterization

of motor, attentional and cognitive impulsiveness. Journal of the In-

ternational Neuropsychological Society, 13 , 693-698.

doi:10.1017/S1355617707070889

Möller, F. G., Barrat, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann,

A. C. (2001). Psychiatry aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 158, 1783-1793. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barrat, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of

the barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51,

768-774.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607>

3.0.CO;2-1

Reeve, C. L. (2007). Functional impulsivity and speeded ability test

performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15,

56-62. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00367.x

Ripoll, H., Kerlirzin, Y., Stein, J., & Reine, B. (1995). Analysis of infor-

mation processing, decision making, and visual strategies in complex

problem solving sport situations. Human Movement Science, 14,

325-349. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(95)00019-O

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A

behavioral emphasis (3rd ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Spinella, M. (2005). Prefrontal substrates of empathy: Psychometric

evidence in a community sample. Biological Psychology, 70, 175-

181. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.01.005

Stergiou, N. (2004). Innovative analyses of human movement. Cham-

paign, Il: Human Kinetics.

Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L.,

Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the barratt

impulsiveness scale: An update and review. Personality and Indi-

vidual Differences, 47, 385-395.

Svebak, S., & Kerr, J. (1989). The role of impulsivity in preference for

sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 51-58.

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90177-3

Vieira, M. V. G., Greco, P. J., & Chagas, M. H. (1990). Scientific pro-

posal for assessment of handball games. Revista K inesis, 6, 163-185.