Title: Discrimination of Dark Triad traits using the UPPS-P model of impulsivity

Supplementary Material 1: validation of the Japanese version of short UPPS-P impulsivity

behavioral scale (SUPPS-P)

1 Background

The original UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale includes 59 items (Lynam, Smith,

Whiteside, & Cyders, 2006) and requires substantial time to complete, possibly imposing a

burden on participants. However, a 20-item short version, the SUPPS-P, has been developed and

validated (Billieux et al., 2012; Cyders, Littlefield, Coffey, & Karyadi, 2014). The SUPPS-P has

the same factor structure and overlapping variance as the full version of the UPPS-P but can be

administered in less time (Cyders et al., 2014). Thus, using the SUPPS-P allows for broader

research because it imposes less of a burden on participants and can be easily administered.

The SUPPS-P has been translated into various languages, including Arabic (Bteich,

Berbiche, & Khazaal, 2017), Farsi (Shokri & Sanaeepour, 2016), German (Keye, Wilhelm, &

Oberauer, 2009), Italian (D'Orta et al., 2015), Swedish (Claréus, Daukantaitė, Wångby-Lundh, &

Lundh, 2017), and Spanish (Cándido, Orduña, Perales, Verdejo-García, & Billieux, 2012), as has

the original UPPS-P (cf., Lynam et al., 2006).

Although the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale has been translated into the various

languages mentioned above, there is no Japanese version. Therefore, we translated the short

version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale (SUPPS-P; from Cyders et al., 2014) into

Japanese and validated it in this study.

1

2 Pilot study: item wordings

We translated the SUPPS-P from English to Japanese and confirmed the wording

adequacy by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). In the original framework of the UPPS model

(Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) and following the UPPS-P model (Cyders & Smith, 2007; Cyders et

al., 2014), it is considered that all 5 factors would show small to medium inter-correlations. In

particular, inter-correlations between Lack of Premeditation and Perseverance and between

Negative and Positive Urgency would be moderate and robust.

2.1 Participants

We used multiple samples from 8 universities to determine the Japanese wording of the

SUPPS-P. Sample 1 included 77 participants (50 females, 26 males, and 1 unspecified, Mage =

19.6, SD = 1.33); Sample 2 included 59 participants (32 females, 26 males, and 1 unspecified,

Mage = 20.3, SD = 1.00); Sample 3 included 60 participants (45 females and 15 males, Mage =

19.7, SD = 0.87); Sample 4 included 115 participants (48 females and 67 males, Mage = 18.8, SD

= 1.98); Sample 5 included 44 participants (29 females and 15 males, Mage = 18.7, SD = 0.83);

Sample 6 included 103 participants (82 females and 21 males, Mage = 20.3, SD = 2.07); Sample 7

included 82 participants (53 females and 28 males, Mage = 20.2, SD = 1.58); and Sample 8

included 65 participants (all females, Mage = 19.2, SD = 0.94). No individuals participated more

than once.

2.2 Procedure and results

2

For the translation, we first obtained the permission to translation the SUPPS-P from the

original author, Dr. Cyders, M. A., and translated the SUPPS-P into Japanese. Second, the

Japanese version was back-translated to English by translators at a leading language service

company (http://www.editage.com./; assignment no. UXTEX_8). Third, Dr. Cyders, M. A,

confirmed the consistency between the original and Japanese wordings of the SUPPS-P.

We then conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) four times, making minor

wording changes after each of the first three analyses. The first CFA used Samples 1 to 3 (total N

= 196, including 127 females, 67 males, and 2 individuals of unspecified sex, Mage = 19.9, SD =

1.05). We made minor changes to problematic wording and conducted a second CFA using

Samples 4 and 5 (total N = 159, including 77 females and 82 males, Mage = 18.8, SD = 1.74). We

again made minor wording changes and conducted a third CFA using Sample 6 and a fourth

CFA using Samples 7 and 8 (total N = 147, including 118 females and 28 males, Mage = 19.8, SD

= 1.43). The fourth CFA showed marginally acceptable model fittings (χ2(160) = 292.60, p

< .001; CFI = .798; TLI = .760; RMSEA = .075, 90% CI = [.061, .089]; SRMR = .086). Each

last item wording, loading, and factor correlation is shown in Supplementary Material 2 (item 6

showed small loadings in the pilot study; however, adequate loadings were shown in the testing

validity section). Significant inter-factor correlations were shown between Positive and Negative

Urgency (r = .90, p < .001) as expected. However, there was non-significance between Lack of

Premeditation and Perseverance (r = .09), and Sensation Seeking was negatively related with

Lack of Perseverance (r = -.31, p < .01). These were not supported in the original framework

(although these problems did not emerge in the following study, the testing validity section).

However, we used this third wording iteration as the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P because

3

these wordings have content validity, and there is no extreme bias of distributions (Skewness = |

0.11| to |0.37|, Kurtosis = -0.54 to -0.17).

3 Testing the validity of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P: Prediction and Methods

In this study, first, we examined the factorial validity of SUPPS-P-J using another

sample. We predicted that the SUPPS-P-J would replicate the original 5-factor structure. Similar

to other translated versions (Bteich et al., 2017; Cándido et al., 2012; Claréus et al., 2017; D’Orta

et al., 2015), each inter-factor correlation showed positive correlations, markedly so between

Positive and Negative Urgency as well as between Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation.

Furthermore, we compared the higher-order factor model, which has Urgency (higher-order

factor of Positive and Negative Urgency) and Lack of Consciousness (higher-order factor of

Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation), and Sensation Seeking, along with the 5 factors and

inter-correlation model.

Second, we tested the validity of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P by examining the

relationships between each SUPPS-P factor and trait anxiety, depressive symptoms, primary and

secondary psychopathy, self-control, grit, life history strategy, and risk-taking behaviors. Other

translated versions of the SUPPS-P showed that Negative Urgency and Positive Urgency, both of

which are facets of the SUPPS-P, are positively related to trait anxiety and depressive symptoms

(Billieux et al., 2012; Claréus et al., 2017; D'Orta et al., 2015). Thus, these factors should be

positively correlated with both varieties of urgency.

Although psychopathy is one of the components of the Dark Triad, various studies have

investigated only psychopathy both theoretically and empirically (e.g., Hare, 2003). From these

4

findings, psychopathy is composed of primary psychopathy, which is an affective facet

characterized by deficits of empathy and interpersonal manipulation, and secondary

psychopathy, which is a behavioral facet characterized by an erratic life-style and antisocial

behavior1. Thus, although both psychopathic traits are related to impulsivity, secondary

psychopathy is more strongly related to SUPPS-P impulsivity than primary psychopathy

(Poythress & Hall, 2011).

Self-control involves the control of automatic and impulsive behaviors (Tangney,

Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Thus, all SUPPS-P factors showed a negative relationship with

self-control.

Grit involves perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth, Peterson,

Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). Grit has two subtypes, Consistency of Interests and Perseverance of

Effort. Consistency of Interests reflects individual differences in continually focusing on an

interest. Perseverance of Effort reflects the ability to stay committed to a task until completion.

Both varieties of grit should be negatively related to Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation.

However, we did not specifically hypothesize about Urgency.

From an evolutionary perspective, life history strategies are sets of behavioral patterns

(i.e., strategies) formed by genetic factors and the environmental cues of early childhood that

underlie broad individual differences in personality, attitudes, and beliefs (Figueredo et al., 2006,

2014). Individual life history strategy differences can be measured on a unidimensional

1 Although Hare’s (2003) definition of Factor 1 and 2 of psychopathy construction might not

strictly correspond with primary and secondary psychopathy, we treated them as if they do

because the purpose of this study may become unclear were the strict treatment used.5

continuum from fast to slow life history strategies using the K-factor. Fast life history strategies

are shaped by unstable and unpredictable early childhood environments and genetic factors, and

slow life history strategies are shaped by genetic factors and stable and predictable early

childhood environments. Individuals living in unpredictable environments cannot expect long-

term implicit benefits and place greater importance on immediate benefits. Such a background,

together with genetic factors, leads to the development of faster life history strategies, which can

affect any individual characteristic. Impulsivity is a central component of fast life history

strategies because individuals with certain genetic backgrounds living in unpredictable

environments ignore possible future outcomes and tend to seek immediate benefits (Figueredo et

al., 2006, 2014; Jonason, Koenig, & Tost, 2010). Thus, faster life history strategies are

considered to be associated with greater impulsivity. Note that the lower the K-factor (i.e., the

score reflecting the position on the continuum of life history strategies), the faster the life history

strategy. Thus, the K-factor is negatively related to SUPPS-P impulsivities.

Risk-taking behavior is one of the outcomes of impulsivity (Zuckerman & Kuhlman,

2000). Therefore, we examine whether the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P predicts risk-taking

behaviors. In particular, it is predicted that individuals with higher sensation seeking tend to

exhibit high-risk behaviors with a lack of danger awareness (Zuckerman & Kuhlman, 2000).

Oshio (2001) distinguished personal from social risk-taking behavior. Personal risk-taking

behavior poses a physical risk directly to the individual agent (the scale includes items such as

“consuming a large amount of alcohol”). However, social risk-taking behavior poses an indirect

social risk such as a loss of social status (the scale includes items such as “breaking a promise”).

6

At any rate, both risk-taking behaviors should be associated with SUPPS-P factors, especially

Sensation Seeking.

3.1 Participants

We examined the validation of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P using the same

sample as that used in the main study. Specifically, we used 3 samples from 3 universities, of

which 1) includes 86 participants (60 females and 26 males, Mage = 20.9, SD = 0.62); 2) includes

56 participants (all females, Mage = 20.3, SD = 2.03); and 3) includes 65 participants (all females,

Mage = 19.2, SD = 0.94); and we combined the samples and pooled the participants across sexes

because a multiple-group analysis revealed model invariance across samples and sexes. The total

sample included 207 participants (181 females and 26 males, Mage = 20.2, SD = 1.43). To verify

test-retest reliability, we again conducted a survey of the first and second samples three weeks

after the first survey. This total sample included 125 participants (104 females and 21 males, Mage

= 20.7, SD = 1.45). Note that there were no significant differences in the UPPS-P impulsivity

scores, age, or sex ratios between those who participated in the second survey and those who did

not.

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Japanese version of the SUPPS-P

The wordings of the SUPPS-P-J were established in a pilot study. The SUPPS-P-J

consists of 20 items. Each of the five UPPS-P facets was measured with 4 items. The participants

7

responded on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree Strongly, 4 = Agree Strongly).

3.2.2 Beck depression inventory II (BDI-II)

The BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) is a widely used questionnaire that measures

the severity of depressive symptoms. The BDI-II consists of 21 four-choice statements. Kojima

and Furukawa (2003) developed the Japanese version of this questionnaire, which has good

reliability and validity. The internal consistency in this study was good (α= .90).

3.2.3 State-trait anxiety inventory - trait version (STAI-T)

The STAI-T (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) is a self-reported

questionnaire to assess trait anxiety. The STAI-T consists of 20 items on a 4-point scale. We

used the Japanese version that was developed by Hidano, Fukuhara, Iwawaki, Soga, and Charles

(2000). The internal consistency was good (α= .88).

3.2.4 Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRP)

The LSRP is a 26-item scale developed and validated to measure each primary and

secondary psychopathy factor (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Primary psychopathy is

measured by 16 items, and secondary psychopathy is measured by 10 items. Scale items include

“Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers” (primary

psychopathy) and “I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time” (secondary

psychopathy). The Japanese version of the LSRP was developed and validated by Sugiura and

Sato (2005), and we used this version. The participants responded on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =

8

disagree strongly, 4 = agree strongly). The internal consistency was good (αprimary psychopathy = .82;

αsecondary psychopathy = .68). We used averaged scores as the observed variables.

3.2.5 Brief self-control scale (BSCS)

The BSCS is a 13-item scale developed and validated to measure self-control (Tangney et

al., 2004). Scale items include “I am good at resisting temptation.” A Japanese version of the

BSCS was also developed and validated by Ozaki, Goto, Kobayashi, and Kutsuzawa (2016), and

we used this version. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all like me,

5 = very much like me). The internal consistency was good (α= .83). We used averaged scores as

the observed variables.

3.2.6 Short grit scale (Grit-S)

The Grit-S is an 8-item scale developed and validated to measure grit (Duckworth &

Quinn, 2009). Consistency of Interest and Perseverance of Effort are each measured by 4 items.

Scale items include “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one” (Consistency of

Interest) and “I finish whatever I begin” (Perseverance of Effort). The Japanese version of the

Grit-S was developed and validated by Nishikawa, Okugami, and Amemiya (2015), and we used

this version. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all like me, 5 =

Very much like me). The internal consistency was acceptable (αConsistency of Interests = .76; αPerseverance of

Effort = .75). We used averaged scores as the observed variables.

3.2.7 Mini-K

9

The Mini-K scale is a 20-item scale developed and validated to measure the K-factor as

the index of life history strategy (Figueredo et al., 2006). Scale items include “I can often tell

how things will turn out.” A Japanese version of the Mini-K was developed and validated by

Kawamoto (2015), and we used this version. The participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale

(1 = not very true of me, 7 = very true of me). The internal consistency was acceptable (α= .78).

We used averaged scores as the observed variables.

3.2.8 Risk-taking behavior scale for undergraduates (RIBS-U)

The RIBS-U is a 12-item scale originally developed and validated in Japan to measure

risk-taking behaviors (Oshio, 2001). Personal and Social risk-taking behaviors are each

measured by 6 items. The participants indicated the frequency of experienced risk-taking

behavior on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, and 4 = often) for the

following behaviors: drunk driving, smoking, speeding in a car or motorcycle, binge-drinking at

a party, consuming a large amount of alcohol, and gambling, for example, on pachinko or horse

racing (personal risk-taking behaviors) and being late for a class or an appointment, running a

red light, breaking a promise, dashing for a train and making it, playing hooky, and lying (social

risk-taking behaviors). The internal consistency was acceptable (αPersonal = .70; αSocial = .70). We

used summed scores as the observed variables.

3.2.9 Short dark triad (SD3)

The SD3 is a 27-item scale developed and validated to measure each Dark Triad trait by

Jones and Paulhus (2014). Each Dark Triad trait is measured by 9 items. Scale items include “It’s

10

not wise to tell your secrets” (Machiavellianism), “People see me as a natural leader”

(narcissism), and “I like to get revenge on authorities” (psychopathy). The Japanese version of

the SD3 was developed and validated by Shimotsukasa and Oshio (2017), and we used this

version. The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly

agree). The results for internal consistency from Jones and Paulhus (2014) and Shimotsukasa and

Oshio (2017) were consistent and acceptable (αMachiavellianism = .69, αnarcissism = .75, αpsychopathy = .58).

Thus, we used averaged scores as the observed variables. Note that DT scores were used in the

main study and not in the validity testing.

3.3 Procedure

All surveys were conducted during a university lecture. The participants responded

individually, reported their age and sex, and responded to all questions. Furthermore, the

participants from the first and second samples were readministered the SUPPS-P three weeks

after the first survey. The participants received course credit for their participation. All

procedures were approved by the ethics committee of [institution blinded for review].

3.4 Statistical analysis

3.4.1 Validation of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P

First, we examined the factorial validity of SUPPS-P’s five factors using CFA. Note that

we conducted a multigroup CFA to test model invariance across samples and sexes before

examining factorial validity. Second, we calculated the internal consistency and tested the

11

validity of the SUPPS-P using correlation coefficients between the SUPPS-P subscale and

anxiety, depressive symptoms, psychopathy, self-control, grit, and the K-factor. Third, we

conducted a regression analysis to determine whether the SUPPS-P predicts risk-taking

behaviors. Note that we assumed a negative binomial distribution for personal risk-taking

behavior due to a biased distribution. Finally, we examined test-retest reliability using correlation

coefficients between SUPPS-P scores at time 1 and time 2.

4 Testing the validity of the Japanese version of the SUPPS-P: Results

We conducted a multigroup CFA to examine model invariance across samples and sexes.

The results of the information criteria showed that scalar invariance had a better fit across

samples and sexes than configural or metric invariance (Supplementary Table S1A). Thus, we

combined the samples and sexes into one sample. Next, we conducted a CFA to determine

whether the original factor structure of the SUPPS-P was replicated. The fit indices were

acceptable (χ2(160) = 299.10, p < .001; CFI = .849; TLI = .821; RMSEA = .066, 90% CI = [.054,

.077]; SRMR = .068; Supplementary Fig. S1D). Each factor loading was also acceptable,

specifically, over .29 (see Figure S1D and Supplementary Table S2A). Furthermore, inter-factor

correlations replicated the original UPPS-P model: The positive inter-correlations were as

expected although Lack of Perseverance correlated only with Lack of Premeditation.

Specifically, the positive relationships between Negative and Positive Urgency (r = .91, p < .001)

and Lack of Perseverance and Premeditation (r = .44, p < .001) were shown. Thus, SUPPS-P-J

almost measured the original UPPS-P impulsivity. Furthermore, a higher-order factor model that

assumed Urgency to be a higher-order factor over Positive Urgency and Negative Urgency and

12

Lack of Conscientiousness to be a higher-order factor over Lack of Perseverance and Lack of

Premeditation was replicated by a Bayesian estimation (Supplementary Table S2A). However,

the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) indicated that the 5-factor and covariance model was

better than the higher-order factor model (BIC = 9657.87 vs. 9881.68). Thus, we addressed these

scores as 5 different dimensional factors that were correlated each other. We calculated the

SUPPS-P scores and other scale scores as observed variables. Each internal consistency of the

SUPPS-P subscale was acceptable (αNegative Urgency = .68, αPositive Urgency = .66, αLack of Perseverance = .66,

αLack of Premeditation = .67, and αSensation Seeking = .64).

Descriptive statistics, alpha, sex differences, and results of correlation analysis are shown

in Supplementary Table S1B. The supported hypothesis combinations were as follows: both

Positive and Negative Urgency were positively correlated with anxiety (r = .36 and .44, ps

< .001, respectively) and depressive symptoms (r = .32 and .37, ps < .001, respectively); primary

psychopathy (r = .32 and .27, ps < .001, respectively); and secondary psychopathy (r = .53

and .53, ps < .001, respectively) and negatively correlated with self-control (r = -.67 and -.65, ps

< .001, respectively) and the K-factor (r = -.25 and -.17, p < .001 and .05, respectively). Lack of

Perseverance and Premeditation were positively correlated with secondary psychopathy (r = .28

and .30, ps < .001, respectively) and negatively correlated with self-control (r = -.28 and -.34, ps

< .001, respectively); the Perseverance of Effort facet of grit (r = -.50 and -.31, ps < .001,

respectively); and the K-factor (r = -.34 and -.28, ps < .001, respectively). Sensation Seeking was

also positively correlated with primary psychopathy (r = .24, p < .001) and secondary

psychopathy (r = .27, p < .001) and negatively correlated with self-control (r = -.16, p < .05),

with secondary psychopathy showing a stronger association than primary psychopathy (ΔrNegative

13

Urgency = |.25|, t = 4.11, p < .001; ΔrPositive Urgency = |.22|, t = 3.52, p < .001; ΔrLack of Perseverance = |.09|, t =

1.31, ns; ΔrNegative Urgency = |.20|, t = 2.91, p < .01; ΔrPositive Urgency = |.03|, t = 0.46, ns).

However, the combinations that did not support our hypotheses were as follows: Lack of

Premeditation and the Consistency of Interests facet of grit was negatively correlated (r = -.10,

ns) as were Sensation Seeking and the K-factor (r = -.03, ns). Furthermore, other combinations

were significantly correlated but were not specifically hypothesized about: Positive and Negative

Urgency were negatively correlated with the Consistency of Interests facet of grit (r = -.31, -.25,

ps < .001), and Positive Urgency was negatively correlated with the Perseverance of Effort facet

of grit (r = -.17, p < .05).

Subsequently, we conducted a multiple regression analysis to examine whether each of

the SUPPS-P subscales predicts risk-taking behaviors (Supplementary Table S1C). The results

showed that personal risk-taking behavior was predicted by Sensation Seeking (b* = .59, p < .01)

and Lack of Premeditation (b* = .57, p < .01), and social risk-taking behavior was predicted by

Sensation Seeking (b* = .19, p < .01), Negative Urgency (b* = .16, p < .05) and Lack of

Perseverance (b* = .16, p < .05). These results supported our hypotheses.

Last, we calculated the correlation coefficients between times 1 and 2 for each SUPPS-P

subscale score to examine test-retest reliability. The results showed that each SUPPS-P subscale

has good reliability (rNegative Urgency = .76, rPositive Urgency = .80, rLack of Perseverance = .66, rLack of Premeditation

= .69, and rSensation Seeking = .84).

5 Discussion

14

We developed a Japanese version of the SUPPS-P. The results from the project showed

that the Japanese version replicated the factor structure of the original UPPS-P model (Cyders &

Smith, 2007; Cyders et al., 2014; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). Note that the 5-factor inter-

correlation model was better than the higher-order factor model in the present study. In the

previous studies, findings of higher-order factor models are inconsistent across various countries

(Billieux et al., 2012; Bteich et al., 2017; Cándido et al., 2012; Claréus et al., 2017; Cyders &

Smith, 2007; Cyders et al., 2014; D'Orta et al., 2015). Future research should examine the

cultural differences of multidimensional impulsivity. Furthermore, most of each UPPS-P

impulsivity facet measured by the SUPPS-P-J was associated with distinct personality traits,

attitudes, and behavioral patterns. These relationships supported theoretical links with UPPS-P

impulsivity facets.

No relationships were found between Lack of Premeditation and Consistency of Interests

or between Sensation Seeking and the K-factor, although we expected these associations. These

results suggest a qualitative difference between premeditation and consistency of interests (an

aspect of grit) and between sensation seeking and pursuit of immediate benefits (an aspect of a

fast life history strategy). However, contrary to our results, some previous findings support the

existence of each of these relationships (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2018 for the former, Figueredo et

al., 2006, for the latter). One possible explanation for the lack of an association is the presence of

mediating variables. Thus, future research is needed to clarify these discrepancies.

Furthermore, there are some unexpected relationships, specifically, negative relationships

between Urgency and grit, in particular, combinations of Negative Urgency and Consistency of

Interests, Positive Urgency and Consistency of Interests, and Positive Urgency and Perseverance

15

of Effort. These findings might suggest that people who tend to be disturbed emotionally find it

difficult to continue things or to maintain their interest. These possibilities also need to be

clarified.

5.1 Limitations

The present study has some limitations. First, all indices to examine the validity of

SUPPS-P-J were self-reported. Some previous studies have shown experimental and behavioral

evidence (e.g., Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2012). Future research should examine whether the

SUPPS-P-J captures behavioral data in experimental laboratory and/or daily life.

16

References

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). BDI-II, Beck depression inventory: Manual.

San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Billieux, J., Rochat, L., Ceschi, G., Carré, A., Offerlin-Meyer, I., Defeldre, A.-C., . . . Van der

Linden, M. (2012). Validation of a short French version of the UPPS-P impulsive

behavior scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53(5), 609-615.

Bteich, G., Berbiche, D., & Khazaal, Y. (2017). Validation of the short Arabic UPPS-P

impulsive behavior scale. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 244.

Cándido, A., Orduña, E., Perales, J. C., Verdejo-García, A., & Billieux, J. (2012). Validation of a

short Spanish version of the UPPS-P impulsive behaviour scale. Trastornos Adictivos,

14(3), 73-78.

Claréus, B., Daukantaitė, D., Wångby-Lundh, M., & Lundh, L.-G. (2017). Validation of a

Swedish version of the short UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale among young adults.

Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6, 118-122.

Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2012). The relationship between self-report and lab task

conceptualizations of impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 121-124.

Cyders, M. A., Littlefield, A. K., Coffey, S., & Karyadi, K. A. (2014). Examination of a short

English version of the UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale. Addictive Behaviors, 39(9),

1372-1376.

Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2007). Mood-based rash action and its components: Positive and

negative urgency. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 839-850.

17

D'Orta, I., Burnay, J., Aiello, D., Niolu, C., Siracusano, A., Timpanaro, L., . . . Billieux, J.

(2015). Development and validation of a short Italian UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale.

Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2, 19-22.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and

passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-

1101.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale

(Grit–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.

Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P., Enkavi, A. Z., Li, J., MacKinnon, D., Marsch, L., & Poldrack, R.

(2018). Uncovering mental structure through data-driven ontology discovery. PsyArXiv

Preprints. doi:10.31234/osf.io/fvqej

Figueredo, A., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B., Schneider, S., Sefcek, J., Tal, I., . . . Jacobs, W.

(2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy.

Developmental Review, 26(2), 243-275.

Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner,

C., . . . Rushton, J. P. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history

strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3),

148-185.

Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health

Systems.

Hidano, N., Fukuhara, M., Iwawaki, M., Soga, S., & Charles, D. S. (2000). State-trait anxiety

inventory-form JYZ. Tokyo, Japan: Jitsumukyoiku-Shuppan.

18

Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B. L., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The Dark Triad and life

history theory. Human Nature, 21(4), 428-442.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure

of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41.

Kawamoto, T. (2015). The translation and validation of the Mini-K scale in Japanese. Japanese

Psychological Research, 57(3), 254-267.

Keye, D., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2009). Structure and correlates of the German version of

the brief UPPS impulsive behavior scales. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 25(3), 175-185.

Kojima, M., & Furukawa, T. (2003). Manual for the Beck depression inventory-II (Japanese

translation). Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo: Nihon Bunka Kagakusha Co., Ltd.

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in

a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1),

151-158.

Lynam, D. R., Smith, G. T., Whiteside, S. P., & Cyders, M. A. (2006). The UPPS-P: Assessing

five personality pathways to impulsive behavior. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Nishikawa, K., Okugami, S., & Amemiya, T. (2015). Development of the Japanese short grit

scale (Grit-S). The Japanese Journal of Personality, 24(2), 167-169.

Oshio, A. (2001). Development and validation of a Risk-Taking Behavior Scale for

Undergraduates (RIBS-U). Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education and Human

Development, Nagoya University (Psychology and Human Developmental Sciences), 48,

257-265.

19

Ozaki, Y., Goto, T., Kobayashi, M., & Kutsuzawa, G. (2016). Reliability and validity of the

Japanese translation of Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS-J). The Japanese Journal of

Psychology, 87(2), 144-154.

Poythress, N. G., & Hall, J. R. (2011). Psychopathy and impulsivity reconsidered. Aggression

and Violent Behavior, 16(2), 120-134.

Shokri, O., & Sanaeepour, M. H. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation of a Farsi version of the

impulsive behavior scale-short form in Iran. International Journal of Body, Mind and

Culture, 3(2), 101-112.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for

the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI, Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Sugiura, Y., & Sato, A. (2005). Validation of the Japanese version of primary and secondary

psychopathy scale. Poster session presented at the Sixtyninth Meeting of the Japanese

psychological Association. Tokyo, Japan.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of

Personality, 72(2), 271-324.

Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common bisocial

factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999-1029.

20

Supplementary Table S1A. Bayesian information criteria (BIC) for each invariance constraint.

　 Sex SampleConfigural 10,127.07 10,425.88Metric 10,067.24 10,307.43Scalar 10,010.52 10,200.54

21

Supplementary Table S1B. Descriptive statistics, sex differences, and correlation coefficients.

　 　　 　Female　 　Male 　 　　 　　 　Correlation coefficients

　 　　 　 M (SD) M (SD) ta d　 1　 2　 3　 4　 5　 6　 7　 8　 9　 10　 11　 12　 13　14　

Age 　α 　20.11 (1.50)　

20.92(0.64)　-4.76*** -

0.57　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　　 　

1. Negative urgency .68 2.36 (0.61) 2.56(0.77) -1.27 -

0.32

2. Positive urgency .66 2.19 (0.61) 2.42(0.64) -1.65 -

0.36 .62***

3. Lack of perseverance .66 2.02 (0.55) 1.98(0.54) 0.34 0.07 .00 .03

4. Lack of premeditation .67 2.26 (0.53) 2.03(0.50) 2.13* 0.44 .11 .25*** .38***

5. Sensation seeking .64 2.01 (0.64) 2.50(0.80) -2.92** -

0.74 .22** .32*** -.11 .14*

6. Primary psychopathy .82 2.50 (0.48) 2.52(0.61) -0.15 -

0.04 .27*** .32*** .19** .11 .24***

7. Secondary psychopathy .68 0.72 (0.44) 0.70(0.52) 0.23 0.06 .53*** .53*** .28*** .30*** .27*** .47***

8. Anxiety .88 2.06 (0.43) 2.30(0.36) -2.95** -

0.55 .44*** .36*** .00 .02 -.06 .10 .51***

9. Depression .90 2.23 (0.42) 2.37(0.50) -1.35 -

0.33 .37*** .32*** .04 .06 .01 .17* .55*** .76***

10. Self-control .83 2.81 (0.66) 2.55(0.73) 1.68 0.39 -.6

5*** -.6

7*** -.28*** -.34*** -.16* -.34*** -.66*** -.48*** -.46***

11. Consistency of interest .75 2.64 (0.80

) 2.39(0.84) 1.38 0.30 -.25

*** -.31

*** -.37*** -.10 -.11 -.32*** -.53*** -.19** -.27*** .47***

12. Perseverance of effort .76 3.08 (0.80) 2.77(1.03) 1.43 0.37 -.0

8-.1

7* -.50*** -.31*** .04 -.20** -.43*** -.22** -.27*** .48*** .40***

13. K-factor .78 4.69 (0.64) 4.11(0.69) 3.94*** 0.89 -.1

7* -.2

5*** -.34*** -.28*** -.03 -.33*** -.40*** -.34*** -.32*** .36*** .14* .42***

14. Personal risk takingb .70 7.11 (2.17) 8.75(3.33) -2.35* -

0.70 .18** .25*** -.04 .25*** .31*** .26*** .21** -.04 .06 -.25*** -.09 -.09 -.12

22

15. Social risk takingb .70　12.20 (3.36)　

12.17(3.55)　0.04　 0.01　.30*** .33*** .17* .21** .26*** .47*** .47*** .13　 .23** -.46*** -.27*** -.29*** -.13　.46***

aWelch’s t-test. bSummed scores were used as scale scores. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

23

Supplementary Table S1C. Results of the regression analysis of the effect of UPPS-P

impulsivity on risk-taking behaviors (standardized regression coefficients).

　 Personal risk takinga

Social risk taking

Negative Urgency .13 　 .16 *

Positive Urgency .17 .13

Lack of Perseverance -.28 .16 *

Lack of Premeditation .57 ** .06

Sensation Seeking .59 ** .19 **

aNegative binomial distribution was applied. *p < .05, **p < .01.

24

NU PU LPE LPR SS

6 15138 3 201710 1 1174 2 19125 9 181614

.58 .53 .73 .49 .44 .70 .45 .76 .47 .42 .70 .80 .61 .62 .34 .75 .76 .75 .29 .44

.91 -.001 .44 .34

.29

.20 .47

.39-.01 -.14

Supplementary Fig. S1D. Results of CFA. Significant correlations are highlighted in bold.

Reverse items have been reversed. NU = Negative Urgency; PU = Positive Urgency; LPE =

Lack of Perseverance; LPR = Lack of Premeditation; SS = Sensation Seeking.

25