Abstract
Negative and positive urgency are two closely related personality traits that reflect the tendency for an individual to engage in maladaptive risk-taking in response to extreme negative and positive emotions, respectively. However, other prominent emotion theories describe how emotions contribute to adaptive, rather than maladaptive, decision-making. This conceptual review considers how Urgency Theory can be integrated with these broader existing emotion theories. We proceed as follows: a) briefly define what is meant by emotions in science and summarize basic human neuroscience underlying emotions; b) briefly describe select theories and research linking emotions to adaptive decision-making, including brain correlates of this effect; c) review Urgency Theory, including contrasting evidence that emotions lead to maladaptive outcomes and brain correlates of this effect; d) discuss how urgency can be integrated into theories that view emotions as both adaptive and maladaptive for decision-making; and e) propose future directions to advance research in this field. We identified four, not mutually exclusive, viable options to integrate Urgency Theory into existing theories: urgency as model-free emotion regulation, urgency as being driven by incidental emotions, urgency as a reflexive response to emotions, or urgency as an individual difference factor. We conclude that although all four options are viable, individual difference and model-free emotion regulation have the most empirical support to date. Importantly, the other two options are less well-researched. Direct tests comparing these integrations is necessary to determine the most accurate way to integrate urgency with existing emotion theories. We believe that this research can identify mechanisms underlying urgency and help inform future intervention and prevention development to reduce negative effects of urgency across numerous maladaptive behaviors and clinical disorders.