ALTERING THE MAGNITUDE OF DELAY DISCOUNTING BY PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS

The present study explored the delay discounting of future and past monetary rewards by pathological gamblers. Using a multiple baseline design, following repeated exposure to choices between smaller immediate and larger delayed consequences, participants completed a relational responding task that attempted to alter the psychological functions of irrelevant stimuli and to affect subsequent delay discounting. Results support previous literature on the discounting of delayed consequences by pathological gamblers, illustrate that the discounting of past rewards occurs in a similar fashion to the well‐documented literature on the discounting of future rewards, and that magnitude of discounting can be altered.     

Effects of delay fading and signals on self‐control choices by children

The current study is a systematic replication and extension of work by Schweitzer & Sulzer‐Azaroff (1988). The effects of delay fading alone and in combination with signals on choices between larger, delayed reinforcers and smaller, immediate reinforcers by four children with language deficits were examined. For one of the two children exposed to delay fading alone, larger reinforcers were selected at longer delays relative to the initial self‐control assessment. For all four children, the delay‐fading‐plus‐signal condition resulted in selection of larger reinforcers at considerably longer delays relative to the self‐control assessment.     

Delay discounting by pathological gamblers

Discounting of delayed rewards by pathological gamblers was compared to discounting of delayed rewards by matched control nongambling participants. All participants completed a hypothetical choice task in which they made repeated choices between dollars 1,000 available after a delay and an equal or lesser amount of money available immediately. The delay to the large amount of money was varied from 1 week to 10 years across conditions. Indifference points between immediate money and delayed money were identified at each delay condition by varying the amount of immediate money across choice trials. For the majority of participants, indifference points decreased monotonically across delays. Overall, gamblers discounted the delayed rewards more steeply than did control participants.     

Altering Impulsive Decision Making With an Acceptance-Based Procedure

Delay discounting is one facet of impulsive decision making and involves subjectively devaluing a delayed outcome. Steeply discounting delayed rewards is correlated with substance abuse and other problematic behaviors. To the extent that steep delay discounting underlies these clinical disorders, it would be advantageous to find psychosocial avenues for reducing delay discounting. Acceptance-based interventions may prove useful as they may help to decrease the distress that arises while waiting for a delayed outcome. The current study was conducted to determine if a 60–90 minute acceptance-based training would change delay discounting rates among 30 undergraduate university students in comparison to a waitlist control. Measures given at pre- and posttraining included a hypothetical monetary delay discounting task, the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), and the Distress Tolerance Scale. Those assigned to the treatment group decreased their discounting of delayed money, but not distress intolerance or psychological inflexibility when compared to the waitlist control group. After the waiting period, the control group received the intervention. Combining all participants’ pre- to posttreatment data, the acceptance-based treatment significantly decreased discounting of monetary rewards and increased distress tolerance. The difference in AAQ-II approached significance. Acceptance-based treatments may be a worthwhile option for decreasing delay discounting rates and, consequently, affecting the choices that underlie addiction and other problematic behaviors.     

Temporal Discounting Mechanisms of Future‐oriented Coping: Evidence from Delay Discounting and Task Prioritization Paradigms

Four studies were conducted to examine the relationship between future‐oriented coping and temporal discounting under different situational conditions. In Study 1, 138 participants were primed with either stressful or neutral stimuli, followed by a delay‐discounting task. In Study 2, 118 participants were primed with either stressful or neutral stimuli, followed by a task‐prioritization activity. The results of both studies indicated that future‐oriented coping had a significant negative association with temporal discounting or the number of rational choices in the neutral‐priming condition, but the relationship was not significant in the stress‐priming condition. In Study 3, qualitative data revealed that the major reason for shifting choices from larger but later payoffs to smaller but sooner rewards in a stressful condition was to reduce the stressful mood, create a positive mood, and promote a sense of accomplishment. This explanation was corroborated by Study 4, in which one group was allowed to choose an immediate payoff and the other group was blocked from choosing that immediate payoff. We confirmed that post‐test anxiety was significantly lower in the immediate payoff group compared with the delayed‐payoff group in proactive and preventive coping, using pre‐test anxiety as a covariate. Preventive coping helped to reduce anxiety levels in a stressful condition only when there was a choice to obtain an immediate payoff. These findings underscore the relationship between future‐oriented coping and temporal discounting, as well as the flexibility of discounting in the face of stress. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Tests of an indifference rule in variable‐delay and double‐reward choice procedures with humans

Four hundred and fifty participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk across 3 experiments to test the predictions of a hyperbolic discounting equation in accounting for human choices involving variable delays or multiple rewards (Mazur, 1984, 1986). In Experiment 1, participants made hypothetical choices between 2 monetary alternatives, 1 consisting of a fixed delay and another consisting of 2 delays of equal probability (i.e., a variable‐delay procedure). In Experiment 2, participants made hypothetical monetary choices between a single, immediate reward and 2 rewards, 1 immediate and 1 delayed (i.e., a double‐reward procedure). Experiment 3 also used a double‐reward procedure, but with 2 delayed rewards. Participants in all 3 experiments also completed a standard delay‐discounting task. Finally, 3 reward amounts were tested in each type of task ($100, $1000, and $5000). In the double‐reward conditions (Experiments 2 and 3), the results were in good qualitative and quantitative agreement with Mazur's model (1984, 1986). In contrast, when participants made choices involving variable delays (Experiment 1), there was relatively poor qualitative and quantitative agreement with this model. These results, along with our previous findings, suggest the structure of questions in hypothetical tasks with humans can be a strong determinant of the choice pattern.     

Delay discounting of monetary gains and losses in adolescents with ADHD: Contribution of delay aversion to choice

Adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are known to have stronger preferences for smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards in delay discounting tasks than their peers, which has been argued to reflect delay aversion. Here, participants performed a delay discounting task with gains and losses. In this latter condition, participants were asked whether they were willing to wait in order to lose less money. Following the core assumption of the delay aversion model that individuals with ADHD have a general aversion to delay, one would predict adolescents with ADHD to avoid waiting in both conditions. Adolescents (12–17 years) with ADHD (n = 29) and controls (n = 28) made choices between smaller immediate and larger delayed gains, and between larger immediate and smaller delayed losses. All delays (5–25 s) and gains/losses (2–10 cents) were experienced. In addition to an area under the curve approach, a mixed-model analysis was conducted to disentangle the contributions of delay duration and immediate gain/delayed loss amount to choice. The ADHD group chose the immediate option more often than controls in the gain condition, but not in the loss condition. The contribution of delay duration to immediate choices was stronger for the ADHD group than the control group in the gain condition only. In addition, the ADHD group scored higher on self-reported delay aversion, and delay aversion was associated with delay sensitivity in the gain condition, but not in the loss condition. In sum, we found no clear evidence for a general aversion to delay in adolescents with ADHD.     

Temporal discounting predicts student responsiveness to exchange delays in a classroom token system

Typical assessments of temporal discounting involve presenting choices between hypothetical monetary outcomes. Participants choose between smaller immediate rewards and larger delayed rewards to determine how the passage of time affects the subjective value of reinforcement. Few studies, however, have compared such discounting to actual manipulations of reward delay. The present study examined the predictive validity of a temporal discounting procedure developed for use with children. Forty-six sixth-grade students completed a brief discounting assessment and were then exposed to a classwide intervention that involved both immediate and delayed reinforcement in a multiple baseline design across classrooms. The parameters derived from two hyperbolic models of discounting correlated significantly with actual on-task behavior under conditions of immediate and delayed exchange. Implications of temporal discounting assessments for behavioral assessment and treatment are discussed.     

Asymmetry of the group context effect on delay discounting

Binary choice delay discounting tasks require participants to indicate preference between smaller, immediate, and larger, delayed rewards. Previous research indicates that when the delayed reward is shared with others, the delayed outcome is preferred compared with when the outcomes are for the self only, resulting in lower rates of delay discounting. The present series of studies sought to replicate and extend this finding. Study 1 compared delay discounting on a standard task in which both immediate and delayed outcomes are for the self and a group context task where the delayed outcome was shared with one other person. Replicating previous results, group context resulted in lower rates of delay discounting, and this effect was independent of how the shared outcome was presented. Study 2 compared delay discounting on a standard task and a group context task where the immediate outcome was shared. In contrast to Study 1, group context resulted in higher rates of delay discounting, suggesting that preference in intertemporal choice tracks the shared outcome. Moreover, this effect was not independent of how the shared outcome was presented. This is the first study to reveal that group context, when applied to the immediate outcome, can result in higher rates of delay discounting.     

Impulsivity in borderline personality disorder: reward-based decision-making and its relationship to emotional distress

Impulsivity in Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) has been defined as rapid and unplanned action. However, a preference for immediate gratification and discounting of delayed rewards might better account for the impulsive behaviors that appear to regulate emotional distress in BPD. To investigate this, a delay discounting task was administered to 30 outpatients diagnosed with BPD and 28 healthy community controls (all aged 15-24) before and after a mood induction. Trait impulsivity was measured with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. The results showed that the BPD group had a greater preference for immediate gratification and higher rate of discounting the delayed reward than the control group. Although the mood induction resulted in increased feelings of rejection and anger in all participants, and the rate of delay discounting changed significantly in the control group, the rate of discounting did not change for the BPD group. There was no evidence of rapid decision-making in the BPD group as response times were similar between the two groups during both trials. Finally, greater general impulsiveness and nonplanning impulsiveness were associated with greater rates of discounting in the BPD group. Together these findings suggest that BPD is characterized by a preference for immediate gratification and tendency to discount longer-term rewards. This characteristic appears to exist independent of feelings of rejection and anger, rather than being reactive to this, and to be related to trait impulsivity.     

Associations Between Delay Discounting and Risk‐Related Behaviors,Traits, Attitudes,and Outcomes

Delay discounting—preference for immediate, smaller rewards over distal, larger rewards—has been argued to be part of the “generality of deviance”, which describes the co‐occurrence of various forms of impulsive and risky behaviors among individuals. Some studies have linked laboratory‐measured delay discounting to behaviors, traits, attitudes, and outcomes associated with risk, but these associations have been inconsistent. Furthermore, many of these studies have been conducted with exclusively undergraduate samples, or in samples offering low statistical power. In a large community sample (n = 328) diverse in age and socioeconomic status, we examined associations between two measures of behavioral delay discounting (single‐shot and canonical k‐parameter estimation) and behavioral risk‐taking, personality traits associated with risk, domain‐specific risk attitudes, gambling and problem gambling, antisocial behavior, and criminal outcomes. In addition, we explored whether a novel response time latency measure of delay discounting explained variance in these risk‐related outcomes. Results indicated that behavioral delay discounting was consistently associated with all variables related to impulse control: high trait impulsivity, low trait self‐control, risk‐averse attitudes toward financial investment, risk‐prone attitudes toward gambling and health/safety risks, gambling and problem gambling, antisocial conduct, and criminal outcomes. Latency‐measured delay discounting was inconsistently associated with behavioral delay discounting and risk‐related measures. Together, results suggest that delay discounting is associated with poor impulse control consistent with a generality of deviance account. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An evaluation of toy quality for increasing self‐control in typically developing preschool children

Children often make impulsive choices, and previous research has shown that access to activities during the delay may enhance self‐control (e.g., Newquist, Dozier, & Neidert, 2012). The purpose of the current study was to extend the results of Newquist et al. (2012) by comparing the effects of access to low‐preference, moderate‐preference, and high‐preference toys during delays. Results showed that (a) all toys increased self‐control for 2 participants when toys were available for all choice options and (b) high‐preference toys (and sometimes moderate‐preference toys) increased self‐control for 3 participants when the toys were available only for large delayed choices.     

Temporal framing and the hidden‐zero effect: rate‐dependent outcomes on delay discounting

Recent research suggests that presenting time intervals as units (e.g., days) or as specific dates, can modulate the degree to which humans discount delayed outcomes. Another framing effect involves explicitly stating that choosing a smaller–sooner reward is mutually exclusive to receiving a larger–later reward, thus presenting choices as an extended sequence. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 201) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk completed the Monetary Choice Questionnaire in a 2 (delay framing) by 2 (zero framing) design. Regression suggested a main effect of delay, but not zero, framing after accounting for other demographic variables and manipulations. We observed a rate‐dependent effect for the date‐framing group, such that those with initially steep discounting exhibited greater sensitivity to the manipulation than those with initially shallow discounting. Subsequent analyses suggest these effects cannot be explained by regression to the mean. Experiment 2 addressed the possibility that the null effect of zero framing was due to within‐subject exposure to the hidden‐ and explicit‐zero conditions. A new Amazon Mechanical Turk sample completed the Monetary Choice Questionnaire in either hidden‐ or explicit‐zero formats. Analyses revealed a main effect of reward magnitude, but not zero framing, suggesting potential limitations to the generality of the hidden‐zero effect.     

TEACHING SELF‐CONTROL WITH QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT REINFORCERS

This study examined the effectiveness of using qualitatively different reinforcers to teach self‐control to an adolescent boy who had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability. First, he was instructed to engage in an activity without programmed reinforcement. Next, he was instructed to engage in the activity under a two‐choice fixed‐duration schedule of reinforcement. Finally, he was exposed to self‐control training, during which the delay to a more preferred reinforcer was initially short and then increased incrementally relative to the delay to a less preferred reinforcer. Self‐control training effectively increased time on task to earn the delayed reinforcer.     

The neural mechanisms of inter-temporal decision-making: understanding variability

Humans and animals prefer immediate over delayed rewards (delay discounting). This preference for smaller-but-sooner over larger-but-later rewards shows substantial interindividual variability in healthy subjects. Moreover, a strong bias towards immediate reinforcement characterizes many psychiatric conditions such as addiction and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. We discuss the neural mechanisms underlying delay discounting and describe how interindividual variability (trait effects) in the neural instantiation of subprocesses of delay discounting (such as reward valuation, cognitive control and prospection) contributes to differences in behaviour. We next discuss different interventions that can partially remedy impulsive decision-making (state effects). Although the precise neural mechanisms underlying many of these modulating influences are only beginning to be unravelled, they point towards novel treatment approaches for disorders of impulse control.     

Enhancing tolerance to delayed reinforcers: the role of intervening activities

Three participants with moderate to profound mental retardation were exposed to choices between an immediate small amount and a delayed larger amount of a preferred reinforcer. All participants initially showed a relatively high preference for the smaller reinforcer, suggesting impulsive choice making. However this preference reversed, suggesting self-control, when the larger reinforcer was available immediately and, over time, its delay was gradually increased. Results highlight the potential utility of incorporating concurrent activities into self-control training paradigms.     

Thinking about others and the future: Neural correlates of perspective taking relate to preferences for delayed rewards

We infer the thoughts and feelings of others by taking their perspectives. Similar processes could be used to understand how we will be affected by future events, by allowing us to take the perspective of our future self. In this paper, we test this idea using a previously presented framework for guiding predictions. The framework proposes that a shared neural mechanism is involved in controlling egocentric bias, both while shifting our perspective away from self and towards others, and while shifting our perspective from immediate to future perspectives. To test this framework, 36 adults performed an intertemporal choice task. They were then scanned using 3T functional magnetic resonance imaging while completing a false-belief “localizer” task, which requires egocentric bias control. A positive correlation was observed between the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) response during the false-belief task, and preferences for delayed rewards in intertemporal choices. A subset of participants performed the intertemporal choice task again in the scanner, which revealed that the response of the same rTPJ cluster, individually localized during the false-belief task, was higher during delayed over immediate reward choices. In addition, functional connectivity between the rTPJ and ventromedial prefrontal cortex was found to differ between immediate and delayed choices. The current results indicate an overlap in processes of egocentric bias control and those that determine preferences in intertemporal choices, offering a social cognitive explanation for why rewards are devalued with delay in temporal discounting.     

Introduction to the special issue on comparative cognition

Prior research has shown that nonhumans show an extreme preference for variable‐ over fixed‐delays to reinforcement. This well‐established preference for variability occurs because a reinforcer's strength or “value” decreases according to a curvilinear function as its delay increases. The purpose of the present experiments was to investigate whether this preference for variability occurs with human participants making hypothetical choices. In three experiments, participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk made choices between variable and fixed monetary rewards. In a variable‐delay procedure, participants repeatedly chose between a reward delivered either immediately or after a delay (with equal probability) and a reward after a fixed delay (Experiments 1 and 2). In a double‐reward procedure, participants made choices between an alternative consisting of two rewards, one delivered immediately and one after a delay, and a second alternative consisting of a single reward delivered after a delay (Experiments 1 and 3). Finally, all participants completed a standard delay‐discounting task. Although we observed both curvilinear discounting and magnitude effects in the standard discounting task, we found no consistent evidence of a preference for variability—as predicted by two prominent models of curvilinear discounting (i.e., a simple hyperbola and a hyperboloid)—in our variable‐delay and double‐reward procedures. This failure to observe a preference for variability may be attributed to the hypothetical, rule‐governed nature of choices in the present study. In such contexts, participants may adopt relatively simple strategies for making more complex choices.     

Age‐related differences in delay discounting: Immediate reward,reward magnitude,and social influence

Delay discounting refers to the tendency of individuals to subjectively devalue rewards that are to be received in the future, with high rates of delay discounting being associated with a variety of maladaptive life outcomes (e.g., unhealthy dietary and exercise behaviors). The current study explored the psychological and social processes involved in adult age‐related differences in delay discounting of monetary rewards. Younger adults exhibited higher levels of delay discounting than older adults. This increased level of patience in older adults was found whether smaller‐sooner rewards were to be received immediately or in the future. However, there was an interaction with reward magnitude, whereby younger adults exhibited higher levels of delay discounting for smaller reward magnitudes but not larger reward magnitudes. Social influence on delay discounting was investigated by having participants complete three phases of the delay‐discounting task: an individual precollaboration phase, a collaboration phase in age‐group‐matched dyads, and an individual postcollaboration phase. A convergence effect was observed in that dyad members' postcollaboration choices were significantly more similar compared to their baseline choices during the precollaboration phase. Moreover, levels of convergence were comparable between younger and older adults, suggesting age invariance in social influence on delay discounting. The current results demonstrate a degree of malleability in delay discounting that extends into older adulthood, making interventions targeting the construct a promising avenue for future research.     

A Measure of Delay Discounting Within the Academic Domain

It is important to better understand the decision‐making processes involved in student procrastination, in order to develop interventions that reduce this common problem. Students may procrastinate because studying produces delayed reinforcers; however, no task measuring delay discounting of academic outcomes currently exists. In Experiment 1, we developed and piloted a measure of academic discounting modeled on titrating‐amount tasks successfully used in the discounting literature. Participants made hypothetical choices between working for money (the smaller, sooner reinforcer) and working on an assignment that was due at various times (the larger, later reinforcer). Participants showed systematic decreases in the subjective value of the assignment as a function of delay, and the hyperbolic and hyperboloid models described the shape of this decrease in value well. In general, larger delayed rewards are discounted less steeply than smaller delayed rewards (the magnitude effect). In Experiment 2, we observed the magnitude effect in academic discounting: Participants discounted a “not important” assignment more steeply than an “important” assignment. In the hyperboloid model, this change was captured by an increase in the s parameter. Results provide support for the validity of the academic discounting task. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.