资源困境中共同收益延迟的影响：时间折扣的调节效应

通过测量83名大学生的时间折扣率和不同共同收益延迟时距上的金币拿取量,以探讨资源困境中共同收益延迟对个体决策的影响及时间折扣的调节效应。结果表明：（1）金币拿取量随共同收益延迟时距的增长而增加,增加趋势和初始时间点的金币拿取量均存在显著的个体差异;（2）时间折扣率反向调节初始延迟时间点的金币拿取量,正向调节金币拿取量随延迟时距增长而增加的速率。这表明资源困境与跨期选择两个不同研究领域具有紧密联系,对当前资源保护制度的制定与实施具有一定的启发意义。     

The influence of contrived motivating operations on social discounting: Relative economic hardship affects choice

Thirty‐six participants were given three social discounting surveys, and each survey was preceded by one of three contrived hypothetical scenarios. In each scenario, the participant was asked to consider situations in which either the participant (SELF), a hypothetical other (OTHER), or both the participant and the hypothetical other (BOTH) were experiencing economic hardship (i.e., needed money to avoid a negative outcome). Results replicate previous research suggesting that the probability of participants foregoing the money decreased across social distance in the BOTH and OTHER conditions; however, no discounting was observed for median responses in the SELF condition. In addition, the highest area under the curve and lowest s values were associated with the OTHER condition, and the inverse results were observed for the SELF condition. Taken together, these results suggest that relative economic hardship may act as a motivating operation affecting social discounting with the potential for further translational utility.     

Bidding for delayed rewards: Accumulation as delay discounting,delay discounting as regulation,demand functions as corollary

In the accumulation paradigm animals press one manipulandum to accumulate pellets or seconds of access to food, and then press another manipulandum, or run some distance, to collect it. The accumulation may be interpreted as delay discounting, with the animals adjusting the distal amount to compensate for its distance or delay. The amount accumulated before being collected is a linear function of the distance or time that the experimental paradigm stipulates for collecting it. That linear function follows from the Unit‐Price/Unit‐Amount axiom. The inverse of the linear compensation functions gives a delay‐discount hyperbola. The advantages of the accumulation paradigm and analytic framework for delay discounting studies are noted. Compensation functions are then derived from a behavioral regulation model, which generalizes them to contexts where the individual's budget for response cost becomes over‐taxed. In turn, such compensation/regulation models lead directly to representative demand functions. In sum, regulation models provide a theoretical grounding for demand functions, compensation functions, and delay discounting hyperbolas. The parameter that links them is the unit amount k, the slope of the compensation function and of the discount function, the setpoint for consumption in a regulation model, and the ideal quantity consumed at minimal price in a demand analysis.     

Area under the curve as a measure of discounting

We describe a novel approach to the measurement of discounting based on calculating the area under the empirical discounting function. This approach avoids some of the problems associated with measures based on estimates of the parameters of theoretical discounting functions. The area measure may be easily calculated for both individual and group data collected using any of a variety of current delay and probability discounting procedures. The present approach is not intended as a substitute for theoretical discounting models. It is useful, however, to have a simple, univariate measure of discounting that is not tied to any specific theoretical framework.     

Greater delay discounting among girls,but not boys,with ADHD correlates with cognitive control

Cognitive neuroscience models suggest both reward valuation and cognitive control contribute to reward-based decision-making. The current study examined the relationship between cognitive control and delay discounting (i.e., choosing smaller, immediate over larger, delayed rewards) in a large sample of boys and girls diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; N = 95) and typically developing control children (TD; N = 59). Specifically, we examined performance on multiple measures of cognitive control (i.e., Go/No-Go task, Stop Signal task, and Spatial Span task) and delay discounting (i.e., Classic Delay Discounting and Real-Time Delay Discounting tasks), as well as the relationship between these measures. Results indicated that sex moderated the effects of group on task performance. Specifically, girls with ADHD, but not boys with the disorder, exhibited atypical delay discounting of real-time rewards. Results from correlational analyses indicated that delay discounting and cognitive control were not significantly correlated in the overall sample. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that among girls with ADHD poorer spatial working memory and inhibitory control predicted greater real-time discounting. Collectively, findings provide support for distinct patterns of cognitive control and delay discounting among school-aged girls and boys with ADHD. Additionally, findings suggest that among girls with ADHD, those who exhibit relatively poor working memory and inhibitory control might be a particularly vulnerable subgroup with the greatest propensity to exhibit maladaptive decision-making.     

Coin trials

According to the JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS principle, if I know that a coin is fair, and I lack justification for believing that it won’t be flipped, then I lack justification for believing that it won’t land tails. What this principle says, in effect, is that the only way to have justification for believing that a fair coin won’t land tails, is by having justification for believing that it won’t be flipped at all. Although this seems a plausible and innocuous principle, in a recent paper Dorr, Goodman and Hawthorne use it in devising an intriguing puzzle which places all justified beliefs about the future in jeopardy. They point out, further, that one very widespread theory of justification predicts that JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS is false, giving us additional reason to reject it. In this paper, I will attempt to turn this dialectic around. I will argue that JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS does not inevitably lead to scepticism about the future, and the fact that it is incompatible with a widespread theory of justification may give us reason to doubt the theory. I will outline an alternative theory of justification that predicts both that JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS is true and that we have justification for believing much about the future.     

Valuing the future: a MADA example involving nuclear waste storage

Intertemporal decision making involves decisions that have consequences that span several periods of time and often extend far into the future. The purpose of this paper is to discuss and highlight the differences associated with different evaluation methods designed to cope with the long-term impacts of a decision including discounting. The concepts and ideas are illustrated in the context of a decision about a nuclear waste facility. We show how applying different discounting methodologies can greatly affect the decision made, especially over long time periods. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Arguments in the practical reasoning underlying constructed probability responses

Reasoning is an important cognitive activity in probability assessment, and one that has been understudied. This proposition motivates the paper's three general aims. First, based on research in rhetoric, we present a theoretical means of analyzing the arguments constructed during the reasoning that occurs in probability assessment. Second, from verbal protocol data, we establish that subjects constructed arguments in forming beliefs and assessing the associated probabilities. Third, we analyze the data for the structure of subject's arguments, including argument content and form. Subjects used a limited amount of relevant evidence and used a variety of argument forms that could be characterized by the nature of the knowledge that subjects brought to bear in forming the arguments. Subjects predominantly used causal reasoning, but also employed hierarchical category knowledge, resemblance relationships, and arguments from authority. These findings form a basis for expanding our accounts of probability assessment and for improving assessment practice.