Agnese Sbaffi | LUISS Guido Carli (original) (raw)

Papers by Agnese Sbaffi

Cognition, Mar 1, 2014

In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed ... more In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed option. This paradigm, also known as intertemporal choice task, is frequently used to assess delay tolerance, interpreting a preference for the larger delayed option as willingness to wait. However, in the Delay choice task subjects face a dilemma between two preferred responses: ''go for more'' (i.e., selecting the larger, but delayed, option) vs. ''go for sooner'' (i.e., selecting the immediate, but smaller, option). When the options consist of visible food amounts, at least some of the choices of the larger delayed option might be due to a failure to inhibit a prepotent response towards the larger option rather than to a sustained delay tolerance. To disentangle this issue, we tested 10 capuchin monkeys, 101 preschool children, and 88 adult humans in a Delay choice task with food, low-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-one correspondence with food items), and high-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-many correspondence with food items). This allows evaluating how different methods of representing rewards modulate the relative contribution of the ''go for more'' and ''go for sooner'' responses. Consistently with the idea that choices for the delayed option are sometimes due to a failure at inhibiting the prepotent response for the larger quantity, we expected high-symbolic tokens to decrease the salience of the larger option, thus reducing ''go for more'' responses. In fact, previous findings have shown that inhibiting prepotent responses for quantity is easier when the problem is framed in a symbolic context. Overall, opting for the larger delayed option in the visible-food version of the Delay choice task seems to partially result from an impulsive preference for quantity,

Questioni di validita del modello neoclassico. Implicazioni nella Teoria del Marketing. Ricerca s... more Questioni di validita del modello neoclassico. Implicazioni nella Teoria del Marketing. Ricerca sperimentale. Studio comportamentale sugli effetti del tipo di ricompensa.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Dec 25, 2014

Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger ... more Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger and later option (LL), and delay minimization, which would promote the smaller and sooner reward (SS). Two common interpretations of intertemporal choice behavior are discussed: looking at LL responses as indicative of self-control, and using intertemporal choices to assess delay aversion. We argue that both interpretations need to take into account motivational confounds, in order to be warranted by data. In intertemporal choices with prepotent, salient stimuli (e.g., food amounts, typically used with nonhuman primates), LL responses could also be indicative of failed inhibition of a "go for more" impulsive response-the opposite of self-control. Similarly, intertemporal choices can be used to measure delay aversion only with respect to the subject's baseline motivation to maximize the reinforcer in question, and this baseline is not always assessed in current experimental protocols. This concern is especially crucial in comparing intertemporal choices across different groups or manipulation. We focus in particular on the effects of reward types on intertemporal choices, presenting two experimental studies where the difference in behavior with monetary versus food rewards is the product of different baseline motivation, rather than variations in delay aversion. We conclude discussing the implications of these and other similar recent findings, which are far-reaching.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2014

Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger ... more Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger and later option (LL), and delay minimization, which would promote the smaller and sooner reward (SS). Two common interpretations of intertemporal choice behavior are discussed: looking at LL responses as indicative of self-control, and using intertemporal choices to assess delay aversion. We argue that both interpretations need to take into account motivational confounds, in order to be warranted by data. In intertemporal choices with prepotent, salient stimuli (e.g., food amounts, typically used with nonhuman primates), LL responses could also be indicative of failed inhibition of a "go for more" impulsive response-the opposite of self-control. Similarly, intertemporal choices can be used to measure delay aversion only with respect to the subject's baseline motivation to maximize the reinforcer in question, and this baseline is not always assessed in current experimental protocols. This concern is especially crucial in comparing intertemporal choices across different groups or manipulation. We focus in particular on the effects of reward types on intertemporal choices, presenting two experimental studies where the difference in behavior with monetary versus food rewards is the product of different baseline motivation, rather than variations in delay aversion. We conclude discussing the implications of these and other similar recent findings, which are far-reaching.

Cognition, 2014

In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed ... more In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed option. This paradigm, also known as intertemporal choice task, is frequently used to assess delay tolerance, interpreting a preference for the larger delayed option as willingness to wait. However, in the Delay choice task subjects face a dilemma between two preferred responses: ''go for more'' (i.e., selecting the larger, but delayed, option) vs. ''go for sooner'' (i.e., selecting the immediate, but smaller, option). When the options consist of visible food amounts, at least some of the choices of the larger delayed option might be due to a failure to inhibit a prepotent response towards the larger option rather than to a sustained delay tolerance. To disentangle this issue, we tested 10 capuchin monkeys, 101 preschool children, and 88 adult humans in a Delay choice task with food, low-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-one correspondence with food items), and high-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-many correspondence with food items). This allows evaluating how different methods of representing rewards modulate the relative contribution of the ''go for more'' and ''go for sooner'' responses. Consistently with the idea that choices for the delayed option are sometimes due to a failure at inhibiting the prepotent response for the larger quantity, we expected high-symbolic tokens to decrease the salience of the larger option, thus reducing ''go for more'' responses. In fact, previous findings have shown that inhibiting prepotent responses for quantity is easier when the problem is framed in a symbolic context. Overall, opting for the larger delayed option in the visible-food version of the Delay choice task seems to partially result from an impulsive preference for quantity,

Cognition, Mar 1, 2014

In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed ... more In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed option. This paradigm, also known as intertemporal choice task, is frequently used to assess delay tolerance, interpreting a preference for the larger delayed option as willingness to wait. However, in the Delay choice task subjects face a dilemma between two preferred responses: ''go for more'' (i.e., selecting the larger, but delayed, option) vs. ''go for sooner'' (i.e., selecting the immediate, but smaller, option). When the options consist of visible food amounts, at least some of the choices of the larger delayed option might be due to a failure to inhibit a prepotent response towards the larger option rather than to a sustained delay tolerance. To disentangle this issue, we tested 10 capuchin monkeys, 101 preschool children, and 88 adult humans in a Delay choice task with food, low-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-one correspondence with food items), and high-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-many correspondence with food items). This allows evaluating how different methods of representing rewards modulate the relative contribution of the ''go for more'' and ''go for sooner'' responses. Consistently with the idea that choices for the delayed option are sometimes due to a failure at inhibiting the prepotent response for the larger quantity, we expected high-symbolic tokens to decrease the salience of the larger option, thus reducing ''go for more'' responses. In fact, previous findings have shown that inhibiting prepotent responses for quantity is easier when the problem is framed in a symbolic context. Overall, opting for the larger delayed option in the visible-food version of the Delay choice task seems to partially result from an impulsive preference for quantity,

Questioni di validita del modello neoclassico. Implicazioni nella Teoria del Marketing. Ricerca s... more Questioni di validita del modello neoclassico. Implicazioni nella Teoria del Marketing. Ricerca sperimentale. Studio comportamentale sugli effetti del tipo di ricompensa.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Dec 25, 2014

Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger ... more Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger and later option (LL), and delay minimization, which would promote the smaller and sooner reward (SS). Two common interpretations of intertemporal choice behavior are discussed: looking at LL responses as indicative of self-control, and using intertemporal choices to assess delay aversion. We argue that both interpretations need to take into account motivational confounds, in order to be warranted by data. In intertemporal choices with prepotent, salient stimuli (e.g., food amounts, typically used with nonhuman primates), LL responses could also be indicative of failed inhibition of a "go for more" impulsive response-the opposite of self-control. Similarly, intertemporal choices can be used to measure delay aversion only with respect to the subject's baseline motivation to maximize the reinforcer in question, and this baseline is not always assessed in current experimental protocols. This concern is especially crucial in comparing intertemporal choices across different groups or manipulation. We focus in particular on the effects of reward types on intertemporal choices, presenting two experimental studies where the difference in behavior with monetary versus food rewards is the product of different baseline motivation, rather than variations in delay aversion. We conclude discussing the implications of these and other similar recent findings, which are far-reaching.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2014

Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger ... more Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger and later option (LL), and delay minimization, which would promote the smaller and sooner reward (SS). Two common interpretations of intertemporal choice behavior are discussed: looking at LL responses as indicative of self-control, and using intertemporal choices to assess delay aversion. We argue that both interpretations need to take into account motivational confounds, in order to be warranted by data. In intertemporal choices with prepotent, salient stimuli (e.g., food amounts, typically used with nonhuman primates), LL responses could also be indicative of failed inhibition of a "go for more" impulsive response-the opposite of self-control. Similarly, intertemporal choices can be used to measure delay aversion only with respect to the subject's baseline motivation to maximize the reinforcer in question, and this baseline is not always assessed in current experimental protocols. This concern is especially crucial in comparing intertemporal choices across different groups or manipulation. We focus in particular on the effects of reward types on intertemporal choices, presenting two experimental studies where the difference in behavior with monetary versus food rewards is the product of different baseline motivation, rather than variations in delay aversion. We conclude discussing the implications of these and other similar recent findings, which are far-reaching.

Cognition, 2014

In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed ... more In the Delay choice task subjects choose between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed option. This paradigm, also known as intertemporal choice task, is frequently used to assess delay tolerance, interpreting a preference for the larger delayed option as willingness to wait. However, in the Delay choice task subjects face a dilemma between two preferred responses: ''go for more'' (i.e., selecting the larger, but delayed, option) vs. ''go for sooner'' (i.e., selecting the immediate, but smaller, option). When the options consist of visible food amounts, at least some of the choices of the larger delayed option might be due to a failure to inhibit a prepotent response towards the larger option rather than to a sustained delay tolerance. To disentangle this issue, we tested 10 capuchin monkeys, 101 preschool children, and 88 adult humans in a Delay choice task with food, low-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-one correspondence with food items), and high-symbolic tokens (objects that can be exchanged with food and have a one-to-many correspondence with food items). This allows evaluating how different methods of representing rewards modulate the relative contribution of the ''go for more'' and ''go for sooner'' responses. Consistently with the idea that choices for the delayed option are sometimes due to a failure at inhibiting the prepotent response for the larger quantity, we expected high-symbolic tokens to decrease the salience of the larger option, thus reducing ''go for more'' responses. In fact, previous findings have shown that inhibiting prepotent responses for quantity is easier when the problem is framed in a symbolic context. Overall, opting for the larger delayed option in the visible-food version of the Delay choice task seems to partially result from an impulsive preference for quantity,