Initial examination of priming tasks to decrease delay discounting (original) (raw)
Related papers
Primed for Health: Future Thinking Priming Decreases Delay Discounting
Health Behavior and Policy Review
Objective: Delay discounting, the propensity to devalue delayed rewards, has robust predictive validity for multiple health behaviors and is a new therapeutic target for health behavior change. Priming can influence behaviors in a predictable manner. We aimed to use the Future Thinking Priming task, administered remotely, to reliably decrease delay discounting rates. Methods: In this pre-post randomized control group design, participants completed multiple delay discounting measures at baseline; then, 2 weeks later, they were randomized to Future Thinking Priming or Neutral Priming conditions. We hypothesized that Future Thinking Priming would significantly decrease delay discounting rates accounting for baseline delay discounting rates and time in repeated measures analyses. Results: Participants randomized to Future Thinking Priming (N = 783) demonstrated significantly lower delay discounting rates post-intervention than those randomized to Neutral Priming (N = 747) on multiple delay discounting measures and magnitudes. Conclusions: A single administration of Future Thinking Priming produces statistically reliable reductions in delay discounting rates. The task is brief, can be administered remotely, and is highly scalable. If found to support behavior change, the task might be disseminated broadly to enhance evidence-based behavior change interventions. Future research must determine optimal exposure patterns to support durable health behavior change.
Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2020
Steep delay discounting is characterized by a preference for small immediate outcomes relative to larger delayed outcomes and is predictive of drug abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and other maladaptive behaviors. Nancy M. Petry was a pioneer in delay discounting research who demonstrated that people discount delayed monetary gains less steeply than they discount substances with abuse liability. Subsequent research found steep discounting for not only drugs, but other nonmonetary outcomes such as food, sex, and health. In this systematic review, we evaluate the hypotheses proposed to explain differences in discounting as a function of the type of outcome and explore the trait-and state-like nature of delay discounting. We found overwhelming evidence for the state-like quality of delay discounting: Consistent with Petry and others' work, nonmonetary outcomes are discounted more steeply than monetary outcomes. We propose two hypotheses that together may account for this effect: Decreasing Future Preference and Decreasing Future Worth. We also found clear evidence that delay discounting has trait-like qualities: People who steeply discount monetary outcomes steeply discount nonmonetary outcomes as well. The implication is that changing delay discounting for one outcome could change discounting for other outcomes. Keywords delay discounting; temporal discounting; domain; commodity; trait Delay discounting, the decline in the present value of a reward with delay to its receipt, is a ubiquitous phenomenon (Odum, 2011a). Steep delay discounting is related to a wide variety of maladaptive behaviors that, although potentially rewarding in the short-term, are detrimental in the long-term (see Amlung et al., 2017; Bickel et al., 2019). Delay discounting is associated with drug abuse (see Mackillop et al., 2011) gambling (e.g., Alessi & Petry, 2003), obesity (see Barlow et al., 2016), risky sexual behaviors (e.g., Johnson, Johnson et al., 2015), preventative health behaviors, and personal safety (e.g., Daugherty & Brase, 2010). If delay discounting plays a causal role in these maladaptive behaviors, understanding the processes that lead to steep delay discounting is paramount.
A 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task: Accurate discount rates in less than one minute
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2014
Individuals who discount delayed rewards at a high rate are more likely to engage in substance abuse, overeating, or problem gambling. Findings such as these suggest the value of methods to obtain an accurate and fast measurement of discount rate that can be easily deployed in variety of settings. In the present study, we developed and evaluated the 5-trial adjusting delay task, a novel method of obtaining discount rate in less than one minute. We hypothesized that discount rates from the 5-trial adjusting delay task would be similar and correlated with discount rates from a lengthier task we have used previously, and that four known effects relating to delay discounting would be replicable with this novel task. To test these hypotheses, the 5-trial adjusting delay task was administered to 111 college students six times to obtain discount rates for six different commodities, along with a lengthier adjusting amount discounting task. We found that discount rates were similar and correlated between the 5-trial adjusting delay task and the adjusting amount task. Each of the four known effects relating to delay discounting was replicated with the 5-trial adjusting delay task to varying degrees. First, discount rates were inversely correlated with amount. Second, discount rates between past and future outcomes were correlated. Third, discount rates were greater for consumable rewards than with money, although we did not control for amount in this comparison. Fourth, discount rates were lower when zero amounts opposing the chosen time point were explicitly described. Results indicate that the 5-trial adjusting delay task is a viable, rapid method to assess discount rate.
A Mechanism for Reducing Delay Discounting by Altering Temporal Attention
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2011
Rewards that are not immediately available are discounted compared to rewards that are immediately available. The more a person discounts a delayed reward, the more likely that person is to have a range of behavioral problems, including clinical disorders. This latter observation has motivated the search for interventions that reduce discounting. One surprisingly simple method to reduce discounting is an ''explicit-zero'' reframing that states default or null outcomes. Reframing a classical discounting choice as ''something now but nothing later'' versus ''nothing now but more later'' decreases discount rates. However, it is not clear how this ''explicit-zero'' framing intervention works. The present studies delineate and test two possible mechanisms to explain the phenomenon. One mechanism proposes that the explicit-zero framing creates the impression of an improving sequence, thereby enhancing the present value of the delayed reward. A second possible mechanism posits an increase in attention allocation to temporally distant reward representations. In four experiments, we distinguish between these two hypothesized mechanisms and conclude that the temporal attention hypothesis is superior for explaining our results. We propose a model of temporal attention whereby framing affects intertemporal preferences by modifying present bias.
Differences in delay discounting between smokers and nonsmokers remain when both rewards are delayed
Psychopharmacology, 2011
Rationale-When offered a choice between a small monetary reward available immediately (SmallNow) versus a larger reward available after a delay (LargeLater), smokers select the SmallNow alternative more than nonsmokers. That is, smokers discount the value of the LargeLater reward more than nonsmokers. Objectives-To investigate whether this group difference was due to smokers overweighing the value of rewards available immediately compared with nonsmokers, we examined whether the group difference was also seen when both alternatives were delayed, i.e., when choosing between a SmallSoon reward and a LargeLater reward. Methods-In Experiment 1, smokers and nonsmokers completed a task including SmallNow versus LargeLater choices and SmallSoon versus LargeLater choices. In Experiment 2, smokers and nonsmokers completed the same task but with hypothetical choices. Results-Analyses using hyperbolic and double exponential (β-δ) models replicate prior findings that smokers discount the LargeLater reward more than nonsmokers when the smaller reward is available immediately. The smoker-nonsmoker difference was also seen when the smaller reward was slightly delayed, though this effect was primarily driven by heightened discounting in male smokers. However, for potentially real rewards only, this smoker-nonsmoker difference was significantly reduced when the smaller reward was delayed. Conclusions-The smoker-nonsmoker difference in discounting is not confined to situations involving immediate rewards. Differences associated with potentially real vs. hypothetical rewards and gender underscore the complexity of the smoking-delay discounting relationship.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021
Background: Tobacco use remains one of the world’s greatest preventable causes of death and disease. While most smokers want to quit, few are successful, highlighting a need for novel therapeutic approaches to support cessation efforts. Lower delay discounting (DD) rates are associated with increased smoking cessation success. Future thinking priming (FTP) reliably reduces DD rates in large populations. Smokers consistently discount more than nonsmokers, and evidence suggests that changes in DD rates are rate dependent. This study examined whether smoking status moderated the effect of FTP on DD rates and, if so, if the moderation effect could be attributed to differences in baseline rates of DD. Methods: Moderation analysis was conducted to determine whether the effect of FTP, versus neutral priming (NP), on DD differed among smokers and nonsmokers. Results: Smoking status moderated the effect of condition (FTP vs. NP) on post-intervention DD scores (b = −0.2919, p = 0.0124) and DD...
Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2014
The tendency to make unhealthy choices is hypothesized to be related to an individual's temporal discount rate, the theoretical rate at which they devalue delayed rewards. Furthermore, a particular form of temporal discounting, hyperbolic discounting, has been proposed to explain why unhealthy behavior can occur despite healthy intentions. We examine these two hypotheses in turn. We first systematically review studies which investigate whether discount rates can predict unhealthy behavior. These studies reveal that high discount rates for money (and in some instances food or drug rewards) are associated with several unhealthy behaviors and markers of health status, establishing discounting as a promising predictive measure. We secondly examine whether intention-incongruent unhealthy actions are consistent with hyperbolic discounting. We conclude that intention-incongruent actions are often triggered by environmental cues or changes in motivational state, whose effects are not pa...
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2013
Excessively devaluing delayed reinforcers co-occurs with a wide variety of clinical conditions such as drug dependence, obesity, and excessive gambling. If excessive delay discounting is a trans-disease process that underlies the choice behavior leading to these and other negative health conditions, efforts to change an individual's discount rate are arguably important. Although discount rate is often regarded as a relatively stable trait, descriptions of interventions and environmental manipulations that successfully alter discount rate have begun to appear in the literature. In this review, we compare published examples of procedures that change discount rate and classify them into categories of procedures, including therapeutic interventions, direct manipulation of the executive decision-making system, framing effects, physiological state effects, and acute drug effects. These changes in discount rate are interpreted from the perspective of the competing neurobehavioral decis...
Personality and Individual Differences, 2010
Delay discounting, a willingness to postpone receiving an immediate reward in order to gain additional benefits in the future, is conceptually related to time perspective, the cognitive processes which filter temporal information and influence behavior. One measure of delay discounting (Money Choice Questionnaire) and two measures of time perspective (Consideration of Future Consequences Scale and Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory) were compared in this study to each other and to self-reported health behaviors with 467 undergraduates. Delay discounting and time perspective significantly improved the incremental prediction of tobacco, alcohol, and drug use, exercise frequency, eating breakfast, wearing a safety belt, estimated longevity, health concerns, and sociosexual orientation above and beyond sex and Big Five traits. These results further suggest that delay discounting and time perspective are indeed similar but also non-redundant constructs that are not reducible to global personality.
Effects of measurement methods on the relationship between smoking and delay reward discounting
Aims Delay reward discounting (DRD) measures the degree to which a person prefers smaller rewards soon or larger rewards later. People who smoke have been shown to have higher DRD. There are several ways of measuring DRD, and the method used might influence the association between smoking and DRD. The key differences are the order in which the items are presented, the delays used and the magnitude of the delayed amount. Setting An international online study running from September 2010 to June 2011. Participants A total of 9454 individuals; 38% male, mean age = 23.1 years. Design and measurements Users completed a multi-item DRD task. They were randomly presented the immediate rewards in an ascending, descending or randomized order. The delays were between 1 week and 5 years. The delayed amounts were 1000foralldelays,and1000 for all delays, and 1000foralldelays,and100 for 1 month. Users also self-reported their smoking status. Findings A hyperbolic DRD function fitted better than an exponential function. There were differences in the derived DRD function based on methodology used; items presented in a randomized order, longer delays and smaller rewards showed steeper discounting. However, these did not interact with smoking status, as for all methodologies used daily smokers showed the steepest discounting, followed by non-daily smokers, then non-smokers. Conclusions Smokers discount future consequences more than non-smokers, irrespective of which measurement is used, but variations in method lead to different estimates that are not comparable between experiments.