scholarly journals Delay Discounting and the Cost of Waiting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Kendra Thompson-Davies
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Delayed Gratification ◽  
Consideration Of Future Consequences ◽  
Alternative Reinforcement ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Future Consequences ◽  
The Cost

<p>If offered $50 now or $100 in a year, many of us will choose $50 now. This occurs because of delay discounting – the idea that reinforcers lose value over time. Individuals tend to display shallower discounting (self-controlled decision-making) in hypothetical discounting tasks, and steeper discounting (impulsive decision-making) in experiential discounting tasks. Hypothetical discounting tasks involve participants making a series of hypothetical monetary decisions (e.g. $50 now versus $100 in a year) over a range of delays. Experiential discounting tasks involve participants experiencing the delays and outcomes of their choices.  A critical difference between hypothetical and experiential discounting tasks is the type of delay they use. Hypothetical discounting task delays typically involve postponing. This involves participants imagining the reward is delivered to them after the delay and that they are free to pursue other activities during the delay. Experiential task delays involve participants waiting out each delay before they receive their reward, (unable access any alternative reinforcement during the delay). Individuals discount more steeply when tested experientially than hypothetically.  Experiment 1 investigated whether waiting and postponing are different discounting constructs. We achieved this via a 2 X 2 within-subjects design where both experiential and hypothetical discounting tasks had both Waiting and Postponing conditions. The hypothetical discounting task involved participants being instructed to imagine waiting for a reward after a delay (Waiting Condition), or imagine the reward would simply be delivered to them after the delay (Postponing Condition). The experiential task involved participants playing a video game that involved having to stop playing and wait for a larger number of points after a delay (Waiting Condition), or playing the game and getting the points delivered after the delay (Postponing Condition). We expected steeper discounting rates when waiting compared to postponing in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks. We found this effect only in the hypothetical task; however, this might be due to our procedure. We randomised the waiting and postponing trials in both tasks and this may have resulted in the participants being unable to discriminate between the interspersed trials.  Experiment 2 investigated whether this methodological feature affected discounting in the experiential task, and we found that blocking the trials resulted in the anticipated effect. We found steeper discounting in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks for waiting compared to postponing after implementing this change, suggesting that waiting and postponing are different constructs. Experiment 3 investigated what drives the difference between waiting and postponing. We found that waiting has a greater effect on reward value than postponing due to the inability to access alternative reinforcement during the delay.  We also investigated the relationships among our discounting measures and a measure of the consideration of future consequences, and a measure of delayed gratification. We found no correlation among discounting and these measures, and no consistent correlation between waiting and postponing. Overall, our results indicated that waiting and postponing are distinct constructs, and that the inability to access alternative reinforcement during a delay is the key difference between them.</p>

scholarly journals Delay Discounting and the Cost of Waiting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Kendra Thompson-Davies
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Delayed Gratification ◽  
Consideration Of Future Consequences ◽  
Alternative Reinforcement ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Future Consequences ◽  
The Cost

<p>If offered $50 now or $100 in a year, many of us will choose $50 now. This occurs because of delay discounting – the idea that reinforcers lose value over time. Individuals tend to display shallower discounting (self-controlled decision-making) in hypothetical discounting tasks, and steeper discounting (impulsive decision-making) in experiential discounting tasks. Hypothetical discounting tasks involve participants making a series of hypothetical monetary decisions (e.g. $50 now versus $100 in a year) over a range of delays. Experiential discounting tasks involve participants experiencing the delays and outcomes of their choices.  A critical difference between hypothetical and experiential discounting tasks is the type of delay they use. Hypothetical discounting task delays typically involve postponing. This involves participants imagining the reward is delivered to them after the delay and that they are free to pursue other activities during the delay. Experiential task delays involve participants waiting out each delay before they receive their reward, (unable access any alternative reinforcement during the delay). Individuals discount more steeply when tested experientially than hypothetically.  Experiment 1 investigated whether waiting and postponing are different discounting constructs. We achieved this via a 2 X 2 within-subjects design where both experiential and hypothetical discounting tasks had both Waiting and Postponing conditions. The hypothetical discounting task involved participants being instructed to imagine waiting for a reward after a delay (Waiting Condition), or imagine the reward would simply be delivered to them after the delay (Postponing Condition). The experiential task involved participants playing a video game that involved having to stop playing and wait for a larger number of points after a delay (Waiting Condition), or playing the game and getting the points delivered after the delay (Postponing Condition). We expected steeper discounting rates when waiting compared to postponing in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks. We found this effect only in the hypothetical task; however, this might be due to our procedure. We randomised the waiting and postponing trials in both tasks and this may have resulted in the participants being unable to discriminate between the interspersed trials.  Experiment 2 investigated whether this methodological feature affected discounting in the experiential task, and we found that blocking the trials resulted in the anticipated effect. We found steeper discounting in both the experiential and hypothetical tasks for waiting compared to postponing after implementing this change, suggesting that waiting and postponing are different constructs. Experiment 3 investigated what drives the difference between waiting and postponing. We found that waiting has a greater effect on reward value than postponing due to the inability to access alternative reinforcement during the delay.  We also investigated the relationships among our discounting measures and a measure of the consideration of future consequences, and a measure of delayed gratification. We found no correlation among discounting and these measures, and no consistent correlation between waiting and postponing. Overall, our results indicated that waiting and postponing are distinct constructs, and that the inability to access alternative reinforcement during a delay is the key difference between them.</p>

scholarly journals SURROGATES’ DECISION-MAKING CONFIDENCE AND COLLABORATIVE WILLINGNESS ON THE POST: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NORMS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S138-S138
Author(s):  
Rachael Spalding ◽  
Jenna Wilson ◽  
Barry Edelstein
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Surrogate Decision Making ◽  
Consideration Of Future Consequences ◽  
Perceived Social Norms ◽  
Surrogate Decision ◽  
Future Consequences

Abstract When patients become incapacitated due to illness or frailty, “surrogates” work with patients’ providers to make medical decisions on their behalf. In surrogate decision-making situations, surrogates’ decision-making confidence predicts collaborative willingness, or the extent to which they are willing to work with the patient’s providers when making decisions (Spalding & Edelstein, under review). In an attempt to explain this finding, the current study examined whether perceived social norms for patient-physician collaboration and another psychological variable, consideration of future consequences, mediated the relation between decision-making confidence and collaborative willingness. Participants (n= 172) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed self-report measures and a hypothetical surrogate decision-making task. A parallel multiple mediation analysis using 5000 bootstrapped samples with the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) was conducted. The overall model explained 43.4% of the variance in collaborative willingness, F(4, 166) = 9.59, p&lt; .001. There was a significant indirect effect of decision-making confidence on collaborative willingness through perceived social norms (b= .068, SE= .034, 95% CI [.014, .154]). There was not a significant indirect effect through consideration of future consequences. After including the significant indirect path through perceived social norms, the direct effect (b= .348, p&lt; .001) of decision-making confidence on collaborative willingness was reduced (b= .243, p= .003). Thus, perceptions of social norms partially accounted for the relation between decision-making confidence and collaborative willingness. This finding illustrates how social perceptions of patient-provider collaboration can facilitate desirable medical decision-making behaviors, such as collaboration.

scholarly journals Procrastination among videogamers

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerit Pfuhl ◽  
Kent Nordby
Keyword(s):  
Video Games ◽  
Young People ◽  
Discount Rate ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Video Gaming ◽  
Delayed Gratification ◽  
Severe Problem ◽  
Game Players ◽  
Experiential Discounting Task

Background: Procrastination is seen as a severe problem among young people, and many factors have been claimed to be associated with it, playing video games being one of them. One of the reasons why video games might be related to procrastination is their ability to offer instant gratification and feedback, while at the same time offer distractions from less tempting and rewarding tasks. It is not yet agreed on whether or not video game players are more prone towards procrastination and discounting of future rewards.Method: Over 500 participants across two studies completed two surveys on video gaming habits, as well as a measurement of procrastination tendencies. In study 1 participants performed an experiential discounting task, while participants in study 2 performed the 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task, both tasks assessing preference for delayed larger rewards.Results: In study 1, hours of videogaming was not significantly related to procrastination or the discount rate. In study 2, hours of videogaming was not strongly associated with procrastination and delay discounting either. However, when asked why they play, those answering to escape reality and to reduce stress had more problems of procrastination than those who play for entertainment, reward or social reasons. Overall, the association between procrastination and hours spent playing video games was weak but positive, r(513) = .122. Discussion: Time spent enjoying and engaging in video gaming is done for various reasons, only for a few this is related to procrastination. By using only hypothetical payouts in the discounting tasks, the absence of a relationship between hours spent video gaming, procrastination and delayed gratification requires further investigation. However, playing video games is more than mere procrastination.

scholarly journals Future so bright? Delay discounting and consideration of future consequences predict academic performance among college drinkers.

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 412-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel F. Acuff ◽  
Kathryn E. Soltis ◽  
Ashley A. Dennhardt ◽  
Brian Borsari ◽  
Matthew P. Martens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Academic Performance ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Consideration Of Future Consequences ◽  
College Drinkers ◽  
Future Consequences

scholarly journals Likes and impulsivity: Investigating the relationship between actual smartphone use and delay discounting

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0241383
Author(s):  
Tim Schulz van Endert ◽  
Peter N. C. Mohr
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Intertemporal Choice ◽  
Smartphone Application ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Consideration Of Future Consequences ◽  
Actual Usage ◽  
Smartphone Use ◽  
Future Consequences ◽  
The Relationship

The omnipresence of smartphones among adolescents and adults gives rise to the questions about excessive use and personality factors which are associated with heavier engagement with these devices. Previous studies have found behavioral similarities between smartphone use and maladaptive behaviors (e.g. drinking, gambling, drug abuse) in the context of intertemporal choice but mostly relied on participants’ self-reports regarding engagement with their phone. In this study, we collected actual usage data by smartphone application from 101 participants and assessed their tendency to discount future rewards, their reward responsiveness, self-control and consideration of future consequences. We found that smartphone screen time was correlated with choosing smaller immediate over larger delayed rewards and that usage of social media and gaming apps predicted delay discounting. Additionally, smartphone use was negatively correlated with self-control but not correlated with consideration of future consequences. Neither psychological variable could mediate the relationship between smartphone usage and delay discounting. Our findings provide further evidence that smartphone use and impulsive decision-making go hand in hand and that engagement with these devices needs to be critically examined by researchers to guide prudent behavior.

Neural substrates of impulsive decision making modulated by modafinil in alcohol-dependent patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (13) ◽  
pp. 2787-2798 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Schmaal ◽  
A. E. Goudriaan ◽  
L. Joos ◽  
G. Dom ◽  
T. Pattij ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Neural Correlates ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Control Functions ◽  
Promising Target ◽  
Subjective Value ◽  
Healthy Control ◽  
Within Subjects

BackgroundImpulsive decision making is a hallmark of frequently occurring addiction disorders including alcohol dependence (AD). Therefore, ameliorating impulsive decision making is a promising target for the treatment of AD. Previous studies have shown that modafinil enhances cognitive control functions in various psychiatric disorders. However, the effects of modafinil on delay discounting and its underlying neural correlates have not been investigated as yet. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of modafinil on neural correlates of impulsive decision making in abstinent AD patients and healthy control (HC) subjects.MethodA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subjects cross-over study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was conducted in 14 AD patients and 16 HC subjects. All subjects participated in two fMRI sessions in which they either received a single dose of placebo or 200 mg of modafinil 2 h before the session. During fMRI, subjects completed a delay-discounting task to measure impulsive decision making.ResultsModafinil improved impulsive decision making in AD pateints, which was accompanied by enhanced recruitment of frontoparietal regions and reduced activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Moreover, modafinil-induced enhancement of functional connectivity between the superior frontal gyrus and ventral striatum was specifically associated with improvement in impulsive decision making.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that modafinil can improve impulsive decision making in AD patients through an enhanced coupling of prefrontal control regions and brain regions coding the subjective value of rewards. Therefore, the current study supports the implementation of modafinil in future clinical trials for AD.

A Study Of Children & Parent Buying Behaviour With Special Refrence To Financial Savings

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 47-58
Author(s):  
Afroze Nazneen ◽  
Maqsood Hussain Junaidi ◽  
Rohan Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
Final Stage ◽  
Income Group ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Buying Behavior ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Buying Behaviour ◽  
The Cost

The present research aims to study the understanding of children's and parents' buying behavior in relation to financial savings. 300 subjects were taken from the age group 8-12 years belonging to middle and upper middle-class income group. The results show that there is no difference in children in the initial stage as well as the parent's initial stage buying behavior but in case of a final stage the difference were found in the decision-making of the parents. Saying no to their children is very difficult for the parents, but the results show that in the initial stage, parents agree to whatever demand created by the children, but when it comes to the fulfillment of the demand they think twice before purchasing any product. As per the result, most of the time they try to avoid it, but any product related to the education, eatables, clothes, etc., parents generally buy for their children without considering the cost of the product. It is also found that a lot depends upon the convincing power of children or the attachment of the children has been seen or judged by the parents with the related product.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document