Discounting of qualitatively different delayed health outcomes in current and never smokers.

Abstract

In delay discounting, temporally remote outcomes have less value. Cigarette smoking is associated with steeper discounting of money and consumable outcomes. It is presently unclear whether smokers discount health outcomes more than non-smokers. We sought to establish the generality of steep discounting for different types of health outcomes in cigarette smokers. Seventy participants (38 smokers and 32 non-smokers) completed four hypothetical outcome delay-discounting tasks: a gain of $500, a loss of $500, a temporary boost in health, and temporary cure from a debilitating disease. Participants reported the duration of each health outcome that would be equivalent to $500; these durations were then used in the respective discounting tasks. Delays ranged from 1 week to 25 years. Smokers’ indifference points for monetary gains, boosts in health, and temporary cures were lower than indifference points from non-smokers. Indifference points of one outcome were correlated with indifference points of other outcomes. Smokers demonstrate steeper discounting across a range of delayed outcomes. How a person discounts one outcome predicts how they will discount other outcomes. These two findings support our assertion that delay discounting is in part a trait.

The Value of Clean Air: Comparing Discounting of Delayed Air Quality and Money Across Magnitudes

“…First, across both experiments, we found significant positive correlations between the degree of discounting of money and the degree of discounting of air quality improvements, supporting the proposition that delay discounting encompasses trait-like properties (Friedel et al, 2016; Odum, 2011b). Second, Experiment 2 is the first demonstration that the magnitude effect also occurs in delay discounting of air quality, suggesting that delay discounting of air quality may share similar underlying decision-making processes as discounting of monetary outcomes.…”

“…If a duration of air quality has a higher relative value than a numerically identical amount of money, then we would expect a cross-commodity magnitude effect in which we would find air quality less steeply discounted than money—the pattern of results in Experiment 2. When the value of the air quality was controlled in relation to the value of the monetary outcomes in Experiment 1, we found a more typical pattern of results in which money was less steeply discounted than other types of commodities (Charlton & Fantino, 2008; Friedel et al, 2014; Friedel et al, 2016). …”

“…The delay-discounting task was an adjusting amount task (Du, Green, & Myerson, 2002; Frye, Galizio, Friedel, DeHart, & Odum, 2016; Rodzon, Berry, & Odum, 2011), and the procedures used are similar to those reported in Friedel et al (2016). In a trial of the delay-discounting task, participants made a choice between a smaller hypothetical amount of an outcome that was to be delivered immediately and a larger hypothetical amount of that same outcome that was to be delivered after a delay.…”

“…Finding the magnitude effect for delay discounting of air quality would suggest that delay discounting of air quality and delay discounting of money are affected in the same way by the same variables. In Experiment 1, we predicted that air quality (equated to money) would be more steeply discounted than monetary gains and monetary losses because other outcomes are often discounted to a greater degree than money (Friedel et al, 2014; Friedel, DeHart, Frye, Rung, & Odum, 2016). In Experiment 2, we predicted that greater improvements in air quality would be discounted less steeply than smaller improvements in air quality (i.e., the classic magnitude effect would be observed in the context of delay discounting of air quality, as has previously been shown with money).…”

The effects of outcome unit framing on delay discounting

“…Participants were paid ＄25 for participating. This payment amount was similar to other studies we have conducted that recruited from the surrounding community (Friedel et al, ; Friedel, DeHart, Frye, Rung, & Odum, ).…”