Narrative theory IV: Within-subject effects of active and control scarcity narratives on delay discounting in alcohol use disorder.

Abstract

Imagining narratives involving sudden economic scarcity has been shown to increase delay discounting rates. However, previous studies have only compared active and control narratives between groups. Moreover, an investigation of the quantitative effects of different narrative scenario types has not been conducted. In this study, active and control scarcity narratives were administered within-subject in a sample of individuals meeting criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Individuals with AUD (N = 81; 26.9% female) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. After assignment to the job (N = 42) or storm (N = 39) narrative groups, participants completed delay discounting tasks while imagining an active (job loss/hurricane) and control (job neutral/mild storm) condition. Both active narratives increased delay discounting relative to the corresponding control condition ( p < .001), with no effect of order of presentation ( p = .202). Additionally, both narrative types exerted similar effect sizes on discounting rates (job: d = 0.54; storm: d = 0.45). This study replicates and extends previous research on the manipulability of delay discounting rates with scarcity narratives. We demonstrated that the active narrative significantly increased delay discounting relative to a control narrative within-subject, regardless of presentation order. Moreover, both the job loss and hurricane narratives exerted a similar effect on the delay discounting rate. These results highlight the robust ability of the Narrative Theory framework to shift delay discounting rates and suggest that in AUD, imagining economic scarcity due to job loss or hurricane exerts comparable effects on behavioral economic decision-making. Public Significance StatementThis study's findings replicate and extend previous work on scarcity by demonstrating the feasibility of using active and control scarcity narratives to shift delay discounting rates within-subjects during a single session in individuals with alcohol use disorder. This highlights the robustness of Narrative Theory as a framework to influence a behavioral process relevant to substance use and abuse.

Income shock increases preferences for smaller immediate rewards and reduces alcohol demand among a sample of crowd-sourced adults.

“…The delay discounting results replicate and build upon prior findings (Bickel et al, 2016;Blain et al, 2021;Craft et al, 2021;Haushofer et al, 2013;Mellis, Snider, et al, 2018). Most relevant to the present study are the results presented by Craft et al, (2021).…”

Are poor quality data just random responses?: A crowdsourced study of delay discounting in alcohol use disorder.

“…The total sample was 33.4 years old on average, 34.6% female, 86.7% White, and 79.1% non-Hispanic. When stratifying the sample by inclusion status in Craft et al (2021), two statistically significant differences were observed. Individuals in the excluded sample reported a higher proportion of Hispanic ethnicity ( p = .002) and a higher level of education ( p < .001) relative to the included sample.…”

“…In Craft et al (2021), data was first excluded for failing attention checks in the discounting tasks ( n = 50) and then for violation of systematic delay discounting criteria ( n = 80). To determine the proportion of data representing nonsystematic responding, we applied the Johnson and Bickel criteria to the full sample of excluded participants ( n = 130).…”

“…This study was not preregistered. This study consisted of secondary analyses on data previously published, with full study design and details available in Craft et al (2021), and therefore the sample size was determined by the number of individuals who completed this prior study ( N = 211). Briefly, individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for AUD using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) in a stand-alone screener were recruited via MTurk for a within-subject investigation of the effects of scarcity narratives on delay discounting.…”

“…The data analyzed in this study were collected on September 15th–17th, 2020. Two data quality checks were utilized in Craft et al (2021): (a) application of nonsystematic criteria to delay discounting data (Johnson & Bickel, 2008) and (b) attention check questions during delay discounting tasks (e.g., “would you prefer $0.00 now or $1,000 now?”). As reported in the prior study, 50 individuals failed attention check questions and 80 individuals violated systematic delay discounting criteria, leaving an included sample of n = 81 and an excluded sample of n = 130.…”