Relation Between Time Perspective and Delay Discounting: A Literature Review

Teuscher, Ursina; Mitchell, Suzanne H.

doi:10.1007/bf03395780

Cited by 70 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, sleep-deprived participants underestimated intervals and had increased discounting compared to their own performances when in a non-sleep-deprived state (Reynolds & Schiffbauer, 2004). CI tasks may assume that temporal processes such as time perception and temporal horizons are uniform across populations However, individual, cultural, and disorder-based differences may exist in envisioning the future (Kim, et al, 2012; Petry, et al, 1998; Teuscher & Mitchell, 2011). Although k remained the most important factor when time sensitivity was added to a two-parameter model of choice impulsivity (Jones, et al, 2009), such analyses have only been conducted in healthy (control) populations.…”

Section: Choice Impulsivity Research In Special Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications.

Hamilton¹,

Mitchell²,

Wing³

et al. 2015

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

Self Cite

234

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Impulsivity critically relates to many psychiatric disorders. Given the multi-faceted construct that impulsivity represents, defining core aspects of impulsivity is vital for the assessment and understanding of clinical conditions. Choice impulsivity (CI), involving the preferential selection of smaller sooner rewards over larger later rewards, represents one important type of impulsivity. Method The International Society for Research on Impulsivity (InSRI) convened to discuss the definition and assessment of CI and provide recommendations regarding measurement across species. Results Commonly used preclinical and clinical CI behavioral tasks are described, and considerations for each task are provided to guide CI task selection. Differences in assessment of CI (self-report, behavioral) and calculating CI indices (e.g., area-under-the-curve, indifference point, steepness of discounting curve) are discussed along with properties of specific behavioral tasks used in preclinical and clinical settings. Conclusions The InSRI group recommends inclusion of measures of CI in human studies examining impulsivity. Animal studies examining impulsivity should also include assessments of CI and these measures should be harmonized in accordance with human studies of the disorders being modeled in the preclinical investigations. The choice of specific CI measures to be included should be based on the goals of the study and existing preclinical and clinical literature using established CI measures.

show abstract

Section: Choice Impulsivity Research In Special Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications.

Hamilton¹,

Mitchell²,

Wing³

et al. 2015

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

Self Cite

234

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Somewhat counterintuitively, high levels of present bias are represented by lower values of β. The other is a factor associated with the devaluation of the delayed commodity (the δ term) as a function of its delay due to systematic amalgamation of factors that have not been fully determined such as time horizon (e.g., Petry, et al, 1998; Teucsher & Mitchell 2011; Yi, et al, 2012), uncertainty about receipt (e.g., Takahashi, et al, 2007), instability of future self (e.g., Ersner-Hershfield, et al, 2009; Joshi & Fast 2013). This factor has been viewed as analogous to the “cool”, executive functions also discussed by Walter Mischel and others.…”

Section: Description Of Other Quantification Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing hyperbolic, delay-amount sensitivity and present-bias models of delay discounting

Mitchell

Wilson

Karalunas

2015

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay discounting is a widely studied phenomenon due to its ubiquity in psychopathological disorders. Several methods are well established to quantify the extent to which a delayed commodity is devalued as a function of the delay to its receipt. The most frequently used method is to fit a hyperbolic function and use an index of the gradient of the function, k, or to calculate the area under the discounting curve. The manuscript examines the behavior of these quantification indices for three different datasets, as well as provides information about potential limitations in their use. The primary limitation examined is the lack of mechanistic specificity provided by either method. Alternative formulations that are thought to provide some mechanistic information are examined for the three separate datasets: two variants of a hyperboloid model (Rachlin 1989 Judgment, decision and choice. New York: W. H. Freeman) and the quasi-hyperbolic model (Laibson 1997 Q J Econ 112 443-477). Examination of the parameters of each formulation suggests that the parameters derived from the quasi-hyperbolic model allows groups and conditions within the three datasets to be reliably distinguished more readily than the hyperboloid models. However use of the quasi-hyperbolic model is complex and its limitations might offset its ability to discriminate within the datasets.

show abstract

“…Despite the conceptual similarities, the few studies attempting to compare future time perspective and delay discounting do not give reason to suppose a robust relation between them (Teuscher and Mitchell 2011). In particular, Joireman and colleagues (2008) found a positive correlation between delay discounting and the Immediate subscale of the CFC, and a negative association between delay discounting and scores on the CFC Future scale (for similar results, see Daugherty and Brase [2010]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk-Taking, Delay Discounting, and Time Perspective in Adolescent Gamblers: An Experimental Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that adult pathological gamblers (compared to controls) show riskproneness, foreshortened time horizon, and preference for immediate rewards. No study has ever examined the interplay of these factors in adolescent gambling. A total of 104 adolescents took part in the research. Two equal-number groups of adolescent non-problem and problem gamblers, defined using the South Oaks Gambling Screen-Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA), were administered the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC-14) Scale, and the Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ). Adolescent problem gamblers were found to be more risk-prone, more oriented to the present, and to discount delay rewards more steeply than adolescent non-problem gamblers. Results of logistic regression analysis revealed that BART, MCQ, and CFC scores predicted gambling severity. These novel finding provides the first evidence of an association among problematic gambling, high risk-taking proneness, steep delay discounting, and foreshortened time horizon among adolescents. It may be that excessive gambling induces shortsighted behaviors that, in turn, facilitate gambling involvement.

show abstract

Relation Between Time Perspective and Delay Discounting: A Literature Review

Cited by 70 publications

References 99 publications

Choice impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications.

Choice impulsivity: Definitions, measurement issues, and clinical implications.

Comparing hyperbolic, delay-amount sensitivity and present-bias models of delay discounting

Risk-Taking, Delay Discounting, and Time Perspective in Adolescent Gamblers: An Experimental Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About