Self-control and impulsiveness involving aversive events.

Deluty, Marvin Z.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.4.3.250

Cited by 61 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, if given a choice between two rewards of equal value, one of them available immediately and the other after a delay, all else being equal, the organism will choose the immediate benefit (e.g., Loewenstein, 1988;Mazur & Logue, 1978). Likewise, if given a choice between an immediate and delayed aversive event, both of equal magnitude, non-humans (e.g., Deluty, 1978) and humans (e.g., Chapman, 1996) tend to prefer the delayed cost. In the case of rewards, the benefits of the delayed reward are discounted (devalued) such that the immediate reward is subjectively of greater value at the moment the choice is made (e.g., Logue, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of cigarettes

Odum¹,

Madden²,

Bickel³

2002

Nicotine & Tobacco Research

204

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence implicates steep discounting of delayed outcomes as an important feature of drug dependence. We determined discounting rates for health gains and health losses in current cigarette smokers (n = 23), never-smokers (n = 22) and ex-smokers (n = 21). Participants indicated preference for immediate vs. delayed hypothetical health gains and for immediate vs. delayed hypothetical health losses in a titration procedure that determined indifference points at a range of delays. The degree of discounting was estimated using two nonlinear decay models: an exponential model and a hyperbolic model. The hyperbolic equation generally provided better fits to the data than the exponential equation did. Current smokers discounted delayed health gains and health losses more steeply than never-smokers did. Discounting by ex-smokers was generally intermediate to that of current smokers and never-smokers, although not statistically different from either. Current smokers and ex-smokers discounted delayed health losses more steeply than they did health gains. Never-smokers did not discount gains and losses differently. Cigarette smokers show rapid loss of value for delayed health outcomes, emphasizing the need for smoking-cessation treatments that provide relatively immediate consequences for abstinence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of cigarettes

Odum¹,

Madden²,

Bickel³

2002

Nicotine & Tobacco Research

204

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and rat, pigeon, and human subjects, preference reversals as a function of temporal remoteness of alternatives have been suggested by the data in a number of studies (Ainslie, 1974;Deluty, 1978;Fantino, 1966;Logan & Spanier, 1970;Navarick & Fantino, 1976;Rachlin & Green, 1972;Solnick, Kannenberg, Eckerman, & Walker, 1980). However, each of these studies has had limitations.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement

Ainslie

Herrnstein

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

343

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons chose, in a two-key discrete-trial procedure, between 2-and 4-sec access to grain, with the larger amount always presented 4 sec later than the smaller. As the delay between the choice and the availability of the smaller reinforcement was varied from .01 to 12 sec, all subjects reversed preference from the small-early to the large-late reinforcement. The values of delay at which preference reversed were approximately consistent with the matching law as adapted for delayed reinforcement.

show abstract

“…Such devaluation of delayed consequences has been demonstrated in both human and nonhuman animals, typically with choice procedures revealing that, all else being equal, sooner reinforcers are preferred over delayed ones, and delayed losses or punishments are preferred over sooner ones (e.g., Ainslie, 1975;Baker, Johnson, & Bickel, 2003;Benzion, Rapoport, & Yagil, 1989; Chung & Herrnstein, 1967;Deluty, 1978;Green, Fisher, Perlow, & Sherman, 1981;Green, Fry & Myerson, 1994;Loewenstein, 1988;Logue, 1988;Mischel, Shoda & Rodriguez, 1989;Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991;Rachlin & Green, 1972; Shelly, 1993;Thaler, 1981 Delay discounting is considered a behavioral model of impulsivity, and the use of laboratory choice procedures may represent the best way to empirically quantify delay discounting (Ainslie, 1975).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data.

Johnson

Bickel

2008

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

479

526

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several previous discounting studies have used the R 2 measure to identify data sets with poor fits to a mathematical discounting model as nonsystematic data to be eliminated before further analyses are conducted. Data from three previous delay-discounting studies (6 separate groups, with a total of 161 individuals) were used to demonstrate why using R 2 to assess the fits of discounting data is problematic. A significant, positive correlation between discounting rate parameter and R 2 was found in most groups, showing that R 2 is more stringent as a measure of fit for low discounting rates than for high discounting rates. Furthermore, it is suggested that identifying nonsystematic data based on any measure of fit to a mathematical discounting model may be problematic because it confounds discounting rate comparison with the issue of discounting model assessment. Therefore, a modelfree method to identify nonsystematic data is needed. An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic data is presented that is based on the expectation of a monotonically decreasing discounting function. This algorithm identified 13 cases out of the 161 reanalyzed data sets as nonsystematic. These nonsystematic data are presented, along with examples of data not identified as nonsystematic. This algorithm, or modifications of it, may be useful in a variety of human and nonhuman animal discounting studies (e.g., delay discounting, probability discounting) as an alternative to the R 2 measure for identifying nonsystematic data. The algorithm may be used in empirical investigations to improve discounting methodology, and may be used to identify outliers to be removed from analyses.Keywords delay discounting; probability discounting; hyperbolic discounting; R 2 ; outliers Delay discounting (also referred to as "time" or "temporal" discounting) is the concept that delaying a consequence decreases its effect on behavior (Critchfiled & Kollins, 2001). Such devaluation of delayed consequences has been demonstrated in both human and nonhuman animals, typically with choice procedures revealing that, all else being equal, sooner reinforcers are preferred over delayed ones, and delayed losses or punishments are preferred over sooner ones (e.g., Ainslie, 1975;Baker, Johnson, & Bickel, 2003;Benzion, Rapoport, & Yagil, 1989; Chung & Herrnstein, 1967;Deluty, 1978;Green, Fisher, Perlow, & Sherman, 1981;Green, Fry & Myerson, 1994;Loewenstein, 1988;Logue, 1988;Mischel, Shoda & Rodriguez, 1989;Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991;Rachlin & Green, 1972; Shelly, 1993;Thaler, 1981 Delay discounting is considered a behavioral model of impulsivity, and the use of laboratory choice procedures may represent the best way to empirically quantify delay discounting (Ainslie, 1975).Application of delay-discounting methods and analyses has rapidly expanded to address a variety of issues of clinical and theoretical importance. For example, several drug-dependent populations discount future consequences at high rates, indicating that delay discounting may serve a fundame...

show abstract

Self-control and impulsiveness involving aversive events.

Cited by 61 publications

References 65 publications

Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of cigarettes

Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of cigarettes

Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement

An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About