Sign effect in adolescents: Within‐subject comparison of delay discounting of hypothetical monetary gains and losses

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-336
Author(s):  
Elise Frølich Furrebøe
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Gains And Losses ◽  
Sign Effect ◽  
Subject Comparison

scholarly journals Gain-Loss Asymmetry in Delay and Effort Discounting of Different Amounts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szymon Bartłomiej Mizak ◽  
Paweł Ostaszewski ◽  
Przemysław Marcowski ◽  
Wojciech Białaszek
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Cognitive Effort ◽  
Physical Effort ◽  
P Loss ◽  
Effort Discounting ◽  
Gain Loss ◽  
Gains And Losses ◽  
Intertemporal Choices

Loss aversion entails the attribution of greater weight to losses than to equivalent gains. In terms of discounting, it is reflected in a higher rate for gains than for losses. Research on delay discounting indicates that such gain-loss asymmetry may depend on the amount of the outcome. In the current study, we address the question of how gains and losses are discounted in delay or effort conditions (physical or cognitive) across four outcome amounts. Our results replicate previous findings for intertemporal choices by showing that losses are discounted more slowly than gains, but only for smaller amounts, while there is no evidence of asymmetry in the evaluation for larger amounts. For physical effort discounting, we found an inverse asymmetry for the smallest amount tested (gains are discounted less steeply than losses), while such an effect is absent for larger amounts. Our results provide no support for the asymmetric evaluation of gains and losses for cognitive effort. Overall, our findings indicate that loss aversion may not be as pervasive as one might expect, at least when decisions are effort-based.

Delay discounting of gains and losses, glycemic control and therapeutic adherence in type 2 diabetes

2016 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 42-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaële Lebeau ◽  
Silla M. Consoli ◽  
Raphael Le Bouc ◽  
Agnès Sola-Gazagnes ◽  
Agnès Hartemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Therapeutic Adherence ◽  
Gains And Losses

The sign effect of delay discounting

2010 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. e412
Author(s):  
Saori C. Tanaka ◽  
Hiroyasu Yoneda ◽  
Fumio Ohtake
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Sign Effect

scholarly journals Delay discounting of monetary gains and losses in adolescents with ADHD: Contribution of delay aversion to choice

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 528-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabry W. Mies ◽  
Erik de Water ◽  
Jan R. Wiersema ◽  
Anouk Scheres
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Delay Aversion ◽  
Gains And Losses

scholarly journals Within-subject comparison of degree of delay discounting using titrating and fixed sequence procedures

2011 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrina Rodzon ◽  
Meredith S. Berry ◽  
Amy L. Odum
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Fixed Sequence ◽  
Subject Comparison

scholarly journals Choice Bundling Increases Valuation of Delayed Losses More Than Gains in Cigarette Smokers

2022 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Stein ◽  
Jeremiah M. Brown ◽  
Allison N. Tegge ◽  
Roberta Freitas-Lemos ◽  
Mikhail N. Koffarnus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Fixed Amount ◽  
Cigarette Smokers ◽  
Motivational Interventions ◽  
Health Gains ◽  
Potential Clinical Utility ◽  
Gains And Losses ◽  
Over Time

Choice bundling, in which a single choice produces a series of repeating consequences over time, increases valuation of delayed monetary and non-monetary gains. Interventions derived from this manipulation may be an effective method for mitigating the elevated delay discounting rates observed in cigarette smokers. No prior work, however, has investigated whether the effects of choice bundling generalize to reward losses. In the present study, an online panel of cigarette smokers (N = 302), recruited using survey firms Ipsos and InnovateMR, completed assessments for either monetary gains or losses (randomly assigned). In Step 1, participants completed a delay-discounting task to establish Effective Delay 50 (ED50), or the delay required for an outcome to lose half of its value. In Step 2, participants completed three conditions of an adjusting-amount task, choosing between a smaller, sooner (SS) adjusting amount and a larger, later (LL) fixed amount. The bundle size (i.e., number of consequences) was manipulated across conditions, where a single choice produced either 1 (control), 3, or 9 consequences over time (ascending/descending order counterbalanced). The delay to the first LL amount in each condition, as well as the intervals between all additional SS and LL amounts (where applicable), were set to individual participants’ ED50 values from Step 1 to control for differences in discounting of gains and losses. Results from Step 1 showed significantly higher ED50 values (i.e., less discounting) for losses compared to gains (p < 0.001). Results from Step 2 showed that choice bundling significantly increased valuation of both LL gains and losses (p < 0.001), although effects were significantly greater for losses (p < 0.01). Sensitivity analyses replicated these conclusions. Future research should examine the potential clinical utility of choice bundling, such as development of motivational interventions that emphasize both the bundled health gains associated with smoking cessation and the health losses associated with continued smoking.

Comparing individual delay discounting of gains and losses.

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fábio Leyser Gonçalves ◽  
Maria Teresa Araujo Silva
Keyword(s):  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Gains And Losses

Cognitive Reflection Effects on Time Discounting

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Białek ◽  
Przemysław Sawicki
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Individual Difference ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Reference Point ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Cognitive Reflection Test ◽  
Process Information ◽  
Time Discounting ◽  
Cognitive Reflection ◽  
The Way

Abstract. In this work, we investigated individual differences in cognitive reflection effects on delay discounting – a preference for smaller sooner over larger later payoff. People are claimed to prefer more these alternatives they considered first – so-called reference point – over the alternatives they considered later. Cognitive reflection affects the way individuals process information, with less reflective individuals relying predominantly on the first information they consider, thus, being more susceptible to reference points as compared to more reflective individuals. In Experiment 1, we confirmed that individuals who scored high on the Cognitive Reflection Test discount less strongly than less reflective individuals, but we also show that such individuals are less susceptible to imposed reference points. Experiment 2 replicated these findings additionally providing evidence that cognitive reflection predicts discounting strength and (in)dependency to reference points over and above individual difference in numeracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document