Improvements in episodic future thinking methodology: Establishing a standardized episodic thinking control

Abstract

Objective Delay discounting (DD) is the choice of a smaller immediate reward over a larger delayed reward, which has been associated with a number of maladaptive behaviors. Episodic future thinking (EFT), the ability to project oneself into the future, is an intervention designed to reduce DD. EFT has reliable effects on DD, but the size of the effect varies, which could be due in part to the use of different control groups. Episodic recent thinking (ERT) serves as a common control for many EFT studies, but the temporal window of “recent” cues ranges from 24 hours ago to 12 days past. Since prior research has shown that retrospection can lead to prospection, it may be important to ensure that EFT controls do not inadvertently lead to prospection for some participants thereby increasing the variability of the control condition. The present study sought to develop a comparison group that standardizes the time frame and experiences that are the basis for the recent thinking control. Methods Participants (n = 53, 18–45) were randomized to one of three conditions: EFT, ERT, or standardized episodic thinking (SET). Participants attended a laboratory appointment where they played mobile application games, created cues, and completed a DD task. Results There was a significant difference between groups ( p <0.05), with EFT reducing discounting more than either control (p<0.05), and no differences between ERT and SET (p>0.05). Conclusion This study established that SET provides an alternative control in EFT studies and provides the advantage of standardizing the participant’s recent experience without changing the relationship between EFT and recent thinking controls.

The effects of COVID-19 on test-retest reliability in a behavioral measure for impulsivity

“…Seven of the 12 EFT participants had at least one delay discounting rate less than week 1, whereas only three of 12 SET participants could do the same. Consistent with the previous literature (Hollis-Hansen et al, 2019), EFT was more likely to decrease delay discounting rates, relative to SET.…”

Imagining Events Alternative to the Present Can Attenuate Delay Discounting

“…As for the second aim of the study, our results suggest that a significant reduction in DD can be observed even if individuals engage in self-projection before making intertemporal choices, without having any further cue during choice itself. This finding is worth noting as it makes contact with new research aimed at delineating the boundary characteristics within which episodic cueing manipulations are effective in altering DD (O'Donnell et al, 2017(O'Donnell et al, , 2018Hollis-Hansen et al, 2019). For example, in most previous experiments, participants create cues about future events that occur at the time delays of the DD task, which are then represented during the task.…”

A Terrible Future: Episodic Future Thinking and the Perceived Risk of Terrorism

“…The main argument for using an additional episodic condition to the EFT-condition is that it helps establish whether the effect is specific to episodic future thinking or is an effect of episodic thinking more generally (Hollis-Hansen et al, 2019). As there is reason to believe that participants have not experienced comparable personal, past events to an imagined, future terror attack, episodic counterfactual thinking (ECT) was deemed a suitable condition to explore whether the potential effect of EFT was isolated to EFT or generalizable to other forms of episodic thinking.…”

“…The expected effect size is based on effects found in prior research (e.g., Wolff and Larsen, 2017; Lee et al, 2018; effect size d = 0.5, alpha level = 0.0167, power = 0.80, logistic distribution), suggesting a minimal sample size of 264 to achieve sufficient power. Although there is a limited number of prior studies, making the estimate vulnerable to influence from sampling error (Schäfer and Schwarz, 2019), several studies using EFT as the independent variable have found effects larger than the conventional medium effect of 0.5 (see Hollis-Hansen et al, 2019, for a mini-review). This suggests that there are ample grounds for assuming an effect of at least a medium size.…”