Individual differences in impulsive and risky choice: Effects of environmental rearing conditions

Kirkpatrick, Kimberly; Marshall, Andrew T.; Smith, Aaron; Koči, Juraj; Park, Yoonseong

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.04.024

Cited by 35 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 85 publications

(120 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, it has been proposed as a possible target site for the integration of domain-specific information into an overall reward value signal (GregoriosPippas, Tobler, & Schultz, 2009;Kable & Glimcher, 2007). This idea is consistent with the importance of the NAC in choice behavior (Basar et al, 2010;Bezzina et al, 2008;Bezzina et al, 2007;Cardinal et al, 2001; da Costa Araújo et al, 2009;Galtress & Kirkpatrick, 2010;Kirkpatrick et al, 2014;Pothuizen, Jongen-Relo, Feldon, & Yee, 2005;Scheres, Milham, Knutson, & Castellanos, 2007;Winstanley, Baunez, Theobald, & Robbins, 2005). The mPFC has been implicated in the representation of reward incentive value (Peters & Büchel, 2010;Peters & Büchel, 2011), the encoding of the magnitude of future rewards (Daw, O'Doherty, Dayan, Seymour, & Dolan, 2005), the determination of positive reinforcement values (Frank & Claus, 2006), the processing of immediate rewards (McClure, Laibson, Loewenstein, & Cohen, 2004), and the determination of cost and/or benefit information (Basten, Heekeren, & Fiebach, 2010;Cohen, McClure, & Yu, 2007).…”

Section: Domain-general Brain Mechanismssupporting

confidence: 70%

“…In conjunction with our research on impulsive choice behavior, we have also been examining factors that impact risky choice behaviors (e.g., Kirkpatrick et al, 2014). Risky choice can also be modeled using Equation 1 by substituting odds against reward (q) in place of delay to reward, indicating that subjective value decreases as a function of the odds against reward delivery:…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Risky Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, gamblers discount probabilistic rewards less steeply than control subjects Madden et al, 2009; also see Weatherly & Derenne, 2012) and continue to make risky choices despite the experience of repeated losses (Linnet, Røjskjaer, Nygaard, & Maher, 2006). Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the mechanisms driving individual differences offers critical insight into questions such as why some individuals continue to gamble despite having experienced a series of consecutive losses (Rachlin, 1990).Recently, much of the work from our laboratory has been focused on the assessment of individual differences in impulsive and risky choice and the underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms in rats (Galtress, Garcia, & Kirkpatrick, 2012; Garcia & Kirkpatrick, 2013;Kirkpatrick, Marshall, Clarke, & Cain, 2013;Kirkpatrick, Marshall, Smith, Koci, & Park, 2014;Smith, Marshall, & Kirkpatrick, 2015), which will be the primary focus of this review. Here, we will discuss mechanisms of impulsive and risky choice and their relationship.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, much of the work from our laboratory has been focused on the assessment of individual differences in impulsive and risky choice and the underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms in rats (Galtress, Garcia, & Kirkpatrick, 2012;Garcia & Kirkpatrick, 2013;Kirkpatrick, Marshall, Clarke, & Cain, 2013;Kirkpatrick, Marshall, Smith, Koci, & Park, 2014;Smith, Marshall, & Kirkpatrick, 2015), which will be the primary focus of this review. Here, we will discuss mechanisms of impulsive and risky choice and their relationship.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SC rats were pair-housed and handled daily but were not provided with any novel objects. The rats were presented with the same reward discrimination task used by Marshall et al (2014) described above with the magnitudes of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3, and 2:4 on the small 2002; Hill, Covarrubias, Terry, & Sanabria, 2012;Kirkpatrick et al, 2014;Marusich & Bardo, 2009;Perry, Stairs, & Bardo, 2008;Zeeb, Wong, & Winstanley, 2013). One potential mechanism that could explain this pattern of results is that the increased reward sensitivity in the IC rats may have produced greater sensitivity to local rates of reward, which would lead to momentary maximizing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats

Kirkpatrick¹,

Marshall²,

Smith³

2015

CCBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in impulsive and risky choice are key risk factors for a variety of maladaptive behaviors such as drug abuse, gambling, and obesity. In our rat model, ordered individual differences are stable across choice parameters and months of testing, and span a broad spectrum, suggesting that rats, like humans, exhibit trait-level impulsive and risky choice behaviors. In addition, impulsive and risky choices are highly correlated, suggesting a degree of correspondence between these two traits. An examination of the underlying cognitive mechanisms has suggested an important role for timing processes in impulsive choice. In addition, in an examination of genetic factors in impulsive choice, the Lewis rat strain emerged as a possible animal model for studying disordered impulsive choice, with this strain demonstrating deficient delay processing. Early rearing environment also affected impulsive behaviors, with rearing in an enriched environment promoting adaptable and more self-controlled choices. The combined results with impulsive choice suggest an important role for timing and reward sensitivity in moderating impulsive behaviors. Relative reward valuation also affects risky choice, with manipulation of objective reward value (relative to an alternative reference point) resulting in loss chasing behaviors that predicted overall risky choice behaviors. The combined results are discussed in relation to domain-specific versus domain-general subjective reward valuation processes and the potential neural substrates of impulsive and risky choice. Keywords: impulsive choice; risky choice; discounting; individual differences; ratImpulsive choice is measured by presenting a choice between a smaller reward that is available sooner (the SS) and a larger reward that is available later (the LL). Thus, the impulsive choice paradigm pits reward magnitude against delay to reward by essentially asking whether an individual is willing to wait longer to receive a better outcome (Mazur, 1987(Mazur, , 2007. Impulsive choice is indicated by preferences for the SS, particularly when those choices lead to less overall reward earning, and are thus maladaptive, whereas choices of the LL (when it is more objectively valuable) are indicative of greater self-control. Individual differences in impulsive choice are associated with numerous maladaptive behaviors and disorders such as: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Barkley, Edwards, Laneri, Fletcher, & Metevia, 2001;Solanto et al., 2001;Sonuga-Barke, 2002;Sonuga-Barke, Taylor, Sembi, & Smith, 1992), pathological gambling (Alessi & Petry, 2003;MacKillop et al., 2011;Reynolds, Ortengren, Richards, & de Wit, 2006), obesity (Davis, Patte, Curtis, & Reid, 2010), and substance abuse (Bickel & Marsch, 2001). Additionally, impulsive choice has also been posited as a primary risk factor (MacKillop et al., 2011;Verdejo-García, Lawrence, & Clark, 2008) and 46 COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWSKirkpatrick, Marshall, and Smith predictor of treatment outcomes (Broos, Dierg...

show abstract

Section: Domain-general Brain Mechanismssupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Mechanisms Of Risky Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats

Kirkpatrick¹,

Marshall²,

Smith³

2015

CCBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Developmental social isolation affects adult behavior, social interaction, and dopamine metabolite levels in zebrafish

Shams

Amlani

Buske

et al. 2017

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The zebrafish is a social vertebrate and an excellent translational model for a variety of human disorders. Abnormal social behavior is a hallmark of several human brain disorders. Social behavioral problems can arise as a result of adverse early social environment. Little is known about the effects of early social isolation in adult zebrafish. We compared zebrafish that were isolated for either short (7 days) or long duration (180 days) to socially housed zebrafish, testing their behavior across ontogenesis (ages 10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 days), and shoal cohesion and wholebrain monoamines and their metabolites in adulthood. Long social isolation increased locomotion and decreased shoal cohesion and anxiety in the open-field in adult. Additionally, both short and long social isolation reduced dopamine metabolite levels in response to social stimuli. Thus, early social isolation has lasting effects in zebrafish, and may be employed to generate zebrafish models of human neuropsychiatric conditions. K E Y W O R D Sanxiety, dopamine, locomotor activity, social behavior, social isolation, Zebrafish

show abstract

Effects of economic context and reward amount on delay and probability discounting

Anderson

Cox

Dallery

2023

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steep delay and shallow probability discounting are associated with myriad problem behaviors; thus, it is important to understand factors that influence the degree of discounting. The present study evaluated the effects of economic context and reward amount on delay and probability discounting. Two hundred thirteen undergraduate psychology students completed four delay‐ or probability‐discounting tasks. Participants were exposed to hypothetical narratives involving four bank amounts ($750, $12,000, $125,000, and $2,000,000). The delayed/probabilistic amount was $3,000 for the two smaller bank amounts and $500,000 for the two larger bank amounts. The discounting tasks included five delays to, or probabilities of, receipt of the larger amount. The area under the empirical discounting function was calculated for each participant. Participants discounted delayed and uncertain outcomes more when the bank amount was smaller than the outcome (i.e., the economic context was low). Participants discounted the delayed larger amounts less than delayed smaller amounts, even when the relative economic context was the same. In contrast, probability discounting did not differ across magnitudes, which suggests that economic context may attenuate the magnitude effect in probability discounting. The results further highlight the importance of considering the economic context in delay and probability discounting.

show abstract

Individual differences in impulsive and risky choice: Effects of environmental rearing conditions

Cited by 35 publications

References 85 publications

Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats

Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats

Developmental social isolation affects adult behavior, social interaction, and dopamine metabolite levels in zebrafish

Effects of economic context and reward amount on delay and probability discounting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About