Past and future preference reversals are predicted by delay discounting in smokers and non-smokers.

Abstract

Delay discounting, the devaluation of delayed reinforcers, is one defining behavioral economic characteristic of cigarette smokers. Attempts at abstinence by smokers that result in relapse are conceptualized in this framework as preference reversals. Despite preference reversals being predicted by delay discounting models, little research has investigated the association between discount rate and preference reversals. The present study extended this research by examining the relation between discounting and preference reversals. Because previous research indicates that cigarette smokers discount at higher rates than controls and that past and future discounting are symmetrical, the present study assessed the relation between these two processes when hypothetical money was distanced in the past and future, respectively. These assessments of delay discounting and preference reversals were adapted from Yi, Matusiewicz, and Tyson (2016) and examined in 68 smokers and 68 nonsmokers using the crowdsourcing program Amazon Mechanical Turk. Smokers discounted both past and future hypothetical money more steeply than demographically matched controls. Smokers switched preference from the smaller-sooner (SS) to the larger-later (LL) outcome more slowly than nonsmokers, consistent with smokers' steeper delay discounting. For each group, significant positive correlations between past and future discount rates and past and future preference reversals was obtained. The overall pattern of results illustrate symmetry between past and future discounting and preference reversals, respectively and that discount rate is positively associated with the timing of preference reversals. Importantly, the results confirm that cigarette smokers discount more and reverse preference from a SS to a LL reward later than controls.

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

“…Both the preference reversal effect for unbundled choices and choice bundling effects emerge from predictions of hyperbolic delay discounting. Specifically, in the preference reversal effect, adding an equal delay to both choice options of sufficient length (depending on individual delay discounting rate; Pope et al, 2019 ) allows the hyperbolic discounted value curve of the LL option to transect and exceed that of the now-discounted SS option, resulting in greater preference for LL gains (e.g., Rachlin and Green, 1972 ; Green et al, 1994 ; Pope et al, 2019 ) and SS losses ( Holt et al, 2008 ). Notably, choice bundling manipulations also involve adding delays to each sequential pair of SS and LL outcomes (e.g., see Figure 2 ).…”

Intertemporal preference reversals are associated with early activation of insula and sustained preferential processing of immediate rewards in visual cortex

“…Further, Bleichrodt and Johannesson 19 demonstrated violation of stationarity while choosing between health outcomes, which they argued might have stemmed from immediacy effect. Consistent with the idea that preference reversal may underlie addiction, Pope et al 20 showed that the common delay increment that was required to elicit a static reversal of preference from smaller-sooner reward to larger-later reward was more for smokers than non-smokers. Whereas, other studies 21 – 23 have failed to find evidence for violations of stationarity or preference reversals.…”

In Search of the Preference Reversal Zone

“…Therefore, well-documented preference reversal effects would be of critical theoretical importance, allowing a choice to be made between two models of delay-discounting. Furthermore, existing demonstrations of preference reversals with humans (Green et al, 1994;Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995;Pope et al, 2019) and pigeons (Ainslie & Herrnstein, 1981;Rachlin & Green, 1972) suggest cross-species generality, so empirical tests of these models are of general interest. However, although there seems to be clear evidence of preference reversal effects, it is less clear that these demonstrations are as theoretically decisive as may be apparent on first glance.…”