Potentially real and hypothetical food and monetary outcomes in delay and probability discounting are similar in a Czech sample

Rasmussen, Erin B.; Příhodová, Tereza; Příhodová, Kateřina; Lawyer, Steven R.

doi:10.1080/15021149.2021.1946370

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…None of the previous studies have identified any differences in discounting between hypothetical and potentially real monetary rewards (Baker et al, 2003; Green & Lawyer, 2014; Johnson & Bickel, 2002; Lawyer et al, 2011, 2022; Locey et al, 2011; Madden et al, 2003, 2004; Matusiewicz et al, 2013; Rasmussen et al, 2022; Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018). The present results are consistent with those of previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Because the present data only examined monetary rewards, the generality of the results across rewards other than money warrants discussion. Some studies have examined the differences in discounting between hypothetical and potentially real rewards other than money, such as cigarettes (Green & Lawyer, 2014; Lawyer et al, 2022) and food (Rasmussen et al, 2022; Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018). When food was the reward, no differences in discounting were obtained between hypothetical and potentially real rewards (Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018; Rasmussen et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have examined the differences in discounting between hypothetical and potentially real rewards other than money, such as cigarettes (Green & Lawyer, 2014; Lawyer et al, 2022) and food (Rasmussen et al, 2022; Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018). When food was the reward, no differences in discounting were obtained between hypothetical and potentially real rewards (Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018; Rasmussen et al, 2022). When cigarettes were the reward, in contrast, smokers discounted potentially real rewards more than hypothetical rewards due to delay (Green & Lawyer, 2014; Lawyer et al, 2022) and probability (Green & Lawyer, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, several studies directly have compared the discounting of hypothetical rewards with real ones. When money was used as rewards, with one exception (Jikko & Okouchi, 2007), no significant differences have been found between discounting of hypothetical and real rewards (Baker et al, 2003; Green & Lawyer, 2014; Hinvest & Anderson, 2010; Johnson & Bickel, 2002; Lagorio & Madden, 2005; Lawyer et al, 2011, 2022; Locey et al, 2011; Madden et al, 2003, 2004; Matusiewicz et al, 2013; Miller, 2019; Rasmussen et al, 2022; Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, two limitations require further comparisons. First, with a few exceptions (Hinvest & Anderson, 2010;Jikko & Okouchi, 2007;Lagorio & Madden, 2005;Miller, 2019), all of the studies in fact compared the discounting of hypothetical rewards with potentially real rewards (Baker et al, 2003;Green & Lawyer, 2014;Johnson & Bickel, 2002;Lawyer et al, 2011Lawyer et al, , 2022Locey et al, 2011;Madden et al, 2003Madden et al, , 2004Matusiewicz et al, 2013;Rasmussen et al, 2022;Robertson & Rasmussen, 2018). In these studies, the participants made a large number of choices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Real, potentially real, and hypothetical monetary rewards in probability discounting

Okouchi

2023

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although hypothetical rewards have been used almost exclusively in human discounting studies, investigations of their validity are limited. The present experiment compared the discounting of monetary reward value by probability across conditions in which the rewards were real, potentially real, and hypothetical. Twenty‐four undergraduates choose between an uncertain large reward and a certain small reward 60 times (trials). In the real and hypothetical reward conditions, the participants made choices with real and hypothetical money, respectively, in every trial. In the potentially real condition, they did so with real money in randomly selected three of the 60 trials and with hypothetical money in the remainder. The log10‐transformed h values of a hyperbolic probability‐discount function and the values of the area under the curve with an ordinal transformation of odds against were higher and lower, respectively, in the potentially real and in the hypothetical reward conditions than in the real reward condition, demonstrating that the probability discounting of hypothetical monetary rewards was larger than that of real rewards. These results suggest that future studies are required to identify why the hypothetical reward procedure overestimates the discounting rates of real rewards.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Real, potentially real, and hypothetical monetary rewards in probability discounting

Okouchi

2023

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measuring Impulsivity and Its Underlying Features in ADHD

Linhartová,

Horký,

Radimecká

et al. 2023

Autism and Child Psychopathology Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Use of Nonmonetary Outcomes in Health-Related Delay Discounting Research: Review and Recommendations

Rasmussen,

Camp,

Lawyer

2024

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay discounting (DD) refers to the tendency to devalue an outcome as a function of its delay. Most contemporary human DD research uses hypothetical money to assess individual rates of DD. However, nonmonetary outcomes such as food, substances of misuse, and sexual outcomes have been used as well, and have advantages because of their connections to health. This article reviews the literature on the use of nonmonetary outcomes of food, drugs, and sexual outcomes in relation to health and reinforcer pathologies such as substance use disorders, obesity, and sexual risk behaviors, respectively, and makes a case for their use in discounting research. First, food, substances, and sex may be more ecologically valid outcomes than money in terms of their connections to health problems and reinforcer pathologies. Second, consistent trends in commodity-specific (i.e., domain) effects, in which nonmonetary outcomes are discounted more steeply than money, enhance variation in discounting values. Third, commodity-specific changes in discounting with treatments designed to change health choices are described. Finally, methodological trends such as test–retest reliability, magnitude effects, the use of hypothetical versus real outcomes, and age-related effects are discussed in relation to the three outcome types and compared to trends with monetary discounting. Limitations that center around individual preferences, nonsystematic data, and deprivation are discussed. We argue that researchers can enhance their DD research, especially those related to health problems and reinforcer pathologies, with the use of nonmonetary outcomes. Recommendations for future directions of research are delineated.

show abstract

Potentially real and hypothetical food and monetary outcomes in delay and probability discounting are similar in a Czech sample

Cited by 3 publications

References 53 publications

Real, potentially real, and hypothetical monetary rewards in probability discounting

Real, potentially real, and hypothetical monetary rewards in probability discounting

Measuring Impulsivity and Its Underlying Features in ADHD

The Use of Nonmonetary Outcomes in Health-Related Delay Discounting Research: Review and Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About