The Costs of Delay: Waiting Versus Postponing in Intertemporal Choice

Paglieri, Fabio

doi:10.1002/jeab.18

Cited by 66 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(198 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This manipulation aims to test whether any apparent delay aversion in Experiment 1 could alternatively be explained by rate maximization strategies or a desire to expedite the end of the experiment by always opting for the immediate option. We are in fact skeptical of the extreme delay aversion observed by Rosati and colleagues (2007) in their study, where a substantial proportion of the participants failed to wait for only 2 min in order to maximize either food (80.8%) or money (43.3%), and humans were even severely outperformed by chimpanzees in conditions involving waiting for food rewards (%LL HUMANS ¼ 19.2 AE 4.4, %LL CHIMPS ¼ 71.7 AE 6.6; for a critical discussion of these and other similar findings, see Paglieri, 2013). We suspect this was largely due to a flaw in their methodology, namely, a failure to control for overall experiment duration.…”

Section: Effects Of Reward Type On Intertemporalmentioning

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is it patience or motivation? On motivational confounds in intertemporal choice tasks

Paglieri

Addessi

Sbaffi

et al. 2014

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intertemporal choices create a tension between amount maximization, which would favor the larger and later option (LL), and delay minimization, which would promote the smaller and sooner reward (SS). Two common interpretations of intertemporal choice behavior are discussed: looking at LL responses as indicative of self-control, and using intertemporal choices to assess delay aversion. We argue that both interpretations need to take into account motivational confounds, in order to be warranted by data. In intertemporal choices with prepotent, salient stimuli (e.g., food amounts, typically used with nonhuman primates), LL responses could also be indicative of failed inhibition of a "go for more" impulsive response-the opposite of self-control. Similarly, intertemporal choices can be used to measure delay aversion only with respect to the subject's baseline motivation to maximize the reinforcer in question, and this baseline is not always assessed in current experimental protocols. This concern is especially crucial in comparing intertemporal choices across different groups or manipulation. We focus in particular on the effects of reward types on intertemporal choices, presenting two experimental studies where the difference in behavior with monetary versus food rewards is the product of different baseline motivation, rather than variations in delay aversion. We conclude discussing the implications of these and other similar recent findings, which are far-reaching.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Reward Type On Intertemporalmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…): this may either suggest that partially distinct processes are involved in different types of intertemporal decision-making (as discussed in Paglieri, 2013), or that the behavioral test did not in fact measure reliably delay aversion, since session duration was not controlled. Experiment 2 was designed to verify the latter hypothesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Is it patience or motivation? On motivational confounds in intertemporal choice tasks

Paglieri

Addessi

Sbaffi

et al. 2014

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because more than one response on the same lever was allowed to choose between the SSR and the LLR, the probability to develop an exclusive preference for one or the other lever was reduced; this is important, because exclusive preference occurs when a single response serves to choose and produce either the SSR or the LLR (Mazur, 1987(Mazur, , 2010. Our procedure required locomotion to travel from the front to the back wall of the chamber and press on a lever there to start each cycle of the concurrent-chains schedule; these activities implied some effort representing a cost to reach the choice link; effort plays an important role in preference (Aparicio, 2001;Aparicio & Cabrera, 2001;Aparicio & Otero, 2004;Salamone & Correa, 2009), and cost influences delay discounting (Paglieri, 2013). We also implemented multiple analytical tools, providing an ideal scenario to generate other critical measures and further examine strain differences in impulsive choice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary analyses of choice were implemented to analyze the acquisition and maintenance of response allocation in Lewis (LEW) and Fischer 344 (F344) rats. A concurrent-chains procedure varied the delay to the larger reinforcer (0.1, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 s). Delays were presented within sessions in ascending, descending, and random orders. Each condition lasted 105 days, and the entire data set was analyzed to obtain discounting functions for each block of 15 sessions and each food delivery across delay components. Both a hyperbolic-decay model and the generalized matching law described well the choices of LEW and F344 rats. Estimates of discounting rate and sensitivity to the immediacy of reinforcement correlated positively. The slope of the discounting function changed with presentation orders of the delays to the larger reinforcer. Extended training reduced differences between the LEW and F344 rats in discounting rates, sensitivity to the immediacy of reinforcement, and estimates of the area under the curve. We concluded that impulsive choice can change as a function of learning and is not a static property of behavior that is mainly determined by genetic and neurochemical mechanisms. Choosing impulsively may be an advantage for organisms searching for food in rapidly changing environments.

show abstract

“…From an economical point of view, this behaviour appears irrational since individuals should maximize their gains, opting for the LL option, but at the same time waiting may be costly (e.g. Fawcett et al 2012;Paglieri 2013;Stephens 2002;Stevens 2010). In fact, during the delay, the LL option could be stolen from a competitor (interruption risk, Stephens 2002) or a predator may force the individual to abandon it (termination risk, Stephens 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In fact, during the delay, the LL option could be stolen from a competitor (interruption risk, Stephens 2002) or a predator may force the individual to abandon it (termination risk, Stephens 2002). There is also the cost associated with all the lost opportunities to invest an option that is not yet available (opportunity costs, Fawcett et al 2012;Paglieri 2013;Stephens 2002;Stevens 2010). Moreover, in their environment, animals virtually never have to choose between a SS and a LL option at the same time, but they more often encounter the two options consecutively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

When is it worth waiting for? Food quantity, but not food quality, affects delay tolerance in tufted capuchin monkeys

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When faced with choices between smaller sooner options and larger later options (i.e. intertemporal choices), both humans and non-human animals discount future rewards. Apparently, only humans consistently show the magnitude effect, according to which larger options are discounted over time at a lower rate than smaller options. Most of the studies carried out in non-human animals led instead to negative results. Here, we tested ten tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) in a delay choice task to evaluate whether they show a magnitude effect when choosing between different quantities of the same food or when the options are represented by high- and low-preferred foods in different conditions. Whereas food quality did not play a role, we provided the first evidence of an effect of the reward amount on temporal preferences in a non-human primate species, a result with potential implications for the validity of comparative studies on the evolution of delay tolerance. In contrast with human results, but as shown in other animal species, capuchins' choice of the larger later option decreased as the amount of the smaller sooner option increased. Capuchins based their temporal preferences on the quantity of the smaller sooner option, rather than on that of the larger later option, probably because in the wild they virtually never have to choose between the above two options at the same time, but they more often encounter them consecutively. Thus, paying attention to the sooner option and deciding on the basis of its features may be an adaptive strategy rather than an irrational response.

show abstract

The Costs of Delay: Waiting Versus Postponing in Intertemporal Choice

Cited by 66 publications

References 105 publications

Is it patience or motivation? On motivational confounds in intertemporal choice tasks

Is it patience or motivation? On motivational confounds in intertemporal choice tasks

A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

When is it worth waiting for? Food quantity, but not food quality, affects delay tolerance in tufted capuchin monkeys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About