Validation of a novel effort-discounting assessment and evaluation of the effort-delay confound on effort discounting

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Sara Peck, Gregory J. Madden
{"title":"Validation of a novel effort-discounting assessment and evaluation of the effort-delay confound on effort discounting","authors":"Sara Peck,&nbsp;Gregory J. Madden","doi":"10.1002/jeab.4214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A vast literature highlights the prevalence of impulsive decision making in maladaptive outcomes. Most research has focused on one form—delay discounting. Less research has focused on effort discounting, possibly because of a lack of a standardized task for assessment. In published effort-discounting tasks, effort is conceptualized in many ways, making it difficult to compare findings across studies. Additionally, most effort-discounting tasks do not control for the time inherent in completing the effortful task, which makes it difficult to disentangle effort discounting from delay discounting. The current study evaluated the validity of a novel hypothetical effort-discounting task. The novel task was used to evaluate the influence of the effort-delay confound on rates of effort discounting in humans. Participants were randomly assigned to complete a confounded or a controlled version of the novel effort-discounting task. The effort-discounting data were well described by hyperbolic and exponential functions. When effort and delay were confounded, effort-discounting rates were significantly higher than when effort alone influenced discounting. The results suggest that data that are produced by effort-discounting tasks that do not control the effort-delay confound should be interpreted cautiously because they are also influenced by delay discounting. Task limitations and future directions are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":"122 3","pages":"297-308"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.4214","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A vast literature highlights the prevalence of impulsive decision making in maladaptive outcomes. Most research has focused on one form—delay discounting. Less research has focused on effort discounting, possibly because of a lack of a standardized task for assessment. In published effort-discounting tasks, effort is conceptualized in many ways, making it difficult to compare findings across studies. Additionally, most effort-discounting tasks do not control for the time inherent in completing the effortful task, which makes it difficult to disentangle effort discounting from delay discounting. The current study evaluated the validity of a novel hypothetical effort-discounting task. The novel task was used to evaluate the influence of the effort-delay confound on rates of effort discounting in humans. Participants were randomly assigned to complete a confounded or a controlled version of the novel effort-discounting task. The effort-discounting data were well described by hyperbolic and exponential functions. When effort and delay were confounded, effort-discounting rates were significantly higher than when effort alone influenced discounting. The results suggest that data that are produced by effort-discounting tasks that do not control the effort-delay confound should be interpreted cautiously because they are also influenced by delay discounting. Task limitations and future directions are discussed.

验证新的努力折现评估,评估努力-延迟对努力折现的影响。
大量文献强调了冲动决策在适应不良结果中的普遍性。大多数研究都集中于一种形式--延迟贴现。对努力折扣的研究较少,这可能是因为缺乏标准化的评估任务。在已发表的努力折扣任务中,努力的概念有很多种,因此很难比较不同研究的结果。此外,大多数努力折扣任务并不控制完成努力任务所固有的时间,这就很难将努力折扣与延迟折扣区分开来。本研究评估了一项新的假设性努力折扣任务的有效性。这项新任务被用来评估努力-延迟混淆对人类努力折扣率的影响。受试者被随机分配完成一个混淆版或控制版的新式努力折扣任务。双曲线和指数函数很好地描述了努力折扣数据。当努力和延迟相混合时,努力折扣率明显高于仅受努力影响的折扣率。研究结果表明,如果努力-折扣任务没有控制努力-延迟混杂因素,则应谨慎解释这些数据,因为它们也会受到延迟折扣的影响。本文讨论了任务的局限性和未来发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信