COVID-19-related financial scarcity is associated with greater delay discounting but not probability discounting.

Prior studies suggest that scarcity increases delay discounting (devaluation of delayed outcomes) and disturbs other decision-making processes. Evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on delay discounting is mixed. Also, no study has examined the effect of COVID-19-related scarcity on probability discounting (devaluation of probabilistic outcomes). The goal of the study was to examine cross-sectional associations between financial impact during the COVID-19 pandemic, delay discounting, and probability discounting. During April 2020, 1012 participants with low income were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk and completed measures of delay and probability discounting, perceived COVID-19-related financial impacts, and food security. Regression analyses indicate that compared to those with no COVID-19-related financial impacts, those with severe COVID-19-related financial impacts had greater delay discounting of money and greater delay discounting of a grocery gift card. Also, greater food insecurity in the past month was associated with greater delay discounting of a grocery gift card but not delay discounting of money. Perceived COVID-19 related financial impact was not associated with probability discounting. Combined with laboratory experiments, this study provides additional support for the idea that feelings of scarcity may increase delay discounting. However, as this study was observational, no assumptions of causality should be made about the specific effect of COVID-19 on delay discounting.

Deprivation Has Inconsistent Effects on Delay Discounting: A Review.

Delay discounting, the tendency for outcomes to be devalued as they are more temporally remote, has implications as a target for behavioral interventions. Because of these implications, it is important to understand how different states individuals may face, such as deprivation, influence the degree of delay discounting. Both dual systems models and state-trait views of delay discounting assume that deprivation may result in steeper delay discounting. Despite early inconsistencies and mixed results, researchers have sometimes asserted that deprivation increases delay discounting, with few qualifications. The aim of this review was to determine what empirical effect, if any, deprivation has on delay discounting. We considered many kinds of deprivation, such as deprivation from sleep, drugs, and food in humans and non-human animals. For 23 studies, we analyzed the effect of deprivation on delay discounting by computing effect sizes for the difference between delay discounting in a control, or baseline, condition and delay discounting in a deprived state. We discuss these 23 studies and other relevant studies found in our search in a narrative review. Overall, we found mixed effects of deprivation on delay discounting. The effect may depend on what type of deprivation participants faced. Effect sizes for deprivation types ranged from small for sleep deprivation (Hedge's gs between -0.21 and 0.07) to large for opiate deprivation (Hedge's gs between 0.42 and 1.72). We discuss possible reasons why the effect of deprivation on delay discounting may depend on deprivation type, including the use of imagined manipulations and deprivation intensity. The inconsistency in results across studies, even when comparing within the same type of deprivation, indicates that more experiments are needed to reach a consensus on the effects of deprivation on delay discounting. A basic understanding of how states affect delay discounting may inform translational efforts.

Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory.

Steep delay discounting is characterized by a preference for small immediate outcomes relative to larger delayed outcomes and is predictive of drug abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and other maladaptive behaviors. Nancy M. Petry was a pioneer in delay discounting research who demonstrated that people discount delayed monetary gains less steeply than they discount substances with abuse liability. Subsequent research found steep discounting for not only drugs, but other nonmonetary outcomes such as food, sex, and health. In this systematic review, we evaluate the hypotheses proposed to explain differences in discounting as a function of the type of outcome and explore the trait- and state-like nature of delay discounting. We found overwhelming evidence for the state-like quality of delay discounting: Consistent with Petry and others' work, nonmonetary outcomes are discounted more steeply than monetary outcomes. We propose two hypotheses that together may account for this effect: Decreasing Future Preference and Decreasing Future Worth. We also found clear evidence that delay discounting has trait-like qualities: People who steeply discount monetary outcomes steeply discount nonmonetary outcomes as well. The implication is that changing delay discounting for one outcome could change discounting for other outcomes.