Are the attention checks embedded in delay discounting tasks a valid marker for data quality?

To ensure good quality delay discounting (DD) data in research recruiting via crowdsourcing platforms, including attention checks within DD tasks have become common. These attention checks are typically identical in format to the task questions but have one sensical answer (e.g., "Would you prefer $0 now or $100 in a month?"). However, the validity of these attention checks as a marker for DD or overall survey data quality has not been directly examined. To address this gap, using data from two studies (total N = 700), the validity of these DD attention checks was tested by assessing performance on other non-DD attention checks and data quality measures both specific to DD and overall survey data (e.g., providing nonsystematic DD data, responding inconsistently in questionnaires). We also tested whether failing the attention checks was associated with degree of discounting or other participant characteristics to screen for potential bias. While failing the DD attention checks was associated with a greater likelihood of nonsystematic DD data, their discriminability was inadequate, and failure was sometimes associated with individual differences (suggesting that data exclusion might introduce bias). Failing the DD attention checks was also not associated with failing other attention checks or data quality indicators. Overall, the DD attention checks do not appear to be an adequate indicator of data quality on their own, for either the DD task or surveys overall. Strategies to enhance the validity of DD attention checks and data cleaning procedures are suggested, which should be evaluated in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Spending Time in Nature Serves as a Protective Factor against Problematic Alcohol Use: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

Alcohol use in the U.S. continues to be a prevalent behavior with the potential for far-reaching personal and public health consequences. Risk factors for problematic drinking include negative affect and impulsive decision-making. Research suggests exposure to nature reduces negative affect, increases positive affect, and reduces impulsive choice. The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationships between exposure to nature (actively going out to nature and the level of greenness around the participant's daily life), affect, impulsive decision-making, and alcohol use, using structural equation modeling. Cross-sectional data (N = 340) collected online on Amazon MTurk were used to test the hypothesized relationships separately for alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. Actively spending time in nature was associated with lower negative affect and higher positive affect, while passive exposure to nature was only associated with higher positive affect. In turn, negative affect was positively related to both alcohol measures, while positive affect was related to increased alcohol consumption, but not alcohol-related problems. Impulsive decision-making was not related to nature or alcohol measures. Findings suggest that intentionally spending time in nature may protect against problematic alcohol use by reducing negative affect. These results warrant further research on nature as an adjunct treatment for reducing alcohol and substance-related harms and carry implications for public education and increasing accessibility to natural spaces.