Qualitative variations in delay discounting: A brief review and future directions.

The discounting paradigm has been challenged by an increasing number of studies presenting qualitative variations in the individual discount function. Particularly, the subjective value of a loss does not necessarily systematically decrease with delay to the outcome. Qualitative variation refers to variations in shape rather than steepness of the discount function, such as positive discounting, zero discounting, unsystematic discounting, and negative discounting. Data from three previous studies were analysed in terms of qualitative variations observed in delay discounting patterns. Attention was also given to methods used and to the relationship between the results from the various levels of investigation. We found qualitative differences between discounting of monetary gains and losses on an individual level. While discounting of gains mainly took the form of conventional positive discounting, discounting of losses often took the form of zero discounting or unsystematic discounting. Further, there were more qualitative variations in discounting of both gains and losses among adolescents compared to adults. By examining verbal reports and single choices, we identified some of the rules and consequences involved in these delay discounting patterns. The different rules and consequences observed for the gain and loss scenarios, support that discounting of gains and losses may involve different combinations of reinforcing contingencies. These results point towards a possible way to explain the influences of qualitative variations in delay discounting.

Sign effect in adolescents: Within-subject comparison of delay discounting of hypothetical monetary gains and losses.

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the research on the sign effect, steeper discounting of gains compared to losses, by offering results from an experiment using a "double-delay" procedure on adolescents. Twenty-four 14-year-old schoolchildren completed a computer-based test consisting of choices of Smaller-Sooner (SS) and Larger-Later (LL) hypothetical monetary gains and losses. Within-subject comparison and analysis of the aggregated data were conducted. Current results were also examined in light of prior research with adult participants, and variations in behavioral patterns were identified. Although the sign effect appears to be more profound in adolescents compared to adults, the effect of immediacy persists regardless of the sign of the outcome, and zero discounting of losses is often the case, suggesting that the sign effect is driven largely by qualitative differences.

The sign effect, systematic devaluations and zero discounting.

The sign effect is the steeper discounting of gains compared to losses. However, we see a greater sign effect on an individual level compared to an aggregate level. In this experiment, we compare discounting of gains and losses on an individual and aggregate level, to explore further details about when and to what extent human adults discount. Thirty-one participants went through a computer-based choice-task procedure of hypothetical monetary gains and losses. The results show clear qualitative differences between discounting of gains and losses, adding empirical data to support the sign effect. The results also support previous findings that show that aggregate and individual results do not always correspond. Further, the within-subject details showing zero discounting or nonsystematic changes concerning losses, replicate earlier studies suggesting that discounting of gains and losses involve different reinforcing contingencies. The present study expands on this research area by including verbal reports, supplementing details about the unobserved reinforcing contingencies. Implications of research on discounting may indicate how to deal with decision-making challenges and might shed light on why predictions about complex decision making sometimes fail.

Contributions of Behavior Analysis to Behavioral Economics.

This article discusses behavior analysis' contribution to behavioral economics. Nobel Laureate Award winner Herbert Simon described the science of economics in an evolutionary context in A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Without claiming any relation between the two publications, it was published two years after B.F. Skinner's Science and Human Behavior. While popular behavioral economics continues the critique of Homo Economicus, the eagerness to prove that man is not rational carries the risk of substituting one mentalistic explanation for another. Behavior analysis may contribute to developing knowledge about behavioral economics and consumer behavior. The selectionist perspective, the generic principle of reinforcement, and single-subject research are its main contributions. The conceptual framework of behavior analysis enables investigation of the selection of functional relations between human choice behavior and its environmental contingencies. The circumstance-specific research methods of behavior analysis and the possibility to extend them into large-scale analysis provide the means to explain the psychological underpinnings of behavior. Behavior economics offers good descriptions of important phenomena, and behavior analysis contributes with the technology to explain and influence them.