Display options
Cite
Białaszek W, Ostaszewski P, Green L, et al. On Four Types of Devaluation of Outcomes Due to Their Costs: Delay, Probability, Effort, and Social Discounting. Psychol Rec. 2019;69(3):415-424doi: 10.1007/s40732-019-00340-x.
Białaszek, W., Ostaszewski, P., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2019). On Four Types of Devaluation of Outcomes Due to Their Costs: Delay, Probability, Effort, and Social Discounting. The Psychological record, 69(3), 415-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00340-x
Białaszek, Wojciech, et al. "On Four Types of Devaluation of Outcomes Due to Their Costs: Delay, Probability, Effort, and Social Discounting." The Psychological record vol. 69,3 (2019): 415-424. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00340-x
Białaszek W, Ostaszewski P, Green L, Myerson J. On Four Types of Devaluation of Outcomes Due to Their Costs: Delay, Probability, Effort, and Social Discounting. Psychol Rec. 2019 Sep;69(3):415-424. doi: 10.1007/s40732-019-00340-x. Epub 2019 Mar 22. PMID: 32095026; PMCID: PMC7039538.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Psychol Rec. 2019 Sep;69(3):415-424. doi: 10.1007/s40732-019-00340-x. Epub 2019 Mar 22.

On Four Types of Devaluation of Outcomes Due to Their Costs: Delay, Probability, Effort, and Social Discounting.

The Psychological record

Wojciech Białaszek, Paweł Ostaszewski, Leonard Green, Joel Myerson

Affiliations

  1. SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Chodakowska 19/31, 03-815 Warszawa, Poland.
  2. Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.

PMID: 32095026 PMCID: PMC7039538 DOI: 10.1007/s40732-019-00340-x

Abstract

Discounting refers to decreases in the subjective value of an outcome with increases in some attribute of that outcome. The attributes most commonly studied are delay and probability, with far less research on effort and social discounting. Although these attributes all represent costs that reduce subjective value, it is as yet unclear how the extent to which they do so is related at the individual level. Accordingly, the present study examined the degree to which individual participants discounted hypothetical monetary rewards on each of four discounting tasks in which the delay, probability, effort, and number of people with whom the money was to be shared were manipulated. At the group level, larger amounts were discounted less steeply than smaller amounts when delay and effort were varied, whereas larger amounts were discounted more steeply when probability and number of people were varied. At the individual level, the correlational pattern was examined using exploratory factor analysis. A six-factor structure (with separate factors for delay and effort, and two factors each for social and probability discounting) described the relations among indifference points. At a more molar level, a two-factor structure, which corresponded to the direction of the observed magnitude effects, described the relations among area-under-the-curve measures of discounting in the eight conditions resulting from crossing two monetary amounts with the four cost factors. We conclude that despite sharing some similarities, individual and group differences in discounting involving the different types of costs reflect mostly separate processes and traits.

Keywords: Delay discounting; Effort discounting; Factor analysis; Magnitude effect; Probability discounting; Social discounting

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):58-63 - PubMed
  2. Behav Processes. 2011 May;87(1):1-9 - PubMed
  3. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Mar;25(2):418-27 - PubMed
  4. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2006 Aug;14(3):318-28 - PubMed
  5. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Sep;76(2):235-43 - PubMed
  6. Behav Processes. 2003 Oct 31;64(3):355-367 - PubMed
  7. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Aug;216(3):305-21 - PubMed
  8. Addiction. 2017 Jan;112(1):51-62 - PubMed
  9. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999 Oct;146(4):455-64 - PubMed
  10. PLoS One. 2017 Jul 31;12(7):e0182353 - PubMed
  11. Behav Processes. 2003 Oct 31;64(3):333-344 - PubMed
  12. J Exp Anal Behav. 2013 Jan;99(1):3-13 - PubMed
  13. Behav Processes. 2011 Jul;87(3):253-9 - PubMed
  14. Behav Pharmacol. 2012 Aug;23(4):358-66 - PubMed
  15. J Exp Anal Behav. 2009 Jan;91(1):61-73 - PubMed
  16. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2009;30(6):749-52 - PubMed
  17. J Exp Anal Behav. 2009 Jul;92(1):1-16 - PubMed
  18. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 May;22(3):771-91 - PubMed
  19. Behav Processes. 2004 Jan 30;65(1):35-42 - PubMed
  20. Am J Psychol. 2014 Summer;127(2):215-31 - PubMed
  21. J Gen Psychol. 2010 Jul-Sep;137(3):273-86 - PubMed
  22. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000 Aug;32(3):396-402 - PubMed
  23. J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 May;85(3):425-35 - PubMed
  24. Behav Processes. 2008 Oct;79(2):120-3 - PubMed
  25. J Exp Anal Behav. 2013 Nov;100(3):269-81 - PubMed
  26. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2016 Jul;233(14):2705-14 - PubMed
  27. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Jan;41(1):148-62 - PubMed
  28. J Exp Anal Behav. 2011 Mar;95(2):175-87 - PubMed
  29. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):233-44 - PubMed
  30. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966 Apr 1;1(2):245-76 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support