Abstract
Steep discounting of delayed rewards is linked with a variety of unhealthy behaviors that contribute to the major causes of preventable death and disease. Growing evidence suggests that decreases in delay discounting contribute to healthier preferences. This study sought to provide preliminary evidence for the viability of developing a brief priming task to reduce delay discounting in a large, diverse group of individuals. Participants (n=1,122) were randomized to one of three conditions: Future Focus (FF), Present Focus (PF), and Non-Temporal Focus (NTF) intended respectively to decrease, increase, or have no effect on delay discounting. Participants then completed the Monetary Choice Questionnaire, a brief assessment of delay discounting rate. Participants randomized to FF exhibited significantly lower discounting rates than those randomized to PF or NTF conditions. Race, Hispanic background, social self-monitoring, education, and cigarette smoking also accounted for a significant amount of variance in the discounting model. These findings provide support for the development of a brief priming intervention that might be examined in clinical or public health contexts to decrease discounting and support healthy choices.
Modifiable health behaviors are the leading causes of mortality in the United States today (Mokdad, Marks, Stroup, & Gerberding, 2004). Steep delay discounting (i.e., the rate at which one “de-values” a reward as a function of the amount of time to the receipt of the reward) is increasingly recognized as a trans-disease process and a biomarker for a wide variety of health risk behaviors (Bickel, 2012; Bickel, Jarmolowicz, Mueller, Koffarnus, & Gatchalian, 2012; Bickel & Mueller, 2009; Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991), including tobacco, drug, and alcohol abuse as well as overeating, risky sexual behaviors, and even the use of sunscreen and automobile seat belts (Bickel, Jarmolowicz, Mueller, Koffarnus, et al., 2012; Bickel & Mueller, 2009; Johnson & Bruner, 2012). The associations among delayed discounting rates and health risk behaviors are incremental, such that small decreases in discounting rates are associated with decreases in the frequency of risky behaviors as well as increases in the probability of successful treatment (Bickel, Jarmolowicz, Mueller, Koffarnus, et al., 2012; Bickel, Landes, Kurth-Nelson, & Redish, 2014; Bickel & Mueller, 2009; Bickel, Quisenberry, Moody, & Wilson, 2015; Sheffer et al., 2012; Stanger et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2007). The range of influence of steep discounting on risky health behaviors is so large that interventions that could positively affect the valuation of long-term rewards, even with minimal effect sizes, could potentially have a significant impact on clinical approaches and population health.
Successful efforts to decrease delay discounting include intensive interventions such as working memory training (Bickel, Yi, Landes, Hill, & Baxter, 2011), contingency management treatments for substance use disorders, (Black & Rosen, 2011; Landes, Christensen, & Bickel, 2012; Yi et al., 2008) and stimulation of the dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex.(Cho et al., 2010; Sheffer et al., 2013). Less intensive interventions include evoking future thinking by developing subject-specific future events (Peters & Buchel, 2010), and re-framing choices to emphasize the implicit zero (e.g., Instead of asking “$10 today OR $15 in 30 days,” the choices become “$10 today and $0 in 30 days OR $0 today and $15 in 30 days”)(Magen, Dweck, & Gross, 2008; Radu, Yi, Bickel, Gross, & McClure, 2011). Discounting rates are also lower when delayed options are aligned to specific dates (Read, Frederick, Orsel, & Rahman, 2005). See Koffarnus et al.(Koffarnus, Jarmolowicz, Mueller, & Bickel, 2013) for a review of these efforts.
Priming is a well-established implicit memory phenomenon whereby exposure to specific stimuli influences responses to later stimuli in a predictable manner (Bargh & Williams, 2006; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971; Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1976; Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1974; Schvaneveldt & Meyer, 1976). Priming has been used to change a wide variety of complex social attitudes and behaviors, such as stereotypes, helping behaviors, opinions, and goals, but has not, as yet, been used to change delay discounting (Bargh & Williams, 2006; Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988; Wheeler & Petty, 2001). The effects of priming appear to be associated with neural activation among related ideas in implicit memory and can manifest without engaging awareness; however, self-concept appears to have a particularly important role in the long-term acquisition of prime-to-behavior effects (Wheeler, Demarree, & Petty, 2007). The duration of the effects of priming tasks depends on the strength and type of priming stimuli. For instance, in a word completion task, the duration of sematic language priming is longer than non-semantic priming. Single word semantic priming has been shown to have word completion effects four days(Squire, Shimamura, & Graf, 1987), but repeated, powerful priming stimuli in the environment appear to contribute to the development of long-term attitudes (e.g., stereotyping) and goals (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Bargh & Williams, 2006).
According to the active-self account of prime-to-behavior effects, priming stimuli initially change behavior by affecting the active self-concept, the aspect of the self that shifts rapidly to respond to external stimuli (DeMarree, Wheeler, & Petty, 2005; Wheeler, et al., 2007). The long-term effects of priming, however, are mediated by self-monitoring, which is the degree to which individuals conform to situational demands (Wheeler, et al., 2007). High self-monitors change their attitudes and behaviors to conform to changing situations and are largely unaffected by perceived attitudinal or behavioral inconsistencies (Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke, 1976). Low self-monitors change their attitudes and behaviors based on self-concept and are thus less likely to conform to changing social situations (Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke, 1976). Nonetheless, low self-monitors view their own behaviors as important information about themselves and thus are more likely to modify their active self-concept to be consistent with their behavior if they believe they have acted inconsistently (DeMarree, et al., 2005; Wheeler, et al., 2007; Zanna, Olson, & Fazio, 1980). Low self-monitors show greater long-term prime-to-behavior effects than high self-monitors because they perceive the initial changes caused by the prime to be feedback about themselves and tend to incorporate this feedback into a modified active self-concept (e.g., “I behaved in this way, therefore I have these characteristics.”)(Wheeler, et al., 2007) Although many priming stimuli will activate the same behavior in many people, prime-to-behavior effects also can be idiosyncratic because the priming stimuli or the primed behavior are sometimes related to idiosyncratic self-related constructs in the active-self (Wheeler, et al., 2007). Accordingly, prime-to-behavior effects might be affected by significant social identity categories such as sex/gender, race/ethnicity, partnered status, subjective social status, education, household income, etc.
Brief, precise interventions that change very specific psychological processes to improve individuals’ outcomes have recently been dubbed “wise interventions” (Walton, 2014). Examples include: altering noun/verb wording in statements in a survey to increase voter turn-out (Bryan, Walton, Rogers, & Dweck, 2011), abstract re-framing of a compliment to improve relationships among those with low self-esteem (Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007), engaging mothers in a specific line of questioning to decrease infant abuse (Bugental et al., 2002), and having couples use the third person perspective to reduce marital conflict (Finkel, Slotter, Luchies, Walton, & Gross, 2013). Wise interventions putatively work by targeting recursive processes associated with self that unfold over time. For instance, in a seminal example, students ranked 18 values, typically ranking freedom higher than equality. In the intervention condition, the meaning of the process of ranking these values was made explicit by explaining that ranking freedom above equality means that they “care a great deal about their own freedom but are indifferent to other peoples’ freedoms.” The students in the control condition simply completed the ranking. Seventeen months later, the students in the intervention condition were more likely to express support for the civil rights of African Americans (Rokeach, 1971). A wise intervention, using priming stimuli, might conceivably be developed to decrease delay discounting rates. The practical application of such an intervention could have broad clinical and public health applications. Clinically, individuals could be repeatedly provided with wise interventions to increase the perceived value of long-term rewards, improve health behaviors, and/or enhance treatment outcomes. Likewise, populations could be systematically presented with messages and/or activities that increase the perceived value of long-term rewards.
Delay discounting, however, is influences by a variety of social and cultural influences including assessments of risk and attitudes toward time (Hsee, 1999; Weber & Hsee, 1999). Delay discounting is negatively associated with relative prosperity (Epstein et al., 2014), age (Green, Myerson, & Ostaszewski, 1999; Steinberg et al., 2009), income (Green, Myerson, Lichtman, Rosen, & Fry, 1996), education (Jaroni, Wright, Lerman, & Epstein, 2004), and socioeconomic status, particularly the socioeconomic status of childhood (Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, & Robertson, 2011; Sweitzer, Donny, Dierker, Flory, & Manuck, 2008; Sweitzer et al., 2012), but little evidence links delay discounting rates to significant social categories such as sex/gender and race/ethnicity. Preliminary evidence supports a sex/gender difference in the comparative valuation of sex and money over time among stimulant dependent individuals (Jarmolowicz et al., 2014). Whites appear to discount less than African Americans and Hispanics in the US, but these differences were only found among gamblers and college students (Andrade & Petry, 2014; De Wit et al., 2007; Dennhardt & Murphy, 2011). Among some graduate students in the US, American and Chinese students discounted more than Japanese students (Du, Green, & Myerson, 2002). Others have found Americans to discount more than Koreans (Kim, Sung, & McClure, 2012). Increased discounting is strongly linked with tobacco and alcohol use, two relatively common risky behaviors (Bickel, Jarmolowicz, Mueller, Koffarnus, et al., 2012).
The goal of this study was to provide initial evidence for the development of a wise intervention using priming stimuli to decrease delay discounting in a relatively large, diverse group of individuals. In addition to the experimental condition focused on increasing the value of future thinking, participants were randomized to a neutral control condition and an active control condition focused on present thinking. The hypotheses were as follows: 1) Individuals randomized to Future Focus (FF) stimuli will demonstrate significantly lower discounting rates than individuals randomized to Present Focus (PF) or Non-Temporal Focus (NTF) stimuli. 2) Individuals randomized to PF stimuli will demonstrate significantly higher discounting rates than individuals randomized to FF or NTF. 3) Self-monitoring will account for a significant proportion of the variance associated with the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables. Because the relations between delay discounting and the conditions are likely to be affected by sociodemographic factors, time perception, and whether or not individuals engage in risky health behaviors, and the effect of the conditions might be obscured by significant group effects, we included variables representing these factors in the model used to examine the relationship between the intervention and delay discounting.
These hypotheses were tested using a crowdsourcing cohort from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online worker market. MTurk is increasingly is being used as a research tool to access a widely diverse population (~N=200,000) of willing participant workers (Gosling, 2011; Mason & Suri, 2012; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010; Ross, Irani, Silberman, Zaldivar, & Tomlinson, 2010). MTurk participant responses are comparable to that of laboratory subjects (Paolacci, et al., 2010) and demographic analyses show that MTurk participants are more representative of non-college participant populations than traditional samples of psychology participants (Gosling, 2011). Nonetheless, the MTurk population tends to be younger, have more education, and be more likely to be female than the population of the US (Ross, et al., 2010). MTurk has been successfully used to examine discounting rates in the past (Bickel et al., 2014; Bickel et al., 2012; Herrmann, Johnson, & Johnson, 2015; Jarmolowicz, Bickel, Carter, Franck, & Mueller, 2012; Johnson, Herrmann, & Johnson, 2015). For the purposes of this study, MTurk was ideal because an Internet platform is a likely modality for wide dissemination of a brief priming intervention.
METHOD
Priming Stimulus Development
The FF, PF, NTF priming stimuli were developed by the research team. Team members (CES, AF, LP, JW, MM) compiled lists of 20–30 candidate words for each condition. The lists were presented to experts in delay discounting who were not involved in the initial word selection (WKB, JM, DC, MWJ). The experts chose 10 words or phrases either by selection from the list or adding candidate words or phrases that they judged to best reflected the intention of the condition. A final list of 10 words for each condition was developed by reconciling the recommendations from each of the experts in the final round. The FF condition stimuli were: “future,” “self-discipline,” “willpower,” “discipline,” “restraint,” “self-control,” “long-term,” “save,” “planned,” and “investment.” The PF condition stimuli were: “impulsive,” “immediate,” “now,” “here and now,” “spontaneous,” “living in the present,” “instant,” “fast,” “present,” “spur of the moment.” The NTF condition stimuli were: “pale,” “drab,” “informative,” “patriotic,” “detached,” “dispassionate,” “middle of the road,” “disinterested,” “loud,” and “formal.”
The tasks that provided exposure to the priming stimuli was intended to be interactive and to engage the active self. The instructions were: “Please read each of these words or phrases out loud and select each one. Please write each word on a piece of paper. You will need to use each word in the next step and you will not see this list again. Make sure you copy each word down on a piece of paper before you move forward.” Participants were required to click on a box next to each word in order to move forward. Participants were then presented with the sentence-writing task instructions and a text box for submission: “Please write 10 different sentences describing yourself using the words in the list of words you just read and copied down. Each sentence needs to include at least one of the words on your list. Be sure that each sentence uses the word describing yourself. Example: if the word is ‘concerned’ the sentence can be, ‘I am concerned about…’ or if the word is ‘proud’ the sentence can be ‘I’m not proud…).” After submitting the sentences, they were presented with instructions for the final task: “Please use the 10 words given previously to write a short paragraph describing yourself. Please be sure to describe yourself only. Use each of the 10 words on your list in the paragraph. The sentences in the paragraph must be different from the ones that you just wrote in the task above.”
Participants and procedures
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at The City College of New York. Participants were recruited through MTurk, an online worker marketplace.(Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Ross, et al., 2010) Inclusion criteria were intended to be broadly inclusive of English-speaking, North American adults, aged 18 and over. Once consented, participants were presented with a link to a secure, online data collection and research tool for the administration of the measures, Qualtrics. Participants completed the measures, were randomized to a condition, were exposed to the corresponding priming stimuli, completed the delay discounting outcome measure, and were compensated $2.00 in one online session. Data were collected in January of 2015.
Trained research assistants reviewed the sentence-writing and paragraph-writing tasks for degree of completeness with the overall objective of the tasks in mind (i.e., for participants to apply concepts to self-concept). The task was viewed as being comprised of 20 units which included 10 in acceptable sentences and 10 words used acceptably in a paragraph. A word in a sentence was acceptable if present and reflected self-reference. For instance, an acceptable sentence would be, “I impulsive” or “I like spur of the moment trips.” An unacceptable sentence would be, “My friend spur of the moment trips.” The percentage complete was calculated by the first reviewer (AF). random sample of 10% of participants was selected and independently reviewed by a second (JP) third (LP) reviewer. The inter-rater correlation in percent complete scores was .82. Percent complete was added to the model as a covariate to account for a proportionate effect of completing than 100% of the model.
Measures
Demographic characteristics included age, sex/gender, race, ethnicity, partnered status, educational level, household income, country, zip code, number of cigarettes smoked on a usual day, forms of tobacco use, and number of alcoholic drink per week.
MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (SSS)
The SSS presents a 10-rung ladder to participants with instructions to imagine that it represents where people stand in society. Higher rungs represent higher status (e.g., more money, more or better education, better jobs). Participants were to select a rung that best represents where they think they stand right now. The responses reflect discrete continuous variable ranging from 0–10.(Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Reitzel al.)
Time Perspective
Temporal perspective was assessed with one item from the Fong and Hall Perspective Questionnaire (TPQ), “You spend a lot of time thinking about how what you do will affect your life and your future.” Response options range from strongly agree to strongly. Strongly agree and agree were coded as future oriented; disagree or strongly disagree were as not future oriented.(Fong & Hall, 2003; Hall et al., 2012; Sansone et al., 2013)
Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS)
The SMS is a 25 item instrument that assesses the degree to individuals consciously conform to social influences. Respondents are asked to respond to self-referential statements as “True” if it is true or mostly true about them and “False” if it is false or false about them. Example statements include: “I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people,” and “I can only argue for ideas I already believe.” Scores range from 0 to 25. SMS scores are categorized as high = 15–25; intermediate = 9–14; low = 0–8.(lckes & Barnes, 1977) One month test-retest reliability is .83.(Snyder, 1974)
Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ)
Delay discounting rates were assessed with the MCQ, a 27-item questionnaire in which participants are asked to choose between smaller rewards offered sooner and larger rewards offered later.(Kirby & Marakovic, 1996; Kirby, Petry, & Bickel, 1999) Items include choices such, “Would you prefer $54 today, or $55 in 117 days?” and “Would you prefer $55 today, or $75 in 61 days?” The MCQ provides three sets of 9 questions based on the magnitude of the award (i.e., small ($25, $30, $35), medium ($50, $55, $60), large ($75, $80, $85)) yielding small, medium, and large magnitude discounting rates. Discounting rates tend to be well-described by a hyperbolic function, V = A/1+kD where V is the value of the delayed reward A at delay D and k is the discount rate (Mazur, 1987). Traditionally, items are scored using an algorithm that provides an estimate of participants’ k which is transformed by the natural or base-10 log of k for analysis. In this study, individual cases’ k-parameters were estimated using the method described in Kirby et al. (1999). The MCQ includes a range of nine k-parameters associated with item choices. Individuals’ are assigned a range of k-parameters consistent with their choices. An individual’s k-parameter is estimated as the geometric midpoint of the range. Alternatively, the MCQ can be scored by calculating proportionate choice, the proportion of delayed choices within each magnitude. Recent research indicates that the k-parameter is negative and strongly correlated with proportionate choice (~rs > − .97).(Myerson, Baumann, & Green, 2014) The proportionate choice value also tends to be well distributed without transformation and is more accessible in terms of application than the k-value. In this study, we used the proportionate choice parameter as the dependent variable and the medium magnitude discounting rate to avoid magnitude effects.
Data analysis
We prepared the data (n=1,466) by excluding cases that completed 0% of the writing tasks and/or represented attempts beyond the first attempt at the tasks (n=167), cases that did not complete the medium magnitude MCQ (n=158), and cases with consistency scores ≤.88 for the medium magnitude (n=19). We used one-way analysis of variance and χ2 analyses to compare those participants with consistency scores ≥.88 (n=1,122) with those participants with consistency scores < .88 (n=19). Participants with inconsistent medium magnitude scores (<.88; n=19) were younger (F(1,1136) = 5.52, p=.02; M=28.1 (SD 6.8) years vs. M 34.0 (SD 11.0) years), reported higher subjective social status (F (1,1139) = 5.97, p=.02; M = 5.58 (SD 1.9) vs. M = 4.53 (SD 1.8); were more likely to smoke 1–4 cigarettes per day (χ2 (4, n=1,1139) = 10.89, p = .03), and were more likely to be future oriented (χ2 (1, n=1,141) = 5.08, p = .02). In order to standardize the k parameters, we calculated the natural log of the medium k (lnk). Among the final selection of participants, we also conducted a 2-tailed Pearson correlation between the medium lnk and the medium proportionate choice (delayed choices/total choices) to examine the relationship between lnk and proportionate choice in this sample.
We conducted descriptive analyses (means, standard deviations, and frequencies) and one-way analysis of variance and χ2 analyses to determine if there were differences among participants randomized to each condition. We addressed the hypotheses with a univariate analysis of covariance with medium proportionate choice as the dependent variable; condition, sex, race, ethnicity, partnered status, annual household income, other tobacco use, and time perspective as fixed factors; and age, years of education, subjective social status, alcoholic drinks per week, number of cigarettes per day, SMS total score, and percent complete as covariates. We examined the main effects of each factor and covariate and report the F-statistic, degrees of freedom for the variable and the model, p-values, the estimated marginal means, and observed power to support continued investigations.
Exploratory analyses were then conducted to examine differences in delay discounting rates by participant characteristics. Pearson product moment correlations were calculated among the continuous variables (age, years of education, subjective social status, number of alcoholic drinks per week, number of cigarettes per day, and the self-monitoring scale) and the proportionate choice parameter to report the strength and direction of the associations. Analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences in proportionate choice by sex/gender, age, race, Hispanic background, partnered status, education, annual household income, subjective social status, alcoholic drinks per week, cigarettes per day, other tobacco use, the SMS, and future orientation.
RESULTS
All participants (n=1,122) reported living in US. The mean age of participants was 34.0 years (SD 11.0); 52.0% of participants were male and 79.3% were White. About half of participants (49.3%) were partnered. The annual household income ranged from less than $14,999 (13.5%) to greater than $75,000 (21.5%) and the mean years of education completed was 15.1 (SD 3.0) with the majority (83.3%) attending at least some college. The majority of participants saw themselves as middle class (M=4.5 (SD 1.8)). Nearly half reported drinking no alcohol (44.6%) and most reported smoking no cigarettes (79.2%); 11.5% used other forms of tobacco. The mean score for the SMS was intermediate, 11.0 (SD 4.8). About one-quarter (24.0%) were high self-monitors, and about one-third were low self-monitors (32.4%). About two-thirds (64.6%) considered themselves future-oriented. Participants completed a mean of 95.1% (SD 11.8) of the intervention tasks (range 5–100%, median = 55%, mode = 100%). See Table 1 for details. Consistent with previous studies, the correlation coefficient between the k-parameter and the proportionate choice parameter of the medium magnitude was negative and very strong (r= -.99)(Myerson, et al., 2014).
Table 1.
Participant characteristics and mean proportionate choice by category (n=1,122)
Characteristic | Range or Categories | Mean (SD) or percent (n) | Proportionate choice^ Mean (SD) |
Eta Squared or Pearson r |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sex/Gender | Male | 52.0 (583) | .45 (.24) | .000 |
Female | 48.0 (538) | .44 (.22) | ||
| ||||
Age (yrs) | 18–77 | 34.0 (11.0) | .44 (.23) | r=.050 |
|
||||
Age categories | 18–25 | 23.7 (265) | .44 (.24) | .003 |
26–31 | 26.7 (299) | .43 (.24) | ||
32–40 | 26.0 (291) | .44 (.22) | ||
40–77 | 23.5 (263) | .46 (.20) | ||
| ||||
Race*** | Whitea | 79.3 (887) | .46 (.22) | .020 |
Blacka, b | 7.3 (82) | .33 (.24) | ||
Asianb | 7.7 (86) | .44 (.22) | ||
Other | 5.7 (64) | .43 (.25) | ||
| ||||
Hispanic** | Yes | 7.6 (85) | .38 (.22) | .006 |
No | 92.4 (1,034) | .45 (.23) | ||
| ||||
Partnered | Yes | 49.3 (550) | .45 (.22) | .001 |
No | 50.7 (565) | .44 (.23) | ||
| ||||
Education (yrs)** | 1–27 | 15.1 (3.0) | .44 (.23) | r=.146 |
|
||||
Educational level*** | High school or lessa, b | 16.7 (187) | .39 (.24) | .023 |
Attended collegea, c | 67.9 (760) | .44 (.22) | ||
Attended graduate Schoolb, c | 15.4 (173) | .51 (.22) | ||
| ||||
Annual household income | Less than $10,000 | 7.8 (87) | .45 (.25) | .011 |
$10,000–$14,999 | 5.7 (64) | .44 (.23) | ||
$15,000–$24,999 | 12.6 (141) | .42 (.23) | ||
$25,000–$34,999 | 15.5 (174) | .42 (.23) | ||
$35,000–$49,999 | 18.4 (206) | .44 (.24) | ||
$50,000–$74,999 | 18.6 (208) | .44 (.22) | ||
$75,000–$99,000 | 10.2 (114) | .50 (.23) | ||
Greater than $99,000 | 11.3 (126) | .47 (.21) | ||
| ||||
Subjective social status* | 0–10 | 4.5 (1.8) | .44 (.23) | r=.061 |
|
||||
Subjective social status categories | 0–3 | 30.7 (344) | .42 (.23) | .006 |
4 | 18.2 (204) | .44 (.20) | ||
5 | 19.0 (213) | .44 (.23) | ||
6–10 | 32.1 (360) | .47 (.24) | ||
| ||||
Alcoholic drinks per week | 0–60 | 2.8 (5.3) | .44 (.23) | r=−.031 |
|
||||
Alcoholic drinks per week categories | 0 | 44.6 (640) | .46 (.24) | .005 |
1 | 13.2 (189) | .45 (.22) | ||
2 | 11.5 (165) | .44 (.23) | ||
3–5 | 15.6 (224) | .41 (.19) | ||
6–60 | 14.8 (217) | .44 (.22) | ||
| ||||
Cigarettes per day** | 0–50 | 2.28 (5.9) | .44 (.23) | r=−.147 |
|
||||
Cigarettes per day categories*** | 0a | 79.2 (887) | .46 (.23) | .039 |
1–4a | 5.4 (61) | .35 (.19) | ||
5–10b | 7.0 (78) | .43 (.22) | ||
11–20a, b | 7.1 (80) | .31 (.18) | ||
21–50 | 1.3 (14) | .37 (.15) | ||
| ||||
Other tobacco use* | Yes | 11.5 (129) | .40 (.22) | .004 |
No | 88.5 (992) | .45 (.23) | ||
| ||||
Self-monitoring scale** | 0–25 | 11.0 (4.8) | .44 (.23) | r=−.089 |
|
||||
Self-monitoring categories** | Higha, b | 24.0 (258) | .40 (.21) | .011 |
Intermediatea | 43.6 (468) | .45 (.24) | ||
Lowb | 32.4 (348) | .47 (.22) | ||
| ||||
Time perspective questionnaire | Not Future-Oriented | 35.4 (397) | .44 (.22) | .000 |
Future-Oriented | 64.6 (725) | .44 (.23) |
delayed choices/total choices;
Other=Multi-ethnic, American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander; Partnered = Married or living with significant other; Categories within a characteristic with the same superscript are significantly different from one another;
p<.05;
p<.01;
p<.0001
There were no significant differences among participants randomized to the FF (n=374), PF (n=375), and the NTF (n=373) conditions for any of the participant characteristics: sex/gender χ2 (2, n=1,121)=.05, p=.98; age F (2, 1,115) = .10, p=.90; race χ2 (6, n=1,119)=.5.86, p=.44; Hispanic ethnicity χ2 (2, n=1,119)=.29, p=.86; partnered status χ2 (2, n=1,115)=.02, p=.99; years of education F (2, 1,116) = 1.23, p=.29; last grade completed χ2 (4, n=1,120)=4.20, p=.38; income level χ2 (14, n=1,120)= 16.32, p=.29; SSS F (2, 1,118) = .59, p=.56; cigarettes per day F (2, 1,117) = .29, p=.75; number of alcoholic drinks per week F (2, 1,119) = 1.81, p=.16; SMS F (2,1,071) = 2.74., p=.07; TPQ χ2 (2, n=1,122)= 4.14, p=.13; percent of intervention completed F (2, 1,119) = .87, p=.42.
Analysis of covariance
In the model, condition, race, ethnicity, education, cigarettes per day, self-monitoring, and percent complete were significant. The strength of the associations and the estimated marginal means (i.e., means adjusted for other variables in the model) are reported in Table 2. The hypotheses were partially supported. As predicted, the main effect of condition was significant, F(2,24)=3.98, p=.02. 1), and individuals randomized to the FF condition (M=.41, SE=.02) demonstrated significantly lower discounting rates than individuals randomized to PF (M=.37 SE=.02) and the NTF (M=.37 SE .02) conditions; however, the PF and the NTF conditions produced results that were essentially identical. As predicted, self-monitoring accounted for a significant proportion of the variance, F (1, 24) = 8.26, p=.004 in the model. Among the sociodemographic and health risk behavior variables, race, Hispanic background, education, and cigarette smoking accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in the model; however sex/gender, partnered status, subjective social status, income, other tobacco use, and alcoholic drinks per week did not. Time perspective did not account for a significant amount of the variance. The proportion of the intervention that was completed accounted for a significant proportion of the variance. See Table 2 for details.
Table 2.
Results from analysis of covariance with medium magnitude proportionate choice^ as the dependent variable
Fixed factors | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristic F(df) | Estimated marginal means (SE) | 95% Confidence Interval
|
||
Lower | Upper | |||
Condition* (2,24)=3.98 | Furture Focusa, b | .41 (.02) | .37 | .45 |
Present Focusa | .37 (.02) | .33 | .41 | |
Neutralb | .37 (.02) | .33 | .41 | |
| ||||
Sex/gender (1,24)=1.57 | Male | .39 (.02) | .35 | .43 |
Female | .37 (.02) | .33 | .41 | |
| ||||
Race*** (3,24)=9.02 | Whitea | .43 (.02) | .40 | .46 |
Blacka, b | .29 (.03) | .23 | .35 | |
Asianb | .39 (.03) | .33 | .45 | |
Otherb | .41 (.03) | .36 | .48 | |
| ||||
Hispanic* (1,24)=4.63 | Yesa | .35 (.03) | .29 | .41 |
Noa | .41 (.02) | .38 | .44 | |
| ||||
Partnered (1,24)=.04 | Yes | .38 (.02) | .34 | .42 |
No | .38 (.02) | .34 | .42 | |
| ||||
Annual Household Income (7,24)=.75 | <$10,000 | .39 (.03) | .33 | .45 |
$10–14,999 | .38 (.03) | .31 | .44 | |
$15–24,999 | .37 (.03) | .31 | .44 | |
$25–34,999 | .36 (.02) | .31 | .41 | |
$35–49,999 | .38 (.02) | .33 | .43 | |
$50–74,999 | .36 (.02) | .32 | .41 | |
$75–99,000 | .41 (.03) | .36 | .46 | |
> $99,000 | .39 (.03) | .34 | .45 | |
| ||||
Other tobacco use (1,24)=.52 | Yes | .37 (.03) | .32 | .42 |
No | .39 (.02) | .36 | .42 | |
| ||||
Time Perspective Questionnaire (1,24)=.19 | Not Future-Oriented | .38 (.02) | .34 | .42 |
Future-Oriented | .38 (.02) | .35 | .42 |
Exploratory analyses
Keeping in mind that participants were randomly assigned to condition and there were no significant differences among participants between conditions, several characteristic differences were individually associated with delay discounting rates across conditions. See Table 1. Whites and Asians and non-Hispanics discounted the least, African Americans the most. More education and higher SSS were strongly associated with lower discounting rates. No significant differences in discounting rates were found between men and women, by partnered status, by age, and by income. A greater number of cigarettes per day and other tobacco use were associated with higher discounting. The number of alcoholic drinks per week was not significantly associated with discounting rate. Self-monitoring had a significant negative relationship with delay discounting.
DISCUSSION
These findings provide evidence that a brief priming task can potentially decrease delay discounting in a large, diverse group of individuals. Priming tasks have the potential to be developed into “wise” clinical and/or public health interventions that might be used to decrease delay discounting rates. While this has not yet been accomplished, evidence suggests that interventions to decrease delay discounting have the potential to nudge health behaviors into more productive and healthy directions. If developed appropriately, interventions such as this might be offered to patients by clinicians in the context of multi-modal behavior change treatments, similar to the way in which affirmations or self-talk are used in psychology. They might also be used in health messaging, advertising, or the promotion of healthy behaviors among defined patient populations by health care insurers or other health care groups. They might also be incorporated into health messaging by public health organizations. Individuals might use these interventions as part of a self-help regime as well. If they can be applied with large, diverse groups, priming interventions might be found to be quite cost-effective.
The exploratory findings provide some evidence that some significant social groups might demonstrate characteristic differences in delay discounting, and that some of these differences appear to influence relations between priming tasks and delay discounting. Consistent with previous studies, those with the most education, Whites, Asians, and non-Hispanics discounted the least, African Americans, the most. Of note, these findings were similar to those found in the model, where other factors are accounted for. Inconsistent with previous studies, income, age, and time perspective were not significantly associated with discounting rates, even when all other factors were accounted for in the model. While a negative relationship between SSS and discounting was found, when all other factors were accounted for in the model, SSS was not significantly associated with delay discounting, so it appears that the influence of SSS might be accounted for by education or other socioeconomic factors. We found no differences in discounting rates for sex/gender and partnered status either individually or in the model. Surveys using stratified random samples are needed to indeed determine whether these important social groups demonstrate characteristic differences in delay discounting.
These findings support the broad notion that social factors such as race, Hispanic background, and educational level are strongly associated with delay discounting and need to be taken into account when developing interventions to decrease discounting. Baseline discounting rates have an effect on the potential to change discounting. Among drug dependent individuals, those with the highest discounting rates (i.e., who are potentially at greatest risk), show the greatest decreases in discounting rates after an intervention (W.K. Bickel, et al., 2014; Bickel, et al., 2015). This suggests that priming interventions to decrease delay discounting might have a larger effect on individuals with lower discounting rates which might include individuals lower educational levels, with a Hispanic background, or who identify as African American.
These findings provide initial evidence that discounting rates are positively associated with social self-monitoring. High self-monitors, compelled to change their behaviors based on social circumstances, appear to value long-term rewards less than low self-monitors. This finding suggests that self-monitoring might be a significant factor associated with variability in delay discounting rates in previous studies and might perhaps have some explanatory role in future studies. These findings have implications for the development of theoretical frameworks that explain discounting rates and health behaviors. Because self-monitoring has such a strong association with delay discounting, self-monitoring might also have strong relationship with health behaviors. If so, self-monitoring might be a new target for health risk behavior interventions.
Consistent with previous studies, cigarette smokers and other tobacco users discounted more steeply than their non-using counterparts (Murphy & Mackillop, 2012). In fact, cigarette smoking demonstrated some of the strongest association with delay discounting; however, we found no significant relationship between alcohol use and discounting.
These findings naturally raise questions about the ethics of applying interventions to individuals or communities without their consent or awareness. If developed, an appropriate and ethical manner for applying a wise intervention such as this would be to empower individuals or communities to use the intervention intentionally and with full awareness of the expected outcomes. Nonetheless, the concept of using stimuli to change health behaviors without the consent of individuals or the community is not without precedent. Advertising and even health messaging is applied to individuals and communities by profit, non-profit, and governmental organizations with the intention of changing individuals’ behaviors. One might argue that there is sometimes awareness among the implementers that there will be differential effects on different social groups as well. Before the innovation proposed here is developed into an intervention, a thorough discussion of the ethics of the application would be in order.
This is an initial, formative examination into the development of a wise intervention based on priming to decrease delay discounting. As such, the findings represent a proof of concept with a number of limitations. Future research will need to obtain baseline discounting rates to rule out differences in discounting rates among the participants assigned to the conditions. Although unlikely, possibilities exist that baseline differences in discounting rates contributed to the findings in this study. Ideally, baseline discounting rate assessments would be sufficiently separated in time from the outcome assessment to prevent carry over effects. Future research will need to provide evidence of the effects of patterns of exposure especially if the intervention is expected to have long-term effects health behaviors. These findings might be limited by the characteristics of the population of MTurk workers who participated. Applications in other groups, especially groups at highest risk for problematic health behaviors, are needed. Finally, it should be noted that the active control, the PF condition, was not effective at increasing delay discounting. We speculate that these findings might have resulted from inadequate stimulus development, or perhaps discounting is more amendable to reductions through this type of intervention or platform, or in this population. Nonetheless, the goal of the study was to decrease discounting because of the associated health benefits, but increasing discounting should also be the focus of future research because it is likely to elucidate the parameters of altering this important and modifiable characteristic.
Table 3.
Covariates | |
---|---|
Characteristic F(df) | |
Age (yrs) | (1,24)=.18 |
| |
Education (yrs)*** | (1,24)=19.49 |
| |
Subjective Social Status | (1,24)=.03 |
| |
Number of alcoholic drinks per week | (1,24)=.76 |
| |
Number of cigarettes smoked per day*** | (1,24)=17.21 |
| |
Self-monitoring scale** | (1,24)=8.26 |
| |
Percent intervention complete**
|
(1,24)=11.64 |
p<.05;
p<.01;
p<.0001;
Categories within a characteristic with the same superscript are significantly different from one another; Estimated marginal means are adjusted for all other variables in the model.
delayed choices/total choices;
Other=Multi-ethnic, American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander; Partnered = Married or living with significant other;
Highlights.
A brief, written priming task can significantly decrease delay discounting.
Ethnic and racial groups appear to demonstrate characteristic differences in delay discounting.
Delay discounting rates are positively associated with social self-monitoring.
Priming interventions might be used to enhance multi-modal behavior change treatments.
Priming interventions might be incorporated into health messaging by public health organizations.
Acknowledgments
Funding
This project was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01 MD007054); the National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30 DA027827; R01 DA035277; R01 DA032363; R01 DA034755); the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA021529); and The Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research.
Footnotes
Author Contributions
Dr. Sheffer developed the study concept and led the study team. All authors contributed to the study design and the development of the priming stimuli and tasks. Ms. Fernandez, Ms. Pittman and Ms. Panissidi prepared the data and scored the tasks with the assistance of Ms. Mathews and Mr. Williams. Dr. Sheffer performed the data analysis. Drs. MacKillop, Franck, and Christensen contributed the data analysis. All authors provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Contributor Information
Christine E. Sheffer, Email: csheffer@med.cuny.edu, Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education/CUNY Medical School, 160 Convent Ave, City College of New York, Tel. 212.650.6860.
James Mackillop, Email: jmackill@mcmaster.ca, Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton ON Canada, Tel. 905-522-1155, x39492.
Arislenia Fernandez, Department of Psychology, Harris Hall Suite 309, City College of New York, Tel. 212.650.6217.
Darren Christensen, Email: darren.christensen@uleth.ca, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB Canada, Tel. 403-329-5124.
Warren K. Bickel, Email: wkbickel@vtc.vt.edu, Advanced Recovery Research Center, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Roanoke, VA, Tel. 540.581.5103.
Matthew W. Johnson, Email: mwj@jhu.edu, Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224-6823, Tel. 410-550-0056.
Luana Panissidi, Department of Psychology, Harris Hall Suite 309, City College of New York, Tel. 212.650.6217.
Jami Pittman, Department of Psychology, Harris Hall Suite 309, City College of New York, Tel. 212.650.6217.
Christopher T. Franck, Email: chfranck@vt.edu, Virginia Tech University, Virginia Tech Department of Statistics, 403E Hutcheson Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, Tel.540.231.4375.
Jarrett Williams, Department of Psychology, Harris Hall Suite 309, City College of New York, Tel. 212.650.6217.
Merlin Mathew, Department of Psychology, Harris Hall Suite 309, City College of New York, Tel. 212.650.6217.
References
- Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(6):586–592. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Andrade LF, Petry NM. White problem gamblers discount delayed rewards less steeply than their African American and Hispanic counterparts. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(2):599–606. doi: 10.1037/a0036153. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L. Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype-activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71(2):230–244. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.230. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bargh JA, Williams EL. The Automaticity of Social Life. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(1):1–4. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00395.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK. The emerging new science of psychopathology. Addiction. 2012;107(10):1738–1739. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03968.x. [Comment Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, George Wilson A, Franck CT, Terry Mueller E, Jarmolowicz DP, Koffarnus MN, Fede SJ. Using crowdsourcing to compare temporal, social temporal, and probability discounting among obese and non-obese individuals. Appetite. 2014;75:82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.12.018. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, Jarmolowicz DP, Mueller ET, Franck CT, Carrin C, Gatchalian KM. Altruism in time: social temporal discounting differentiates smokers from problem drinkers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2012;224(1):109–120. doi: 10.1007/s00213-012-2745-6. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, Jarmolowicz DP, Mueller ET, Koffarnus MN, Gatchalian KM. Excessive discounting of delayed reinforcers as a trans-disease process contributing to addiction and other disease-related vulnerabilities: emerging evidence. Pharmacol Ther. 2012;134(3):287–297. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2012.02.004. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Review] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, Landes RD, Kurth-Nelson Z, Redish AD. A Quantitative Signature of Self-Control Repair: Rate-Dependent Effects of Successful Addiction Treatment. Clinical Psychological Science. 2014;2(6):685–695. doi: 10.1177/2167702614528162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, Mueller ET. Toward the Study of Trans-Disease Processes: A Novel Approach With Special Reference to the Study of Co-morbidity. J Dual Diagn. 2009;5(2):131–138. doi: 10.1080/15504260902869147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, Quisenberry AJ, Moody L, Wilson AG. Therapeutic Opportunities for Self-Control Repair in Addiction and Related Disorders: Change and the Limits of Change in Trans-Disease Processes. Clinical psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 2015;3(1):140–153. doi: 10.1177/2167702614541260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bickel WK, Yi R, Landes RD, Hill PF, Baxter C. Remember the future: working memory training decreases delay discounting among stimulant addicts. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(3):260–265. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.08.017. [Comparative Study Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Black AC, Rosen MI. A money management-based substance use treatment increases valuation of future rewards. Addict Behav. 2011;36(1–2):125–128. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.08.014. [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bryan CJ, Walton GM, Rogers T, Dweck CS. Motivating voter turnout by invoking the self. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(31):12653–12656. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1103343108. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bugental DB, Ellerson PC, Lin EK, Rainey B, Kokotovic A, O’Hara N. A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. J Fam Psychol. 2002;16(3):243–258. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.3.243. [Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S. Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buhrmester MD, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6(1):3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carlson M, Charlin V, Miller N. Positive mood and helping behavior: a test of six hypotheses. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55(2):211–229. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.55.2.211. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Review] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cho SS, Ko JH, Pellecchia G, Van Eimeren T, Cilia R, Strafella AP. Continuous theta burst stimulation of right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex induces changes in impulsivity level. Brain Stimul. 2010;3(3):170–176. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2009.10.002. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Wit H, Flory JD, Acheson A, McCloskey M, Manuck SB, (ACS) ACS. IQ and nonplanning impulsivity are independently associated with delay discounting in middle-aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007;42:111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- DeMarree KG, Wheeler SC, Petty RE. Priming a new identity: self-monitoring moderates the effects of nonself primes on self-judgments and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;89(5):657–671. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.657. [Randomized Controlled Trial] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dennhardt AA, Murphy JG. Associations between depression, distress tolerance, delay discounting, and alcohol-related problems in European American and African American college students. Psychol Addict Behav. 2011;25(4):595–604. doi: 10.1037/a0025807. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Du W, Green L, Myerson J. Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. The Psychological Record. 2002;52:479–492. [Google Scholar]
- Epstein LH, Jankowiak N, Lin H, Paluch R, Koffarnus MN, Bickel WK. No food for thought: moderating effects of delay discounting and future time perspective on the relation between income and food insecurity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100(3):884–890. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.079772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Finkel EJ, Slotter EB, Luchies LB, Walton GM, Gross JJ. A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(8):1595–1601. doi: 10.1177/0956797612474938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fong GT, Hall PL. Time perspective: a potentially important construct for decreasing health risk behaviors among adolescents. In: Romer D, editor. Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. pp. 106–112. [Google Scholar]
- Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6:3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green L, Myerson J, Lichtman D, Rosen S, Fry A. Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age and income. Psychol Aging. 1996;11(1):79–84. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.11.1.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green L, Myerson J, Ostaszewski P. Discounting of delayed rewards across the life span: age differences in individual discounting functions. Behav Processes. 1999;46(1):89–96. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00021-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Delton AW, Robertson TE. The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: a life history theory approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100(6):1015–1026. doi: 10.1037/a0022403. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hall PA, Fong GT, Yong HH, Sansone G, Borland R, Siahpush M. Do time perspective and sensation-seeking predict quitting activity among smokers? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addict Behav. 2012;37(12):1307–1313. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.022. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrmann ES, Johnson PS, Johnson MW. Examining Delay Discounting of Condom-Protected Sex Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Using Crowdsourcing Technology. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(9):1655–1665. doi: 10.1007/s10461-015-1107-x. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hsee CK. Value seeking and prediction-decision inconsistency: why don’t people take what they predict they’ll like the most? Psychon Bull Rev. 1999;6(4):555–561. doi: 10.3758/bf03212963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jarmolowicz DP, Bickel WK, Carter AE, Franck CT, Mueller ET. Using crowdsourcing to examine relations between delay and probability discounting. Behav Processes. 2012;91(3):308–312. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.09.001. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jarmolowicz DP, Landes RD, Christensen DR, Jones BA, Jackson L, Yi R, Bickel WK. Discounting of money and sex: Effects of commodity and temporal position in stimulant-dependent men and women. Addict Behav. 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.04.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jaroni JL, Wright SM, Lerman C, Epstein LH. Relationship between education and delay discounting in smokers. Addict Behav. 2004;29(6):1171–1175. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.03.014. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson MW, Bruner NR. The Sexual Discounting Task: HIV risk behavior and the discounting of delayed sexual rewards in cocaine dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2012;123(1–3):15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.032. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson PS, Herrmann ES, Johnson MW. Opportunity costs of reward delays and the discounting of hypothetical money and cigarettes. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2015;103(1):87–107. doi: 10.1002/jeab.110. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kim B, Sung YS, McClure SM. The neural basis of cultural differences in delay discounting. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012;367(1589):650–656. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0292. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kirby KN, Marakovic NN. Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychon Bull Rev. 1996;3(1):100–104. doi: 10.3758/BF03210748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kirby KN, Petry NM, Bickel WK. Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1999;128:78–87. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.1.78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Koffarnus MN, Jarmolowicz DP, Mueller ET, Bickel WK. Changing delay discounting in the light of the competing neurobehavioral decision systems theory: a review. J Exp Anal Behav. 2013;99(1):32–57. doi: 10.1002/jeab.2. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Review] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Landes RD, Christensen DR, Bickel WK. Delay discounting decreases in those completing treatment for opioid dependence. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012;20(4):302–309. doi: 10.1037/a0027391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- lckes WJ, Barnes RD. The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1977;35:315–330. [Google Scholar]
- Magen E, Dweck CS, Gross JJ. The hidden-zero effect: representing a single choice as an extended sequence reduces impulsive choice. Psychol Sci. 2008;19(7):648–649. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02137.x. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marigold DC, Holmes JG, Ross M. More than words: reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92(2):232–248. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.232. [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44(1):1–23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mazur JE. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Commons JEMML, Nevin JA, Rachlin H, editors. Qantitative Analysis of Behavior. Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1987. pp. 55–73. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer DE, Schvaneveldt RW. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. J Exp Psychol. 1971;90(2):227–234. doi: 10.1037/h0031564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyer DE, Schvaneveldt RW. Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes. Science. 1976;192(4234):27–33. doi: 10.1126/science.1257753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meyer DE, Schvaneveldt RW, Ruddy MG. Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word-recognition. Mem Cognit. 1974;2(2):309–321. doi: 10.3758/BF03209002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238–1245. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.10.1238. [Review] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murphy C, Mackillop J. Living in the here and now: interrelationships between impulsivity, mindfulness, and alcohol misuse. Psychopharmacology. 2012;219(2):527–536. doi: 10.1007/s00213-011-2573-0. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Myerson J, Baumann AA, Green L. Discounting of delayed rewards: (A)theoretical interpretation of the Kirby questionnaire. Behav Processes. 2014;107:99–105. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.07.021. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making. 2010;5 [Google Scholar]
- Peters J, Buchel C. Episodic future thinking reduces reward delay discounting through an enhancement of prefrontal-mediotemporal interactions. Neuron. 2010;66(1):138–148. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rachlin H, Raineri A, Cross D. Subjective probability and delay. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1991;55:233–244. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Radu PT, Yi R, Bickel WK, Gross JJ, McClure SM. A mechanism for reducing delay discounting by altering temporal attention. J Exp Anal Behav. 2011;96(3):363–385. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2011.96-363. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Read D, Frederick S, Orsel B, Rahman J. Four score and seven years from now: The date/delay effect in temporal discounting. Management Science. 2005;51(9):1326–1335. [Google Scholar]
- Reitzel LR, Businelle MS, Kendzor DE, Li Y, Cao Y, Castro Y, … Wetter DW. Subjective social status predicts long-term smoking abstinence. BMC Public Health. 11:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-135. 1471-2458-11-135 [pii] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rokeach M. Long-range experimental modification of values, attitudes, and behavior. American Psychologist. 1971;26:453–459. [Google Scholar]
- Ross J, Irani I, Silberman M, Zaldivar A, Tomlinson B. Who are the Crowdworkers?: Shifting Demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing; Atlanta, GA. 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Sansone G, Fong GT, Hall PA, Guignard R, Beck F, Mons U, … Jiang Y. Time perspective as a predictor of smoking status: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Surveys in Scotland, France, Germany, China, and Malaysia. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):346. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schvaneveldt RW, Meyer DE. Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1976;2(2):243–256. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.2.2.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sheffer CE, Mackillop J, McGeary J, Landes R, Carter L, Yi R, … Bickel WK. Delay discounting, locus of control, and cognitive impulsiveness independently predict tobacco dependence treatment outcomes in a highly dependent, lower socioeconomic group of smokers. Am J Addict. 2012;21(3):221–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00224.x. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sheffer CE, Mennemeier M, Landes RD, Bickel WK, Brackman S, Dornhoffer J, … Brown G. Neuromodulation of delay discounting, the reflection effect, and cigarette consumption. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013;45(2):206–214. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.01.012. [Controlled Clinical Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Snyder M. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology. 1974;30(4):526–537. doi: 10.1037/h0037039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Snyder M, Swann WB. When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1976;34(5):1034–1042. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder M, Tanke ED. Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others. Journal of Personality. 1976;44(3):501–517. [Google Scholar]
- Squire LR, Shimamura AP, Graf P. Strength and duration of priming effects in normal subjects and amnesic patients. Neuropsychologia. 1987;25(1B):195–210. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(87)90131-x. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S. Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stanger C, Ryan SR, Fu H, Landes RD, Jones BA, Bickel WK, Budney AJ. Delay discounting predicts adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012;20(3):205–212. doi: 10.1037/a0026543. [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Steinberg L, Graham S, O’Brien L, Woolard J, Cauffman E, Banich M. Age differences in future orientation and delay discounting. Child Dev. 2009;80(1):28–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01244.x. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sweitzer MM, Donny EC, Dierker LC, Flory JD, Manuck SB. Delay discounting and smoking: association with the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence but not cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(10):1571–1575. doi: 10.1080/14622200802323274. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sweitzer MM, Halder I, Flory JD, Craig AE, Gianaros PJ, Ferrell RE, Manuck SB. Polymorphic variation in the dopamine D4 receptor predicts delay discounting as a function of childhood socioeconomic status: evidence for differential susceptibility. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 doi: 10.1093/scan/nss020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Walton GM. The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2014;23(1):73–82. [Google Scholar]
- Weber EU, Hsee CK. Models and mosaics: investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychon Bull Rev. 1999;6(4):611–617. doi: 10.3758/bf03212969. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S. Review] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wheeler SC, Demarree KG, Petty RE. Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: the Active-Self account. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11(3):234–261. doi: 10.1177/1088868307302223. [Review] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wheeler SC, Petty RE. The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: a review of possible mechanisms. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(6):797–826. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.797. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S. Review] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yi R, Johnson MW, Giordano LA, Landes RD, Badger GJ, Bickel WK. The effects of reduced cigarette smoking on discounting future rewards: An initial evaluation. 2008;58(2):163–174. doi: 10.1007/bf03395609. The Psychological Record. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yoon JH, Higgins ST, Heil SH, Sugarbaker RJ, Thomas CS, Badger GJ. Delay discounting predicts postpartum relapse to cigarette smoking among pregnant women. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007;15(2):176–186. doi: 10.1037/1064-1297.15.2.186. 2007-05127-006 [pii] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zanna MP, Olson JM, Fazio RH. Attitude behavior consistency: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;38(3):432–440. [Google Scholar]