Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

American Psychological Association full text link American Psychological Association Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Meta-Analysis
.2018 Sep;147(9):1349-1381.
doi: 10.1037/xge0000462.

Experimental reductions of delay discounting and impulsive choice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Experimental reductions of delay discounting and impulsive choice: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Jillian M Rung et al. J Exp Psychol Gen.2018 Sep.

Abstract

Many behaviors posing significant risks to public health are characterized by repeated decisions to forego better long-term outcomes in the face of immediate temptations. Steeply discounting the value of delayed outcomes often underlies a pattern of impulsive choice. Steep delay discounting is correlated with addictions (e.g., substance abuse, obesity) and behaviors such as seatbelt use and risky sexual activity. As evidence accumulates suggesting steep delay discounting plays a causal role in these maladaptive behaviors, researchers have begun testing methods for reducing discounting. In this first systematic and comprehensive review of this literature, the findings of 92 articles employing different methodologies to reduce discounting are evaluated narratively and meta-analytically. Although most of the methods reviewed produced significant reductions in discounting, they varied in effect sizes. Most methods were ideal for influencing one-off choices (e.g., framing and priming manipulations), although other successful manipulations, such as episodic future thinking, could be incorporated into existing therapies designed to produce longer-lasting changes in decision-making. The largest and longest-lasting effects were produced by learning-based manipulations, although translational research is needed to determine the generality and clinical utility of these methods. Methodological shortcomings in the existing literature and suggestions for ameliorating these issues are discussed. This review reveals a variety of methods with translational potential, which, through continued refinement, may prove effective in reducing impulsive choice and its associated maladaptive decisions that negatively impact quality of life. (PsycINFO Database Record

(c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any real or potential conflict(s) of interest, including financial, personal, or other relationships with organizations or pharmaceutical/biomedical companies that may inappropriately influence the research and interpretation of the findings. All authors have contributed substantively to this review and have read and approved this final manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Discounted value of a larger-later reward (LLR) plotted as a function of time to reward delivery. At timet the smaller-sooner reward (SSR) is available immediately while the LLR reward is delayed. Solid and dashed curves show high- and low-rate hyperbolic delay discounting.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Diagram depicting the number of articles retrieved, included, and excluded following the criteria developed for the present review.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Effect sizes (Hedge’sgbtw orgwin) by manipulation type. The effect sizes are either averages by publication (when a single study had more than one experiment or condition examining the same manipulation) or individual effect sizes (when a publication reported the result of one study or found a significant moderator of the effect). Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes. Horizontal lines reflect the median effect size for that category; symbols for effect sizes are jittered to reduce overlap. Gray symbols indicate that the effect was not statistically significant.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals for manipulations in the Clinical category. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals for Episodic Future Thinking manipulations. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes
Figure 6
Figure 6
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals for Framing manipulations. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals manipulations in the Perspective Taking category. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals manipulations in the Priming category. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes, and arrows on the end of a confidence interval indicate that the limits extended beyond the axes.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals manipulations in the Cueing category. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes, and arrows on the end of a confidence interval indicate that the limits extended beyond the axes.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals manipulations in the Context category. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes, and arrows on the end of a confidence interval indicate that the limits extend beyond the axes.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Effect sizes (gbtw orgwin; filled and open circles, respectively) and 95% confidence intervals for Learning manipulations. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes, and arrows on the end of a confidence interval indicate that the limits extended beyond the axes.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Effect sizes (gbtw) and 95% confidence intervals for Environmental Enrichment/Deprivation manipulations. Only studies for which effect sizes could be calculated are included. Larger effect sizes reflect greater preference for larger, delayed outcomes
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ainslie G, Herrnstein RJ. Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement. Animal Learning & Behavior. 1981 doi: 10.3758/BF03209777. - DOI
    1. Ainslie G, Monterosso JR. Building blocks of self-control: increased tolerance for delay with bundled rewards. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2003;79(1):37–48. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-37. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aklin WM, Tull MT, Kahler CW, Lejuez CW. Risk-taking propensity changes throughout the course of residential substance abuse treatment. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009;46(4):454–459. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.018. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alessi SM, Petry NM. Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behavioural Processes. 2003;64(3):345–354. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00150-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Amlung M, Petker T, Jackson J, Balodis I, MacKillop J. Steep discounting of delayed monetary and food rewards in obesity: a meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine. 2016;46(11):2423–34. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716000866. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
American Psychological Association full text link American Psychological Association Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp