Association for Behavior Analysis International

Impulsive behavior is the preference of a smaller sooner (SS) reinforcer over a larger later (LL) reinforcer; the opposite is self-control behavior. Despite major advances in our understanding of factors that influence impulsive preference (e.g., fading, framing, and priming procedures to reduce delay discounting), there is a need to expand the assessment of relevant variables and procedures that affect impulsive choice to less studied contexts. The first presentation will examine delay discounting of a recommended autism spectrum disorder (ASD) treatment in parents of children recently diagnosed with ASD and others asked to imagine being in the same situation. The second presentation will discuss the notion of negative values and asymmetries in discounting (e.g., in social discounting, people could choose to take money from others instead of giving money) and will examine negative values and asymmetries in data from individuals exposed to scenarios in which they would choose to quit or not smoking, report negative versus positive affect, and take money from others instead of giving. The third presentation will analyze the findings of an experiment that tested the effects of different probabilities of noncontingent money loss on the impulsive responses of college students and will compare these findings with previous research that has tested other forms of aversive stimulation (intense noise, cold water, and unpleasant images).

intermediate

We examined decision-making factors in parents’ treatment-option choices for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We presented 31 parents of children recently diagnosed with ASD with a demographic questionnaire, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1983), the Parenting Stress Index, 4th ed., Short Form (PSI-4-SF; Abidin, 2012), and a delay-discounting task. We also administered the same tasks to 14 people we asked to imagine having a child diagnosed recently with ASD. In the delay-discounting task, participants chose between a recommended treatment and another option. We varied the recommended treatment’s annual cost ($195.31–$12,800,000.00) using an adjusting-amount procedure (Holt et al., 2003) that reset to $50,000.00 at the start of each waitlist duration. We varied the recommended treatment’s waitlist duration (immediately–128 weeks) by starting at the shortest or longest duration and progressively increasing or decreasing every nine trials. The other treatment option was always cost-free and available immediately. Regardless of group affiliation (actual child vs. imagined), STAI responses, or PSI-4-SF responses, most (64.44%) participants gave responses that indicated waitlist duration (i.e., delay) did not affect their treatment choices. This result suggests delay may not affect ASD treatment choices in the same manner it affects many other commodities.

Flora et al. (1992) reported that noncontingent aversive noise increased impulsive responses during a choice task in which participants earned points exchangeable for money. The impulsive option immediately produced 2 points. The self-controlled option produced 10 points after a 16-s delay. It is unclear if other type of aversive stimulation (e.g., symbolic, non-pain related; Crosbie, 1998) would produce the same effect. Twenty-four college students (12 men and 12 women) were exposed to three probabilities of noncontingent point loss (0, .03, .05) during a replication Flora et al.’s choice task. In the absence of point loss (0 probability), participants overall showed a moderate preference for the LL option (approximately 65%), which closely reproduced the choice pattern reported by Flora et al.’s (1992) in their control group (no aversive noise). Self-control responses decreased with the introduction of the point-loss conditions. Lower proportion of LL responses were observed under the .05 probability, as compared to 0 and .03, which approached indifference (approximately 51% LL). Although the same pattern was observed in women and men, women overall showed higher proportion of LL responses across all conditions, and their number of LL responses seemed to have been less affected by the higher probability of point loss (.05), as compared to men. These findings overall support the generality of the effect of noncontingent aversive noise on impulsive responses reported by Flora et al. (i.e., increments in impulsive choice towards indifference).