Association for Behavior Analysis International

Discounting refers to decreases in the subjective value of an outcome with increases in some attribute of that outcome, including its delay, probability, effort, or sharing (social). Discounting has offered a fruitful conceptual and methodological framework for the understanding of impulsive behavior, including developing interventions. Despite mounting expansion on the list of variables tested for associations with discounting, some areas of research remain less studied. The symposium will discuss four of them: associations between discounting and respondent behavior, early-life adversity, academic procrastination, and assessment methods. The first presentation focuses on how the number of sessions that rats experience in autoshaping and delay discounting tasks moderates the relationship between sign-tracking/goal-tracking responses and impulsive choice. The second study tested the effects of combined early-life adversity (maternal separation and resource scarcity) on rats’ behavior during autoshaping, test and retest of delay discounting, and training and extinction of a VI15s-VI60s multiple schedule. The third study tested the associations between self-report and direct behavioral measures of academic procrastination and delay and academic discounting. The fourth presentation describes a study that compared the fit to hyperbolic discounting equations, the area under the curve, the frequency of nonsystematic data, and the participants' perceptions about the friendliness of the traditional social discounting questionnaire versus visual analog and graphic rating scales.

Undergraduate and Graduate students, Researchers, and Practitioners. No prerequisite skills needed.

Pavlovian learning has been studied in rodents using autoshaping procedures (ASH) in which a Conditioned Stimulus (CS) is paired with an Unconditioned Stimulus (US). Most rats develop sign-tracking and/or goal-tracking responses. In a delay discounting task (DDT), subjects choose between a smaller-sooner reinforcer (impulsive choice) and a larger-later reinforcer (self-control choice). Evidence of a relationship between sign-tracking/goal-tracking and delay discounting performance is inconsistent. Some studies have shown that higher sign-tracking correlates with lower impulsive choice, while others have reported no associations. Sign-tracking is typically quantified using a Pavlovian Conditioned Approach index (PCA) calculated with data of the last sessions. A limitation of the PCA is that it varies as a function of the number of ASH trials experienced by each subject. This increases the risk of finding spurious associations between sign-tracking/goal-tracking responses and other measures. We explored the relationship between sign-tracking/goal-tracking and impulsive choice of 40 rats across 10 sessions of ASH, followed by 28 sessions of DDT. Faster development of sign-tracking predicted faster establishment of steady responding during the discounting task and lower impulsive choice during the first five DDT sessions; however, this latter association disappeared by session 20.

Extensive research with rodent models has shown detrimental effects of early-life adversity (ELA) on behavioral (e.g., impulsive behavior, anxiety, and depression) and neurobiological processes (e.g., alterations of neuroendocrine processes and maturation of brain areas). However, heterogeneous methodologies, including types and variations of ELA manipulations seem responsible for inconsistent findings. Maternal separation (MS) and limited bedding/nesting (LBN) are widely implemented rodent ELA protocols. Orso et al. (2020) concluded that combined MS+LBN produce consistent and robust effects due to the joint increase of the challenging conditions imposed on both the dam and the offspring. We tested the effects of MS+LBN on processes linked to both ELA and behavioral disorders in later stages of life. We used an autoshaping task (AUT) to assess incentive salience of reward cues, a delay-discounting task (DDT) to assess impulsive choice, and a multiple schedule of reinforcement with long and short variable intervals (VI15s-VI60s, respectively) to assess impulsive action and persistence/perseverance. As compared to No-ELA rats, ELA rats displayed higher goal tracking during the AUT, higher impulsive choice during test and re-test of the DDT, and less efficient responding during the long-interval component of the multiple schedule (VI60s). No ELA effects on response persistence/perseverance during extinction of the multiple schedule were observed. Associations between AUT and reinforcement-schedule performance were identified, with ELA moderating the relationship between ST and efficiency during training and persistence/perseverance during extinction.

Delay Discounting (DD) has been proposed as one of the key processes involved in procrastination (Ainslie, 2010; Zentall, 2021). DD is the tendency for consequences of behavior to be devalued as they occur more remotely in the future (Odum, 2011). According to Zentall (2021), procrastination entails choosing to delay an aversive event for more immediate access to a non-aversive, less aversive, or appetitive consequence. Despite the promise of a DD framework to understand and intervene on procrastination, the relationship between DD and procrastination has not been studied extensively. Of special relevance is the case of academic procrastination (APRO) because of its high prevalence and association with negative outcomes (e.g., grades, and physical and mental health). There is some indirect and inconsistent evidence of a DD-APRO relationship. Muñoz-Olano and Hurtado-Parrado (2017) found that an antecedent intervention reduced both self-reported APRO and monetary DD, but no DD-APRO association was tested. Olsen et al. (2018) developed the Academic Discounting Task (ADT) in which participants chose between working for money or working on an assignment due at various times. Despite evidence of ADT’s validity to measure academic DD, Olsen et al. did not test for ADT-APRO associations. Eyre (2023) replicated the ADT and found a positive correlation between ADT and time-to-deadline of an assignment (TTD). This finding was unexpected, since participants who submitted assignments earlier (lower APRO) displayed higher rates of academic discounting. It was also not cohesive with a preliminary finding by Concepcion (2020) who reported DD predicted higher latency to submit assignments (LTA). On a systematic replication of Eyre (2023) we found higher monetary DD in women than men, and a higher proportion of latency to submit assignments over TTD on participants with higher monetary discounting, i.e., participants with higher monetary DD submitted assignments with shorter latencies and further away from deadlines. A moderation analysis indicated the latter effect was only observed in men. No ADT-DD-APRO associations were observed. Evidence overall suggests an DD-APRO association, but it is inconsistent with previous findings and the proposed role of DD (i.e., higher DD predicting higher APRO). We argue that more research on the role of both appetitive and aversive factors in procrastination is needed.

Friendlier tasks should facilitate the participants' engagement in social discounting studies. Researchers on social discounting have used primarily questionnaires, initially in a paper and pencil format. As personal computers became popular, researchers adapted the original instruments and put them on computer screens and Internet browsers, primarily as radio button questionnaires. In these studies, participants choose between options that offer a variable amount for them and a constant amount for the people they put on the social distance list. The indifference points result from the median value when participants switch from altruistic to selfish. Computers allow for friendlier instruments. Sliders as visual analog or graphic rating scales are friendlier than questionnaires, requiring less participants' time. Empirical evidence from delayed discounting research suggests that sliders produce more nonsystematic data than other instruments; however, web and marketing researchers have found that the sliders’ usefulness and nonsystematic data in social discounting research might depend on their format. This study compared the fit to hyperbolic discounting equations, the area under the curve, the frequency of nonsystematic data, and the participants' perceptions about the friendliness of the traditional social discounting questionnaire versus visual analog and graphic rating scales.