Home / Summaries / Affective Science and Psychopathology / dd-studies-future

Reward sensitvity and motivation - sholten, scheres, graf etc (2019) behavioral training and manipulation to reduce delay discounting

26 important questions on Reward sensitvity and motivation - sholten, scheres, graf etc (2019) behavioral training and manipulation to reduce delay discounting

What does delay discounting do

The decrease in the subjective value of a reward as the daly to its receipt increases > individuals show a bigger preference to choose small immediate reward over bigger delete reward.

What is the DD task

- titration procedure

- participants have to choose between smaller sooner of larger later rewards. Participant has 3 different options between which the person must choose;
HYPOTHETICAL (no reward and delay), potentially real (choice with associated reward) or real (all rewards ar epaid, all delays experienced).

What do participants have to do in the fill the blank task

- participants has to answer only one question at each given delay. Have to choose themselves what amount they would accept immediately rather than the full amount of outcome that will be delayed or at X time.

- unhealthy choices are based on discount rate which is demonstrated in smaller fast rewards are preferred over much bigger delayed rewards.

What is the goal of this study

Present an overview of behavioral training and manipulations available in the literature to reduce DD and improve behavior accordingly, in human adolescent and adult participants

What is the research question of this study

Whether there are effective ways of decreasing DD and whether there are associated effects on behavioral outcomes?

How did the researchers do this research (operationalization)

98 studies of which 19 studies apply training and 79 studies using manipulation to change DD.

What was the method of this research?

Literature search in database --> duplicated removed --> titles and abstract read --> articles read (90 studies met inclusion criteria) + reference lists of selected papers (8 studies) = 98 studies reviewed

What were the results found looking at studies applying training

- 26% of experiments evaluating training show to be effective in reducing DD

- 58% show null results or unexpected increase in DD

- 16% show mixed results a reduction in DD on a substance related DD task but not on a monetary

only experiments that incluced secondary behavioral outcomes found a reduction in DD

Which results were found looking at studies evaluating manipulation of DD

- 86% found reduction in DD
- 13% found null results or unexpected increase
- 1 % found mixed results

these results indicate that DD can be decreased showing that DD is profoundly context dependent and changeable

Which trainings were there looking at DD studies

- contingency management
- money management based training
- brief motivational training in combination with substance free activity session
- cognitive behavioral therapy
- acceptance based/ mindfulness based training
- working memory training
- visualization training

Which kind of manipulation was used in DD studies

- episodic future thinking
- connectivity to future (self)
- construal level manipulation
- social factors; social context (reduce DD), social influence (reduce DD)

- emotions; findings show that both positive and negative effects can decrease DD, however as soon as both are administrered the research did not find any results

Which type of framing do we have in the studies?

- bundling; aggregating choices between temporally extend series of smaller-sooner/ larger- later alternatives rather than case-by-case choices.
choosing a set of rewards in future seems to decrease DD rates.

- time framing; subtle changes to time component in standard DD tasks, ; time framing manipulations found decrease in DD rates

- reframing of rewards; manipulation of reframe rewards seem to be highly effective in decreasing DD rates

What should further research look into with time framing

Look into long term effects and clinical relevance related to DD rates

What were the overall effects of trainings and manipulations

- more manipulations are effective compared to training
- training conducted studies with clinical populations and manipulation with healthy populations > this has a higher chance of succes

-

What is one limitation between the effectiveness of trainings and manipulations

Could be the publication bias, which introduces an overestimation of the actual effect of training and manipulations on DD
especially in manipulation studies, given that these studies are less complex to perform compared with training studies

Which most promising training is there in reducing DD

Acceptance-based/ mindfulness based training
focuses on concentrating on experiencing and accepting the aversiveness of the present moment

How does acceptance based/ mindfull based training help to reduce DD

More impulsive people might find waiting aversive, and their prime motivation is to escape those negative feelings by choosing immediate rewards, the training helps them to overcome such prime by mindfully attenting to the present.

Which manipulation kind is most promosing in reducing DD rates

The category of future, future episodic thinking and connectivity to future (self).

findings might be traced back to demand characteristics which are inherent to EFT procedures, and show to be biased in answers and behaviors. Might play a role in connectivity to future (self) manipulations and construal level thinking manipulations

Which suggestions are there for optimization of DD reduction procedures

Future manipulations into longer, multiple session trainings and use rigorous transparent designs to test effects in the long term in adequately powered samples a technological tools

Which limitation do this review study have

It is hard to compare results due to the variability of manipulation and training. The present review did not check for publication bias and not all studies presented effect sized

Which recommendations does this study make

1) structured procedure to operationalize and test predictions regarding reductions in DD rates
2) extending primary focues to mechanisms that underlie changes in DD and behavior
3) upgrade of quality of studies and sharing of measures and designs of studies
4) including more varied samples, in age as well as in clinical diagnosis, and including possible moderators of the effect of DD on behavior

What is the conclusion of this review study

Results show that DD is changeable construct and that is achieved more easily by manipulation than with training.
most promising training; acceptance based/ mindfulness based training
best manipulation; future oriented manipulations

What does episodic future thinking mean

The ability to vivdly imagine the future and thereby pre-experiencing future events

Which steps does a patient have to do in episodic future thinking

1) compile a list of upcoming events at several moments in time in the future and rate them on variables such as personal relevance, valence and arousal
2) perform different version of DD task; amounts of momeny in the larger future reward were paired with a subject specific verbal episodic tag indicating to the participants which event they had planned at the respective day of reward

What does the connectivity to future (self) mean

Associated with greater willingness to defer benefits to the future self and it can be promising in reducing DD rated

What do future research have to do regarding connectivity to future (self)

Should focus on finding the best method and doses to create a connection to the future self is needed to support these initial findings

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Affective Science and Psychopathology

View summary

A unique study and practice tool
Never study anything twice again
Get the grades you hope for
100% sure, 100% understanding

Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.