4.2 Review

OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF REWARD DELAYS AND THE DISCOUNTING OF HYPOTHETICAL MONEY AND CIGARETTES

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 87-107

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jeab.110

Keywords

delay discounting; opportunity cost; money; cigarette; hypothetical; crowdsourcing; human

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01DA032363, R21DA032717, T32DA007209]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Humans are reported to discount delayed rewards at lower rates than nonhumans. However, nonhumans are studied in tasks that restrict reinforcement during delays, whereas humans are typically studied in tasks that do not restrict reinforcement during delays. In nonhuman tasks, the opportunity cost of restricted reinforcement during delays may increase delay discounting rates. The present within-subjects study used online crowdsourcing (Amazon Mechanical Turk, or MTurk) to assess the discounting of hypothetical delayed money (and cigarettes in smokers) under four hypothetical framing conditions differing in the availability of reinforcement during delays. At one extreme, participants were free to leave their computer without returning, and engage in any behavior during reward delays (modeling typical human tasks). At the opposite extreme, participants were required to stay at their computer and engage in little other behavior during reward delays (modeling typical nonhuman tasks). Discounting rates increased as an orderly function of opportunity cost. Results also indicated predominantly hyperbolic discounting, the magnitude effect, steeper discounting of cigarettes than money, and positive correlations between discounting rates of these commodities. This is the first study to test the effects of opportunity costs on discounting, and suggests that procedural differences may partially account for observed species differences in discounting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available