Literature DB >> 19542094

Reward contrast in delay and probability discounting.

Zhijie Dai1, Randolph C Grace, Simon Kemp.   

Abstract

In this study, we examined whether reward contrast influences choice between delayed and probabilistic outcomes. Specifically, we predicted that the subjective value of an intermediate reward would seem relatively larger or smaller, respectively, if it followed choices involving a smaller or larger reward and would produce corresponding changes in rates of delay and probability discounting. In Experiment 1, subjects made choices about hypothetical $5,000 or $50 outcomes and then made choices about $500 outcomes. Delay-discounting rates for the $500 outcome were larger for Group $5,000 than for Group $50, whereas the opposite result was obtained for probability-discounting rates. In Experiment 2, we used a design that allowed for contrast effects to be assessed within subjects. Two groups made choices about delayed or probabilistic rewards. After completing question blocks in which the amount was $5,000 or $50, subjects responded to questions with an intermediate amount ($475/$525). For Group Delay, the present value of the intermediate reward was greater after the $50 block than after the $5,000 block, whereas the opposite was obtained for Group Probability. The results from both experiments confirmed the predictions of reward contrast and suggested that the subjective value of a monetary reward varies inversely with the prior reward amount.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19542094     DOI: 10.3758/LB.37.3.281

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  22 in total

1.  Amount of reward has opposite effects on the discounting of delayed and probabilistic outcomes.

Authors:  L Green; J Myerson; P Ostaszewski
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards.

Authors:  Gregory J Madden; Andrea M Begotka; Bethany R Raiff; Lana L Kastern
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.157

3.  Is there a magnitude effect in tipping?

Authors:  Leonard Green; Joel Myerson; Rachel Schneider
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-06

4.  Behavioral contrast.

Authors:  G S REYNOLDS
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-01       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 5.  A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards.

Authors:  Leonard Green; Joel Myerson
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 17.737

6.  Another look at contrast in multiple schedules.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  The Matching Law And Amount-dependent Exponential Discounting As Accounts Of Self-control Choice.

Authors:  R Grace
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Differential effects of amount on temporal and probability discounting of gains and losses.

Authors:  Sara J Estle; Leonard Green; Joel Myerson; Daniel D Holt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-06

9.  The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.

Authors:  H R Lesieur; S B Blume
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 18.112

10.  Adjusting delay to reinforcement: comparing choice in pigeons and humans.

Authors:  M L Rodriguez; A W Logue
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1988-01
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  The Malleability of Intertemporal Choice.

Authors:  Karolina M Lempert; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 2.  Changing delay discounting in the light of the competing neurobehavioral decision systems theory: a review.

Authors:  Mikhail N Koffarnus; David P Jarmolowicz; E Terry Mueller; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Relative gains, losses, and reference points in probabilistic choice in rats.

Authors:  Andrew T Marshall; Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.