Literature DB >> 30135865

Resurrecting the individual in behavioral analysis: Using mixed effects models to address nonsystematic discounting data.

Kimberly Kirkpatrick1, Andrew T Marshall2, Catherine C Steele1, Jennifer R Peterson3.   

Abstract

Delay and probability discounting functions typically take a monotonic form, but some individuals produce functions that are nonsystematic. Johnson and Bickel (2008) developed an algorithm for classifying nonsystematic functions on the basis of two different criteria. Type 1 functions were identified as nonsystematic due to random choices and Type 2 functions were identified as nonsystematic due to relatively shallow slopes, suggesting poor sensitivity to choice parameters. Since their original publication, the algorithm has become widely used in the human discounting literature for removal of participants, with studies often removing approximately 20% of the original sample (Smith & Lawyer, 2017). Because subject removal may not always be feasible due to loss of power or other factors, the present report applied a mixed effects regression modeling technique (Wileyto, Audrain-Mcgovern, Epstein, & Lerman, 2004; Young, 2017) to account for individual differences in DD and PD functions. Assessment of the model estimates for Type 1 and 2 nonsystematic functions indicated that both types of functions deviated systematically from the rest of the sample in that nonsystematic participants were more likely to show shallower slopes and increased biases for larger amounts. The results indicate that removing these participants would fundamentally alter the properties of the final sample in undesirable ways. Because mixed effects models account for between-participant variation with random effects, we advocate for the use of these models for future analyses of a wide range of functions within the behavioral analysis field, with the benefit of avoiding the negative consequences associated with subject removal.

Entities:  

Keywords:  delay discounting; individual differences; mixed effects model; nonsystematic data; probability discounting

Year:  2018        PMID: 30135865      PMCID: PMC6101656          DOI: 10.1037/bar0000103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Anal (Wash D C)        ISSN: 2372-9414


  34 in total

1.  The problem with categorical thinking by psychologists.

Authors:  Michael E Young
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  Experimental analysis of individual differences and personality.

Authors:  P Harzem
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Contextual control of delay discounting by pathological gamblers.

Authors:  Mark R Dixon; Eric A Jacobs; Scott Sanders
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2006

Review 4.  Decision making, impulsivity and time perception.

Authors:  Marc Wittmann; Martin P Paulus
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Probability and delay discounting of hypothetical sexual outcomes.

Authors:  Steven R Lawyer; Sonja A Williams; Tereza Prihodova; Jason D Rollins; Anita C Lester
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 1.777

6.  The anova to mixed model transition.

Authors:  Matthieu P Boisgontier; Boris Cheval
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 8.989

7.  Ability to delay gratification and BMI in preadolescence.

Authors:  Amanda S Bruce; William R Black; Jared M Bruce; Marina Daldalian; Laura E Martin; Ann M Davis
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2010-12-09       Impact factor: 5.002

Review 8.  Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review of underlying processes.

Authors:  Harriet de Wit
Journal:  Addict Biol       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 4.280

9.  Using logistic regression to estimate delay-discounting functions.

Authors:  E Paul Wileyto; Janet Audrain-McGovern; Leonard H Epstein; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  2004-02

10.  Heroin and cocaine abusers have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than alcoholics or non-drug-using controls.

Authors:  Kris N Kirby; Nancy M Petry
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.526

View more
  2 in total

1.  Choice patterns reveal qualitative individual differences among discounting of delayed gains, delayed losses, and probabilistic losses.

Authors:  Yu-Hua Yeh; Joel Myerson; Michael J Strube; Leonard Green
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Effort-Related Decision-Making in ADHD.

Authors:  Suzanne H Mitchell; Deborah Sevigny-Resetco
Journal:  J Psychiatr Brain Sci       Date:  2020-12-25
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.