Temporal reliability and stability of delay discounting: A 2-year repeated assessments study of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire

Reprint of: Clustering of behavioral economic biases in decision-making and risk for cigarette smoking and other substance use in women and men

BACKGROUND

Low loss aversion (LA) and high delay discounting (DD) are behavioral-economic decision-making biases that independently predict cigarette smoking and other risky substance use. Here we examine (1) whether low-LA and high-DD co-occur, (2) does co-occurrence increase the odds of current smoking and other substance use compared to only low-LA, high-DD, or neither; and (3) potential gender differences in these associations.

METHOD

Data are from five studies with U.S. adults who currently smoked or never-smoked cigarettes recruited using online convenience sampling matching on gender and education. Participants completed identical sociodemographic, substance use (cigarette, other drugs, alcohol), and LA (hypothetical 50-50 gambles) and DD (monetary-choice questionnaire) measures. LA and DD scores were dichotomized as low and high using Receiver-Operating-Characteristic Curve logistic regression.

RESULTS

LA and DD each independently predicted substance use and with few exceptions were not influenced by gender. Low-LA compared to high-LA predicted two-fold greater odds of co-occurring high-DD (AOR = 2.120, 95%CI:1.749-2.571, p < .0001). Similarly, high-DD compared to low DD predicted two-fold greater odds of low-LA (AOR = 2.118, 95%CI:1.747-2.568, p < .0001). Among those with co-occurring low-LA and high-DD, odds of substance use were 5-10 times greater than those exhibiting neither, and 2-3 times greater than those exhibiting only low-LA or high-DD.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-LA and high-DD cluster in women and men such that exhibiting one of these decision-making biases doubles the odds of exhibiting the other. These results demonstrate reliable clustering of low-LA and high-DD and a striking increase in risk for substance use relative to having only one or neither decision-making bias.

Clustering of behavioral economic biases in decision-making and risk for cigarette smoking and other substance use in women and men

BACKGROUND

Low loss aversion (LA) and high delay discounting (DD) are behavioral-economic decision-making biases that independently predict cigarette smoking and other risky substance use. Here we examine (1) whether low-LA and high-DD co-occur, (2) does co-occurrence increase the odds of current smoking and other substance use compared to only low-LA, high-DD, or neither; and (3) potential gender differences in these associations.

METHOD

Data are from five studies with U.S. adults who currently smoked or never-smoked cigarettes recruited using online convenience sampling matching on gender and education. Participants completed identical sociodemographic, substance use (cigarette, other drugs, alcohol), and LA (hypothetical 50-50 gambles) and DD (monetary-choice questionnaire) measures. LA and DD scores were dichotomized as low and high using Receiver-Operating-Characteristic Curve logistic regression.

RESULTS

LA and DD each independently predicted substance use and with few exceptions were not influenced by gender. Low-LA compared to high-LA predicted two-fold greater odds of co-occurring high-DD (AOR = 2.120, 95%CI:1.749-2.571, p < .0001). Similarly, high-DD compared to low DD predicted two-fold greater odds of low-LA (AOR = 2.118, 95%CI:1.747-2.568, p < .0001). Among those with co-occurring low-LA and high-DD, odds of substance use were 5-10 times greater than those exhibiting neither, and 2-3 times greater than those exhibiting only low-LA or high-DD.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-LA and high-DD cluster in women and men such that exhibiting one of these decision-making biases doubles the odds of exhibiting the other. These results demonstrate reliable clustering of low-LA and high-DD and a striking increase in risk for substance use relative to having only one or neither decision-making bias.

Delay discounting is associated with addiction and mental health measures while controlling for health behaviors and health barriers in a large US sample

Background

Excessive discounting of future rewards [delay discounting (DD)] may be a transdiagnostic process and treatment target underlying behavioral health outcomes, including trauma, depression, anxiety, and problematic substance use. However, multiple health behaviors and barriers are also related to these outcomes, including social media usage, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), sleep quality, healthcare access, housing status, and exercise. To extend research examining DD as transdiagnostic process, we recruited a large, heterogenous sample to examine the association between DD, problematic substance use, and mental health outcomes while controlling for certain health behaviors and health barriers.

Method

In a cross-sectional online survey of 3992 US residents, we administered validated measures of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and problematic alcohol, stimulant, and opioid use. Using linear or ordinal logistic models, scores for each outcome were regressed onto DD while controlling for demographics, health behaviors, and health barriers.

Results

Including only DD and demographics, DD was associated with each outcome at low effect sizes (ƒ2 = .013, OR range = 1.08-1.16). Except for opioid ASSIST scores, these relationships held when controlling for social media usage, sleep, housing status, healthcare access, ACEs, physical exercise, and demographic variables (ƒ2 = .002, OR range = 1.03-1.12), increasing confidence that DD concurrently and directly relates to four of these five clinical outcomes.

Discussion

These findings support the conceptualization of DD as a transdiagnostic process underlying certain psychopathologies and suggest targeting DD in co-occurring substance use disorder and/or mental health treatments may result in clinically significant outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of test-retest reliability and stability of delay and probability discounting

In this meta-analysis, we describe a benchmark value of delay and probability discounting reliability and stability that might be used to (a) evaluate the meaningfulness of clinically achieved changes in discounting and (b) support the role of discounting as a valid and enduring measure of intertemporal choice. We examined test-retest reliability, stability effect sizes (dz; Cohen, 1992), and relevant moderators across 30 publications comprising 39 independent samples and 262 measures of discounting, identified via a systematic review of PsychInfo, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We calculated omnibus effect-size estimates and evaluated the role of proposed moderators using a robust variance estimation meta-regression method. The meta-regression output reflected modest test-retest reliability, r = .670, p < .001, 95% CI [.618, .716]. Discounting was most reliable when measured in the context of temporal constraints, in adult respondents, when using money as a medium, and when reassessed within 1 month. Testing also suggested acceptable stability via nonsignificant and small changes in effect magnitude over time, dz = 0.048, p = .31, 95% CI [-0.051, 0.146]. Clinicians and researchers seeking to measure discounting can consider the contexts when reliability is maximized for specific cases.