Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Gregory J. Madden Utah State University. Acknowledgements  NIH: RO1 DA 029100, RO1 DA 029605  USDA: 59-5000-1-0033, 59-5000-0-0065  Faculty Collaborators:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Gregory J. Madden Utah State University. Acknowledgements  NIH: RO1 DA 029100, RO1 DA 029605  USDA: 59-5000-1-0033, 59-5000-0-0065  Faculty Collaborators:"— Presentation transcript:

1 Gregory J. Madden Utah State University

2 Acknowledgements  NIH: RO1 DA , RO1 DA  USDA: ,  Faculty Collaborators:  Amy Odum  Tim Shahan  Michael Twohig  Heidi Wengreen  Graduate Students Collaborators:  Current  Jay HinnenkampKate Morrison  C. Renee RendaJillian Rung  Past  Patrick JohnsonBrooke Jones  Rochelle SmitsJeff Stein

3 Gregory J. Madden Utah State University

4 Behavioral Economics Kahneman & Tversky Thaler & Sunstein Dan Ariely

5 Behavioral Economics Behavioral ECONOMICS BEHAVIORAL Economics George Collier S. R. Hursh

6 Behavioral Economics Behavioral ECONOMICS BEHAVIORAL Economics George Ainslie Howard Rachlin Leonard Green Warren Bickel

7 Gregory J. Madden Utah State University

8 Varieties of Impulsivity (Evenden, 1999)  Response inhibition failures Blurting out, can’t resist the urge to eat/drink  Rapid internal clock It seems to take forever for the light to turn green.  Acting without thinking Failure to consider possible outcomes  Devaluing future outcomes Future consequences weigh little in decision-making Delay discounting

9 Delay Discounting: What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Value

10 Delay Discounting: What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Value Delay

11 Delay Discounting: What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Value Delay

12 Delay Discounting: What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Value Delay

13 Delay Discounting: What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Value Delay

14 Delay Discounting  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Delay Value Richards et al. (1997)

15 Determining discounted value…

16

17 I’m indifferent They both have the same value to me.

18

19 30 sec delay

20

21 I’m indifferent

22

23 Delay Value Richards et al. (1997)

24 A V d = (1 + kD)

25 Delay Discounting What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines.  Why discount the future?

26 On the Origin of Discounting the Future  A foraging animal… Smaller-sooner reward Larger-later reward If I eat the smaller- sooner reward, then my chances of surviving (and mating) are slightly improved. But if I choose, the larger-later my chances of surviving are greatly improved. Let’s do it! These genes will not pass to the next generation. Stevens & Stephens (2010)

27 On the Origin of Discounting the Future  A foraging animal… This rat starves and does not pass its genes on to its pups. Stevens & Stephens (2010)

28 Delay Discounting What is it?  As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines. Why discount the future?  Why discounting is important.

29 Why is it important? The shape of the discounting curve predicts some interesting instances of irrational choice.

30 Value Time to Reward Delivery

31 Value T1

32 Value T1

33 Value T1 I REALLY love hamburgers!

34 Rational Choice T1T2 I REALLY love hamburgers!

35 Irrational Choice T1T2

36 Irrational Choice T1T2 I REALLY hate myself!

37 Value Rational Choice T1

38 Value Rational Choice T1T2

39 Gregory J. Madden Utah State University

40 Neutral Bad Really Bad Extreme Suffering

41 Madden, Petry, Badger & Bickel (1997)

42 Bickel, Odum, & Madden (1999)

43 Extensions  Alcohol Vuchinich & Simpson (1998)  Methamphetamine Hoffman et al. (2006)  Cocaine Coffey et al. (2003); Heil et al. (2006)  HIV-risk behaviors Odum et al. (2000); Chesson et al. (2006)  Meta-analysis (MacKillop et al., 2011) Fail-safe N > 4,500 unpublished studies

44 Delay Discounting What is it? Why discount the future? Why is it important?  Part 1: Shape of the discounting function predicts irrational choice.  Part 2: Individuals differ in the degree to which they devalue future consequences and this correlates with addiction.  But correlation is not causation

45 Which Came First? (Carroll & Perry, 2008; Stein & Madden, 2013)  Acute or chronic use of drug produces neuro- adaptations leading to steep delay discounting.  Steep discounting puts the individual at risk of drug dependence.  3 rd variable

46 Drug Effects on Delay Discounting  de Wit & Mitchell (2010) Consistent effects of acute drug administration on delay discounting are rare and, when observed, there are very few studies.  Stein & Madden (2013) Chronic drug administration likewise does not produce consistent effects on delay discounting (see also Setlow et al., 2009).

47 Bickel, Odum, & Madden (1999)

48

49 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Self-Report Data: Kollins (2003): steep discounting is significantly correlated with… ○ Age of first cigarette (r = -.51) ○ Age of first alcoholic beverage (r = -.34) ○ Age of first marijuana use (r = -.48) ○ Number of different drugs used (r =.32) ○ Number of times passed out from intoxication (r =.73)

50 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Longitudinal Data: Steep delay discounting predicts adolescent alcohol, cigarette, and other drug use (Audrain-McGovern et al., 2009; Brody et al., 2014; Khurana, et al., 2013; Kim-Spoon et al., 2014)

51 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Discounting appears to predict treatment success: Dallery & Raiff (2007) Krishnan-Sarin et al. (2007) MacKillop & Kahler (2009) Washio et al. (2011) Yoon et al. (2007) Although see Landes et al. (2011) for a published exception

52 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Animal studies…

53 Animal Longitudinal Studies  Research strategy... Steep Shallow Discounters

54 Perry et al. (2005)

55 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Acquisition YESNO Cocaine Anker et al. (2009)[p =.08] Kosten et al. (1997)Broos et al. (2012) Perry et al. (2005) Perry et al. (2008, Exp. 2) Perry et al. (2008, Exp. 3) CPP Studies: Kosten et al. (1994) Yates et al. (2011)

56 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Acquisition YESNO Cocaine Anker et al. (2009)[p =.08] Kosten et al. (1997)Broos et al. (2012) Perry et al. (2005) Perry et al. (2008, Exp. 2) Perry et al. (2008, Exp. 3) CPP Studies: Kosten et al. (1994) Yates et al. (2011)

57 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Price elasticity of demand High-Impulsive (steep delay discounting curves) rats inject more cocaine than Low-Impulsive rats when the price of cocaine increases. Koffarnus & Woods (2013)

58 Does Steep Discounting Precede & Predict Drug Taking & Abuse?  Price elasticity of demand The effect is selective to drug-taking. Koffarnus & Woods (2013)

59 Summary  Human longitudinal data suggests steep delay discounting precedes and predicts drug taking.  In rats, steep delay discounting predicts… acquisition of cocaine taking but not other drugs. willing to pay a higher price for cocaine (and nicotine, Diergaarde et al., 2008).

60 Gregory J. Madden Utah State University

61 Davis et al. (2009) See also Bruce et al. (2011), Epstein et al. (2013), Garza et al. (2012), Jarmolowicz et al. (2014); Rasmussen et al. (2010), Reimers et al. (2009), Stojek et al. (2014) & Weller et al. (2008) Steep delay discounting is correlated with obesity in women.

62 Discounting rate is correlated with health decision-making  Chabris et al. (2008) Steepness of delay discounting function was a better predictor of health-behavior and health- status (e.g., BMI) than were a host of variables (e.g., age, gender, depression, education, and cognitive ability). See also Garza et al. (2012)

63 Irrational Decisions Hyperbolic Discounting

64 Delay Discounting What is it? Why discount the future? Why is it important?  Part 1: Shape of the discounting function predicts irrational choice.  Part 2: Individuals differ in the degree to which they devalue future consequences and this correlates with addiction & health decision-making.

65 Can we address this crisis with Behavioral Economics? Is it possible to produce a long- lasting change in delay discounting (an apparent biobehavioral trait; Odum, 2011)? Among children, how do we influence health-related choice knowing that steep discounting is the baseline?

66 Goal: Long-lasting, Replicable Changes to Delay Discounting  Shaping delay-tolerance Human ○ Short-term demonstration studies(Dixon & Holcomb, 2000; Schweitzer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988). Pigeons ○ Long-term effects (Mazur & Logue, 1978; Logue & Mazur 1981) ○ Inconsistent results between studies (Logue et al., 1984) Rats ○ Unable to replicate

67  Is it possible to produce a long-lasting change to a biobehavioral trait (Odum, 2011)?  Reward bundling (Ainslie & Monterosso, 2003; Stein et al., 2013) Goal: Long-lasting, Replicable Changes to Delay Discounting

68  Is it possible to produce a long-lasting change to a biobehavioral trait (Odum, 2011)?  Working-memory training Bickel et al. (2011)Renda et al. (2014)Renda et al. (in prep) Goal: Long-lasting, Replicable Changes to Delay Discounting

69  Is it possible to produce a long-lasting change to a biobehavioral trait (Odum, 2011)?  Delay-exposure (Stein et al., 2013) Goal: Long-lasting, Replicable Changes to Delay Discounting

70 Stein et al. (2013) No-Delay Group (N=14) Delay Group (N=14) 17.5 s delay

71 Stein et al. (2013) Test of Impulsive Choice Trial Block 1

72 Stein et al. (2013) 15 s delay Test of Impulsive Choice Trial Block 2 Effect held at 2 month follow-up Replicated with new rats and at longer delay. Cocaine self-administration

73  Brief Acceptance & Values Intervention Morrison et al. (2014) ○ Meet distressing events with acceptance ○ Progress in a valued direction with these events. ○ Waitlist control. Goal: Long-lasting, Replicable Changes to Delay Discounting

74 Can we address this crisis with Behavioral Economics? Is it possible to produce a long- lasting change in delay discounting (an apparent biobehavioral trait; Odum, 2011)? Among children, how do we influence health-related choice knowing that steep discounting is the baseline?

75 I avoid Cheetos because of health concerns.

76 I love Cheetos! I would eat them all the time if my parents would let me!

77 Repeated Tasting Pauline Horne Fergus Lowe Incentivize Consumption Default Provision & Increasing Labor Costs of Junk Food

78 Default Provision Pauline Horne Fergus Lowe Incentivize Consumption Wengreen et al. (2013)

79 Difficulties Encountered  School had no budget for tangible incentives and needed external labor to implement the program.  >40% of teachers regarded the intervention as an “unfunded mandate” and did not always implement the program as designed.  Cheating

80 Gamification  Using video game design principles to influence socially significant human behavior. Kevin Werbach’s MOOC (Wharton School) on Gamification

81 Gamification  Using video game design principles to influence socially significant human behavior.  Playing games requires less labor  Teachers like it (as do kids and principals)  There are no tangible rewards and everyone is on the same team, so cheating is minimized.

82 Gamification  Good vs. Evil Narrative  Clear Object of the Game The Good Guys The Bad Guys AKA: Role ModelsVegetation Annihilation Team

83  Good vs. Evil Narrative  Clear Object of the Game  Player Control Gamification Because you met your fruit and vegetable consumption goal yesterday, here’s what happened to the heroes…

84  Good vs. Evil Narrative  Clear Object of the Game  Player Control  Goldilocks-Zone Goal Setting Gamification Least Met your goalDid not meet your goal Most

85 Jones et al. (2014a) PLoS ONE p <.01 p <.05 Fruit Veg Fruit Veg +67% +43% 13-day intervention

86 28-day intervention Jones et al. (2014b) Preventive Medicine

87 Can we address this crisis with Behavioral Economics? Is it possible to produce a long- lasting change in delay discounting (an apparent biobehavioral trait; Odum, 2011)? Among children, how do we influence health-related choice knowing that steep discounting is the baseline?

88 Gregory J. Madden Utah State University


Download ppt "Gregory J. Madden Utah State University. Acknowledgements  NIH: RO1 DA 029100, RO1 DA 029605  USDA: 59-5000-1-0033, 59-5000-0-0065  Faculty Collaborators:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google