หน้าหลัก

Ayed reward (Critchfield and Kollins, 2001). The data from this activity is often represented graphically with the existing subjective worth of your reward on the y-axis as well as the delay around the x-axis. Figure 1 contains hypothetical data from two participants to illustrate two distinctive option architectures. The information in Figure 1 may be represented by a hyperbolic or an exponential equation (Mazur, 1987): Hyperbolic : V = A 1 + kDExponential : V = Ae-kD A, V, and D represent the quantity, subjective value, and delay respectively. Variables within the exponential equation represent the exact same values as these in the hyperbolic equation and e represents Euler's quantity and is also in the base of the natural logarithm. A k-value can be derived, which represents an individual fitted parameter which will be believed of as sensitivity to delay. When the value of k is little, the individual is significantly less sensitive to delay, and shows significantly less discounting in response to it (a less steep curve, denoted by the stars in Figure 1). Nevertheless, when the worth of k is large, it means that the person is extremely sensitive for the delay period, and this translates to larger prices of discounting in response to delay (a steep curve, denoted by the triangles in Figure 1). Certainly, a great deal analysis involving temporal discounting information has located that the data is match finest with the hyperbolic equation, as opposed for the exponential equation (Rachlin et al., 1991; Green et al., 1997; Ainslie, 2001; Johnson and Bickel, 2002; Myerson et al., 2003; Robles and Vargas, 2007; Steinberg et al., 2009), which means that men and women were discounting at a negatively accelerating price. As a way to measure people's option architecture in temporal discounting paradigms, the k-value is commonly applied (Mazur, 1987). The area under the curve is definitely an additional dependent measure that's calculated by normalizing every single delay and subjective valueTemporal DiscountingTemporal discounting tasks frequently demand participants to produce options among a modest variable reward accessible quickly versus a larger continuous reward out there following a variable delay (Rachlin et al., 1991). These kinds of tasks have also been known as intertemporal decision and delay discounting, and sometimes even delay of gratification (Shamosh and Gray, 2008). However, some researchers within the judgment and decisionmaking field have made a lot more nuanced distinctions among different considerations that underlie these alternatives, such as factors that diminish the expected utility of a future consequence (time discounting) and considerations that could bring about preference for immediate utility more than delayed utility (time preference; Frederick et al., 2002). In this study, we focused on single indicators of efficiency on typical option tasks, also referred to as the "commitment-choice" process, which needs the individual to commit to an immediate or delayed reward on a number of various trials (Frederick et al., 2002; Reynolds and Schiffbauer, 2005). In temporal discounting tasks, there is an indifference point, where the participant will switch from preferring the quick reward to the delayed reward. The indifference point represents the subjective worth of the reward for the participant becauseFIGURE 1 | Hypothetical temporal discounting information illustrating indifference point choices, based on Critchfield and Kollins (2001).Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgJune 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleBasile and ToplakTemporal discounting and individual differencesfor each and every d.