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:

THE BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS OF IMPULSIVE CHOICE, DRUG

TAKING, AND DIETARY DECISION-MAKING

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:

Amy Odum Tim Shahan Michael Twohig Heidi Wengreen

Graduate Students Collaborators: Current

Jay Hinnenkamp Kate Morrison C. Renee Renda Jillian Rung

Past Patrick Johnson Brooke Jones Rochelle Smits Jeff Stein



Gregory J. Madden


Behavioral Economics

Kahneman & Tversky

Thaler & Sunstein

Dan Ariely


Behavioral ECONOMICS

BEHAVIORAL Economics

George Collier

S. R. Hursh


Behavioral ECONOMICS

BEHAVIORAL Economics

George Ainslie

Howard Rachlin

Leonard Green

Warren Bickel



Gregory J. Madden


Varieties of Impulsivity (Evenden, 1999)

Response inhibition failuresBlurting out, can’t resist the urge to eat/drink

Rapid internal clockIt seems to take forever for the light to turn green.

Acting without thinkingFailure to consider possible outcomes

Devaluing future outcomesFuture consequences weigh little in decision-

makingDelay discounting

Delay Discounting: What is it? As the interval between response and

reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines.

Value



Value

Delay



Value

Delay



Value

Delay



Value

Delay

Delay Discounting

As the interval between response and reinforcer increases, the value of the reinforcer declines.

Delay

Val

ue

Richards et al.

(1997)

Determining discounted value…



I’m indifferent

They both have the same value

to me.

0 10 20 300

25

50

75

100

Delay

% S

ub

ject

ive

Va

lue

of L

arg

er-

La

ter

Re

wa

rd

30 sec delay

30 sec delay

30 sec delay

I’m indifferent

0 10 20 300

25

50

75

100

Delay

% S

ub

ject

ive

Va

lue

of L

arg

er-

La

ter

Re

wa

rd

0 10 20 300

25

50

75

100

Delay

% S

ub

ject

ive

Va

lue

of L

arg

er-

La

ter

Re

wa

rd

Delay

Val

ue

Richards et al.

(1997)

0 10 20 300

25

50

75

100

Delay

% S

ub

ject

ive

Va

lue

of L

arg

er-

La

ter

Re

wa

rd AVd = ------------ (1 + kD)

Delay Discounting

What is it? As the interval between response and


Why discount the future?

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)

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)

Delay Discounting

What is it? As the interval between response and


Why discount the future? Why discounting is important.

0 10 20 300

25

50

75

100

Delay

% S

ub

ject

ive

Va

lue

of L

arg

er-

La

ter

Re

wa

rd

Why is it important?

The shape of the discounting curve predicts some interesting instances of irrational choice.

01002003004000

25

50

75

100Value

Time to Reward Delivery

01002003004000

25

50

75

100Value

T1

01002003004000

25

50

75

100Value

T1

01002003004000

25

50

75

100Value

T1

I REALLY love

hamburgers!

01002003004000

25

50

75

100

Rational Choice

T1T2

I REALLY love

hamburgers!

01002003004000

25

50

75

100

Irrational Choice

T1T2

01002003004000

25

50

75

100

Irrational Choice

T1T2

I REALLY hate myself!

01002003004000

25

50

75

100Value

Rational Choice

T1

01002003004000

25

50

75

100Value

Rational Choice

T1T2



Gregory J. Madden


Neutral

Bad

Really Bad

ExtremeSuffering

Madden, Petry, Badger & Bickel (1997)

0 2500 5000 7500 100000

20

40

60

80

100Opioid dependentControl

Delay (days)

Val

ue

Bickel, Odum, & Madden (1999)

0 2500 5000 7500 100000

20

40

60

80

100Current SmokersControl

Delay (days)

Val

ue

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

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

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.

3rd variable

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).


0 2500 5000 7500 100000

20

40

60

80

100Current SmokersControl

Delay (days)

Val

ue

Ex-Smokers


Delay

Val

ue

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 100000

20

40

60

80

100

Unlikely Quitters?

Likely Quitters?

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)


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)


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

Delay

Val

ue

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 100000

20

40

60

80

100

Unlikely Quitters?

Likely Quitters?


Animal studies…

Animal Longitudinal Studies

Research strategy...

Steep ShallowDiscounters Discounters

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

50

100

Hi ImpLow Imp

Session

% S

ub

ject

s M

eeti

ng

Acq

uis

itio

n C

rite

rio

n

Perry et al. (2005)


AcquisitionYES NO

CocaineAnker 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)


AcquisitionYES NO

CocaineAnker 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)

Yates et al. (2011)

Amphetamine Dose (mg/kg)

Tim

e S

pen

t in

Am

ph

etam

ine

Pla

ce(d

iffer

ence

fro

m b

asel

ine)

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400HiI

0.1 0.5 1.5

LoI


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)


Price elasticity of demand

The effect is selective to drug-taking. Koffarnus & Woods (2013)

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).



Gregory J. Madden


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.

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)

Irrational Decisions

Hyperbolic Discounting

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.

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?

Goal: Long-lasting, Replicable Changes to Delay Discounting

Shaping delay-toleranceHuman

○ 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

Is it possible to produce a long-lasting change to a biobehavioral trait (Odum, 2011)?

Reward bundling (Ainslie & Monterosso, 2003; Stein et al., 2013)

0

20

40

60

80

100

10 12.5 17.5 7.550

Delay (s)

% L

L C

hoic

e Bundle-size 1

Bundle-size 3

Bundle-size 9



Working-memory training

Bickel et al. (2011) Renda et al. (2014) Renda et al. (in prep)



Delay-exposure (Stein et al., 2013)


Stein et al. (2013)

No-Delay Group (N=14)

Delay Group (N=14)

17.5 s delay

Stein et al. (2013)Test of Impulsive Choice

Trial Block 1

Stein et al. (2013)

0 150

50

100

Delay (s)

Pe

rce

nt L

arg

er

Cho

ice

17.5 s DelayNo Delay

0.0

0.5

1.0

EtO

H C

onsu

med

(g

/kg)

17.5 s Delay

No Delay

0

1

2

3

3 6 12 24Percent EtOH (w/v)

H2O

Con

sum

ed

(g/k

g)

15 s delay

Test of Impulsive ChoiceTrial Block 2

0 150

50

100

Delay (s)

Pe

rce

nt L

arg

er

Cho

ice

17.5 s DelayNo Delay

Effect held at 2 month follow-up

Replicated with new rats and at longer delay.

Cocaine self-administration

Brief Acceptance & Values InterventionMorrison et al. (2014)

○ Meet distressing events with acceptance

○ Progress in a valued direction with these events.

○ Waitlist control.





2011)?


is the baseline?

I avoid Cheetos

because of health

concerns.

I love Cheetos! I would eat them all the time if my

parents would let me!

Repeated Tasting

Pauline Horne Fergus Lowe

IncentivizeConsumption

Default Provision & Increasing Labor Costs of JunkFood

Default ProvisionPauline Horne Fergus Lowe

IncentivizeConsumption

Cu

ps

Co

nsu

med

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Bsln 1 Phase 2 Bsln 1 Phase 2

Fruit Vegetable

41% increase

36% increase

Wengreen et al. (2013)

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

Gamification

Using video game design principles to influence socially significant human behavior.

Kevin Werbach’s MOOC (Wharton School) on Gamification

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.

Gamification

Good vs. Evil Narrative Clear Object of the Game

The Good Guys The Bad GuysAKA: Role Models Vegetation Annihilation

Team

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…

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

Jones et al. (2014a)PLoS ONE

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0 Baseline Gamification

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

Po

rtio

ns

)

YEAR ONE YEAR TWO

Baseline Competition

p < .01

p < .05

Fruit Veg Fruit Veg

+67% +43%

13-day intervention

28-day intervention

Jones et al. (2014b)Preventive Medicine




2011)?


is the baseline?



Gregory J. Madden


Documents

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: