Reassessing intertemporal choice: human decision-making is more optimal in a foraging task than in a self-control task.

Evan C Carter,Eric J Pedersen,Michael E Mccullough

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00095

Evan C Carter, Eric J Pedersen + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00095

Copy DOI

Abstract

Many contemporary concerns (e.g., addiction, failure to save) can be viewed as intertemporal choice problems in which the consequences of choices are realized at different times. In some laboratory paradigms used to study intertemporal choice, non-human animals demonstrate a preference for immediacy (impulsive choice) that results in failures to maximize the amount of reward received. There is evidence, however, suggesting that such non-optimal impulsive choice may be due to a mismatch between the standard presentation of options in the laboratory (e.g., a “larger-later” and a “smaller-sooner” option) and the way that options occur in natural settings (e.g., foraging). We present evidence that human impulsive choice is similarly affected: in two experiments, decisions were more optimal when options were presented in a format sharing features with the evolutionarily important problem of foraging compared to when options were presented in the standard format. These findings suggest a more nuanced view of intertemporal choice and support the adoption of ideas from foraging theory into the study of human decision making.

Highlights

Important social concerns, such as addiction, obesity, and debt, can be conceptualized as intertemporal choice problems—choices between consequences that are realized differently through time (Madden and Bickel, 2010)
When all predictors in the model were zero—that is, when paradigm = 0 and long-term rate (LTR) = 0 participants were approximately twice as likely to choose Al as they were to choose As in both experiments [Experiment 1 γ 00 = 0.80, odds ratio (OR) = 2.22; Experiment 2 γ 00 = 0.79, OR = 2.21]. This effect was modified by LTR, such that an increase in LTR by one cent/minute resulted in 6% (γ 01 = 0.06, OR = 1.06) increases in the likelihood of choosing Al
Participants showed a noteworthy preference for Al when it gained them nothing, but participants were sensitive to LTR in the self-control paradigm

Summary

Introduction

Important social concerns, such as addiction, obesity, and debt, can be conceptualized as intertemporal choice problems—choices between consequences that are realized differently through time (Madden and Bickel, 2010). Human and non-human animals in the self-control paradigm show a preference for smaller-sooner reward, called impulsive choice, even when such preference is non-optimal in that it decreases the total amount of reward received (Madden and Bickel, 2010). Stephens (2002) estimated that the first second of delay caused food rewards to lose 75% of their value for pigeons in the classic self-control paradigm experiment by Mazur (1987). Logue et al (1985) found that impulsive choice by pigeons resulted in receipt of only 34.6% of the food that could have been obtained Such findings are often interpreted as showing that non-human animals lack self-control—they forego the benefits of delaying gratification by impulsively choosing the more immediately available reward

Results

Discussion

Conclusion