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

The Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ) is one of the most commonly used measures to assess delay discounting of reward. Reliable measurement by the MCQ is necessary for use in experimental settings or prognostic validity within clinical contexts. The present analysis expands prior work to evaluate temporal reliability and stability over an extended period, including repeated measurements, a larger and more broadly representative sample, and demonstrations of covariation with clinically significant health behaviors (e.g., cigarette use, COVID-19 vaccination, body mass index). Participants (N = 680; 55.6% female) were recruited through crowdsourcing and completed the MCQ approximately quarterly over 2 years. Measures of reliability, stability, and correlations with clinical constructs were determined for each timepoint and pairwise comparison. Test-retest reliabilities were high across all pairwise comparisons (all rxx > .75; range = .78-.86; mean = .83). Stability was also high with within-subject effect size differences all within a less-than-small effect size range (range dz = -0.09 to 0.19; mean = 0.04). Positive associations between smoking status and delay discounting rates were observed consistent with prior clinical studies. These findings of test durability support the use of MCQ administration for repeated measurement of delay-constrained choice as a stable respondent characteristic and illustrate its association with important health behaviors over extended time periods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Extra-experimental scarcity impacts hypothetical operant demand: A natural SARS-CoV-2 eperiment.

Behavioral economic demand models quantify the extent to which an organism defends its consumption of a commodity. Commodity purchase tasks permit humans a quick yet psychometrically sound approach to assessing commodity demand for various retail products. Operant behavioral economic literature suggests economy type (open vs closed) can significantly alter demand, yet this effect is largely undocumented in the commodity purchase task literature. In this study, we leveraged the market pressures for retail goods (hand lotion and sanitizer; paper towels and toilet paper; soda and water) resulting from SARS-CoV-2 into a natural experiment comparing within-subject demand across two time-points during the pandemic using a crowdsourced approach. Results suggest that hypothetical commodity purchase tasks are sensitive to extra-experimental market pressures (e.g., scarcity due to the closing of economies), adding additional confidence to the self-report nature of purchase task responding and providing further construct validity to these approaches.

Behavioral economic methods predict future COVID-19 vaccination.

Increasing vaccine utilization is critical for numerous diseases, including COVID-19, necessitating novel methods to forecast uptake. Behavioral economic methods have been developed as rapid, scalable means of identifying mechanisms of health behavior engagement. However, most research using these procedures is cross-sectional and evaluates prediction of behaviors with already well-established repertories. Evaluation of the validity of hypothetical tasks that measure behaviors not yet experienced is important for the use of these procedures in behavioral health. We use vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic to test whether responses regarding a novel, hypothetical behavior (COVID-19 vaccination) are predictive of later real-world response. Participants (N = 333) completed a behavioral economic hypothetical purchase task to evaluate willingness to receive a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine based on efficacy. This was completed in August 2020, before clinical trial data on COVID-19 vaccines. Participants completed follow-up assessments approximately 1 year later when the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available in June 2021 and November 2021 with vaccination status measured. Prediction of vaccination was made based on data collected in August 2020. Vaccine demand was a significant predictor of vaccination after controlling for other significant predictors including political orientation, delay discounting, history of flu vaccination, and a single-item intent to vaccinate. These findings show predictive validity of a behavioral economic procedure explicitly designed to measure a behavior for which a participant has limited-to-no direct prior experience or exposure. Positive correspondence supports the validity of these hypothetical arrangements for predicting vaccination utilization and advances behavioral economic methods.

A goal of behavioral science is to develop methods that can predict future behavior to inform preventive health efforts and identify ways people engage in positive health behaviors. Behavioral economic methods apply easy to use and rapid assessment tools to evaluate these mechanisms of health behavior engagement. Here, we show how similar methods can be applied to novel behaviors yet experienced like intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19. We find that responses on a behavioral economic task designed to measure vaccination likelihood closely corresponded to the likelihood of being vaccinated 1 year later. This prediction was above and beyond common predictors of vaccination including demographics like political orientation and age. These findings provide support for these novel methods in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, and behavioral health, broadly.

Crowdsourcing methods in addiction science: Emerging research and best practices.

Crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific, and Qualtrics Panels have become a dominant form of sampling in recent years. Crowdsourcing enables researchers to effectively and efficiently sample research participants with greater geographic variability, access to hard-to-reach populations, and reduced costs. These methods have been increasingly used across varied areas of psychological science and essential for research during the COVID-19 pandemic due to their facilitation of remote research. Recent work documents methods for improving data quality, emerging crowdsourcing platforms, and how crowdsourcing data fit within broader research programs. Addiction scientists will benefit from the adoption of best practice guidelines in crowdsourcing as well as developing novel approaches, venues, and applications to advance the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

I'm wearing a mask, but are they?: Perceptions of self-other differences in COVID-19 health behaviors.

As information about COVID-19 safety behavior changed, people had to judge how likely others were to protect themselves through mask-wearing and vaccination seeking. In a large, campus-wide survey, we assessed whether University of Kansas students viewed others' protective behaviors as different from their own, how much students assumed others shared their beliefs and behaviors, and which individual differences were associated with those estimations. Participants in our survey (N = 1, 704; 81.04% white, 64.08% female) estimated how likely they and others were to have worn masks on the University of Kansas campus, have worn masks off-campus, and to seek a vaccine. They also completed measures of political preference, numeracy, and preferences for risk in various contexts. We found that participants estimated that others were less likely to engage in health safety behaviors than themselves, but that their estimations of others were widely shared. While, in general, participants saw themselves as more unique in terms of practicing COVID-19 preventative behaviors, more liberal participants saw themselves as more unique, while those that were more conservative saw their own behavior as more similar to others. At least for masking, this uniqueness was false-estimates of others' health behavior were lower than their actual rates. Understanding this relationship could allow for more accurate norm-setting and normalization of mask-wearing and vaccination.

Applied behavioral economics and public health policies: Historical precedence and translational promise.

Behavioral economics is an approach to understanding behavior though integrating behavioral psychology and microeconomic principles. Advances in behavioral economics have resulted in quick-to-administer tasks to assess discounting (i.e., decrements in the subjective value of a commodity due to delayed or probabilistic receipt) and demand (i.e., effort exerted to defend baseline consumption of a commodity amidst increasing constraints)-these tasks are built upon decades of foundational work from the experimental analysis of behavior and exhibit adequate psychometric properties. We propose that the behavioral economic approach is particularly well suited, then, for experimentally evaluating potential public policy decisions, particularly during urgent times or crises. Using examples from our collaborations (e.g., cannabis legalization, happy hour alcohol pricing, severe weather alerts, COVID-19 vaccine marketing), we demonstrate how behavioral economic approaches have rendered novel insights to guide policy development and garnered widespread attention outside of academia. We conclude with implications on multidisciplinary work and other areas in need of behavioral economic investigations.

Behavioral economic methods to inform infectious disease response: Prevention, testing, and vaccination in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The role of human behavior to thwart transmission of infectious diseases like COVID-19 is evident. Psychological and behavioral science are key areas to understand decision-making processes underlying engagement in preventive health behaviors. Here we adapt well validated methods from behavioral economic discounting and demand frameworks to evaluate variables (e.g., delay, cost, probability) known to impact health behavior engagement. We examine the contribution of these mechanisms within a broader response class of behaviors reflecting adherence to public health recommendations made during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four crowdsourced samples (total N = 1,366) completed individual experiments probing a response class including social (physical) distancing, facemask wearing, COVID-19 testing, and COVID-19 vaccination. We also measure the extent to which choice architecture manipulations (e.g., framing, opt-in/opt-out) may promote (or discourage) behavior engagement. We find that people are more likely to socially distance when specified activities are framed as high risk, that facemask use during social interaction decreases systematically with greater social relationship, that describing delay until testing (rather than delay until results) increases testing likelihood, and that framing vaccine safety in a positive valence improves vaccine acceptance. These findings collectively emphasize the flexibility of methods from diverse areas of behavioral science for informing public health crisis management.

Quantifying the Impact of Public Perceptions on Vaccine Acceptance Using Behavioral Economics.

This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of public perceptions of vaccine safety and efficacy on intent to seek COVID-19 vaccination using hypothetical vaccine acceptance scenarios. The behavioral economic methodology could be used to inform future public health vaccination campaigns designed to influence public perceptions and improve public acceptance of the vaccine. In June 2020, 534 respondents completed online validated behavioral economic procedures adapted to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine demand in relation to a hypothetical development process and efficacy. An exponential demand function was used to describe the proportion of participants accepting the vaccine at each efficacy. Linear mixed effect models evaluated development process and individual characteristic effects on minimum required vaccine efficacy required for vaccine acceptance. The rapid development process scenario increased the rate of decline in acceptance with reductions in efficacy. At 50% efficacy, 68.8% of respondents would seek the standard vaccine, and 58.8% would seek the rapid developed vaccine. Rapid vaccine development increased the minimum required efficacy for vaccine acceptance by over 9 percentage points, γ = 9.36, p < 0.001. Past-3-year flu vaccination, γ = -23.00, p < 0.001, and male respondents, γ = -4.98, p = 0.037, accepted lower efficacy. Respondents reporting greater conspiracy beliefs, γ = 0.39, p < 0.001, and political conservatism, γ = 0.32, p < 0.001, required higher efficacy. Male, γ = -4.43, p = 0.013, and more conservative, γ = -0.09, p = 0.039, respondents showed smaller changes in minimum required efficacy by development process. Information on the vaccine development process, vaccine efficacy, and individual differences impact the proportion of respondents reporting COVID-19 vaccination intentions. Behavioral economics provides an empirical method to estimate vaccine demand to target subpopulations resistant to vaccination.