Delay discounting is associated with addiction and mental health measures while controlling for health behaviors and health barriers in a large US sample.

Background: Excessive discounting of future rewards [delay discounting (DD)] may be a transdiagnostic process and treatment target underlying behavioral health outcomes, including trauma, depression, anxiety, and problematic substance use. However, multiple health behaviors and barriers are also related to these outcomes, including social media usage, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), sleep quality, healthcare access, housing status, and exercise. To extend research examining DD as transdiagnostic process, we recruited a large, heterogenous sample to examine the association between DD, problematic substance use, and mental health outcomes while controlling for certain health behaviors and health barriers. Method: In a cross-sectional online survey of 3992 US residents, we administered validated measures of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and problematic alcohol, stimulant, and opioid use. Using linear or ordinal logistic models, scores for each outcome were regressed onto DD while controlling for demographics, health behaviors, and health barriers. Results: Including only DD and demographics, DD was associated with each outcome at low effect sizes (ƒ2 = .013, OR range = 1.08-1.16). Except for opioid ASSIST scores, these relationships held when controlling for social media usage, sleep, housing status, healthcare access, ACEs, physical exercise, and demographic variables (ƒ2 = .002, OR range = 1.03-1.12), increasing confidence that DD concurrently and directly relates to four of these five clinical outcomes. Discussion: These findings support the conceptualization of DD as a transdiagnostic process underlying certain psychopathologies and suggest targeting DD in co-occurring substance use disorder and/or mental health treatments may result in clinically significant outcomes.

Episodic future thinking in type 2 diabetes: Further development and validation of the Health Information Thinking control for clinical trials.

Episodic Future Thinking (EFT) reduces delay discounting and may have the potential as a clinical tool to increase the likelihood of health-promoting behaviors. However, evaluations of EFT in clinical settings require control conditions that match the effort and frequency of cue generation, as well as participants' expectations of improvement. The Health Information Thinking (HIT) control addresses these issues, but how this control affects delay discounting in individuals with diabetes and obesity when utilizing diabetes-management specific health-information vignettes is unknown. Moreover, little research has explored whether EFT reduces delay discounting in individuals with type 2 diabetes. To this end, we examined the impact of EFT, HIT, and a secondary no-cue control condition (NCC; assessments as usual) on delay discounting in 434 adults with self-reported type 2 diabetes and obesity recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk. After completing an initial screening questionnaire, eligible participants reported demographics, then were randomized to EFT, HIT, or NCC conditions. Following the generation of seven EFT or HIT cues, participants assigned to EFT or HIT conditions completed a delay discounting task while imagining EFT or HIT cues; no-cue participants completed the task without cues. EFT participants demonstrated significantly lower delay discounting levels than HIT or NCC participants; no differences in delay discounting between HIT and NCC participants were observed. These results suggest that engaging in EFT, but not diabetes-specific HIT, results in lower delay discounting in adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity. This provides further evidence for the appropriateness of the HIT control for clinical trials examining the effect of EFT on delay discounting in adults with self-reported type 2 diabetes.

Choice Bundling Increases Valuation of Delayed Losses More Than Gains in Cigarette Smokers.

Choice bundling, in which a single choice produces a series of repeating consequences over time, increases valuation of delayed monetary and non-monetary gains. Interventions derived from this manipulation may be an effective method for mitigating the elevated delay discounting rates observed in cigarette smokers. No prior work, however, has investigated whether the effects of choice bundling generalize to reward losses. In the present study, an online panel of cigarette smokers (N = 302), recruited using survey firms Ipsos and InnovateMR, completed assessments for either monetary gains or losses (randomly assigned). In Step 1, participants completed a delay-discounting task to establish Effective Delay 50 (ED50), or the delay required for an outcome to lose half of its value. In Step 2, participants completed three conditions of an adjusting-amount task, choosing between a smaller, sooner (SS) adjusting amount and a larger, later (LL) fixed amount. The bundle size (i.e., number of consequences) was manipulated across conditions, where a single choice produced either 1 (control), 3, or 9 consequences over time (ascending/descending order counterbalanced). The delay to the first LL amount in each condition, as well as the intervals between all additional SS and LL amounts (where applicable), were set to individual participants' ED50 values from Step 1 to control for differences in discounting of gains and losses. Results from Step 1 showed significantly higher ED50 values (i.e., less discounting) for losses compared to gains (p < 0.001). Results from Step 2 showed that choice bundling significantly increased valuation of both LL gains and losses (p < 0.001), although effects were significantly greater for losses (p < 0.01). Sensitivity analyses replicated these conclusions. Future research should examine the potential clinical utility of choice bundling, such as development of motivational interventions that emphasize both the bundled health gains associated with smoking cessation and the health losses associated with continued smoking.