The role of chronic pain and pain anxiety in delay discounting of pain and monetary losses.

Pain may alter intertemporal decisions by modifying the value of pain-related outcomes. For example, a person with chronic back pain may be faced with two choices: undergo surgery that could provide long-term relief but would involve additional short-term pain and discomfort during recovery; or continue living with the chronic pain and avoid the surgery, thus leading to overall deteriorated health. Such choices are well captured by delay discounting, which is defined as the decline in the subjective value of an outcome as the delay of its receipt increases. We investigated general pain anxiety and delay discounting of monetary losses and pain in 255 individuals with and without chronic pain. We found that people with chronic pain tend to discount the value of pain outcomes more than those without chronic pain, suggesting that chronic pain may contribute to impulsivity in decision-making related to pain. Moreover, the effect of chronic pain on delay discounting was mediated through general pain anxiety. This result, however, should be taken with caution, because the effect sizes were small, and the path model was underpowered. In conclusion, people with chronic pain might be more likely to prioritize avoiding immediate discomfort and may undervalue the potential long-term benefits of actions that could alleviate their pain in the future.

Delay discounting of money and health outcomes, and adherence to policy guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delay discounting refers to the observation that the subjective value of an outcome decreases as the delay to its receipt increases. It is well-established that steep delay discounting is related to various maladaptive behaviors, including poorer health-related choices. One of the current challenges of public health policies that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic is to encourage preventive behaviors against infectious diseases. In this study, we aimed to explore possible underpinnings of adherence to COVID-19 related public health policy guidelines such as disinfection, distancing, and masks (DDM). Participants completed monetary and health discounting tasks across two outcome amounts in gain and loss conditions, and they provided self-report measures of adherence to the DDM policy. Contrary to the theoretically plausible prediction that higher discounting rates would be negatively associated with adherence to health-related public policy guidelines, we found no compelling evidence to support such statement. We discuss the potential weaknesses of declarative measurements of attitudes toward COVID-19 and consider using behavioral interventions for influencing discounting rates for complementing and enhancing current policy guidelines.

Everything comes at a price: Considerations in modeling effort-based choice.

When observing human behavior, one of the key factors determining choice is effort. It is often assumed that people prefer an easier course of action when the alternative yields the same benefits. However, recent research demonstrates that this is not always the case: effort is not always costly and can also add value. A promising avenue to study effort-based choice is to utilize formal decision models that enable quantitative modeling. In this paper, we aim to present an overview of the current approaches to modeling effort-based choice and discuss some considerations that stem from theoretical and practical issues (present and previous) in studies on the role of effort, focusing on the connections and discrepancies between formal models and the findings from the body of empirical research. Considering that effort can, in some circumstances, act as a cost and as a benefit, reconciling these discrepancies is a practical and theoretical challenge that can ultimately lead to better predictions and increased model validity. Our review identifies and discusses these discrepancies providing direction for future empirical research.

Gain-loss asymmetry in delay and effort discounting of different amounts.

Loss aversion entails that people attribute greater weight to losses than to equivalent gains. In terms of discounting, it is reflected in a higher discounting rate for gains than for losses. Research on delay discounting indicates that such gain-loss asymmetry may depend on the amount of the outcome being considered. Consequently, here we address the question of how gains and losses are discounted in delay or effort conditions (physical or cognitive) across four outcome amounts. Our results replicate previous findings for intertemporal choices by showing that losses are discounted more slowly than gains, but only for smaller amounts-with no evidence of an asymmetrical evaluation for larger amounts. In physical effort discounting, we found an inverse asymmetry for the smallest amount tested (gains are discounted less steeply than losses). However, this effect was absent for larger amounts. We found no evidence to support a gain-loss asymmetry in the evaluation of gains or losses in cognitive effort. Overall, our findings indicate that loss aversion may not be as pervasive as previously expected, at least when decisions are effort-based.

Mental Health, Well-Being, and Psychological Flexibility in the Stressful Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This study investigated the relationships between selected emotional aspects of mental ill-health (depression, anxiety, and stress, DASS) and mental well-health (well-being) experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The theoretical model of the study was based on Martin Seligman's positive psychology and PERMA theory and Paul Wong's Existential Positive Psychology 2.0 Theory, which postulates that negative experiences contribute to well-being and personal growth. The static approach was complemented by exploring the mediating role of psychological flexibility (defined as acceptance and action in the current situation) in the relationship between negative emotions and well-being. The data were collected during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic from 277 participants (221 women), aged M = 33.83, SD = 12.77. The results confirmed that negative emotions correlated negatively with various domains of well-being (PERM), except for accomplishment (completing tasks and fulfill daily responsibilities). Moreover, negative emotions were related to the general well-being through psychological flexibility in that higher depression, anxiety, and stress were associated with lower psychological flexibility, which decreased general well-being. Finally, negative emotions were shown to be beneficial, having an adaptive effect that allows individuals to maintain their ability to cope with the situation, reach goals, and fulfill daily duties and responsibilities despite critical, stressful situation (like the COVID-19 pandemic) that limit their psychological flexibility. This observation confirmed the positive potential of negative aspects of life postulated within Existential Positive Psychology.