Advertisement

The Effect of Numeric Format on Probability Discounting Rates of Medical and Monetary Outcomes

  • Geraldine SmieszhalaEmail author
  • Anne C. Macaskill
  • Maree J. Hunt
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

We assessed whether numeric format in the form of frequencies and percentages affects probability discounting rates in medical and monetary contexts across three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 compared percentage (e.g., 10%) and frequency (e.g., 10 in 100) formats. Numeric format only affected discounting rates in the medical condition in Experiment 2. The lack of effect of numeric format on probability discounting of money was inconsistent with previous findings from Yi and Bickel (2005). Therefore, in Experiment 3 we more closely replicated their procedure. Results yielded no effect of numeric format on discounting rates. Across experiments, we concluded that probability discounting rates for monetary outcomes are not affected by whether they are presented in a frequency or percentage format. We also concluded that the effect of numeric format on probability discounting rates of medical outcomes is fragile, and unlikely to affect medical decision making in practice. Experiment 2 and 3 also examined whether the hyperbolic or hyperboloid model provided a more efficient description of probability discounting functions. Data were more efficiently described by the hyperbolic model in Experiment 2, and the hyperboloid model in Experiment 3.

Keywords

Probability discounting Choice decision making Medical decision making Informed decision making Hyperbolic model Hyperboloid model 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Victoria University of Wellington and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Aczel, B., Szollosi, A., & Bago, B. (2018). The effect of transparency on framing effects in within-subject designs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csáki (Eds.), The second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  3. Asgarova, R., Macaskill, A. C., Robinson, B. J., & Hunt, M. J. (2017). Probability discounting and cardiovascular risk: The effect of side-effect severity and framing. The Psychological Record, 67(2), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, R. C., & Triplett, M. F. (2009). Test–retest reliability of a group-administered paper–pencil measure of delay discounting. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17(5), 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, M. S., Friedel, J. E., DeHart, W. B., Mahamane, S., Jordan, K. E., & Odum, A. L. (2017). The value of clean air: Comparing discounting of delayed air quality and money across magnitudes. The Psychological Record, 67(2), 137–148.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Białaszek, W., Marcowski, P., & Ostaszewski, P. (2017). Physical and cognitive effort discounting across different reward magnitudes: Tests of discounting models. PLoS ONE, 12(7), e0182353.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Inclusion illusions: Fuzzy-trace theory and perceptual salience effects in cognitive development. Developmental Review, 10(4), 365–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bramwell, R., West, H., & Salmon, P. (2006). Health professionals’ and service users’ interpretation of screening test results: Experimental study. British Medical Journal, 333(7562), 284–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruce, J. M., Bruce, A. S., Catley, D., Lynch, S., Goggin, K., Reed, D., et al. (2016). Being kind to your future self: Probability discounting of health decision-making. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50(2), 297–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsources convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davey, C., White, V., Gattellari, M., & Ward, J. (2005). Reconciling population benefits and women’s individual autonomy in mammographic screening: In depth interviews to explore women’s views about “informed choice”. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(1), 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeHart, W. B., Friedel, J. E., Frye, C. C., Galizio, A., & Odum, A. L. (2018). The effects of outcome unit framing on delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110(3), 412–429.Google Scholar
  13. Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. The Psychological Record, 52(4), 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estle, S. J., Green, L., Myerson, J., & Holt, D. D. (2006). Differential effects of amount on temporal and probability discounting of gains and losses. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 914–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2009). Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2196–2202.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2013). Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. Social Science & Medicine, 83, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Medical Decision-Making, 30(6), 672–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). The psychology of good judgment. Medical Decision-Making, 16(3), 273–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 129–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hendrickson, K. L., & Rasmussen, E. B. (2013). Effects of mindful eating training on delay and probability discounting for food and money in obese and healthy-weight individuals. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 51(7), 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine, 73(5), 538–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurvich, C. M., & Tsai, C. L. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika, 76(2), 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarmolowicz, D. P., Reed, D. D., Francisco, A. J., Bruce, J. M., Lemley, S. M., & Bruce, A. S. (2018). Modeling effects of risk and social distance on vaccination choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110(1), 39–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(3), 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan, B. A., Reed, D. D., & McKerchar, T. L. (2014). Using a visual analogue scale to assess delay, social, and probability discounting of an environmental loss. The Psychological Record, 64(2), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kyonka, E. G., & Schutte, N. S. (2018). Probability discounting and gambling: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 113(12), 2173–2181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKerchar, T. L., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2010). On the scaling interpretation of exponents in hyperboloid models of delay and probability discounting. Behavioural Processes, 84(1), 440–444.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(2), 235–243.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myerson, J., Green, L., Hanson, J. S., Holt, D. D., & Estle, S. J. (2003). Discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards: Processes and traits. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(5), 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myerson, J., Green, L., & Morris, J. (2011). Modeling the effect of reward amount on probability discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95(2), 175–187.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nexøe, J., Oltarzewska, A. M., Sawicka-Powierza, J., Kragstrup, J., & Kristiansen, I. S. (2002). Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 20(3), 183–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostaszewski, P., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (1998). Effects of inflation on the subjective value of delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rachlin, H. (2006). Notes on discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(3), 425–435.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 233–244.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rasmussen, E. B., Lawyer, S. R., & Reilly, W. (2010). Percent body fat is related to delay and probability discounting for food in humans. Behavioural Processes, 83(1), 23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reyna, V. F. (1991). Class inclusion, the conjunction fallacy, and other cognitive illusions. Developmental Review, 11(4), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., Horn, K., & Karraker, K. (2004). Delay discounting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in adults. Behavioural Processes, 65(1), 35–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richards, J. B., Zhang, L., Mitchell, S. H., & de Wit, H. (1999). Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: Effect of alcohol. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(2), 121–143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sawicki, P., & Markiewicz, L. (2016). You cannot be partially pregnant: A comparison of divisible and nondivisible outcomes in delay and probability discounting studies. The Psychological Record, 66(1), 1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shead, N. W., & Hodgins, D. C. (2009). Probability discounting of gains and losses: Implications for risk attitudes and impulsivity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92(1), 1–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sheridan, S. L., Pignone, M. P., & Lewis, C. L. (2003). A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(11), 884–892.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ward, J. E., Bruce, T. A., & Young, J. M. (2002). Is support among patients for colorectal cancer screening susceptible to ‘framing effect’? A GP-based study. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 13(3), 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., Colditz, G. A., & Emmons, K. (2006). Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. Journal of Health Communication, 11(2), 167–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weatherly, J. N., & Terrell, H. K. (2014). Magnitude effects in delay and probability discounting when monetary and medical treatment outcomes are discounted. The Psychological Record, 64(3), 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yamagishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(6), 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yi, R., & Bickel, W. K. (2005). Representation of odds in terms of frequencies reduces probability discounting. The Psychological Record, 55(4), 577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yi, R., Chase, W. D., & Bickel, W. K. (2007). Probability discounting among cigarette smokers and nonsmokers: Molecular analysis discerns group differences. Behavioural Pharmacology, 18(7), 633–639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations