Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This analysis contained one outlier. The effect was significant at p = .029 when we excluded the outlier from the analysis.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsources convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. The Psychological Record, 52(4), 479–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Medical Decision-Making, 30(6), 672–684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1996). The psychology of good judgment. Medical Decision-Making, 16(3), 273–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 129–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine, 73(5), 538–540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hurvich, C. M., & Tsai, C. L. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika, 76(2), 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(3), 264–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyonka, E. G., & Schutte, N. S. (2018). Probability discounting and gambling: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 113(12), 2173–2181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H. (2006). Notes on discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(3), 425–435.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(2), 233–244.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, V. F. (1991). Class inclusion, the conjunction fallacy, and other cognitive illusions. Developmental Review, 11(4), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, R., & Bickel, W. K. (2005). Representation of odds in terms of frequencies reduces probability discounting. The Psychological Record, 55(4), 577–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand

    Geraldine Smieszhala, Anne C. Macaskill & Maree J. Hunt

Authors
  1. Geraldine Smieszhala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne C. Macaskill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maree J. Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geraldine Smieszhala.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smieszhala, G., Macaskill, A.C. & Hunt, M.J. The Effect of Numeric Format on Probability Discounting Rates of Medical and Monetary Outcomes. Psychol Rec 70, 147–162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00358-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00358-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation