Risk preferences impose a hidden distortion on measures of choice impulsivity

Silvia Lopez-Guzman, Anna B Konova, Kenway Louie, Paul W Glimcher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Measuring temporal discounting through the use of intertemporal choice tasks is now the gold standard method for quantifying human choice impulsivity (impatience) in neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics, public health and computational psychiatry. A recent area of growing interest is individual differences in discounting levels, as these may predispose to (or protect from) mental health disorders, addictive behaviors, and other diseases. At the same time, more and more studies have been dedicated to the quantification of individual attitudes towards risk, which have been measured in many clinical and non-clinical populations using closely related techniques. Economists have pointed to interactions between measurements of time preferences and risk preferences that may distort estimations of the discount rate. However, although becoming standard practice in economics, discount rates and risk preferences are rarely measured simultaneously in the same subjects in other fields, and the magnitude of the imposed distortion is unknown in the assessment of individual differences. Here, we show that standard models of temporal discounting -such as a hyperbolic discounting model widely present in the literature which fails to account for risk attitudes in the estimation of discount rates- result in a large and systematic pattern of bias in estimated discounting parameters. This can lead to the spurious attribution of differences in impulsivity between individuals when in fact differences in risk attitudes account for observed behavioral differences. We advance a model which, when applied to standard choice tasks typically used in psychology and neuroscience, provides both a better fit to the data and successfully de-correlates risk and impulsivity parameters. This results in measures that are more accurate and thus of greater utility to the many fields interested in individual differences in impulsivity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e0191357
JournalPLoS One
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Impulsive Behavior
Individuality
neurophysiology
psychology
Neurosciences
Behavioral Economics
Psychology
Addictive Behavior
economics
economists
mental health
Economics
behavior disorders
Public health
Mental Disorders
gold
Psychiatry
public health
Mental Health
Public Health

Cite this

Lopez-Guzman, Silvia ; Konova, Anna B ; Louie, Kenway ; Glimcher, Paul W. / Risk preferences impose a hidden distortion on measures of choice impulsivity. In: PLoS One. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 1. pp. e0191357.
@article{f9d3bc8d95fb497889779cf8bcb2b4c8,
title = "Risk preferences impose a hidden distortion on measures of choice impulsivity",
abstract = "Measuring temporal discounting through the use of intertemporal choice tasks is now the gold standard method for quantifying human choice impulsivity (impatience) in neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics, public health and computational psychiatry. A recent area of growing interest is individual differences in discounting levels, as these may predispose to (or protect from) mental health disorders, addictive behaviors, and other diseases. At the same time, more and more studies have been dedicated to the quantification of individual attitudes towards risk, which have been measured in many clinical and non-clinical populations using closely related techniques. Economists have pointed to interactions between measurements of time preferences and risk preferences that may distort estimations of the discount rate. However, although becoming standard practice in economics, discount rates and risk preferences are rarely measured simultaneously in the same subjects in other fields, and the magnitude of the imposed distortion is unknown in the assessment of individual differences. Here, we show that standard models of temporal discounting -such as a hyperbolic discounting model widely present in the literature which fails to account for risk attitudes in the estimation of discount rates- result in a large and systematic pattern of bias in estimated discounting parameters. This can lead to the spurious attribution of differences in impulsivity between individuals when in fact differences in risk attitudes account for observed behavioral differences. We advance a model which, when applied to standard choice tasks typically used in psychology and neuroscience, provides both a better fit to the data and successfully de-correlates risk and impulsivity parameters. This results in measures that are more accurate and thus of greater utility to the many fields interested in individual differences in impulsivity.",
author = "Silvia Lopez-Guzman and Konova, {Anna B} and Kenway Louie and Glimcher, {Paul W}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0191357",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "e0191357",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "1",

}

Risk preferences impose a hidden distortion on measures of choice impulsivity. / Lopez-Guzman, Silvia; Konova, Anna B; Louie, Kenway; Glimcher, Paul W.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2018, p. e0191357.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk preferences impose a hidden distortion on measures of choice impulsivity

AU - Lopez-Guzman, Silvia

AU - Konova, Anna B

AU - Louie, Kenway

AU - Glimcher, Paul W

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Measuring temporal discounting through the use of intertemporal choice tasks is now the gold standard method for quantifying human choice impulsivity (impatience) in neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics, public health and computational psychiatry. A recent area of growing interest is individual differences in discounting levels, as these may predispose to (or protect from) mental health disorders, addictive behaviors, and other diseases. At the same time, more and more studies have been dedicated to the quantification of individual attitudes towards risk, which have been measured in many clinical and non-clinical populations using closely related techniques. Economists have pointed to interactions between measurements of time preferences and risk preferences that may distort estimations of the discount rate. However, although becoming standard practice in economics, discount rates and risk preferences are rarely measured simultaneously in the same subjects in other fields, and the magnitude of the imposed distortion is unknown in the assessment of individual differences. Here, we show that standard models of temporal discounting -such as a hyperbolic discounting model widely present in the literature which fails to account for risk attitudes in the estimation of discount rates- result in a large and systematic pattern of bias in estimated discounting parameters. This can lead to the spurious attribution of differences in impulsivity between individuals when in fact differences in risk attitudes account for observed behavioral differences. We advance a model which, when applied to standard choice tasks typically used in psychology and neuroscience, provides both a better fit to the data and successfully de-correlates risk and impulsivity parameters. This results in measures that are more accurate and thus of greater utility to the many fields interested in individual differences in impulsivity.

AB - Measuring temporal discounting through the use of intertemporal choice tasks is now the gold standard method for quantifying human choice impulsivity (impatience) in neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics, public health and computational psychiatry. A recent area of growing interest is individual differences in discounting levels, as these may predispose to (or protect from) mental health disorders, addictive behaviors, and other diseases. At the same time, more and more studies have been dedicated to the quantification of individual attitudes towards risk, which have been measured in many clinical and non-clinical populations using closely related techniques. Economists have pointed to interactions between measurements of time preferences and risk preferences that may distort estimations of the discount rate. However, although becoming standard practice in economics, discount rates and risk preferences are rarely measured simultaneously in the same subjects in other fields, and the magnitude of the imposed distortion is unknown in the assessment of individual differences. Here, we show that standard models of temporal discounting -such as a hyperbolic discounting model widely present in the literature which fails to account for risk attitudes in the estimation of discount rates- result in a large and systematic pattern of bias in estimated discounting parameters. This can lead to the spurious attribution of differences in impulsivity between individuals when in fact differences in risk attitudes account for observed behavioral differences. We advance a model which, when applied to standard choice tasks typically used in psychology and neuroscience, provides both a better fit to the data and successfully de-correlates risk and impulsivity parameters. This results in measures that are more accurate and thus of greater utility to the many fields interested in individual differences in impulsivity.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0191357

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0191357

M3 - Article

C2 - 29373590

VL - 13

SP - e0191357

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 1

ER -