The relationship between nonsystematic delay discounting and low-quality survey responses in a sample of smokers: ROC curve analysis

Are the attention checks embedded in delay discounting tasks a valid marker for data quality?

To ensure good quality delay discounting (DD) data in research recruiting via crowdsourcing platforms, including attention checks within DD tasks have become common. These attention checks are typically identical in format to the task questions but have one sensical answer (e.g., "Would you prefer $0 now or $100 in a month?"). However, the validity of these attention checks as a marker for DD or overall survey data quality has not been directly examined. To address this gap, using data from two studies (total N = 700), the validity of these DD attention checks was tested by assessing performance on other non-DD attention checks and data quality measures both specific to DD and overall survey data (e.g., providing nonsystematic DD data, responding inconsistently in questionnaires). We also tested whether failing the attention checks was associated with degree of discounting or other participant characteristics to screen for potential bias. While failing the DD attention checks was associated with a greater likelihood of nonsystematic DD data, their discriminability was inadequate, and failure was sometimes associated with individual differences (suggesting that data exclusion might introduce bias). Failing the DD attention checks was also not associated with failing other attention checks or data quality indicators. Overall, the DD attention checks do not appear to be an adequate indicator of data quality on their own, for either the DD task or surveys overall. Strategies to enhance the validity of DD attention checks and data cleaning procedures are suggested, which should be evaluated in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Rate-dependent effects of narrative interventions in a longitudinal study of individuals who use alcohol

BACKGROUND

Delay discounting (DD), the decrease in reward valuation as a function of delay to receipt, is a key process undergirding alcohol use. Narrative interventions, including episodic future thinking (EFT), have decreased delay discounting and demand for alcohol. Rate dependence, the relationship between a baseline rate and change in that rate after an intervention, has been evidenced as a marker of efficacious substance use treatment, but whether narrative interventions have rate-dependent effects needs to be better understood. We investigated the effects of narrative interventions on delay discounting and hypothetical demand for alcohol in this longitudinal, online study.

METHODS

Individuals (n = 696) reporting high- or low-risk alcohol use were recruited for a longitudinal 3-week survey via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Delay discounting and alcohol demand breakpoint were assessed at baseline. Individuals returned at weeks 2 and 3 and were randomized into the EFT or scarcity narrative interventions and again completed the delay discounting tasks and alcohol breakpoint task. Oldham's correlation was used to explore the rate-dependent effects of narrative interventions. Study attrition as a function of delay discounting was assessed.

RESULTS

Episodic future thinking significantly decreased, while scarcity significantly increased delay discounting relative to baseline. No effects of EFT or scarcity on the alcohol demand breakpoint were observed. Significant rate-dependent effects were observed for both narrative intervention types. Higher delay discounting rates were associated with a greater likelihood of attrition from the study.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of a rate-dependent effect of EFT on delay discounting rates offers a more nuanced, mechanistic understanding of this novel therapeutic intervention and can allow more precise treatment targeting by demonstrating who is likely to receive the most benefit from it.