Harnessing opportunity cost salience for effortless self-control

Traditional psychological models characterize self-control as an inherently effortful process, relying on deliberate and cognitively demanding strategies to resist impulsive temptations. Drawing on behavioral economics literature, we investigate opportunity cost salience as an effective intervention to enhance self-control with minimal effort. Specifically, we demonstrate that opportunity cost salience facilitates the intuitive detection of self-control conflicts and motivates the pursuit of valued long-term goals by altering the subjective value of present and future outcomes in self-control dilemmas. Moreover, we discuss future research directions and policy implications, exploring how this powerful yet simple economic concept can bolster self-control across diverse personality traits and in situations where self-control is critically needed.

Delay discounting of rewards and losses, alcohol use, and the influence of socioeconomic factors: A cross-sectional online study in frequent drinkers

BACKGROUND

Delay discounting describes the devaluation of future outcomes over time and is a popular behavioral construct in addiction research. Prior studies show modest yet consistent associations between problematic alcohol use and delayed reward discounting (DRD). However, the potential confounding influence of socioeconomic status (SES, e.g., income and education) is rarely addressed. In this study, we aimed to investigate the robustness of DRD as a predictor of alcohol use after controlling for socioeconomic and demographic variables. Additionally, we aimed to test the association between delayed loss discounting (DLD) and alcohol use in a sufficiently large sample.

METHODS

We collected data from 341 moderate-to-heavy-drinking participants (27.92 ± 21.12 g alcohol/day, 43.48 ± 11.90 years old, 49.9% female, UK residents) in a cross-sectional online study. DRD and DLD were measured using an intertemporal choice task. Questionnaires encompassed alcohol use (AUDIT, weekly alcohol consumption), education and income, subjective measures of past and present socioeconomic status, and impulsivity.

RESULTS

DRD, but not DLD, was significantly associated with AUDIT scores (r = 0.15) and weekly alcohol consumption (r = 0.12). DRD remained a significant yet weak predictor of AUDIT scores when controlling for education and income, but not when controlling for education and age.

CONCLUSIONS

We replicated a small but robust association between alcohol use and DRD, but not DLD. This association appeared to be confounded by education and age, but not by income. We conclude that socioeconomic and demographic variables should systematically be accounted for in future studies investigating DRD and alcohol use.

The hidden-zero effect in male individuals with opioid use disorder

Background: Explicitly expressing the hidden opportunity cost in intertemporal choice significantly reduces healthy participants' delay discounting - a phenomenon named the "hidden-zero effect," which is undetermined in individuals with substance use disorder (SUD).Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether the hidden-zero effect occurs among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and the degree to which this effect differs between the OUD group and healthy controls.Methods: In two different experiments, Exp#1) 29 male individuals with OUD (13.5 ± 6.0 months abstinence) and 29 male controls performed an intertemporal choice task (ICT); Exp#2) 28 male individuals with OUD (17.5 ± 5.6 months abstinence) and 27 male controls performed a delay discounting task (DDT). The OUD group was recruited from a mandatory treatment, and controls from WeChat. There were two choice conditions in both two tasks: the hidden-zero (H0) condition (standard), and the explicit-zero (E0) condition (explicitly expressing opportunity cost).Results: Compared with the H0 condition, all participants' delay discounting was significantly decreased in the E0 condition (ps < .05, ηp2 = 0.254, 0.110). There was no significant difference in the changed degree between these two groups in either experiment (ps > .05). The delay discounting of the OUD group was significantly higher than that of controls only in Experiment 2 (p < .001, ηp2 = 0.376).Conclusion: This study extended the population in which the hidden-zero effect occurs to individuals with OUD. With respect to delay discounting, the hidden-zero effect benefit did not differ in OUD and control participants.