Delay Discounting as an Index of Sustainable Behavior: Devaluation of Future Air Quality and Implications for Public Health

No effects of acute stress on monetary delay discounting: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Many everyday decisions, including those concerning our health, finances and the environment, involve choosing between a smaller but imminent reward (e.g., €20 now) and a later but larger reward (e.g., €40 in a month). The extent to which an individual prefers smaller imminent rewards over larger delayed rewards can be measured using delay discounting tasks. Acute stress induces a cascade of biological and psychological responses with potential consequences for how individuals think about the future, process rewards, and make decisions, all of which can impact delay discounting. Several studies have shown that individuals focus more on imminent rewards under stress. These findings have been used to explain why individuals make detrimental choices under acute stress. Yet, the evidence linking acute stress to delay discounting is equivocal. To address this uncertainty, we conducted a meta-analysis of 11 studies (14 effects) to systematically quantify the effects of acute stress on monetary delay discounting. Overall, we find no effect of acute stress on delay discounting, compared to control conditions (SMD = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.20], p = 0.32). We also find that neither the gender/sex of the participants, the type of stressor (e.g., physical vs. psychosocial) nor whether monetary decisions were hypothetical or incentivized (i.e. monetary decisions were actually paid out) moderated the impact of acute stress on monetary delay discounting. We argue that establishing the effects of acute stress on the separate processes involved in delay discounting, such as reward valuation and prospection, will help to resolve the inconsistencies in the field.

View of Times and Temporal Focus under the Pace of Life on the Impact of Intertemporal Decision Making

Previous studies have explored the effects of time poverty and money worship on intertemporal decision making based on a resource scarcity perspective. However, how the pace of life affects intertemporal decision making has not been examined. Furthermore, manipulating time perceptions can influence intertemporal decision-making preferences. Based on the perspective of time perception differences, it remains unknown how views of time or temporal focus affect the intertemporal decision making of individuals with different pace of life. To address these issues, study 1 adopted a correlational study to initially explore the relationship between the pace of life and intertemporal decision making. Studies 2 and 3 used manipulation experiments to examine the effects of the pace of life and view of time and temporal focus and pace of life on intertemporal decision making. The results suggest that the faster the life pace, the more recent rewards are preferred. Views of time and temporal focus manipulations can influence the intertemporal decision making of faster-paced individuals, making them prefer smaller-sooner (SS) payoffs under a linear view of time or future temporal focus and larger-later (LL) payoffs under a circular view of time or past temporal focus. However, the manipulation does not affect the intertemporal decision of slower-paced individuals. Our study examined the effect of the pace of life on intertemporal decision making based on a resource scarcity perspective, and found boundary conditions for the influence of the view of time and temporal focus on intertemporal decision making based on the perspective of differences in people's perception of time.

Promoting Healthy Decision-Making via Natural Environment Exposure: Initial Evidence and Future Directions

Research within psychology and other disciplines has shown that exposure to natural environments holds extensive physiological and psychological benefits. Adding to the health and cognitive benefits of natural environments, evidence suggests that exposure to nature also promotes healthy human decision-making. Unhealthy decision-making (e.g., smoking, non-medical prescription opioid misuse) and disorders associated with lack of impulse control [e.g., tobacco use, opioid use disorder (OUD)], contribute to millions of preventable deaths annually (i.e., 6 million people die each year of tobacco-related illness worldwide, deaths from opioids from 2002 to 2017 have more than quadrupled in the United States alone). Impulsive and unhealthy decision-making also contributes to many pressing environmental issues such as climate change. We recently demonstrated a causal link between visual exposure to nature (e.g., forests) and improved self-control (i.e., decreased impulsivity) in a laboratory setting, as well as the extent to which nearby nature and green space exposure improves self-control and health decisions in daily life outside of the experimental laboratory. Determining the benefits of nearby nature for self-controlled decision-making holds theoretical and applied implications for the design of our surrounding environments. In this article, we synergize the overarching results of recent research endeavors in three domains including the effects of nature exposure on (1) general health-related decision-making, (2) health and decision-making relevant for application to addiction related processes (e.g., OUD), and (3) environmentally relevant decision-making. We also discuss key future directions and conclusions.

Visual Exposure to Natural Environments Decreases Delay Discounting of Improved Air Quality

Poor air quality contributes to nearly 7 million premature deaths annually and remains a major public health concern. In order to directly address the future of air quality and current emissions, some economists and policy makers have stressed adopting a “zero discount rate” (or lowest possible) to promote clean air quality now and in the future. A low discount rate is also associated with individual health behaviors (e.g., exercise and lower rate of substance abuse). But what influences the psychology of decision-making that is relevant to the discount rate of air quality and public health outcomes, and individual health? The present experiments evaluated differences in such decision-making (i.e., delay-discounting) in the context of improved air quality with visual exposure to natural vs. built environments. Results showed that individuals exposed to natural scenes discounted improved air quality less (i.e., made more future-oriented decisions, Experiment 1), and this may be related to expanded space perception (Experiment 2). These results are the first to suggest that delay discounting of air quality (or any environmental outcome), similar to money, is malleable, and can be influenced by exposure to natural relative to built environments. These findings have implications for influencing long-term, individual health, and environmentally relevant decision-making and improving individual and public health related outcomes such as air quality.