Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting.

By Matthew W. Johnson, Warren K. Bickel. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2002

1,000 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4d718e6250807b9fa62281d0676b34d2302733e4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

Delay discounting: concepts and measures (2012, methodology): “There can be more pronounced differences for others such as the magnitude effect (Johnson & Bickel, 2002), which refers to the fact that large magnitudes are discounted at lesser rates than small magnitudes (Baker et al., 2003).”
A dynamic developmental theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) predominantly hyperactive/impulsive and combined subtypes. (2005, background): “…of the reinforcer and the time interval between response and reinforcer is commonly known as the “delay-ofreinforcement gradient,” or simply as the “delay gradient” (Catania et al. 1988; Sagvolden et al. 1998) and may be expressed as a hyperbolic decay function of time (Johnson & Bickel 2002).”
Impatience, Incentives and Obesity (2015, neutral): “However, at least in the domain of time preferences, several studies have demonstrated no di¤erence in responses between real and hypothetical decisions (Johnson and Bickel, 2002; Madden et al., 2003).”
A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. (2004, background): “Until a recent study by Johnson and Bickel (2002), however, no experiment directly compared the temporal discounting of real and hypothetical rewards using an experimental design in which the same individuals were studied in both real and hypothetical reward conditions.”
A review of delay-discounting research with humans: relations to drug use and gambling (2006, background): “For example, Johnson and Bickel (2002) compared hypothetical and real-reward measures in six participants, with delayed monetary amounts ranging from $10 to $250.”
A delay-discounting primer. (2010, methodology): “The first is a class of titrating procedures that use a participant’s prior choices to exclude from subsequent presentation any choice alternatives falling outside the range in which the participant’s indifference point might fall (e.g., Johnson & Bickel, 2002; Richards et al., 1999).”
Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: similarities and differences across commodity, sign, and magnitude. (2003, background): “In these studies, participants (whose history of drug use was not determined) actually received the outcome they preferred on one randomly selected trial ( Johnson & Bickel, 2002; Kirby, 1997; Kirby & Marakovic´, 1995, 1996).”
Good or Bad, We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice (2012, result): “…have shown that hypothetical financial intertemporal choice outcomes yield the same results as real outcomes (Bickel, Pitcock, Yi, & Angtuaco, 2009; Johnson & Bickel, 2002) and that hypothetical outcomes predict real-world outcomes of interest such as smoking, body mass index, infidelity, and…”
Temporal Discounting of Hypothetical Monetary Rewards by Adolescents, Adults, and Older Adults (2009, methodology): “Findings to date indicate that behavior patterns are not substantially affected by real versus hypothetical rewards (e.g., Johnson & Bickel, 2002).”
Age differences in future orientation and delay discounting. (2009, background): “Researchers find that discount functions are not significantly different for real as compared to hypothetical rewards, which underscores the relevance of the delay task to actual decision making (e.g., Johnson & Bickel, 2002; Lagorio & Madden, 2005; Madden, Begotka, Raiff, & Kastern, 2003).”