Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41347026›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2025

Value preference in forensic population: a systematic literature review of delay discounting among those who have committed an offence.

Ivan Sebalo, Darya Darashkevich, Stela Kostelníková, Johana Voldřichová

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ivan SebaloSchool of Psychology, University of New York in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Darya DarashkevichSchool of Psychology, University of New York in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Stela KostelníkováSchool of Psychology, University of New York in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Johana VoldřichováSchool of Psychology, University of New York in Prague, Prague, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Delayed rewards discounting describes the tendency to choose a smaller immediate rewards instead of a larger delayed rewards. Considering the central role of impulsivity in models accounting for criminal conduct in general and violent behavior, the relationship between delayed rewards discounting and crime is likely to be present. Thereby extending the reported association with the addictive behavior. However, it is unclear whether it should be treated as a risk or an etiological factor. Consequently, the current literature review aims to summarize the existing empirical research focused on this aspect of impulsive decision-making among those who have offended. Methods: The review was performed in accordance with the 2021 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search of the Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO databases was conducted in February 2025. Results: The initial search yielded 1,251 articles. After exclusion of 250 duplicates, 1,001 titles were screened for relevance, leading to 556 abstracts. After reading them, 162 full-text articles were inspected, leaving 25 articles included in the review. Conclusion: This review demonstrates that although delayed rewards discounting is associated with general criminal conduct, the association with violence specifically is tenuous. Furthermore, several studies point out that influencing serotonergic functioning, behavioral modeling, or future representations have the potential to influence it. However, further detailed research is needed.

Indexed as

decision-makingdelayed rewards discountingforensicimpulsivityoffendersprisonersvalue preference

Identifiers

PMID41347026
PMCPMC12673565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.