ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2026
A novel method to assess delay discounting indicates greater ambivalence for delayed rewards.
Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel method to assess delay discounting indicates greater ambivalence for delayed rewards.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inspired by Warren K. Bickel, who introduced numerous procedural and conceptual innovations to the study of delay discounting, the present study seeks to further establish the validity of a delay discounting task that is able to assess degree of preference when making a choice. We examine the construct of ambivalence, which may provide methodological and conceptual advancements in the study of delay discounting. In a sample of 105 participants, individuals used a 100-point scale to indicate not only preference between immediate and delayed rewards but also the degree of that preference. Using this approach, both the magnitude effect and the date/delay effect were replicated, further establishing the validity of the task. Following conversion of the degree of preference to an ambivalence score, we examined associations between rate of delay discounting and between-individual levels of ambivalence, finding that lower rates of delay discounting were associated with greater ambivalence. We also compared within-individual ambivalence when the immediate reward versus the delayed reward was preferred, finding greater ambivalence was observed when the delayed reward was preferred. We speculate that the construct of ambivalence may offer some new opportunities in the conceptual understanding of delay discounting and the application of this work to health-relevant behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.