Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42687678›Full record

ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2026

A novel method to assess delay discounting indicates greater ambivalence for delayed rewards.

Esther Kim, Rebecca Kurnellas, Sergej Grunevski, Julia Felton, Richard Yi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Esther KimCofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research and Treatment, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Rebecca KurnellasCofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research and Treatment, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Sergej GrunevskiDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA.
Julia FeltonDepartment of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Richard YiCofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research and Treatment, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1873-7874

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Delay DiscountingRewardAdolescentAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAmbivalencedelay discountingpreference

Identifiers

PMID42687678
PMCPMC13539278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.