» Articles » PMID: 36183669

Developmental Trajectories of Delay Discounting from Childhood to Young Adulthood: Longitudinal Associations and Test-retest Reliability

Overview
Journal Cogn Psychol
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Psychology
Date 2022 Oct 2
PMID 36183669
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Delay discounting (DD) indexes an individual's preference for smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards, and is considered a form of cognitive impulsivity. Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated that DD peaks in adolescence; longitudinal studies are needed to validate this putative developmental trend, and to determine whether DD assesses a temporary state, or reflects a more stable behavioral trait. In this study, 140 individuals aged 9-23 completed a delay discounting (DD) task and cognitive battery at baseline and every-two years thereafter, yielding five assessments over approximately 10 years. Models fit with the inverse effect of age best approximated the longitudinal trajectory of two DD measures, hyperbolic discounting (log[k]) and area under the indifference-point curve (AUC). Discounting of future rewards increased rapidly from childhood to adolescence and appeared to plateau in late adolescence for both models of DD. Participants with greater verbal intelligence and working memory displayed reduced DD across the duration of the study, suggesting a functional interrelationship between these domains and DD from early adolescence to adulthood. Furthermore, AUC demonstrated good to excellent reliability across assessment points that was superior to log(k), with both measures demonstrating acceptable stability once participants reached late adolescence. The developmental trajectories of DD we observed from childhood through young adulthood suggest that DD may index cognitive control more than reward sensitivity, and that despite modest developmental changes with maturation, AUC may be conceptualized as a trait variable related to cognitive control vs impulsivity.

Citing Articles

Is waiting for rewards good for you? No association between impulsive choice, psychopathology, and functional outcomes in a large cohort sample.

Bado P, Salum G, Rohde L, Gadelha A, Pan P, Miguel E JCPP Adv. 2024; 4(2):e12231.

PMID: 38827985 PMC: 11143955. DOI: 10.1002/jcv2.12231.


Longitudinal Associations Among Socioeconomic Status, Delay Discounting, and Substance Use in Adolescence.

Peviani K, Clinchard C, Bickel W, Casas B, Kim-Spoon J J Youth Adolesc. 2024; 53(12):2706-2716.

PMID: 38700827 PMC: 11534883. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-024-01989-6.


A systematic review and meta-analysis of test-retest reliability and stability of delay and probability discounting.

Gelino B, Schlitzer R, Reed D, Strickland J J Exp Anal Behav. 2024; 121(3):358-372.

PMID: 38499476 PMC: 11078611. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.910.


Delay discounting and family history of psychopathology in children ages 9-11.

Sloan M, Sanches M, Tanabe J, Gowin J Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):21977.

PMID: 38081908 PMC: 10713649. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-49148-4.

References
1.
Koo T, Li M . A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15(2):155-63. PMC: 4913118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. View

2.
Roberts B . Back to the Future: Personality and Assessment and Personality Development. J Res Pers. 2010; 43(2):137-145. PMC: 2711529. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015. View

3.
Racine A, Gou Y, Fong T, Marcantonio E, Schmitt E, Travison T . Correction for retest effects across repeated measures of cognitive functioning: a longitudinal cohort study of postoperative delirium. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):69. PMC: 6029140. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0530-x. View

4.
Burns P, Atance C, OConnor A, McCormack T . The effects of cueing episodic future thinking on delay discounting in children, adolescents, and adults. Cognition. 2021; 218:104934. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104934. View

5.
Peters J, Buchel C . The neural mechanisms of inter-temporal decision-making: understanding variability. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 15(5):227-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.002. View