title: Now for Me, Later for Us? Effects of Group Context on Temporal Discounting.
abstract: Delayed rewards are less valuable than immediate rewards. This well-established finding has focused almost entirely on individual outcomes. However, are delayed rewards similarly discounted if they are shared by a group? The current article reports on three experiments exploring the effect of group context on delay discounting. Results indicate that discount rates of individual and group rewards were highly correlated, but that respondents were more willing to wait (decreased discounting) for shared outcomes than for individual outcomes. An explanatory model is proposed suggesting that decreased discount rates in group contexts may be due to the way the effects of both delay and social discounting are combined. That is, in a group context, a person values both a future reward (discounted by delay) and a present reward to another person (discounted by the social distance between them). The results are explained by a combined discount function containing a delay factor and a factor representing the social distance between the decision maker and group members. Practical implications of the fact that shared consequences can increase individual self-control are also discussed.
authors: University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR, USA.
authors: Shawn R
authors: SR
authors: Charlton
authors: Richard
authors: R
authors: Yi
authors: Caitlin
authors: C
authors: Porter
authors: Anne E
authors: AE
authors: Carter
authors: Warren
authors: W
authors: Bickel
authors: Howard
authors: H
authors: Rachlin
keywords: delay of gratification; self-control; social cognition; social influences
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Oct;73(4):733-46
references: 9325591
references: Behav Pharmacol. 2006 Dec;17(8):651-67
references: 17110792
references: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003 May;11(2):139-45
references: 12755458
references: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000 Nov 1;60(3):259-66
references: 11053760
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Mar;3(1):100-4
references: 24214810
references: Judgm Decis Mak. 2011 Aug;6(6):552-564
references: 22582110
references: Behav Res Ther. 2007 Apr;45(4):729-35
references: 16890909
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2002 Apr;25(2):239-50; discussion 251-96
references: 12744145
references: Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):715-23
references: 9337589
references: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 Sep;90 Suppl 1:S85-91
references: 17101239
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591-621
references: 14744228
references: Psychol Sci. 2006 Apr;17(4):283-6
references: 16623683
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):233-44
references: 2037827
references: J Appl Behav Anal. 2003 Winter;36(4):449-58
references: 14768665
references: Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Feb 1;69(3):260-5
references: 20965498
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Mar;128(1):78-87
references: 10100392
references: Psychol Sci. 2008 Sep;19(9):904-11
references: 18947356
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):15-22
references: 16811561
references: J Neurosci. 2009 Jul 8;29(27):8839-46
references: 19587291
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984 May;46(5):1044-57
references: 6737205
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Mar;77(2):129-46
references: 11936247
references: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004 Nov;12(4):251-61
references: 15571442
references: Behav Processes. 2008 Mar;77(3):334-42
references: 17919848
references: Addiction. 2001 Jan;96(1):73-86
references: 11177521
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Sep;31(5):1121-33
references: 16248754
references: Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):403-21
references: 12885109