Search

When observing human behavior, one of the key factors determining choice is effort. It is often assumed that people prefer an easier course of action when the alternative yields the same benefits. However, recent research demonstrates that this is not always the case: effort is not always costly and can also add value. A promising avenue to study effort-based choice is to utilize formal decision models that enable quantitative modeling. In this paper, we aim to present an overview of the current approaches to modeling effort-based choice and discuss some considerations that stem from theoretical and practical issues (present and previous) in studies on the role of effort, focusing on the connections and discrepancies between formal models and the findings from the body of empirical research. Considering that effort can, in some circumstances, act as a cost and as a benefit, reconciling these discrepancies is a practical and theoretical challenge that can ultimately lead to better predictions and increased model validity. Our review identifies and discusses these discrepancies providing direction for future empirical research. • A considerable body of research considers effort as a decision cost. • The emerging view highlights that exerting effort can also add value. • Models of effort-based choice should account for theory and empirical evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] In a binary choice effort discounting task human participants chose between different pairings of monetary reward and physical effort exerted on a handgrip. [•] A new parabolic discount model is introduced and compared to a linear and hyperbolic model. [•] The parabolic model accounted for the most variance in choice data on the group and the individual level. [•] We see clear clinical applications for our effort discounting task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loss aversion entails that people attribute greater weight to losses than to equivalent gains. In terms of discounting, it is reflected in a higher discounting rate for gains than for losses. Research on delay discounting indicates that such gain-loss asymmetry may depend on the amount of the outcome being considered. Consequently, here we address the question of how gains and losses are discounted in delay or effort conditions (physical or cognitive) across four outcome amounts. Our results replicate previous findings for intertemporal choices by showing that losses are discounted more slowly than gains, but only for smaller amounts—with no evidence of an asymmetrical evaluation for larger amounts. In physical effort discounting, we found an inverse asymmetry for the smallest amount tested (gains are discounted less steeply than losses). However, this effect was absent for larger amounts. We found no evidence to support a gain-loss asymmetry in the evaluation of gains or losses in cognitive effort. Overall, our findings indicate that loss aversion may not be as pervasive as previously expected, at least when decisions are effort-based. • Gain-loss asymmetry was present in intertemporal choices, but only for smaller amounts. • Reversed loss-aversion occurred for the smallest amount studied for physical effort discounting. • Insufficient evidence of gain-loss asymmetry was found in cognitive effort discounting. • The magnitude effect was present in gains and losses, in physical and cognitive effort discounting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Effects of effort training were assessed with an impulsive choice task that controls for time to food across high- and low-effort alternatives. • The finding that high-effort training, relative to low-effort training, reduces effort-based impulsive choice in the short-term was replicated. • The difference in effort-based impulsive choice across groups did not maintain after the first five sessions of the task. • Possible explanations for the lack of lasting effect and the observed effortful, large-reward choice ceiling effect are discussed. Because impulsive decision-making is correlated with many maladaptive tendencies, researchers have increasingly studied methods for reducing impulsive choice. These efforts have primarily focused on increasing choices of larger, more-delayed rewards. A second type of impulsive choice is selecting a smaller, less-effortful reward over a larger, more-effortful one. Little nonhuman research has examined experimental methods for reducing effort-based impulsive choice. Within the realm of delay-based impulsive choice, extended exposure to reinforcer delays has proven effective in reducing impulsive choices in rats. The current study took a similar tack by evaluating if reductions in effort-based impulsive choice could be achieved by providing rats with extended exposure to high-effort training, that is, reinforcement contingencies requiring a large number of responses. Male rats were randomly assigned to either a high-effort training (fixed-ratio 50) or low-effort training (fixed-ratio 1) group. Following training, both groups completed a test of effort-based impulsive choice. High-effort training produced a temporary reduction in effort-based impulsive choice. In the same test phase, groups also differed in response run durations (shorter following high-effort training), with larger differences in the initial sessions, which may have contributed to the short-term effect of high-effort training in effort-based impulsive choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Factors associated with obtaining a reward, such as a temporal delay in receiving the reward, can influence the subjective value of the reward. Cognitive as well as physical response effort is also known to influence choice behaviors. The present study used hypothetical situations to assess whether response effort affects the subjective value of rewards. The results demonstrated that increasing response effort increases the amount of money that participants are willing to forgo to avoid engaging in work. An exponential as well as hyperbolic function provided a good fit for such discounting. The findings suggest that response effort discounts the subjective value of a reward as a function of its amount. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]