↓ Skip to main content

Hunger increases delay discounting of food and non-food rewards

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 1,169)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
159 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
87 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Hunger increases delay discounting of food and non-food rewards
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, September 2019
DOI 10.3758/s13423-019-01655-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordan Skrynka, Benjamin T. Vincent

Abstract

How do our valuation systems change to homeostatically correct undesirable psychological or physiological states, such as those caused by hunger? There is evidence that hunger increases discounting for food rewards, biasing choices towards smaller but sooner food reward over larger but later reward. However, it is not understood how hunger modulates delay discounting for non-food items. We outline and quantitatively evaluate six possible models of how our valuation systems modulate discounting of various commodities in the face of the undesirable state of being hungry. With a repeated-measures design, an experimental hunger manipulation, and quantitative modeling, we find strong evidence that hunger causes large increases in delay discounting for food, with an approximately 25% spillover effect to non-food commodities. The results provide evidence that in the face of hunger, our valuation systems increase discounting for commodities, which cannot achieve a desired state change as well as for those commodities that can. Given that strong delay discounting can cause negative outcomes in many non-food (consumer, investment, medical, or inter-personal) domains, the present findings suggest caution may be necessary when making decisions involving non-food outcomes while hungry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Researcher 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 35%
Neuroscience 11 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1366. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2024.
All research outputs
#9,638
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#1
of 1,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153
of 353,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them