IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dread and the Disvalue of Future Pain

Author

Listed:
  • Giles W Story
  • Ivaylo Vlaev
  • Ben Seymour
  • Joel S Winston
  • Ara Darzi
  • Raymond J Dolan

Abstract

Standard theories of decision-making involving delayed outcomes predict that people should defer a punishment, whilst advancing a reward. In some cases, such as pain, people seem to prefer to expedite punishment, implying that its anticipation carries a cost, often conceptualized as ‘dread’. Despite empirical support for the existence of dread, whether and how it depends on prospective delay is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear whether dread represents a stable component of value, or is modulated by biases such as framing effects. Here, we examine choices made between different numbers of painful shocks to be delivered faithfully at different time points up to 15 minutes in the future, as well as choices between hypothetical painful dental appointments at time points of up to approximately eight months in the future, to test alternative models for how future pain is disvalued. We show that future pain initially becomes increasingly aversive with increasing delay, but does so at a decreasing rate. This is consistent with a value model in which moment-by-moment dread increases up to the time of expected pain, such that dread becomes equivalent to the discounted expectation of pain. For a minority of individuals pain has maximum negative value at intermediate delay, suggesting that the dread function may itself be prospectively discounted in time. Framing an outcome as relief reduces the overall preference to expedite pain, which can be parameterized by reducing the rate of the dread-discounting function. Our data support an account of disvaluation for primary punishments such as pain, which differs fundamentally from existing models applied to financial punishments, in which dread exerts a powerful but time-dependent influence over choice.Author Summary: People often prefer to ‘get pain out of the way’, treating pain in the future as more significant than pain now. One explanation, termed ‘dread’, is that anticipating pain is unpleasant or disadvantageous, rather like pain itself. Human brain imaging studies support the existence of dread, though it is unknown whether and how dread depends on the timing of future pain. We address this question by offering people decisions between moderately painful stimuli, and separately between imagined painful dental appointments occurring at different time points in the future, and use their choices to estimate dread. We show that future pain initially becomes more unpleasant when it is delayed, but as pain is moved further into the future, the effect of delay decreases. This is consistent with dread increasing as anticipated pain draws nearer, which is then combined with a general (and opposing) tendency to down-weight the significance of future events. We also show that dread can be attenuated by describing pain in terms of relief from an imagined even more severe pain. These observations reveal important principles about how people estimate the value of anticipated pain – relevant to a diverse range of human emotion and behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Giles W Story & Ivaylo Vlaev & Ben Seymour & Joel S Winston & Ara Darzi & Raymond J Dolan, 2013. "Dread and the Disvalue of Future Pain," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003335
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003335
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003335&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003335?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gretchen B. Chapman & Arthur S. Elstein, 1995. "Valuing the Future," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(4), pages 373-386, October.
    2. Loewenstein, George, 1987. "Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 666-684, September.
    3. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    4. Marjon M. Van Der Pol & John A. Cairns, 2000. "Negative and zero time preference for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 171-175, March.
    5. Lowenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 1991. "Negative Time Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 347-352, May.
    6. Takahashi, Taiki & Oono, Hidemi & Radford, Mark H.B., 2008. "Psychophysics of time perception and intertemporal choice models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 387(8), pages 2066-2074.
    7. Loewenstein, George & Thaler, Richard H, 1989. "Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 181-193, Fall.
    8. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    9. Uri Benzion & Amnon Rapoport & Joseph Yagil, 1989. "Discount Rates Inferred from Decisions: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 270-284, March.
    10. Paul A. Samuelson, 1937. "A Note on Measurement of Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 155-161.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raphaël Le Bouc & Mathias Pessiglione, 2022. "A neuro-computational account of procrastination behavior," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Giles W Story & Ivo Vlaev & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Ara Darzi & Raymond J Dolan, 2015. "Anticipation and Choice Heuristics in the Dynamic Consumption of Pain Relief," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-32, March.
    3. Bhatia, Sudeep & Crawford, Megan M & McDonald, Rebecca Louise & Moreno, Miguel A. & Read, Daniel, 2021. "Inconsistent Planning and the Allocation of Tasks Over Time," OSF Preprints b4mg7, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffery L. Guyse & Jay Simon, 2011. "Consistency Among Elicitation Techniques for Intertemporal Choice: A Within-Subjects Investigation of the Anomalies," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 233-246, September.
    2. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Decision-making and Fuzzy Temporal Logic," Papers 1901.01970, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2019.
    3. Epper, Thomas, 2015. "Income Expectations, Limited Liquidity, and Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice," Economics Working Paper Series 1519, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    4. Cruz Rambaud, Salvador & Parra Oller, Isabel María & Valls Martínez, María del Carmen, 2018. "The amount-based deformation of the q-exponential discount function: A joint analysis of delay and magnitude effects," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 508(C), pages 788-796.
    5. Giles W Story & Ivo Vlaev & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Ara Darzi & Raymond J Dolan, 2015. "Anticipation and Choice Heuristics in the Dynamic Consumption of Pain Relief," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-32, March.
    6. Musau, Andrew, 2009. "Modeling Alternatives to Exponential Discounting," MPRA Paper 16416, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Teck H. Ho & Noah Lim & Colin Camerer, 2005. "Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000476, UCLA Department of Economics.
    8. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2007. "Choice Over Time," IZA Discussion Papers 2993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Venkataraghavan Krishnaswamy & Aseem Pahuja & R. P. Sundarraj, 2016. "Integrating Time-Preferences into E-Negotiation Systems: A Model, Elicitation Approach and Experimental Implications," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1137-1167, November.
    10. Marjon van der Pol & John Cairns, 2011. "Descriptive validity of alternative intertemporal models for health outcomes: an axiomatic test," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(7), pages 770-782, July.
    11. Jeffery L. Guyse & L. Robin Keller & Candice H. Huynh, 2020. "Valuing Sequences of Lives Lost or Saved Over Time: Preference for Uniform Sequences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 24-38, March.
    12. Venkataraghavan Krishnaswamy & R. P. Sundarraj, 2019. "Impatience Characteristics in Cloud-Computing-Services Procurement: Effects of Delay Horizon and Situational Involvement," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 961-990, October.
    13. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Cédric Gutierrez & Emmanuel Kemel, 2018. "Temporal discounting of gains and losses of time: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 1-28, August.
    14. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    15. Faralla, Valeria & Novarese, Marco & Ardizzone, Antonella, 2017. "Framing Effects in Intertemporal Choice: A Nudge Experiment," MPRA Paper 82086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Read, Daniel & Roelofsma, Peter H. M. P., 2003. "Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 140-153, July.
    17. Valeria Faralla & Francesca Benuzzi & Fausta Lui & Patrizia Baraldi & Paolo Nichelli & Nicola Dimitri, 2010. "Gains and Losses: A Common Neural Network for Economic Behaviour," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 033, University of Siena.
    18. Lazaro, Angelina & Barberan, Ramon & Rubio, Encarnacion, 2002. "The discounted utility model and social preferences:: Some alternative formulations to conventional discounting," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 317-337, June.
    19. Takeo Hori & Koichi Futagami, 2019. "A Non‐unitary Discount Rate Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 86(341), pages 139-165, January.
    20. Brown, Jeffrey R. & Ivković, Zoran & Weisbenner, Scott, 2015. "Empirical determinants of intertemporal choice," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 473-486.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.