Cited by 169Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Parabolic discounting of monetary rewards by physical effort

Open access
Hartmann, Matthias N., Hager, Oliver M., Tobler, Philippe N., Kaiser, Stefan·2013·Behavioural Processes

Abstract

When humans and other animals make decisions in their natural environments prospective rewards have to be weighed against costs. It is well established that increasing costs lead to devaluation or discounting of reward. While our knowledge about discount functions for time and probability costs is quite advanced, little is known about how physical effort discounts reward. In the present study we compared three different models in a binary choice task in which human participants had to squeeze a handgrip to earn monetary rewards: a linear, a hyperbolic, and a parabolic model. On the group as well as the individual level, the concave parabolic model explained most variance of the choice data, thus contrasting with the typical hyperbolic discounting of reward value by delay. Research on effort discounting is not only important to basic science but also holds the potential to quantify aberrant motivational states in neuropsychiatric disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.09.014

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A parabolic function best accounts for participants' choice behaviour in the physical effort task.

    “Our finding that a parabolic function best accounts for participants’ choice behaviour in the physical effort task is in keeping with previous observations [33].”
  • Perceived physical effort in constant-force tasks with a hand dynamometer increases parabolically as a function of the target force.

    “In particular, perceived physical effort in constant-force tasks with a hand dynamometer has been shown to increase parabolically as a function of the target force (Stevens’ power law [33, 80]).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartmann, M. N., Hager, O. M., Tobler, P. N., & Kaiser, S.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Venue
Behavioural Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
100
Pages
192-196
ISSN
0376-6357 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031406936
Cited by
169
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioural Processes (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (PP00P1_128574, CRSII3_141965)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
effort discounting, reward discounting, hyperbolic discounting, monetary rewards, handgrip force, binary choice task, delay discounting, probability discounting, decision-making, neuropsychiatric disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Physical Exertion, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Prospective Studies, Reward, Hand Strength

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review