PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

George Loewenstein

Publications and source records attributed to George Loewenstein.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Mild opioid deprivation increases the degree that opioid-dependent outpatients discount delayed heroin and money.

RATIONALE: A growing literature suggests that excessive temporal discounting of delayed rewards may be a contributing factor in the etiology of substance abuse problems. Little is known, however, about how drug deprivation may affect temporal discounting of delayed rewards by drug-dependent individuals. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which opioid deprivation affects how opioid-dependent individuals discount small, medium and large quantities of delayed heroin and money. METHODS: Thirteen opioid-dependent individuals maintained on buprenorphine completed a hypothetical choice task in which they choose between a constant delayed reward amount and an immediate reward amount that was adjusted until they expressed indifference between both outcomes. The task was completed for three values of heroin and money rewards during eight sessions under conditions of opioid deprivation (four sessions) and satiation (four sessions). RESULTS: Across conditions, hyperbolic functions provided a good fit for the discounting data. Degree of discounting was significantly higher when subjects were opioid deprived. Consistent with previous findings, degree of discounting was higher for heroin than money and inversely related to the magnitude of the reward. CONCLUSION: Opioid deprivation increased the degree to which dependent individuals discounted delayed heroin and money. Understanding the conditions that affect how drug-dependent individuals discount delayed rewards might help us understand the myopic choices made by such individuals and help improve treatment outcomes.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Why good accountants do bad audits.

On July 30, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act addressing corporate accountability. A response to recent financial scandals, the law tightened federal controls over the accounting industry and imposed tough new criminal penalties for fraud. The president proclaimed, "The era of low standards and false profits is over." If only it were that easy. The authors don't think corruption is the main cause of bad audits. Rather, they claim, the problem is unconscious bias. Without knowing it, we all tend to discount facts that contradict the conclusions we want to reach, and we uncritically embrace evidence that supports our positions. Accountants might seem immune to such distortions because they work with seemingly hard numbers and clear-cut standards. But the corporate-auditing arena is particularly fertile ground for self-serving biases. Because of the often subjective nature of accounting and the close relationships between accounting firms and their corporate clients, even the most honest and meticulous of auditors can unintentionally massage the numbers in ways that mask a company's true financial status, thereby misleading investors, regulators, and even management. Solving this problem will require far more aggressive action than the U.S. government has taken thus far. What's needed are practices and regulations that recognize the existence of bias and moderate its effects. True auditor independence will entail fundamental changes to the way the accounting industry operates, including full divestiture of consulting and tax services, rotation of auditing firms, and fixed-term contracts that prohibit client companies from firing their auditors. Less tangibly, auditors must come to appreciate the profound impact of self-serving biases on their judgment.

Accounting↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: a web study.

Three experiments on the World Wide Web asked subjects to rate the severity of common health disorders such as acne or arthritis. People who had a disorder ("Haves") tended to rate it as less severe than people who did not have it ("Not-haves"). Two explanations of this Have versus Not-have discrepancy were rejected. By one account, people change their reference point when they rate a disorder that they have. More precise reference points would, on this account, reduce the discrepancy, but, if anything, the discrepancy was larger. By another account, people who do not have the disorder focus on attributes that are most affected by it, and the discrepancy should decrease when people make ratings on several attributes. Again, if anything, the discrepancy increased when ratings were on separate attributes (combined by a weighted average). The discrepancy varied in size and direction across disorders. Subjects also thought that they would be less affected than others.

Adaptation, Psychological↗