Impulsivity and rapid discounting of delayed hypothetical rewards in cocaine-dependent individuals.

Coffey, Scott F.; Gudleski, Gregory D.; Saladin, Michael E.; Brady, Kathleen T.

doi:10.1037/1064-1297.11.1.18

Cited by 532 publications

(443 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

393

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In studies using hypothetical rewards, Odum, Madden, Badger, and Bickel (2000) also reported that people addicted to heroin discounted delayed heroin more steeply than delayed money, and Coffey, Gudleski, Saladin, and Brady (2003) reported that individuals dependent on crack/ cocaine discounted delayed cocaine rewards more steeply than they discounted hypothetical monetary rewards. Giordano et al (2002) replicated the finding that hypothetical heroin rewards were discounted more steeply than money by opioid-dependent individuals and also found that mild opiate deprivation increased the degree to which they discounted both types of reward.…”

Section: Applications To Group Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.

Green¹,

Myerson²

2004

Psychological Bulletin

1,441

1,337

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When choosing between delayed or uncertain outcomes, individuals discount the value of such outcomes on the basis of the expected time to or the likelihood of their occurrence. In an integrative review of the expanding experimental literature on discounting, the authors show that although the same form of hyperbola-like function describes discounting of both delayed and probabilistic outcomes, a variety of recent findings are inconsistent with a single-process account. The authors also review studies that compare discounting in different populations and discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. The present effort illustrates the value of studying choice involving both delayed and probabilistic outcomes within a general discounting framework that uses similar experimental procedures and a common analytical approach.Choice is relatively predictable when the alternatives differ on only one dimension. For example, if individuals are offered a choice between two rewards that differ only in amount, they generally choose the larger rather than the smaller reward. Similarly, if offered a choice between two rewards that differ only in delay, individuals tend to choose the reward available sooner rather than the one available later, and if offered a choice between two alternatives that differ only in probability, they tend to choose the more certain reward. These same general principles, and a complementary set of principles for negative outcomes (e.g., smaller punishments will be chosen over larger ones), apply both to humans and other animals. These behavioral tendencies obviously make both economic and evolutionary sense.Problems arise, however, when choice options differ on more than one dimension-for example, when an individual must choose between a smaller reward available sooner and a larger reward available later. It is also unclear, in general, which alternative an individual would (or should) select when choosing between a smaller, more certain reward and a larger, less certain one or between a less certain reward available sooner and a more certain, but more delayed, reward. These problems are only compounded when rewards differ on all three dimensions (i.e., amount, delay, and probability). The central issue is how individuals make trade-offs among their preferences on these dimensions (Keeney & Raiffa, 1993).This issue is not only of theoretical interest; it also has implications for everyday decision making, which often involves outcomes that differ on multiple dimensions. Examples of such decisions include deciding whether to purchase a less expensive item that can be enjoyed now or to save for a more expensive one; whether to choose a risky investment that potentially could pay off at a high rate or one that pays a low but guaranteed rate of return; and whether to buy

show abstract

Section: Applications To Group Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.

Green¹,

Myerson²

2004

Psychological Bulletin

1,441

1,337

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changes in time preferences could plausibly 25 mediate this pathway as individuals become more present-biased when stressed (Haushofer et al, 2015) and higher rates of intertemporal discounting are associated with cigarette smoking (Adams, 2009), frequent alcohol consumption (MacKillop and Kahler, 2009), illicit drug use (Coffey et al, 2003), lack of physical exercise (Leonard et al, 2013) and health outcomes such as obesity (Ikeda et al, 2016) and mortality (Boyle et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How financial strain affects health: Evidence from the Dutch National Bank Household Survey

Prentice

McKillop

French

2017

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mechanisms by which financial strain affects health are not well understood. In this paper, we conduct a longitudinal mediation analysis of the Dutch National Bank 5Household Survey. To quantify the relative importance of biological and nonbiological pathways from financial strain to health, we consider smoking, heavy drinking and being overweight as plausible behavioural responses to financial strain but find that only 4.9% of the response of self-reported health to financial strain is mediated by these behaviours. Further analysis indicates that although financial strain increases 10 impulsivity this has little effect on unhealthy behaviours. Economic stresses therefore appear to be distinct from other forms of stress in the relatively minor influence of nonbiological pathways to ill-health.

show abstract

“…Subjects who consistently choose the smaller immediate reinforcer are said to discount the value of the delayed reinforcer, and it is possible that drug abuse may occur, at least in part, because the beneficial value of drug abstinence is discounted compared to the immediate effects of a drug [21,48]. Accordingly, compared to nonusers, delayed rewards are discounted to a greater extent in users of opioids [40,41,48], alcohol [89], cocaine [17,34,40], methamphetamine [37,56], and cigarettes [4,11,36,55,58,72, but see 47]. It is likely that the increased discounting in drug abusers compared with nonabusers arises from a combination of factors, including higher baseline levels of impulsivity in drug abusers, increases in impulsivity due to acute or chronic drug effects, and common genetic and environmental factors that predispose individuals to both drug abuse and impulsive choice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impulsive choice and environmental enrichment: Effects of d-amphetamine and methylphenidate

Perry

Stairs

Bardo

2008

Behavioural Brain Research

123

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in impulsive choice and rearing in differential environments are factors that predict vulnerability to drug abuse. The present study determined if rearing influences impulsive choice, and if d-amphetamine or methylphenidate alters impulsive choice in differentially-reared rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were raised from 21 days of age in either an enriched condition (EC) or an isolated condition (IC) and were tested as young adults on an adjusting delay task. In this task, two levers were available and a response on one lever yielded one 45 mg food pellet immediately, whereas a response on the other yielded three pellets after an adjusting delay. The delay was initially set at 6 sec, and it decreased or increased by 1 sec following responses on the immediate or delayed levers, respectively. A mean adjusted delay (MAD) was calculated upon completion of each daily session, and it served as the quantitative measure of impulsivity. Once MADs stabilized, rats were injected with saline, d-amphetamine (0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg, s.c.), or methylphenidate (2.5, 5.0, or 10.0 mg/kg, s.c.) 15 min prior to adjusting delay sessions. EC rats had higher baseline MADs (were less impulsive) than IC rats. Additionally, administration of d-amphetamine, but not methylphenidate, dose-dependently increased impulsive choice (decreased MADs) in EC rats. In IC rats, d-amphetamine and methylphenidate dose-dependently decreased impulsivity (increased MADs). These results indicate that rearing environment influences impulsive choice and moderates the effect of psychostimulants on impulsive choice. Specifically, psychostimulants may decrease environment-dependent impulsive choice in individuals with high levels of impulsivity (e.g., those with ADHD), whereas they may increase impulsive choice in individuals with low levels of impulsivity.

show abstract

Impulsivity and rapid discounting of delayed hypothetical rewards in cocaine-dependent individuals.

Cited by 532 publications

References 40 publications

A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.

A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.

How financial strain affects health: Evidence from the Dutch National Bank Household Survey

Impulsive choice and environmental enrichment: Effects of d-amphetamine and methylphenidate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About