The behavioral economics of will in recovery from addiction

Abstract

Behavioral economic studies demonstrate that rewards are discounted proportionally with their delay (hyperbolic discounting). Hyperbolic discounting implies temporary preference for smaller rewards when they are imminent, and this concept has been widely considered by researchers interested in the causes of addictive behavior. Far less consideration has been given to the fact that systematic preference reversal also predicts various self-control phenomena, which may also be analyzed from a behavioral economic perspective.Here we summarize self-control phenomena predicted by hyperbolic discounting, particularly with application to the field of addiction. Of greatest interest is the phenomenon of choice bundling, an increase in motivation to wait for delayed rewards that can be expected to result from making choices in whole categories. Specifically, when a person's expectations about her own future behavior are conditional upon her current behavior, the value of these expectations is added to the contingencies for the current behavior, resulting in reduced impulsivity. Hyperbolic discounting provides a bottomup basis for the intuitive learning of choice bundling, the properties of which match common descriptions of willpower. We suggest that the bundling effect can also be discerned in the advice of 12-step programs.Recovery from addiction is a distinctly human phenomenon (Logan, 1993), can be extraordinarily abrupt without any obvious changes in contingencies (Premack, 1970, Miller andC'de Baca, 2001), and is commonly described in spiritual terms (Bien and Bien, 2002). Thus it may seem that although behavioral economic and other reductionist approaches are productively applied to the onset of addiction, they are not applicable to studying recovery from addiction (for example, see Miller's 2003 discussion of his skepticism). Here we want to make the case that behavioral economics sheds new light on recovery from addiction.Address correspondence to either: John Monterosso, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of California at Los Angeles, 760 Westwood Plaza; Rm C8-532, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: (310) 794-1736, email: jmont@ucla.edu, George Ainslie, M.D., Department of Psychiatry, Coatesville VA Medical Center, Coatesville, PA 19320, Phone (610) 384-7711, Email: george.ainslie@va.gov. With reference to formulas 1 and 2, consider the following example. If Rate is .5 and Amount is 10 the exponential value at Delays =1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 will be 5, 2.5, 1.25, .625, .3125, .15625; the hyperbolic value at those Delays will be 5, 3.33, 2.5, 2., 1.67, 1.43. If a subject repeatedly is presented with an alternative reward of 4, two units of Delay before each 10 is due, the 4 will win under both formulae: 4 vs. 2.5 for exponential, 4 vs. 3.33 for hyperbolic. But if these options occur three times, two units apart, and must be chosen as a category all at once, exponential → [2.5 + .

Inhibitory control and emotional stress regulation: Neuroimaging evidence for frontal–limbic dysfunction in psycho-stimulant addiction

“…They found that, compared to control subjects, cocaine users displayed a lower probability of inhibiting their responses and required more time to inhibit responses to stop signals. A more recent study also observed prolonged SSRT in chronic methamphetamine users than controls (Monterosso et al, 2005). Other studies have documented the acute effects of cocaine and alcohol (Fillmore and Rush, 2001;Mulvihill et al, 1997) on response inhibition.…”

“…The two behavioral indices, the inhibitory function and SSRT, have been widely used to describe impaired inhibitory control in people with neurological (Aron and Poldrack, 2005;Aron et al, 2003;Dimitrov et al, 2003;Reiman et al, 1997;Stewart and Tannock, 1999) or psychiatric conditions, including patients with SUDs (Armstrong and Munoz, 2003;Badcock et al, 2002;Dimoska et al, 2003;Li et al, 2006c;Monterosso et al, 2005;Oosterlaan and Sergeant, 1996;Overtoom et al, 2002;Rubia et al, 1998;Schachar et al, 1995). used a choice reaction stop-signal task to study inhibitory control in chronic cocaine users .…”

Delay discounting: Concepts and measures.

“…When they do, aversive items are usually electric shocks or emission of an aversive sound (Monterosso & Ainslie, 2007), generally consequences outside the daily context of human subjects.…”

Internet Addiction and Delay Discounting in College Students

“…Numerous studies have shown that addicts tend to be more impulsive than nonaddicts (see Acton, 2003;Bickel & Marsch, 2001;Iacono, Malone, & McGue, 2008;Monterosso & Ainslie, 2007;Olmstead, 2006;Verdejo-Garcia, Lawrence, & Clark, 2008). In much the same way that impulsivity seems characteristic of other types of addiction, a small number of studies suggest that impulsive behavior might also be characteristic of individuals who use the Internet to excess.…”