Research has found that nicotine-dependent individuals delay discount monetary gains at a higher rate than matched controls. Delay discount rates, however, have also been found to vary across within-subject variables such as the magnitude of the outcome (e.g., 10 dollars or 1,000 dollars), whether the outcome constitutes a gain or a loss, and the commodity being evaluated (e.g., money or health). The present study comprehensively investigated the differences in delay discounting between current and never-before cigarette smokers and across these within-subject variables. Both groups exhibited a magnitude, sign, and commodity effect. Current smokers' delay discount rates for monetary outcomes, however, were higher than never-before smokers across all magnitudes and both signs. This trend was also found for delayed health outcomes, but failed to reach significance.

Delay discounting was examined in light smokers (10 or fewer cigarettes per day) and compared with previously published delay discounting data for heavy and never smokers. Participants evaluated several hypothetical outcomes: money gains and loses ($10, $100, and $1,000), health gains and losses (durations of improved and impoverished health subjectively equivalent to $1,000), cigarette gains and losses (amounts subjectively equivalent to $1,000), and potentially real rewards ($10 and $100). Light smokers discounted money significantly more than never smokers, but light smokers did not differ from heavy smokers. The 3 groups did not statistically differ in discounting of health consequences. Similarly, the 2 smoking groups were not found to differ in discounting of cigarettes. Like heavy smokers, light smokers discounted cigarettes significantly more than money and health. Several significant, positive correlations were found between smoking rate and various discounting measures in the heavy smokers but not in the light smokers. Several previous findings were replicated, helping to validate the present results: the sign effect (greater discounting of gains than losses), the magnitude effect (greater discounting of smaller rewards), reliability of discounting measures over time, and the consistency of hypothetical and potentially real rewards. These data suggest that even moderate levels of drug use may be associated with high delay discounting levels.

Studies have found that a variety of drug dependent groups discount delayed rewards more than matched-controls. This study compared delay discounting for a hypothetical $1000 reward among dependent marijuana users, former dependent marijuana users, and matched-controls. Discounting of marijuana was also assessed in the currently marijuana-dependent group. No significant difference in discounting was detected among the groups, however currently dependent users showed a trend to discount money more than the other two groups. Within the dependent marijuana group, marijuana was discounted more than money, and discounting for money and marijuana were significantly and positively correlated. Regression analyses indicated that delay discounting was more closely associated with tobacco use than marijuana use. A variety of questionnaires were also administered, including impulsivity questionnaires. Dependent marijuana users scored as significantly more impulsive on the Impulsiveness subscale of the Eysenck Impulsiveness-Venturesomeness-Empathy questionnaire than controls. However, the three groups did not significantly differ on several other personality questionnaires including the Barratt Impulsivity Scale-11. The Stanford Time Perception Inventory Present-Fatalistic subscale was positively correlated with money and marijuana discounting, indicating that a greater sense of powerlessness over the future is related to greater delay discounting. Results suggest that current marijuana dependence may be associated with a trend toward increased delay discounting, but this effect size appears to be smaller for marijuana than for previously examined drugs.

Pigeons played a repeated prisoner's dilemma game against a computer that reflected theirchoices: If a pigeon cooperated on trial n, the computer cooperated on trial n + 1; if the pigeon defected on trial n, the computer defected on trial n + 1. Cooperation thus maximized reinforcement in the long term, but defection was worth more on the current trial. Under these circumstances, pigeons normally defect. However, when a signal correlated with the pigeon's previous choice immediately followed each current trial choice, some pigeons learned to cooperate. Furthermore, cooperation was higher when trials were close together in time than when they were separated by long intertrial intervals.