Aims To synthesize continuous associations between delayed reward discounting (DRD) and both addiction severity and quantity-frequency (QF); to examine moderators of these relationships; and to investigate publication bias. Methods Meta-analysis of published studies examining continuous associations between DRD and addictive behaviors. Published, peer-reviewed studies on addictive behaviors (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, stimulants, opiates, and gambling) were identified via PubMed, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo. Studies were restricted to DRD measures of monetary gains. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using Pearson’s r as the effect size. Publication bias was evaluated using fail-safe N, Begg-Mazumdar and Egger’s tests, meta-regression of publication year and effect size, and imputation of missing studies. Results The primary meta-analysis revealed a small magnitude effect size that was highly significant (r = 0.14, p < 10−14). Significantly larger effect sizes were observed for studies examining severity compared with QF (p = 0.01), but not between the type of addictive behavior (p = 0.30) or DRD assessment (p = 0.90). Indices of publication bias suggested a modest impact of unpublished findings. Conclusions Delayed reward discounting is robustly associated with continuous measures of addiction severity and quantity-frequency. This relation is generally robust across type of addictive behavior and delayed reward discounting assessment modality.

IMPORTANCE Delay discounting is a behavioral economic index of impulsive preferences for smaller-immediate or larger-delayed rewards that is argued to be a transdiagnostic process across health conditions. Studies suggest some psychiatric disorders are associated with differences in discounting compared with controls, but null findings have also been reported. OBJECTIVE To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on delay discounting in people with psychiatric disorders. DATA SOURCES PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched through December 10, 2018. The psychiatric keywords used were based on DSM-IV or DSM-5 diagnostic categories. Collected data were analyzed from December 10, 2018, through June 1, 2019. STUDY SELECTION Following a preregistered Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol, 2 independent raters reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. English-language articles comparing monetary delay discounting between participants with psychiatric disorders and controls were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Hedges g effect sizes were computed and random-effects models were used for all analyses. Heterogeneity statistics, one-study-removed analyses, and publication bias indices were also examined. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Categorical comparisons of delay discounting between a psychiatric group and a control group. RESULTS The sample included 57 effect sizes from 43 studies across 8 diagnostic categories. Significantly steeper discounting for individuals with a psychiatric disorder compared with controls was observed for major depressive disorder (Hedges g = 0.37; P = .002; k = 7), schizophrenia (Hedges g = 0.46; P = .004; k = 12), borderline personality disorder (Hedges g = 0.60; P < .001; k = 8), bipolar disorder (Hedges g = 0.68; P < .001; k = 4), bulimia nervosa (Hedges g = 0.41; P = .001; k = 4), and binge-eating disorder (Hedges g = 0.34; P = .001; k = 7). In contrast, anorexia nervosa exhibited statistically significantly shallower discounting (Hedges g =-0.30; P < .001; k = 10). Modest evidence of publication bias was indicated by a statistically significant Egger test for schizophrenia and at the aggregate level across studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study appear to provide empirical support for delay discounting as a transdiagnostic process across most of the psychiatric disorders examined; the literature search also revealed limited studies in some disorders, notably posttraumatic stress disorder, which is a priority area for research.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people may use substances like cannabis for enhancement or coping purposes. Behavioral economic demand for a substance is a key determinant of its use and misuse and can be measured via hypothetical purchase tasks. Previous research suggests that motivations to use a substance play a mediational role between elevated substance demand and problems, but comparable mechanistic research has yet to be done in the COVID-19 context and on the effects of cannabis demand on cannabis use patterns. Participants ( n = 137) were recruited via the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific. Participants completed measures of cannabis use and problems, motivations for cannabis use, and the Marijuana Purchase Task. Two indices of demand, Persistence (i.e., sensitivity to increasing cost of cannabis) and Amplitude (i.e., consumption of cannabis at unrestricted cost), were related to increased cannabis problems via the use motive of coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. This model did not support the mediational role of enhancement motives. Those with increased cannabis demand who tend to use cannabis to cope are at increased risk of experiencing negative cannabis-related consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic.