Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using alcoholics, currently abstinent alcoholics, and controls

Petry, Nancy M.

doi:10.1007/s002130000638

Cited by 683 publications

(597 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

529

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous findings (Vuchinich and Simpson, 1998;Petry, 2001;Mitchell et al, 2005b), the AA group made impulsive choices significantly more often than the CS group (F 1,16 ¼ 5.846, p ¼ 0.028). Also, consistent with our previous findings (Mitchell et al, 2005b), ICR was sensitive to both the later reward delay (Figure 2c; F 1.74,27.83 ¼ 12.35; po0.001) and the later reward amount (Figure 2d; F Figure 2d).…”

Section: Acute Ntx Does Not Reduce Impulsive Choice In Either Groupsupporting

confidence: 91%

Endogenous Opioid Blockade and Impulsive Responding in Alcoholics and Healthy Controls

Mitchell

Fields

et al. 2006

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone (NTX) is one of few approved treatments for alcoholism, yet the mechanism by which it reduces drinking remains unclear. In rats, NTX reduces morphine-induced impulsive choice bias; however, nothing is known about the drug's effect on discrete aspects of impulsive behavior in humans, such as decision-making and inhibitory control. Here, we used a modified delay discounting procedure to investigate whether NTX improves decision-making or inhibitory control in humans. We measured the effect of acute NTX (50 mg) on choice between smaller sooner (SS) and larger later monetary rewards and on response errors (motor mismatch) in a high conflict condition in a group of abstinent alcoholics (AA) and healthy control subjects (CS). We previously reported that AA selected the SS option significantly more often than did CS in this paradigm. If the choice bias of AA is due to enhanced endogenous opioid signaling in response to potential reward, NTX should reduce such bias in the AA group. We found that NTX did not reliably reduce impulsive choice in the AA group; however, NTX's effect on choice bias across individuals was robustly predictable. NTX's effect on choice bias was significantly correlated with scores on Rotter's Locus of Control (LOC) scale; increasingly internal LOC scores predicted increasing likelihood of impulsive choices on NTX. In addition, we found that NTX significantly enhanced control of motor responses, particularly within the CS group. These results suggest that endogenous opioids may impair response selection during decision-making under conflict, and that NTX's effects on explicit decision-making are personality-dependent. Determining the biological basis of this dependence could have important implications for effective alcoholism treatment.

show abstract

Section: Acute Ntx Does Not Reduce Impulsive Choice In Either Groupsupporting

confidence: 91%

Endogenous Opioid Blockade and Impulsive Responding in Alcoholics and Healthy Controls

Mitchell

Fields

et al. 2006

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1999) showed that substance abusers discounted delayed outcomes at greater rates than non-abusers. Similar findings have been reported with abusers of nicotine (Bickel et al, 1999), opioids (Madden et al, 1997), and alcohol (Petry, 2001;Vuchinich and Simpson, 1998). Despite the fact that a correlation between drug abuse (and other behaviors often characterized as impulsive) and delay discounting has been demonstrated, it is not clear whether increased delay discounting underlies drug abuse and other disorders or if long-term exposure to drugs or other variables underlie increased delay discounting.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Effects of clomipramine on self-control choice in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

Anderson

Woolverton

2005

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rates of delay discounting (impulsive choice) have been shown to vary among individuals, particularly people who abuse drugs relative to those who do not, but factors that may contribute to these differences have not been identified. To explore a role for possible genetic and neurochemical determinants, Lewis (n=8) and Fischer 344 (n=8) rats were allowed to choose between one food pellet delivered immediately and three food pellets delivered after increasing delays. The delays to the large reinforcer (0, 10, 20, 40, 60 s) were increased across five blocks of trials in daily experimental sessions. For both groups of rats, choice for the larger reinforcer decreased as the delay to presentation increased. However, the Lewis rats were more likely to choose the smaller, immediate reinforcer earlier in the session, i.e., at shorter large-reinforcer delays, than the Fisher 344 rats. This difference in choice was statistically significant. Repeated administration of 3.0 mg/kg, i.p. clomipramine (mean of last five sessions) did not significantly alter choice, relative to baseline, for either strain. The present findings suggest that differences in delay discounting/impulsive choice may involve genetic, e.g., neurochemical, differences.

show abstract

“…Although it may not be meaningful to ask how steeply individuals without addiction discount heroin, it is possible to determine how steeply individuals without alcoholism discount alcohol. Petry's (2001a) study addressed this interesting issue. She found that although nonalcoholics discounted both hypothetical money and alcohol less steeply than alcoholics, alcoholics and nonalcoholics both discounted alcohol more steeply than money.…”

Section: Applications To Group Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.

Green¹,

Myerson²

2004

Psychological Bulletin

1,431

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

Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using alcoholics, currently abstinent alcoholics, and controls

Cited by 683 publications

References 51 publications

Endogenous Opioid Blockade and Impulsive Responding in Alcoholics and Healthy Controls

Endogenous Opioid Blockade and Impulsive Responding in Alcoholics and Healthy Controls

Effects of clomipramine on self-control choice in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About