Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of cigarettes

Odum, Amy L.; Madden, Gregory J.; Bickel, Warren K.

doi:10.1080/14622200210141257

Cited by 204 publications

(200 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

171

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides, an interesting finding was that both smokers and non-smokers discounted gains more than losses in all three domains (money, health and cigarettes). This asymmetry between the discounting of gains and losses had been replicated in other studies such as the one carried out by Hardisty D & Weber E [34] who evaluated rates of discounting of health and monetary gains and losses and the one conducted by Odum A [35] with smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers. The studies mentioned above show two interesting issues related to temporal discounting and health behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Temporal Discounting and Health Behavior: A Review

Castillo¹

2017

MOJPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com IntroductionSeveral studies have shown that in choice situations between two alternatives associated with rewards of equal magnitude but that differ in delay until their receipt, organisms of different species tend to choose the one that is closest in time. It is relevant that even in some situations in which the sooner available alternative offers a smaller amount of reward, subjects continue to choose it over the larger but later one. Moreover, in choice situations between larger delayed, and smaller sooner loses, individuals tend to choose the larger but later consequence. This phenomenon has been called temporal discounting [1,2]. Likewise, it has been observed that risk associated with an outcome is a variable that could affect choice behavior. Usually, smaller gains associated with higher probabilities are preferred over larger gains with a lower probability [3]. In contrast, when alternatives consist of probabilistic losses, individuals tend to prefer those with a higher risk even when doing this implies the possibility of a greater loss occurring [4,5].The study of how time or probability can affect elections becomes especially relevant when attempting to explain some behaviors related to social problems. For example, some unhealthy behaviors such as nicotine or other substances abuse could involve the choice of an immediate reward instead of the future benefits of good health or, the preference for greater health losses with some probability over a certain smaller loss (such as quitting smoking). Furthermore, several studies have shown that individuals are not rational in their choices as economic model predicts, but often they show preference reversals [6][7][8]. That is, when both alternatives imply a waiting time, an individual could choose the one associated with the larger but more delayed outcome. However, as time passes, the individual may change his preference and choose the immediate one even if this involves shifting from his previous choice. These findings have important implications when it comes to explaining risky health decisions. For example, on Friday, someone might prefer to start exercising on Monday in order to have a healthier life, however, on Monday when the choice is between exercising and staying at home, the same individual could choose the second option even if this implied a reverse of his preference. The way in which a delayed reward loses its value has been described mathematically by different models, including normative economical models. The literature has shown however, that the discount of the value of a reward in both, humans and non-humans, implies a pattern well described by the hyperbolic equation proposed by Mazur [9] [10,11]. This equation predicts that people will not discount the value of alternatives in a constant rate; instead individual rates of discounting will be steeper at shorter delays than at larger waiting times. The mathematical form of this function is the following:where V represents the subjective valu...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Temporal Discounting and Health Behavior: A Review

Castillo¹

2017

MOJPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This allows easy evaluation of parallels across domains of everyday interest. Discounting research, for example, shows that subjective value weakens with delay in the same roughly hyperbolic fashion (Figure 1) regardless of whether the delayed outcome under consideration is money (Vuchinich & Simpson, 1998), a drug of abuse (Odum, Madden, Badger, & Bickel, 2000), or good health (Odum, Madden, & Bickel, 2002), thereby suggesting a common conceptual framework for a variety of impulsivity problems (e.g., Madden & Bickel, 2009).…”

Section: Quantitative Evaluation Of Core Relationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

What are we doing when we translate from quantitative models?

Critchfield

Reed

2009

BEHAV ANALYST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although quantitative analysis (in which behavior principles are defined in terms of equations) has become common in basic behavior analysis, translational efforts often examine everyday events through the lens of narrative versions of laboratory-derived principles. This approach to translation, although useful, is incomplete because equations may convey concepts that are difficult to capture in words. To support this point, we provide a nontechnical introduction to selected aspects of quantitative analysis; consider some issues that translational investigators (and, potentially, practitioners) confront when attempting to translate from quantitative models; and discuss examples of relevant translational studies. We conclude that, where behavior-science translation is concerned, the quantitative features of quantitative models cannot be ignored without sacrificing conceptual precision, scientific and practical insights, and the capacity of the basic and applied wings of behavior analysis to communicate effectively.

show abstract

“…Temporal discounting has received considerable attention in human behavioral neuroscience, not least because many forms of maladaptive behavior are readily characterized as pursuit of immediate gratification at the expense of reaping greater rewards in the future (Critchfield and Kollins, 2001;Bickel et al, 2007Bickel et al, , 2014aKoffarnus et al, 2013;Story et al, 2014). Indeed, lending validity to the discounting construct, steeper discounting is positively associated with behaviors with potentially harmful long-term consequences such as tobacco smoking (Odum et al, 2002;Epstein et al, 2003;Reynolds et al, 2004;Bickel et al, 2008;MacKillop and Kahler, 2009;Fields et al, 2009a,b;Reynolds and Fields, 2012), alcohol use (Van Oers et al, 1999;Mazas et al, 2000;Petry, 2001;Field et al, 2007;Reynolds et al, 2007;Rossow, 2008;MacKillop and Kahler, 2009;Moore and Cusens, 2010), illicit drug misuse (Kirby et al, 1999;Petry and Casarella, 1999;Kollins, 2003;Petry, 2003;Kirby and Petry, 2004;Washio et al, 2011;Stanger et al, 2012), credit card debt (Meier and Sprenger, 2012) and risky sexual or drug-taking practices (Odum et al, 2000;Dierst-Davies et al, 2011). Also, many authors have explored how discounting relates to demographic variables, finding that measured discounting decreases across the lifespan (Green et al, 1996(Green et al, , 1999Chao et al, 2009;Steinberg et al, 2009)…”

Section: Vitae Summa Brevis Spem Nos Vetat Incohare Longammentioning

confidence: 99%