Effects of contingency and noncontingency contracts in the context of a self-control-oriented smoking modification program

Spring, Frank L.; Sipich, James F.; Trimble, Ralph W.; Goeckner, Daniel J.

doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(78)80038-0

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Repayment of security deposits contingent on nonsmoking has been used to promote abstinence among smokers enrolled in cessation treatment programs (Elliott & Tighe, 1968;Paxton, 1980;Spring, Sipich, Trimble, & Goeckner, 1978;Winett, 1973), but there has been little research on the effects of different repayment schedules or on isolating the effects of reinforcement from those of instructions and feedback. Results of our study suggest that contingent reinforcement interventions have specific effects on smoking behavior beyond instructions and feedback and that the potency of these interventions is related to the magnitude of reinforcement offered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingent Reinforcement for Carbon Monoxide Reduction: Within‐subject Effects of Pay Amount

Stitzer¹,

Bigelow²

1984

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between reinforcer amount and daytime smoking reduction in smokers offered money for reduced afternoon breath carbon monoxide (CO) levels was examined. Twenty-three hired regular smokers with average baseline CO levels of about 30 ppm were exposed in random order to five sliding scale payment schedules that changed daily or weekly. Money was available for afternoon CO readings between 0 and 21 ppm with pay amount inversely related to the absolute CO reading obtained. Maximum pay amount for readings below 7 ppm varied among $0, $1.50, $3, $6, and $12 per day. Contingent reinforcement promoted CO and daytime cigarette reduction within individuals with the amount of behavior change related to the amount of payment available. Average CO levels decreased from 30 to 15 ppm as a function of pay amount whereas self-reported daytime cigarettes decreased from 12 to 5 per day. Average minutes of cigarette abstinence prior to the afternoon study contact increased from 62 to 319 minutes as a function of pay amount, whereas the percentage of available money earned increased from 22% to 48%. Nontargeted evening cigarette use also decreased during periods of daytime smoking reduction. The orderly effects of this contingent reinforcement intervention on daytime smoking of regular smoker volunteers suggest that this is a sensitive model for continued evaluation of factors that influence smoking reduction and cessation.DESCRIPTORS: smoking, reinforcement, contingencies, carbon monoxide reduction Two recent studies by Bigelow (1982, 1983) Thompson, 1981;Russell, Wilson, Patel, Feyerabend, & Cole, 1975 Widdowson, & Hulley, 1977) and reflect within-subject changes in smoke exposure (Henningfield, Stitzer, & Griffiths, 1980;. Nonsmokers generally have breath CO levels below 8 ppm, whereas smokers typically have levels between 15 and 40 ppm, though these may range higher depending on the amount of recent smoke exposure.In the first study that used breath CO as a measure of recent smoking and a target for contingent reinforcement intervention , hired regular smokers were offered $5 per day to reduce their afternoon CO levels by 50% or more from their own baselines. The study showed that smokers could successfully reduce afternoon CO levels to earn payments and that they did so by reducing the number of daytime cigarettes smoked and abstaining for several hours prior to the afternoon CO measurement. A second 477 1984517. 477-483 NUMBER4 (wiNm 1984)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingent Reinforcement for Carbon Monoxide Reduction: Within‐subject Effects of Pay Amount

Stitzer¹,

Bigelow²

1984

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, deposit contracting typically requires that the patient make an initial monetary deposit which can then be recouped based on smoking abstinence. While most of these studies have not used a research design wherein treatment effects could be attributed to the incentive intervention, results do suggest that this approach may offer a cost-effective way to deliver incentives for smoking abstinence (Amass & Kamien, 2008; Dallery et al, 2008; Elliot & Tighe, 1968; Lando, 1977; Paxton 1980, 1981, 1983; Spring et al, 1978; Winett, 1973). However, one note of caution is to remember that reward magnitude is an important determinant of the effectiveness of incentive interventions and that at some point reductions in the amount of the reward could inadvertently dilute the efficacy of the intervention (Dallery et al, 2001; Lussier et al, 2006; Petry et al, 2004; Silverman et al, 1999).…”

Section: Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of financial incentives in promoting smoking cessation

Sigmon

Patrick

2012

Preventive Medicine

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and world. Despite the availability of numerous therapies for smoking cessation, additional efficacious interventions are greatly needed. We provide a narrative review of published studies evaluating financial incentives for smoking cessation and discuss the parameters important for ensuring the efficacy of incentive interventions for smoking cessation. Methods Published studies that evaluated the impact of incentives to promote smoking cessation and included an appropriate control or comparison condition were identified and reviewed. Results Incentives are efficacious for promoting smoking abstinence across the general population of smokers as well as substance abusers, adolescents, patients with pulmonary disease, patients with serious mental illness and other challenging subgroups. To develop and implement an effective incentive treatment for smoking, special attention should be paid to biochemical verification of smoking status, incentive magnitude and the schedule of incentive delivery. Conclusion Consistent with the extensive literature showing that incentives are effective in reducing illicit drug use, a large body of evidence supports their effectiveness in reducing smoking. Continued efforts are warranted to further develop and disseminate incentive-based treatments for smoking cessation across clinical settings and populations.

show abstract

“…Behaviorally, the contract as an independent variable has resulted in mixed outcomes. For example, Wilson (1982), Ureda (1980), Spring (1978), and Miller (1974) reported null results on behavior, while Oldridge (1982 and1983) showed behavioral changes but with a highly motivated post MI population. Neale (1990) and Singleton (1988) found positive changes in behavior but only with subjects who reported complete compliance with the contract.…”

Section: Edward J Hart and Karin Westin Abstractmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Effects of Negotiated Contracts and Dietary Self Study on Nutrition Related Practices

Hart

Westin

1996

Journal of Health Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of contingency and noncontingency contracts in the context of a self-control-oriented smoking modification program

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Contingent Reinforcement for Carbon Monoxide Reduction: Within‐subject Effects of Pay Amount

Contingent Reinforcement for Carbon Monoxide Reduction: Within‐subject Effects of Pay Amount

The use of financial incentives in promoting smoking cessation

The Effects of Negotiated Contracts and Dietary Self Study on Nutrition Related Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About