Smoking, hazardous drinking and individual differences in cost and gain discounting

Abstract

Aims: Past research has linked substance use to individual differences in discounting of future rewards. Since behaviours such as smoking and excessive drinking appear to involve a devaluation of future negative consequences, discounting of costs may also be relevant in the understanding of such behaviour. The primary aims were to investigate the association between cost discounting and the behaviours smoking and hazardous drinking. Methods: In four studies, individuals recruited from the crowdsourcing marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk responded to measures of discounting. Results were combined by meta-analysis of the standardised mean differences ( d) between self-reported smokers and non-smokers, and between participants with AUDIT scores of 10+ (hazardous drinking) and those with scores below 10. Results: In comparison with non-smokers, smokers’ relative valuations of future gains were lower, d = –0.32, 95% CI [–0.47, –0.18]. There was no association between smoking and cost discounting, d = –0.02, 95% CI [–0.17, 0.13]. Participants with AUDIT scores of 10+ valued future gains somewhat lower than participants with scores below 10, d = –0.17, 95% CI [–0.35, 0.01]. There was no association between hazardous drinking and cost discounting, d = –0.02, 95% CI [–0.21, 0.16]. According to Bayes Factors (BF), the data supported an association between gain discounting and smoking (BF > 100). It was insensitive in the analysis of gain discounting and hazardous drinking (BF = 0.6), but it strongly supported null-effects in both analyses of cost discounting (BFs = 0.1). Conclusion: The results suggest that the robust link between gain discounting and smoking status does not reflect a general devaluation of future outcomes among smokers.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.