Future Thinking Priming Especially Effective at Modifying Delay Discounting Rates among Cigarette Smokers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Study Design and Procedures
2.3. The Future Thinking Priming and Neutral Tasks
2.4. Measures
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.2. Moderation Effects
3.3. Rate-Dependence Effects
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- WHO. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2017: Monitoring Tobacco Use and Prevention Policies; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Barlow, P.; McKee, M.; Reeves, A.; Galea, G.; Stuckler, D. Time-discounting and tobacco smoking: A systematic review and network analysis. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 46, 860–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Friedel, J.E.; DeHart, W.B.; Madden, G.J.; Odum, A.L. Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Discounting of monetary and consumable outcomes in current and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology 2014, 231, 4517–4526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Öberg, M.; Jaakkola, M.S.; Prüss-Ustün, A.; Peruga, A.; Woodward, A.; World Health, O. Global Estimate of the Burden of Disease from Second-Hand Smoke/by Mattias Öberg...[et al]; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Oberg, M.; Jaakkola, M.S.; Woodward, A.; Peruga, A.; Prüss-Ustün, A. Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: A retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries. Lancet 2011, 377, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rung, J.M.; Madden, G.J. Experimental reductions of delay discounting and impulsive choice: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2018, 147, 1349–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rung, J.M.; Peck, S.; Hinnenkamp, J.; Preston, E.; Madden, G.J. Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health. Perspect. Behav. Sci. 2019, 42, 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stein, J.S.; Wilson, A.G.; Koffarnus, M.N.; Daniel, T.O.; Epstein, L.H.; Bickel, W.K. Unstuck in time: Episodic future thinking reduces delay discounting and cigarette smoking. Psychopharmacology 2016, 233, 3771–3778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ACS. Cancer Facts and Figures 2016; American Cancer Society: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking–50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014.
- Babb, S.; Malarcher, A.; Schauer, G.; Asman, K.; Jamal, A. Quitting Smoking Among Adults-United States, 2000–2015. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly. Rep. 2017, 65, 1457–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rupprecht, L.E.; Smith, T.T.; Schassburger, R.L.; Buffalari, D.M.; Sved, A.F.; Donny, E.C. Behavioral Mechanisms Underlying Nicotine Reinforcement. In The Neuropharmacology of Nicotine Dependence; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 19–53. [Google Scholar]
- Perkins, K.A.; Karelitz, J.L. Reinforcement enhancing effects of nicotine via smoking. Psychopharmacology 2013, 228, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainslie, G. Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychol. Bull. 1975, 82, 463–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kirby, K.N. Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards. J. Exp. Psychol. General 1997, 126, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logue, A.W. Research on self-control: An integrating framework. Behav. Brain Sci. 1988, 11, 665–709. [Google Scholar]
- Mazur, J.E. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In The Effect of Delay and of Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value, Quantitative Analyses of Behavior; Commons, M.L., Mazur, J.E., Nevin, J.A., Rachlin, H., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 55–73. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, F.; Johnson, M.W.; Bickel, W.K. Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: Similarities and differences across commodity, sign, and magnitude. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2003, 112, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bickel, W.K.; Madden, G.J. A comparison of measures of relative reinforcing efficacy and behavioral economics: Cigarettes and money in smokers. Behav. Pharmacol. 1999, 10, 627–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bickel, W.K.; Bickel, W.K.; Yi, R.; Kowal, B.P.; Gatchalian, K.M. Cigarette smokers discount past and future rewards symmetrically and more than controls: Is discounting a measure of impulsivity? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008, 96, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, S.H. Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology 1999, 146, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Odum, A.L. Delay discounting: I’m a k, you’re a k. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2011, 96, 427–439. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, B. Do high rates of cigarette consumption increase delay discounting? A cross-sectional comparison of adolescent smokers and young-adult smokers and nonsmokers. Behav. Process. 2004, 67, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnan-Sarin, S.; Reynolds, B.; Duhig, A.M.; Smith, A.; Liss, T.; McFetridge, A.; Cavallo, D.A.; Carroll, K.M.; Potenza, M.N. Behavioral impulsivity predicts treatment outcome in a smoking cessation program for adolescent smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007, 88, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
- MacKillop, J.; Kahler, C.W. Delayed reward discounting predicts treatment response for heavy drinkers receiving smoking cessation treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009, 104, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheffer, C.; Mackillop, J.; McGeary, J.; Landes, R.; Carter, L.; Yi, R.; Jones, B.; Christensen, D.; Stitzer, M.; Jackson, L.; et al. Delay discounting, locus of control, and cognitive impulsiveness independently predict tobacco dependence treatment outcomes in a highly dependent, lower socioeconomic group of smokers. Am. J. Addict. 2012, 21, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheffer, C.E.; Christensen, D.R.; Landes, R.; Carter, L.P.; Jackson, L.; Bickel, W.K. Delay discounting rates: A strong prognostic indicator of smoking relapse. Addict. Behav. 2014, 39, 1682–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stanger, C.; Ryan, S.R.; Fu, H.; Landes, R.D.; Jones, B.A.; Bickel, W.K.; Budney, A.J. Delay discounting predicts adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2012, 20, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, J.H.; Higgins, S.T.; Heil, S.H.; Sugarbaker, R.J.; Thomas, C.S.; Badger, G.J. Delay discounting predicts postpartum relapse to cigarette smoking among pregnant women. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2007, 15, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bickel, W.K.; Yi, R.; Landes, R.D.; Hill, P.F.; Baxter, C. Remember the future: Working memory training decreases delay discounting among stimulant addicts. Biol. Psychiatry 2011, 69, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Black, A.C.; Rosen, M.I. A money management-based substance use treatment increases valuation of future rewards. Addict. Behav. 2011, 36, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sheffer, C.E.; Prashad, N.; Lunden, S.; Malhotra, R.; O’Connor, R.J. To smoke or not to smoke: Does delay discounting affect the proximal choice to smoke? Subst. Use Misuse 2019, 54, 1237–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bickel, W.K.; George Wilson, A.; Franck, C.T.; Terry Mueller, E.; Jarmolowicz, D.P.; Koffarnus, M.N.; Fede, S.J. Using crowdsourcing to compare temporal, social temporal, and probability discounting among obese and non-obese individuals. Appetite 2014, 75, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Athamneh, L.N.; Stein, J.S.; Bickel, W.K. Will delay discounting predict intention to quit smoking? Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2017, 25, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koffarnus, M.N.; Jarmolowicz, D.P.; Mueller, E.T.; Bickel, W.K. Changing delay discounting in the light of the competing neurobehavioral decision systems theory: A review. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2013, 99, 32–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daniel, T.O.; Stanton, C.M.; Epstein, L.H. The future is now: Reducing impulsivity and energy intake using episodic future thinking. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 2339–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dassen, F.C.M.; Jansen, A.; Nederkoorn, C.; Houben, K. Focus on the future: Episodic future thinking reduces discount rate and snacking. Appetite 2016, 96, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- O’Neill, J.; Daniel, T.O.; Epstein, L.H. Episodic future thinking reduces eating in a food court. Eat. Behav. 2016, 20, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snider, S.E.; LaConte, S.M.; Bickel, W.K. Episodic Future Thinking: Expansion of the Temporal Window in Individuals with Alcohol Dependence. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2016, 40, 1558–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sze, Y.Y.; Daniel, T.O.; Kilanowski, C.K.; Collins, R.L.; Epstein, L.H. Web-Based and Mobile Delivery of an Episodic Future Thinking Intervention for Overweight and Obese Families: A Feasibility Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2015, 3, e97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheffer, C.E.; Mackillop, J.; Fernandez, A.; Christensen, D.; Bickel, W.K.; Johnson, M.W.; Panissidi, L.; Pittman, J.; Franck, C.T.; Williams, J.; et al. Initial examination of priming tasks to decrease delay discounting. Behav. Process. 2016, 128, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shevorykin, A.; Pittman, J.C.; Bickel, W.K.; O’Connor, R.J.; Malhotra, R.; Prashad, N.; Sheffer, C.E. Primed for Health: Future Thinking Priming Decreases Delay Discounting. Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2019, 6, 363–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barutchu, A.; Sahu, A.; Humphreys, G.W.; Spence, C. Multisensory processing in event-based prospective memory. Acta Psychol. 2019, 192, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barutchu, A.; Spence, C.; Humphreys, G.W. Multisensory enhancement elicited by unconscious visual stimuli. Exp. Brain Res. 2018, 236, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elgendi, M.; Kumar, P.; Barbic, S.; Howard, N.; Abbott, D.; Cichocki, A. Subliminal Priming-State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Behav. Sci. 2018, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peters, J.; Buchel, C. Episodic future thinking reduces reward delay discounting through an enhancement of prefrontal-mediotemporal interactions. Neuron 2010, 66, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, S.H.; Wilson, V.B. Differences in delay discounting between smokers and nonsmokers remain when both rewards are delayed. Psychopharmacology 2012, 219, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bickel, W.K.; Landes, R.D.; Kurth-Nelson, Z.; Redish, A.D. A Quantitative Signature of Self-Control Repair. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 2, 685–695. [Google Scholar]
- Bickel, W.K.; Quisenberry, A.J.; Snider, S.E. Does impulsivity change rate dependently following stimulant administration? A translational selective review and re-analysis. Psychopharmacology 2016, 233, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oldham, P.D. A note on the analysis of repeated measurements of the same subjects. J. Chronic Dis. 1962, 15, 969–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quisenberry, A.J.; Snider, S.E.; Bickel, W.K. The Return of Rate Dependence. Behav. Anal. 2016, 16, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Snider, S.E.; Quisenberry, A.J.; Bickel, W.K. Order in the absence of an effect: Identifying rate-dependent relationships. Behav. Process. 2016, 127, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buhrmester, M.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S.D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crump, M.J.; McDonnell, J.V.; Gureckis, T.M. Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paolacci, G.; Chandler, J.; Ipeirotis, P.G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2010, 5, 411–419. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, J.; Irani, I.; Silberman, M.; Zaldivar, A.; Tomlinson, B. Who are the Crowdworkers? Shifting Demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; pp. 2863–2872. [Google Scholar]
- Wheeler, S.C.; Demarree, K.G.; Petty, R.E. Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The Active-Self account. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 234–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fong, G.T.; Hall, P.A. The importance of time perspective in predicting, understanding, and reducing health risk behaviors among adolescents. In Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward an Integrated Approach; Romer, D., Ed.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, N.; Stewart, J. The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status; MacArthur Research Network on SES & Health: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Koffarnus, M.N.; Bickel, W.K. A 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task: Accurate discount rates in less than one minute. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2014, 22, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiolero, A.; Paradis, G.; Rich, B.; Hanley, J.A. Assessing the Relationship between the Baseline Value of a Continuous Variable and Subsequent Change Over Time. Front. Public Health 2013, 1, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nunes, E.V.; Pavlicova, M.; Hu, M.-C.; Campbell, A.N.; Miele, G.; Hien, D.; Klein, D.F. Baseline Matters: The Importance of Covariation for Baseline Severity in the Analysis of Clinical Trials. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abus. 2011, 37, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selby, J.V.; Beal, A.C.; Frank, L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) National Priorities for Research and Initial Research Agenda. JAMA 2012, 307, 1583–1584. [Google Scholar]
- Snider, S.E.; Deshpande, H.U.; Lisinski, J.M.; Koffarnus, M.N.; LaConte, S.M.; Bickel, W.K. Working Memory Training Improves Alcohol Users’ Episodic Future Thinking: A Rate-Dependent Analysis. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging 2018, 3, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.G.; Phillips, M.R. Secondary Analysis of Existing Data: Opportunities and Implementation. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry 2014, 26, 371–375. [Google Scholar]
Characteristic/Variable | Range, Level, Category | Mean (SD) or Percent (N) | χ2 or F | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonsmokers (n = 1199) | Smokers (n = 333) | ||||
Sociodemographic | Sex | Female | 55.96 (671) | 50.75 (169) | χ2 = 2.859, p = 0.091 |
Age | 18–74 | 35.40 (11.27) | 36.74 (11.201) | F = 3.714, p = 0.054 | |
Race | White | 81.81 (981) | 84.98 (284) | χ2 = 3.361, p = 0.339 | |
Black | 6.26 (75) | 6.31 (21) | |||
Asian | 6.00 (72) | 3.60 (12) | |||
Other | 5.92 (71) | 5.11 (17) | |||
Hispanic | Yes | 6.42 (77) | 6.91 (23) | χ2 = 3.361, p = 0.751 | |
Partner status * | Partnered | 60.71 (728) | 51.65 (172) | χ2 = 8.838, p = 0.003 | |
Education in years * | 1–28 | 15.81 (2.686) | 14.62 (2.611) | F = 51.561, p < 0.001 | |
Annual household income * | <USD 24,999 | 17.10 (205) | 28.53 (95) | χ2 = 52.556, p < 0.001 | |
USD 25,000–USD 49,999 | 28.86 (346) | 35.74 (119) | |||
USD 50,000–USD 74,999 | 22.85 (274) | 22.52 (75) | |||
USD 75,000–USD 99,999 | 15.01 (180) | 5.71 (19) | |||
>USD 100,000 | 16.18 (194) | 7.51 (25) | |||
Alcohol use | Number of drinks per week * | 0–70 | 2.73 (5.155) | 5.13 (8.049) | F = 43.077, p < 0.001 |
Psychosocial | Self-monitoring scale | 0–25 | 10.59 (4.598) | 11.01 (4.960) | F = 2.157, p < 0.142 |
Time perspective | Future oriented | 66.31 (795) | 63.96 (213) | χ2 = 0.635, p = 0.426 | |
SSS * | 0–10 | 4.91 (1.839) | 4.17 (1.838) | F = 41.979, p < 0.001 |
Outcome Measure | Factors/Variables | B | SE | t | p | 95% CI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Post-intervention delay discounting rate | Interaction + effects | nonsmokers | −0.0482 | 0.0616 | −0.7836 | 0.4334 | −0.1690 | 0.0725 |
smokers | −0.2919 | 0.1168 | −2.499 | 0.0124 | −0.5209 | −0.0629 | ||
Constant | −0.5631 | 0.1964 | −2.8672 | 0.0042 | −0.9483 | −0.1779 | ||
Condition | −0.0486 | 0.0616 | −0.7901 | 0.4296 | −0.1694 | 0.0721 | ||
Smoking status | 0.3077 | 0.0968 | 3.1777 | 0.0015 | 0.1177 | 0.4976 | ||
Baseline delay discounting rate | 0.8579 | 0.0163 | 52.6498 | 0.0000 | 0.8259 | 0.8898 | ||
Partnered status | 0.0095 | 0.0592 | 0.1598 | 0.8731 | −0.1066 | 0.1256 | ||
Education | −0.0192 | 0.0106 | −1.8075 | 0.0709 | −0.0401 | 0.0016 | ||
Income | −0.0076 | 0.0183 | −0.4139 | 0.6790 | −0.0436 | 0.0284 | ||
Alcohol (number of drinks per week) | −0.0057 | 0.0046 | −1.2234 | 0.2214 | −0.0147 | 0.0034 | ||
Perceived social status (SSS) | 0.0039 | 0.0183 | 0.2125 | 0.8317 | −0.0320 | 0.0398 |
Outcome Measure | Factors/Variables | b | SE | t | P | 95% CI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
The difference between post-intervention and baseline delayed discounting rate | Interaction + effects | nonsmokers | −0.0450 | 0.0631 | −0.7134 | 0.4757 | −0.1687 | 0.0787 |
smokers | −0.2975 | 0.1196 | −2.4872 | 0.0130 | −0.5321 | −0.0629 | ||
Constant | 0.0004 | 0.1900 | 0.0020 | 0.9984 | −0.3723 | 0.3730 | ||
Condition | −0.0450 | 0.0631 | −0.7134 | 0.4757 | −0.1687 | 0.0787 | ||
Smoking status | 0.2211 | 0.0987 | 2.2410 | 0.0252 | 0.0276 | 0.4146 | ||
Partner | 0.0307 | 0.0606 | 0.5060 | 0.6129 | −0.0882 | 0.1495 | ||
Education | −0.0097 | 0.0108 | −0.8933 | 0.3718 | −0.0309 | 0.0116 | ||
Income | 0.0032 | 0.0188 | 0.1729 | 0.8628 | −0.0335 | 0.0400 | ||
Alcohol (number of drinks per week) | −0.0057 | 0.0047 | −1.2065 | 0.2278 | −0.0150 | 0.0036 | ||
Perceived social status (SSS) | 0.0055 | 0.0188 | 0.2911 | 0.7710 | −0.0313 | 0.0423 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shevorykin, A.; Bickel, W.K.; Carl, E.; Sheffer, C.E. Future Thinking Priming Especially Effective at Modifying Delay Discounting Rates among Cigarette Smokers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168717
Shevorykin A, Bickel WK, Carl E, Sheffer CE. Future Thinking Priming Especially Effective at Modifying Delay Discounting Rates among Cigarette Smokers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(16):8717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168717
Chicago/Turabian StyleShevorykin, Alina, Warren K. Bickel, Ellen Carl, and Christine E. Sheffer. 2021. "Future Thinking Priming Especially Effective at Modifying Delay Discounting Rates among Cigarette Smokers" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 16: 8717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168717