RATIONALE: Delayed reward discounting (DRD) is a behavioral economic index of impulsivity and numerous studies have examined DRD in relation to addictive behavior. To synthesize the findings across the literature, the current review is a meta-analysis of studies comparing DRD between criterion groups exhibiting addictive behavior and control groups. OBJECTIVES: The meta-analysis sought to characterize the overall patterns of findings, systematic variability by sample and study type, and possible small study (publication) bias. METHODS: Literature reviews identified 310 candidate articles from which 46 studies reporting 64 comparisons were identified (total N=56,013). RESULTS: From the total comparisons identified, a small magnitude effect was evident (d= .15; p< .00001) with very high heterogeneity of effect size. Based on systematic observed differences, large studies assessing DRD with a small number of self-report items were removed and an analysis of 57 comparisons (n=3,329) using equivalent methods and exhibiting acceptable heterogeneity revealed a medium magnitude effect (d= .58; p< .00001). Further analyses revealed significantly larger effect sizes for studies using clinical samples (d= .61) compared with studies using nonclinical samples (d=.45). Indices of small study bias among the various comparisons suggested varying levels of influence by unpublished findings, ranging from minimal to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide strong evidence of greater DRD in individuals exhibiting addictive behavior in general and particularly in individuals who meet criteria for an addictive disorder. Implications for the assessment of DRD and research priorities are discussed.
RATIONALE: Delayed reward discounting (DRD) is a behavioral economic index of impulsivity and numerous studies have examined DRD in relation to addictive behavior. To synthesize the findings across the literature, the current review is a meta-analysis of studies comparing DRD between criterion groups exhibiting addictive behavior and control groups. OBJECTIVES: The meta-analysis sought to characterize the overall patterns of findings, systematic variability by sample and study type, and possible small study (publication) bias. METHODS: Literature reviews identified 310 candidate articles from which 46 studies reporting 64 comparisons were identified (total N=56,013). RESULTS: From the total comparisons identified, a small magnitude effect was evident (d= .15; p< .00001) with very high heterogeneity of effect size. Based on systematic observed differences, large studies assessing DRD with a small number of self-report items were removed and an analysis of 57 comparisons (n=3,329) using equivalent methods and exhibiting acceptable heterogeneity revealed a medium magnitude effect (d= .58; p< .00001). Further analyses revealed significantly larger effect sizes for studies using clinical samples (d= .61) compared with studies using nonclinical samples (d=.45). Indices of small study bias among the various comparisons suggested varying levels of influence by unpublished findings, ranging from minimal to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide strong evidence of greater DRD in individuals exhibiting addictive behavior in general and particularly in individuals who meet criteria for an addictive disorder. Implications for the assessment of DRD and research priorities are discussed.
Authors: E G Jönsson; M M Nöthen; F Grünhage; L Farde; Y Nakashima; P Propping; G C Sedvall Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Jennifer L Perry; Erin B Larson; Jonathan P German; Gregory J Madden; Marilyn E Carroll Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2004-08-27 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Janet Audrain-McGovern; Daniel Rodriguez; Leonard H Epstein; Jocelyn Cuevas; Kelli Rodgers; E Paul Wileyto Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Maggie M Sweitzer; Eric C Donny; Lisa C Dierker; Janine D Flory; Stephen B Manuck Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Joshua L Gowin; Matthew E Sloan; Bethany L Stangl; Vatsalya Vatsalya; Vijay A Ramchandani Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: James G Murphy; Ashley A Dennhardt; Jessica R Skidmore; Brian Borsari; Nancy P Barnett; Suzanne M Colby; Matthew P Martens Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2012-06-04
Authors: Jeffrey S Stein; Jonathan W Pinkston; Adam T Brewer; Monica T Francisco; Gregory J Madden Journal: J Exp Anal Behav Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.468
Authors: Joel Myerson; Leonard Green; Carissa van den Berk-Clark; Richard A Grucza Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Samuel F Acuff; Kathryn E Soltis; Ashley A Dennhardt; Kristoffer S Berlin; James G Murphy Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Gene H Brody; Tianyi Yu; James MacKillop; Gregory E Miller; Edith Chen; Ezemenari M Obasi; Steven R H Beach Journal: Addiction Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 6.526