Diana Mejía-Cruz1, Leonard Green2, Joel Myerson2, Silvia Morales-Chainé3, Javier Nieto3. 1. National Autonomous University of México, México City, Mexico. d.psicologia@hotmail.com. 2. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. National Autonomous University of México, México City, Mexico.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Steep discounting of delayed monetary rewards by substance-dependent individuals is well-established. Less is known, however, about discounting other kinds of outcomes, and very little is known about discounting by marijuana-dependent individuals. OBJECTIVES: To determine how cocaine-dependent individuals and marijuana-dependent individuals discount various delayed and probabilistic outcomes, both positive and negative. METHODS: Marijuana-dependent individuals, cocaine-dependent individuals, and controls performed delay and probability discounting tasks with various hypothetical outcomes. RESULTS: The cocaine-dependent (but not the marijuana-dependent) group discounted delayed liquid rewards and monetary gains, but not delayed losses, more steeply than the control group. In contrast, the marijuana-dependent group (but not the cocaine-dependent group) discounted delayed monetary losses more steeply than controls. There were no group differences in discounting for any of the probabilistic outcomes. Factor analysis revealed a delayed gain factor, a probabilistic gain factor, and a delayed/probabilistic loss factor. The delayed gain factor scores for the cocaine-dependent group, but not the marijuana-dependent group, differed significantly from those of the control group. The groups did not differ in their probabilistic gain factor scores, and the marijuana-dependent group did not differ from the controls with respect to their loss factor scores. CONCLUSIONS: These results are inconsistent with the idea that steep discounting of both gains and losses and both delayed and probabilistic outcomes reflects a general impulsivity trait, as well as with the idea that all drug-dependent individuals are steep discounters. Rather, differences in discounting appear to be related to both the type of outcome and the specific drug on which individuals are dependent.
RATIONALE: Steep discounting of delayed monetary rewards by substance-dependent individuals is well-established. Less is known, however, about discounting other kinds of outcomes, and very little is known about discounting by marijuana-dependent individuals. OBJECTIVES: To determine how cocaine-dependent individuals and marijuana-dependent individuals discount various delayed and probabilistic outcomes, both positive and negative. METHODS:Marijuana-dependent individuals, cocaine-dependent individuals, and controls performed delay and probability discounting tasks with various hypothetical outcomes. RESULTS: The cocaine-dependent (but not the marijuana-dependent) group discounted delayed liquid rewards and monetary gains, but not delayed losses, more steeply than the control group. In contrast, the marijuana-dependent group (but not the cocaine-dependent group) discounted delayed monetary losses more steeply than controls. There were no group differences in discounting for any of the probabilistic outcomes. Factor analysis revealed a delayed gain factor, a probabilistic gain factor, and a delayed/probabilistic loss factor. The delayed gain factor scores for the cocaine-dependent group, but not the marijuana-dependent group, differed significantly from those of the control group. The groups did not differ in their probabilistic gain factor scores, and the marijuana-dependent group did not differ from the controls with respect to their loss factor scores. CONCLUSIONS: These results are inconsistent with the idea that steep discounting of both gains and losses and both delayed and probabilistic outcomes reflects a general impulsivity trait, as well as with the idea that all drug-dependent individuals are steep discounters. Rather, differences in discounting appear to be related to both the type of outcome and the specific drug on which individuals are dependent.
Authors: Matthew W Johnson; Warren K Bickel; Forest Baker; Brent A Moore; Gary J Badger; Alan J Budney Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Joshua L Gowin; Matthew E Sloan; Vijay A Ramchandani; Martin P Paulus; Scott D Lane Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.533