Alexandra M Mellis1, Sarah E Snider2, Harshawardhan U Deshpande3, Stephen M LaConte4, Warren K Bickel5. 1. Graduate Program in Translational Biology, Medicine, and Health, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA. Electronic address: ammellis@vt.edu. 2. Addiction Recovery Research Center, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, 24016, USA. Electronic address: sniderse@vtc.vt.edu. 3. Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA. Electronic address: harsh87@vt.edu. 4. Stephen M. LaConte, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA. Electronic address: slaconte@vtc.vt.edu. 5. 540-526-2088, Addiction Recovery Research Center, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, Virginia, 24016, USA. Electronic address: wkbickel@vtc.vt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting, or the preference for smaller, sooner over larger, later rewards, has been associated with alcohol use disorder and problem drinking. Episodic future thinking has been suggested as an intervention to address steep delay discounting. In the present study, we examined the effect of up to six consecutive sessions of episodic future thinking. METHODS: Repeated, within-subject data were collected from current and recent problem drinkers (n = 50) over six sessions. Linear mixed-effect models were used to estimate effects of repeated sessions and manipulations. Participants completed episodic future thinking interviews at up to six sessions, in which they generated personalized future events. Participants also engaged with cues of scarcity. At each session, participants completed three delay discounting tasks under: a no-cue baseline condition, a future cue condition, and a scarcity cue condition. RESULTS: Delay discounting in the no cue condition did not change over time. Discounting rates were reduced in the future cue condition, and these effects grew larger with repeated sessions. In the scarcity condition, discounting rates were slightly higher, with no effect of repeated sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Episodic future thinking reduced delay discounting rate while future cues were presented, and these effects grew larger with repeated sessions. This suggests that repeated episodic future thinking may cumulatively potentiate repair of excessive preference for immediate reward.
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting, or the preference for smaller, sooner over larger, later rewards, has been associated with alcohol use disorder and problem drinking. Episodic future thinking has been suggested as an intervention to address steep delay discounting. In the present study, we examined the effect of up to six consecutive sessions of episodic future thinking. METHODS: Repeated, within-subject data were collected from current and recent problem drinkers (n = 50) over six sessions. Linear mixed-effect models were used to estimate effects of repeated sessions and manipulations. Participants completed episodic future thinking interviews at up to six sessions, in which they generated personalized future events. Participants also engaged with cues of scarcity. At each session, participants completed three delay discounting tasks under: a no-cue baseline condition, a future cue condition, and a scarcity cue condition. RESULTS: Delay discounting in the no cue condition did not change over time. Discounting rates were reduced in the future cue condition, and these effects grew larger with repeated sessions. In the scarcity condition, discounting rates were slightly higher, with no effect of repeated sessions. CONCLUSIONS:Episodic future thinking reduced delay discounting rate while future cues were presented, and these effects grew larger with repeated sessions. This suggests that repeated episodic future thinking may cumulatively potentiate repair of excessive preference for immediate reward.
Authors: Warren K Bickel; David P Jarmolowicz; E Terry Mueller; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Kirstin M Gatchalian Journal: Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 12.310
Authors: Sarah E Snider; Harshawardhan U Deshpande; Jonathan M Lisinski; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Stephen M LaConte; Warren K Bickel Journal: Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging Date: 2017-11-21
Authors: Donna Kwan; Carl F Craver; Leonard Green; Joel Myerson; Fuqiang Gao; Sandra E Black; R Shayna Rosenbaum Journal: Hippocampus Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 3.899
Authors: William H Craft; Allison N Tegge; Liqa N Athamneh; Devin C Tomlinson; Roberta Freitas-Lemos; Warren K Bickel Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-11-15
Authors: Aliona Tsypes; Katalin Szanto; Jeffrey A Bridge; Vanessa M Brown; John G Keilp; Alexandre Y Dombrovski Journal: J Psychopathol Clin Sci Date: 2021-11-29
Authors: Michael J Sofis; Alan J Budney; Catherine Stanger; Ashley A Knapp; Jacob T Borodovsky Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jeffrey S Stein; William H Craft; Rocco A Paluch; Kirstin M Gatchalian; Mark H Greenawald; Teresa Quattrin; Lucy D Mastrandrea; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2020-09-28
Authors: Kalliu Carvalho Couto; Flora Moura Lorenzo; Marco Tagliabue; Marcelo Borges Henriques; Roberta Freitas Lemos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Leonard H Epstein; Tatiana Jimenez-Knight; Anna M Honan; Rocco A Paluch; Warren K Bickel Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 2.711