Irene Pericot-Valverde1, Jin H Yoon2, Diann E Gaalema3. 1. School of Health Research, Clemson University, 605 Grove Road, Greenville, SC 29605, United States; Prisma Health-Upstate, Department of Internal Medicine, 701 Grove Road, Greenville, SC 29605, United States. Electronic address: iperico@clemson.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 1941 East Road, Houston, TX 77054, United States. 3. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, 1 South Prospect Street, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, United States; Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, 1 South Prospect Street, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting (DD) research has improved our understanding of important behavioral processes associated with tobacco use. Little research has explored DD among e-cigarette users, and these studies have exclusively examined money as the only available commodity. This secondary analysis of a laboratory study explored discounting for money and e-liquid among e-cigarette users using two single-commodity discounting (SCD) tasks and one cross-commodity discounting (CCD) task. A secondary goal was to explore the extent to which results from the SCD and CCD tasks were correlated to each other and with measures of e-cigarette use. METHODS: E-cigarette users (N = 27) completed two SCD tasks and one CCD task. The SCD tasks assessed choices between various amounts of either money now versus money later (M-M) or e-liquid now versus e-liquid later (mL-mL). The CCD task assessed choices between e-liquid now versus money later (mL-M). Discounting results were compared using logk and AUClog. RESULTS: Discounting was greatest in the mL-mL task, followed by the M-M task, and then the mL-M task. AUClog and logk were significantly correlated across all discounting tasks. Attempts to quit vaping was positively associated with logk and negatively associated with AUClog and in both SCD tasks. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette users discount e-liquid more than money in a SCD task. However, when the two commodities, money and e-liquid (CCD), are compared the substance of abuse is discounted to a lesser extent. Interventions that provide alternative reinforcers to compete with the reinforcing effects of nicotine intake may be especially indicated for treating e-cigarette dependence.
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting (DD) research has improved our understanding of important behavioral processes associated with tobacco use. Little research has explored DD among e-cigarette users, and these studies have exclusively examined money as the only available commodity. This secondary analysis of a laboratory study explored discounting for money and e-liquid among e-cigarette users using two single-commodity discounting (SCD) tasks and one cross-commodity discounting (CCD) task. A secondary goal was to explore the extent to which results from the SCD and CCD tasks were correlated to each other and with measures of e-cigarette use. METHODS: E-cigarette users (N = 27) completed two SCD tasks and one CCD task. The SCD tasks assessed choices between various amounts of either money now versus money later (M-M) or e-liquid now versus e-liquid later (mL-mL). The CCD task assessed choices between e-liquid now versus money later (mL-M). Discounting results were compared using logk and AUClog. RESULTS: Discounting was greatest in the mL-mL task, followed by the M-M task, and then the mL-M task. AUClog and logk were significantly correlated across all discounting tasks. Attempts to quit vaping was positively associated with logk and negatively associated with AUClog and in both SCD tasks. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette users discount e-liquid more than money in a SCD task. However, when the two commodities, money and e-liquid (CCD), are compared the substance of abuse is discounted to a lesser extent. Interventions that provide alternative reinforcers to compete with the reinforcing effects of nicotine intake may be especially indicated for treating e-cigarette dependence.
Authors: Warren K Bickel; Reid D Landes; Darren R Christensen; Lisa Jackson; Bryan A Jones; Zeb Kurth-Nelson; A David Redish Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jin H Yoon; Stephen T Higgins; Matthew P Bradstreet; Gary J Badger; Colleen S Thomas Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Mitchell F Stiles; Leanne R Campbell; Donald W Graff; Bobbette A Jones; Reginald V Fant; Jack E Henningfield Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Mitchell F Stiles; Leanne R Campbell; Tao Jin; Donald W Graff; Reginald V Fant; Jack E Henningfield Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.530