Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: similarities and differences across commodity, sign, and magnitude.

By Forest Baker, Matthew W. Johnson, Warren K. Bickel. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2003

607 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/718de8ce3c0d88c616eeba171da51ff74a14c242

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse (2008, background): “2007), and cigarette smokers (Baker et al. 2003; Bickel et al. 1999; Heyman and Gibb 2006; Mitchell 1999; Reynolds et al. 2004b, but see Johnson et al. 2007; Ohmura et al. 2005) also discounted future monetary rewards to a greater extent than nonusers.”
Decision making, impulsivity and time perception. (2008, background): “The external validity of using delay-discounting paradigms to quantify dysfunctions of impulse control is based on findings that children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [4], individuals with neuropsychiatric disorders [20], smokers [ 21 ], alcoholics [22] and substance-dependen”
When do you Want It? Time, Decisions, and Public Policy (2006, background): “Work showing higher discount rates for addictive substances than for money is also relevant (Baker, Johnson, and Bickel 2003; Kirby, Petry, and Bickel 1999).”
A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. (2004, background): “Moreover, the few studies comparing discounting of real and hypothetical rewards in the same participants (Baker et al., 2003; Johnson & Bickel, 2002; Madden et al., 2003) have reported no significant quantitative differences in discounting rate, although it may be too early to reach a firm conclusi”
Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis (2011, background): “Never Smokers Yes 23 vs. 21 Multi-item choice task $1,000 k Fields et al. 2009 Tobacco Current smokers (4+ cigarettes/day) vs. nonsmokers (adolescents) No 50 vs. 50 Multi-item choice task $10 AUC Heyman and Gibb 2006 Tobacco Smokers vs. nonsmokers No 19 vs. 31 Multi-item choice task $29 k Jones et a”
Good or Bad, We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice (2012, background): “The effect of magnitude on discount rates for losses A small number of studies suggest that the magnitude effect may not exist for losses (Baker et al., 2003; Estle et al., 2006).”
Impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for substance-use disorders: review of findings from high-risk research, problem gamblers and genetic association studies. (2008, background): “, 2004), and with both monetary rewards and cigarette rewards (Baker et al., 2003).”
Delay discounting: concepts and measures (2012, background): “There can be more pronounced differences for others such as the magnitude effect (Johnson & Bickel, 2002), which refers to the fact that large magnitudes are discounted at lesser rates than small magnitudes (Baker et al., 2003).”
A review of delay-discounting research with humans: relations to drug use and gambling (2006, background): “Baker et al. (2003) examined the robustness of relations between delay discounting and cigarette-smoking status across a range of commodity outcomes.”