» Articles » PMID: 37248719

Reliability and Validity of Behavioral-economic Measures: A Review and Synthesis of Discounting and Demand

Overview
Date 2023 May 30
PMID 37248719
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This review sought to synthesize the literature on the reliability and validity of behavioral-economic measures of demand and discounting in human research, introduce behavioral-economic research methodologies for studying addictive behaviors, discuss gaps in the current literature, and review areas for future research. A total of 34 studies was included in this review. The discounting literature showed similar responding regardless of whether hypothetical or actual outcomes were used, though people tended to discount the outcome presented first more steeply, suggesting order effects. Although delay-discounting measures seem to show temporal stability, exceptions were found for probability- and experiential-discounting tasks. The demand literature also demonstrated similar responding regardless of outcome type; however, some demand indices showed exceptions. Randomized price sequences tended to show modest increases in O and α and modestly higher rates of inconsistent or nonsystematic responses compared with sequential price sequences. Demand indices generally showed temporal stability, although the stability was weaker the larger the time interval between test sessions. Future studies would benefit by examining addictive commodities beyond alcohol, nicotine, and money; examining temporal stability over longer time intervals; using larger delays in discounting tasks; and using larger sample sizes.

Citing Articles

Recent Experience Affects Delay Discounting: Evidence across Temporal Framing, Signs, and Magnitudes.

Willis-Moore M, Haynes J, Frye C, Johnson H, Cousins D, Bamfo H Perspect Behav Sci. 2024; 47(2):365-392.

PMID: 39099743 PMC: 11294302. DOI: 10.1007/s40614-024-00412-6.


Delay discounting is associated with addiction and mental health measures while controlling for health behaviors and health barriers in a large US sample.

Brown J, Sofis M, Zimmer S, Kaplan B Addict Behav Rep. 2024; 19:100545.

PMID: 38680208 PMC: 11046061. DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100545.

References
1.
Murphy J, Dennhardt A, Martens M, Borsari B, Witkiewitz K, Meshesha L . A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention supplemented with a substance-free activity session or relaxation training. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2019; 87(7):657-669. PMC: 6690357. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000412. View

2.
Murphy J, Dennhardt A, Yurasek A, Skidmore J, Martens M, MacKillop J . Behavioral economic predictors of brief alcohol intervention outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015; 83(6):1033-43. PMC: 4658255. DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000032. View

3.
Ohmura Y, Takahashi T, Kitamura N, Wehr P . Three-month stability of delay and probability discounting measures. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2006; 14(3):318-28. DOI: 10.1037/1064-1297.14.3.318. View

4.
Myerson J, Green L, Warusawitharana M . Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001; 76(2):235-43. PMC: 1284836. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235. View

5.
Heatherton T, Kozlowski L, Frecker R, Fagerstrom K . The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991; 86(9):1119-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x. View