Cited by 250Smoking Behavior and CessationDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Delay discounting and the behavioural economics of cigarette purchases in smokers: the effects of nicotine deprivation

Field, Matt, Santarcangelo, Mary, Sumnall, Harry, Goudie, Andrew, Cole, Jon·2006·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Rationale In smokers, nicotine deprivation may increase impulsive decision-making and the demand for cigarettes.Objectives To investigate the effects of acute nicotine deprivation on (a) the delay discounting of monetary and cigarette rewards, and (b) the behavioural economics of hypothetical cigarette purchases.Materials and methods A repeated measures design was employed, with participants (daily cigarette smokers, N=30) repeating experimental tasks in two different sessions, once after at least 13 h of abstinence from smoking and once after ad lib smoking. Participants completed measures of cigarette craving, impulsivity, delay discounting and a behavioural economic simulation in which participants made hypothetical purchases of cigarettes and other commodities as the price of cigarettes was systematically varied.Results Participants showed more pronounced delay discounting of both cigarette and monetary rewards after abstinence compared to after ad lib smoking. In the behavioural economic simulation, nicotine deprivation had no influence on hypothetical cigarette purchases. However, spending on some commodities (alcohol, clothing, household goods, leisure activities and long-distance travel) was reduced as the price of cigarettes increased in order to fund increased spending on cigarettes, although the number of packs of cigarettes purchased actually decreased.Conclusions Nicotine deprivation increases impulsive choices for both cigarette and monetary rewards in a delay-discounting task. Results from a behavioural economic simulation suggest that increases in the price of cigarettes may increase smokers' spending on cigarettes, while also reducing the number of cigarettes purchased.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-006-0385-4

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Field, M., Santarcangelo, M., Sumnall, H., Goudie, A., & Cole, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Corresponding author
Field, Matt
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2006-04-12
Volume
186
Issue
2
Pages
255-263
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2042488024
Cited by
250
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 19
FWCI
9.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
delay discounting, nicotine deprivation, cigarette smoking, impulsive decision-making, cigarette craving, impulsivity, behavioral economics, cigarette prices, monetary rewards, smoking abstinence
MeSH terms
Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Reinforcement, Psychology, Smoking, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Time Factors, Tobacco Use Disorder

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review