Cited by 1,021Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsGambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis

Open access
MacKillop, James, Amlung, Michael T., Few, Lauren R., Ray, Lara A., Sweet, Lawrence H., Munafò, Marcus R.·2011·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Rationale Delayed reward discounting (DRD) is a behavioral economic index of impulsivity and numerous studies have examined DRD in relation to addictive behavior. To synthesize the findings across the literature, the current review is a meta-analysis of studies comparing DRD between criterion groups exhibiting addictive behavior and control groups.Objectives The meta-analysis sought to characterize the overall patterns of findings, systematic variability by sample and study type, and possible small study (publication) bias.Methods Literature reviews identified 310 candidate articles from which 46 studies reporting 64 comparisons were identified (total N=56,013).Results From the total comparisons identified, a small magnitude effect was evident (d= .15; p< .00001) with very high heterogeneity of effect size. Based on systematic observed differences, large studies assessing DRD with a small number of self-report items were removed and an analysis of 57 comparisons (n=3,329) using equivalent methods and exhibiting acceptable heterogeneity revealed a medium magnitude effect (d= .58; p< .00001). Further analyses revealed significantly larger effect sizes for studies using clinical samples (d= .61) compared with studies using nonclinical samples (d=.45). Indices of small study bias among the various comparisons suggested varying levels of influence by unpublished findings, ranging from minimal to moderate.Conclusions These results provide strong evidence of greater DRD in individuals exhibiting addictive behavior in general and particularly in individuals who meet criteria for an addictive disorder. Implications for the assessment of DRD and research priorities are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 133 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association, Arlington
  2. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2005) Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2. Biostat, Englewood Cliffs

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 998

Metadata

Authors
MacKillop, J., Amlung, M. T., Few, L. R., Ray, L. A., Sweet, L. H., & Munafò, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
MacKillop, James
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2011-03-04
Volume
216
Issue
3
Pages
305-321
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W1996296330
Cited by
1,021
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 25
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007489/1)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA 016936, K23AA016936)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA027827)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
delay discounting, addictive behavior, impulsivity, addiction, behavioral economics, impulsivity assessment, publication bias
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Psychological, Reward, Behavior, Addictive, Substance-Related Disorders

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