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 accessAbstract
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 Indices of small study bias among the various comparisons suggested varying levels of influence by unpublished findings, ranging from minimal to moderate.Conclusions These results provide strong evidence of greater DRD in individuals exhibiting addictive behavior in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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Supporting this belief, discount rate is highly correlated with a variety of health behaviors and disorders, with medium effect sizes across studies (Amlung, Petker, Jackson, Balodis, & MacKillop, 2016; Jackson & MacKillop, 2016; MacKillop et al., 2011).”
From Behavioral trainings and manipulations to reduce delay discounting: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as MacKillop et al., 2011
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Delayed reward discounting is a behavioural economic index of impulsivity and numerous studies have examined delayed reward discounting in substance use disorder [33, 34].”
From P300 and delay-discounting in obsessive–compulsive disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“For example, as a group, individuals who smoke consistently show higher DD rates than controls do (Amlung & MacKillop, 2014; MacKillop et al., 2011).”
From Behavioral trainings and manipulations to reduce delay discounting: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as MacKillop et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Steeply discounting delayed rewards is correlated with most substance-use disorders, the severity of these disorders, rates of relapse to drug use, and a host of other maladaptive decisions impacting human health.”
From Changing Delay Discounting and Impulsive Choice: Implications for Addictions, Prevention, and Human Health (2019) · cites this paper as MacKillop et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“evidence across studies suggests that delay discounting predisposes people to addictions rather than the reverse causal direction.190”
From Early life adversity and health-risk behaviors: Proposed psychological and neural mechanisms (2018) · cites this paper as [190]
In the citing paper
“one meta-analysis on the relationship between delay discounting and addictive behaviors found an overall medium effect size with acceptable heterogeneity between studies.190”
From Early life adversity and health-risk behaviors: Proposed psychological and neural mechanisms (2018) · cites this paper as [190]
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
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association, Arlington
- Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2005) Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2. Biostat, Englewood Cliffs
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641
The behavioral economics of substance use disorders: reinforcement pathologies and their repair
Bickel, W. K., Johnson, M. W., Koffarnus, M. N., MacKillop, J., & Murphy, J. G. (2014) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153724 · Cited by 655
Self-citationAmlung, M., Vedelago, L., Acker, J., Balodis, I., & MacKillop, J. (2017) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.13535 · Cited by 626
Self-citationLuciana, M. M., Bjork, J. M., Nagel, B. J., Barch, D. M., González, R., Nixon, S. J., & Banich, M. T. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006 · Cited by 554
MacKillop, J., Weafer, J. J., Gray, J. C., Oshri, A., Palmer, A. A., & de Wit, H. (2016) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4372-0 · Cited by 404
Self-citation
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
- PMC
- PMC3201846
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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
