Cited by 267Smoking Behavior and CessationDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unstuck in time: episodic future thinking reduces delay discounting and cigarette smoking

Open access

Abstract

Rationale Delay discounting, or the devaluation of delayed outcomes, appears to play an etiological role in tobacco and other substance-use disorders.Objectives No human studies to our knowledge have been designed to examine whether experimental reductions in delay discounting produce concomitant reduction in drug use.Methods Using methods from prior studies on delay discounting and obesity, we examined the effects of episodic future thinking (EFT; a form of mental prospection) on delay discounting and cigarette self-administration in smokers.Results Consistent with prior data, EFT significantly reduced both delay discounting (Cohen's d effect size = 0.65) and the number of cigarette puffs earned in a cigarette self-administration task (d = 0.58).Conclusions The effects of EFT on delay discounting generalize to smokers; EFT also reduces laboratory-based cigarette self-administration. Potential mechanisms of EFT's effects are discussed as well as implications of EFT for clinical treatment of substance-use disorders.

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/s00213-016-4410-y

Cites

52 of 52 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 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bickel WK, Stein JS (2016) Self-control and its failure: Intertemporal dimensions of health behavior. Big Data (in press)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stein, J. S., Wilson, A. G., Koffarnus, M. N., Daniel, T. O., Epstein, L. H., & Bickel, W. K.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Carilion Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Bickel, Warren K.
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2016-08-23
Volume
233
Issue
21-22
Pages
3771-3778
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2508490351
Cited by
267
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2
FWCI
21.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA034755)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
episodic future thinking, delay discounting, cigarette smoking, substance use disorders, tobacco use, smoking cessation
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Administration, Smoking, Thinking, Time Factors, Delay Discounting

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