Cited by 495Smoking Behavior and CessationDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsGambling Behavior and Treatments

Delay discounting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in adults

Reynolds, Brady, Richards, Jerry B, Horn, Kimberly, Karraker, Katherine·2004·Behavioural Processes

Abstract

This study examined relations between adult smokers and non-smokers and the devaluation of monetary rewards as a function of delay (delay discounting, DD) or probability (probability discounting, PD). The extent to which individuals discount value, either as a function of a reward being delayed or probabilistic, has been taken to reflect individual differences in impulsivity. Those who discount most are considered most impulsive. Previous research has shown that adult smokers discount the value of delayed rewards more than adult non-smokers. However, in the one published study that examined probability discounting in adult smokers and non-smokers, the smokers did not discount the value of probabilistic rewards more than the non-smoker controls. From this past research, it was hypothesized that measures of delay discounting would differentiate between smokers and non-smokers but that probability discounting would not. Participants were 54 (25 female) adult smokers (n = 25) and non-smokers (n = 29). The smokers all reported smoking at least 20 cigarettes per day, and the non-smokers reported having never smoked. The results indicated that the smokers discounted significantly more than the non-smokers by both delay and probability. Unlike past findings, these results suggest that both delay and probability discounting are related to adult cigarette smoking; however, it also was determined that DD was a significantly stronger predictor of smoking than PD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0376-6357(03)00109-8

Cites

23 of 23 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
Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., Horn, K., & Karraker, K.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Reynolds, Brady
Venue
Behavioural Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-01
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
35-42
ISSN
0376-6357 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044372038
Cited by
495
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 39
FWCI
6.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Processes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
delay discounting, probability discounting, cigarette smoking, impulsivity, monetary rewards, delayed rewards, probabilistic reward, smoking cessation, individual differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Exploratory Behavior, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Personality Inventory, Probability, Surveys and Questionnaires, Smoking, Social Behavior, Time Factors

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