CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 234Smoking Behavior and CessationDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of cigarettes

Odum, Amy L., Madden, Gregory J., Bickel, Warren K.·2002·Nicotine & Tobacco Research
DOI 10.1080/14622200210141257
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent evidence implicates steep discounting of delayed outcomes as an important feature of drug dependence. We determined discounting rates for health gains and health losses in current cigarette smokers (n = 23), never-smokers (n = 22) and ex-smokers (n = 21). Participants indicated preference for immediate vs. delayed hypothetical health gains and for immediate vs. delayed hypothetical health losses in a titration procedure that determined indifference points at a range of delays. The degree of discounting was estimated using two nonlinear decay models: an exponential model and a hyperbolic model. The hyperbolic equation generally provided better fits to the data than the exponential equation did. Current smokers discounted delayed health gains and health losses more steeply than never-smokers did. Discounting by ex-smokers was generally intermediate to that of current smokers and never-smokers, although not statistically different from either. Current smokers and ex-smokers discounted delayed health losses more steeply than they did health gains. Never-smokers did not discount gains and losses differently. Cigarette smokers show rapid loss of value for delayed health outcomes, emphasizing the need for smoking-cessation treatments that provide relatively immediate consequences for abstinence.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14622200210141257

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 234

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Odum, A. L., Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K.
Affiliations
  • University of New Hampshire (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (US)
Corresponding author
Odum, Amy L.
ORCID
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-08-01
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
295-303
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
DOI
10.1080/14622200210141257
OpenAlex
W1999549849
Cited by
234
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA011692, T32DA007242)
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
delay discounting, cigarette smokers, former smokers, never smokers, health gains, health loss, hyperbolic discounting, exponential discounting, smoking cessation, drug addiction, time preference
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Status, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Smoking, Time Factors, Smoking Cessation

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