CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 523

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Heroin and cocaine abusers have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than alcoholics or non-drug-using controls.

Kirby, Kris N., Petry, Nancy M.·2004·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00669.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims To test a prediction of the discounting model of impulsiveness that discount rates would be positively associated with addiction. The delay‐discount rate refers to the rate of reduction in the present value of a future reward as the delay to that reward increases. Design and measurements We estimated participants’ discount rates on the basis of their pattern of choices between smaller immediate rewards ($11–80) and larger, delayed rewards ($25–85; at delays from 1 week to 6 months) in a questionnaire format. Participants had a one‐in‐six chance of winning a reward that they chose on one randomly selected trial. Participants and setting Heroin (n = 27), cocaine (n = 41) and alcohol (n = 33) abusers and non‐drug‐using controls (n = 44) were recruited from advertisements. They were tested in a drug abuse research clinic at a medical school. Findings On average, the cocaine and heroin groups had higher rates than controls (both P < 0.001), but alcoholics did not (P = 0.44). Abstinence was associated with lower rates for heroin abusers (P = 0.03), but not for cocaine or alcohol abusers (both P > 0.50). Conclusions These data suggest that discount rates vary with the preferred drug of abuse, and that high discount rates should be considered in the development of substance abuse prevention and treatment efforts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00669.x

Cites

9 of 9 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

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2001.tb02283.x · DOI
  2. 10.1007/978-1-4613-9089-3 · DOI
  3. Barratt E. S., 1985, Impulsiveness Defined Within a Systems Model of Personality, 113
  4. 10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00057-5 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/S0376-8716(97)01359-8 · DOI
  6. 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950070060011 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1177/0013164482421002 · DOI
  8. 10.2105/AJPH.88.10.1490 · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0096-3445.126.1.54 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00078-8 · DOI
  11. 10.1037/1064-1297.7.3.284 · DOI
  12. Mazur J. E., 1987, An Adjusting Procedure for Studying Delayed Reinforcement, 55
  13. 10.1016/S0376-8716(00)00111-3 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00071-X · DOI
  15. 10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.482 · DOI
  16. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9333212.x · DOI
  17. Rachlin H., 2000, The Science of Self‐Control
  18. Rosenthal R., 1991, Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis
  19. 10.1037/1064-1297.6.3.292 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Zachary R. A., 1991, Shipley Institute of Living Scale:
  21. 10.1016/S0376-8716(00)00221-0 · DOI
  22. Zuckerman M., 1979, Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 523

Metadata

Authors
Kirby, K. N., & Petry, N. M.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02-13
Volume
99
Issue
4
Pages
461-471
ISSN
  • 0965-2140
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00669.x
Cited by
523
References
9
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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