Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

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

Is Talk “Cheap”? An Initial Investigation of the Equivalence of Alcohol Purchase Task Performance for Hypothetical and Actual Rewards

Open access
Amlung, Michael T., Acker, John, Stojek, Monika K., Murphy, James G., MacKillop, James·2012·Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

Abstract

Background: Behavioral economic alcohol purchase tasks (APTs) are self‐report measures of alcohol demand that assess estimated consumption at escalating levels of price. However, the relationship between estimated performance for hypothetical outcomes and choices for actual outcomes has not been determined. The present study examined both the correspondence between choices for hypothetical and actual outcomes, and the correspondence between estimated alcohol consumption and actual drinking behavior. A collateral goal of the study was to examine the effects of alcohol cues on APT performance. Methods: Forty‐one heavy‐drinking adults (56% men) participated in a human laboratory protocol comprising APTs for hypothetical and actual alcohol and money, an alcohol cue reactivity paradigm, an alcohol self‐administration period, and a recovery period. Results: Pearson correlations revealed very high correspondence between APT performance for hypothetical and actual alcohol (p s < 0.001). Estimated consumption on the APT was similarly strongly associated with actual consumption during the self‐administration period (r = 0.87, p < 0.001). Exposure to alcohol cues significantly increased subjective craving and arousal and had a trend‐level effect on intensity of demand, in spite of notable ceiling effects. Associations among motivational indices were highly variable, suggesting multidimensionality. Conclusions: These results suggest there may be close correspondence both between value preferences for hypothetical alcohol and actual alcohol, and between estimated consumption and actual consumption. Methodological considerations and priorities for future studies 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01656.x

Cites

9 of 9 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

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 9 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Amlung, M. T., Acker, J., Stojek, M. K., Murphy, J. G., & MacKillop, J.
Venue
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10-21
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
716-724
ISSN
  • 0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-0277
OpenAlex
W1911378077
Cited by
264
References
9
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is Talk “Cheap”? An Initial Investigation of the Equivalence of Alcohol Purchase Task Performance for Hypothetical and Actual Rewards. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01656.x
The paper
Amlung, M. T., Acker, J., Stojek, M. K., Murphy, J. G., & MacKillop, J. (2012). Is Talk “Cheap”? An Initial Investigation of the Equivalence of Alcohol Purchase Task Performance for Hypothetical and Actual Rewards. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01656.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.