共 128 条
Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis
被引:756
作者:
MacKillop, James
[1
,5
]
Amlung, Michael T.
[1
]
Few, Lauren R.
[1
]
Ray, Lara A.
[2
]
Sweet, Lawrence H.
[3
]
Munafo, Marcus R.
[4
]
机构:
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Psychol, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Psychol, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[3] Brown Univ, Dept Psychiat & Human Behav, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[4] Univ Bristol, Sch Expt Psychol, Bristol, Avon, England
[5] Brown Univ, Ctr Alcohol & Addict Studies, Providence, RI 02912 USA
基金:
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词:
Delay discounting;
Impulsivity;
Addiction;
Substance dependence;
Alcohol;
Tobacco;
Nicotine;
Stimulant;
Opiate;
Gambling;
Meta-analysis;
CIGARETTE-SMOKING STATUS;
D2 RECEPTOR GENE;
C957T POLYMORPHISM;
IMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR;
SUBSTANCE-ABUSERS;
DRUG-USE;
ENDOPHENOTYPE CONCEPT;
DEPENDENT PATIENTS;
MONETARY GAINS;
ALCOHOL-ABUSE;
D O I:
10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0
中图分类号:
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号:
071006 ;
摘要:
Rationale Delayed reward discounting (DRD) is a behavioral economic index of impulsivity and numerous studies have examined DRD in relation to addictive behavior. To synthesize the findings across the literature, the current review is a meta-analysis of studies comparing DRD between criterion groups exhibiting addictive behavior and control groups. Objectives The meta-analysis sought to characterize the overall patterns of findings, systematic variability by sample and study type, and possible small study (publication) bias. Methods Literature reviews identified 310 candidate articles from which 46 studies reporting 64 comparisons were identified (total N=56,013). Results From the total comparisons identified, a small magnitude effect was evident (d=.15; p<.00001) with very high heterogeneity of effect size. Based on systematic observed differences, large studies assessing DRD with a small number of self-report items were removed and an analysis of 57 comparisons (n=3,329) using equivalent methods and exhibiting acceptable heterogeneity revealed a medium magnitude effect (d=.58; p<.00001). Further analyses revealed significantly larger effect sizes for studies using clinical samples (d=.61) compared with studies using nonclinical samples (d=.45). Indices of small study bias among the various comparisons suggested varying levels of influence by unpublished findings, ranging from minimal to moderate. Conclusions These results provide strong evidence of greater DRD in individuals exhibiting addictive behavior in general and particularly in individuals who meet criteria for an addictive disorder. Implications for the assessment of DRD and research priorities are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:305 / 321
页数:17
相关论文