A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between heavy smoking and probability discounting
Hsien-Jane Chiu MD, PhD
Taoyuan Psychiatric Center, Minster of Health and Welfare, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Institute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorCheuk-Kwan Sun MD, PhD
Department of Emergency Medicine, E-Da Dachang Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
School of Medicine for International Students, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorHung-Yu Wang MD
Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorHan-Yun Chang PhD
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Clinical Psychology Center, Asia University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorChun-Hsien Kuo PhD
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorYu-Ru Sue MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorShu-Hsuan Wu MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorShih-Yi Tung MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorChiao-Yu Lee MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Pin-Yang Yeh PhD
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Clinical Psychology Center, Asia University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
Correspondence Pin-Yang Yeh, PhD, Department of Psychology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University; No. 500, Lioufeng Rd, Wufeng, Taichung 41354, Taiwan.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorHsien-Jane Chiu MD, PhD
Taoyuan Psychiatric Center, Minster of Health and Welfare, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Institute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorCheuk-Kwan Sun MD, PhD
Department of Emergency Medicine, E-Da Dachang Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
School of Medicine for International Students, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorHung-Yu Wang MD
Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorHan-Yun Chang PhD
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Clinical Psychology Center, Asia University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorChun-Hsien Kuo PhD
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorYu-Ru Sue MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorShu-Hsuan Wu MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorShih-Yi Tung MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorChiao-Yu Lee MS (Student)
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Pin-Yang Yeh PhD
Department of Psychology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Clinical Psychology Center, Asia University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
Correspondence Pin-Yang Yeh, PhD, Department of Psychology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University; No. 500, Lioufeng Rd, Wufeng, Taichung 41354, Taiwan.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorHsien-Jane Chiu and Cheuk-Kwan Sun contributed equally as the first authors to this study.
Answer questions and earn CME credit
Abstract
Background and Objectives
Probability discounting (PD), which refers to the process of adjusting the value of future probabilities when making decisions, is a method of measuring impulsive decision-making; however, the relationship between PD and nicotine remains unclear. The current study aimed at investigating the significance of PD in individuals who smoke.
Methods
According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases for articles comparing individuals who smoke and their tobacco-naïve controls using PD task as outcome measure from inception to May 2023. The main outcome was an overall difference in PD function, while subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to examine the analysis methods and the moderators of PD.
Results
Fourteen studies in total involving 384 individuals who smoke and 493 controls (mean age = 24.32 years, range = 15.1–38.05 years) were analyzed. The effect of smoking on PD was significant (g = 0.51, p = .02). The discounting parameter from the equation, compared to the area under the curve, was more sensitive to estimating PD function (p = .01). Regression analysis showed positive correlations of PD with female percentage, age, and the number of probability options (all p < .04), but not with the number of choices at each probability and maximum reward magnitude (all p > .07). There was no significant publication bias across the eligible studies (p = .09).
Conclusion and Scientific Significance
Our findings, which are the first to demonstrate a smaller PD (i.e., prone to risk-taking) in individuals who smoke, shed light on the appropriate analysis method, gender effect, age, and probability options on the PD function.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1Green L, Myerson J, Vanderveldt A. Delay and probability discounting. In: FK McSweeney, ES Murphy, eds. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2014: 307-337. doi:10.1002/9781118468135
10.1002/9781118468135.ch13 Google Scholar
- 2Bickel WK, Johnson MW, Koffarnus MN, MacKillop J, Murphy JG. The behavioral economics of substance use disorders: reinforcement pathologies and their repair. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014; 10: 641-677. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153724
- 3Acuff SF, MacKillop J, Murphy JG. A contextualized reinforcer pathology approach to addiction. Nat Rev Psychol. 2023; 2(5): 309-323. doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00167-y
- 4Myerson J, Green L, Warusawitharana M. Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001; 76(2): 235-243. doi:10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235.
- 5Green L, Myerson J. A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychol Bull. 2004; 130(5): 769-792. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769
- 6Chen S, Yang P, Chen T, Su H, Jiang H, Zhao M. Risky decision-making in individuals with substance use disorder: a meta-analysis and meta-regression review. Psychopharmacology. 2020; 237(7): 1893-1908. doi:10.1007/s00213-020-05506-y
- 7Upadhyaya HP, Deas D, Brady KT, Kruesi M. Cigarette smoking and psychiatric comorbidity in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002; 41(11): 1294-1305. doi:10.1097/00004583-200211000-00010
- 8DeBry S, Tiffany S. Tobacco-induced neurotoxicity of adolescent cognitive development (TINACD): a proposed model for the development of impulsivity in nicotine dependence. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008; 10(1): 11-25. doi:10.1080/14622200701767811
- 9Conti AA, Baldacchino AM. Neuroanatomical correlates of impulsive choices and risky decision making in young chronic tobacco smokers: a voxel-based morphometry study. Front Psychiatry. 2021; 12:708925. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.708925
- 10Naudé J, Dongelmans M, Faure P. Nicotinic alteration of decision-making. Neuropharmacology. 2015; 96: 244-254. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.11.021
- 11Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, De Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999; 71(2): 121-143. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.71-121
- 12Mendez IA, Damborsky JC, Winzer-Serhan UH, Bizon JL, Setlow B. α4β2∗ and α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding predicts choice preference in two cost benefit decision-making tasks. Neuroscience. 2013; 230: 121-131. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.10.067
- 13Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
- 14Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Wiley; 2009. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14908-0_2
- 15Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1997; 16(7): 753-768. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::aid-sim494>3.0.co;2-g
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO;2-G CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 16Białaszek W, Marcowski P, Cox DJ. Differences in delay, but not probability discounting, in current smokers, e-cigarette users, and never smokers. Psychol Rec. 2017; 67(2): 223-230. doi:10.1007/s40732-017-0244-1
- 17Mejía-Cruz D, Green L, Myerson J, Morales-Chainé S, Nieto J. Delay and probability discounting by drug-dependent cocaine and marijuana users. Psychopharmacology. 2016; 233(14): 2705-2714. doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4316-8
- 18Poltavski DV, Weatherly JN. Delay and probability discounting of multiple commodities in smokers and never-smokers using multiple-choice tasks. Behav Pharmacol. 2013; 24(8): 659-667. doi:10.1097/FBP.0000000000000010
- 19Reynolds B, Karraker K, Horn K, Richards JB. Delay and probability discounting as related to different stages of adolescent smoking and non-smoking. Behav Process. 2003; 64(3): 333-344. doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(03)00168-2
- 20Reynolds B, Richards JB, Horn K, Karraker K. Delay discounting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in adults. Behav Process. 2004; 65(1): 35-42. doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(03)00109-8
- 21Jiga-Boy GM, Storey K, Buehner MJ. Smokers discount their drug of abuse in the same way as other consumable rewards. Q J Exp Psychol. 2013; 66(10): 1992-2007. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.772646
10.1080/17470218.2013.772646 Google Scholar
- 22Lawyer SR, Schoepflin F, Green R, Jenks C. Discounting of hypothetical and potentially real outcomes in nicotine-dependent and nondependent samples. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011; 19(4): 263-274. doi:10.1037/a0024141
- 23Mitchell SH. Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology. 1999; 146(4): 455-464. doi:10.1007/pl00005491
- 24Ohmura Y, Takahashi T, Kitamura N. Discounting delayed and probabilistic monetary gains and losses by smokers of cigarettes. Psychopharmacology. 2005; 182: 508-515. doi:10.1007/s00213-005-0110-8
- 25Reynolds B. The experiential discounting task is sensitive to cigarette-smoking status and correlates with a measure of delay discounting. Behav Pharmacol. 2006; 17(2): 133-142. doi:10.1097/01.fbp.0000190684.77360.c0
- 26Yan W-S, Chen R-T, Liu M-M, Zheng D-H. Monetary reward discounting, inhibitory control, and trait impulsivity in young adults with Internet gaming disorder and nicotine dependence. Front Psychiatry. 2021; 12: 28. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.628933
- 27Yi R, Chase WD, Bickel WK. Probability discounting among cigarette smokers and nonsmokers: molecular analysis discerns group differences. Behav Pharmacol. 2007; 18(7): 633-639. doi:10.1097/FBP.0b013e3282effbd3
- 28Reynolds B, Patak M, Shroff P, Penfold RB, Melanko S, Duhig AM. Laboratory and self-report assessments of impulsive behavior in adolescent daily smokers and nonsmokers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007; 15(3): 264-271. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.15.3.264
- 29Montoya AL, Chainé SM, Santibáñez RÁ, Nieto J. Descuento temporal y probabilístico en el abuso a la nicotina. Rev Mex Anál Conducta. 2016; 42(1): 13-35. doi:10.5514/rmac.v42.i1.56781
- 30Delgado MR, Labouliere CD, Phelps EA. Fear of losing money? Aversive conditioning with secondary reinforcers. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2006; 1(3): 250-259. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl025
- 31Biernacki K, McLennan SN, Terrett G, Labuschagne I, Rendell PG. Decision-making ability in current and past users of opiates: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016; 71: 342-351. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.011
- 32Domenech P, Koechlin E. Executive control and decision-making in the prefrontal cortex. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2015; 1: 101-106. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.10.007
- 33Shen Z, Huang P, Wang C, et al. Altered function but not structure of the amygdala in nicotine-dependent individuals. Neuropsychologia. 2017; 107: 102-107. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.11.003
- 34Hayano F, Nakamura M, Asami T, et al. Smaller amygdala is associated with anxiety in patients with panic disorder. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009; 63(3): 266-276. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.01960.x
- 35Pando-Naude V, Toxto S, Fernandez-Lozano S, Parsons CE, Alcauter S, Garza-Villarreal EA. Gray and white matter morphology in substance use disorders: a neuroimaging systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Psychiatry. 2021; 11(1): 29. doi:10.1038/s41398-020-01128-2
- 36Yu R, Zhou W, Zhou X. Rapid processing of both reward probability and reward uncertainty in the human anterior cingulate cortex. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12):e29633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029633
- 37Chung W, Sun CK, Tsai IT, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical implications of probability discounting among individuals with Internet gaming disorder. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 3177. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82822-z
- 38Smith CL, Hantula DA. Methodological considerations in the study of delay discounting in intertemporal choice: a comparison of tasks and modes. Behav Res Methods. 2008; 40(4): 940-953. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.940
- 39Lighthall NR, Sakaki M, Vasunilashorn S, et al. Gender differences in reward-related decision processing under stress. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011; 7(4): 476-484. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr026
- 40Best R, Charness N. Age differences in the effect of framing on risky choice: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 2015; 30(3): 688-698. doi:10.1037/a0039447
- 41Mata R, Josef AK, Samanez-Larkin GR, Hertwig R. Age differences in risky choice: a meta-analysis. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2011; 1235(1): 18-29. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06200.x
- 42Zelazo PD, Qu L, Kesek AC. Hot executive function: emotion and the development of cognitive control. In: SD Calkins, MA Bell, eds. Child Development at the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition. American Psychological Association; 2010: 97-111. doi:10.1037/12059-006
10.1037/12059-006 Google Scholar
- 43Tsermentseli S, Poland S. Cool versus hot executive function: a new approach to executive function. Encephalos. 2016; 53(1): 11-14.
- 44Gueyffier F, Cucherat M. The limitations of observation studies for decision making regarding drugs efficacy and safety. Therapies. 2019; 74(2): 181-185. doi:10.1016/j.therap.2018.11.001
- 45Ko C-H, Wang P-W, Liu T-L, Chen C-S, Yen C-F, Yen J-Y. The adaptive decision-making, risky decision, and decision-making style of Internet gaming disorder. Eur Psychiatry. 2017; 44: 189-197. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.05.020
- 46Amlung M, Vedelago L, Acker J, Balodis I, MacKillop J. Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis of continuous associations. Addiction. 2017; 112(1): 51-62. doi:10.1111/add.13535
- 47Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(7): 629-637. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06408-7
- 48Kostygina G, England L, Ling P. New product marketing blurs the line between nicotine replacement therapy and smokeless tobacco products. Am J Public Health. 2016; 106(7): 1219-1222. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303057
