Dataset Information

Behavioral economic cigarette demand among individuals who smoke with and without obesity.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Obesity and cigarette smoking are leading preventable causes of mortality, with greater mortality risk when these disorders occur together. Comorbid obesity and cigarette smoking may affect the valuation of cigarettes. The present study examines the demand for cigarettes between obese and nonobese smokers.

Method

Participants (N = 187) from four in-laboratory studies completed the hypothetical cigarette purchase task. According to self-reported height and weight, participants were assigned to either the obese group (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) or to the nonobese group (BMI < 30).

Results

Significant differences in demand intensity were observed between individuals with and without obesity, F(1, 168) = 9.284, p = .003, with individuals who smoke and are obese showing higher demand intensity (product purchasing when free). These differences in demand intensity between groups remained after adjusting for the number of cigarettes consumed per day. No differences were observed in elasticity of demand, F(1, 168) = 1.033, p = .311.

Conclusions

The results reported here suggest that individuals who smoke and are obese may value brief, intense, and immediate reinforcers more than individuals who smoke and are not obese. Further research may suggest reinforcer pathology as a basis for this result. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

SUBMITTER: Bickel WK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9972959 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Behavioral economic cigarette demand among individuals who smoke with and without obesity.

Bickel Warren K WK Freitas-Lemos Roberta R Tegge Allison N AN Tomlinson Devin C DC Epstein Leonard H LH

Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association 20211001 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Obesity and cigarette smoking are leading preventable causes of mortality, with greater mortality risk when these disorders occur together. Comorbid obesity and cigarette smoking may affect the valuation of cigarettes. The present study examines the demand for cigarettes between obese and nonobese smokers.<h4>Method</h4>Participants (N = 187) from four in-laboratory studies completed the hypothetical cigarette purchase task. According to self-reported height and weight, partici ...[more]

PMID: 34881934

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Government regulations of nicotine vaping products (NVP) have evolved rapidly during the past decade. The impact of NVP regulatory environment and vaping on cigarette demand is unknown. The current study aims to investigate whether or not respondents' reported cigarette demand, as measured by a hypothetical cigarette purchase task, varies with (1) smoking status, (2) vaping status or (3) NVP regulatory environment (country used as proxy). DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey data from wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey (2016). SETTING:Australia, Canada, England and the United States. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 10 316 adult smokers. MEASUREMENTS:A hypothetical purchase task asked smokers to estimate how many cigarettes they would purchase for consumption in a single day across multiple cigarette prices. Responses were used to derive measures of cigarette demand. Overall sensitivity of cigarette consumption to price increases was quantified to index cigarette demand elasticity, whereas estimated consumption when cigarettes are free was used to index cigarette demand intensity. FINDINGS:A majority of the non-daily smokers had previously smoked daily (72.3%); daily vapers were more likely to be former daily smokers (89.9%) compared to non-daily vapers (70.1%) and non-vapers (69.2%) (P < 0.001). The smoking status × vaping status interaction was significant for cigarette demand intensity (F = 4.93; P = 0.007) and elasticity (F = 7.30; P = 0.001): among non-daily smokers, vapers reported greater intensity but lower elasticity (i.e. greater demand) relative to non-vapers (Ps < 0.05). Among daily smokers, daily vapers reported greater intensity relative to non-vapers (P = 0.005), but vaping status did not impact elasticity (Ps > 0.38). Intensity was higher in Australia compared with all other countries (Ps < 0.001), but elasticity did not vary by country (F = 2.15; P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS:In a hypothetical purchase task, non-daily smokers showed lower price elasticity if they used e-cigarettes than if they did not, while there was no clear difference in elasticity between e-cigarette users and non-users among daily smokers or according to regulatory environment of their country with regard to e-cigarettes.

Project description:Background and aimsReinforcing value, an index of motivation for a drug, is commonly measured using behavioral economic purchase tasks. State-oriented purchase tasks are sensitive to phasic manipulations, but with heterogeneous methods and findings. The aim of this meta-analysis was to characterize the literature examining manipulations of reinforcing value, as measured by purchase tasks and multiple-choice procedures, to inform etiological models and treatment approaches METHODS: A random-effects meta-analysis of published findings in peer-reviewed articles. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol, studies were gathered through searches in PsycINFO and PubMed/MEDLINE (published 22 May 2018). Searches returned 34 unique studies (aggregate sample n = 2402; average sample size = 68.94) yielding 126 effect sizes. Measurements included change (i.e. Cohen's d) in six behavioral economic indices (intensity, breakpoint, Omax , Pmax , elasticity, cross-over point) in relation to six experimental manipulations (cue exposure, stress/negative affect, reinforcer magnitude, pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, opportunity cost).ResultsCue exposure (d range = 0.25-0.44, all Ps < 0.05) and reinforcer magnitude [d = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.18, 1.01; P < 0.005] manipulations resulted in significant increases in behavioral economic demand across studies. Stress/negative affect manipulations also resulted in a small, significant increase in Omax (d = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.34; P = 0.03); all other effect sizes for negative affect/stress were non-significant, albeit similar in size (d range = 0.14-0.18). In contrast, pharmacotherapy (d range = -0.37 to -0.49; Ps < 0.04), behavioral intervention (d = -0.36 to -1.13) and external contingency (d = -1.42; CI = -2.30, -0.54; P = 0.002) manipulations resulted in a significant decrease in intensity. Moderators (substance type) explained some of the heterogeneity in findings across meta-analyses.ConclusionsIn behavioral economic studies, purchase tasks and multiple-choice procedures appear to provide indices that are sensitive to manipulations found to influence motivation to consume addictive substances in field experiments.

Project description:Introduction:The majority of cigarettes sold in the United States and abroad feature filter ventilation holes designed to dilute mainstream smoke. Although initially intended to produce a safer cigarette, data instead suggest that filter ventilation increases total harm from smoking. In the present study, we examined the effects of blocking ventilation holes on behavioral economic demand for cigarettes (i.e., consumption as a function of price). Methods:In a within-subjects design, regular smokers (N = 15) of ventilated cigarettes sampled vent-blocked cigarettes for 3 days. Subsequently, they completed three sessions in which they used an experimental income to purchase vent-blocked and/or control cigarettes across a range of prices. Participants also completed the Drug Effects/Liking Scale. Results:In sessions in which only one cigarette type was available, demand measures were undifferentiated between cigarette types. However, in sessions in which both cigarettes were available at equivalent prices, significantly greater preference for ventilated control cigarettes emerged in demand measures. Regardless of session type, participants also rated vent-blocked cigarettes more poorly in the Drug Effects/Liking Scale (more bad effects, fewer good effects, and less liking, desire, and less likely to use again). Conclusions:Removing filter ventilation reduced cigarette abuse liability, as measured by behavioral economic demand and the Drug Effects/Liking Scale. However, reduced demand was only apparent when both cigarette types were concurrently available. This selective effect suggests that regulatory action banning filter ventilation would only reduce cigarette consumption when effective substitutes for vent-blocked cigarettes are available. Implications:This preliminary study indicates that regulatory action designed to ban or restrict cigarette filter ventilation may decrease cigarette abuse liability as measured by both behavioral economic demand and self-report measures. However, effects of removing filter ventilation on demand measures appear to depend on concurrent availability of alternative, preferred cigarette types.

Dataset Information

Behavioral economic cigarette demand among individuals who smoke with and without obesity.

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Behavioral economic cigarette demand among individuals who smoke with and without obesity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets