Search

Background: Low loss aversion (LA) and high delay discounting (DD) are behavioral-economic decision-making biases that independently predict cigarette smoking and other risky substance use. Here we examine (1) whether low-LA and high-DD co-occur, (2) does co-occurrence increase the odds of current smoking and other substance use compared to only low-LA, high-DD, or neither; and (3) potential gender differences in these associations., Method: Data are from five studies with U.S. adults who currently smoked or never-smoked cigarettes recruited using online convenience sampling matching on gender and education. Participants completed identical sociodemographic, substance use (cigarette, other drugs, alcohol), and LA (hypothetical 50-50 gambles) and DD (monetary-choice questionnaire) measures. LA and DD scores were dichotomized as low and high using Receiver-Operating-Characteristic Curve logistic regression., Results: LA and DD each independently predicted substance use and with few exceptions were not influenced by gender. Low-LA compared to high-LA predicted two-fold greater odds of co-occurring high-DD (AOR = 2.120, 95%CI:1.749-2.571, p < .0001). Similarly, high-DD compared to low DD predicted two-fold greater odds of low-LA (AOR = 2.118, 95%CI:1.747-2.568, p < .0001). Among those with co-occurring low-LA and high-DD, odds of substance use were 5-10 times greater than those exhibiting neither, and 2-3 times greater than those exhibiting only low-LA or high-DD., Conclusions: Low-LA and high-DD cluster in women and men such that exhibiting one of these decision-making biases doubles the odds of exhibiting the other. These results demonstrate reliable clustering of low-LA and high-DD and a striking increase in risk for substance use relative to having only one or neither decision-making bias., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Funding was provided by a Mentored Research Scientist Development award (K01-DA044456 to E.A.T.) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science award (U54-DA036114 to S.T.H.) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Food and Drug Administration, and Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence award (P30-GM149331 to S.T.H.) from the National Institute on General Medical Sciences. The content of this report is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or Food and Drug Administration. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The author [Stephen Higgins] is an Editorial Board Member/Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor/Guest Editor for Preventive Medicine and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Reductions in the nicotine content of cigarettes decrease smoking rate and dependence severity, but effects on cognition are less well established. The potential impacts of very-low nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes on cognitive task performance must be evaluated, especially in vulnerable populations. The aim of the present study is to experimentally examine the effects of VLNC cigarettes on cognitive performance. Adults who smoked daily ( n = 775) from three vulnerable populations (socioeconomically disadvantaged reproductive-age women, individuals with opioid use disorder, affective disorders) were examined. Participants were randomly assigned to normal nicotine content (NNC; 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or VLNC (2.4 mg/g or 0.4 mg/g) cigarettes for 12 weeks. Response inhibition (stop-signal task), working memory ( n -back task; n of 2- n of 0), and cognitive interference (nicotine Stroop task) were assessed at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Results were analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses of variance. Extended exposure to VLNC cigarettes produced no significant changes in any measure of cognitive performance compared to NNC cigarettes. Over weeks, response times on the n -back task decreased across doses. No significant effects were observed on the stop-signal or nicotine Stroop tasks. All three vulnerable populations performed comparably on all three cognitive tasks. Extended exposure to VLNC cigarettes produced no impairments in cognitive performance on any of the assessed tasks compared to NNC cigarettes. These findings are consistent with the larger literature detailing other consequences following exposure to VLNC cigarettes and are encouraging for the adoption of a nicotine-reduction policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Loss aversion (LA) is a tendency to be more sensitive to potential losses relative to similar gains. Low LA is associated with increased risk for cigarette smoking and use of other substances. Previous studies of LA and smoking risk controlled for potentially confounding influences of sociodemographic characteristics associated with smoking risk. The present study replicates these earlier observations while also examining the generality of the association between low LA and smoking risk within different levels of each of the five sociodemographic risk factors for smoking (age, educational attainment, gender, income, race/ethnicity). Parallel analyses were conducted using delay discounting (DD) as a positive control; DD is a decision-making bias regarding the rate at which rewards lose value with increasing delay to receipt. Participants were recruited using standard crowdsourcing methods and completed a sociodemographics questionnaire, a hypothetical gamble task measure of LA, and a monetary choice measure of DD. Low LA was associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking after accounting for the influence of sociodemographic characteristics and DD. Similarly, high DD was associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking after accounting for the influence of sociodemographic characteristics and LA. Further analyses showed that associations of LA with smoking risk or DD with smoking risk generally although not always remained significant within varying levels of the sociodemographic characteristics of interest. These results provide support for low LA as a reliable risk factor for smoking that has generality within and across sociodemographic characteristics and closely parallels associations observed with DD and smoking risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Introduction: Loss aversion (LA) is a bias in decision-making wherein potential losses have a greater influence on choices than equivalent gains. Such a bias may protect individuals from harm. Consistent with this idea, lower LA has been measured in individuals who endorse current cigarette smoking as well as other substance use compared to controls matched on important sociodemographic variables (age, gender, and educational attainment). The goal of the present study was to systematically replicate and extend this association between LA and smoking status by comparing those meeting criteria for current-, former-, and never-smoking status., Aims and Methods: In total, 984 individuals (N = 984) that endorsed current cigarette smoking (past 30-day use; n = 361), former-smoking (no past 30-day use, >100 cigarettes lifetime; n = 317), and never-smoking (no past 30-day use, <100 cigarettes lifetime; n = 306) were recruited using standard crowdsourcing methods and completed measures of LA (50-50 gambles) and delay discounting (DD) (monetary choice questionnaire), an important decision-making bias with an established relationship to cigarette-smoking status., Results: Lower LA was observed in those endorsing current smoking compared to former smoking (t[952] = -9.57, Bonferroni corrected p < .0001), and never-smoking (t[952] = -3.99, Bonferroni corrected p = .0002). LA was also greater in former- compared to the never-smoking (t[952] = -5.26, Bonferroni corrected p < .0001). This pattern did not change when accounting for DD and sociodemographics. DD results replicated prior findings., Conclusions: The results support LA as a decision-making bias related to the risk of cigarette smoking and other substance use. Further research is needed to understand the causal contributions of LA and DD and their potential intersections., Implications: Low LA is a risk factor for cigarette smoking. This study reports higher LA among individuals that endorsed never-smoking and former-smoking status in comparison to those endorsing current cigarette smoking. LA may influence or be influenced by a change in smoking status., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Behavioral theory suggests that density of environmental rewarding activities and biases in decision making influence risk for substance use disorder (SUD). To better understand intersections of these potential risk factors, this study examined whether environmental reward predicted smoking status or other drug use and whether such associations were independent of two decision-making biases known to predict SUD risk, namely loss aversion and delay discounting. Individuals that reported current daily cigarette smoking (n = 186; >10 cigarettes/day) and never-smoking (n = 241; <100 cigarettes lifetime) were recruited with standard crowdsourcing methods. Participants answered questions on alcohol and other drug use. Environmental reward was assessed using the Reward Probability Index (RPI), and loss aversion (LA) and delay discounting (DD) using a gamble-acceptance task and monetary choice questionnaire, respectively. Associations of RPI, LA, and DD with cigarette smoking, alcohol use, other drug use, and combinations of co-use were examined with logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic variables (educational attainment, gender, age). Low RPI (odds ratio[OR] = 0.97, p = .006), low LA (OR = 1.22, p < .001), and high DD (OR = 1.12, p = .03), were each independently associated with increased risk for cigarette smoking, as well as other substance use, and use combinations. We saw no evidence that RPI was significantly influencing associations between LA and DD with smoking status or other substance use. Finally, RPI, but not LA or DD, was significantly associated with depressed mood and sleep disturbance. These results provide new evidence on associations of RPI with smoking status and other substance use while further documenting independent associations between LA and DD and those outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This report reviews the literature on cigarette smoking published in Preventive Medicine over the past 50 years. The goal is twofold. First, to acknowledge the 50th anniversary of Preventive Medicine and its role in disseminating research on cigarette smoking by providing an abridged summary of smoking research published in the journal from inception through June 23, 2022. Second, to review experimental reports to identify contributions to innovations in tobacco control and regulatory efforts to reduce cigarette smoking. We searched PubMed using the search terms cigarette/cigarettes, tobacco products, smoking, smoking cessation, Preventive Medicine. Titles and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate, excluding reports not addressing cigarette smoking. Included reports were categorized by study type (original study, commentary, review). Experimental articles were assessed for impact using iCite, a National Institutes of Health web application that provides bibliometric information for articles in defined topic areas. The review identified 1181 articles on cigarette smoking: 1018 original studies (86.2%), 107 literature reviews (9.1%), and 56 commentaries (4.7%); 166 of the 1018 original studies (16%) were experimental reports. In the iCite analysis these 166 experimental articles received 6366 total citations, a mean (standard error) citation rate/article of 38.35 (±3.21) and mean relative citation ratio of 1.85 (±0.17) which is at the 73rd percentile for NIH-funded field- and time-normalized reports. Overall, this review demonstrates an ongoing and impactful contribution of Preventive Medicine to efforts to reduce cigarette smoking, the most preventable cause of premature death., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Cigarette smoking is among the leading preventable causes of global morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine whether individual differences in loss aversion, a bias in decision-making wherein losses are valued greater than gains, predicts smoking and other addiction risk., Methods: We recruited current daily cigarette smokers (n = 181; > 10 cigarettes per day) and never-smokers (n = 237; < 100 cigarettes lifetime) from the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Groups were matched on gender, educational attainment, and age. All completed items related to current cigarette smoking, alcohol use, other drug use, sleep problems, and depressed mood, and task-based measures of loss aversion and delay discounting, a decision-making bias associated with cigarette smoking., Results: Smokers were less loss averse than never-smokers (F(1, 411) = 24.19, η 2 = 0.02, p < .0001) even after accounting for delay discounting (F(1, 410) = 20.53, η 2 = 0.02, p < .0001). Loss aversion was also a significant independent risk factor for alcohol (F(1, 410) = 21.47, η 2 = 0.02, p < .0001) and other drug use (F(1, 410) = 54.12, η 2 = 0.04, p < .0001), although not other behavioral-health conditions (i.e., sleep disturbance, depressed mood). Further analyses revealed that co-occurring low loss aversion and high delay discounting were independently associated with greater risk for all patterns of substance use., Conclusions: Loss aversion was associated with current cigarette smoking and other substance use patterns independent of delay discounting. Loss aversion may warrant attention as a protective factor and potential target for preventive intervention for substance use and addiction., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)