Top

Published in:

01-10-2011

The Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Reinforcer Pathologies: Implications for Etiology and Treatment of Addiction

Authors: Warren K. Bickel, David P. Jarmolowicz, E. Terry Mueller, Kirstin M. Gatchalian

Published in: Current Psychiatry Reports | Issue 5/2011

Abstract

The current paper presents a novel approach to understanding and treating addiction. Drawing from work in behavioral economics and developments in the new field of neuroeconomics, we describe addiction as pathological patterns of responding resulting from the persistently high valuation of a reinforcer and/or an excessive preference for the immediate consumption of that reinforcer. We further suggest that, as indicated by the competing neurobehavioral decision systems theory, these patterns of pathological choice and consumption result from an imbalance between two distinct neurobehavioral systems. Specifically, pathological patterns of responding result from hyperactivity in the evolutionarily older impulsive system (which values immediate and low-cost reinforcers) and/or hypoactivity in the more recently evolved executive system (which is involved in the valuation of delayed reinforcers). This approach is then used to explain five phenomena that we believe any adequate theory of addiction must address.

•• Bickel WK, Jarmolowicz DP, MacKillop J, et al. The behavioral economics of reinforcement pathologies. In: Shaffer HJ, editor. Addiction syndrome handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. This chapter provides an extended description of the concept of reinforcer pathologies as applied to addiction.

Hursh SR. Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980;34:219–38.PubMedCrossRef

Rachlin H. Diminishing marginal value as delay discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992;57:407–15.PubMedCrossRef

Bickel WK, DeGrandpre RJ, Higgins ST. Behavioral economics: a novel experimental approach to the study of drug dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1993;33:173–92.PubMedCrossRef

Bickel WK, DeGrandpre RJ, Hughes JR, Higgins ST. Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. II. A unit-price analysis of cigarette smoking. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991;55:145–54.PubMedCrossRef

Johnson MW, Bickel WK. Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves. J Exp Anal Behav. 2006;85:73–93.PubMedCrossRef

Bickel WK, DeGrandpre RJ, Higgins ST. The behavioral economics of concurrent drug reinforcers: a review and reanalysis of drug self-administration research. Psychopharmacology. 1995;118:250–9.PubMedCrossRef

DeGrandpre RJ, Bickel WK, Higgins ST, Hughes JR. A behavioral economics analysis of concurrently available money and cigarettes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994;64:191–201.CrossRef

Johnson MW, Bickel WK. The behavioral economics of cigarette smoking: the concurrent presence of a substitute and an independent reinforcer. Behav Pharmacol. 2003;14:137–44.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Saelens BE, Epstein LH. Reinforcing value of food in obese and non-obese women. Appetite. 1996;27:41–50.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Epstein LH, Wright SM, Paluch RA, et al. Food hedonics and reinforcement as determinants of laboratory food intake in smokers. Physiol Behav. 2004;81:511–7.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Petry NM. Effects of increasing income on polydrug use: a comparison of heroin, cocaine and alcohol abusers. Addiction. 2000;95:705.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Bickel WK, Madden GJ, DeGrandpre RJ. Modeling the effects of combined behavioral and pharmacological treatment on cigarette smoking: behavioral-economic analyses. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1997;5:334–43.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Shahan TA, Bickel WK, Badger GJ, Giordano LA. Sensitivity of nicotine-containing and de-nicotinized cigarette consumption to alternative non-drug reinforcement: a behavioral economic analysis. Behav Pharmacol. 2001;12:277–84.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Baker F, Johnson MW, Bickel WK. Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: similarities and differences across commodity, sign, and magnitude. J Abnorm Psychol. 2003;112:382–92.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Bickel WK, Pitcock JA, Yi R, Angtuaco EJC. Congruence of BOLD response across intertemporal choice conditions: fictive and real money gains and losses. J Neurosci. 2009;29:8839–46.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Johnson MW, Bickel WK. Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002;77:129–46.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Johnson MW, Bickel WK, Baker F. Moderate drug use and delay discounting: a comparison of heavy, light, and never smokers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007;15:187–94.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Madden GJ, Begotka AM, Raiff BR, Kastern LL. Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003;11:139–45.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Madden GJ, Raiff BR, Laforio CH, et al. Delay disocounting of potentially real and hypothetical rewards: II. Between-and within-subject comparison. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;12:251–6.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Lagorio CH, Madden GJ. Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards III: steady-state assessments, forced-choice trials, and all real rewards. Behav Process. 2005;69:173.CrossRef

22.

Kirby KN, Petry NM, Bickel WK. Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug using controls. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999;128:78–87.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Weller RE, Cook III EW, Avsar KB, Cox JE. Obese women show greater delay discounting than healthy-weight women. Appetite. 2008;51:563–9.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Alessi SM, Petry NM. Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behav Process. 2003;64:345–54.CrossRef

25.

Petry NM, Casarella R. Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug and Alcohol Depend. 1999;56:25–32.CrossRef

26.

Coffey SF, Gudleski GD, Saladin ME, Brady KT. Impulsivity and rapid discounting of delayed hypothetical rewards in cocaine-dependent individuals. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003;11:18–25.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Bickel WK, Christensen DR, Landes RD, et al.: Single and cross commodity among cocaine addicts: the commodity and its temporal location determine discounting rate. Psychopharmacology 2011 (2011).

28.

Petry NM. Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using alcoholics, currently abstinent alcoholics, and controls. Psychopharmacology. 2001;154:243–50.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Vuchinich RE, Simpson CA. Hyperbolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and problem drinkers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998;6:292–305.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Bickel WK, Odum AL, Madden GJ. Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology. 1999;146:447–54.PubMedCrossRef

31.

MacKillop J, Tidey JW: Cigarette demand and delayed reward discounting in nicotine-dependent individuals with schizophrenia and controls: an initial study. Psychopharmacology 2011;216:91–9.

32.

Madden GJ, Petry NM, Badger GJ, Bickel WK. Impulsive and self-control choices in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug-using control participants: drug and monetary rewards. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1997;5:256–62.PubMedCrossRef

33.

McClure SM, Ericson KM, Laibson DI, et al. Time discounting for primary rewards. J Neurosci. 2007;27:5796–804.PubMedCrossRef

34.

MacKillop J, Miranda R, Monti PM, et al. Alcohol demand, delayed reward discounting, and craving in relation to drinking and alcohol use disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2010;119:106–14.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Rollins BY, Dearing KK, Epstein LH. Delay discounting moderates the effect of food reinforcement on energy intake among non-obese women. Appetite. 2010;55:420–5.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Raichle ME. A brief history of human brain mapping. Trends Neurosci. 2009;32:118–26.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Glimcher PW, Camerer C, Poldrack RA, Fehr E, editors. Neuroeconomics decision making and the brain. London: Academic; 2008.

38.

McClure SM, Laibson DI, Loewenstein G, Cohen JD. Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science. 2004;306:503–7.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Bechara A. Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1458–63.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Jentsch JD, Taylor JR. Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology. 1999;146:373–90.PubMedCrossRef

41.

•• Bickel WK, Mueller ET, Jarmolowicz DP: What is addiction? In Addictions: A Comprehensive Guidebook, Second Edition. Edited by McCrady B, Epstein E. 2011 (2011). This chapter provides an extended description of the competing neurobehavioral decisions systems theory, its genesis, and its adequacy in explaining relevant features of addiction.

42.

Kable JW, Glimcher PW. The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10:1625–33.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Kable JW, Glimcher PW. An “as soon as possible” effect in human intertemporal decision making: behavioral evidence and neural mechanisms. J Neurophysiol. 2010;103:2513–31.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Bickel WK, Miller ML, Yi R, et al. Behavioral and neuroeconomics of drug addiction: competing neural systems and temporal discounting processes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;90S:S85–91.CrossRef

45.

Croxson PL, Walton ME, O’Reilly JX, et al. Effort-based cost-benefit valuation and the human brain. J Neurosci. 2009;29:4531–41.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Monterosso JR, Ainslie G, Xu JS, et al. Frontoparietal cortical activity of methamphetamine-dependent and comparison subjects performing a delay discounting task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28:383–93.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Xu L, Liang ZY, Wang K, et al. Neural mechanism of intertemporal choice: from discounting future gains to future losses. Brain Res. 2009;1261:65–74.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Prevost C, Pessiglione M, Metereau E, et al. Separate valuation subsystems for delay and effort decision costs. J Neurosci. 2010;30:14080–90.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Wunderlich K, Rangel A, O’Doherty JP. Neural computations underlying action-based decision making in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:17199–204.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Pezawas LM, Fischer G, Diamant K, et al. Cerebral CT findings in male opioid-dependent patients: stereological, planimetric and linear measurements. Psychiatr Res. 1998;83:139–47.CrossRef

51.

Liu H, Hao Y, Kaneko Y, et al. Frontal and cingulate gray matter volume reduction in heroin dependence: optimized voxel-based morphometry. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009;63:563–8.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Bechara A, Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behav. 2005;52:336–72.CrossRef

53.

Risinger RC, Salmeron BJ, Ross TJ, et al. Neural correlates of high and craving during cocaine self-administration using BOLD fMRI. NeuroImage. 2005;26:1097–108.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Giordano L, Bickel WK, Loewenstein G, et al. Mild opioid deprivation increases the degree that opioid-dependent outpatients discount delayed heroin and money. Psychopharmacology. 2002;163:174–82.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Hinson JM, Jameson TL, Whitney P. Impulsive decision making and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003;29:298–306.PubMedCrossRef

56.

•• Bickel WK, Yi R, Landes RD, et al. Remember the future: working memory training decreases delay discounting among stimulant addicts. Biol Psychiatr. 2011;69:260–5. This recent paper provides an example of a novel treatment approach derived from the competing neurobehavioral decisions systems appraoch to addiction.CrossRef

57.

Monterosso JR, Luo S. An argument against dual valuation system competition: cognitive capacities supporting future orientation mediate rather than compete with visceral motivation. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. 2010;3:1–14.CrossRef

58.

Edwards G, Lader M, editors. The nature of drug dependence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990.

59.

Peele S. What treatment for addiction can do and what it can’t; what treatment for addiction should do and what it shouldn’t. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1985;2:225–8.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, et al. Dopamine in drug abuse and addiction: results of imaging studies and treatment implications. Arch Neurol. 2007;64:1575–9.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Mueller ET, Bickel WK, Landes RD: Smoker’s delay discounting indifference points are associated with changes in opportunity-cost-informed price. In 72nd Annual Meeting of The College on Problems of Drug Dependence. 2010: Scottsdale, Arizona.

62.

MacKillop J, Kahler CW. Delayed reward discounting predicts treatment response for heavy drinkers receiving smoking cessation treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;104:197–203.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Aharonovich E, Hasin DS, Brooks AC, et al. Cognitive deficits predict low treatment retention in cocaine dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81:313–22.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Steinberg L. A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Dev Psychobiol. 2010;52:216–24.PubMed

65.

Johnson RA, Gerstein DR. Initiation of use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, and other substances in US birth cohorts since 1919. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:27–33.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Hintzen AK, Cramer J, Karagulle D, et al. Does alcohol craving decrease with increasing age? Results from a cross-sectional study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2011;72:158–62.PubMed

67.

Green L, Myerson J, Lichtman D, et al. Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age and income. Psychol Aging. 1996;11:79–84.PubMedCrossRef

68.

Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, LaBrie RA, et al. Toward a syndrome model of addiction: multiple expressions, common etiology. Harv Rev Psychiatr. 2004;12:367–74.CrossRef

69.

Bickel WK, Mueller ET. Toward the study of trans-disease processes: a novel approach with special reference to the study of co-morbidity. Journal of Dual Diagnosis. 2009;5:131–8.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Bickel WK, Jones BA, Landes RD, et al. Hypothetical intertemporal choice and real economic behavior: delay discounting predicts voucher redemptions during contingency-management procedures. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;18:546–52.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Mueller ET, Landes RD, Kowal BP, et al. Delay of smoking gratification as a laboratory model of relapse: effects of incentives for not smoking, and relationship with measures of executive function. Behav Pharmacol. 2009;20:461–73.PubMedCrossRef

Title: The Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Reinforcer Pathologies: Implications for Etiology and Treatment of Addiction
Authors: Warren K. Bickel
David P. Jarmolowicz
E. Terry Mueller
Kirstin M. Gatchalian
Publication date: 01-10-2011
Publisher: Current Science Inc.
Published in: Current Psychiatry Reports / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 1523-3812
Electronic ISSN: 1535-1645
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0215-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Reinforcer Pathologies: Implications for Etiology and Treatment of Addiction

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Barriers to Use of Pharmacotherapy for Addiction Disorders and How to Overcome Them

New Developments in Brief Interventions to Treat Problem Drinking in Nonspecialty Health Care Settings

Inflammatory Biomarkers in Depression: An Opportunity for Novel Therapeutic Interventions

Childhood-Onset Schizophrenia: The Challenge of Diagnosis

Update on Environmental Risk Factors for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Updates on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Learning Disorders