Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis.
Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0
复制
发表时间：
2011-08
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Munafo, Marcus R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MacKillop, James;Amlung, Michael T.;Few, Lauren R.;Ray, Lara A.;Sweet, Lawrence H.;Munafo, Marcus R.
关键词：
延迟奖励折扣（DRD）是冲动性的行为经济学指标，许多研究都考察了延迟奖励折扣与成瘾行为的关系。为了综合所有文献的发现，目前的综述是一项荟萃分析，比较了表现出成瘾行为的标准组和对照组之间的DRD。荟萃分析试图描述研究结果的总体模式、样本和研究类型的系统变异性以及可能的小研究（发表）偏倚。文献综述确定了310篇候选文章，其中46篇研究报告了64个比较（总N=56,013）。从确定的总比较来看，小幅度效应是明显的（d= 0.15; p< 0.00001），效应大小的异质性非常高。基于系统观察到的差异，我们删除了使用少量自我报告项目评估DRD的大型研究，并使用等效方法对57个比较（n=3,329）进行了分析，显示出可接受的异质性，结果显示中等程度的影响（d= 0.58; p<.00001）。进一步的分析显示，与使用非临床样本的研究（d= 0.45）相比，使用临床样本的研究（d= 0.61）的效应量显著更大。各种比较的小研究偏倚指数表明，未发表的研究结果的影响程度不同，从最小到中等不等。这些结果提供了强有力的证据，证明一般表现出成瘾行为的个体，特别是符合成瘾性障碍标准的个体，有更大的DRD。讨论了对DRD评估和研究重点的影响。
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. The meta-analysis sought to characterize the overall patterns of findings, systematic variability by sample and study type, and possible small study (publication) bias. Literature reviews identified 310 candidate articles from which 46 studies reporting 64 comparisons were identified (total N=56,013). 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 Indices of small study bias among the various comparisons suggested varying levels of influence by unpublished findings, ranging from minimal to moderate. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Dreber, Anna;Apicella, Coren L.;Campbell, Benjamin
通讯作者：
Campbell, Benjamin
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Bradford, W. David
通讯作者：
Bradford, W. David
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Duval, S;Tweedie, R
通讯作者：
Tweedie, R
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Dixon, MR;Marley, J;Jacobs, EA
通讯作者：
Jacobs, EA
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
BICKEL, WK;DEGRANDPRE, RJ;HIGGINS, ST
通讯作者：
HIGGINS, ST