Article

The neuroeconomics of nicotine dependence: A preliminary study of delay discounting of monetary and cigarette rewards in smokers using FMRI

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Psychiatry Research (Impact Factor: 2.47). 05/2012; 202(1):20-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.10.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Neuroeconomics integrates behavioral economics and cognitive neuroscience to understand the neurobiological basis for normative and maladaptive decision making. Delay discounting is a behavioral economic index of impulsivity that reflects capacity to delay gratification and has been consistently associated with nicotine dependence. This preliminary study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine delay discounting for money and cigarette rewards in 13 nicotine dependent adults. Significant differences between preferences for smaller immediate rewards and larger delayed rewards were evident in a number of regions of interest (ROIs), including the medial prefrontal cortex, anterior insular cortex, middle temporal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, and cingulate gyrus. Significant differences between money and cigarette rewards were generally lateralized, with cigarette choices associated with left hemisphere activation and money choices associated with right hemisphere activation. Specific ROI differences included the posterior parietal cortex, medial and middle frontal gyrus, ventral striatum, temporoparietal cortex, and angular gyrus. Impulsivity as measured by behavioral choices was significantly associated with both individual ROIs and a combined ROI model. These findings provide initial evidence in support of applying a neuroeconomic approach to understanding nicotine dependence.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Warren K Bickel, Feb 28, 2014
  • Source
    • "Besides its more immediate implications to the field of social and evolutionary psychology, such new epistemological approach, as a paradigm that shifts the focus from the individual to the group level as the basic unit involved in the dynamics of cultural evolution, promises to have a major impact over other frontline research areas that, up to now, have operated essentially with basis on the characteristics of few interacting individuals. For example, although neuroeconomics has emerged as a new research field in which the concepts of economics and probability theory have been used to investigate human decision making under risk and uncertainty (Loewenstein et al. 2008), the vast majority of previous studies in this field have been focused on individual choices and personal intertemporal preferences (Kalenscher et al. 2010; MacKillop et al. 2012) The incorporation of the new concepts developed in the target article, such as collaborative interdependence (instead of cooperation) and levels of selection, may contribute to the enrichment of current investigational protocols, paving the way for the emergence of a macro-neuroeconomics of group decision making and collective behavior. Such a new research field would not only enhance our understanding about the neural basis of the psychological features that are believed to be strongly influenced by social constraints (Mojzisch & Krug 2008; Sanfey 2007), such as religious and political preferences (both of which have received little attention by past neuroeconomics studies), but would also provide new insights regarding the social evolutionary mechanisms that may cause social virtues (like empathy, altruism , wisdom, social responsibility, and patriotism) (Güroğlu et al. 2009; Meeks & Jeste 2009) to produce long-term collective effects that transcends their immediate impact in terms of individual inclusive fitness (Moreira et al. 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many of the most important properties of human groups – including properties that may give one group an evolutionary advantage over another – are properly defined only at the level of group organization. Yet at present, most work on the evolution of culture has focused solely on the transmission of individual-level traits. I propose a conceptual extension of the theory of cultural evolution, particularly related to the evolutionary competition between cultural groups. The key concept in this extension is the emergent group-level trait. This type of trait is characterized by the structured organization of differentiated individuals and constitutes a unit of selection that is qualitatively different from selection on groups as defined by traditional multilevel selection (MLS) theory. As a corollary, I argue that the traditional focus on cooperation as the defining feature of human societies has missed an essential feature of cooperative groups. Traditional models of cooperation assume that interacting with one cooperator is equivalent to interacting with any other. However, human groups involve differential roles, meaning that receiving aid from one individual is often preferred to receiving aid from another. In this target article, I discuss the emergence and evolution of group-level traits and the implications for the theory of cultural evolution, including ramifications for the evolution of human cooperation, technology, and cultural institutions, and for the equivalency of multilevel selection and inclusive fitness approaches.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2014 · Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • Source
    • "Besides its more immediate implications to the field of social and evolutionary psychology, such new epistemological approach, as a paradigm that shifts the focus from the individual to the group level as the basic unit involved in the dynamics of cultural evolution, promises to have a major impact over other frontline research areas that, up to now, have operated essentially with basis on the characteristics of few interacting individuals. For example, although neuroeconomics has emerged as a new research field in which the concepts of economics and probability theory have been used to investigate human decision making under risk and uncertainty (Loewenstein et al. 2008), the vast majority of previous studies in this field have been focused on individual choices and personal intertemporal preferences (Kalenscher et al. 2010; MacKillop et al. 2012) The incorporation of the new concepts developed in the target article, such as collaborative interdependence (instead of cooperation) and levels of selection, may contribute to the enrichment of current investigational protocols, paving the way for the emergence of a macro-neuroeconomics of group decision making and collective behavior. Such a new research field would not only enhance our understanding about the neural basis of the psychological features that are believed to be strongly influenced by social constraints (Mojzisch & Krug 2008; Sanfey 2007), such as religious and political preferences (both of which have received little attention by past neuroeconomics studies), but would also provide new insights regarding the social evolutionary mechanisms that may cause social virtues (like empathy, altruism , wisdom, social responsibility, and patriotism) (Güroğlu et al. 2009; Meeks & Jeste 2009) to produce long-term collective effects that transcends their immediate impact in terms of individual inclusive fitness (Moreira et al. 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We extend Smaldino's approach to collaboration and social organization in cultural evolution to include cognition. By showing how recent work on emergent group-level cognition can be incorporated within Smaldino's framework, we extend that framework's scope to encompass collaborative memory, decision making, and intelligent action. We argue that beneficial effects arise only in certain forms of cognitive interdependence, in surprisingly fragile conditions.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2014 · Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • Source
    • "Besides its more immediate implications to the field of social and evolutionary psychology, such new epistemological approach, as a paradigm that shifts the focus from the individual to the group level as the basic unit involved in the dynamics of cultural evolution, promises to have a major impact over other frontline research areas that, up to now, have operated essentially with basis on the characteristics of few interacting individuals. For example, although neuroeconomics has emerged as a new research field in which the concepts of economics and probability theory have been used to investigate human decision making under risk and uncertainty (Loewenstein et al. 2008), the vast majority of previous studies in this field have been focused on individual choices and personal intertemporal preferences (Kalenscher et al. 2010; MacKillop et al. 2012) The incorporation of the new concepts developed in the target article, such as collaborative interdependence (instead of cooperation) and levels of selection, may contribute to the enrichment of current investigational protocols, paving the way for the emergence of a macro-neuroeconomics of group decision making and collective behavior. Such a new research field would not only enhance our understanding about the neural basis of the psychological features that are believed to be strongly influenced by social constraints (Mojzisch & Krug 2008; Sanfey 2007), such as religious and political preferences (both of which have received little attention by past neuroeconomics studies), but would also provide new insights regarding the social evolutionary mechanisms that may cause social virtues (like empathy, altruism , wisdom, social responsibility, and patriotism) (Güroğlu et al. 2009; Meeks & Jeste 2009) to produce long-term collective effects that transcends their immediate impact in terms of individual inclusive fitness (Moreira et al. 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Smaldino is right to argue that we need a richer theory of group-level traits. He is wrong, however, in limiting group-level traits to units of cultural selection, which require explanations based on group selection. Traits are best understood when explanations focus on both process (i.e., selection) and product (i.e., adaptation). This approach can distinguish group-level traits that arise through within-group processes from those that arise through between-group processes.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2014 · Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Show more