Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavioral economics and neuroeconomics bring together perspectives and methods from psychology, economics, and cognitive neuroscience to understand decision making and choice behavior. Extending an operant behavioral theoretical framework, these perspectives have increasingly been applied to understand the alcohol use disorders (AUDs), and this review surveys the theory, methods, and findings from this approach. The focus is on 3 key behavioral economic concepts: delay discounting (i.e., preferences for smaller immediate rewards relative to larger delayed rewards), alcohol demand (i.e., alcohol's reinforcing value), and proportionate alcohol-related reinforcement (i.e., relative amount of psychosocial reinforcement associated with alcohol use). FINDINGS: Delay discounting has been linked to AUDs in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and has been investigated cross-sectionally using neuroimaging. Alcohol demand and proportionate alcohol-related reinforcement have both been robustly associated with drinking and alcohol misuse cross-sectionally, but not over time. Both have also been found to predict treatment response to brief interventions. Alcohol demand has also been used to enhance the measurement of acute motivation for alcohol in laboratory studies. Interventions that focus on reducing the value of alcohol by increasing alternative reinforcement and response cost have been found to be efficacious, albeit in relatively small numbers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mediators and moderators of response to these interventions have not been extensively investigated. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: The application of behavioral economics and neuroeconomics to AUDs has given rise to an extensive body of empirical work, although significant gaps in knowledge remain. In particular, there is a need for more longitudinal investigations to clarify the etiological roles of these behavioral economic processes, especially alcohol demand and proportionate alcohol reinforcement. Additional RCTs are needed to extend and generalize the findings for reinforcement-based interventions and to investigate mediators and moderators of treatment success for optimization. Applying neuroeconomics to AUDs remains at an early stage and has been primarily descriptive to date, but has high potential for important translational insights into the future. The same is true for using these behavioral economic indicators to understand genetic influences on AUDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".