Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 231–239 | Cite as

Feasibility of a Mobile Group Financial-Incentives Intervention Among Pairs of Smokers With a Prior Social Relationship

  • Bethany R. Raiff
  • Amy Arena
  • Steven E. Meredith
  • Michael J. Grabinksi
Original Article

Abstract

Smoking is associated with a number of chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular disease and various types of cancer. The decision to smoke can be conceptualized as preference for small, immediate rewards (e.g., relief from withdrawal) over larger, delayed rewards (e.g., good health). Contingency management (CM) takes advantage of this preference for immediate outcomes by delivering incentives, usually financial, for making the healthier choice to abstain from smoking. The current study tested the feasibility of harnessing naturally occurring social contingencies associated with smoking cessation to increase the promise of CM in initiating and sustaining long-term abstinence. Pairs of smokers with an existing relationship (i.e., friends, roommates, family, significant others) were recruited to quit together in the context of a smartphone-delivered, group CM intervention. Approximately 50% of interested participants identified a partner who also met criteria to participate, and five pairs (N = 10) completed the study. Using a within-subject design, participants could earn individual financial incentives for submitting breath carbon monoxide (CO) samples twice daily that met targeted goals for abstinence, and they could earn bonus incentives when both members of the pair met their targets together. Nine participants (90%) successfully reduced their mean breath CO during the intervention relative to baseline conditions. Individuals within a pair performed similarly to one another, for better or worse (i.e., both participants abstained, smoked, or missed samples at the same time). The social contingencies of quitting with someone with whom the smoker has an existing relationship may be helpful, but may also introduce unique challenges, particularly with regard to recruitment and treatment retention.

Keywords

Smoking cessation Contingency management Delay discounting Social support Smartphones Financial incentives 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Moran Dan and Jaime Pierce for their help with recruiting participants, and Jesse Dallery for his help reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was supported with start-up funds at Rowan University awarded to the corresponding author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

All procedures involving human subjects participation were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the corresponding author’s institution.

Informed Consent

All participants completed the informed consent process prior to completing research activities.

References

  1. Ahmed, J., King, B. A., Neff, L. J., Whitmill, J., Babb, S. D., & Graffunder, C. M. (2016). Current cigarette smoking among adults — United States, 2005–2015. Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report (MMWR), 65(44), 1205-1211.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., & Wolf, M. M. (1967). The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. Washington, DC: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare.Google Scholar
  3. Bickel, W. K., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence: Delay discounting processes. Addiction, 96(1), 73–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrero, J. C., Crsolo, S. S., Tu, Q., Rieland, W. A., Ross, N. A., Francisco, M. T., & Yamamato, K. Y. (2007). An application of the matching law to social dynamics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 589–601.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. CDC. (2016a). Fact sheet: Health effects of cigarette smoking—Smoking & tobacco use. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm
  6. CDC. (2016b) Fact sheet: Tobacco-related Mortaility—Smoking and tobacco use. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm
  7. CDC. (2017). Fact sheet: Quitting smoking—smoking & tobacco use. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/cessation/quitting/
  8. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249–2258. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0706154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Clinical Practice Guideline Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence 2008 Update Panel, Liaisons, and Staff. (2008). A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. A U.S. public health service report. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 158–176. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dallery, J., Glenn, I. M., & Raiff, B. R. (2007). An internet-based abstinence reinforcement treatment for cigarette smoking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 86(2/3), 230–238. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.06.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dallery, J., Meredith, S., Jarvis, B., & Nuzzo, P. A. (2015). Internet-based group contingency management to promote smoking abstinence. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 23(3), 176–183. doi: 10.1037/pha0000013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Dallery, J., Raiff, B. R., & Grabinski, M. J. (2013). Internet-based contingency management to promote smoking cessation: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(4), 750–764. doi: 10.1002/jaba.89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dallery, J., Raiff, B. R., Kim, S. J., Marsch, L. A., Stitzer, M., & Grabinski, M. J. (2016). Nationwide access to an Internet-based contingency management intervention to promote smoking cessation: A randomized controlled trial. Addiction. doi: 10.1111/add.13715.Google Scholar
  14. Dan, M., Grabinski, M. J., & Raiff, B. R. (2016). Smartphone-based contingency management for smoking cessation with smokers diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(2), 116–127. doi: 10.1037/tps0000062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiore, M. C., Bailey, W. C., Cohen, S. J., Dorfman, S. F., Goldstein, M. G., Gritz, E. R.,…Mecklenburg, R. E. (2000). Treating tobacco use and dependence: Clinical practice guideline. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  16. Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerstrom, K. O. (1991). The fagerström test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the fagerstrom tolerance questionnaire. Addiction, 86(9), 1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hertzberg, J. S., Carpenter, V. L., Kirby, A. C., Calhoun, P. S., Moore, S. D., Dennis, M. F.,…Beckham, J. C. (2013). Mobile contingency management as an adjunctive smoking cessation treatment for smokers with posttraumatic stress disorder. Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 15(11), 1934–1938. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt060
  19. Higgins, S. T., Silverman, K., & Heil, S. H. (Eds.). (2007). Contingency management in substance abuse treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kirby, K. C., Kerwin, M. E., Carpenedo, C. M., Rosenwasser, B. J., Gardner, R. S., & Silverman, K. (2008). Interdependent group contingency management for cocaine-dependent methadone maintenance patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(4), 579–595. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-579.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (Eds.). (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12069-000
  22. Meredith, S. E., & Dallery, J. (2013). Investigating group contingencies to promote brief abstinence from cigarette smoking. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 21(2), 144–154. doi: 10.1037/a0031707.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Meredith, S. E., Grabinski, M. J., & Dallery, J. (2011). Internet-based group contingency management to promote abstinence from cigarette smoking: A feasibility study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118(1), 23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.02.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Mermelstein, R., Cohen, S., Lichtenstein, E., Baer, J. S., & Kamarck, T. (1986). Social support and smoking cessation and maintenance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 447–453. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray, R. P., Johnston, J. J., Dolce, J. J., Lee, W. W., & O’Hara, P. (1995). Social support for smoking cessation and abstinence: The lung health study. Addictive Behaviors, 20(2), 159–170. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(99)80001-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ortendahl, M., & Fries, J. F. (2002). Time-related issues with application to health gains and losses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 843–848. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00447-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Patten, C. A., Hughes, C. A., Lopez, K. N., Thomas, J. L., Brockman, T. A., Smith, C. M.,…Offord, K. P. (2012). Web-based intervention for adolescent nonsmokers to help parents stop smoking: A pilot feasibility study. Addictive Behaviors, 37(1), 85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.09.003
  28. Rash, C. J., Olmstead, T. A., & Petry, N. M. (2009). Income does not affect response to contingency management treatments among community substance abuse treatment-seekers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104, 249–253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The non-concurrent multiple baseline across-individuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12(3), 257–259. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(81)90055-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bethany R. Raiff
    • 1
  • Amy Arena
    • 1
  • Steven E. Meredith
    • 2
  • Michael J. Grabinksi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRowan UniversityGlassboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Red 5 Group, LLCNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations