Abstract

In a previous study, investigating choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative in animals and reductions in income (i.e., choices/day) caused the percentage of income spent on heroin to progressively decrease. In contrast, another study found that humans with opioid use disorder spent the majority of their income on heroin even though they had little income. Comparison of these two studies suggests that the seemingly conflicting results could be explained by differences in the underlying economy types of the choice alternatives. The present experiment tested the hypothesis that the effect of income changes on choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative depends on economy type. Rats chose between heroin and saccharin under three income levels. For the Closed group, the choice session was the only opportunity to obtain these reinforcers. For the Heroin Open group and the Saccharin Open group, choice sessions were followed by 3-h periods of unlimited access to heroin or saccharin, respectively. As income decreased, the Closed and Heroin Open groups, but not the Saccharin Open group, spent an increasingly greater percentage of income on saccharin than on heroin. The Saccharin Open group, compared to the other groups, spent a greater percentage of income on heroin as income decreased. Results confirm that the effects of income and economy type can interact and this may explain the apparently discrepant results of earlier studies. More generally, findings suggest that situations where heroin choice has little consequence for consumption of non-drug alternatives may promote heroin use.

Highlights

  • Addiction has been conceptualized as persistent choice of drugs over non-drug alternatives (Ahmed et al 2013; Banks and Negus, 2017; Bickel et al 2011; Heyman 2013)

  • The closed economies group (Closed) and Heroin Open groups spent increasingly more of their income on saccharin than they did on heroin

  • When the saccharin economy was closed, as it was for the Closed and Heroin Open groups, reductions in income caused an increasingly larger percentage of income to be spent on saccharin than on heroin

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Addiction has been conceptualized as persistent choice of drugs over non-drug alternatives (Ahmed et al 2013; Banks and Negus, 2017; Bickel et al 2011; Heyman 2013). The proportion of income spent on food increasingly rose while the proportion spent on heroin progressively fell as income was reduced This pattern of results suggests that for baboons, heroin is a luxury good and food is a necessary good. Subjects in the Roddy et al study, on the other hand, could obtain food and shelter by spending their own income, but they could rely on subsidies from family and friends for these expenses. Their consumption of these non-drug alternatives was largely independent of their spending behavior.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.