Behavioral economics such as those explored here are not useful for all studies of tobacco products. For example, issues of quantifying the effects of market changes at the population level would not be suitable for a behavioral economics approach. Such questions would be better addressed by standard economics approaches. Other limitations of the specific behavioral economics methods discussed here include satiation during laboratory self- administration studies and practical limitations such as building suitable laboratory space. In hypothetical purchase task studies, the experimenter is reliant on self-report measures and in the naturalistic assessment of demand studies, manipulations exist in an open economy and these studies are time- consuming to conduct. Many of these limitations have fueled the development of assessment methodologies in subsequent epochs.
An important ethical consideration in conducting this research is exposing current tobacco users to novel tobacco products. Users of combustible tobacco products, unfortunately, are already exposing themselves to the most harmful form of tobacco products and one that is a leading cause of excess
morbidity and mortality worldwide. Consistent with the Institute of Medicine’s report (Institute of Medicine, 2012), exposing them to potentially less harmful, noncombustible products, in the context of a controlled experiment, informs decisions that could lead to better population health without increasing risk. Some special populations require additional consideration. For example, individuals who are seeking to quit or cut back on smoking, or adolescents who smoke, may not be ethically appropriate to include in studies where real tobacco products are provided. However, the hypothetical purchase task and hypothetical ETM methodologies are better suited for these special populations.
Conclusion
Collectively, these findings show the utility and power of behavioral economics for informing tobacco regulatory decisions. Over the last 25 years, this method has evolved to address the broad array of questions and conditions necessary to understand tobacco purchasing and consumption and has been useful in studying other forms of addiction. Along with the evolution of methods, the quantification of demand and substitution has also matured. These epochs of innovation, as discussed above, have ranged from very laborious, intensive laboratory studies to mimicking the actual tobacco marketplace. The results of these studies suggest that tobacco products can function as robust reinforcers that are sensitive to the broad range of market and environmental conditions. These studies may be used to contribute to tobacco regulatory science and inform public policy with the aim of improving public health.
References
Allison, J.W. (1983). Behavioral Economics. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Balster, R.L. (1991). “Drug Abuse Potential Evaluation in Animals,” British Journal of Addiction 86(12): 1549–1558.
Bickel, W.K. and Madden, G. (1998). The Behavioral Economics of Smoking.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6444.pdf (accessed January 3, 2017).
Bickel, W.K., DeGrandpre, R.J., and Higgins, S.T. (1993). “Behavioral Economics: A Novel Experimental Approach to the Study of Drug Dependence,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 33(2): 173–192.
Bickel, W.K., DeGrandpre, R.J., and Higgins, S.T. (1995). “The Behavioral Economics of Concurrent Drug Reinforcers: A Review and Reanalysis of Drug Self-Administration Research,” Psychopharmacology 118(3): 250–
259.
Bickel, W.K., DeGrandpre, R.J., Hughes, J.R., and Higgins, S.T. (1991).
“Behavioral Economics of Drug Self-Administration. II. A Unit-Price Analysis of Cigarette Smoking,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 55(2): 145–154.
Bickel, W.K., Hughes, J.R., DeGrandpre, R.J., Higgins, S.T., and Rizzuto, P.
(1992). “Behavioral Economics of Drug Self-Administration IV. The Effects of Response Requirement on the Consumption of and Interaction Between Concurrently Available Coffee and Cigarettes,”
Psychopharmacology 107, 211–216.
Carter, L.P. and Griffiths, R.R. (2009). “Principles of Laboratory Assessment of Drug Abuse Liability and Implications for Clinical Development,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 105, Supplement 1, S14–S25.
Carter, L.P., Stitzer, M.L., Henningfield, J.E., O’Connor, R.J., Cummings, K.M., and Hatsukami, D.K. (2009). “Abuse Liability Assessment of Tobacco Products Including Potential Reduced Exposure Products,”
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention: A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 18(12): 3241–3262.
DeGrandpre, R.J., Bickel, W.K., Higgins, S.T., and Hughes, J.R. (1994). “A Behavioral Economic Analysis of Concurrently Available Money and Cigarettes,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 61(2): 191–
201.
DeGrandpre, R.J., Bickel, W.K., Hughes, J.R., and Higgins, S.T. (1992).
“Behavioral Economics of Drug Self-Administration,”
Psychopharmacology 108(1–2): 1–10.
DeGrandpre, R.J., Bickel, W.K., Hughes, J.R., Layng, M.P., and Badger, G.
(1993). “Unit Price as a Useful Metric in Analyzing Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 60(3): 641–
666.
DeGrandpre, R.J., Bickel, W.K., Rizvi, S.A., and Hughes, J.R. (1993).
“Effects of Income on Drug Choice in Humans,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 59(3): 483–500.
Epstein, R. (1986). “Simulation Research in the Analysis of Behavior,” in Research Methods in Applied Behavior Analysis (pp. 127–155). New York: Springer.
Epstein, L.H., Dearing, K.K., Roba, L.G., and Finkelstein, E. (2010). “The Influence of Taxes and Subsidies on Energy Purchased in an Experimental Purchasing Study,” Psychological Science 21(3): 406–414.
Epstein, L.H., Jankowiak, N., Nederkoorn, C., Raynor, H.A., French, S.A., and Finkelstein, E. (2012). “Experimental Research on the Relation Between Food Price Changes and Food-Purchasing Patterns: A Targeted Review,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 95(4): 789–809.
Food and Drug Administration. (2010). “Guidance for Industry: Assessment of Abuse Potential of Drugs. Draft Guidance,” US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Washington, DC.
Giordano, L.A., Bickel, W.K., Shahan, T.A., and Badger, G.J. (2001).
“Behavioral Economics of Human Drug Self-Administration: Progressive Ratio Versus Random Sequences of Response Requirements,” Behavioural Pharmacology 12(5): 343–347.
Grace, R.C., Kivell, B.M., and Laugesen, M. (2015). “Estimating Cross-Price Elasticity of E-Cigarettes Using a Simulated Demand Procedure,” Nicotine
& Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 17(5): 592–598.
Guillem, K., Vouillac, C., Azar, M.R., Parsons, L.H., Koob, G.F., Cador, M., and Stinus, L. (2005). “Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition Dramatically Increases the Motivation to Self-Administer Nicotine in Rats,” The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 25(38): 8593–8600.
Heckman, B., Cummings, K.M., Heijndijk, S., Willemsen, M., Borland, R., O’Connor, R., and Bickel, W. (2016). “Substitutability of Reduced Nicotine Cigarettes and Electronic Cigarettes: The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace as a Tool to Inform Regulatory Standards for Novel Products,” presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco,
Chicago, IL.
Henningfield, J.E. and Keenan, R.M. (1993). “Nicotine Delivery Kinetics and Abuse Liability,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61(5):
743–750.
Hersch, J. (2000). “Gender, Income Levels, and the Demand for Cigarettes,”
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21(2–3): 263–282.
Hughes, J.R., Wadland, W.C., Fenwick, J.W., Lewis, J., and Bickel, W.K.
(1991). “Effect of Cost on the Self-Administration and Efficacy of Nicotine Gum: A Preliminary Study,” Preventive Medicine 20(4): 486–
496.
Hursh, S.R. (1980). “Economic Concepts for the Analysis of Behavior,”
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 34(2): 219–238.
Hursh, S.R. (1984). “Behavioral Economics,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 42(3): 435–452.
Hursh, S.R. and Roma, P.G. (2013). “Behavioral Economics and Empirical Public Policy,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 99(1):
98–124.
Hursh, S.R. and Roma, P.G. (2015). “Behavioral Economics and the Analysis of Consumption and Choice,” Managerial and Decision Economics.
http://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2724.
Hursh, S.R. and Silberberg, A. (2008). “Economic Demand and Essential Value,” Psychological Review 115(1): 186–198.
Hursh, S.R. and Winger, G. (1995). “Normalized Demand for Drugs and Other Reinforcers,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 64(3): 373–384.
Hursh, S.R., Raslear, T.G., Bauman, R., and Black, H. (1989). “The Quantitative Analysis of Economic Behavior With Laboratory Animals,”
in Understanding Economic Behaviour (pp. 393–407). Netherlands:
Springer.
Institute of Medicine. (2012). Committee on Scientific Standards for Studies of Modified Risk Tobacco Products: Scientific Standards for Studies of Modified Risk Tobacco Products. National Academies Press.
Jacobs, E.A. and Bickel, W.K. (1999). “Modeling Drug Consumption in the Clinic Using Simulation Procedures: Demand for Heroin and Cigarettes in Opioid-Dependent Outpatients,” Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 7(4): 412–426.
Johnson, M.W. and Bickel, W.K. (2003). “The Behavioral Economics of Cigarette Smoking: The Concurrent Presence of a Substitute and an Independent Reinforcer,” Behavioural Pharmacology 14(2): 137–144.
Johnson, M.W., Bickel, W.K., and Kirshenbaum, A.P. (2004). “Substitutes for Tobacco Smoking: A Behavioral Economic Analysis of Nicotine Gum, Denicotinized Cigarettes, and Nicotine-Containing Cigarettes,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 74(3): 253–264.
Koffarnus, M.N., Franck, C.T., Stein, J.S., and Bickel, W.K. (2015). “A Modified Exponential Behavioral Economic Demand Model to Better Describe Consumption Data,” Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 23(6): 504–512.
Koffarnus, M.N., Wilson, A.G., and Bickel, W.K. (2015). “Effects of Experimental Income on Demand for Potentially Real Cigarettes,”
Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 17(3): 292–298.
MacKillop, J., Murphy, J.G., Ray, L.A., Eisenberg, D.T.A., Lisman, S.A., Lum, J.K., and Wilson, D.S. (2008). “Further Validation of a Cigarette Purchase Task for Assessing the Relative Reinforcing Efficacy of Nicotine in College Smokers,” Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 16(1): 57–65.
Madden, G.J. and Bickel, W.K. (1999). “Abstinence and Price Effects on Demand for Cigarettes: A Behavioral-Economic Analysis,” Addiction 94(4): 577–588.
Murphy, J.G., MacKillop, J., Tidey, J.W., Brazil, L.A., and Colby, S.M.
(2011). “Validity of a Demand Curve Measure of Nicotine Reinforcement with Adolescent Smokers,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 113(2–3): 207–
214.
O’Brien, C.P. (1996). “Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse,” The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics 10, 621–642.
O’Connor, R.J., June, K.M., Bansal-Travers, M., Rousu, M.C., Thrasher, J.F., Hyland, A., and Cummings, K.M. (2014). “Estimating Demand for Alternatives to Cigarettes with Online Purchase Tasks,” American Journal of Health Behavior 38(1): 103–113.
Petry, N.M. and Bickel, W.K. (1998). “Polydrug Abuse in Heroin Addicts: A Behavioral Economic Analysis,” Addiction 93(3): 321–335.
Quisenberry, A.J., Koffarnus, M.N., Hatz, L.E., Epstein, L.H., and Bickel,
W.K. (2015). “The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace I: Substitutability as a Function of the Price of Conventional Cigarettes,” Nicotine &
Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. http://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv230.
Shahan, T.A., Bickel, W.K., Badger, G.J., and Giordano, L.A. (2001).
“Sensitivity of Nicotine-Containing and De-Nicotinized Cigarette Consumption to Alternative Non-Drug Reinforcement: A Behavioral Economic Analysis,” Behavioural Pharmacology 12(4): 277–284.
Shahan, T.A., Bickel, W.K., Madden, G.J., and Badger, G.J. (1999).
“Comparing the Reinforcing Efficacy of Nicotine Containing and De- Nicotinized Cigarettes: A Behavioral Economic Analysis,”
Psychopharmacology 147(2): 210–216.
Stafford, D., LeSage, M.G., and Glowa, J.R. (1998). “Progressive-ratio Schedules of Drug Delivery in the Analysis of Drug Self-Administration:
A Review,” Psychopharmacology 139(3): 169–184.
Stein, J.S., Koffarnus, M.N., Snider, S.E., Quisenberry, A.J., and Bickel, W.K. (2015). “Identification and Management of Nonsystematic Purchase Task Data: Toward Best Practice,” Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 23(5): 377.
Stein, J. S., Wilson, A. G., Koffarnus, M. N., Judd, M. C., & Bickel, W. K.
(2017). “Naturalistic Assessment of Demand for Cigarettes, Snus, and Nicotine Gum.” Psychopharmacology 234(2): 245–254.
Stitzer, M.L. and de Wit, H. (1998). “Abuse Liability,” Nicotine Safety and Toxicity, 119.
Talhout, R., Opperhuizen, A., and van Amsterdam, J.G.C. (2007). “Role of Acetaldehyde in Tobacco Smoke Addiction,” European Neuropsychopharmacology: The Journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology 17(10): 627–636.
Townsend, J., Roderick, P., and Cooper, J. (1994). “Cigarette Smoking by Socioeconomic Group, Sex, and Age: Effects of Price, Income, and Health Publicity,” BMJ 309(6959): 923–927.
Wilson, A.G., Franck, C.T., Koffarnus, M.N., and Bickel, W.K. (2015).
“Behavioral Economics of Cigarette Purchase Tasks: Within-Subject Comparison of Real, Potentially Real, and Hypothetical Cigarettes,”
Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. http://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv154.
World Health Organization. (2008). “The Scientific Basis of Tobacco
Product Regulation.” Available at
http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/publications/
9789241209519.pdf (accessed January 3, 2017).