Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol ; 30(4): 379-380, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1947237

ABSTRACT

Crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific, and Qualtrics Panels have become a dominant form of sampling in recent years. Crowdsourcing enables researchers to effectively and efficiently sample research participants with greater geographic variability, access to hard-to-reach populations, and reduced costs. These methods have been increasingly used across varied areas of psychological science and essential for research during the COVID-19 pandemic due to their facilitation of remote research. Recent work documents methods for improving data quality, emerging crowdsourcing platforms, and how crowdsourcing data fit within broader research programs. Addiction scientists will benefit from the adoption of best practice guidelines in crowdsourcing as well as developing novel approaches, venues, and applications to advance the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).


Subject(s)
Behavior, Addictive , COVID-19 , Crowdsourcing , Crowdsourcing/methods , Humans , Pandemics
2.
Behav Processes ; 198: 104640, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1777986

ABSTRACT

Behavioral economics is an approach to understanding behavior though integrating behavioral psychology and microeconomic principles. Advances in behavioral economics have resulted in quick-to-administer tasks to assess discounting (i.e., decrements in the subjective value of a commodity due to delayed or probabilistic receipt) and demand (i.e., effort exerted to defend baseline consumption of a commodity amidst increasing constraints)-these tasks are built upon decades of foundational work from the experimental analysis of behavior and exhibit adequate psychometric properties. We propose that the behavioral economic approach is particularly well suited, then, for experimentally evaluating potential public policy decisions, particularly during urgent times or crises. Using examples from our collaborations (e.g., cannabis legalization, happy hour alcohol pricing, severe weather alerts, COVID-19 vaccine marketing), we demonstrate how behavioral economic approaches have rendered novel insights to guide policy development and garnered widespread attention outside of academia. We conclude with implications on multidisciplinary work and other areas in need of behavioral economic investigations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Economics, Behavioral , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Policy , Humans , Public Policy
3.
Front Hum Neurosci ; 16: 758285, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686511

ABSTRACT

Individuals with substance use disorders exhibit risk-taking behaviors, potentially leading to negative consequences and difficulty maintaining recovery. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have yielded mixed effects on risk-taking among healthy controls. Given the importance of risk-taking behaviors among substance-using samples, this study aimed to examine the effects of tDCS on risk-taking among a sample of adults using cannabis. Using a double-blind design, 27 cannabis users [M(SD) age = 32.48 (1.99), 41% female] were randomized, receiving one session of active or sham tDCS over the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Stimulation parameters closely followed prior studies with anodal right dlPFC and cathodal left dlPFC stimulation. Risk-taking-assessed via a modified Cambridge Gambling Task-was measured before and during tDCS. Delay and probability discounting tasks were assessed before and after stimulation. No significant effects of stimulation on risk-taking behavior were found. However, participants chose the less risky option ∼86% of the trials before stimulation which potentially contributed to ceiling effects. These results contradict one prior study showing increased risk-taking among cannabis users following tDCS. There was a significant increase in delay discounting of a $1000 delayed reward during stimulation for the sham group only, but no significant effects for probability discounting. The current study adds to conflicting and inconclusive literature on tDCS and cognition among substance-using samples. In conclusion, results suggest the ineffectiveness of single session dlPFC tDCS using an established stimulation protocol on risk-taking, although ceiling effects at baseline may have also prevented behavior change following tDCS.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL