Setting a goal could help you control: Comparing the effect of health goal versus general episodic future thinking on health behaviors among cigarette smokers and obese individuals

Abstract

Episodic Future Thinking (EFT) reduces delay discounting (DD; preference for smaller, immediate rewards) and various maladaptive behaviors. Exploring potential personalization of EFT to optimize its ability to alter DD and demand for unhealthy reinforcers is important for the development of interventions targeting long-term improvement and maintenance of health. In this investigation, using 2 separate studies, we examined the effects of EFT with and without a health goal on rates of discounting, demand, and craving for cigarettes and fast food among cigarette smokers and obese individuals, respectively. Using data collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk), Study 1 (N = 189) examined the effect of EFT on DD and measures of cigarette demand and craving in cigarette smokers who were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: EFT-health goal, EFT-general, or Episodic Recent Thinking (ERT)-general. Study 2 (N = 255), using a 2x2 factorial design, examined the effects of health goals and general EFT on DD and measures of fast food demand and craving in obese individuals who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: EFT-health goal, EFT-general, ERT-health goal or ERT-general. Health goal EFT was not more effective than general EFT in reducing monetary discounting. However, the addition of a health goal to general EFT was significantly associated with higher effect on intensity and elasticity of demand for cigarettes and fast food compared to EFT without a health goal. These findings suggest that the amplification of future thinking through the inclusion of a health goal may promote healthy decisions and result in positive behavior changes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Figure 1.

A consort diagram of Study 1 showing reasons for exclusion from the demand analyses (Stein et al., 2015)

Figure 2.

A post hoc comparison from Study 1 of (a) AUC, (b) craving score, and (c) intensity and (d) elasticity of demand between EFT-health goal, EFT-general, and ERT-general. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3.

(a) The mean indifference points of $100; and (b) the demand points for the three groups in Study 1 The x-axis in figure (a) is on a log scale Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 4.

A consort diagram of Study 2 showing reasons for exclusion from the whole study and from demand analyses (Stein et al., 2015)

Figure 5.

A post hoc comparison from Study 2 of (a) AUC, (b) craving score, (c) intensity, and (d) elasticity of demand between EFT-health goal, EFT-general, ERT-health goal, and ERT-general. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 6.

(a) The mean indifference points of $100; and (b) the demand points for the four groups in Study 2 The x-axis in figure (a) is on a log scale Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.