The Relative Reinforcing Efficacy Purchase Task (RREPT) is a 9-item task that assesses different aspects of behavioral demand based on the relationship between demand and price. Demand is reduced as price is increased, and the differences in shape of the demand curve are measures of how reinforcing a substance is. Participants are asked to indicate how many cigarettes they would purchase and consume in a single day if the price per cigarette was $0.00 (free), $0.10, $1.00, $3.00, $10.00, $30.00, $100.00, $300.00, and $1,000.00. Participants' choices over the price points result in the following facets of behavioral demand: 1) Intensity of Demand (purchase preference when cigarettes are free or minimal price), 2) Maximum Expenditure (maximum purchase multiplied by price), 3) Maximum Price (price where maximum expenditure is observed), 4) Breakpoint (first price where 0 purchases are made), and 5) Demand Elasticity (sensitivity of the quantity of cigarettes purchased to a change in its price).
The RREPT is a task that assesses a number of different metrics of relative reinforcing efficacy. This task is a modified version of the cigarette purchasing task (CPT) designed by Jacobs and Bickel (1999). In substance abuse literature, behavioral components implicated in relative reinforcing efficacy (i.e., drug demand and delay-discounting) could predict future drug abuse or drug abstinence (Bickel et al., 2015). Relative reinforcing efficacy has been studied for a variety of substances or behaviors, including smoking, heroin, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, food and indoor tanning (Bickel et al., 2015; Amlung et. al., 2012; Collins et. al., 2014; Bruner & Johnson 2014; Becirevic et. al., 2017). Therefore, identifying the relative reinforcing efficacy (i.e., the behavior-strengthening or behavior-maintaining effects) of a reinforcer (e.g., drug, food), which is relevant in the domain of self-regulation, could be a potential mechanistic target in promoting healthy behavior change.
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Amlung, M. T., Acker, J., Stojek, M. K., Murphy, J. G., & MacKillop, J. (2012). Is talk "cheap"? An initial investigation of the equivalence of alcohol purchase task performance for hypothetical and actual rewards. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 36(4), 716-724.
Text Citation: Becirevic, A., Reed, D. D., Amlung, M., Murphy, J. G., Stapleton, J. L., & Hillhouse, J. J. (2017). An initial study of behavioral addiction symptom severity and demand for indoor tanning. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 25(5), 346-352.
Text Citation: Bickel, W.K., Johnson, M.W., Koffarnus, M.N., MacKillop, J., Murphy, J.G. (2015). The Behavioral Economics of Substance Use Disorders: reinforcement pathologies and their repair. Annu Rev Clin Psychol., 10, 641-677.
Text Citation: Bruner, N. R., Johnson, M. W. (2014) Demand curves for hypothetical cocaine in cocaine-dependent individuals. Psychopharmacology, 231:889
Text Citation: Collins, R. L., Vincent, P. C., Yu, J., Liu, L., & Epstein, L. H. (2014). A behavioral economic approach to assessing demand for marijuana. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22(3), 211-221.
Text Citation: Jacobs, E.A., 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.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email email@example.com.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.