Laboratory method to induce state boredom increases impulsive choice in people who use cocaine and controls

ABSTRACT

Background: Impulsive choice is associated with both cocaine use and relapse. Little is known about the influence of transient states on impulsive choice in people who use cocaine (PWUC).

Objective: This study investigated the direct effects of induced boredom on impulsive choice (i.e., temporal discounting) in PWUC relative to well-matched community controls.

Methods: Forty-one PWUC (≥1× cocaine use in past 3 months; 7 females) and 38 demographically matched controls (5 females) underwent two experimental conditions in counterbalanced order. Temporal discounting was assessed immediately after a standardized boredom induction task (peg-turning) and a self-selected video watched for the same duration (non-boredom). Subjective mood state and perceived task characteristics were assessed at baseline, during experimental manipulations, and after the choice task.

Results: PWUC and controls were well matched on sex, age, and socioeconomic status. Groups were also similar in reported use of drugs other than cocaine, except for recent cigarette and alcohol use (PWUC > controls). As expected, peg-turning increased boredom in the sample overall, with higher boredom reported during peg-turning than the video (p < .001, η²_p= .20). Participants overall exhibited greater impulsive choice after boredom than non-boredom (p = .028, η²_p= .07), with no preferential effects in PWUC (p > .05, BF₀₁ = 2.9).

Conclusion: Experimentally induced boredom increased state impulsivity irrespective of cocaine use status – in PWUC and carefully matched controls – suggesting a broad link between boredom and impulsive choice. This is the first study to show that transient boredom directly increases impulsive choice. Data support a viable laboratory method to further parse the effects of boredom on impulsive choice.

KEYWORDS:

• Cocaine
• state boredom
• impulsive choice
• temporal discounting

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

TC designed the study, collected the data, conducted all analyses, and drafted the manuscript. MT contributed to the study design and to the data analytic plan and revising the manuscript for important intellectual content. RF and SE provided resource support for the study and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. GB supervised TC in drafting of the manuscript and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. She contributed to the data analytic plan and to revising the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2023.2248544.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse under Grant [DA034877, DA035846, DA035161].