Table 1.
Studies meeting criteria for inclusion.
| Study | Within versus between | Group | n | Commodity | Manipulation | Number of indices | Number of prices | Price range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acker et al. 2013 [44] | Within | Adult smokers | 47 | Cigarettes | Cue exposure | 5 | 18 | $0–5 |
| MacKillop et al. 2010 [36] | Within | Heavy drinking college students | 92 | Alcohol | Cue exposure | 5 | 19 | $0–1120 |
| Metrik et al. 2016 [45] | Within | Emerging adult cannabis users | 88 | Cannabis | Cue exposure | 4 | 22 | $0–10 |
| Owens et al. 2015 [46] | Within | Adult heavy drinkers | 84 | Alcohol | Cue exposure | 3 | 10 | $0–40 |
| Rose et al. 2018 [47] | Within | Social drinkers | 32 | Alcohol | Cue exposure | 5 | 25 | £0–15 |
| Spelman & Simons, 2018 [48] | Between | Heavy drinking college students | 58 | Alcohol | Cue exposure | 5 | 24 | $0–15 |
| Amlung & MacKillop, 2014 [37]* | Within | Emerging adult heavy drinkers | 84 | Alcohol | Negative mood induction | 5 | 18 | $0–15 |
| Dahne et al. 2016 [40] | Within | Emerging adult smokers | 73 | Cigarettes | Negative mood induction | 5 | 48 | $0–9 |
| Owens et al. 2015 [49] | Within | Emerging adult heavy drinkers | 62 | Alcohol | Negative mood induction | 4 | 16 | $0–1120 |
| Rousseau et al. 2011 [50]* | Between | Heavy drinking college students | 44 | Alcohol | Negative mood induction | 1 | 42 | $0–20 |
| Bujarski et al. 2012 [38] | Within | Heavy drinking Asian Americans | 32 | Alcohol | Pharmacotherapy | 4 | 16 | $0–120 |
| Madden & Kalman, 2010 [51] | Between | Adult smokers | 60 | Cigarettes | Pharmacotherapy | 2 | 26 | $0–1120 |
| Murphy et al. 2017 [52] | Within | Adult smokers with a SUD | 110 | Cigarettes | Pharmacotherapy | 3 | 41 | $0–$64 |
| Roache et al. 2005* [53] | Within | Adult cocaine users | 11 | Cocaine | Pharmacotherapy | 2 | 70 | $0.25–25 |
| Schlienz et al. 2014 [54] | Between | Adult treatment-seeking smokers | 60 | Cigarettes | Pharmacotherapy | 3 | 19 | $0–1120 |
| Gentile et al. 2012 [55] | Between | College students | 230 | Alcohol | Opportunity cost | 6 | 19 | $0–15 |
| Gilbert et al. 2014 [34] | Within | Heavy drinking college students | 78 | Alcohol | Opportunity cost | 8 | 1 | $0 |
| Skidmore & Murphy, 2011 [35] | Within | Heavy drinking college students | 207 | Alcohol | Opportunity cost | 10 | 17 | $0–20 |
| Teeters & Murphy, 2015 [20] | Within | Drinking college students | 328 | Alcohol | Opportunity cost | 3 | 17 | $0–20 |
| Bulley & Gullo, 2017 [56] | Within | College students | 42 | Alcohol | Behavioral intervention | 5 | 19 | $0–1120 |
| Dennhardt et al. 2015 [31] | Within | Heavy drinking college students | 97 | Alcohol | Behavioral intervention | 6 | 19 | $0–20 |
| Murphy et al. 2015 [32] | Between | Heavy drinking college students | 133 | Alcohol | Behavioral intervention | 4 | 17 | $0–20 |
| Snider et al. 2016 [57] | Within | Adult smokers | 39 | Alcohol | Behavioral Intervention | 2 | 5 | $0–1 |
| Stein et al. 2018 [58] | Between | Adult smokers | 117 | Cigarettes | Behavioral intervention | 2 | 13 | $0–64 |
| Weidberg et al. 2018 [59] | Within | Treatment-seeking smokers | 92 | Cigarettes | Behavioral intervention | 5 | 19 | €0–1000 |
| Benson et al. 2009 [39]* | Within | Drinking college males | 27 | Alcohol | Magnitude | 1 | 17 | $0–20 |
| Johnsonet al. 2013 [60]* | Within | Adult drinkers | 14 | GHB, ethanol | Magnitude | 2 | 70 | $0.25–25 |
| Johnson et al. 2010 [61] * | Within | Adult cocaine users | 14 | Nicotine, cocaine | Magnitude | 2 | 65 | −$40 to 40 |
| Lile et al. 2010 [62]* | Within | Adult cannabis users | 7 | THC, nabilone, methylphenidate | Magnitude | 3 | 9 | $0.10–632 |
| Lile et al. 2010 [63]* | Within | Adult cannabis users | 8 | THC, triazolam, hydromorphone, methylphenidate | Magnitude | 4 | 9 | $0.25–64 |
| Lile et al. 2013 [64]* | Within | Adult cannabis users | 7 | THC | Magnitude | 1 | 9 | $0.25–64 |
| Roache et al. 2005 [53]* | Within | Adult cocaine users | 11 | Cocaine | Magnitude | 1 | 70 | $0.25–25 |
| Rush et al. 1999 [65]* | Within | Adult cocaine users | 9 | Cocaine | Magnitude | 1 | 48 | $0.05–5.45 |
| Stoops et al. 2003 [66]* | Within | Adult stimulant users | 8 | Methylphenidate | Magnitude | 1 | 9 | $0.25–64 |
| Walsh et al. 2010 [67]* | Within | Adult cocaine users | 8 | Cocaine | Magnitude | 2 | 48 | $0.05–5.45 |
Sample size reflects combined sample for between-subjects studies; for all studies, the largest sample size analyzed was reported. Individual effect sizes for all indices reported in each study can be found in the Supporting information. For studies reporting the same demand index multiple times at various magnitudes (e.g. cigarette demand for cigarettes with low, medium and high amounts of nicotine), we only included effect sizes for the greatest magnitude difference to minimize violations of the assumptions of independence. Where two separate versions of a multiple-choice procedure or purchase task was used, the largest price range and number of prices were reported in the far-right columns.
These studies included a multiple-choice procedure and reported an effect size for cross-over point.
GHB = gamma hydroxybutyrate; THC = tetrahydrocannabinol.