↓ Skip to main content

Contingency Management and Deliberative Decision-Making Processes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contingency Management and Deliberative Decision-Making Processes
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul S. Regier, A. David Redish

Abstract

Contingency management is an effective treatment for drug addiction. The current explanation for its success is rooted in alternative reinforcement theory. We suggest that alternative reinforcement theory is inadequate to explain the success of contingency management and produce a model based on demand curves that show how little the monetary rewards offered in this treatment would affect drug use. Instead, we offer an explanation of its success based on the concept that it accesses deliberative decision-making processes. We suggest that contingency management is effective because it offers a concrete and immediate alternative to using drugs, which engages deliberative processes, improves the ability of those deliberative processes to attend to non-drug options, and offsets more automatic action-selection systems. This theory makes explicit predictions that can be tested, suggests which users will be most helped by contingency management, and suggests improvements in its implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 81 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 29%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 27%
Neuroscience 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,066,282
of 24,605,383 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#1,720
of 11,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,387
of 272,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#12
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,605,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.