IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/quedwp/274658.html

Addiction and Network Influence

Author

Listed:
  • Ksawery Popiel, Michal

Abstract

Social networks are an important component in understanding the decision to consume ad- dictive substances. They capture the role of limited access, peer influence, and social acceptance and tolerance. However, despite the empirical evidence of their role, they have been absent from theoretical models. This paper proposes a mechanism through which agents can influence each other in their decision to consume an addictive good. An agent's decision is sensitive to her state of addiction as well as to the composition of her neighbourhood. The model is consistent with the empirical evidence that peer influence can work in both ways: influencing an individual to use and helping them to quit. The structure of the network has important implications on the outcome of agents' decisions as well as the effectiveness of policies aimed at limiting use of addictive substances through deterrence. I provide a network-based explanation of why usage rates can vary across otherwise similar agents and show how in some situations encouraging network ties can lead to lower use while in others it can have the opposite effect. Furthermore, I explore the effect of networks on diffusion of addiction and, using simulations, find that addic- tion spreads faster in an environment where there are few strong links than in one with many weak links.

Suggested Citation

  • Ksawery Popiel, Michal, 2014. "Addiction and Network Influence," Queen's Economics Department Working Papers 274658, Queen's University - Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:quedwp:274658
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.274658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/274658/files/qed_wp_1332.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.274658?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O’Donoghue, Ted & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Addiction and Present-Biased Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3v86x53j, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    3. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2005. "Behavioral Public Economics: Welfare and Policy Analysis with Non-Standard Decision-Makers," NBER Working Papers 11518, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    5. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    6. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2004. "Addiction and Cue-Triggered Decision Processes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1558-1590, December.
    7. Becker, Gary S & Murphy, Kevin M, 1988. "A Theory of Rational Addiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 675-700, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ciccarelli, Carlo & Giamboni, Luigi & Waldmann, Robert, 2007. "Cigarette smoking, pregnancy, forward looking behavior and dynamic inconsistency," MPRA Paper 8878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Sophie Massin, 2011. "La notion d'addiction en économie : La théorie du choix rationnel à l'épreuve," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 121(5), pages 713-750.
    3. Andrew Leicester & Peter Levell, 2016. "Anti‐Smoking Policies and Smoker Well‐Being: Evidence from Britain," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 37, pages 224-257, June.
    4. Bossi, Luca & Calcott, Paul & Petkov, Vladimir, 2013. "Optimal tax rules and addictive consumption," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 984-1000.
    5. Vincze, János & Koltay, Gábor, 2009. "Fogyasztói döntések a viselkedési közgazdaságtan szemszögéből [Consumer decisions from the angle of behavioural economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 495-525.
    6. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2002. "Addiction and Cue-Conditioned Cognitive Processes," NBER Working Papers 9329, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Xavier Giné & Dean Karlan & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 213-235, October.
    8. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Valeria De Bonis & Angelo Castaldo & Alessandrao Gandolfo, 2022. "Sin goods taxation: an encompassing model," Public Finance Research Papers 52, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    9. Zhang Wei, 2012. "Endogenous Preferences and Dynamic Contract Design," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-34, May.
    10. Qi Ge & Benjamin Ho, 2019. "Energy Use And Temperature Habituation: Evidence From High Frequency Thermostat Usage Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(2), pages 1196-1214, April.
    11. Frey, Bruno S. & Benesch, Christine & Stutzer, Alois, 2007. "Does watching TV make us happy?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 283-313, June.
    12. Deiana, C & Dragone, D & Giua, L, 2024. "Addictive Consumption, Imperfect Substitutes and Self Control: A Model and an Application to Slot Machines," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 24/21, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    13. Ryota Nakamura & Marc Suhrcke & Daniel John Zizzo, 2017. "A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 513-533, December.
    14. Pierpaolo Pierani & Silvia Tiezzi, 2009. "Addiction and interaction between alcohol and tobacco consumption," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Badger, Gary J. & Bickel, Warren K. & Giordano, Louis A. & Jacobs, Eric A. & Loewenstein, George & Marsch, Lisa, 2007. "Altered states: The impact of immediate craving on the valuation of current and future opioids," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 865-876, September.
    16. Brosio, Giorgio & Zanola, Roberto, 2006. "Can violence be rational? An empirical analysis of Colombia," POLIS Working Papers 74, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    17. Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risky Behavior among Youths: Some Issues from Behavioral Economics," NBER Chapters, in: Risky Behavior among Youths: An Economic Analysis, pages 29-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Rafael López, 2016. "Beneficial and Harmful Addictions: Two sides of the same coin," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 84, pages 9-31, Enero - J.
    19. Brad Humphreys & Jane Ruseski & Li Zhou, 2015. "Physical Activity, Present Bias, and Habit Formation: Theory and Evidence from Longitudinal Data," Working Papers 2015-06, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    20. Brice Corgnet & Simon Gaechter & Roberto Hernan Gonzalez, 2020. "Working Too Much for Too Little: Stochastic Rewards Cause Work Addiction," Discussion Papers 2020-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:quedwp:274658. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/qedquca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.