Article
Nicotine preference in smokers as a function of smoking abstinence

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-3057(96)00079-2Get rights and content

Abstract

Overnight smoking abstinence increases desire to smoke and intensity of smoking behavior in smokers, but it is not completely clear that this reflects an increase in reinforcement from the psychoactive effects of nicotine per se. We examined choice of nicotine vs. placebo via nasal spray (Study 1) and nicotine vs. nonnicotine cigarette puffs (Study 2) in separate groups of smokers during each of two sessions, following overnight abstinence vs. no abstinence. In each study, subjects followed a forced choice procedure in which they were instructed to self-administer six sprays/puffs from between the two nasal sprays/cigarettes every 15 min for 2 h following initial exposure to each. In Study 1, choice of nicotine spray (1.5 μg/kg per spray) increased significantly following abstinence vs. no abstinence (47 ± 6% vs. 34 ± 5%, respectively, p < 0.05). This shift in choice was more pronounced in the subset of smokers (choosers, n = 9 out of 24) who selected nicotine on more than 50% of choices on the abstinent day. Choosers exhibited greater responses to initial nicotine exposure on positive (e.g., pleasant, vigor) but not aversive (e.g., jittery, uneasy) subjective measures, suggesting that greater positive reinforcement from nicotine per se predicted subsequent choice. In Study 2, abstinence similarly increased choice of nicotine vs. nonnicotine cigarette puffs (82 ± 6% vs. 64 ± 8%, p < 0.05), although nearly all subjects (12 of 13) preferred the nicotine cigarette following abstinence. These results indicate that choice of nicotine per se, isolated from tobacco smoke, increases significantly after overnight tobacco abstinence.

References (32)

  • J.E. Rose et al.

    Cigarette smoking during anxiety-provoking and monotonous tasks

    Addict. Behav.

    (1983)
  • J.E. Rose et al.

    Nicotine preference increases after cigarette deprivation

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1984)
  • H. deWit et al.

    Ethanol self-administration in males with and without an alcoholic first-degree relative

    Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res.

    (1990)
  • K.-O. Fagerstrom et al.

    Measuring nicotine dependence: A review of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire

    J. Behav. Med.

    (1989)
  • Federal Trade Commission

    Tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of the smoke of 534 varieties of domestic cigarettes

    (1992)
  • D. Gilbert et al.

    Subjective correlates of cigarette-smoking-induced elevations of peripheral beta-endorphin and cortisol

    Psychopharmacology (Berlin)

    (1992)
  • Cited by (75)

    • Stimulus functions of nicotine

      2022, Advances in Pharmacology
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, intermittent periods of suspending NSA sessions results in higher rates of NSA compared to when NSA sessions are uninterrupted (O’Dell & Koob, 2007). Similarly, smoking deprivation (i.e., abstinence) in humans increases the number of cigarettes smoked (Griffiths & Henningfield, 1982; Zacny & Stitzer, 1985), number of puffs per cigarette (Rose, Jarvik, & Ananda, 1984), preference for higher nicotine concentrations in cigarettes (Rose et al., 1984), and preference for a nicotine inhaler over a placebo inhaler (Perkins, Grobe, Weiss, Fonte, & Caggiula, 1996). Nicotine withdrawal can also be an EO for non-nicotine reinforcers.

    • Preclinical and clinical research on the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine

      2020, Neuropharmacology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The total number of puffs chosen from the higher nicotine cigarette vs. the 0.4 mg/g comparison was the measure of reinforcement from that higher nicotine content. Note again, though, the limitation of lacking a placebo cigarette, which required that choice, as well as DS responding, was always compared with the 0.4 mg/g. Therefore, cigarettes only slightly higher in nicotine might not be more reinforcing or discriminable versus 0.4 mg/g, but they might be so when they are the only ones available (Donny et al., 2015), or when compared with a no nicotine alternative (e.g., Perkins et al., 1996b). Nevertheless, the “forced choice” procedure used here has been shown sensitive to nicotine dosing via smoking as well as nasal spray (Perkins and Karelitz, 2020a, in press) and to individual differences in the reinforcing effects of nicotine via smoking (Blendy et al., 2005; Ray et al., 2006). (

    • Evaluating the utility of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire and cigarette purchase task for predicting acute relative reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes varying in nicotine content

      2019, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, Stein et al. (2017) reported that the relationship between hypothetical purchase data and SA differed depending on the particular tobacco product being assessed and perhaps participant familiarity with a product (cigarettes v. snus or nicotine gum). That said, other reports have noted consistencies across tobacco products when evaluating the relationship between subjective effects and SA (Arger et al., 2017; Hatsukami et al., 2013a, b; Perkins et al., 1996, 2018). Together, these limitations provide points for further consideration in future investigations of how subjective effects and purchase-task indices relate to relative reinforcing efficacy and the addiction potential of cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco and nicotine delivery products.

    • Preliminary test of cigarette nicotine discrimination threshold in non-dependent versus dependent smokers

      2017, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
      Citation Excerpt :

      This pattern of smoke exposure allowed intervals of 15 min between trials while minimizing smoking satiation or toxicity. Smoking 4 puffs is also typical exposure at the point a smoker forms expectations about a cigarette, which clearly impact the subsequent reinforcing and other effects of that cigarette (Gu et al., 2015; Hasenfratz et al., 1993; see also Perkins et al., 2001; Perkins et al., 1994, 1996). All study sessions involved testing ability to discriminate between the ultra-low (0.4 mg/g) nicotine content cigarette versus one of the higher nicotine content Spectrum cigarettes (≥1 mg/g).

    • The Roots and Individual Diversity of Addiction

      2017, On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion
    • Sex differences in the self-administration of cannabinoids and other drugs of abuse

      2009, Psychoneuroendocrinology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Evidence has emerged for significant differences between men and women in smoking behavior, as well as in the factors that maintain nicotine intake. As extensively reviewed in Perkins et al. (1999) and, more recently, by Pogun and Yararbas (2009), compelling studies have shown: (1) a lower rate of smoking cessation in women, as they are less likely to quit initially and to be successful at follow-up (Swan et al., 1993; Fortmann and Killen, 1994); (2) a reduced efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy in female smokers, which is probably related to the weaker reinforcing effects of nicotine in women as compared with men (Perkins et al., 1996); (3) the existence of sex differences in nicotine SA behavior in animals and humans (Rose and Corrigall, 1997), as well as in the effects of nicotine and non-nicotine stimuli (Rose et al., 1993); and (5) the influence of the ovarian hormones on nicotine SA, as demonstrated by the finding of a more severe abstinence in women that quit smoking during the luteal phase than during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle (O’Hara et al., 1989). Women and men differ in the type of cues that sustain tobacco smoking and relapse, as women seem more influenced by internal cues (stress and depression), while external cues (environmental factors and social context) are likely to exert greater influence on men.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text