ArticleNicotine preference in smokers as a function of smoking abstinence
References (32)
- et al.
Smoking without nicotine delivery decreases withdrawal in 12-hour abstinent smokers
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1995) - et al.
Preference for high- vs. low-potency marijuana
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1994) - et al.
Smoking topography and nicotine blood levels
Addict. Behav.
(1988) - et al.
Control of behavior by intravenous nicotine injections in human subjects
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1983) - et al.
Pharmacologic determinants of tobacco self-administration by humans
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1988) - et al.
Cigarette desirability and nicotine preference in smokers
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1986) - et al.
Smoking history, instructions and the effects of nicotine: Two pilot studies
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1989) - et al.
Tobacco abstinence, smoking cues, and the reinforcing value of smoking
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1994) - et al.
‘Paradoxical’ effects of smoking on subjective stress vs. cardiovascular arousal in males and females
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1992) - et al.
Comparison of acute subjective and heart rate effects of nicotine intake via tobacco smoking vs. nasal spray
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1994)
Cigarette smoking during anxiety-provoking and monotonous tasks
Addict. Behav.
Nicotine preference increases after cigarette deprivation
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
Ethanol self-administration in males with and without an alcoholic first-degree relative
Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res.
Measuring nicotine dependence: A review of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire
J. Behav. Med.
Tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of the smoke of 534 varieties of domestic cigarettes
Subjective correlates of cigarette-smoking-induced elevations of peripheral beta-endorphin and cortisol
Psychopharmacology (Berlin)
Cited by (75)
Stimulus functions of nicotine
2022, Advances in PharmacologyCitation 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, NeuropharmacologyCitation 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 DependenceCitation 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 DependenceCitation 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 ReligionSex differences in the self-administration of cannabinoids and other drugs of abuse
2009, PsychoneuroendocrinologyCitation 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.